National

Intimate Partner and

Sexual Violence Survey 

2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary 

Report is a publication of the National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, Director

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Linda C. Degutis, DrPH, MSN, Director

Division of Violence Prevention

Howard R. Spivak, MD, Director

Suggested Citation:

Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., 

Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center 

for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

b The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report i

The National Intimate Partner

and Sexual Violence Survey:

2010 Summary Report

Michele C. Black, Kathleen C. Basile, Matthew J. Breiding, Sharon G. Smith

Mikel L. Walters, Melissa T. Merrick

Jieru Chen and Mark R. Stevens

November 2011

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Atlanta, Georgia
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sections:

1. Background and Methods..................................................5

What is the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

How was the survey developed?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

What does this report include?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Survey instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Survey administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Interviewer recruitment, training and monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

IRB and OMB Approval. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Data analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Data quality assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Sexual Violence Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Prevalence of sexual violence victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Prevalence of rape and other sexual violence by race/ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Type of perpetrator in lifetime reports of sexual violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Number of perpetrators in lifetime reports of sexual violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Sex of perpetrator in lifetime reports of sexual violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Age at the time of first completed rape victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Rape victimization as a minor and subsequent rape victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3. Stalking Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Prevalence of stalking victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Prevalence of stalking victimization by race/ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Tactics used in lifetime reports of stalking victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Type of perpetrator in lifetime reports of stalking victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Number of perpetrators in lifetime reports of stalking victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Sex of perpetrator in lifetime reports of stalking victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Age at the time of first stalking victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

ii The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report iii

4. Violence by an Intimate Partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by race/ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Overlap of rape, physical violence, and stalking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Prevalence of sexual violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Prevalence of physical violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Prevalence of stalking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Prevalence of psychological aggression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Prevalence of control of reproductive or sexual health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Victim-perpetrator relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Number of perpetrators in lifetime reports of intimate partner violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Age at the time of first intimate partner violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5. Impact of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking with IPV-related impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

Distribution of IPV-related impacts among victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6. Physical and Mental Health Outcomes by Victimization History . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

7. Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence by State . . . . . . . . . . 65

8. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Highlights and Cross-Cutting Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Comparison of Prevalence Estimates to Previous National Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

9. Implications for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Implement Prevention Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Ensure Appropriate Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Hold Perpetrators Accountable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Support Efforts Based on Strong Research and Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Appendix A: Expert Panel from the 2007 CDC Consultation on NISVS . . . . . . . . . . 99

Appendix B: Technical Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Appendix C: Victimization Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
TABLES AND FIGURES

Section 2 Sexual Violence Victimization.................................. 15

Table 2.1 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of sexual violence – U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 2.2 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of sexual violence – U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 2.3 Lifetime prevalence of sexual violence by race/ethnicity – U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2.4 Lifetime prevalence of sexual violence by race/ethnicity – U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 2.5 Lifetime reports of sexual violence among female victims by type of perpetrator. . . . 22

Table 2.6 Lifetime reports of sexual violence among male victims by type of perpetrator. . . . . . 23

Figure 2.1 Lifetime number of perpetrators among female victims of sexual violence. . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 2.2 Age at time of first completed rape victimization in lifetime among female victims. . 25

Figure 2.3 Women raped as an adult by whether raped as a minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Section 3 Stalking Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 3.1 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of stalking victimization – U.S. Women and Men. . 30

Table 3.2 Lifetime prevalence of stalking victimization by race/ethnicity – U.S. Women. . . . . . . . 30

Table 3.3 Lifetime prevalence of stalking victimization by race/ethnicity – U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 3.1 Lifetime reports of stalking among female victims by type of tactic experienced. . . . . 31

Figure 3.2 Lifetime reports of stalking among male victims by type of tactic experienced. . . . . . . 31

Figure 3.3 Lifetime reports of stalking among female victims by type of perpetrator. . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3.4 Lifetime reports of stalking among male victims by type of perpetrator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 3.5 Lifetime number of perpetrators among female and male victims of stalking . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 3.6 Age at time of first stalking victimization in lifetime among female victims. . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 3.7 Age at time of first stalking victimization in lifetime among male victims. . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Section 4 Violence by an Intimate Partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 4.1 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking victimization by an intimate partner − U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 4.2 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking victimization by an intimate partner − U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 4.3 Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner, by race/ethnicity − U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 4.4 Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner, by race/ethnicity − U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 4.5 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of sexual violence 

by an intimate partner − U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 4.6 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of sexual violence 

by an intimate partner − U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 4.7 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of physical violence 

by an intimate partner − U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 4.8 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of physical violence 

by an intimate partner − U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Table 4.9 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of psychological aggression 

by an intimate partner − U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 4.10 Lifetime and 12 month prevalence of psychological aggression 

by an intimate partner − U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

iv The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report v

Figure 4.1 Overlap of lifetime intimate partner rape, stalking, and physical violence 

among female victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 4.2 Overlap of lifetime intimate partner rape, stalking, and physical violence 

among male victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 4.3 Lifetime reports of psychological aggression among female victims by type 

of behavior experienced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 4.4 Lifetime reports of psychological aggression among male victims by type 

of behavior experienced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 4.5 Age at time of first IPV experience among women who experienced rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 4.6 Age at time of first IPV experience among men who experienced rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Section 5 Impact of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 5.1 Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner with IPV-related impact − U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 5.2 Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner with IPV-related impact − U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 5.1 Distribution of IPV-related impacts among female victims of rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 5.2 Distribution of IPV-related impacts among male victims of rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Section 6 Physical and Mental Health Outcomes by Victimization History . . 59

Table 6.1 Prevalence of physical and mental health outcomes among those 

with and without a history of rape or stalking by any perpetrator 

or physical violence by an intimate partner − U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table 6.2 Prevalence of physical and mental health outcomes among those 

with and without a history of rape or stalking by any perpetrator 

or physical violence by an intimate partner – U.S. Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Section 7 Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence by State . 65

Table 7.1 Lifetime prevalence of sexual violence by any perpetrator 

by state of residence – U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 7.2 Lifetime prevalence of sexual violence other than rape 

by any perpetrator by state of residence – U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 7.3 Lifetime prevalence of stalking victimization by any perpetrator 

by state of residence – U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 7.4 Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner by state of residence – U.S. Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 7.5 Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner by state of residence – U.S. Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table 7.6 Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner with IPV-related impact by state of residence – U.S. Women. . 78

Appendix B Technical Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Table B.1 Demographic characteristics of the NISVS sample and the U.S. population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
vi The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Contributors

Division of Violence Prevention, CDC

Linda L. Dahlberg, Associate Director for Science

E. Lynn Jenkins, Chief, Etiology and Surveillance Branch

Thomas R. Simon, Deputy Associate Director for Science

Debra Karch, Surveillance Team Lead, Etiology and Surveillance Branch

Nimesh Patel, Information Technology Specialist, Etiology and 

Surveillance Branch

James A. Mercy, Special Advisor for Global Activities

National Institute of Justice

Bernard Auchter, Senior Social Science Analyst,

Office of Research and Evaluation

Angela Moore, Division Director, Office of Research and Evaluation

Christine Crossland, Senior Social Science Analyst,

Office of Research and Evaluation

Research Triangle Institute, International

Lisa Carley-Baxter, Project Director

Susan Rooker, Associate Project Director

Christopher Krebs, Instrumentation Lead

Andy Petychev, Lead Statistician

Steven Thomas, Analyst

Lilia Filippenko, Programming Lead

Niki Mayo, Survey Specialist

Rodney Baxter, Analyst

Angela Pitts, Analyst
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report vii

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the following individuals who 

contributed in many ways to the development and support of the 

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. We give 

special thanks to: Barbara Bibb, Marie Boyle, Margaret Brome, 

Tessa Burton, Cecilia Casanueva, Michele Decker, Sarah DeGue, 

Faye Floyd, Cathy Flynn, Jennifer Giroux, W. Rodney Hammond, 

Diane Hall, Annie Howerton, Lisa James, Wanda Jones, Mary 

Louise Kelley, Alida Knuth, Karol Krotki, Karen Lang, Dakisha 

Locklear, David Lloyd, Shannon Lynberg, Joyce McCurdy, Anne 

Menard, Jennifer Middlebrooks, Elizabeth Miller, TJ Nesius, Phyllis 

Niolon, Paula Orlosky, Brandy Airall Perry, Ashley Richards, David 

Roe, Jay Silverman, Jocelyn Wheaton, Renee Wright and the 

many telephone interviewers and their supervisors at RTI who 

supported this effort throughout the 2010 data collection.

We would also like to acknowledge and extend our gratitude to 

the National Institute of Justice and the Department of Defense 

Family Advocacy Program for their collaboration and financial 

support for the 2010 data collection.
Dedication

We dedicate this report to the memory of Linda E. Saltzman, PhD, 

who was a pioneer in improving the consistency of definitions 

and measurement of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, 

and stalking. Linda laid the groundwork for this report as the lead 

scientist who was involved in the early stages of the National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Her early leadership 

has made the survey and this report possible.

viii The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence are 

major public health problems in 

the United States. Many survivors 

of these forms of violence can 

experience physical injury, mental 

health consequences such as 

depression, anxiety, low selfesteem, and suicide attempts, 

and other health consequences 

such as gastrointestinal disorders, 

substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and gynecological 

or pregnancy complications. These 

consequences can lead to hospitalization, disability, or death. 

Our understanding of these forms 

of violence has grown substantially 

over the years. However, timely, 

ongoing, and comparable national 

and state-level data are lacking. 

Less is also known about how 

these forms of violence impact 

specific populations in the United 

States or the extent to which rape, 

stalking, or violence by a romantic 

or sexual partner are experienced 

in childhood and adolescence. 

CDC’s National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control launched 

the National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey in 2010 with 

the support of the National Institute 

of Justice and the Department of 

Defense to address these gaps. 

The primary objectives of the 

National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey are to 

describe: 

•	 The prevalence and 

characteristics of sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence

•	 Who is most likely to experience 

these forms of violence

•	 The patterns and impact of the 

violence experienced by specific 

perpetrators

•	 The health consequences of 

these forms of violence

The National Intimate Partner 

and Sexual Violence Survey is an 

ongoing, nationally representative random digit dial (RDD) 

telephone survey that collects 

information about experiences 

of sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence among 

non-institutionalized English and/

or Spanish-speaking women and 

men aged 18 or older in the United 

States. NISVS provides detailed 

information on the magnitude 

and characteristics of these forms 

of violence for the nation and for 

individual states. 

This report presents information 

related to several types of violence 

that have not previously been 

measured in a national populationbased survey, including types 

of sexual violence other than 

rape; expressive psychological 

aggression and coercive control, 

and control of reproductive or 

sexual health. This report also 

provides the first ever simultaneous 

national and state-level prevalence 

estimates of violence for all states. 

The findings presented in this 

report are for 2010, the first year 

of data collection, and are based 

on complete interviews. Complete 

interviews were obtained from 

16,507 adults (9,086 women and 

7,421 men). The relative standard 

error (RSE), which is a measure 

of an estimate’s reliability, was 

calculated for all estimates in this 

report. If the RSE was greater than 

30%, the estimate was deemed 

unreliable and is not reported. 

Consideration was also given to 

the case count. If the estimate 

was based on a numerator ≤20, 

the estimate is also not reported. 

Estimates for certain types of 

violence reported by subgroups of 

men such as rape victimization by 

racial/ethnic group are not shown 

because the number of men in 

these subgroups reporting rape 

was too small to calculate a reliable 

estimate. These tables are included 

in the report so that the reader 

can easily determine what was 

assessed and where gaps remain. 

Key Findings

Sexual Violence by Any 

Perpetrator

•	 Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 

1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United 

States have been raped at some 

time in their lives, including 

completed forced penetration, 

attempted forced penetration, 

or alcohol/drug facilitated 

completed penetration. 

•	 More than half (51.1%) of female 

victims of rape reported being 

raped by an intimate partner 

and 40.8% by an acquaintance; 

for male victims, more than 
half (52.4%) reported being 

raped by an acquaintance 

and 15.1% by a stranger. 

•	 Approximately 1 in 21 men 

(4.8%) reported that they were 

made to penetrate someone else 

during their lifetime; most men 

who were made to penetrate 

someone else reported that 

the perpetrator was either an 

intimate partner (44.8%) or an 

acquaintance (44.7%).

•	 An estimated 13% of 

women and 6% of men have 

experienced sexual coercion 

in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted 

sexual penetration after being 

pressured in a nonphysical 

way); and 27.2% of women and 

11.7% of men have experienced 

unwanted sexual contact. 

•	 Most female victims of 

completed rape (79.6%) 

experienced their first rape 

before the age of 25; 42.2% 

experienced their first completed 

rape before the age of 18 years. 

•	 More than one-quarter of male 

victims of completed rape 

(27.8%) experienced their first 

rape when they were 10 years of 

age or younger. 

Stalking Victimization by Any 

Perpetrator

•	 One in 6 women (16.2%) and 1 

in 19 men (5.2%) in the United 

States have experienced stalking 

victimization at some point 

during their lifetime in which 

they felt very fearful or believed 

that they or someone close to 

them would be harmed or killed. 

•	 Two-thirds (66.2%) of female 

victims of stalking were stalked 

by a current or former intimate 

partner; men were primarily 

stalked by an intimate partner 

or an acquaintance, 41.4% and 

40.0%, respectively. 

•	 Repeatedly receiving unwanted 

telephone calls, voice, or 

text messages was the most 

commonly experienced stalking 

tactic for both female and male 

victims of stalking (78.8% for 

women and 75.9% for men).

•	 More than half of female victims 

and more than one-third of male 

victims of stalking indicated that 

they were stalked before the 

age of 25; about 1 in 5 female 

victims and 1 in 14 male victims 

experienced stalking between 

the ages of 11 and 17.

Violence by an Intimate 

Partner

•	 More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) 

and more than 1 in 4 men 

(28.5%) in the United States 

have experienced rape, physical 

violence, and/or stalking by an 

intimate partner in their lifetime.

•	 Among victims of intimate 

partner violence, more than 

1 in 3 women experienced 

multiple forms of rape, stalking, 

or physical violence; 92.1% 

of male victims experienced 

physical violence alone, and 6.3% 

experienced physical violence 

and stalking.

•	 Nearly 1 in 10 women in the 

United States (9.4%) has been 

raped by an intimate partner in 

her lifetime, and an estimated 

16.9% of women and 8.0% of 

men have experienced sexual 

violence other than rape by an 

intimate partner at some point in 

their lifetime. 

•	 About 1 in 4 women (24.3%) 

and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) have 

experienced severe physical 

violence by an intimate 

partner (e.g., hit with a fist 

or something hard, beaten, 

slammed against something) 

at some point in their lifetime.

•	 An estimated 10.7% of women 

and 2.1% of men have been 

stalked by an intimate partner 

during their lifetime.

•	 Nearly half of all women and 

men in the United States have 

experienced psychological 

aggression by an intimate 

partner in their lifetime (48.4% 

and 48.8%, respectively).

•	 Most female and male victims of 

rape, physical violence, and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner 

(69% of female victims; 53% of 

male victims) experienced some 

form of intimate partner violence 

for the first time before 25 years 

of age. 

Impact of Violence by an

Intimate Partner

•	 Nearly 3 in 10 women and 1 

in 10 men in the United States 

have experienced rape, physical 

violence, and/or stalking by an 

intimate partner and reported 

at least one impact related to 

experiencing these or other 

forms of violent behavior in the 

relationship (e.g., being fearful, 

concerned for safety, post 

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 

symptoms, need for health care, 

injury, contacting a crisis hotline, 

need for housing services, need 

for victim’s advocate services, 

need for legal services, missed at 

least one day of work or school).

Violence Experienced by Race/

Ethnicity

•	 Approximately 1 in 5 Black 

(22.0%) and White (18.8%) 

non-Hispanic women, and 1 in 7 

Hispanic women (14.6%) in the 

2 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 3

United States have experienced 

rape at some point in their 

lives. More than one-quarter of 

women (26.9%) who identified 

as American Indian or as Alaska 

Native and 1 in 3 women (33.5%) 

who identified as multiracial 

non-Hispanic reported rape 

victimization in their lifetime.

•	 One out of 59 White nonHispanic men (1.7%) has 

experienced rape at some point 

in his life. Nearly one-third of 

multiracial non-Hispanic men 

(31.6%) and over one-quarter of 

Hispanic men (26.2%) reported 

sexual violence other than rape 

in their lifetimes.

•	 Approximately 1 in 3 multiracial 

non-Hispanic women (30.6%) 

and 1 in 4 American Indian or 

Alaska Native women (22.7%) 

reported being stalked during 

their lifetimes. One in 5 Black 

non-Hispanic women (19.6%), 

1 in 6 White non-Hispanic women 

(16.0%), and 1 in 7 Hispanic 

women (15.2%) experienced 

stalking in their lifetimes.

•	 Approximately 1 in 17 Black nonHispanic men (6.0%), and 

1 in 20 White non-Hispanic men 

(5.1%) and Hispanic men (5.1%) 

in the United States experienced 

stalking in their lifetime.

•	 Approximately 4 out of every 10 

women of non-Hispanic Black or 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

race/ethnicity (43.7% and 46.0%, 

respectively), and 1 in 2 multiracial 

non-Hispanic women (53.8%) 

have experienced rape, physical 

violence, and/or stalking by an 

intimate partner in their lifetime. 

•	 Nearly half (45.3%) of American 

Indian or Alaska Native men and 

almost 4 out of every 10 Black 

and multiracial men (38.6% and 

39.3%, respectively) experienced 

rape, physical violence and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner 

during their lifetime. 

Number and Sex of 

Perpetrators

•	 Across all types of violence, the 

majority of both female and male 

victims reported experiencing 

violence from one perpetrator. 

•	 Across all types of violence, 

the majority of female victims 

reported that their perpetrators 

were male.

•	 Male rape victims and male 

victims of non-contact 

unwanted sexual experiences 

reported predominantly male 

perpetrators. Nearly half of 

stalking victimizations against 

males were also perpetrated 

by males. Perpetrators of other 

forms of violence against males 

were mostly female. 

Violence in the 12 Months 

Prior to Taking the Survey

•	 One percent, or approximately 

1.3 million women, reported 

being raped by any perpetrator 

in the 12 months prior to taking 

the survey.

•	 Approximately 1 in 20 women 

and men (5.6% and 5.3%, 

respectively) experienced sexual 

violence victimization other than 

rape by any perpetrator in the 

12 months prior to taking the 

survey.

•	 About 4% of women and 1.3% 

of men were stalked in the 12 

months prior to taking the survey.

•	 An estimated 1 in 17 women 

and 1 in 20 men (5.9% and 5.0%, 

respectively) experienced rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner in the 12 

months prior to taking the survey.

Health Consequences

•	 Men and women who 

experienced rape or stalking 

by any perpetrator or physical 

violence by an intimate partner 

in their lifetime were more likely 

to report frequent headaches, 

chronic pain, difficulty with 

sleeping, activity limitations, 

poor physical health and poor 

mental health than men and 

women who did not experience 

these forms of violence. 

Women who had experienced 

these forms of violence were 

also more likely to report 

having asthma, irritable bowel 

syndrome, and diabetes than 

women who did not experience 

these forms of violence. 

State-Level Estimates

•	 Across all types of violence 

examined in this report, statelevel estimates varied with 

lifetime estimates for women 

ranging from 11.4% to 29.2% for 

rape; 28.9% to 58% for sexual 

violence other than rape; and 

25.3% to 49.1% for rape, physical 

violence, and/or stalking by an 

intimate partner.

•	 For men, lifetime estimates 

ranged from 10.8% to 33.7% for 

sexual violence other than rape; 

and 17.4% to 41.2% for rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner. 

Implications for 

Prevention

The findings in this report underscore the heavy toll that sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence places on women, 

men, and children in the United 

States. Violence often begins at 
an early age and commonly leads 

to negative health consequences 

across the lifespan. Collective action 

is needed to implement prevention 

approaches, ensure appropriate 

responses, and support these efforts 

based on strong data and research. 

Prevention efforts should start early 

by promoting healthy, respectful 

relationships in families by fostering 

healthy parent-child relationships and developing positive 

family dynamics and emotionally 

supportive environments. These 

environments provide a strong foundation for children, help them to 

adopt positive interactions based on 

respect and trust, and foster effective 

and non-violent communication 

and conflict resolution in their peer 

and dating relationships. It is equally 

important to continue addressing 

the beliefs, attitudes and messages 

that are deeply embedded in our 

social structures and that create 

a climate that condones sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence. For example, 

this can be done through norms 

change, changing policies and 

enforcing existing policies against 

violence, and promoting bystander 

approaches to prevent violence 

before it happens.

In addition to prevention efforts, 

survivors of sexual violence, stalking, 

and intimate partner violence need 

coordinated services to ensure 

healing and prevent recurrence 

of victimization. The healthcare 

system’s response must be strengthened and better coordinated for 

both sexual violence and intimate 

partner violence survivors to help 

navigate the health care system 

and access needed services and 

resources in the short and long term. 

One way to strengthen the response 

to survivors is through increased 

training of healthcare professionals. 

It is also critically important to 

ensure that legal, housing, mental 

health, and other services and 

resources are available and accessible to survivors.

An important part of any response 

to sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence is to hold 

perpetrators accountable. Survivors 

may be reluctant to disclose their 

victimization for a variety of reasons 

including shame, embarrassment, 

fear of retribution from perpetrators, 

or a belief that they may not receive 

support from law enforcement. 

Laws may also not be enforced 

adequately or consistently and 

perpetrators may become more 

dangerous after their victims report 

these crimes. It is important to 

enhance training efforts within the 

criminal justice system to better 

engage and support survivors and 

thus hold perpetrators accountable 

for their crimes.

Implementing strong data systems 

for the monitoring and evaluation 

of sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence is critical 

to understand trends in these 

problems, to provide information 

on which to base development 

and evaluation of prevention and 

intervention programs, and to 

monitor and measure the effectiveness of these efforts. Establishing 

cost-efficient and timely surveillance 

systems for all states, by using 

consistent definitions and uniform 

survey methods, will assist states 

by providing policymakers much 

needed information for enhancing 

prevention efforts at the state level. 

Ongoing data collection and monitoring of these problems through 

NISVS and other data sources at 

the local, state, and national level 

must lead to further research to 

develop and evaluate strategies 

to effectively prevent first-time 

perpetration of sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence. This research should focus 

on key gaps to address the social 

and economic conditions (e.g., 

poverty, sexism, and other forms of 

discrimination and social exclusion) 

that increase risk for perpetration 

and victimization. This work should 

be complemented with efforts to 

monitor strategies being used by 

the field, to identify and rigorously 

evaluate these approaches and 

document their value. As effective 

strategies are identified, research 

examining how to best disseminate, 

implement, and adapt evidencebased prevention strategies, will 

become increasingly important. 

