Intimate Partner Violence 

in the United States — 2010

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 

Division of Violence Prevention
Intimate Partner Violence in the United States — 2010 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 Frieden, MD, MPH, Director

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Daniel Sosin, MD, MPH, FACP, Acting Director

Division of Violence Prevention

Howard Spivak, MD, Director

Suggested Citation:

Breiding, M.J., Chen J., & Black, M.C. (2014). Intimate Partner Violence in the 

United States — 2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Intimate Partner Violence 

in the United States — 2010

February 2014

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Atlanta, Georgia
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

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

Key findings. 

Implications for prevention. 

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

Methods. 

Survey instrument. 

Survey administration. 

Statistical testing and inference. 

Additional methodological information. 

2. Prevalence and Frequency of Individual Forms of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . 

Sexual violence by an intimate partner. 

Physical violence by an intimate partner. 

Stalking by an intimate partner. 

Psychological aggression by an intimate partner. 

Control of reproductive or sexual health by an intimate partner. 

Overlap of rape, physical violence, and stalking across relationships in lifetime reports 

of violence by an intimate partner. 

3. Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence by Sociodemographic Characteristics . . 

Prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner by race/ethnicity. 

Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner by sexual orientation. . . . . .30

Twelve-month prevalence of intimate partner rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by current household income. 

Twelve-month prevalence of intimate partner rape, physical violence, or stalking by age 

at time of survey. 

Twelve-month prevalence of intimate partner rape, physical violence, or stalking by experiences 

of food and housing insecurity. 

Prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner among U.S. natives 

and foreign-born residents. 

4. Impact of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner 

with IPV-related impact. 

Distribution of IPV-related impacts among lifetime victims of rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an intimate partner. 

Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner with physical injury. .

Distribution of physical injury types among lifetime victims of rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an intimate partner. 

ii The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 iii

5 . Accumulation of Intimate Partner Violence Behaviors Experienced 

by Individual Perpetrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Maximum number of sexually violent behaviors experienced in an individual relationship .........43

Maximum number of physically violent behaviors experienced in an individual relationship ........45

Maximum number of stalking behaviors experienced in an individual relationship .................46

Maximum number of psychologically aggressive behaviors experienced in an individual relationship ... 47

Maximum number of IPV-related impacts experienced in an individual relationship ................48

Overlap of rape, physical violence, and stalking within relationships in lifetime reports 

of violence by an intimate partner ................................................................49

6 . Characteristics of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Number of perpetrators in lifetime reports of violence by an intimate partner ......................51

Sex of perpetrator among victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner .......51

Age at the time of first IPV experience among those who experienced rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an intimate partner ................................................................51

7 . Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate Partner Violence Victimization . . . . . .55

Services needed among lifetime victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner .................................................................................55

Services received among victims who needed services ............................................56

Disclosure among lifetime victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner ......... 57

Degree of helpfulness of disclosure among those who disclosed lifetime rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an intimate partner ................................................................58

8 . Physical and Mental Health Conditions by Victimization History . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

9 . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 

Highlights and cross-cutting findings .............................................................65

Limitations ......................................................................................68

10 . Implications for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Primary prevention .............................................................................73

Secondary and tertiary prevention ..............................................................74

Conclusion .....................................................................................75

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendix A: Violence Victimization and Other Domains Assessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Violence domains ................................................................................81

Other domains assessed .........................................................................82

Appendix B: Victimization Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
iv The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

TABLES AND FIGURES

Section 2 Prevalence and Frequency of Individual Forms of Intimate Partner Violence 

Table 2.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women 

and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Table 2.2 Twelve-month Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women 

and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women 

and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.2 Twelve-month Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women 

and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.3 Number of Times Individual Physically Violent Behaviors Were Experienced 

among Victims of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010. .

Table 2.3 Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women 

and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.4 Lifetime Reports of Stalking by an Intimate Partner among Victims by Type of Tactic 

Experienced — NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.5 Lifetime Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women 

and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.6 Twelve-month Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women 

and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.7 Number of Times Individual Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Were Experienced among 

Victims of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.8 Overlap of Lifetime Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking among 

Women — NISVS 2010. 

Figure 2.9 Overlap of Lifetime Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking among

Men — NISVS 2010. 

Section 3 Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence by

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Table 3.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Race/Ethnicity — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010. 

Table 3.2 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Race/Ethnicity — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010. 

Table 3.3 Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Race/Ethnicity — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Table 3.4 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Sexual Orientation — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010. 

Table 3.5 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Sexual Orientation — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010. 

Table 3.6 Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Current Household Income — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Table 3.7 Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Age at Time of Survey — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Table 3.8 Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Experiences of Food and Housing Insecurity within the 12 months Prior to Taking 

the Survey — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. 