Much progress has been made in 

the prevention of violence. There 

is strong reason to believe that the 

application of effective strategies 

combined with the capacity to 

implement them will make a difference. The lessons already learned 

during public health’s short experience with violence prevention are 

consistent with those from public 

health’s much longer experience 

with the prevention of infectious and 

chronic diseases. Sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence can be prevented with 

data-driven, collaborative action. 

4 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 5

1: Background and Methods
6 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 7

1: Background and Methods

More than two decades of research 

has shown that sexual violence 

and intimate partner violence are 

major public health problems with 

serious long-term physical and 

mental health consequences, as 

well as significant social and public 

health costs (e.g., Breiding, Black, 

& Ryan, 2008; Logan & Cole, 2007; 

Randall, 1990). Elevated health risks 

have been observed in relation to 

multiple body systems, including 

the nervous, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, reproductive, musculoskeletal, immune 

and endocrine systems (Basile & 

Smith, 2011; Black, 2011). While less 

is known about the health impact 

of stalking, within the past decade 

stalking has been increasingly 

recognized as a significant public 

health issue. The few studies that 

have been conducted suggest that 

those who are stalked are more 

likely to report similar negative 

mental and physical health 

consequences (Davis, Coker, & 

Sanderson, 2002).

In addition to the negative physical 

and mental health effects of sexual 

violence, intimate partner violence, 

and stalking, prior research has 

shown that experiencing these 

forms of violence during childhood 

and adolescence increases the 

likelihood of experiencing these 

forms of violence as an adult (Tjaden 

& Thoennes, 2000; Smith, White, 

& Holland, 2003). Consequently, 

understanding sexual violence, 

intimate partner violence, and 

stalking experienced during 

childhood and adolescence is particularly important in order to prevent 

the reoccurrence of these forms of 

violence across the life course.

CDC’s National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control launched 

the National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) in 

2010. The survey was developed 

and fielded with the support of the 

National Institute of Justice, and 

the Department of Defense.1

 The 

primary objectives of the National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey are to describe: 

•	 The prevalence and characteristics 

of sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence

•	 Who is most likely to experience 

these forms of violence

•	 The patterns and impact of the 

violence experienced by specific 

perpetrators

•	 The health consequences of 

these forms of violence

Data from the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey can be used for a number 

of purposes. First, these data can 

help inform policies and programs 

that are aimed at preventing sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence. In addition, these 

data can be used to establish 

priorities for preventing these 

forms of violence at the national, 

state, and local levels. Finally, data 

collected in future years from the 

survey can be used to examine 

trends in sexual violence, stalking, 

and intimate partner violence and 

to evaluate and track the effectiveness of prevention efforts.

What is the National 

Intimate Partner 

and Sexual Violence 

Survey?

The National Intimate Partner 

and Sexual Violence Survey is 

an ongoing, nationally representative survey that assesses 

experiences of sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence among adult women and 

men in the United States and for 

each individual state. It measures 

lifetime victimization for these 

types of violence as well as victimization in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey. The survey is 

focused exclusively on violence 

and collects information about: 

•	 Sexual violence by any 

perpetrator, including 

information related to rape, being 

made to penetrate someone 

else, sexual coercion, unwanted 

sexual contact, and non-contact 

unwanted sexual experiences

•	 Stalking, including the use of 

newer technologies such as text 

messages, emails, monitoring 

devices (e.g., cameras and GPS, 

or global positioning system 

devices), by perpetrators known 

and unknown to the victim

1

In addition to providing guidance in the development of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, the National Institute of 

Justice and the Department of Defense contributed financial support for the administration of the survey in 2010. The National Institute of Justice’s 

financial support enabled the addition of a separate targeted sample of persons of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity. The Department 

of Defense’s financial support enabled the addition of a separate random sample of female active duty military and female spouses of active duty 

military. Data from these two additional samples are not presented in this initial report but will be described in future publications.
Additional Features that Distinguish NISVS 

from Other National Surveys:

•	 Interviewers ask a series of health-related questions at the outset of the survey to establish 

rapport and establish a health context for the survey.

•	 A graduated informed consent procedure is used to maximize respondent safety, to build 

rapport, and to provide participants the opportunity to make an informed decision about 

whether participation in the survey would be in their best interest.

•	 Interviewers establish a safety plan so that a respondent knows what to do if they need to 

discontinue the interview for safety reasons.

•	 Interviewers follow established distress protocols, including frequent check-ins with the 

participant during the interview, to assess their emotional state and determine whether 

the interview should proceed. 

•	 The survey includes detailed behavior-specific questions on components of sexual violence 

and intimate partner violence that previous population-based national surveys have not 

measured. Examples include information on types of sexual violence other than rape, 

coercive control, and control of reproductive or sexual health.

•	 The survey is designed to assess violence in a way that is consistent across states. 

8 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

•	 Physical violence by an intimate 

partner 

•	 Psychological aggression by 

an intimate partner, including 

information on expressive forms 

of aggression and coercive control

•	 Control of reproductive or sexual 

health by an intimate partner

In addition to collecting lifetime 

and 12 month prevalence data 

on sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence, the 

survey collects information on the 

age at the time of the first victimization, demographic characteristics of respondents, demographic 

characteristics of perpetrators (age, 

sex, race/ethnicity) and detailed 

information about the patterns 

and impact of the violence by 

specific perpetrators. For example, 

the National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey:

•	 Links each individual act 

of violence with a specific 

perpetrator, enabling the 

collection of all forms of 

violence committed by a specific 

perpetrator and allowing for an 

examination of how different 

forms of violence co-occur.

•	 Examines the length of time and 

frequency of the occurrence of 

sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence relative 

to specific perpetrators

•	 Collects information on a range 

of negative impacts (e.g., injury, 

absence from school or work, 

need for medical care) resulting 

from experiences of violence by 

individual perpetrators

•	 Gathers information from 

respondents on a range of longterm physical and mental health 

outcomes that may be associated 

with the experience of violence

There are a number of additional 

features of the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

that distinguish it from other national 

surveys (see box), such as the 

National Violence Against Women 

Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), 

a one-time survey that the National 

Institute of Justice and the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention 

conducted in 1995-1996; the National 

Crime Victimization Survey that the 

U.S. Census Bureau has conducted 

annually for the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics since 1973; and the statebased modules on intimate partner 

violence and sexual violence that 34 

states/territories collected for at least 

one year from 2005 to 2007 using 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor 

Surveillance System. 

In sum, the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

allows for an improved understanding of the public health 

burden of sexual violence, stalking, 

and intimate partner violence 

nationally and at the state level. 

Beyond estimating the prevalence 

of sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence, the 

survey captures information on 

these forms of violence in ways 

that maximize the ability to take 

action to prevent these public 

health problems.

How Was the Survey 

Developed?

The development of the National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey was informed 

by the National Violence Against 

Women Survey, which provided 

a starting point for the development of the survey instrument; a 

federally sponsored workshop that 

focused on building data systems 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 9

for monitoring and responding 

to sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence (CDC, 

2000); and a pilot methods study 

that was conducted in 2007. The 

pilot study was designed to help 

address information gaps and 

inform the development of a 

national intimate partner, sexual 

violence, and stalking surveillance system. In 2007, the CDC 

also convened an expert panel to 

discuss findings from the 2007 pilot 

study and to make recommendations on the design of the NISVS 

survey instrument (Appendix A). The 

panel consisted of practitioners and 

advocates, subject matter experts 

with experience in designing 

measures of violence, and representatives from other federal agencies 

with subject matter expertise 

in sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence. 

What Does This Report 

Include?

This report summarizes findings 

from the 2010 National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

data collection. The first three 

sections present lifetime and 12 

month prevalence estimates and 

other descriptive information (e.g., 

the number of perpetrators, the 

type of perpetrator, and age when 

the violence was first experienced) 

for the three primary types of 

violence examined in the survey 

– sexual violence, stalking, and 

violence by an intimate partner. 

The prevalence of these types of 

violence by state of residence is 

also presented. This report also 

includes information on the impact 

of intimate partner violence and 

on the relationship between 

violence and various health consequences such as asthma, diabetes, 

chronic pain, disability, and poor 

mental health.

Methods

The National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey is a national 

random digit dial (RDD) telephone 

survey of the non-institutionalized 

English and/or Spanish-speaking 

U.S. population aged 18 or older. 

NISVS uses a dual-frame sampling 

strategy that includes both 

landline and cell phones. The 

survey was conducted in 50 states 

and the District of Columbia and 

was administered from January 

22, 2010 through December 31, 

2010. In 2010, a total of 18,049 

interviews were conducted (9,970 

women and 8,079 men) in the U.S. 

general population. This includes 

16,507 completed and 1,542 

partially completed interviews. A 

total of 9,086 females and 7,421 

males completed the survey. 

Approximately 45.2% of interviews were conducted by landline 

telephone and 54.8% of interviews 

were conducted using a respondent’s cell phone. 

The overall weighted response 

rate for the 2010 National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

ranged from 27.5% to 33.6%. This 

range reflects differences in how 

the proportion of the unknowns 

that are eligible is estimated. 

The weighted cooperation rate 

was 81.3%. A primary difference 

between response and cooperation 

rates is that telephone numbers 

where contact has not been made 

are still part of the denominator 

in calculating a response rate. 

The cooperation rate reflects 

the proportion who agreed to 

participate in the interview among 

those who were contacted and 

determined to be eligible. The 

cooperation rate obtained for 

the 2010 NISVS data collection 

suggests that, once contact was 

made and eligibility determined, 

the majority of respondents 

chose to participate in the interview. Additional information 

about the sampling strategy, 

weighting procedures, response 

and cooperation rates, and other 

methodological details of NISVS 

can be found in the technical note 

in Appendix B.

Survey Instrument

Violence Domains Assessed 

The questionnaire includes 

behavior-specific questions that 

assess sexual violence, stalking, 

and intimate partner violence 

over the lifetime and during the 

12 months prior to the interview. 

Intimate partner violence-related 

questions assess psychological 

aggression, including expressive 

aggression (5 items) and coercive 

control (12 items); control of reproductive or sexual health (2 items); 

physical violence (11 items); sexual 

violence (21 items); and stalking 

(7 items). A list of the victimization 

questions used in the survey can 

be found in Appendix C. 

Psychological aggression, including 

expressive aggression and coercive 

control, is an important component 

of intimate partner violence. 

Although research suggests 

that psychological aggression 

may be even more harmful than 

physical violence by an intimate 

partner (Follingstad, Rutledge, 

Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990), there 

is little agreement about how to 

determine when psychologically 

aggressive behavior becomes 
abusive and can be classified as 

intimate partner violence. Because 

of the lack of consensus in the 

field at the time of this report, 

the prevalence of psychologically 

aggressive behaviors is reported, 

but is not included in the overall 

prevalence estimates of intimate 

partner violence. Expressive 

psychological aggression includes 

acting dangerous, name calling, 

insults and humiliation. Coercive 

control includes behaviors that are 

intended to monitor and control 

an intimate partner such as threats, 

interference with family and friends, 

and limiting access to money.

Physical violence includes a 

wide range of behaviors from 

slapping, pushing or shoving 

to more severe behaviors such 

as being beaten, burned, or 

choked. In this report, severe 

physical violence includes being 

hurt by pulling hair, being hit 

with something hard, being 

kicked, being slammed against 

something, attempts to hurt by 

choking or suffocating, being 

beaten, being burned on purpose 

and having a partner use a knife 

or gun against the victim. While 

slapping, pushing and shoving 

are not necessarily minor physical 

violence, this report distinguishes 

between these forms of violence 

and the physical violence that is 

generally categorized as severe. 

Questions on sexual violence were 

asked in relation to rape (completed 

forced penetration, attempted 

penetration, and alcohol or drugfacilitated completed penetration), 

being made to penetrate another 

person, sexual coercion, unwanted 

sexual contact, and non-contact 

unwanted sexual experiences. 

Stalking questions were aimed at 

determining a pattern of unwanted 

harassing or threatening tactics 

used by a perpetrator and included 

tactics related to unwanted 

contacts, unwanted tracking 

and following, intrusion, and 

technology-assisted tactics. 

Perpetrator Information

Respondents who reported 

experiencing violence were subsequently asked to identify individual 

perpetrators by initials, nick name 

or in some other general way so 

that each violent behavior reported 

could be tied to a specific perpetrator. Respondents were asked 

a series of questions about each 

perpetrator including age, sex, and 

race/ethnicity. In addition, for each 

perpetrator reported, respondents 

were asked their age and their relationship to the perpetrator, both 

at the time violence first began 

and at the last time violence was 

experienced. Additional questions 

were asked regarding perpetrators 

of stalking and rape. These include 

questions about the respondent’s 

age when they first experienced 

stalking by each perpetrator 

and the age at which they last 

experienced stalking. Separately, 

questions were asked about the 

respondent’s age when they first 

experienced rape by each perpetrator and the age at which they last 

experienced rape. Age and relationship at the time the violence began 

were used throughout this report.

Indicators of the Impact of 

Violence Experienced

Follow-up questions related to 

the potential impact of violence 

committed by individual perpetrators were asked. Respondents were 

asked about whether or not they 

experienced any of the following as 

a result of any violence committed 

by a specific perpetrator: fearfulness or being concerned about 

safety, post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD) symptoms (e.g. 

nightmares, feeling numb or 

detached), injury, need for medical 

care, need for housing services, 

need for victim’s advocate or legal 

services, having contacted a crisis 

hotline, and missed days of work or 

school. Respondents who reported 

experiencing rape (completed 

rape, attempted rape, or alcohol/

drug-facilitated completed rape), or 

being made to sexually penetrate 

another person were asked about 

additional indicators of impact, 

such as the contraction of a sexually 

transmitted disease or pregnancy 

as a result of the sexual violence.

Cognitive Testing

A key component of the questionnaire design process was 

conducting cognitive tests on the 

introductions and key questions 

used throughout the instrument. 

The purpose of the cognitive 

testing was to provide information 

on how well the questions worked 

and whether participants understood the text provided. 

Survey Administration

Advance Letters

Reverse address matching was 

used to link available addresses to 

the landline sample. Approximately 

50% of telephone numbers in the 

landline sample were matched. 

Prior to contacting participants, 

informational letters addressed to 

“Resident” were sent to available 

addresses to make residents aware 

that they would be receiving a 

request for an interview in the 

coming days. Following the World 

Health Organization’s guidelines 

10 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 11

for research on domestic violence, 

introductory letters were carefully 

written, providing only general 

information about the survey to 

maximize safety and confidentiality 

(WHO, 2001). 

Incentives

Respondents in the landline and 

cell phone samples were offered 

an incentive of $10 to participate 

in the survey. Respondents could 

choose to have the incentive 

mailed to them or donated to the 

United Way on their behalf; 58.4% 

of respondents chose to donate 

their incentive. For respondents 

who chose to receive the incentive, 

mailing information was obtained 

so the incentive check could be sent 

to them. Mailing information was 

kept in a separate database from 

data collected during the administration of the survey and destroyed 

at the end of data collection. 

Graduated Informed Consent 

Process

Following recommended guidelines (Sullivan & Cain, 2004; WHO, 

2001) a graduated informed 

consent protocol was used. 

Specifically, to ensure respondent 

safety and confidentiality, the 

initial person who answered the 

telephone was provided general 

non-specific information about 

the survey topic. The specific 

topics of the survey (e.g., physical 

aggression, harassing behaviors, 

and unwanted sexual activity) were 

only revealed to the individual 

respondent selected. After a single 

adult respondent in a household 

was randomly selected to participate, the interviewer administered 

an IRB-approved informed consent 

that provided information on the 

voluntary and confidential nature of 

the survey, the benefits and risks of 

participation, the survey topic, and 

telephone numbers to speak with 

staff from the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention or project 

staff from the Research Triangle 

Institute, International (RTI) (which 

was contracted by the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention to 

administer the survey). 

Respondent Safety and 

Confidentiality 

For topics such as intimate partner 

violence and other forms of 

violence and abuse, a graduated 

consent process is often the safest 

and most appropriate method 

of research. Literature about the 

ethical and safe collection of 

research data on intimate partner 

violence offers many reasons for 

obtaining informed consent in a 

graduated manner (Sullivan & Cain, 

2004; WHO, 2001). In addition to 

revealing the specific content of 

the survey only to the respondent 

selected, a graduated consent 

process allows the interviewer to 

build rapport and increases the 

likelihood of gaining the participant’s trust, the key to minimizing 

non-participation and underreporting. Carefully conducted 

studies with well-trained interviewers who are able to build 

rapport and trust with potential 

participants are essential both to 

the collection of valid data and the 

well-being of respondents.

Interviewers also reminded 

respondents that they could skip 

any question and could stop the 

interview at any time. Interviewers 

also established a safety plan with 

the respondents so that respondents would know what to do if 

they needed to stop an interview 

for safety reasons. Specifically, 

interviewers suggested that 

respondents answer questions in a 

private setting and instructed them 

to just say “Goodbye” if at any time 

they felt physically or emotionally 

unsafe. Interviewers also checked 

in with the respondents several 

times during the interview to make 

sure they wanted to proceed. At the 

end of the interview, respondents 

were provided telephone numbers 

for the National Domestic Violence 

Hotline and the Rape, Abuse and 

Incest National Network.

Length of Interview

The median length of the interview 

was 24.7 minutes. 

Interviewer 

Recruitment, Training, 

and Monitoring

Hiring, training and maintaining 

high quality interviewers is 

essential to maximize disclosure 

of sensitive information about 

sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence. Only 

female interviewers administered 

the survey as previous research 

suggests that female interviewers 

may be more likely to create 

conditions conducive to disclosure 

(Dailey & Claus, 2001). During the 

hiring process, potential interviewers were informed about the 

background and purpose of the 

National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey and were 

carefully screened to insure that 

they were comfortable conducting 

interviews on the topics included in 

the survey. Interviewers received 16 

hours of training and an additional 

2 hours of post-training practice. 

A detailed training manual written 

specific to the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

was developed. The content of the 
Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence Estimates of Violence

Lifetime prevalence refers to the proportion of people in a given population who have ever 

experienced a particular form of violence. Lifetime prevalence estimates are important 

because they provide information about the burden of violence within a population. 

12 month prevalence provides information about the proportion of people in a given 

population who have experienced a particular form of violence in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey. Twelve-month prevalence estimates provide a snapshot of the recent 

burden of violence in a population. When collected over multiple years, 12 month estimates 

can be used to assess trends in the burden of violence over time (suggesting whether 

violence may be increasing or decreasing). 

training manual focused on the 

background information relevant 

to the survey, project-specific 

protocols, confidentiality procedures, safety protocols, respondent 

distress, and refusal avoidance. 

The interviewer training sessions 

were conducted using a variety 

of methods, including lecture, 

demonstration, round-robin 

practice, paired-practice, and 

group and paired mock interviews. 

Interviewers were also briefed 

on the potential challenges of 

administering a survey on sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence, and were trained 

in administering questions about 

these sensitive topics. Resource 

information was provided to 

interviewers regarding assistance 

in coping with traumatic and 

violent events. Interviewers were 

also provided the opportunity to 

discuss and process difficult or 

upsetting interviews.

Project staff held bimonthly quality 

assurance meetings with interviewers during the data collection. 

Throughout the data collection 

period, approximately 10% of 

interviews were monitored to 

check the quality of their work and 

to identify areas needing more 

training or clarification. The information obtained was then used 

as a teaching tool for other interviewers, when appropriate. 

IRB and OMB Approval

The survey protocol received 

approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget 

(OMB# 0920-0822) as well as 

the Institutional Review Board 

of Research Triangle Institute, 

International. 

Data Analysis

Lifetime and 12 month prevalence estimates were calculated 

for the different forms of violence 

presented in this report. The 12 

month estimates were obtained 

by asking respondents to report 

whether the specific form of 

violence by the perpetrator 

occurred in the past 12 months. 

Respondents were anchored to 

the 12 month period with a CATI 

reminder of the date (e.g., “...in 

the past twelve months, that is, 

since {fill: date, 12 months ago}?”). 

To be included in the prevalence 

estimate for sexual violence, 

physical violence, or psychological 

aggression, the respondent must 

have experienced at least one 

behavior within the relevant 

violence domain during the time 

frame of reference (lifetime or 

in the 12 months prior to taking 

the survey). Respondents could 

have experienced each type 

of violence more than once so 

prevalence estimates should be 

interpreted as the percentage of 

the population who experienced 

each type of violence at least once. 

To be included in the prevalence of 

stalking, a respondent must have 

experienced more than one of the 

seven stalking tactics that were 

measured in the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 

or a single tactic multiple times by 

the same perpetrator, and must 

have been very fearful or believed 

that they or someone close to them 

would be harmed or killed as a 

result of the perpetrator’s behavior. 

Within categories of violence 

(e.g., rape, other sexual violence, 

any severe physical violence, any 

reported IPV-related impact), 

respondents who reported more 

than one subcategory of violence 

are included only once in the 

summary estimate but are included 

in each relevant subcategory. For 

example, victims of completed 

forced penetration and alcohol or 

drug facilitated penetration are 

included in each of these subtypes 

of rape but counted only once in 

the estimate of rape prevalence. 

The denominators in prevalence 

calculations include persons who 

answered a question or responded 

with don’t know or refused. Missing 

data (cases where all questions for 

constructing an outcome of interest 

12 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 13

were not fully administered) were 

excluded from analyses. All analyses 

were conducted using SUDAANTM 

statistical software for analyzing 

data collected through complex 

sample design.

The estimated number of victims 

affected by a particular form of 

violence is based on United States 

population estimates from the 

census projections by state, sex, age, 

and race/ethnicity (www.census.

gov/popest/states/asrh/). 

Statistical inference for prevalence and population estimates 

were made based on weighted 

analyses, where complex sample 

design features such as stratified 

sampling, weighting for unequal 

sample selection probabilities, and 

non-response adjustments were 

taken into account. The estimates 

presented in this report are based 

on complete interviews. An 

interview is defined as “complete” 

if the respondent completed the 

screening, demographic, general 

health questions, and all questions 

on all five sets of violence victimization, as applicable. A comparison 

of the demographic characteristics of 

the complete interviews in the NISVS 

sample and the U.S. population is 

provided in Appendix B. 

Analyses were conducted by sex. 

Prevalence estimates by selected 

demographic characteristics were 

also calculated. No formal statistical 

comparisons of the prevalence 

estimates between demographic 

subgroups were made. As 

prevalence and population 

estimates were based on a sample 

population, there is a degree of 

uncertainty associated with these 

estimates. The smaller the sample 

upon which an estimate is based, 

the less precise the estimate 

becomes and the more difficult 

it is to distinguish the findings 

from what could have occurred by 

chance. The relative standard error 

(RSE) is a measure of an estimate’s 

reliability. The RSE was calculated 

for all estimates in this report. If 

the RSE was greater than 30%, the 

estimate was deemed unreliable 

and is not reported. Consideration 

was also given to the case count. 

If the estimate was based on a 

numerator < 20, the estimate is 

also not reported. Tables where 

specific estimates are missing due 

to high RSEs or small case counts 

are presented in full with missing 

unreliable estimates noted by an 

asterisk so that the reader can 

clearly see what was assessed 

and where data gaps remain. 