Table 3.9 Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner, U.S. Natives and Foreign-Born — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. 
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 v

Section 4 Impact of Intimate Partner Violence 

Figure 4.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner with IPV-related Impact — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 ....................38 

Figure 4.2 Distribution of IPV-related Impacts among Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010 ................................39 

Table 4.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner 

with Specific IPV-related Injuries — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 ...................40

Figure 4.3 Distribution of Specific IPV-related Injuries Experienced among Female and Male 

Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 ......41

Section 5 Accumulation of Intimate Partner Violence Behaviors Experienced 

by Individual Perpetrators 

Figure 5.1 Distribution of the Number of Discrete Sexually Violent Behaviors Experienced 

by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010 .................44

Figure 5.2 Distribution of the Number of Discrete Physically Violent Behaviors Experienced 

by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Figure 5.3 Distribution of the Number of Discrete Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Victims, 

Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010 ..........................46

Figure 5.4 Distribution of the Number of Discrete Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Experienced 

by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010 ..................47

Figure 5.5 Distribution of the Number of Discrete IPV-related Impacts by Victims, Maximum 

Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010 .....................................48

Table 5.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Overlapping Forms of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking 

by an Individual Perpetrator — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 .......................49

Section 6 Characteristics of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization

Figure 6.1 Number of Perpetrators among those Who Experienced Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 ........................................51

Figure 6.2 Age at Time of First IPV among Female Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking 

by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 ...................................................52 

Figure 6.3 Age at Time of First IPV among Male Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking 

by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 ...................................................52

Section 7 Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate Partner Violence Victimization

Figure 7.1 Services Needed among Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking 

by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 

Table 7.1 Proportion of Female Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking 

by an Intimate Partner Who Received Needed Services — NISVS 2010 ...................56

Figure 7.2 Disclosure among Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking 

by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 

Table 7.2 Degree of Helpfulness of Various Sources among those Who Disclosed Lifetime Rape, 

Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 .........................59

Section 8 Physical and Mental Health Conditions by Victimization History

Table 8.1 Prevalence of Physical and Mental Health Conditions among those with 

and without a History of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 ............................................62

Table 8.2 Association between Physical and Mental Health Conditions and the Experience of Rape, 

Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 ..... 63
vi The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the following individuals who contributed to 

the development and support of this report: Kathleen Basile, Linda Dahlberg, 

Alex Crosby, Faye Floyd, Leroy Frazier, Jeff Hall, E. Lynn Jenkins, Melissa 

Merrick, Nimesh Patel, Sharon Smith, Margie Walling, Mikel Walters, Paula 

Orlosky Williams, and RTI International. Finally, we would like to acknowledge 

Mark Stevens for his significant contribution in providing statistical support 

for this report.

Recognition is given to the team of people that substantially contributed 

to the original development of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey, including: Kathleen Basile, Michele Black, Matthew Breiding, 

James Mercy, Linda Saltzman, and Sharon Smith (contributors listed in 

alphabetical order). 
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a 

significant public health problem. 

IPV includes physical violence, 

sexual violence, stalking, and 

psychological aggression (including 

coercive tactics) by a current or 

former intimate partner. In addition 

to the immediate impact, IPV has 

lifelong consequences. A number 

of studies have shown that beyond 

injury and death, victims of IPV 

are more likely to report a range 

of acute and chronic mental and 

physical health conditions (Black, 

2011; Coker, Smith, & Fadden, 

2005; Coker, Davis, Arias, Desai, 

Sanderson, Brandt, & Smith, 2002). 

Many survivors of these forms of 

violence experience physical injury; 

depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, 

and suicide attempts; and other 

health conditions such as gastrointestinal disorders, substance 

abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, 

and gynecological or pregnancy 

complications. These conditions 

can lead to hospitalization, 

disability, or death.

During the past decade, our 

understanding of the biological 

response to acute and chronic 

stress that links IPV with negative 

health conditions has deepened 

(Black, 2011; Crofford, 2007; 

Pico-Alfonso, Garcia-Linares, 

Celda-Navarro, Herbert, & Martinez, 

2004). Additionally, a number of 

behavioral factors are likely to 

play a role in the link between IPV 

and adverse health conditions, as 

victims of IPV are more likely to 

smoke, engage in heavy/binge 

drinking, engage in behaviors 

that increase the risk of HIV, and 

endorse other unhealthy behaviors 

(Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 2008; 

Coker et al., 2002). 

Findings in this report are based 

on data from the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

(NISVS). NISVS is an ongoing, 

nationally representative, random 

digit dial telephone survey 

that collects information about 

experiences of intimate partner 

violence, sexual violence, and 

stalking from non-institutionalized 

English- and/or Spanish-speaking 

women and men aged 18 or older 

in the United States. This report 

provides findings from the 2010 data 

collection pertaining to intimate 

partner violence. Some of the key 

topics covered in this report are:

•	 Overall lifetime and 12-month 

prevalence of IPV victimization

•	 Prevalence of IPV victimization 

by sociodemographic variables, 

such as race/ethnicity, sexual 

orientation, and income

•	 Impact of IPV victimization 

•	 Characteristics of IPV victimization 

such as number of lifetime 

perpetrators, sex of perpetrator, 

and age at first IPV victimization

•	 Services needed and disclosure 

related to IPV victimization

The findings presented in this 

report are based on complete 

interviews from the NISVS survey. 

Complete interviews were 

obtained from 16,507 adults (9,086 

women and 7,421 men) in 2010. 

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 

are not shown because the number 

of people reporting a specific type 

of victimization was too few to 

calculate a reliable estimate. These 

non-reportable estimates are noted 

in the report so the reader can easily 

determine what was assessed and 

where gaps remain. 

A detailed description of the 

violence types measured, as well as 

the verbatim violence victimization 

questions, are presented in the 

Appendices of the report.

Key Findings

Sexual Violence by an 

Intimate Partner

•	 Nearly 1 in 10 women in the 

United States (9.4%) has been 

raped by an intimate partner 

in her lifetime, including 

completed forced penetration, 

attempted forced penetration, 

or alcohol/drug facilitated 

completed penetration.

•	 Approximately 1 in 45 men 

(2.2%) has been made to 

penetrate an intimate partner 

during his lifetime. 
2 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

•	 An estimated 16.9% of women 

and 8.0% of men have experienced 

sexual violence other than rape 

(being made to penetrate an 

intimate partner, sexual coercion, 

unwanted sexual contact, and 

non-contact unwanted sexual 

experiences) by an intimate 

partner in their lifetime. 

Physical Violence by an 

Intimate Partner

•	 Women and men experienced 

many types of physical violence 

ranging from being slapped 

to having a knife or gun used 

against them.

•	 Women had a significantly higher 

lifetime prevalence of severe 

physical violence by an intimate 

partner (24.3%) compared to 

men (13.8%). 

•	 Approximately 2.7% of women 

and 2.0% of men experienced 

severe physical violence in the 

12 months preceding the survey.

Stalking by an Intimate Partner

•	 Women had a significantly higher 

lifetime prevalence of stalking 

by an intimate partner (10.7%) 

compared to men (2.1%). 

•	 Women had a significantly higher 

12-month prevalence of stalking 

by an intimate partner (2.8%) 

compared to men (0.5%). 

Psychological Aggression 

by an Intimate Partner

•	 Nearly half of U.S. women 

(48.4%) and half of U.S. men 

(48.8%) have experienced at least 

one psychologically aggressive 

behavior by an intimate partner 

during their lifetime.

•	 Men had a significantly higher 

prevalence of experiencing 

psychological aggression from 

an intimate partner in the 

12 months preceding the 

survey than women (18.1% 

and 13.9%, respectively).

Overlap of Rape, Physical 

Violence, and Stalking

•	 Among those who experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner in their 

lifetime, male victims (92.1%) 

were significantly more likely 

than female victims (56.8%) to 

experience physical violence only.

•	 Among male victims, 6.3% 

experienced both physical 

violence and stalking in their 

lifetime; too few men reported 

other combinations of rape, 

physical violence, and stalking to 

produce reliable estimates.

•	 Among female victims, 14.4% 

experienced physical violence 

and stalking; 8.7% experienced 

both rape and physical violence; 

12.5% experienced rape, physical 

violence, and stalking.

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner, by Race/Ethnicity

•	 Black non-Hispanic women 

(43.7%) and multiracial nonHispanic women (53.8%) had 

a significantly higher lifetime 

prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner, compared to 

White non-Hispanic women 

(34.6%); Asian or Pacific 

Islander non-Hispanic women 

(19.6%) had significantly lower 

prevalence than White nonHispanic women. 

•	 American Indian or Alaska Native 

non-Hispanic men (45.3%), Black 

non-Hispanic men (38.6%), and 

multiracial non-Hispanic men 

(39.3%) had a significantly higher 

lifetime prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking 

compared to White non-Hispanic 

men (28.2%).

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner, by Sexual Orientation

•	 Bisexual women had a significantly 

higher prevalence of lifetime 

rape, physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate partner 

(61.1%) compared to lesbian 

women (43.8%) and heterosexual 

women (35.0%).

•	 The lifetime prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by 

an intimate partner was 29.0% 

among heterosexual men, 37.3% 

among bisexual men, and 26.0% 

among gay men.

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner by Food and 

Housing Insecurity

•	 Women and men who 

experienced food insecurity 

in the past 12 months (11.6% 

and 8.2%, respectively) had a 

significantly higher 12-month 

prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner compared to 

women and men who did not 

experience food insecurity (3.2% 

and 4.0%, respectively). 