Tables showing the confidence 

intervals around the estimates 

are available at: www.cdc.gov/

violenceprevention/nisvs.

A number of health outcomes were 

assessed in this survey and were 

examined with respect to violence 

victimization. Chi-square tests 

were conducted to ascertain the 

difference in the health outcomes 

of interest with respect to victimization. A p-value of .05 was set 

as the threshold for establishing 

statistical significance. Statistical 

analyses for this report were 

performed by Research Triangle 

Institute, International and 

independently replicated by statisticians from the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention.

Data Quality Assurance 

An independent set of programs 

were developed to ensure that skip 

patterns, response values, missing 

values, rotations, range checks, 

and other logical consistency 

checks had been implemented 

as programmed in the computerassisted telephone interview (CATI) 

system. The programs created a 

number of quality control/quality 

assurance variables and flags to 

track such data as the frequencies 

of behaviors with the frequencies 

of the perpetrators, timeframes, 

and other responses from each 

perpetrator in order to compare 

behaviors and/or their related 

follow-up data. All discrepancies 

were investigated and corrected as 

appropriate. Additional information on the data collection and 

security procedures is included in 

Appendix B.
14 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 15

2: Sexual Violence Victimization
16 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 17

2: Sexual Violence Victimization

Previous studies of sexual violence 

victimization have shown that 

it is a widespread problem that 

happens early in the lifespan for 

many victims, although sexual 

violence can occur at any age 

(Kilpatrick, Edmunds, & Seymour, 

1992; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). 

It has been more than a decade 

since the sexual violence field 

has had national prevalence 

estimates of a wide range of 

sexual violence victimization 

experiences. To date, few national 

studies have examined the various 

forms of sexual violence (Basile 

& Saltzman, 2002), particularly 

types of sexual violence other 

than rape. Previously, the only 

nationally representative prevalence estimates measuring a wide 

range of types of sexual violence 

victimization were derived from 

college populations (Fisher, Cullen, 

& Turner, 2000; Koss, Gidycz, & 

Wisniewski, 1987).

This section summarizes lifetime 

and 12 month experiences of 

sexual violence victimization of 

women and men in the United 

States, including rape (forced 

penetration, attempted forced 

penetration, and alcohol or drug 

facilitated penetration), being 

made to penetrate someone 

else, sexual coercion, unwanted 

sexual contact, and non-contact 

unwanted sexual experiences. 

What follows also includes lifetime 

prevalence estimates by self-identified race/ethnicity, as well as the 

characteristics of the victimization 

experiences, including the type of 

How NISVS Measured Sexual Violence

Five types of sexual violence were measured in NISVS. These include acts of rape (forced 

penetration), and types of sexual violence other than rape.

•	 Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal 

penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the 

use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, 

high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Rape is separated into three types, 

completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol or drug 

facilitated penetration.

- Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It 

also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object. 

- Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also 

includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object. 

•	 Being made to penetrate someone else includes times when the victim was made to, 

or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s 

consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by 

the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, 

drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

- Among women, this behavior reflects a female being made to orally penetrate another 

female’s vagina or anus. 

- Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: 

being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating a 

female’s vagina or anus; anally penetrating a male or female; or being made to receive oral 

sex from a male or female. It also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male 

victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen.

•	 Sexual coercion is defined as unwanted sexual penetration that occurs after a person is 

pressured in a nonphysical way. In NISVS, sexual coercion refers to unwanted vaginal, oral, 

or anal sex after being pressured in ways that included being worn down by someone who 

repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, 

being told promises that were untrue, having someone threaten to end a relationship or 

spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority.

•	 Unwanted sexual contact is defined as unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not 

sexual penetration, such as being kissed in a sexual way, or having sexual body parts fondled 

or grabbed.

•	 Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences are those unwanted experiences that do not 

involve any touching or penetration, including someone exposing their sexual body parts, 

flashing, or masturbating in front of the victim, someone making a victim show his or her 

body parts, someone making a victim look at or participate in sexual photos or movies, or 

someone harassing the victim in a public place in a way that made the victim feel unsafe.
Nearly 1 in 5 women 

and 1 in 71 men in 

the U.S. have been 

raped at some time 

in their lives.

Table 2.1

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Sexual Violence — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Rape 18.3 21,840,000 1.1 1,270,000 

Completed forced penetration 12.3 14,617,000 0.5 620,000 

Attempted forced penetration 5.2 6,199,000 0.4 519,000 

Completed alcohol/drug facilitated 

penetration

8.0 9,524,000 0.7 781,000 

Other Sexual Violence 44.6 53,174,000 5.6 6,646,000 

Made to penetrate * * * * 

Sexual coercion 13.0 15,492,000 2.0 2,410,000 

Unwanted sexual contact 27.2 32,447,000 2.2 2,600,000 

Non-contact unwanted sexual 

experiences

33.7 40,193,000 3.0 3,532,000

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

18 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

perpetrators, the number and sex 

of perpetrators, age at the time of 

the first completed rape victimization, and rape victimization as a 

minor and subsequent rape victimization in adulthood. 

Prevalence of Sexual 

Violence Victimization 

Rape

Nearly 1 in 5 women in the United 

States has been raped in her 

lifetime (18.3%) (Table 2.1). This 

translates to almost 22 million 

women in the United States. The 

most common form of rape victimization experienced by women 

was completed forced penetration, 

experienced by 12.3% of women 

in the United States. About 5% 

of women (5.2%) experienced 

attempted forced penetration, 

and 8.0% experienced alcohol/

drug-facilitated completed forced 

penetration. One percent, or 

approximately 1.3 million women, 

reported some type of rape victimization in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey. 

Approximately 1 in 71 men in the 

United States (1.4%) reported having 

been raped in his lifetime, which 

translates to almost 1.6 million men 

in the United States (Table 2.2). Too 

few men reported rape in the 12 

months prior to taking the survey to 

produce a reliable 12 month prevalence estimate.
Table 2.2

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Sexual Violence — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Rape 1.4 1,581,000 * *

Completed forced penetration 0.9 970,000 * * 

Attempted forced penetration 0.4 499,000 * * 

Completed alcohol/drug facilitated 

penetration

0.6 685,000 * * 

Other Sexual Violence 22.2 25,130,000 5.3 6,027,000 

Made to penetrate 4.8 5,451,000 1.1 1,267,000 

Sexual coercion 6.0 6,806,000 1.5 1,669,000 

Unwanted sexual contact 11.7 13,296,000 2.3 2,565,000 

Non-contact unwanted sexual

experiences

12.8 14,450,000 2.7 3,037,000 

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 19

Sexual Violence Other 

than Rape

Nearly 1 in 2 women (44.6%) and 

1 in 5 men (22.2%) experienced 

sexual violence victimization 

other than rape at some point 

in their lives (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). 

This equates to more than 53 

million women and more than 25 

million men in the United States. 

Approximately 1 in 20 women 

(5.6%) and men (5.3%) experienced 

sexual violence victimization other 

than rape in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey. 

Being Made to Penetrate 

Someone Else

Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) 

reported having been made to 

penetrate someone else in his 

lifetime (Table 2.2). Too few women 

reported being made to penetrate 

someone else to produce a reliable 

estimate (Table 2.1). 

Sexual Coercion

About 1 in 8 women (13%) reported 

experiencing sexual coercion in her 

lifetime, which translates to more 

than 15 million women in the United 

States (Table 2.1). Sexual coercion 

was reported by 2.0% of women in 

the 12 months prior to taking the 

survey. Six percent of men reported 

sexual coercion in their lifetimes 

(almost 7 million men), and 1.5% in 

the 12 months prior to taking the 

survey (Table 2.2). 

Unwanted Sexual Contact

More than one-quarter of women 

(27.2%) have experienced some 

form of unwanted sexual contact 

in their lifetime (Table 2.1). This 

equates to over 32 million women 

in the United States. The 12 month 

prevalence of unwanted sexual 

contact reported by women was 

2.2%. Approximately 1 in 9 men 

(11.7%) reported experiencing 

unwanted sexual contact in his 

lifetime, which translates to an estimated 13 million men in the United 

States (Table 2.2). The 12 month 

prevalence of unwanted sexual 

contact reported by men was 2.3%. 
Table 2.3 

Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Violence by Race/Ethnicity1 — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Black White Asian or

Pacific

Islander

American 

Indian or 

Alaska

Native

Multiracial

Rape Weighted %

Estimated Number 

of Victims2

14.6 

2,202,000

22.0

3,186,000

18.8

15,225,000

* 26.9

234,000

33.5 

452,000

Other sexual 

violence

Weighted %

Estimated Number 

of Victims2

36.1

5,442,000

41.0

5,967,000

47.6

38,632,000

29.5

1,673,000

49.0

424,000

58.0

786,000

1

Race/ethnicity was self-identified. The American Indian or Alaska Native designation does not indicate being enrolled or affiliated with a tribe. 

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

20 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Non-Contact Unwanted

Sexual Experiences

Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences were the most common 

form of sexual violence experienced 

by both women and men (Tables 

2.1 and 2.2). One-third of women 

(33.7%) experienced some type 

of non-contact unwanted sexual 

experience in their lifetime, and 1 in 

33 women (3.0%) experienced this 

in the 12 months prior to taking the 

survey. This equates to 40 million 

women in the United States for the 

lifetime estimate and 3.5 million 

women in the last 12 months. 

Nearly 1 in 8 men (12.8%) reported 

non-contact unwanted sexual 

experiences in his lifetime, and 1 in 

37 men (2.7%) experienced this type 

of sexual violence in the 12 months 

before taking the survey. These 

numbers translate to 14 million men 

in the United States who had these 

experiences in their lifetimes and 3 

million men in the last 12 months.

Prevalence of Rape and 

Other Sexual Violence 

by Race/Ethnicity

Approximately 1 in 5 Black (22.0%) 

and White (18.8%) non-Hispanic 

women, and 1 in 7 Hispanic women 

(14.6%) in the United States have 

experienced rape at some point in 

their lives (Table 2.3). More than 

one-quarter of women (26.9%) 

who identified as American Indian 

or as Alaska Native and 1 in 3 

women (33.5%) who identified as 

multiracial non-Hispanic reported 

rape victimization in their lifetime 

(Table 2.3). Just under half of Black 

non-Hispanic (41.0%), White nonHispanic (47.6%), and American 

Indian or Alaska Native (49.0%) 

women reported sexual violence 

other than rape in their lifetime and 

more than half of multiracial nonHispanic women (58.0%) reported 

these experiences in their lifetime. 

Approximately 1 in 3 Hispanic 

(36.1%) and Asian or Pacific 

Islander (29.5%) women reported 

sexual violence other than rape. 

Between one-fifth and one-quarter 

of Black non-Hispanic (22.6%), 

White non-Hispanic (21.5%), 

Hispanic (26.2%), and American 

Indian or Alaska Native (20.1%) men 

experienced sexual violence other 

than rape in their lives (Table 2.4). 

About 1 in 6 Asian or Pacific Islander 
Table 2.4 

Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Violence by Race/Ethnicity1 — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Black White Asian or

Pacific

Islander

American 

Indian or 

Alaska

Native

Multiracial

Rape Weighted %

Estimated Number 

of Victims2

* * 1.7

1,296,000

* * *

Other sexual 

violence

Weighted %

Estimated Number 

of Victims2

26.2

4,261,000

22.6

2,820,000

21.5

16,508,000

15.7

802,000

20.1

162,000

31.6

413,000

1

Race/ethnicity was self-identified. The American Indian or Alaska Native designation does not indicate being enrolled or affiliated with a tribe. 

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

Most victims of 

rape knew their 

perpetrators.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 21

(15.7%) men and nearly one-third 

of multiracial (31.6%) men in the 

United States had these experiences during their lifetime. The only 

reportable estimate of rape was for 

White non-Hispanic men − 1.7% 

or an estimated 1.3 million men in 

this group reported being raped at 

some point in their lifetime. 

Type of Perpetrator 

in Lifetime Reports of 

Sexual Violence 

Rape

The majority of both female and 

male victims of rape knew their 

perpetrators. More than half of 

female victims of rape (51.1%) 

reported that at least one perpetrator was a current or former 

intimate partner (Table 2.5). Four 

out of 10 of female victims (40.8%) 

reported being raped by an 

acquaintance. Approximately 1 in 

8 female victims (12.5%) reported 

being raped by a family member, 

and 2.5% by a person in a position 

of authority. About 1 in 7 female 

victims (13.8%) reported being 

raped by a stranger. In terms of 

lifetime alcohol/drug-facilitated 

rape, half of female victims (50.4%) 

were raped by an acquaintance, 

while 43.0% were raped by an 

intimate partner.
Table 2.5 

Lifetime Reports of Sexual Violence Among Female Victims by Type of Perpetrator1 —

NISVS 2010

Current or Former 

Intimate Partner

Family Member2 Person of 

Authority3

Acquaintance4 Stranger

Weighted % Weighted % Weighted % Weighted % Weighted %

Rape 51.1 12.5 2.5 40.8 13.8 

Attempted or completed 

forced penetration

52.5 14.8 2.4 33.0 14.1 

 Alcohol/drug-facilitated 

penetration

43.0 6.6 * 50.4 9.6 

Other sexual violence 35.7 16.1 7.9 42.1 44.8 

Made to penetrate * * * * * 

Sexual coercion 75.4 6.1 5.7 21.8 * 

Unwanted sexual contact 23.5 19.9 8.3 45.9 24.9 

Non-contact unwanted 

sexual experiences

23.1 14.8 4.3 31.2 50.5

1

Relationship is based on respondents’ reports of their relationship at the time the perpetrator first committed any violence against them. Due 

to the possibility of multiple perpetrators, combined row percents may exceed 100%.

2

Includes immediate and extended family members. 

3

Includes, for example: boss, supervisor, superior in command, teacher, professor, coach, clergy, doctor, therapist, and caregiver.

4

Includes friends, neighbors, family friends, first date, someone briefly known, and people not known well.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

More than half of the male victims 

of rape (52.4%) were raped by 

an acquaintance, and 1 in 7 male 

victims (15.1%) was raped by a 

stranger (Table 2.6). The estimates 

for male victims raped by other 

types of perpetrators were based 

upon numbers too small to 

calculate a reliable estimate and 

therefore are not reported.

Sexual Violence Other

than Rape

For both women and men, the type 

of perpetrator varied by the form 

of sexual violence experienced. 

The majority of female victims of 

sexual coercion and unwanted 

sexual contact reported known 

perpetrators. Three-quarters of 

female victims (75.4%) of sexual 

coercion reported perpetration 

by an intimate partner, and nearly 

1 in 2 female victims (45.9%) of 

unwanted sexual contact reported 

perpetration by an acquaintance. Strangers were the most 

commonly reported perpetrators 

of non-contact unwanted sexual 

experiences against women, 

reported by 1 in 2 female victims 

(50.5%) (Table 2.5). 

22 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 2.6 

Lifetime Reports of Sexual Violence Among Male Victims by Type of Perpetrator1 —

NISVS 2010

Current or Former 

Intimate Partner

Family Member2 Person of 

Authority3

Acquaintance4 Stranger

Weighted % Weighted % Weighted % Weighted % Weighted %

Rape5 * * * 52.4 15.1 

Other sexual

violence

36.0 6.2 7.5 50.6 31.1 

Made to penetrate 44.8 * * 44.7 8.2 

Sexual coercion 69.7 * 3.4 31.3 * 

Unwanted sexual 

contact

22.6 6.1 9.2 51.7 24.2 

Non-contact 

unwanted sexual 

experiences

21.1 8.7 7.2 44.9 36.4

1

Relationship is based on respondents’ reports of their relationship at the time the perpetrator first committed any violence against them. Due 

to the possibility of multiple perpetrators, combined row percents may exceed 100%.

2

Includes immediate and extended family members. 

3

Includes, for example: boss, supervisor, superior in command, teacher, professor, coach, clergy, doctor, therapist, and caregiver.

4

Includes friends, neighbors, family friends, first date, someone briefly known, and people not known well.

5

Includes attempted or completed forced penetration and alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 23

Male victims most commonly 

reported a known perpetrator 

for all types of sexual violence 

other than rape. Nearly half of 

male victims reported an intimate 

partner (44.8%) or an acquaintance 

(44.7%) as a perpetrator in situations where the male was made 

to penetrate someone else. The 

majority of male victims of sexual 

coercion (69.7%) reported an 

intimate partner as a perpetrator. 

For both unwanted sexual contact 

(51.7%) and non-contact unwanted 

sexual experiences (44.9%), 

approximately 1 in 2 male victims 

reported an acquaintance as a 

perpetrator (Table 2.6).

Number of Perpetrators 

in Lifetime Reports of 

Sexual Violence

Among sexual violence victims, 

the majority of both women and 

men reported one perpetrator 

in their lifetime. Almost threequarters of female rape victims 

(71.2%) reported being raped by 

one perpetrator. For female rape 

victims, 1 in 6 (16.4%) reported 

two perpetrators and 1 in 8 (12.4%) 

reported three or more perpetrators in their lifetime (Figure 2.1). 

Almost half of female victims 

(45.8%) of lifetime sexual violence 

other than rape reported one 

perpetrator, approximately 

one-quarter (23.4%) reported 

two perpetrators, and just under 

one-third (30.8%) reported three 

or more perpetrators (Figure 2.1). 

For male victims of rape and sexual 

violence other than rape, the large 

majority (86.6% and 92.1%, respectively) reported one perpetrator 

in their lifetime (data not shown). 

Too few male victims reported two 

or more perpetrators to produce a 

reliable estimate.
The majority of 

female victims of 

rape and sexual 

violence other than 

rape reported only 

male perpetrators. 

For males, the sex 

of the perpetrator 

varied across types 

of sexual violence.

Sex of Perpetrator in 

Lifetime Reports of 

Sexual Violence

Most perpetrators of all forms of 

sexual violence against women 

were male. For female rape 

victims, 98.1% reported only male 

perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of 

female victims of sexual violence 

other than rape reported only male 

perpetrators. For male victims, the 

sex of the perpetrator varied by 

the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape 

victims (93.3%) reported only male 

perpetrators. For three of the other 

forms of sexual violence, a majority 

of male victims reported only 

female perpetrators: being made to 

penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion 

(83.6%), and unwanted sexual 

contact (53.1%). For non-contact 

unwanted sexual experiences, 

approximately half of male victims 

(49.0%) reported only male perpetrators and more than one-third 

(37.7%) reported only female 

perpetrators (data not shown).

24 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Over one-quarter 

of male victims of 

completed rape 

experienced their 

first rape at or before 

the age of 10.

Most female victims 

of completed rape 

experienced their 

first rape before the 

age of 25 and almost 

half experienced 

their first completed 

rape before age 18.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 25

Age at the Time of 

First Completed Rape 

Victimization

More than three-quarters of 

female victims of completed rape 

(79.6%) were first raped before 

their 25th birthday, with 42.2% 

experiencing their first completed 

rape before the age of 18 (29.9% 

between 11-17 years old and 12.3% 

at or before age 10) (Figure 2.2). 

Approximately 1 in 7 female victims 

(14.2%) experienced their first 

completed rape between 25-34 

years of age. 

More than one-quarter of male 

victims of completed rape (27.8%) 

were first raped when they were 

10 years old or younger (data not 

shown). With the exception of the 

youngest age category (i.e., age 10 

or younger), the estimates for age 

at first completed rape for male 

victims in the other age groups 

were based upon numbers too 

small to calculate a reliable estimate 

and therefore are not reported.
More than one-third 

of women who were 

raped as minors were 

also raped as adults 

compared to 14% of 

women without an 

early rape history.

26 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Rape Victimization as a 

Minor and Subsequent 

Rape Victimization

More than one-third (35.2%) 

of the women who reported a 

completed rape before the age of 

18 also experienced a completed 

rape as an adult, compared to 

14.2% of the women who did 

not report being raped prior to 

age 18 (Figure 2.3). Thus, the 

percentage of women who were 

raped as children or adolescents 

and also raped as adults was 

more than two times higher than 

the percentage among women 

without an early rape history. 

Too few men reported rape 

victimization in adulthood to 

examine rape victimization as 

a minor and subsequent rape 

victimization in adulthood. 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 27

3: Stalking Victimization 
28 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
How NISVS Measured Stalking

Stalking victimization involves a pattern of harassing or threatening tactics used by a 

perpetrator that is both unwanted and causes fear or safety concerns in the victim. For the 

purposes of this report, a person was considered a stalking victim if they experienced multiple 

stalking tactics or a single stalking tactic multiple times by the same perpetrator and felt very 

fearful, or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed as a result 

of the perpetrator’s behavior. 

Stalking tactics measured: 

•	 Unwanted phone calls, voice or text messages, hang-ups 

•	 Unwanted emails, instant messages, messages through social media 

•	 Unwanted cards, letters, flowers, or presents 

•	 Watching or following from a distance, spying with a listening device, camera, or global 

positioning system (GPS) 

•	 Approaching or showing up in places such as the victim’s home, workplace, or school when 

it was unwanted 

•	 Leaving strange or potentially threatening items for the victim to find 

•	 Sneaking into victims’ home or car and doing things to scare the victim or let the victim 

know the perpetrator had been there

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 29

3: Stalking Victimization 

In the past decade, stalking 

victimization has received greater 

recognition as a problem affecting 

both women and men in the 

United States. Much of what 

we have learned about stalking 

is based on studies of intimate 

partner violence and special populations, such as college students 

(Fisher, et al., 2000). In recent 

years, technological advances 

have dramatically increased the 

options available for communication between people. Less 

is known about the extent to 

which newer technologies (e.g., 

text messages, emails, instant 

messages) have been used for 

stalking and harassment of others. 

Further, there are few recent 

national level estimates of stalking 

victimization (Basile, Swahn, Chen 

& Saltzman, 2006; Baum, Catalano, 

Rand, & Rose, 2009). 

This section summarizes lifetime 

and 12 month experiences of 

stalking victimization among 

women and men in the United 

States, including characteristics 

of the victimization experiences 

such as the type of perpetrator, the 

number and sex of perpetrators, 

and age at the time of the first 

stalking victimization. 

Prevalence of Stalking 

Victimization

Approximately 1 in 6 women 

(16.2%) in the United States has 

experienced stalking at some point 

in her lifetime in which she felt 

very fearful or believed that she 

or someone close to her would 

be harmed or killed as a result 

(Table 3.1).2 This translates to 

approximately 19.3 million adult 

women in the United States. About 

4%, or approximately 5.2 million 

women, were stalked in the 12 

months prior to taking the survey. 

Approximately 1 in 19 men (5.2%) 

in the United States (approximately 

5.9 million) has experienced 

stalking victimization at some 

point during his lifetime in which 

2

Legal statutes vary regarding the requirement of victim fear during a stalking episode. Similarly, there is debate in the research community about 

the necessity of requiring a criterion of fear in measures of stalking prevalence. If a criterion of fear is used, it is also not clear how much fear is 

required to be considered a victim of stalking. Similar to the National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), we used a 

conservative definition in this report to estimate stalking prevalence which required the victim to report having felt very fearful or concern that 

harm would come to the victim or someone close to him/her as a result of the perpetrator’s behavior. In stalking situations, victims may vary in 

their assessment of the danger of the situation and consequently report varying levels of fear, such as low or no fear even if the situation would 

cause a “reasonable person” to feel afraid. Using a less conservative definition of stalking, which considers any amount of fear (i.e., a little fearful, 

somewhat fearful, or very fearful), 1 in 4 women (25.0%) and 1 in 13 men (7.9%) in NISVS reported being a victim of stalking in their lifetime, with 

6.5% and 2.0% of women and men, respectively, reporting stalking in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.
1 in 6 women and 1 in 19 men in the U.S. have experienced stalking 

at some point in their lives in which they felt very fearful or believed 

that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.

Table 3.3

Lifetime Prevalence of Stalking Victimization by Race/Ethnicity1 — U.S. Men, 

NISVS 2010

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Black White Asian or Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Multiracial

Weighted %

Estimated Number 

of Victims2

5.1

829,000

6.0

750,000

5.1

3,916,000

* * * 

1

Race/ethnicity was self-identified. The American Indian or Alaska Native designation does not indicate being enrolled or affiliated with a tribe.

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

Table 3.1

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Stalking Victimization — U.S. Women and Men, 

NISVS 2010

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Women 16.2 19,327,000 4.3 5,179,000

Men 5.2 5,863,000 1.3 1,419,000 

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

Table 3.2 

Lifetime Prevalence of Stalking Victimization by Race/Ethnicity1 — U.S. Women, 

NISVS 2010

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Black White Asian or Pacific 

Islander

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

Multiracial

Weighted % 

Estimated Number 

of Victims2

15.2

2,295,000

19.6

2,848,000

16.0

12,997,000

* 22.7

197,000

30.6

414,000 

1

Race/ethnicity was self-identified. The American Indian or Alaska Native designation does not indicate being enrolled or affiliated with a tribe.

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

30 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 31

he felt very fearful or believed that 

he or someone close to him would 

be harmed or killed as a result, and 

1.3% of men (about 1.4 million) 

reported being stalked in the 12 

months prior to taking the survey. 

Prevalence of Stalking 

Victimization by Race/

Ethnicity 

In the United States, approximately 

1 in 5 Black non-Hispanic women 

experienced stalking in her lifetime 

(Table 3.2). The prevalence of 

stalking for White non-Hispanic 

and Hispanic women was similar 

(1 in 6 and 1 in 7, respectively). 

Additionally, approximately 1 in 3 

multiracial non-Hispanic and 1 in 4 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

women reported being stalked at 

some point during their lives. 

Approximately 1 in 17 Black 

non-Hispanic men in the United 

States experienced stalking in their 

lifetime (Table 3.3). The prevalence 

of stalking for White non-Hispanic 

and Hispanic men was similar 

(about 1 in 20). The estimates for 

the other racial/ethnic groups of 

men were based upon numbers too 

small to produce a reliable estimate 

and therefore are not reported.

Tactics Used in Lifetime 

Reports of Stalking 

Victimization

A variety of tactics were used 

to stalk victims. More than 

three-quarters of female stalking 

victims (78.8%) reported receiving 

unwanted phone calls, including 

voice or text messages, or hang 

ups (Figure 3.1). More than half of 

female victims (57.6%) reported 

being approached, such as at their
Two-thirds of female victims of stalking 

were stalked by intimate partners. 

Male victims were primarily stalked by 

intimate partners or acquaintances.

home or work, and more than 

one-third (38.6%) were watched, 

followed or tracked with a listening 

or other device. 

Similarly, about three-quarters 

of male victims (75.9%) reported 

receiving unwanted phone calls, 

voice or text messages, or hang ups 

(Figure 3.2). Just under half (43.5%) 

reported being approached by the 

perpetrator. Nearly one-third of 

male victims (31.0%) reported being 

watched, followed, or tracked. 

Type of Perpetrator 

in Lifetime Reports of 

Stalking Victimization

For both female and male victims, 

stalking was often committed by 

people they knew or with whom 

they had a relationship. Two-thirds 

of the female victims of stalking 

(66.2%) reported stalking by a 

current or former intimate partner 

and nearly one-quarter (24.0%) 

reported stalking by an acquaintance (Figure 3.3). About 1 in 8 

female victims (13.2%) reported 

stalking by a stranger. 

Approximately 4 out of 10 male 

stalking victims (41.4%) reported 

that they had been stalked by an 

intimate partner in their lifetime, 

with a similar proportion indicating that they had been stalked 

by an acquaintance (40.0%) (Figure 

3.4). Nearly one-fifth of male 

victims (19.0%) reported stalking 

by a stranger and 5.3% reported 

being stalked by a family member. 

32 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 33

Number of Perpetrators 

in Lifetime Reports of 

Stalking Victimization

The majority of both women 

and men reported that they 

experienced stalking from one 

perpetrator in their lifetime, 76.0% 

and 82.2%, respectively (Figure 3.5). 

Approximately 1 in 6 female victims 

(17.0%) experienced stalking by 

two perpetrators, and 1 in 14 (7.1%) 

had experienced stalking by three 

or more perpetrators. Among men, 

about 1 in 10 (9.6%) experienced 

stalking by two perpetrators.

Sex of Perpetrator in 

Lifetime Reports of 

Stalking Victimization

Among female stalking victims, 

82.5% reported being stalked by 

only male perpetrators in their 

lifetime; 8.8% reported only 

female perpetrators; and 4.6% 

reported having been stalked by 

both male and female perpetrators (data not shown). 

Among male stalking victims, 

almost half (44.3%) reported being 

stalked by only male perpetrators 

while a similar proportion (46.7%) 

reported being stalked by only 

female perpetrators. About 1 in 

18 male stalking victims (5.5%) 

reported having been stalked by 

both male and female perpetrators 

in his life (data not shown). 
More than half of 

female victims and 

more than one-third 

of male victims 

were stalked before 

the age of 25.

Age at the Time of First 

Stalking Victimization 

More than half of female victims 

and more than one-third of male 

victims of stalking indicated that 

they were stalked before the age 

of 25 (Figures 3.6 and 3.7). About 

1 in 5 female victims and 1 in 14 

male victims had experienced 

stalking between the ages of 11 

and 17. For both female and male 

victims, more than one-quarter 

(28.5% and 29.6%, respectively) 

reported that their first stalking 

victimization occurred between

25 to 34 years of age.

34 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 35

4: Violence by an Intimate Partner
36 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
How NISVS Measured Intimate Partner Violence

Five types of intimate partner violence were measured in NISVS. These include sexual 

violence, stalking, physical violence, psychological aggression, and control of reproductive/

sexual health. 

•	 Sexual violence includes rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, 

unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences as described in 

Section 2. 

•	 Physical violence includes a range of behaviors from slapping, pushing or shoving to 

severe acts such as being beaten, burned, or choked.

•	 Stalking victimization involves a pattern of harassing or threatening tactics used by a 

perpetrator that is both unwanted and causes fear or safety concerns in the victim as 

described in Section 3. 

•	 Psychological aggression includes expressive aggression (such as name calling, 

insulting or humiliating an intimate partner) and coercive control, which includes 

behaviors that are intended to monitor and control or threaten an intimate partner.

•	 Control of reproductive or sexual health includes the refusal by an intimate partner 

to use a condom. For a woman, it also includes times when a partner tried to get her 

pregnant when she did not want to become pregnant. For a man, it also includes times 

when a partner tried to get pregnant when the man did not want her to become pregnant. 

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 37

4: Violence by an Intimate Partner 

Intimate partner violence includes 

physical violence, sexual violence, 

threats of physical or sexual 

violence, stalking and psychological aggression (including 

coercive tactics) by a current or 

former intimate partner. Intimate 

partner violence may occur 

among cohabitating or noncohabitating romantic or sexual 

partners and among opposite or 

same sex couples. Previous large 

scale surveys of intimate partner 

violence have primarily examined 

only certain aspects of intimate 

partner violence (e.g., physical or 

sexual violence) or have examined 

these forms of intimate partner 

violence within the context of 

crime or public safety. More recent 

smaller scale surveys have covered 

selected populations, for example 

schools, colleges, individual states 

and, in general, have included a 

limited number of questions. By 

comparison, the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

includes a broad range of behaviorally specific questions to capture 

the full burden of physical, sexual, 

and psychological violence by an 

intimate partner, as well as stalking. 

Respondents were asked about 

their relationship at the time the 

perpetrator first committed any 

violence against them. Incidents 

perpetrated by a current or former 

intimate partner are considered 

violence by an intimate.

This section summarizes lifetime 

and 12 month experiences of 

intimate partner violence among 

women and men in the United 

States, including estimates for 

sexual violence, stalking, physical 

violence, psychological aggression (expressive aggression and 

coercive control), and control of 

reproductive or sexual health by 

an intimate partner. This section 

also includes the overlap of lifetime 

rape, physical violence, and 

stalking by an intimate partner; 

lifetime prevalence estimates 

of these forms of violence by 

self-identified race/ethnicity; and 

information on the characteristics 

of the victimization experiences, 

including the type of perpetrators, 

the number of perpetrators, and 

age at the time of the first intimate 

partner violence victimization. 

Detailed information regarding the 

impact of intimate partner violence 

is included in Section 5. 
Table 4.1

Lifetime and 12 month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking Victimization 

by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010 

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Rape 9.4 11,162,000 0.6 686,000 

Physical violence 32.9 39,167,000 4.0 4,741,000 

Stalking 10.7 12,786,000 2.8 3,353,000 

Rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking

35.6 42,420,000 5.9 6,982,000 

With IPV-related impact2,3,4 28.8 34,273,000 – –

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

2

Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any PTSD symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacting a 

crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school. 

For those who reported being raped it also includes having contracted a sexually transmitted disease or having become pregnant. 

3

IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators, without regard to the time period in which they occurred, 

and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and 

reproductive control) in that relationship.

4

By definition, all stalking incidents result in impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and concern for safety.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20. 

– 12-month prevalence of IPV-related impact was not assessed.

Table 4.2 

Lifetime and 12 month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking Victimization 

by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Rape * * * *

Physical violence 28.2 31,893,000 4.7 5,365,000 

Stalking 2.1 2,427,000 0.5 519,000 

Rape, physical violence,

and/or stalking

28.5 32,280,000 5.0 5,691,000 

With IPV-related impact2,3,4 9.9 11,214,000 – – 

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

2

Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any PTSD symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacted a 

crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school. 

For those who reported being raped it also includes having contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

3

IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators, without regard to the time period in which they occurred, 

and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and 

reproductive control) in that relationship.

4

By definition, all stalking incidents result in impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and concern for safety.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20. 

– 12-month prevalence of IPV-related impact was not assessed.

38 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 39

Prevalence of Rape, 

Physical Violence, 

and/or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

Prevalence Among Women

More than one-third of women 

in the United States (35.6% or 

approximately 42.4 million) 

have experienced rape, physical 

violence, and/or stalking by an 

intimate partner at some point 

in their lifetime (Table 4.1). One 

in 3 women (32.9%) has experienced physical violence by an 

intimate partner and nearly 1 in 

10 (9.4%) has been raped by an 

intimate partner in her lifetime. 

Approximately 5.9%, or almost 

7.0 million women in the United 

States, reported experiencing these 

forms of violence by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey. 

Nearly 3 in 10 women in the United 

States (28.8% or approximately 

34.3 million) have experienced 

rape, physical violence, and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner and 

reported at least one measured 

impact related to experiencing 

these or other forms of violent 

behavior in that relationship. The 

impact estimate is broader than 

the experience of rape, physical 

violence, and/or stalking because 

violent acts often do not occur 

in isolation and are frequently 

experienced in the context of other 

violence committed by the same 

perpetrator. More detailed information regarding the prevalence and 

distribution of IPV-related impacts 

is described in Section 5.

Prevalence Among Men

More than 1 in 4 men in the United 

States (28.5%) has experienced 

rape, physical violence, and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner at 

some point in their lifetime. Most 

of the violence reported by men 

was physical violence; only 2.1% 

reported experiencing stalking by 

an intimate partner (Table 4.2). An 

estimated 1 in 20 men in the United 

States (5.0% or about 5.7 million) 

reported experiencing rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner in the 12 

months prior to taking the survey.

About 1 in 10 men in the United 

States (9.9% or an estimated 11.2 

million) has experienced rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner and 

reported at least one measured 

impact related to these or other 

forms of violent behavior in

that relationship.

Prevalence of Intimate 

Partner Rape, Physical 

Violence, and/or 

Stalking by Race/

Ethnicity 

Prevalence Among Women

Approximately 4 out of every 10 

non-Hispanic Black women, 4 out 

of every 10 American Indian or 

Alaska Native women (43.7% and 

46.0%, respectively), and 1 in 2 

multiracial non-Hispanic women 

(53.8%) have been the victim of 

rape, physical violence, and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner in 

their lifetime (Table 4.3). Among 

the other racial/ethnic groups 

of women, about one-third of 

White non-Hispanic women 

(34.6%), more than one-third of 

Hispanic women (37.1%), and 

about one-fifth of Asian or Pacific 

Islander non-Hispanic women 

(19.6%) in the United States 

reported that they have been the 

victim of rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking by an intimate 

partner in their lifetime. 

Prevalence Among Men

Nearly half (45.3%) of American 

Indian or Alaska Native men and 

almost 4 out of every 10 Black 

and multiracial non-Hispanic men 

(38.6% and 39.3%, respectively) in 

the United States reported experiencing rape, physical violence, and/

or stalking by an intimate partner 

during their lifetime (Table 4.4).

The estimated prevalence of these 

forms of violence by an intimate 

partner among Hispanic and White 

non-Hispanic men was 26.6% and 

28.2%, respectively. 
Table 4.3 

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Race/Ethnicity1

 — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Black White

Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian or 

Alaska Native Multiracial 

Rape Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims2

8.4

1,273,000

12.2

1,768,000

9.2

7,475,000

* * 20.1

273,000

Physical violence Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims2

35.2

5,317,000

40.9

5,955,000

31.7

25,746,000

* 45.9

399,000

50.4

683,000

Stalking Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims2

10.6

1,599,000

14.6

2,123,000

10.4

8,402,000

* * 18.9

256,000

Rape, physical 

violence, and/

or stalking

Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims2

37.1

5,596,000

43.7

6,349,000

34.6

28,053,000

19.6

1,110,000

46.0

400,000

53.8

729,000

1

Race/ethnicity was self-identified. The American Indian or Alaska Native designation does not indicate being enrolled or affiliated with a tribe.

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20. 

Table 4.4 

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Race/Ethnicity1

 — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Black White

Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian or 

Alaska Native Multiracial 

Rape Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims2

* * * * * *

Physical violence Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims2

26.5

4,277,000

36.8

4,595,000

28.1

21,524,000

8.4

428,000

45.3

365,000

38.8

507,000

Stalking Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims2

* * 1.7

1,282,000

* * *

Rape, physical 

violence, and/

or stalking

Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims2

26.6

4,331,000

38.6

4,820,000

28.2

21,596,000

* 45.3

365,000

39.3

513,000

1

Race/ethnicity was self-identified. The American Indian or Alaska Native designation does not indicate being enrolled or affiliated with a tribe.

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

* Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20. 

40 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Nearly 1 in 10 women 

in the U.S. has been 

raped by an intimate 

partner in her lifetime.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 41

Overlap of Rape, 

Physical Violence, and 

Stalking in Lifetime 

Reports of Violence by 

an Intimate Partner

Among all women who experienced rape, physical violence, and/

or stalking by an intimate partner 

in their lifetime, 63.8% experienced 

one form of violence by an intimate 

partner; 56.8% experienced 

physical violence alone, 4.4% 

experienced rape alone, and 2.6% 

experienced stalking alone (Figure 

4.1). Approximately 8.7% experienced rape and physical violence, 

14.4% experienced physical 

violence and stalking, and 12.5% 

experienced all three forms of IPV.

Among all men who experienced 

rape, physical violence, and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner in 

their lifetime, approximately 92% 

experienced physical violence 

alone, while 6.3% experienced 

both physical violence and stalking 

by an intimate partner (Figure 

4.2). Too few men reported rape 

or other combinations of intimate 

partner violence to produce a 

reliable estimate. 
Table 4.5 

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner —

U.S. Women, NISVS 2010

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Rape 9.4 11,162,000 0.6 686,000

Completed forced penetration 6.6 7,859,000 0.4 472,000

Attempted forced penetration 2.5 2,975,000 * *

Completed alcohol/drug facilitated 3.4 4,098,000 * *

Other Sexual Violence 16.9 18,973,000 2.3 2,747,000

Made to penetrate * * * *

Sexual coercion2 9.8 11,681,000 1.7 1,978,000

Unwanted sexual contact3 6.4 7,633,000 0.5 645,000

Non-contact unwanted sexual 

experiences4

7.8 9,298,000 0.7 836,000

1

 Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

2

Pressured in a non-physical way (includes, for example, threatening to end the relationship, using influence or authority).

3

Includes unwanted kissing in a sexual way, fondling or grabbing sexual body parts.

4

Includes, for example, exposing sexual body parts, being made to look at or participate in sexual photos or movies, harassed in a public place 

in a way that felt unsafe.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

Sexual Violence by an 

Intimate Partner

Prevalence Among Women

Nearly 1 out of 10 women in the 

United States (9.4% or approximately 11.1 million) has been 

raped by an intimate partner in her 

lifetime (Table 4.5). More specifically, 6.6% of women reported 

completed forced penetration by 

an intimate partner, 2.5% reported 

attempted forced penetration, 

and 3.4% reported alcohol/drug 

facilitated rape. Approximately 1 

in 6 women (16.9% or nearly 19 

million) has experienced sexual 

violence other than rape by an 

intimate partner in her lifetime; this 

includes sexual coercion (9.8%), 

unwanted sexual contact (6.4%) 

and non-contact unwanted sexual 

experiences (7.8%). 

In the 12 months prior to taking 

the survey, 0.6% or an estimated 

686,000 women in the United States 

indicated that they were raped by 

an intimate partner, and 2.3% or an 

estimated 2.7 million women experienced other forms of sexual violence 

by an intimate partner.

Prevalence Among Men

Too few men reported rape by 

an intimate partner to produce 

reliable prevalence estimates. 

Approximately 1 in 12 men in the 

United States (8.0% or approximately 9 million) has experienced 

sexual violence other than rape by 

an intimate partner in his lifetime 

(Table 4.6). This includes being 

made to penetrate an intimate 

partner (2.2%), sexual coercion 

(4.2%), unwanted sexual contact 

(2.6%) and non-contact unwanted 

sexual experiences (2.7%). In the 12 

months prior to taking the survey, 

2.5% or nearly 2.8 million men 

experienced sexual violence other 

than rape by an intimate partner.

42 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 4.6

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner —

U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Rape2 * * * *

Other Sexual Violence 8.0 9,050,000 2.5 2,793,000

Made to penetrate 2.2 2,442,000 0.5 586,000

Sexual coercion3 4.2 4,744,000 1.0 1,143,000

Unwanted sexual contact4 2.6 2,999,000 0.9 1,031,000

Non-contact unwanted sexual 

experiences5

2.7 3,049,000 0.8 882,000 

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

2

Includes completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, and completed alcohol/drug-facilitated rape.

3

Pressured in a non-physical way (includes, for example, threatening to end the relationship, using influence or authority). 

4

Includes unwanted kissing in a sexual way, fondling or grabbing sexual body parts.

5

Includes, for example, exposing sexual body parts, being made to look at or participate in sexual photos or movies, harassed in a public place 

in a way that felt unsafe.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

Approximately 1 in 4 

women and nearly 1 in 

7 men in the U.S. have 

experienced severe 

physical violence by 

an intimate partner 

at some point in 

their lifetime.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 43

Physical Violence by an 

Intimate Partner

Prevalence Among Women

Nearly 1 in 3 women (30.3%) in the 

United States has been slapped, 

pushed or shoved by an intimate 

partner at some point in her 

lifetime. This translates to approximately 36.2 million women in the 

United States. An estimated 3.6%, or 

approximately 4.3 million women, 

reported experiencing these behaviors in the 12 months prior to taking 

the survey (Table 4.7).

Approximately 1 in 4 women in 

the United States (24.3%) has 

experienced severe physical 

violence by an intimate partner in 

her lifetime, translating to nearly 

29 million women. An estimated 

17.2% of women have been 

slammed against something by a 

partner, 14.2% have been hit with 

a fist or something hard, and 11.2% 

reported that they have been 

beaten by an intimate partner in 

their lifetime. An estimated 2.7%, or 

approximately 3.2 million women, 

reported experiencing severe 

physical violence by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey.
Table 4.7

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner —

U.S. Women, NISVS 2010

Behavior Experienced

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Slapped, pushed or shoved 30.3 36,164,000 3.6 4,322,000 

Slapped 20.4 24,282,000 1.6 1,851,000 

Pushed or shoved 27.5 32,783,000 3.4 4,028,000 

Any severe physical violence 24.3 28,981,000 2.7 3,163,000 

Hurt by pulling hair 10.4 12,416,000 0.8 897,000

Hit with a fist or something hard 14.2 16,923,000 1.1 1,289,000 

Kicked 7.1 8,403,000 0.3 373,000 

Slammed against something 17.2 20,467,000 1.5 1,843,000 

Tried to hurt by choking or 

suffocating

9.7 11,605,000 0.9 1,121,000 

Beaten 11.2 13,386,000 0.7 822,000

Burned on purpose 1.1 1,286,000 * *

Used a knife or gun 4.6 5,519,000 * * 

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

Prevalence Among Men

Approximately 1 in 4 men in the 

United States (25.7% or about 29 

million) has been slapped, pushed 

or shoved by an intimate partner 

in his lifetime, and 4.5% or approximately 5 million men, reported 

experiencing these behaviors in 

the 12 months prior to taking the 

survey (Table 4.8). 

Nearly 1 in 7 men in the United 

States (13.8% or approximately 15.6 

million) has experienced severe 

physical violence by an intimate 

partner in his lifetime. About 9.4% 

of men have been hit with a fist 

or something hard by an intimate 

partner, 4.3% reported being 

kicked, and less than 3% reported 

each of the other forms of severe 

violence by an intimate partner in 

their lifetime. Two percent of men 

(approximately 2.3 million men) 

reported experiencing severe 

physical violence by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey. 

Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner

Approximately 1 in 10 women in 

the United States (10.7% or an 

estimated 12.7 million) has been 

stalked by an intimate partner in 

her lifetime, and 2.8% or about 3.3 

million, reported being stalked 

by an intimate partner during 

the 12 months prior to taking the 

survey (data not shown). More 

than three-quarters of the women 

who reported being stalked by an 

intimate partner in their lifetime 

reported receiving unwanted 

phone calls or text messages 

(77.4%), nearly two-thirds (64.8%) 

reported that a current or former 

intimate partner showed up at 

their home, workplace or school 

when they didn’t want them to 

be there, and 37.4% reported 

being watched or followed by a 

44 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 4.8

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner —

U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Behavior Experienced

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number 

of Victims1

Slapped, pushed or shoved 25.7 29,064,000 4.5 5,066,000

Slapped 18.3 20,717,000 2.7 3,103,000

Pushed or shoved 19.4 21,953,000 3.8 4,253,000 

Any severe physical violence 13.8 15,581,000 2.0 2,266,000

Hurt by pulling hair 2.9 3,331,000 0.3 390,000

Hit with fist or something hard 9.4 10,695,000 1.4 1,555,000

Kicked 4.3 4,817,000 0.7 737,000

Slammed against something 2.7 3,004,000 0.4 459,000

Tried to hurt by choking or 

suffocating

1.1 1,259,000 * *

Beaten 2.6 2,982,000 0.3 376,000

Burned on purpose 0.6 654,000 * *

Used a knife or gun 2.8 3,121,000 * * 

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 45

current or former intimate partner.

Approximately 2.1% of men in the 

United States (2.4 million) were 

stalked by an intimate partner 

during their lifetime, and 0.5% 

(approximately 519,000 men) 

reported being stalked during 

the 12 months prior to taking 

the survey (data not shown). The 

most frequently reported stalking 

behaviors by an intimate partner 

were unwanted phone calls or 

text messages (83.7%); being 

approached or having a current or 

former intimate partner show up 

at their home, workplace or school 

when they didn’t want them to be 

there (52.1%), and being watched 

or followed by a current or former 

intimate partner (52.1%). 

Psychological 

Aggression by an 

Intimate Partner

Prevalence Among Women

Nearly half of all women in 

the United States (48.4% or 

approximately 57.6 million) have 

experienced at least one form 

of psychological aggression by 

an intimate partner during their 

lifetime, with 4 in 10 (40.3%) 

reporting some form of expressive aggression (e.g., their partner 

acted angry in a way that seemed 

dangerous, told them they were 

a loser or a failure, insulted or 

humiliated them), or some form 

of coercive control (41.1%) by an 

intimate partner (Table 4.9). 

Nearly 1 in 7 women in the United 

States (13.9% or approximately 

16.6 million) reported experiencing 

psychological aggression by an 

intimate partner in the 12 months 

prior to taking the survey. The prevalence of expressive aggression 

or coercive control by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey was similar at 

10.4% and 10.7%, respectively. 

Prevalence Among Men

Nearly half of men in the United 

States (48.8% or approximately 55.2 

million) have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate 

partner during their lifetime (Table 

4.10). Approximately one-third 

(31.9%) experienced some form of 

expressive aggression and about 
Table 4.10 

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner —

U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Behavior Experienced

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims1 Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Any Psychological 

Aggression

48.8 55,249,000 18.1 20,548,000

Any expressive aggression 31.9 36,186,000 9.3 10,573,000

Any coercive control 42.5 48,105,000 15.2 17,253,000

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

Table 4.9

Lifetime and 12 Month Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner —

U.S. Women, NISVS 2010

Behavior Experienced

Lifetime 12 Month

Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims1 Weighted %

Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Any Psychological 

Aggression 

48.4 57,613,000 13.9 16,578,000 

Any expressive aggression 40.3 47,994,000 10.4 12,334,000 

Any coercive control 41.1 48,972,000 10.7 12,689,000

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

4 in 10 (42.5%) experienced 

coercive control. Nearly 1 in 5 men 

(18.1%) experienced at least one 

of these behaviors by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months prior to 

taking the survey; 9.3% experienced expressive aggression and 

15.2% experienced coercive control. 

Psychologically Aggressive 

Behaviors Experienced by 

Female Victims

Among female victims of psychological aggression, the most 

commonly reported behaviors were 

expressive forms of aggression 

such as being called names like 

ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid (64.3%), 

witnessing an intimate partner 

act angry in a way that seemed 

dangerous (57.9%), and being 

insulted, humiliated, or made fun 

of (58.0%) (Figure 4.3). Being kept 

track of by demanding to know her 

whereabouts (61.7%) was also a 

commonly reported behavior. 

Psychologically Aggressive 

Behaviors Experienced by 

Male Victims 

Among male victims of psychological aggression, the most 

commonly reported forms were: 

being kept track of by demanding 

to know his whereabouts (63.1%); 

being called names such as ugly, 

fat, crazy, or stupid (51.6%); being 

told he was a loser, a failure, or not 

good enough (42.4%); witnessing 

an intimate partner act angry in 

a way that seemed dangerous 

(40.4%); and being insulted, 

humiliated, or made fun of (39.4%) 

(Figure 4.4).

46 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 47
Nearly half of women 

and men in the U.S. 

have experienced 

psychological 

aggression by an 

intimate partner 

in their lifetime.

48 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Prevalence of Control 

of Reproductive or 

Sexual Health by an 

Intimate Partner 

Approximately 8.6% (or an 

estimated 10.3 million) of women 

in the United States reported ever 

having an intimate partner who 

tried to get them pregnant when 

they did not want to, or refused to 

use a condom, with 4.8% having 

had an intimate partner who tried 

to get them pregnant when they 

did not want to, and 6.7% having 

had an intimate partner who 

refused to wear a condom (data 

not shown). 

Approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 million) of men in the 

United States reported ever having 

an intimate partner who tried to 

get pregnant when they did not 

want to or tried to stop them from 

using birth control, with 8.7% 

having had an intimate partner 

who tried to get pregnant when 

they did not want to or tried to 

stop them from using birth control 

and 3.8% having had an intimate 

partner who refused to wear a 

condom (data not shown). 

Victim-Perpetrator 

Relationship in Lifetime 

Reports of Violence by 

an Intimate Partner

Approximately 86.1% of women 

and 83.6% of men who experienced rape, physical violence, and/

or stalking by an intimate partner 

during their lifetime reported 

that the perpetrator was a current 

intimate partner at the time when 

the violence first occurred, while 

less than a quarter (21.9% and 

23.1%, respectively) experienced 

one of these forms of intimate 

partner violence by someone who 

was a former intimate partner at 

the time the violence first occurred 

(data not shown).

Number of Perpetrators 

in Lifetime Reports of 

Violence by an Intimate 

Partner 

The majority of women (70.8%) 

who ever experienced rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner reported 

being victimized by one partner, 

20.9% were victimized by two 

partners and 8.3% were victimized 

by three or more partners. Similarly, 

the majority of men (73.1%) 

reported being victimized by one 

partner, 18.6% were victimized by 

two partners and 8.3% were victimized by three or more partners 

(data not shown).
1 in 5 women and 

nearly 1 in 7 men who 

ever experienced rape, 

physical violence, 

and/or stalking by 

an intimate partner, 

first experienced 

some form of intimate 

partner violence 

between 11 and 

17 years of age.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 49

Age at the Time of First 

IPV Experience among 

those who Experienced 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

and/or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

Among women who ever experienced rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking by an intimate 

partner, more than 1 in 5 women 

(22.4%) experienced some form 

of intimate partner violence for 

the first time between the ages 

of 11 and 17 years (Figure 4.5). 

Nearly half (47.1%) were between 

18 and 24 years of age when they 

first experienced violence by an 

intimate partner. 

Among men who ever experienced 

rape, physical violence, and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner, 

15.0% experienced some form of 

IPV between the ages of 11 and 

17 years (Figure 4.6). In addition, 

38.6% were between the ages of 18 

and 24 when they first experienced 

violence by an intimate partner.
50 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 51

5: Impact of Intimate Partner Violence
52 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
How NISVS Measured the Impact of Intimate Partner Violence

For each perpetrator of intimate partner violence, respondents were asked about whether 

they had experienced:

•	 being fearful

•	 being concerned for safety

•	 symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 

- having nightmares

- trying hard not to think about it or avoiding being reminded of it

- feeling constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled

- feeling numb or detached from others, activities, or surroundings

•	 being injured

•	 needing healthcare as a result of the intimate partner violence experienced

•	 needing housing services

•	 needing victim’s advocate services

•	 needing legal services

•	 contacting a crisis hotline

•	 missing days of work or school because of the intimate partner violence experienced

•	 for those reporting rape by an intimate partner – contracting a sexually 

transmitted infection or becoming pregnant (for women)

The questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators, without regard to the time 

period in which they occurred. Because violent acts often do not occur in isolation and are 

frequently experienced in the context of other violence committed by the same perpetrator, 

questions regarding the impact of the violence were asked in relation to all forms of violence 

(sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and 

reproductive control) committed by the perpetrator in that relationship. Such information 

provides a better understanding of how individual and cumulative experiences of violence 

interact to result in harm to victims and provides a more nuanced understanding of the 

overall impact of violence.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 53

5: Impact of Intimate Partner Violence

Factors beyond whether a person 

has ever experienced intimate 

partner violence are important to 

measure and understand in order 

to achieve a more complete picture 

of the true burden of intimate 

partner violence. Evidence from 

several studies suggests a doseresponse effect of violence; as the 

frequency and severity of violence 

increases, the impact of the 

violence on the health of victims 

also becomes increasingly severe 

(Campbell, 2002; Cox, Coles, Nortje, 

Bradley, Chatfield, Thompson, & 

Menon, 2006). However, given that 

intimate partner violence victimization can range from a single act 

experienced once to multiple acts, 

including acts of severe violence 

over the course of many years, it is 

difficult to represent the variation 

in severity experienced by victims 

in a straightforward manner. To 

this end, NISVS included a number 

of questions to assess a range of 

impacts that victims of intimate 

partner violence may have experienced. This information provides 

not only a measure of the severity 

of the violence experienced, but 

also documents the magnitude of 

negative impacts to better focus 

preventive services and response. 

Impact was measured using a set 

of indicators that represent a range 

of direct impacts that may be 

experienced by victims of intimate 

partner violence. IPV-related 

impact was assessed in relation 

to specific perpetrators, without 

regard to the time period in which 

impact occurred, and asked in 

relation to the forms of intimate 

partner violence experienced 

(sexual violence, physical violence, 

stalking, expressive aggression, 

coercive control, and control of 

reproductive or sexual health) in 

that relationship. 
Table 5.1 

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner With 

IPV-Related Impact — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010 

Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims1

Any Reported IPV-Related Impact 2,3,4 28.8 34,273,000

Fearful 25.7 30,611,000

Concerned for safety 22.2 26,448,000

Any PTSD symptoms5 22.3 26,546,000

Injury 14.8 17,640,000

Needed medical care 7.9 9,362,000

Needed housing services 2.4 2,911,000

Needed victim’s advocate services 2.7 3,195,000

Needed legal services 7.6 8,998,000

Contacted a crisis hotline 2.1 2,496,000

Missed at least one day of work/school 10.0 11,887,000

Contracted a sexually transmitted disease6 1.5 1,804,000

Became pregnant6 1.7 2,053,000

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

2

Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any PTSD symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacting a 

crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school. 

For those who reported being raped it also includes having contracted a sexually transmitted disease or having become pregnant. 

3

IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators, without regard to the time period in which they occurred, 

and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and 

control of reproductive or sexual health) in that relationship; 12-month prevalence of IPV-related impact was not assessed.

4

By definition, all stalking incidents result in impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and concern for safety.

5

Includes: nightmares; tried not to think about or avoided being reminded of; felt constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled; felt numb or detached.

6

Asked only of those who reported rape by an intimate partner.

Nearly 3 in 10 women 

and 1 in 10 men in the 

U.S. have experienced 

rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking by 

an intimate partner 

and reported at least 

one measured impact 

related to these or 

other forms of violence 

in that relationship.

Prevalence of Rape, 

Physical Violence, 

and/or Stalking with 

IPV-Related Impact 

Prevalence Among Women

Nearly 3 in 10 women in the United 

States (28.8% or approximately 

34.2 million) have experienced 

rape, physical violence, and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner and 

reported at least one measured 

impact related to experiencing 

these or other forms of violent 

behavior in that relationship (Table 

5.1). Approximately one-quarter 

of women reported being fearful 

(25.7%), and more than 1 in 5 

reported being concerned for their 

safety (22.2%), or reported at least 

one post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) symptom (22.3%) as a result 

of the violence experienced. More 

than 1 in 7 (14.8%) experienced an 

injury, while 1 in 10 (10.0%) missed 

at least one day of work or school 

as a result of these or other forms 

of intimate partner violence. 

54 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Approximately 1 in 

7 women and 1 in 

25 men were injured 

as a result of IPV 

that included rape, 

physical violence, 

and/or stalking by 

an intimate partner.

Table 5.2 

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner With 

IPV-Related Impact — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims1

Any Reported IPV-Related Impact2,3,4 9.9 11,214,000

Fearful 5.2 5,925,000

Concerned for safety 4.5 5,080,000

Any PTSD symptoms5 4.7 5,304,000

Injury 4.0 4,489,000

Needed medical care 1.6 1,773,000

Needed housing services 0.4 489,000

Needed victim’s advocate services * *

Needed legal services 3.1 3,477,000

Contacted a crisis hotline * *

Missed at least one day of work/school 3.9 4,397,000

Contracted a sexually transmitted disease6 * * 

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

2

Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any PTSD symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacting a 

crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school. 

For those who reported being raped it also includes having contracted a sexually transmitted disease. 

3

IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators, without regard to the time period in which they occurred, 

and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and 

control of reproductive or sexual health) in that relationship; 12-month prevalence of IPV-related impact was not assessed.

4

By definition, all stalking incidents result in impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and concern for safety.

5

Includes: nightmares; tried not to think about or avoided being reminded of; felt constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled; felt numb or detached.

6

Asked only of those who reported rape by an intimate partner.

* Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 55

Prevalence Among Men

Approximately 1 in 10 men in the 

United States (9.9% or an estimated 

11.2 million) has experienced 

rape, physical violence, and/or 

stalking by an intimate partner and 

reported at least one measured 

impact related to these or other 

forms of violent behavior in that 

relationship (Table 5.2). One in 

20 men (5.2%) was fearful as a 

result of the violence experienced. 

Approximately 1 in 25 men (4.0%) 

experienced injury, and nearly 1 in 

25 men (3.9%) missed at least one 

day of work or school as a result 

of these or other forms of intimate 

partner violence. 
Among victims 

of rape, physical 

violence, and/

or stalking by an 

intimate partner, 

approximately 6 out 

of 10 women and 1 

in 6 men reported 

being concerned for 

their safety because 

of the violence in 

that relationship.

56 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Distribution of 

IPV-Related Impacts 

Among Victims

Distribution Among Female 

Victims

Among female victims of rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner, approximately 8 in 10 (80.8%) experienced at least one of the impacts 

measured in the survey from these 

or other forms of intimate partner 

violence in that relationship (Figure 

5.1). Specifically, 72.2% of victims 

were fearful, 62.3% were concerned 

for their safety, 62.6% experienced 

at least one post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD) symptom, 41.6% 

were injured as a result of the 

violence, and 28.0% missed at least 

one day of work or school. 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 57

Distribution Among Male 

Victims

Among male victims of rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner, more than 

1 in 3 (34.7%) experienced at least 

one of the impacts measured in 

the survey from these or other 

forms of intimate partner violence 

in that relationship (Figure 5.2). 

Specifically, 18.4% of victims were 

fearful, 15.7% were concerned for 

their safety, 16.4% experienced 

at least one post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD) symptom, 13.9% 

were injured as a result of the 

violence, and 13.6% missed at least 

one day of work or school. 
58 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 59

6: Physical and Mental Health 

Outcomes by Victimization History
60 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
How NISVS Measured Health Outcomes

Before being asked about sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence, all survey 

participants were asked the following health related questions: 

•	 Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you had...

- Asthma?

- Irritable bowel syndrome or IBS?

- Diabetes?

- High blood pressure?

•	 Do you have... 

- Frequent headaches?

- Chronic pain?

- Difficulty sleeping?

•	 Are any of your activities limited in any way because of physical, mental, or emotional 

problems?

•	 Would you say that in general your physical health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?

•	 Would you say that in general your mental health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 61

6: Physical and Mental Health Outcomes 

by Victimization History

Previous research suggests that 

victims of intimate partner and 

sexual violence make more visits to 

health providers over their lifetime, 

have more hospital stays, have 

longer duration of hospital stays, 

and are at risk of a wide range of 

physical, mental, reproductive, and 

other health consequences over 

their lifetime than non-victims 

(Basile & Smith, 2011; Black, 2011). 

Many studies have documented 

increased risk for a number of 

adverse physical, mental, reproductive, and other health outcomes 

among those who have experienced intimate partner violence 

and sexual violence. A smaller body 

of research has also documented 

that stalking has a negative 

impact on health (Davis, Coker, & 

Sanderson, 2002). Most studies that 

have evaluated the adverse health 

impact of intimate partner violence 

and sexual violence are based on 

female victims of such violence; 

less is known about the risk for 

adverse health events among men 

(Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 2008; 

Smith & Breiding, 2011).

The cross-sectional nature 

of NISVS does not allow for a 

determination of causality or the 

temporal precedence of violence 

victimization and associated 

health outcomes. However, there 

may be a number of potential 

mechanisms by which violence 

is related to health over one’s 

lifetime (Black, 2011). For example, 

some health conditions may result 

directly from a physical injury. 

Other health conditions may result 

from the adoption of health-risk 

coping behaviors such as smoking 

and the harmful use of alcohol 

or drugs (Campbell, 2002; Coker, 

Davis, Arias, Desai, Sanderson, 

Brandt, & Smith, 2002). Another 

explanation for the association 

between violence victimization 

and poor health is the harmful 

biologic response to chronic stress 

associated with experiences of 

violence (Sutherland, Bybee, & 

Sullivan, 2002).

This section compares the prevalence of various health outcomes 

among persons with a lifetime 

history of rape by any perpetrator, 

stalking by any perpetrator, or 

physical violence by an intimate 

partner in relation to those who 

have not experienced these forms 

of violence in their lifetime. 
Table 6.1 

Prevalence of Physical and Mental Health Outcomes Among Those With and Without a 

History of Rape or Stalking by any Perpetrator or Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner 

— U.S. Women, NISVS 2010

 Weighted %

Health Outcome History No History1 p value2

Asthma 23.7 14.3 <.001

Irritable Bowel Syndrome 12.4 6.9 <.001

Diabetes 12.6 10.2 <.001

High Blood Pressure 27.3 27.5 n.s.3

Frequent Headaches 28.7 16.5 <.001

Chronic Pain 29.8 16.5 <.001

Difficulty Sleeping 37.7 21.0 <.001

Activity Limitations 35.0 19.7 <.001

Poor Physical Health 6.4 2.4 <.001

Poor Mental Health 3.4 1.1 <.001

1

No history of rape, stalking, or intimate partner physical violence

2

p-value determined using chi-square test of independence in SUDAANTM 

3

Non-significant difference

Prevalence of 

Physical and Mental 

Health Outcomes by 

Victimization History

Prevalence Among Women

With the exception of high 

blood pressure, the prevalence 

of adverse mental and physical 

health outcomes was significantly 

higher among women with a 

history of rape or stalking by any 

perpetrator, or physical violence by 

an intimate partner, compared to 

women without a history of these 

forms of violence (Table 6.1). This 

includes a higher reported prevalence of asthma, irritable bowel 

syndrome, diabetes, frequent 

headaches, chronic pain, difficulty 

sleeping, and activity limitations. 

The percentage of women who 

considered their physical or mental 

health to be poor was almost three 

times higher among women with 

a history of violence compared 

to women who have not experienced these forms of violence. The 

observed differences in the prevalence of health outcomes were in 

most cases quite large. The largest 

differences in prevalence of health 

outcomes between those with and 

without a violence history were 

observed for difficulty sleeping, 

activity limitations, chronic pain, 

and frequent headaches. 

Prevalence Among Men

Compared to men without a 

history of rape or stalking by any 

perpetrator, or physical violence 

by an intimate partner, men with 

such histories had significantly 

higher prevalence of frequent 

headaches, chronic pain, difficulty 

sleeping, activity limitations, and 

consider their physical and mental 

health to be poor (Table 6.2). There 

were no significant differences 

between the two groups of men in 

the prevalence of asthma, irritable 

bowel syndrome, diabetes, or high 

blood pressure.

62 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 6.2 

Prevalence of Physical and Mental Health Outcomes Among Those With and Without A 

History of Rape or Stalking by Any Perpetrator or Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner 

— U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

Weighted %

Health Outcome History No History1 p value2

Asthma 14.5 12.9 n.s.3

Irritable Bowel Syndrome 4.4 3.5 n.s.3

Diabetes 10.0 10.5 n.s.3

High Blood Pressure 30.1 29.3 n.s.3

Frequent Headaches 17.0 8.9 <.001

Chronic Pain 23.5 13.1 <.001

Difficulty Sleeping 33.0 18.4 <.001

Activity Limitations 29.7 17.9 <.001

Poor Physical Health 5.1 2.6 <.001

Poor Mental Health 2.7 1.2 <.01

1

No history of rape, stalking, or intimate partner physical violence 

2

p-value determined using chi-square test of independence in SUDAANTM

3

Non-significant difference

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 63
64 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 65

7: Sexual Violence, Stalking, and 

Intimate Partner Violence by State
66 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 67

7: Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate 

Partner Violence by State

The National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey is designed 

to provide data for states as well 

as the nation. Although some 

individual states have collected 

data at various points during 

the past decade, most states do 

not have state prevalence data 

on sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence. Statelevel data on these forms of 

violence help to define the nature 

and burden of the problem within 

a state and can be used to inform 

prevention planning and response. 

They can also help guide and 

evaluate progress toward reducing 

the substantial health, social, and 

economic costs associated with 

sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence. 

Lifetime estimates of the prevalence of sexual violence, stalking, 

and intimate partner violence are 

presented by state in this section. 

These estimates reflect the proportion of people in a given state 

population with a history of sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence. The lifetime 

victimization experiences reported 

by individuals in a given state may 

include violence that occurred elsewhere. These estimates, however, 

provide important information 

about the proportion of women 

and men with victimization histories currently residing in a state. 

Given the potential long-term 

health consequences of victimization and the likelihood of ongoing 

health and service needs, these 

estimates can help states better 

understand the burden of violence 

in their populations. This information can also be used to inform 

prevention planning, resource 

allocation, and advocacy efforts. 

Separate tables are provided for 

women and men. When reportable, 

prevalence estimates are presented 

for rape, sexual violence other 

than rape, and stalking by any 

perpetrator. State-level prevalence 

estimates of rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking by an intimate 

partner are also provided along with 

the prevalence of lifetime intimate 

partner violence victimization with 

IPV-related impact. State-level 12 

month estimates of sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence are not included in this 

first report due to small numbers. In 

order to be able to provide reliable 

state-level annual estimates, many 

of the 12 month prevalence rates 

will be released in subsequent 

reports as moving averages over 

multiple years.