•	 Women and men who 

experienced housing insecurity 

in the past 12 months (10.0% 

and 7.9%, respectively) had a 

significantly higher 12-month 

prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner compared to 

women and men who did not 

experience housing insecurity 

(2.3% and 3.1%, respectively). 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 3

Impact of Violence by an 

Intimate Partner

•	 Women were significantly more 

likely than men to experience 

rape, physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate partner 

and report at least one impact 

related to experiencing these 

or other forms of violent 

behavior in the relationship (e.g., 

psychological aggression, being 

made to penetrate someone else, 

sexual coercion).

•	 Female victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking were 

significantly more likely than 

male victims to experience 

each of the IPV-related impacts 

measured including fear, concern 

for safety, need for medical care, 

injury, need for housing services, 

and having missed at least one 

day of work or school. 

Maximum Number of Violent 

Behaviors Experienced in an 

Individual Relationship

•	 Among victims of sexual violence 

by an intimate partner, the 

proportion of female victims 

that experienced more than the 

median number (two or more) of 

unique sexually violent behaviors 

by an individual intimate partner 

was higher than the proportion 

of male victims.

•	 Among victims of physical 

violence by an intimate partner, 

the proportion of female victims 

that experienced more than the 

median number (three or more) 

of unique physically violent 

behaviors by an individual 

intimate partner was higher than 

the proportion of male victims. 

•	 Among victims of psychological 

aggression by an intimate 

partner, the proportion of female 

victims that experienced more 

than the median number (four or 

more) of unique psychologically 

aggressive behaviors by an 

individual intimate partner was 

higher than the proportion of 

male victims.

Age at the Time of First 

IPV Victimization 

•	 Among those who ever 

experienced rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner, more than 

1 in 5 female victims (22.4%) 

and more than 1 in 7 male victims 

(15.0%) experienced some form 

of intimate partner violence for 

the first time between the ages 

of 11 and 17 years. 

•	 47.1% of female victims and 

38.6% of male victims were 

between 18 and 24 years of age 

when they first experienced 

violence by an intimate partner.

Need for Services, Disclosure

•	 Female victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking were 

significantly more likely than 

male victims to report a need 

for services at some point 

during their lifetime due to their 

experience with IPV (36.4% and 

15.6%, respectively). 

•	 Among victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking who 

reported a need for services 

at some point during their 

lifetime, the proportion of men 

who reported that they always 

received those services (33.0%) 

was significantly lower than the 

proportion of female victims 

who reported that they always 

received those services (49.0%). 

•	 Less than 50% of women who 

needed housing or victim’s 

advocate services during their 

lifetime received them. 

•	 Among victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner, the proportion 

that disclosed their victimization 

to someone was higher among 

women (84.2%) than among 

men (60.9%). The proportion of 

men that described disclosure as 

“very helpful” was significantly 

lower than the proportion of 

women that described disclosure 

as “very helpful” for the following 

sources of disclosure: police, 

psychologists/counselors, 

friends, and family members.

•	 Among victims of lifetime rape, 

physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner, 21.1% 

of female victims and 5.6% of 

male victims disclosed their 

victimization to a doctor or nurse.

Health Conditions

•	 Men and women with a lifetime 

history of rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an intimate partner 

were more likely to report 

frequent headaches, chronic 

pain, difficulty sleeping, activity 

limitations, and poor physical 

health in general compared to 

those without a history of these 

forms of IPV. Women who have 

experienced these forms of 

violence were also more likely 

to report asthma, irritable bowel 

syndrome, diabetes, and poor 

mental health compared to 

women who did not experience 

these forms of violence. 
Implications for 

Prevention

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention's (CDC’s) key focus on 

preventing IPV is the promotion of 

respectful, nonviolent relationships 

through individual, relationship, 

community, and societal change. 

This strategy is focused on 

principles such as identifying ways 

to interrupt the development of IPV 

perpetration; better understanding 

the factors that contribute to 

respectful relationships and protect 

against IPV; creating and evaluating 

new approaches to prevention; 

and building community capacity 

to implement strategies that 

are based on the best available 

evidence. Community capacity can 

be enhanced by building upon and 

joining well-organized, broad-based 

coalitions that effectively create 

change in communities. 

The principal focus of CDC is 

primary prevention, prioritizing the 

prevention of public health burdens, 

such as IPV, from occurring in the 

first place. This report suggests 

that IPV victimization begins at 

an early age with nearly 70% of 

female victims and nearly 54% of 

male victims having experienced 

IPV prior to age 25. This suggests 

that primary prevention of IPV 

must begin at an early age. CDC’s 

approach to primary prevention 

of IPV is the promotion of healthy 

relationship behaviors among 

young people, with the goal of 

reaching adolescents prior to their 

first relationships. By influencing 

relationship behaviors and patterns 

early through dating violence 

prevention programs, it is possible 

to promote healthy relationship 

behaviors and patterns that can be 

carried forward into adulthood. 