The findings in the detailed state 

tables show a range in lifetime 

victimization experiences of rape, 

sexual violence other than rape, 

and intimate partner violence 

across states. Lifetime estimates 

for women ranged from 11.4% 

to 29.2% for rape; 28.9% to 58% 

for sexual violence other than 

rape; and 25.3% to 49.1% for rape, 

physical violence, and/or stalking 

by an intimate partner. For men, 

lifetime estimates ranged from 

10.8% to 33.7% for sexual violence 

other than rape; and 17.4% to 

41.2% for rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking by an intimate 

partner. Confidence intervals for 

these estimates are available at 

www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/

nisvs. For women, the percentage 

reporting rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking by an intimate 

partner and experiencing at least 

one measured impact from these 

or other forms of violence in the 

relationship ranged from 19.3% to 

39.5%. Data on IPV-related impact 

for men are not reported due to 

small numbers resulting in unreliable estimates. 

When reviewing state level data 

it is important to recognize that 

although there are variations 

between states, the purpose in 

presenting these data is not to 

compare states but rather to help 

states understand the burden of 

the problem in their populations. 

The states, themselves, vary in a 

number of ways, including in their 

demographic characteristics (e.g., 

age distribution), social, economic 

and cultural characteristics, as well 

as external stressors (e.g., economic 

downturn, job loss, poverty), and 

other factors. 
Sexual Violence Victimization among Women

Table 7.1 

Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Violence by Any Perpetrator by State of Residence — U.S.

Women, NISVS 2010

Rape Sexual Violence Other Than Rape

State Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

United States Total 18.3 21,840,000 44.6 53,174,000

Alabama 17.1 321,000 39.3 737,000

Alaska 29.2 72,000 58.0 143,000

Arizona 18.0 441,000 43.6 1,064,000

Arkansas 20.4 230,000 42.2 475,000

California 14.6 2,024,000 40.7 5,634,000

Colorado 23.8 451,000 47.4 897,000

Connecticut 22.1 310,000 48.6 683,000

Delaware 14.2 50,000 34.9 123,000

District of Columbia * * 43.0 112,000

Florida 17.0 1,266,000 41.8 3,111,000

Georgia 17.6 655,000 46.4 1,731,000

Hawaii * * 41.9 210,000

Idaho 18.6 105,000 46.9 265,000

Illinois 18.6 930,000 50.6 2,526,000

Indiana 20.4 505,000 43.9 1,091,000

Iowa 16.9 198,000 33.1 389,000

Kansas 15.6 168,000 39.4 424,000

Kentucky 20.3 345,000 47.7 812,000

68 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

For information on how sexual 

violence and stalking were 

measured in NISVS, refer to Sections 

2 and 3, respectively. For more 

information regarding how intimate 

partner violence was measured, 

refer to Section 4. For information 

regarding how IPV-related impact 

was measured, refer to Section 5. 

The prevalence estimates reported 

in Table 7.6 for women represent 

the percentage of women who 

experienced rape, physical violence, 

and/or stalking and reported 

experiencing at least one of the 

impacts measured as a result of 

these or other forms of intimate 

partner violence in a specific 

relationship. To provide a point of 

reference, the U.S. total is provided 

in the first row in each table.
Table 7.1 — continued

Rape Sexual Violence Other Than Rape

State Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Weighted % Estimated Number of 

Victims1

Louisiana 15.9 280,000 28.9 509,000

Maine 17.3 94,000 42.5 231,000

Maryland 20.5 466,000 54.9 1,248,000

Massachusetts 15.1 406,000 41.1 1,105,000

Michigan 25.6 1,005,000 45.2 1,773,000

Minnesota 22.2 452,000 48.4 982,000

Mississippi * * 33.8 387,000

Missouri 17.5 413,000 39.8 939,000

Montana 18.5 70,000 40.2 153,000

Nebraska 18.8 129,000 47.5 325,000

Nevada 26.1 252,000 48.0 463,000

New Hampshire 23.5 125,000 51.2 272,000

New Jersey * * 46.7 1,606,000

New Mexico 19.5 149,000 49.0 374,000

New York 17.7 1,398,000 48.2 3,798,000

North Carolina 21.6 794,000 51.0 1,875,000

North Dakota 19.3 48,000 30.6 77,000

Ohio 16.2 743,000 41.2 1,886,000

Oklahoma 24.9 353,000 48.0 680,000

Oregon 27.2 409,000 55.7 837,000

Pennsylvania 18.8 960,000 45.3 2,313,000

Rhode Island 14.8 64,000 34.9 151,000

South Carolina 15.0 273,000 45.9 831,000

South Dakota * * 38.7 120,000 

Tennessee 13.6 340,000 44.4 1,108,000

Texas 21.7 1,963,000 46.5 4,201,000

Utah 18.1 174,000 47.8 459,000

Vermont 15.4 39,000 43.3 110,000

Virginia 11.4 354,000 42.0 1,302,000

Washington 23.7 608,000 53.2 1,367,000

West Virginia 18.9 139,000 35.9 265,000

Wisconsin 17.7 390,000 41.3 912,000

Wyoming 22.2 45,000 43.8 89,000

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

* Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 69
Sexual Violence Victimization Other than Rape among Men

Table 7.2 

Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Violence Other Than Rape1 by Any Perpetrator by State of 

Residence — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

State Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims2

United States Total 22.2 25,130,000

Alabama 21.5 367,000

Alaska 17.9 48,000

Arizona 25.9 627,000

Arkansas 18.5 195,000

California 22.1 3,015,000

Colorado 26.5 505,000

Connecticut * *

Delaware 18.4 60,000

District of Columbia * *

Florida 20.4 1,437,000

Georgia 22.1 776,000

Hawaii 17.1 86,000

Idaho 27.3 153,000

Illinois * *

Indiana 25.8 606,000

Iowa 19.8 222,000

Kansas * *

Kentucky 19.6 313,000

Louisiana 32.4 523,000

Maine 25.8 130,000

Maryland 17.3 359,000

Massachusetts 23.3 577,000

Michigan 22.5 834,000

Minnesota 22.4 442,000

Mississippi 21.1 220,000

Missouri 20.9 459,000

Montana 28.7 108,000

Nebraska 26.3 174,000

Nevada 21.3 212,000

New Hampshire 28.0 141,000

70 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 7.2 — continued

State Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims2

New Jersey * *

New Mexico 21.5 158,000

New York 20.2 1,463,000

North Carolina 16.8 576,000

North Dakota * *

Ohio 24.7 1,048,000

Oklahoma 27.3 368,000

Oregon 18.6 270,000

Pennsylvania 18.6 880,000

Rhode Island 18.7 74,000

South Carolina 17.8 296,000

South Dakota * *

Tennessee 25.7 592,000

Texas 26.3 2,328,000

Utah 22.8 217,000

Vermont 23.6 57,000

Virginia 20.9 614,000

Washington 33.7 850,000

West Virginia 21.6 150,000

Wisconsin 23.7 507,000

Wyoming 29.3 61,000 

1

Estimates of rape among men are not included due to small numbers. 

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 71
Stalking Victimization among Women 

Table 7.3 

Lifetime Prevalence of Stalking Victimization by Any Perpetrator by State of Residence — 

U.S. Women1, NISVS 2010

State Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims2

United States Total 16.2 19,327,000

Alabama 24.1 452,000

Alaska 20.1 50,000

Arizona 14.9 364,000

Arkansas 18.6 210,000

California 14.0 1,943,000

Colorado 17.2 325,000

Connecticut * *

Delaware * *

District of Columbia * *

Florida 15.8 1,175,000

Georgia 14.8 554,000

Hawaii * *

Idaho 17.5 99,000

Illinois 13.8 691,000

Indiana 16.7 413,000

Iowa 17.3 203,000

Kansas * *

Kentucky 24.7 420,000

Louisiana 13.5 237,000

Maine 13.5 73,000

Maryland 15.5 352,000

Massachusetts * *

Michigan 18.2 715,000 

Minnesota 18.4 373,000 

Mississippi 20.1 230,000 

Missouri 14.7 347,000

Montana 18.4 70,000

Nebraska 17.4 119,000

Nevada 24.4 236,000

New Hampshire 15.9 84,000

72 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 7.3 — continued

State Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims2

New Jersey * *

New Mexico 22.3 171,000

New York 13.9 1,099,000

North Carolina 21.3 784,000

North Dakota * *

Ohio 17.9 818,000 

Oklahoma 22.3 315,000

Oregon 16.8 252,000

Pennsylvania 19.1 977,000

Rhode Island 13.5 58,000

South Carolina 19.0 345,000

South Dakota * *

Tennessee 20.0 498,000

Texas 15.6 1,407,000

Utah 21.1 203,000

Vermont 14.6 37,000 

Virginia 11.3 352,000

Washington 17.0 437,000

West Virginia 14.7 108,000

Wisconsin 12.7 280,000

Wyoming 20.6 42,000

1

State-level stalking estimates for men are not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20. 

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 73
Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner among Women 

Table 7.4

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner by 

State of Residence — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010

State Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims1

United States Total 35.6 42,420,000

Alabama 31.0 582,000

Alaska 44.2 109,000

Arizona 36.5 891,000

Arkansas 37.3 420,000

California 32.9 4,563,000

Colorado 32.7 618,000

Connecticut 32.9 462,000

Delaware 34.9 124,000

District of Columbia * *

Florida 34.2 2,546,000

Georgia 35.1 1,310,000

Hawaii 35.7 179,000

Idaho 29.3 166,000

Illinois 37.7 1,882,000

Indiana 40.4 1,001,000

Iowa 31.3 368,000

Kansas 29.0 312,000

Kentucky 37.5 638,000

Louisiana 33.4 586,000

Maine 36.6 199,000

Maryland 42.1 957,000

Massachusetts 31.7 851,000

Michigan 41.8 1,638,000

Minnesota 33.7 684,000

Mississippi 40.1 460,000

Missouri 36.1 854,000

Montana 39.2 149,000

74 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 7.4 — continued

State Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims1

Nebraska 38.5 263,000

Nevada 48.1 465,000

New Hampshire 40.4 214,000

New Jersey 26.2 902,000

New Mexico 34.4 263,000

New York 32.3 2,544,000

North Carolina 43.9 1,615,000

North Dakota 25.3 64,000

Ohio 35.6 1,629,000

Oklahoma 49.1 697,000

Oregon 37.3 561,000

Pennsylvania 37.7 1,927,000

Rhode Island 29.9 129,000

South Carolina 41.5 752,000

South Dakota 33.7 104,000

Tennessee 40.0 997,000

Texas 34.5 3,116,000

Utah 36.9 355,000

Vermont 33.6 85,000

Virginia 31.3 971,000

Washington 42.6 1,094,000

West Virginia 33.6 249,000

Wisconsin 32.4 714,000

Wyoming 35.8 73,000 

1

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 75
Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner among Men

Table 7.5

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking1 by an Intimate Partner by 

State of Residence — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010

State Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims2

United States Total 28.5 32,280,000

Alabama 26.9 459,000

Alaska 25.0 67,000

Arizona 27.1 657,000

Arkansas 35.6 375,000

California 27.3 3,737,000

Colorado 28.6 545,000

Connecticut 33.9 442,000

Delaware 36.8 119,000

District of Columbia 24.4 55,000

Florida 24.6 1,731,000

Georgia 39.9 1,401,000

Hawaii 21.8 110,000

Idaho 33.3 187,000

Illinois 25.7 1,215,000

Indiana 26.8 631,000

Iowa 19.6 219,000

Kansas 23.0 239,000

Kentucky 31.0 495,000

Louisiana 28.4 457,000

Maine 26.7 135,000

Maryland 27.2 563,000

Massachusetts 19.2 474,000

Michigan 23.0 850,000

Minnesota 23.5 465,000

Mississippi 25.8 268,000

Missouri 40.4 886,000

Montana 32.6 122,000

Nebraska 26.1 172,000

Nevada 30.9 307,000

New Hampshire 37.8 191,000

76 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 7.5 — continued

State Weighted % Estimated Number of Victims2

New Jersey 29.3 944,000

New Mexico 29.1 214,000

New York 33.5 2,423,000

North Carolina 19.3 660,000

North Dakota 26.1 66,000

Ohio 30.0 1,274,000

Oklahoma 40.7 550,000

Oregon 33.6 487,000

Pennsylvania 27.5 1,298,000

Rhode Island 19.3 76,000

South Carolina 17.4 290,000

South Dakota 30.2 92,000

Tennessee 32.5 750,000

Texas 35.1 3,104,000

Utah 19.6 187,000

Vermont * *

Virginia 22.1 647,000

Washington 28.3 716,000

West Virginia 41.2 286,000

Wisconsin 23.0 492,000

Wyoming 35.8 75,000 

1

Most of the violence reported by men was physical violence; 2.1% of men, overall, experienced stalking by an intimate partner. 

2

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 77
Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner and Impact from these or other forms of IPV among Women 

Table 7.6

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, and/or Stalking by an Intimate Partner with 

IPV-related Impact by State of Residence — U.S. Women1, NISVS 2010

Any IPV-related impact2-5 Prevalence of Selected Impacts

Any fear or concern 

for safety

Any PTSD Symptoms6 Injury and/or Need 

for Medical Care

State Weighted %

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims7 Weighted %

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims7 Weighted %

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims7 Weighted %

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims7

United States 

Total

28.8 34,388,000 27.0 31,895,000 22.3 26,546,000 14.8 19,153,000

Alabama 26.6 498,000 24.8 465,000 21.5 404,000 12.4 232,000

Alaska 39.5 98,000 37.4 93,000 30.8 76,000 20.9 52,000

Arizona 28.2 688,000 26.7 652,000 19.4 474,000 * *

Arkansas 27.9 314,000 24.8 280,000 21.2 239,000 15.8 178,000

California 25.9 3,589,000 24.0 3,324,000 18.8 2,603,000 14.5 2,004,000

Colorado 28.9 547,000 27.9 529,000 22.3 422,000 14.5 275,000

Connecticut 23.2 327,000 21.8 306,000 19.8 278,000 17.9 252,000

Delaware 29.0 103,000 27.3 97,000 22.5 80,000 * *

District of 

Columbia

* * * * * * * *

Florida 29.4 2,183,000 28.7 2,133,000 22.9 1,706,000 14.4 1,072,000

Georgia 31.7 1,184,000 28.9 1,077,000 24.0 895,000 19.7 735,000

Hawaii 28.3 142,000 26.8 134,000 22.9 115,000 * *

Idaho 22.1 125,000 21.5 122,000 19.8 112,000 13.7 77,000

Illinois 32.7 1,635,000 28.8 1,441,000 21.7 1,084,000 17.4 870,000

Indiana 31.2 774,000 27.1 673,000 23.5 582,000 17.7 439,000

Iowa 24.2 285,000 22.1 260,000 16.9 198,000 14.5 170,000

Kansas 24.7 266,000 24.7 266,000 19.9 214,000 * *

Kentucky 30.5 519,000 28.6 486,000 26.3 447,000 22.8 388,000

Louisiana 25.4 456,000 23.9 420,000 18.8 330,000 18.5 325,000

Maine 31.3 170,000 29.4 160,000 24.1 130,000 11.4 62,000

Maryland 32.0 727,000 27.2 618,000 20.9 476,000 15.2 346,000

Massachusetts 25.1 673,000 22.6 606,000 20.5 550,000 * *

Michigan 34.4 1,348,000 32.8 1,286,000 27.9 1,093,000 22.8 894,000

Minnesota 27.1 550,000 26.8 543,000 23.6 478,000 13.1 266,000

Mississippi 31.2 358,000 28.2 324,000 24.5 281,000 23.3 268,000

Missouri 30.8 727,000 29.4 694,000 25.4 600,000 14.6 345,000

78 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table 7.6 — continued

Any IPV-related impact2-5

Prevalence of Selected Impacts

Any fear or concern 

for safety

Any PTSD Symptoms6 Injury and/or Need 

for Medical Care

State Weighted %

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims7 Weighted %

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims7 Weighted %

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims7 Weighted %

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims7

Montana 32.3 123,000 30.8 117,000 24.0 91,000 15.5 59,000

Nebraska 29.2 200,000 27.5 188,000 25.0 171,000 16.1 110,000

Nevada 40.6 392,000 39.3 380,000 32.5 314,000 25.4 246,000

New Hampshire 33.0 175,000 29.0 154,000 26.4 140,000 15.4 82,000

New Jersey 21.3 733,000 19.6 676,000 * * * *

New Mexico 29.9 228,000 28.1 215,000 22.2 170,000 20.0 153,000

New York 23.2 1,829,000 22.3 1,756,000 20.0 1,577,000 15.1 1,187,000

North Carolina 37.3 1,372,000 33.3 1,227,000 29.8 1,096,000 20.3 747,000

North Dakota 20.9 53,000 20.4 51,000 18.3 46,000 * *

Ohio 31.5 1,442,000 29.2 1,336,000 21.2 970,000 17.6 808,000

Oklahoma 37.7 534,000 36.0 516,000 30.9 439,000 24.5 347,000

Oregon 26.2 393,000 25.0 375,000 19.9 299,000 14.5 217,000

Pennsylvania 28.3 1,447,000 25.0 1,280,000 22.8 1,163,000 17.3 884,000

Rhode Island 19.3 83,000 18.9 82,000 16.6 71,000 11.9 51,000

South Carolina 34.1 618,000 33.3 603,000 26.3 477,000 18.2 330,000

South Dakota 29.6 91,000 * * * * * *

Tennessee 34.2 854,000 32.2 803,000 26.3 657,000 17.9 446,000

Texas 28.9 2,611,000 27.0 2,443,000 23.9 2,163,000 16.0 1,447,000

Utah 32.4 312,000 29.3 281,000 27.4 264,000 15.6 150,000

Vermont 26.7 68,000 25.6 65,000 21.1 54,000 15.3 39,000

Virginia 23.9 741,000 22.5 697,000 18.5 575,000 * *

Washington 32.8 842,000 30.2 775,000 30.6 775,000 19.6 502,000

West Virginia 28.9 213,000 27.0 199,000 22.5 166,000 17.6 130,000

Wisconsin 23.4 516,000 22.5 496,000 17.9 394,000 11.4 251,000

Wyoming 25.4 52,000 22.7 46,000 18.9 38,000 15.3 31,000 

1

Data for men are not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

2

Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any PTSD symptoms, need for healthcare, injury, crisis hotline, 

need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work/school.For those who 

reported being raped it also includes having contracted a sexually transmitted disease or having become pregnant.

3

IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators, without regard to the time period in which they occurred, and 

asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (rape, physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and reproductive 

control) in that relationship; 12-month prevalence of IPV-related impact was not assessed. 

4

By definition, all stalking incidents result in impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and concern for safety. 

5

The individual impact measures in this table were selected because the majority of states had reportable data for these impacts. 

6

Includes having nightmares; trying hard not to think about what happened; feeling constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled; feeling 

numb or detached from others, activities or surroundings.

7

Rounded to the nearest thousand.

*Estimate is not reported; relative standard error >30% or cell size ≤ 20.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 79
80 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 81

8: Discussion 
82 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 83

8: Discussion 

Highlights and CrossCutting Findings

The findings in this report indicate 

that sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence continue 

to be important public health 

issues affecting many women 

and men in the United States. 

Although no demographic group is 

immune to these forms of violence, 

consistent patterns emerged with 

respect to the subpopulations in 

the United States that are most 

heavily affected. Consistent with 

previous national studies (Tjaden 

& Thoennes, 2000), the findings in 

this report indicate that women are 

heavily affected by sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence. Many of these forms 

of violence are first experienced 

during childhood and remain 

prevalent among young adults 

aged 18-24. Furthermore, victims 

who reported rape prior to 18 years 

of age had a higher prevalence of 

subsequent victimization of rape as 

an adult. These data provide further 

evidence that when victimization 

occurs, particularly when it occurs 

in childhood, it is often repeated 

in adulthood (Tjaden & Thoennes, 

2000; Smith, White, & Holland, 2003; 

Maker, Kemmelmeier, & Peterson, 

2001; West, Williams, & Seigel, 2000).

For all types of violence examined 

in this report, the majority of both 

female and male victims had one 

perpetrator. Across all forms of 

violence, the majority of female 

victims reported that the perpetrators were male. Male rape victims 

and male victims of non-contact 

unwanted sexual experiences 

reported predominantly male 

perpetrators. Nearly half of male 

stalking victims also reported 

perpetration by a male. Male 

victims of other forms of violence 

reported predominantly female 

perpetrators. Across all subpopulations and all forms of violence, 

the vast majority of victims knew 

their perpetrator – for women, 

perpetrators were often current 

or former intimate partners and 

for men they were often acquaintances. A substantial number of 

female victims of intimate partner 

violence experienced multiple 

forms of violence (e.g., rape, 

physical violence, and stalking) in 

their lifetime. Among male victims 

of intimate partner violence, the 

majority experienced physical 

violence, with a smaller percentage 

of men having experienced both 

physical violence and stalking. 

Additionally, racial and ethnic 

minority women and men continue 

to bear a relatively heavier burden 

of sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence. This 

is likely a reflection of the many 

stressors that racial and ethnic 

minority communities continue to 

experience. For example, a number 

of social determinants of mental 

and physical health, such as low 

income and limited access to education, community resources, and 

services, likely play important roles. 

These findings also confirm and 

extend the literature documenting 

that exposure to sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence has significant adverse 

consequences for physical and 

mental health. The severity and 

range of health consequences were 

greater for victims of these forms of 

violence than for persons without a 

history of victimization. This is the 

first U.S. survey that enables us to 

document and track these consequences on a national scale.

For many states, the findings in 

this report provide the first reliable 

and representative state-level 

prevalence estimates for sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence. State-level data 

reveal variation across states for 

all types of violence examined. 

Demographic composition 

and other factors may play an 

important role in the nature and 

magnitude of violence within and 

across states. 

Comparison of 

Prevalence Estimates 

to Previous National 

Studies 

Differences in methodology 

between the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey and other populationbased surveys or data sources 

make comparisons of prevalence 

estimates difficult. NISVS uses 

a combination of strategies to 

enhance accuracy of reporting 

and safety of respondents. The 

extent to which similar strategies 
are utilized in other surveys that 

measure violent victimization 

varies. For example, to facilitate 

recall, NISVS is designed to be 

consistent with the way victims 

tend to recall experiences of 

violence – all behaviors are 

linked to a specific perpetrator 

(e.g., ex-husband, acquaintance, 

stranger). All questions are asked 

within the context of that perpetrator. Additionally, as described 

in the background section of this 

report, NISVS uses a number of 

methods that are designed to 

safely maximize disclosure of sensitive information. A key example 

is that one adult is randomly 

selected from each household and 

the specific survey content is only 

disclosed to that adult; no other 

household members are aware of 

the specific questions being asked. 

The respondent then answers 

questions about their own experiences with violence and they do 

not have to inform anyone else in 

the household about the nature 

of the questions. Other features of 

NISVS also are designed to reduce 

underreporting, such as use of 

only female interviewers, creating 

a social distance by interviewing 

over the telephone instead of in 

person, use of extensive introductions to questions asking about 

sensitive topics, and specialized 

training for interviewers to prepare 

them to collect sensitive information. The NISVS procedures are 

intended to enhance respondents’ 

comfort and safety so that they are 

willing and able to disclose their 

victimization experiences.

Other differences between NISVS 

and other surveys may include 

differing contexts for survey 

questions (e.g., health, relationship, 

or crime), differences in question 

wording, and differences in the 

number and range of victimization experiences included 

in the violence measures. For 

example, in addition to forced 

penetration, the findings for rape 

in this report include attempted 

forced penetration and alcohol/

drug-facilitated forced penetration 

in the calculation of the overall 

prevalence estimate for rape. The 

differences between the findings 

in this survey and other similar 

surveys could also be due, in 

part, to differing sampling strategies (e.g., sampling cell phones); 

differing methods used to produce 

representative estimates (e.g., 

weighting); and differing methods 

of data collection (e.g., in-person 

versus telephone) and who is interviewed (e.g., victims only or victims 

and proxies). 

As an example of prevalence 

differences between the National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey and other surveys, 

the lifetime prevalence estimate of 

rape for men in this report is lower 

than what has been reported in 

other surveys (e.g., for forced sex 

more broadly) (Basile, Chen, Black, 

& Saltzman, 2007). This could be 

due in part to the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

making a distinction between 

rape and being made to penetrate 

someone else. Being made to 

penetrate is a form of sexual victimization distinct from rape that is 

particularly unique to males and, to 

our knowledge, has not been explicitly measured in previous national 

studies. It is possible that rape 

questions in prior studies captured 

the experience of being made to 

penetrate someone else, resulting 

in higher prevalence estimates for 

male rape in those studies.

The findings in this report also 

show a higher prevalence of 

stalking among women and 

men than previous national 

surveys (Baum et al., 2009; Tjaden 

& Thoennes, 2000). Although 

victims reported experiencing the 

conventional forms of stalking (e.g., 

watching and showing up unexpectedly), the higher prevalence 

estimates in the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

may largely be due to the inclusion of stalking tactics related to 

newer technologies (e.g., persistent 

cell phone texting) that did not 

exist as a stalking modality when 

some of the previous studies were 

conducted. Cell phone ownership 

has grown tremendously in the 

last several years. Furthermore, 

advancements in wireless technology have led to Internet access 

that is no longer dependent upon 

the use of home or business 

computers. For many people, 

these technologies provide greater 

convenience and easier accessibility to others; however, this 

growth in technology may have 

also increased the ease of engaging 

in certain stalking behaviors.

The prevalence estimates for 

intimate partner violence reported 

here also differ from those reported 

in other similar national surveys. 

The estimates are higher for both 

men and women, but particularly 

for physical violence victimization 

of men. In addition to the previously mentioned changes related 

to the measurement of stalking 

and sexual violence, which are 

components of intimate partner 

violence, another key factor may 

account for the differences in 

prevalence estimates. Specifically, 

some previous national surveys 

84 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 85

have asked respondents to identify 

whether they have experienced 

physical violence by any perpetrator, and then respondents are 

subsequently asked whether 

the perpetrator was an intimate 

partner. By contrast, respondents in 

the National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey are asked 

whether they have experienced 

physically violent acts specifically 

by a romantic or sexual partner. 

This difference may have increased 

reporting by focusing respondents 

on intimate partner violence 

specifically rather than physically 

violent acts that may have been 

perpetrated by others, such as 

strangers and acquaintances. This 

may particularly be true for men as 

they are more likely to have experienced physical violence outside the 

context of an intimate relationship 

(Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & 

Lozano, 2002).

Limitations 

The findings of this report are 

subject to a number of limitations. 

Random digit dial telephone 

surveys face two major issues that 

have the potential to affect the 

representativeness of the sample 

population. This includes declining 

response rates and an increasing 

number of households without 

landline telephones (Peytchev, 

Carley-Baxter, & Black, 2011). While 

the overall response rate for the 

2010 National Intimate Partner 

and Sexual Violence Survey was 

relatively low, the cooperation 

rate was high. A number of efforts 

were also made to mitigate the 

potential for non-response and 

non-coverage bias. These include 

a non-response follow-up in 

which randomly selected nonresponders were re-contacted 

and offered an increased incentive 

for participation. In addition, 

the inclusion of a cell-phone 

component provided increased 

coverage of a growing population 

that would have otherwise been 

excluded. The cell-phone only 

population tends to be young, 

low income, and comprised of 

racial/ethnic minorities (Peytchev, 

Carley-Baxter, & Black, 2011). 

Importantly, these demographic 

groups have higher prevalence 

of sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence. 

Follow-up questions were designed 

to reflect the victim’s experience 

with each perpetrator across the 

victim’s lifetime. There are several 

limitations associated with how 

these questions were asked. First, 

respondents were asked about the 

impact from any of the violence 

inflicted by each perpetrator. 

Therefore, it is not possible to 

examine the impact of specific 

violent behaviors. However, 

results from the cognitive testing 

process for the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey suggested that victims who 

experienced multiple forms of 

violence with a perpetrator would 

have a difficult time distinguishing 

which type of violence from that 

perpetrator resulted in a particular 

type of impact. Second, because 

we used victims’ reports of the age 

and relationship at the time any 

violence started with each perpetrator it was not always possible 

to assess the age or relationship at 

the time specific types of violent 

behavior occurred. Based on the 

data we have about the relationship at the first victimization and 

last victimization, we estimate that 

less than 3% of perpetrators had 

a relationship with the victim that 

changed categories over time (e.g., 

from acquaintance to intimate 

partner). All of the estimates in 

this report reflect the relationship 

at the time the perpetrator first 

committed any violence against 

the victim.

Even though the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey captures a full range of 

victimization experiences, the 

estimates reported here are likely 

to underestimate the prevalence 

of sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence for a 

number of reasons. These include: 

1) potential respondents that 

are currently involved in violent 

relationships may not participate 

in the survey or fully disclose the 

violence they are experiencing 

because of concern for their safety; 

2) although the survey gathers 

information on a wide range of 

victimizations, it is not feasible 

to measure all of the violent 

behaviors that may have been 

experienced; 3) given the sensitive 

nature of these types of violence 

it is likely that some respondents 

who had been victimized did not 

feel comfortable participating or 

did not feel comfortable reporting 

their experiences because of the 

social stigma associated with 

being a victim of these forms of 

violence; 4) although potentially 

mitigated by the use of a cellphone sample, RDD surveys may 

not capture populations living in 

institutions (e.g., prisons, nursing 

homes, military bases, college 

dormitories), or those who may be 

living in shelters, or homeless and 

transient; and 5) it is possible that 

some respondents forgot about 

violence experiences that were less 

severe in nature or that occurred 

long ago. 
In addition to the possible causes 

of underestimation of the prevalence, it is important to consider 

the limitations of self report data 

and that errors in recall or reluctance to discuss specific types of 

violence or perpetrators might 

impact the accuracy of estimates 

in unpredictable ways and in a 

manner that could potentially vary 

across subgroups of victims (e.g., 

by age or sex). Also, the reader 

is cautioned against making 

comparisons across groups or 

across states because apparent 

variation in estimates might not 

reflect statistically meaningful 

differences. Even with these limitations, population-based surveys 

that collect information directly 

from victims remain one of the 

most important sources of data 

on sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence, particularly for capturing victimization 

experiences that are not likely to 

come to the attention of police, 

that may not be considered a 

crime by victims, or do not require 

treatment by a health provider. 

Population-based surveys that are 

carefully conducted, with welltrained interviewers who are able 

to build rapport and trust with 

participants, are essential to the 

collection of valid data and the 

well-being of respondents. 

86 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 87

9: Implications for Prevention
88 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 89

9: Implications for Prevention

The findings in this report 

underscore the heavy toll that 

sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence places 

on women, men, and children in 

the United States. Given the scope 

and impact of sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence, it is critical that feasible, 

evidence-informed actions are 

taken to prevent and respond to 

these problems. Collective action is 

needed to implement prevention 

approaches, ensure appropriate 

responses, and support these efforts 

based on strong data and research. 

Implement Prevention 

Approaches 

The goal of public health is to 

prevent violence from occurring in 

the first place. The following primary 

prevention strategies are scientifically credible, can potentially impact 

multiple forms of sexual violence, 

stalking and intimate partner 

violence, and represent areas where 

states and communities can make 

reasonable investments. 

Promote Healthy, Respectful 

Relationships Among Youth

Relationships with Parents

Building healthy parent-child 

relationships can address a range 

of risk factors for sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence. These relationships 

can benefit from efforts to build 

positive, effective parenting skills; 

include and support fathers; 

increase positive family relationships and interactions; and develop 

emotionally supportive familial 

environments, which facilitate 

respectful interactions and open 

communication. Further, parents 

who model healthy, respectful 

intimate relationships free from 

violence or aggression foster 

these relationship patterns in their 

children. It is also important to give 

adults, particularly parents, the 

skills and resources to prevent child 

sexual abuse.

Relationships with Peers and 

Dating Partners

Characteristics of respectful 

relationships include: a belief in 

nonviolent conflict resolution; 

effective communication and 

conflict resolution skills; the ability 

to negotiate and adjust to stress 

and safely manage emotions such 

as anger and jealousy; and a belief 

in a partner’s right to autonomy, 

shared decision-making, and 

trust. From preschool through 

the teen years, young people are 

refining the skills they need to 

form positive relationships with 

others. It is important to promote 

healthy relationships among young 

people and prevent patterns of 

dating violence that can last into 

adulthood. It is also important to 

reinforce respectful relationships 

among peers to prevent sexual 

harassment and bullying.

Prevention strategies that engage 

parents and youth in skill-building 

activities and encourage or reward 

respectful, healthy peer interactions 

and dating relationships can be 

implemented in the home, community, or school to ensure more youth 

experience and practice healthy 

relationships during this key developmental phase. 

Address Beliefs, Attitudes, 

and Messages that Condone, 

Encourage, or Facilitate 

Sexual Violence, Stalking, or 

Intimate Partner Violence

The promotion of respectful, 

nonviolent relationships is not just 

the responsibility of individuals 

and partners, but also of the 

communities and society in which 

they live. It is important to continue 

addressing the beliefs, attitudes 

and messages that are deeply 

embedded in our social structures 

and that create a social climate that 

condones sexual violence, stalking, 

and intimate partner violence. 

One way is through norms 

change. Societal and community 

norms, policies, and structures 

create environments that can 

support or undermine respectful, 

nonviolent relationships. Such 

beliefs and social norms are reinforced by media messages that 

portray sexual violence, stalking, 

or intimate partner violence as 

normative and acceptable, that 

reinforce negative stereotypes 

about masculinity, or that objectify 

and degrade women. 

Further, failure to enforce existing 

policies and laws against these 
forms of violence may perpetuate 

beliefs that these behaviors are 

acceptable. It is important for all 

sectors of society to work together 

as part of any effort to end sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence, both to change 

norms, attitudes, and beliefs, as 

well as support women and men in 

rejecting violence.

Another strategy involves engaging 

bystanders to change social norms 

and intervene before violence 

occurs. In many situations, there 

are a variety of opportunities and 

numerous people who can choose 

to step forward and demonstrate 

that violence will not be tolerated 

within the community. For instance, 

bystanders may speak out against 

beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors 

that support or condone sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence − such as media 

portrayals that glamorize violence 

− and change the perceptions of 

these social norms in their peer 

groups, schools, and communities.

Ensure Appropriate 

Response

An emphasis on primary prevention is essential for reducing the 

violence-related health burden in 

the long term. However, secondary 

and tertiary prevention programs 

and services are also necessary for 

mitigating the more immediate 

consequences of violence. These 

programs and services are valuable 

for treating and reducing the 

sequelae and severity of violence 

and for intervening in the cycle of 

violence. Sexual violence, stalking, 

and intimate partner violence 

are often repetitive and can recur 

over long time periods. Several 

strategic foci for the secondary 

and tertiary prevention of violence 

have emerged from the existing 

knowledge base.

Provide Survivors with 

Coordinated Services and 

Develop a System of Care 

to Ensure Healing and 

Prevent The Recurrence of 

Victimization

The effects of sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence on survivors and communities are profound. For example, 

survivors of sexual violence are 

at a higher risk for a number 

of physical and mental health 

problems and other adverse life 

events, including further victimization. The health care system’s 

response must be strengthened 

and better coordinated for sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence survivors to help 

navigate the health care system 

and access needed services and 

resources in the short and long 

term. For instance, more physicians 

and other health care professionals need training on forensic 

and patient care issues related to 

sexual violence. The health care 

response can be enhanced—and 

survivors can be better served—if 

more providers are equipped 

with the specific knowledge and 

skills necessary to provide good 

forensic medical care, direction, 

supervision, and leadership, as well 

as provide respectful, sensitive 

care and guidance to survivors. 

Education and training should 

be targeted specifically to stakeholders who may be involved in 

Sexual Assault Response Teams 

(SARTs), as these first responders 

set the tone for the victim’s experience in the criminal justice, health 

care, and legal systems. 

It is also important that health 

professionals be alert to the signs 

and symptoms of sexual violence 

and intimate partner violence 

at initial, follow-up, and annual 

visits. When signs and symptoms 

of violence are present, it should 

be required that an appropriate 

history is taken, assessment of 

symptoms is conducted, and 

appropriate treatment, counseling, 

protection referrals, and follow-up 

care are provided. A recent report 

by the Institute for Medicine (IOM, 

2011) also called upon the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services to require coverage for 

screening and counseling for 

all women and adolescent girls 

for interpersonal and domestic 

violence as a preventive service in 

health insurance plans. The IOM 

recommends that these services be 

carried out in a culturally sensitive 

and supportive manner as part 

of women’s preventive services 

without charging a co-payment, 

co-insurance or a deductible. 

Ensure Access to Services

and Resources

It is also critically important to 

ensure legal, housing, mental 

health, and other services and 

resources are available and 

accessible to survivors. Creating 

a resource environment that is 

safe and where confidentiality is 

maintained should be a priority. 

This can be particularly challenging 

in rural areas given potentially 

long distances to resources and 

threats to confidentiality; however, 

access to appropriate services 

90 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 91

and maintaining confidentiality 

are critical both for response to 

violence as well as recovery for the 

survivor. 

One strategy to improve access 

is co-located, multi-disciplinary 

service centers that include mental 

health, legal, economic, housing 

and other related services for 

survivors. It is also important that 

services are specifically designed to 

meet the needs of a wide range of 

different populations such as teens, 

older adults, men, gay, lesbian, 

bisexual, and transgendered people. 

Hold Perpetrators 

Accountable 

Incidents of sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence are underreported 

as crimes in the United States. 

Survivors may be reluctant to 

disclose their victimization—

whether to law enforcement or to 

family and friends—for a variety 

of reasons including shame, embarrassment, fear of retribution from 

perpetrators, or a belief that they 

may not receive support from 

law enforcement. Laws may also 

not be enforced adequately or 

consistently, and perpetrators may 

become more dangerous after 

their victims report these crimes. 

Understanding that there are 

many reasons why victims delay 

or avoid reporting is a prerequisite 

for developing better forms of 

engagement and support for 

victims and thus holding perpetrators more accountable for their 

crimes. Although survivors may 

understandably decide not to 

report immediately, if at all, they 

should receive information from 

advocates, health care personnel, 

law enforcement, and others so 

they can make the decision that is 

best for them. 

Some communities have developed highly trained, coordinated 

teams with expertise related to 

sexual violence victimization, 

stalking, and intimate partner 

violence and can provide compassionate, informed responses. 

These and other efforts aimed 

at enhancing training within the 

criminal justice system can facilitate reporting, provide survivors 

with the support they need, and 

ensure that perpetrators are held 

accountable for their crimes.

Support Efforts Based 

on Strong Research

and Data

Actions need to be supported by 

a strong foundation of data and 

research. Data are necessary to set 

priorities, guide the development of 

interventions, programs and policies, 

and monitor progress. Research is 

necessary to identify new trends 

in violence as well as strategies for 

prevention and intervention.

Implement Strong Data 

Systems for Monitoring and 

Evaluation

Improved data collection and 

monitoring is needed to better 

understand the prevalence of and 

trends in sexual violence, stalking, 

and intimate partner violence at 

the local, state and national levels; 

to provide information on which 

to base the development and 

evaluation of prevention and intervention programs; and to monitor 

and measure the effectiveness of 

prevention efforts. Particularly with 

regard to perpetration, innovative 

methods are needed to improve 

reporting when using survey 

methods. Ultimately, establishing 

cost-efficient and timely surveillance systems for all states, by 

using consistent definitions and 

uniform survey methods, will assist 

states by providing policymakers 

much needed information for 

enhancing prevention efforts at the 

state level. The National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

is a major step forward to fill this 

data gap.

Identify Ways to Prevent 

First-Time Perpetration of 

Sexual Violence, Stalking, and 

Intimate Partner Violence

Additional research is needed 

to develop and evaluate strategies to effectively prevent the 

first-time perpetration of sexual 

violence, stalking, and intimate 

partner violence. This includes 

research that addresses the social 

and economic conditions such as 

poverty, sexism, and other forms of 

discrimination and social exclusion, 

that increase risk for perpetration 

and victimization. Such research 

will complement efforts focused on 

preventing initial victimization and 

the recurrence of victimization. 

Research examining risk and 

protective factors, including 

inequities in the distribution of and 

access to resources and opportunities, and their interactions at all 

levels of the social ecology is key to 

understanding how perpetration 

of violence develops and to determine the optimal times, settings, 

and strategies for preventing 

sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence. 
Documenting program costs and 

cost-effectiveness, when appropriate, will help practitioners and 

policymakers understand how to 

best use resources to implement 

effective programs. It is equally 

important to monitor strategies 

being used by the field, to identify 

and rigorously evaluate these 

approaches and document the 

value of efforts underway. As 

effective strategies are identified, 

research examining how to best 

disseminate, implement, and 

adapt evidence-based prevention 

strategies, will become increasingly important.

Conclusion

Much progress has been made 

in violence prevention. There is 

strong reason to believe that the 

application of effective strategies combined with the capacity 

to implement them will make a 

difference. The lessons already 

learned during public health’s 

short experience with violence 

prevention are consistent with 

those from public health’s much 

longer experience with the 

prevention of infectious and 

chronic diseases. Sexual violence, 

stalking and intimate partner 

violence can be prevented with 

data driven, collaborative action.

92 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 93

References
94 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 95

References

American Association for Public 

Opinion Research (AAPOR). 

(2011). Standard Definitions: Final 

Dispositions of Case Codes and 

Outcome Rates for Surveys (7th ed). 

Retrieved from http://www.aapor.

org/StandardDefinitions/3049.html.

Basile, K.C., Chen, J., Black, M.C., & 

Saltzman, L.E. (2007). Prevalence 

and characteristics of sexual 

violence victimization among U.S. 

Adults 2001-2003. Violence and 

Victims, 22, 4, 437−448. 

Basile K.C., & Saltzman, L.E. (2002). 

Sexual violence surveillance: 

Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Version 

1.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control.

Basile, K.C., & Smith, S.G. (2011). 

Sexual violence victimization of 

women: Prevalence, characteristics, 

and the role of public health and 

prevention. American Journal of 

Lifestyle Medicine, 5, 407−417. 

Basile, K. C., Swahn, M. H., Chen, J., & 

Saltzman, L. E. (2006). Stalking in the 

United States: Recent national prevalence estimates. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, 31, 2, 172−175.

Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, 

M., & Rose, K. (2009). Stalking 

victimization in the United States. 

Special Report. (BJS Publication 

No. 224527). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics.

Black, M.C. (2011). Intimate partner 

violence and adverse health consequences: Implications for clinicians. American Journal of Lifestyle 

Medicine, 5, 428–439.

Blumberg, S. J., & Luke, J.V. (2008). 

Wireless substitution: Early release 

of estimates based on data from the 

National Health Interview Survey, 

July–December 2007. Retrieved 

from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

nhis.html.

Breiding, M.J., Black, M.C., & Ryan, 

G.W. (2008). Chronic disease and 

health risk behaviors associated 

with intimate partner violence—18 

U.S. states/territories, 2005. Annals 

of Epidemiology, 18, 538–544.

Campbell J. (2002). Health 

consequences of intimate 

partner violence. The Lancet, 359,

1331–1336.

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention. (2000). Building 

data systems for monitoring and 

responding to violence against 

women: Recommendations from a 

workshop. (MMWR 49, No. RR-11). 

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. 

Coker, A.L., Davis, K.E., Arias, I., 

Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, 

H.M., & Smith, P.H. (2002) Physical 

and mental health effects of 

intimate partner violence for men 

and women. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, 23, 260−268.

Cox A.L., Coles, A.J., Nortje, J., 

Bradley, P.G., Chatfield, D.A., 

Thompson, S.J., & Menon, D.K. 

(2006). An investigation of autoreactivity after head-injury. Journal 

of Neuroimmunology, 174, 180–186.

Dailey, R., & Claus, R.E. (2001). The 

relationship between interviewer 

characteristics and physical and 

sexual abuse disclosures among 

substance users: A multilevel 

analysis. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 

867–888. 

Davis, K.E., Coker, A.L., & Sanderson, 

M. (2002). Physical and mental 

health effects of being stalked for 

men and women. Violence and 

Victims, 17, 429–443.

Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, 

M.G. (2000). The sexual victimization 

of college women. (NIJ Publication 

No. 182369). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice.

Follingstad, D.R., Rutledge, L.L., 

Berg, B.J., Hause, E.S., & Polek, D.S. 

(1990). The role of emotional abuse 

in physically abusive relationships. 

Journal of Family Violence, 1, 37–49.

Institute of Medicine. (2011) Clinical 

preventive services for women: 

closing the gaps. Washington, DC: 

The National Academy of Sciences.

Kilpatrick, D.G., Edmunds, C.N., 

& Seymour, A.K. (1992). Rape in 

America: A report to the nation. 

Arlington, VA: National Victim 

Center & Medical University of 

South Carolina.
Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., & 

Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope 

of rape: Incidence and prevalence 

of sexual aggression victimization 

in a national sample of higher 

education students. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 

55, 162–170.

Krug, E.G., Dahlberg, L.L., Mercy, 

J.A., Zwi, A.B., & Lozano, R. (Eds). 

(2002). World report on violence and 

health. Geneva, Switzerland: World 

Health Organization.

Logan, T.K., & Cole, J. (2007). The 

impact of partner stalking on 

mental health and protective order 

outcomes over time. Violence and 

Victims, 22, 546–562.

Maker, A.H., Kemmelmeier, M., & 

Peterson, C. (2001). Child sexual 

abuse, peer sexual abuse, and 

sexual assault in adulthood: A 

multi-risk model of revictimization. 

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 

351−368.

National Victim Center & Medical 

University of South Carolina (1992). 

Rape in America: A report to the 

nation. Arlington, VA.

Peytchev A., Carley-Baxter, L.R., 

& Black, M.C. (2011). Multiple 

sources of nonobservation error in 

telephone surveys: Coverage and 

nonresponse. Sociological Methods 

and Research, 40, 1, 138−168.

Randall, T. (1990). Domestic 

violence intervention: Calls for 

more than treating injuries. Journal 

of the American Medical Association, 

264, 939–940.

Rizzo L.J., Brick M., & Park I. (2004). 

A minimally intrusive method 

for sampling persons in random 

digit dial surveys. Public Opinion 

Quarterly, 68, 267–274.