This report identified groups that 

are at most risk for IPV victimization. 

While primary prevention programs 

exist, it is unknown whether they 

are effective within specific groups 

of people, particularly among those 

identified in this report as being 

most at risk. Further work needs to 

be done to adapt and test existing 

strategies for specific groups as well 

as develop and test other strategies 

to determine whether they are 

effective in preventing IPV. 

Positive and healthy parentchild relationships can provide 

the foundation for the primary 

prevention of IPV. Children benefit 

from safe, stable, and nurturing 

familial environments that 

facilitate respectful interactions 

and open communication. Other 

opportunities to build parent-child 

relationships include programs to 

promote effective parenting skills 

and efforts to include and support 

relationships between fathers and 

children. Beyond providing children 

an opportunity to share with their 

parents the experiences they have 

had with dating violence and other 

forms of violence, parents who 

model healthy, respectful intimate 

relationships free from violence 

foster these relationship patterns 

in their children. 

The focus of this report is on 

describing the public health burden 

of victimization. In order to better 

understand how to prevent partner 

violence, CDC also supports work 

that seeks to better understand 

the causes of IPV perpetration. 

Research examining risk and 

protective factors is important for 

understanding how perpetration 

of violence develops and to 

determine the optimal strategies 

for preventing intimate partner 

violence. While much is known 

about risks factors at the individual 

and couple level, there have been 

few studies examining community 

and societal-level factors related 

to perpetration of IPV. As risk 

and protective factors for IPV 

perpetration are better understood, 

additional research is needed to 

develop and evaluate strategies to 

effectively prevent the first-time 

perpetration of IPV. 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.

Beyond primary prevention, 

secondary and tertiary prevention 

programs are essential for 

mitigating the short- and long-term 

consequences of IPV among 

victims, as well as reducing the 

violence-related health burden 

across the life span. This report 

examined a range of services 

that victims reported needing as 

a result of IPV at some point in 

their lifetime and whether they 

received them, including medical 

care, housing, victim’s advocacy, 

legal and community services. The 

vast majority of women who were 

victims of IPV indicated that they 

needed medical services; nearly half 

needed housing, victim’s advocacy, 

and community services; and a third 

needed legal services. Among the 

female victims who needed at least 

one of these services at some point 

during their lifetime, less than half 

indicated that they received any 

of the needed services. Among the 

male victims who needed at least 

one of these services, two-thirds 

4 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 5

stated that they did not receive 

any of the needed services. This 

indicates that, across the lifetime 

of the current U.S. adult population, 

a significant gap exists between a 

need for services and the receipt 

of those services. Future work is 

needed to understand the degree 

to which this gap exists currently, 

and whether an existing gap is due 

to services being unavailable or 

because available services are not 

being utilized. Better understanding 

the barriers to service utilization 

is important.

Disclosing victimization experiences 

is a necessary first step for victims 

to be able to obtain the resources 

and services they need. One 

primary method by which IPV 

victims may disclose victimization 

and receive appropriate help is 

through disclosure to medical 

professionals. The results in this 

report suggest that a majority of 

male and female victims did not 

disclose their victimization to a 

health care professional. While 

84.2% of female victims and 60.9% 

of male victims disclosed their IPV 

victimization to someone, only 

21% of female victims and 5.6% 

of male victims reported having 

disclosed their victimization to 

a medical professional at some 

point in their lifetime. These 

findings suggest a need to better 

understand how to overcome the 

barriers that may prevent victims 

from disclosing to a medical 

professional and those barriers 

that may make some medical 

professionals feeling reticent to 

inquire about IPV victimization, 

even among those patients that 

shown signs of victimization. This 

report provides updated, detailed 

information describing the public 

health burden of IPV in the United 

States. While progress has been 

made in understanding factors 

that contribute to IPV and how to 

prevent IPV from occurring, this 

report demonstrates that 

much more needs to be done to 

reduce the negative impact of 

IPV on women and men in the 

United States.
6 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 7

1: Background and Methods

Intimate partner violence (IPV) 

includes physical violence, sexual 

violence, stalking, and psychological 

aggression (including coercive 

tactics) by a current or former 

intimate partner. The violence 

may occur among cohabitating or 

noncohabitating romantic or sexual 

partners and among opposite or 

same-sex couples. IPV is a major 

public health problem 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). A number of studies have 

shown that, beyond injury and 

death, victims of IPV are more likely 

to report a range of negative mental 

and physical health conditions 

that are both acute and chronic 

in nature (Black, 2011; Crofford, 

2007; Pico-Alfonso, Garcia-Linares, 

Celda-Navarro, Herbert, & Martinez, 

2004). For example, victims of IPV 

are more likely to smoke, engage 

in heavy/binge drinking, engage in 

behaviors that increase the risk of 

HIV, and endorse other unhealthy 

behaviors (Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 

2008). Additionally, a number of 

studies over the past decade have 

improved our understanding of 

the biologic response to acute 

and chronic stress that links IPV 

with negative health conditions 

(Crofford, 2007; Pico-Alfonso et 

al., 2004). Elevated health risks 

have been observed in relation to 

multiple body systems including 

the nervous, cardiovascular, 

gastrointestinal, genitourinary, 

reproductive, musculoskeletal, 

immune, and endocrine systems 

(Black, 2011). 

The primary purpose of this 

report is to describe the public 

health burden of IPV in the 

United States and to provide 

information about the context 

of victimization experiences. By 

context of victimization we are 

referring to factors such as the 

frequency, pattern, and impacts of 

the violence experienced. In recent 

years, researchers have called for 

studies of IPV prevalence to better 

examine and describe the context 

of victimization (LanginrichsenRohling, 2010; Houry, Rhodes, 

Kemball, Click, Cerulli, McNutt, 

& Kaslow, 2008; Harned, 2001; 

Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Moving 

beyond a focus upon whether a 

person has or has not experienced 

IPV allows for a description of 

the broad range of victimization 

experiences. Prevalence estimates 

can encompass, but not fully 

describe, experiences ranging from 

chronic, severe IPV to one-time, 

less severe IPV victimization. The 

call by IPV researchers for greater 

context recognizes that the 

variation in motives, frequency, 

severity, chronicity, and impact, 

among other factors, cannot be 

fully represented by a dichotomous 

prevalence estimate. In other words, 

overall IPV prevalence estimates, 

while providing useful information, 

are but one indicator of the public 

health burden of a complex and 

wide-ranging set of experiences. 

An improved understanding of the 

range of experiences associated 

with IPV victimization is necessary 

to better inform intervention and 

prevention efforts. 

To address the need for greater 

contextualization of prevalence 

estimates, this report examines the: 

•	 Frequency of individual 

IPV behaviors

•	 Overlap of IPV violence types

•	 Impact of IPV victimization 

•	 Experience of multiple forms of 

IPV within individual relationships

•	 Services needed as a result of 

IPV victimization

This report also provides a more 

detailed and comprehensive 

examination of the burden of IPV 

in the United States relative to 

The National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 

2010 Summary Report (Black et al., 

2011). This report presents findings 

on the:

•	 Prevalence of individual IPV 

behaviors

•	 Prevalence of IPV victimization 

by sociodemographic variables, 

such as race/ethnicity, sexual 

orientation, recent food and 

housing insecurity, and income

•	 Characteristics of IPV victimization 

including the number of lifetime 

perpetrators, sex of perpetrator, 

and age at first IPV victimization

•	 Associations between IPV 

victimization and physical and 

mental health conditions

•	 Disclosure of IPV victimization
8 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

Further, it includes confidence 

intervals around prevalence 

estimates, as well as statistical 

testing comparing prevalence 

between sociodemographic groups 

(e.g., sex, race/ethnicity, income 

level) to inform prevention practice 

by identifying populations at 

greatest risk of IPV victimization.

Methods

Data Source

Data for this report are from the 

National Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey (NISVS), which was 

launched by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention's (CDC’s) 

National Center for Injury Prevention 

and Control in 2010. NISVS is an 

ongoing, national random digit 

dial telephone survey of the 

non-institutionalized English- and/

or Spanish-speaking U.S. population 

aged 18 or older. NISVS assesses a 

broad range of experiences related 

to sexual violence, stalking, and 

intimate partner violence. It was 

designed to provide national and 

state level prevalence estimates 

for lifetime victimization and 

victimization in the 12 months 

prior to taking the survey. While 

the current report is limited to 

violence perpetrated by an intimate 

partner, the NISVS survey collects 

information about sexual violence 

by any perpetrator, stalking by any 

perpetrator, physical violence by 

an intimate partner, psychological 

aggression by an intimate partner, 

and control of reproductive or sexual 

health by an intimate partner.

In addition to collecting lifetime 

and 12-month prevalence data, 

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, NISVS:

•	 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 

across the life span and within 

individual relationships

•	 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 

short- and long-term physical 

and mental health conditions 

that may be associated with the 

experience of violence

NISVS uses a dual-frame sampling 

strategy that includes both 

landline and cell phones. 

NISVS began collecting data in 

January 2010 from 50 states and 

the District of Columbia. This report 

is based on data that was gathered 

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 women and 7,421 

men completed the survey. 

Approximately 45.2% of interviews 

were conducted by respondents' 

landline telephone and 54.8% were 

conducted by 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 a percentage of 

telephone numbers with unknown 

household status are 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 indicates 

that once contact was made and 

eligibility determined, the majority 

of respondents chose to participate 

in the interview. 

Survey Instrument 

The median length of the interview 

was 24.7 minutes. The survey 

included behaviorally specific 

questions that assess intimate 

partner violence experiences related 

to sexual violence; physical violence; 

stalking; psychological aggression 

including expressive aggression and 

coercive control; and control of reproductive or sexual health. Questions 

were asked in relation to violence 

experienced over the lifetime and 

during the 12 months prior to the 

interview. A description of the 

violence types measured is provided 

in Appendix A. A list of the specific 

violence victimization questions used 

in the survey is in Appendix B. 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 9

Survey Administration

Graduated Informed 

Consent Process

Following recommended guidelines 

for sensitive study topics such as IPV 

(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 International 

Review Board (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 CDC or project staff 

from the Research Triangle Institute, 

International (RTI) (contracted by 

the CDC to administer the survey). 

Respondent Safety

Interviewers were trained to 

remind 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 & 

Incest National Network.

Statistical Testing 

and Inference

Statistical inference for prevalence 

and population estimates 

were made based on weighted 

analyses, where complex sample 

design features, such as dual 

sampling frames, stratified 

sampling, and unequal sample 

selection probabilities, were 

taken into account. All analyses 

were conducted using SUDAANTM 

statistical software for analyzing 

data collected through complex 

sample design.

Within categories of violence 

(e.g., any physical violence by an 

intimate partner, other sexual 

violence by an intimate partner), 

respondents who reported 

more than one subcategory of 

violence are included only once 

in the summary estimate, but 

are included in each relevant 

subcategory. The denominators 

in prevalence calculations include 

persons who answered a question 

or responded with don’t know or 

refused. Missing data (instances in 

which all questions for constructing 

an outcome of interest were not 

fully administered) were excluded 

from analyses. 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. The 

estimated number of victims 

affected by a particular form of 

violence was calculated based on 

U.S. population estimates from the 

census projections by state, sex, 

age, and race/ethnicity (http://www.

census.gov/popest/states/asrh/). 

Analyses were conducted stratified 

by the sex of the respondent. 

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 was not reported. 

Consideration also was given to 

the case count. If the estimate 

was based on a numerator less 

than or equal to 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. 

Statistical significance testing was 

conducted comparing prevalence 

estimates of subgroups when both 

estimates met the reliability criteria. 

A two-tailed t-test (alpha = .05) 
10 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

was conducted to assess the 

difference in prevalence between 

two groups. A statistically 

significant difference in prevalence 

was established between two 

estimates when p < .05. In addition, 

a number of health conditions were 

assessed in this survey and were 

examined with respect to lifetime 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner. Chi-square 

tests were conducted to examine 

the association between 

victimization and dichotomous 

health conditions, controlling 

for relevant sociodemographic 

variables and other forms of 

victimization measured by 

NISVS (rape and stalking by 

non-intimates). A p-value of 

.05 was set as the threshold for 

establishing statistical significance. 

Statistical analyses for this report 

were performed by statisticians 

from the CDC.

Additional 

Methodological 

Information

The 2010 NISVS Summary Report 

provides additional methodological 

information related to the 2010 

NISVS including features that 

distinguish NISVS from other 

national surveys; efforts to ensure 

data quality and respondent 

confidentiality; IRB and OMB 

approval; mid-year changes to 

the survey instrument; weighting 

procedures; response rate and 

cooperation rate formulas; 

sampling strategy; data quality 

assurance; survey development; 

cognitive testing of the survey 

instrument; advance letters sent 

to respondents; incentives to 

respondents for participation; 

interviewer recruitment, training, 

and monitoring; and sample 

distributions and demographic 

characteristics (Black et al., 2011).
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 11
12 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
Nearly 1 in 10 women 

in the U.S. has 

been raped by an 

intimate partner in 

her lifetime; 2.2% of 

U.S. men have been 

made to penetrate 

an intimate partner.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 13

Sexual Violence by 

an Intimate Partner

Lifetime Prevalence

Nearly 1 in 10 women in the United 

States (9.4% or approximately 

11.2 million) has been raped by 

an intimate partner in her lifetime 

(Table 2.1). More specifically, 

6.6% of women have experienced 

completed forced penetration 

by an intimate partner, 2.5% 

have experienced attempted 

forced penetration, and 3.4% 

have experienced alcohol/drug 

facilitated penetration. Too few 

men reported rape by an intimate 

partner to produce reliable 

estimates for overall rape or 

individual types of rape. 

Approximately 1 in 6 women 

(15.9% or nearly 19 million) and 

1 in 12 men in the United States 

(8.0% or approximately 9 million), 

have experienced sexual violence 

other than rape by an intimate 

partner in their lifetime. Women 

had a significantly higher lifetime 

prevalence of sexual violence 

2: Prevalence and Frequency of Individual 

Forms of Intimate Partner Violence

Table 2.

Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 20

Women Men

Weighted % 95% CI

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims1

Weighted % 95% CI

Estimated 

Number of 

Victims1

Rape 9.4# 8.5 – 10.3 11,162,000 *

Completed forced penetration 6.6# 5.9 – 7.4 7,859,000 * 

Attempted forced penetration 2.5# 2.1 – 3.0 2,975,000 * 

Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration 3.4# 2.9 – 4.0 4,098,000 * 

Other Sexual Violence 15.9† 14.8 – 17.1 18,973,000 8.0 7.1 – 9.0 9,050,000

Made to penetrate * 2.2# 1.7 – 2.7 2,442,000

Sexual coercion2 9.8† 8.9 – 10.8 11,681,000 4.2 3.5 – 5.0 4,744,000

Unwanted sexual contact3 6.4† 5.7 – 7.2 7,633,000 2.6 2.1 – 3.3 2,999,000

Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences4 7.8† 7.0 – 8.7 9,298,000 2.7 2.2 – 3.3 3,049,000

1 Rounded to the nearest thousand.

2 Pressured in a nonphysical 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 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.

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

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a reliable 

estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.
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.

14 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

other than rape by an intimate 

partner compared to men (p < .05). 

However, approximately 2.2% of 

men have been made to penetrate 

an intimate partner at some point 

in their lifetime; too few women 

were made to penetrate an intimate 

partner to produce a reliable 

estimate. The lifetime prevalence of 

sexual coercion, unwanted sexual 

contact, and non-contact unwanted 

sexual experiences by an intimate 

partner were all significantly higher 

for women than men (p < .05).

Twelve-month Prevalence

In the 12 months prior to taking 

the survey, 0.6% or an estimated 

686,000 women in the United States 

were raped by an intimate partner 

(Table 2.2). Too few men reported 

rape by an intimate partner in the 

12 months prior to taking the survey 

to produce a reliable estimate. 

Also, 2.3% of women, and 2.5% 

of men, experienced other forms 

of sexual violence by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months prior to 

the survey. Approximately 0.5% of 

men were made to penetrate an 

intimate partner in the 12 months 

Table 2.

12-month Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men

NISVS 2010

Women Men

Weighted % 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims1

Weighted % 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims1

Rape 0.6# 0.4 – 0.9 686,000 *

Completed forced penetration 0.4# 0.2 – 0.7 472,000 *

Attempted forced penetration * * 

Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration * * 

Other Sexual Violence 2.3 1.9 – 2.8 2,747,000 2.5 2.0 – 3.1 2,793,000

Made to penetrate * 0.5# 0.3 – 0.9 586,000

Sexual coercion2 1.7† 1.3 – 2.1 1,978,000 1.0 0.7 – 1.4 1,143,000

Unwanted sexual contact3 0.5 0.4 – 0.8 645,000 0.9 0.6 – 1.4 1,031,000

Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences4 0.7 0.5 – 1.0 836,000 0.8 0.5 – 1.2 882,000

1 Rounded to the nearest thousand.

2 Pressured in a nonphysical 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 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.

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

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence. 

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a reliable 

estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 15

preceding the survey, whereas too 

few women were made to penetrate 

an intimate partner to produce a 

reliable estimate. With the exception 

of sexual coercion, where the 

12-month estimate was significantly 

higher for women than men (p < .05), 

none of the other estimates were 

significantly different.

Physical Violence by 

an Intimate Partner

Lifetime Prevalence

Approximately 32.9% of women in 

the United States have experienced 

physical violence by an intimate 

partner in their lifetime, compared 

to 28.1% of men, a statistically 

significant difference (p < .05) 

(Figure 2.1). Examining the 

prevalence of more severe 

forms of physical violence, 

24.3% of women (or approximately 

29 million) have experienced severe 

physical violence by an intimate 

partner in their lifetime, compared 

to 13.8% of men (approximately 

15.6 million), also a statistically 

significant difference (p < .05). 

Additionally, prevalence of the 

following severe physically violent 

behaviors were significantly higher 

(p < .05) for women than men: 

being hurt by pulling hair; being hit 

with a fist or something hard; being 

kicked; being slammed against 

something; being hurt by choking 

or suffocating; being beaten; being 

burned on purpose; and having a 

gun or knife used on them.

Approximately 1 in 3 women 

(30.4%) and 1 in 4 men (25.6%) in 

the United States has been slapped, 