Smith, P.H., White, J.W., & Holland, 

L.J. (2003). A longitudinal 

perspective on dating violence 

among adolescent and college-age 

women. American Journal of Public 

Health, 93, 1104–1109.

Smith, S.G., & Breiding, M.J. (in 

press). Chronic disease and health 

behaviors linked to experiences of 

nonconsensual sex among women 

and men. Public Health.

Sullivan, C.M., & Cain, D. (2004). 

Ethical and safety considerations 

when obtaining information 

from or about battered women 

for research purposes. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 19, 603–618.

Sutherland, C.A., Bybee, D.I., & 

Sullivan, C.M. (2002). Beyond 

bruises and broken bones: the joint 

effects of stress and injuries on 

battered women’s health. American 

Journal of Community Psychology, 

30, 609–636.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). 

Full report of the prevalence, 

incidence, and consequences of 

violence against women: Findings 

from the national violence against 

women survey. (NIJ Publication 

No. 183781). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). 

Extent, nature, and consequences of 

intimate partner violence: findings 

from the National Violence Against 

Women Survey. (NIJ Publication 

No. 181867). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice.

West, C.M., Williams, L.M., & Siegel, 

J.A. (2000). Adult sexual revictimization among black women 

sexually abused in childhood: A 

prospective examination of serious 

consequences of abuse. Child 

Maltreatment, 5, 49-57.

World Health Organization. (2001). 

Putting women first: Ethical and 

safety recommendations for research 

on domestic violence against 

women. (WHO Publication No. 

WHO/FCH/GWH/01.1). Geneva, 

Switzerland: Department of Gender 

and Women’s Health.

96 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 97

Appendices
98 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 99

Appendix A: Expert Panel from the 2007 

CDC Consultation on NISVS3

Antonia Abbey

Department of Psychology

Wayne State University

Detroit, MI

Bernard Auchter

Senior Social Science Analyst

Office of Research and Evaluation

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC

Elaine Cassidy

Program Officer

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Princeton, NJ

Sarah Cook

Department of Psychology

Georgia State University

Atlanta, GA

Walter S. DeKeseredy

Criminology, Justice and 

Policy Studies

University of Ontario Institute 

of Technology

Oshawa, Ontario

Canada

Diane Follingstad

Department of Psychiatry

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY

Sherry Hamby

Department of Psychology

Sewanee: The University 

of the South

Sewanee, TN

David Lloyd

Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Military 

Community and Family Policy

Department of Defense

Washington, DC

Angela Moore

Division Director

Justice Systems Research

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC

Rebecca K. Odor

Director

Sexual and Domestic 

Violence Prevention

Virginia Department of Health

Richmond, VA

K. Daniel O’Leary

Department of Psychology

Stony Brook University

Stony Brook, NY

Brian Spitzberg

School of Communication

San Diego State University

San Diego, CA

3

Affiliations listed for panel members are based on affiliation at the time of the 2007 expert panel consultation.
100 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Appendix B: Technical Note

Sampling Strategy

NISVS employs a dual-frame, 

stratified random digit dial (RDD) 

sampling design, with continuous 

data collection. The cell phoneonly population has been growing 

at a rate of approximately two 

percentage points per year in recent 

years. As of the first half of 2010,

one in four adults in the U.S. lived 

in a household with a cell phone 

but no landline (“cell phone-only” 

households), based on the National 

Health Interview Survey (Blumberg 

& Luke 2010). To meet the 

challenges of rising non-coverage 

rates in U.S. landline-based 

telephone surveys, NISVS implemented a dual-frame design where 

both landline and cell phone frames 

were sampled simultaneously. 

List-Assisted Landline Frame.

The landline sampling frame 

was comprised of hundredbanks of telephone numbers 

where each bank had at least 

one known listed residential 

number. A hundred-bank is the 

100 telephone numbers that 

are generated by fixing the 

first eight digits of a telephone 

number and changing the last 

two digits (e.g., (800) 555-55XX). 

Known business numbers were 

excluded from the frame. In 

addition, non-working numbers 

were removed after sample 

selection through screening. 

Cell-Phone Frame. The cell phone 

frame consisted of phone 

numbers in telephone banks 

identified as active and currently 

in use for cell phones. At the 

time the sample was drawn 

and at the time of this report, 

directory listings of cell phone 

numbers were not available. 

Thus, list-assisted screening was 

not possible. 

Stratification for State-Level 

Estimates. NISVS has the dual 

objectives of providing national 

and state-level estimates. A sample 

design optimized for national 

estimates would use proportionate 

allocation across states (resulting 

in a sample size in each state that is 

proportionate to the adult population in that state), whereas a design 

optimized for providing stable 

state-level estimates might allocate 

the sample approximately equally 

across states. Considering these 

competing objectives, NISVS survey 

samples were stratified by state, 

balancing between stable statelevel estimates and weight variation 

for the national estimates from 

oversampling of smaller states.

Within-Household Selection. Each 

state sample included both 

landline and cell phone samples.

When reaching a household in the 

landline sample, the interviewer 

asked about the number of males 

and females living in the household. In a one-adult household, the 

adult was automatically selected 

to participate. In households with 

only two adults, the person on the 

phone or the other adult in the 

household was randomly selected. 

When there were more than two 

adults in the household, the adult 

with the most recent birthday was 

selected. This within-household 

selection has been found to be less 

likely to lead to overrepresentation 

of females in the pool of respondents compared to using only the 

most recent birthday method for 

all households with more than one 

adult (Rizzo, Brick, & Park, 2004).

Because cell phones are personal 

use devices, the person answering 

the cell phone was selected as the 

respondent, if eligible. 

Nonresponse Phase. To increase 

participation, NISVS was administered as a two-phase survey. Phase 

One was the main data collection 

phase. Respondents in the first 

phase were offered an incentive of 

$10 to participate in the survey. A 

random subsample of non-respondents from the first phase was 

selected during Phase Two, with 

the goal of reducing non-response 

and non-response bias. The second 

phase included a substantially 

higher incentive ($40) to further 

encourage participation. 

Other Samples. In addition to the 

general population sample, samples 

were drawn from two additional 

populations: 1) a separate targeted 

sample of persons of American 

Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, 

and 2) a random sample of female 

active duty military and female 

spouses of active duty military. 

Data from these two additional 

samples are not presented in this 

initial report but will be described in 

future publications.
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 101

Sample Distributions 

and Demographic 

Characteristics

From January 22, 2010 through 

December 31, 2010, a total of 

201,881 telephone numbers were 

sampled. Of these, 31% were 

ineligible (business or nonworking 

telephone numbers), 53% were of 

unknown eligibility, and 15% were 

eligible. From the 31,241 eligible 

households (including eligible 

non-interviews such as refusals and 

break-offs), a total of 18,049 adults

were interviewed nationally. This 

includes 16,507 completed and 

1,542 partially completed interviews. 

For comparison to the United States 

population, demographic characteristics of the selection weighted 

landline and cell phone samples, 

the post stratified combined 

samples, and the United States 

population is included below. 

Consistent with other studies, the 

landline and cell phone samples 

yield different demographic distributions. When combined, these 

samples complement each other 

and provide estimates that more 

closely approximate the U.S. population distribution. 

Combined post stratified estimates 

are presented for the demographic 

variables used in weighting to illustrate how distributions are further 

adjusted to match the population distributions. In addition, 

demographic variables that were 

not used in weighting (education, 

marital status and household 

income) are included in the table 

as a further comparison between 

the sample population and the U.S. 

population. The sample population, when compared to the U.S. 

population, had higher levels of 

education, a larger percentage of 

never married respondents, fewer 

respondents who were currently 

married, and a higher percentage 

of respondents with lower household income. 

Response Rate

The overall weighted response 

rate for the 2010 data collection 

for NISVS ranged from 27.5% 

to 33.6%. The computation of 

the weighted response rate 

reflects the stratified, two-phase, 

dual-frame survey design used 

in NISVS, and accounts for the 

disproportionate sampling across 

states, combined response rates 

from Phases One and Two, and 

combined response rates resulting 

from the two sampling frames. 

The disproportionate sampling to 

maximize the stability of statelevel estimates was taken into 

account by weighting each case 

with the inverse of the statelevel probability of selection. 

Using the weighted case counts, 

the American Association for 

Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 

Response Rate 4 (AAPOR, 2011) 

was computed separately for 

each combination of sample and 

phase. In the formula below, P 

and I denote partial and complete 

interviews, respectively. Cases 

such as a non-working number, 

beeper/pager, mobile phone, 

modem/fax, pay phone/blocked 

number, business, group quarters, 

and non-residence were coded 

as ineligible (IE). Non-interviewed 

cases from households with at 

least one adult were coded as 

eligible non-interviews (R, NC, 

and O). All remaining cases were 

coded as non-interviews with 

unknown eligibility (UH and UO). 

An eligibility rate (e) was computed 

by dividing the number of cases 

known as eligible (I, P, R, NC, and 

O) by the sum of the numbers 

of cases known as eligible and 

ineligible (IE). This factor was then 

applied to the cases with unknown 

eligibility in the denominator. This 

was computed separately for the 

landline and cell phone samples, 

and by phase.

I+C

(I+P)+(R+NC+O)+e(UH+UO)

RR4 =

The response rates from the 

two phases are combined by 

computing the complement of the 

product of the non-response rates 

in each phase. This is equivalent 

to the Phase One response rate 

plus the product of the Phase One 

non-response rate and the Phase 

Two response rate.

The two combined-phase response 

rates from the landline and cell 

phone samples were combined 

into a single estimate by weighting 

them to their respective proportions in the population based on 

the National Health Interview 

Survey (Blumberg and Luke, 2010). 

The range in the overall response 

rates reflects differences in how 

the proportion of the unknowns 

that are eligible is estimated (e). 

The 27.5% is an estimate of the 

proportion of the unknowns 

that are eligible based on the 

information identified by interviewers when calling numbers. 

The upper estimate (33.6%) also 

includes information from the 

prescreening process.
Table B.1 

Demographic Characteristics of the NISVS Sample and the U.S. Population

Women (%) Men (%) Total (%)

NISVS U.S. NISVS U.S. NISVS US

Demographic 

Characteristics

Landline 

Sample, 

Selection 

Weighted

Cell Sample, 

Selection 

Weighted

Combined 

Samples, 

Post-stratified

Landline

Sample

Selection 

Weighted

Cell Sample, 

Selection 

Weighted

Combined 

Samples, 

Post-stratified

Combined 

Landline and 

Cell Samples, 

Post-stratified

Characteristics Used to Weight the Data

Sex

Female 51.3 51.3

Male 48.7 48.7

Age

18-24 3.9 19.2 12.4 12.4 4.6 18.8 13.8 13.8 13.1 13.1

25-29 3.0 16.6 8.9 8.9 4.1 17.0 9.8 9.8 9.4 9.3

30-44 16.3 26.7 25.7 25.6 17.6 28.9 27.4 27.3 26.5 26.4

45-64 42.2 30.2 34.2 34.1 44.1 28.5 34.3 34.2 34.3 34.2

65+ 34.5 7.3 18.8 19.1 29.6 6.7 14.7 14.8 16.8 17.0

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 9.5 14.9 12.7 12.7 6.6 16.6 14.4 14.5 13.6 13.6

White 

Non-Hispanic

77.4 67.2 68.4 68.5 79.9 64.7 68.1 68.0 68.2 68.2

Black 

Non-Hispanic

9.15 11.9 12.3 12.2 8.5 10.7 11.1 11.2 11.9 11.7

Asian or 

Pacific Islander 

Non-Hispanic

1.7 2.3 4.8 4.8 1.9 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.7

American 

Indian or 

Alaskan Native 

Non-Hispanic

0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Multiracial 

Non-Hispanic

1.8 2.9 1.1 1.1 2.2 3.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1

102 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
Table B1 — continued

Characteristics Not Used to Weight the Data

Education

Didn’t graduate 

from high 

school

10.9 10.0 9.8 12.9 11.6 10.8 11.3 13.8 10.6 13.3

High School 

Graduate

26.2 23.4 24.2 30.8 25.3 27.7 26.1 31.4 25.1 31.1

Technical 

school or 

college

30.0 32.3 29.8 27.3 24.7 28.4 26.0 24.7 27.9 26.1

Four year 

college 

graduate

19.7 21.4 21.7 19.0 20.1 20.8 20.9 19.0 21.3 19.0

Postgraduate 13.3 12.9 14.5 10.1 18.3 12.3 15.7 11.1 15.1 10.6

Marital Status

Married 48.2 40.5 45.5 53.3 59.8 37.9 48.7 56.9 47.1 55.1

Divorced 16.1 14.1 14.0 11.4 14.5 11.6 11.7 9.0 12.9 10.3

Separated 2.0 3.7 2.8 2.7 1.9 3.6 2.7 2.0 2.8 2.4

Widowed 19.3 5.0 10.6 9.8 5.9 2.4 3.6 2.6 7.2 6.3

Never married 14.5 36.7 27.1 22.8 17.9 44.6 33.3 29.5 30.2 26.1

Household Income1

< $10,000 6.2 9.6 7.4 4.7 8.3 6.6 7.0 4.8

$10,000 

- $14,999

6.7 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.1 4.8 5.3 3.3

$15,000 

- $19,999

7.4 9.6 8.0 6.3 8.0 6.6 7.3 4.0

$20,000 

- $24,999

9.3 9.8 9.4 7.7 8.7 8.2 8.8 5.0

$25,000 

- $34,999

10.5 10.3 9.8 11.1 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.7

$35,000 

- $49,999

12.9 11.8 11.8 11.9 13.1 12.1 12.0 13.6

$50,000 

- $74,999

13.1 13.1 13.2 15.4 14.0 14.2 13.7 19.4

> $ 75,000 20.6 19.7 22.8 29.5 23.6 28.9 25.8 40.2

1

Income data in NISVS do not add up to 100% due to missing data for some categories (ranging from 8.1% to 13.3%). 

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 103
Cooperation Rate

It is increasingly difficult to have 

actual contact with potential 

study participants because of 

the increased use of answering 

machines, caller ID, call screening, 

and privacy monitors. However, 

these telephone numbers are part 

of the denominator in calculating 

a response rate. An alternative 

measure, the cooperation rate, 

reflects the proportion who agreed 

to participate in the interview 

among those who were contacted 

and determined to be eligible. 

The cooperation rate for the 2010 

NISVS data collection is based 

on the AAPOR cooperation rate 

formula 4 (COOP4). This cooperation rate is calculated as the sum 

of complete plus partial interviews 

divided by the sum of complete 

interviews, partial interviews, and 

non-interviews that involve the 

identification of and contact with 

an eligible respondent (refusal and 

break-off). 

The cooperation rate formula 4 

defines those individuals who were 

unable to do an interview as also 

incapable of cooperating and they 

are excluded from the denominator. The AAPOR cooperation rate 

formula 4 is:

I+C

(I+P)+R

COOP4 =

The weighted cooperation rate for 

the 2010 NISVS data collection was 

81.3% . In short, once contact was 

made and eligibility determined, 

the majority of respondents chose 

to participate in the interview. 

Weighting Procedures

Weight Components

To generate estimates representative of the U.S. adult population, 

weights reflecting sampling 

features, non-response, coverage, 

and sampling variability were 

developed for analyses. There are 

several main weight components 

contributing to the final sampling 

weights: selection, multiplicity, 

non-response, and post-stratification. The selection weight accounts 

for different sampling rates across 

states, the varying selection probabilities in the landline and in 

the cell phone frames, the within 

household probability of selection, 

and the subsampling of nonrespondents in Phase Two of data 

collection. The multiplicity weight 

component takes into consideration that some sample members 

had both landline and cell phone 

services, thereby having multiple 

chances of entering the survey. 

The non-response weight accounts 

for the variation in response 

rates within the selected sample. 

Finally, the post-stratification 

weight adjusts the product of the 

selection, multiplicity, and nonresponse weights to match the 

population distribution on main 

demographic characteristics. This 

is accomplished using benchmark 

counts from census projections 

to correct for both coverage and 

non-response, which allows the 

landline and cell phone samples to 

be merged together. 

Two main sets of weights were 

computed for the analysis of NISVS 

data. Applying the same principles 

in constructing the various weight 

components, one set of weights 

were computed for all partial and 

complete interviews, while another 

set of weights were computed for 

the complete interviews only. An 

interview is defined as “complete” 

if the respondent completed the 

screening, demographic, general 

health questions, and all questions 

on all five sets of violence victimization, as applicable. An interview is 

defined as “partial” if the respondent completed the screening, 

demographic, and general health 

questions and at least all questions 

on the first set of violence victimization (psychological aggression).

Application of Weights

The estimates presented in this 

report are based on complete interviews and, therefore, use the set of 

weights for complete interviews.

Mid-Year Changes to 

the Survey Instrument

Minor changes to skip patterns 

were implemented in the third and 

fourth quarters of 2010 to improve 

data collection, decrease repetitiveness and increase efficiency. 

Changes include:

•	 Respondents who reported 

experiencing one psychologically 

aggressive behavior one time 

(for example, being called a 

name one time) without any 

other form of violence by the 

same perpetrator no longer 

received the general follow-up 

questions about that perpetrator 

(e.g., injury, absence from work/

school, need for medical care or 

other services). This change does 

not affect the data in this report 

because these respondents 

are still included in the overall 

prevalence estimates for 

psychological aggression. This 

change also does not affect the 

estimates in the impact section 

104 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 105

because those impacts were 

assessed for respondents who 

had experienced rape, stalking 

or physical violence; individuals 

who reported only experiencing 

psychological aggression were 

not included in these estimates.

•	 A skip pattern error allowed 

follow-ups on individuals who 

only experienced one stalking 

tactic one time, with no other 

violence. This error was corrected 

because this does not meet the 

definition of stalking. This change 

does not affect the prevalence of 

stalking because such cases were 

appropriately excluded.

Data Collection and 

Security

In an effort to reduce respondent 

burden and coding errors, and 

to increase efficiency, the survey 

instrument was programmed as 

a computer-assisted telephone 

interview (CATI) using the Blaise 

software package. The CATI system 

includes the actual interview 

program (including the question 

text, response options, interviewer 

instructions, and interviewer 

probes). The CATI’s data quality 

and control program included skip 

patterns, rotations, range checks 

and other on-line consistency 

checks and procedures during 

the interview, assuring that only 

relevant and applicable questions 

were asked of each respondent. 

Data collection and data entry 

occur simultaneously with the 

CATI data entry system. The quality 

of the data was also improved 

through the ability of the CATI 

system to automatically detect 

errors. Data were extracted and 

analyzed directly from the system 

using existing statistical packages. 

Several steps were taken 

throughout the data collection 

period to ensure that no 

respondent identifying information 

was linked to survey data. Before 

data collection began, lead letters 

were sent to all potential landline 

respondents for whom a telephone 

number and an address could be 

matched. The address files used 

to send the lead letters were 

destroyed and were not linked to 

survey responses. Additionally, RTI’s 

CATI system included a compartmentalized data structure, in which 

personally identifying information 

was maintained separately from 

the actual questionnaire responses. 

Further, all identifying information 

was destroyed, once the interview 

was completed. 

Data were collected continuously 

to allow for the optimal timing of 

the release of samples, the size 

of the samples, and the sample 

allocation across frames based on 

the latest landline and cell phone 

household data as well as interview 

outcomes in previous quarters.
106 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Appendix C: Victimization Questions

Sexual Violence

How many people have ever... •	 exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?

•	 made you show your sexual body parts to them? Remember, we are only asking about things 

that you didn’t want to happen.

•	 made you look at or participate in sexual photos or movies?

How many people have ever... •	 harassed you while you were in a public place in a way that made you feel unsafe?

•	 kissed you in a sexual way? Remember, we are only asking about things that you didn’t want to 

happen.

•	 fondled or grabbed your sexual body parts?

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or 

passed out and unable to consent, how 

many people ever...

•	 had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in 

your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}?

•	 {if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning that they made you put your penis into their 

anus?

•	 made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?

•	 made you perform oral sex, meaning that they put their penis in your mouth or made you 

penetrate their vagina or anus with your mouth?

•	 made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their mouth on your {if male: penis} {if female: 

vagina} or anus?

How many people have ever used physical 

force or threats to physically harm you to 

make you...

•	 have vaginal sex?

•	 {if male} perform anal sex?

•	 receive anal sex?

•	 make you perform oral sex?

•	 make you receive oral sex?

•	 put their fingers or an object in your {if female: vagina or} anus?

•	How manypeople haveeverusedphysical

force or threats of physical harm to...

•	 {if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen?

•	 try to have {if female: vaginal} oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did not happen?

•	How manypeople haveyou hadvaginal,

oral, or anal sex with after they pressured 

you by...

•	 doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, 

threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you?

•	 wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

•	 using their authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 107

Stalking Tactics

How many people have ever... •	 watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening device, camera, or GPS 

[global positioning system]?

•	 approached you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when you didn’t 

want them to be there?

•	 left strange or potentially threatening items for you to find?

•	 sneaked into your home or car and did things to scare you by letting you know they had been 

there?

•	 left you unwanted messages? This includes text or voice messages.

•	 made unwanted phone calls to you? This includes hang-up calls.

•	 sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like MySpace 

or Facebook?

•	 left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you didn’t want them to?

Expressive Aggression 

How many of your romantic or sexual 

partners have ever...

•	 acted very angry towards you in a way that seemed dangerous?

•	 told you that you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough?

•	 called you names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid?

•	 insulted, humiliated, or made fun of you in front of others?

•	 told you that no one else would want you?

Coercive Control

How many of your romantic or sexual 

partners have ever...

•	 tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?

•	 made decisions for you that should have been yours to make, such as the clothes you wear, things 

you eat, or the friends you have?

•	 kept track of you by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing?

•	 made threats to physically harm you?

•	 threatened to hurt him or herself or commit suicide when he or she was upset with you?

•	 threatened to hurt a pet or threatened to take a pet away from you?

•	 threatened to hurt someone you love?

•	 hurt someone you love?

•	 {if applicable} threatened to take your children away from you?

•	 kept you from leaving the house when you wanted to go?

•	 kept you from having money for your own use?

•	 destroyed something that was important to you?

•	 said things like “If I can’t have you, then no one can”?
108 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Control of Reproductive and Sexual Health

How many of your romantic or sexual 

partners have ever...

•	 {if female: tried to get you pregnant when you did not want to become pregnant; if male: tried to 

get pregnant when you did not want them to get pregnant} or tried to stop you from using birth 

control?

•	 refused to use a condom when you wanted them to use one?

Physical Violence

How many of your romantic or sexual 

partners have ever...

•	 slapped you?

•	 pushed or shoved you?

•	 hit you with a fist or something hard?

•	 kicked you?

•	 hurt you by pulling your hair?

•	 slammed you against something?

•	 tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?

•	 beaten you?

•	 burned you on purpose?

•	 used a knife or gun on you?
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 109
110 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 2010 Summary Report

Notes
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 111

Notes
112 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report

Notes
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | 2010 Summary Report 113
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Division of Violence Prevention

4770 Buford Highway NE, MS-F64

Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3742

www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention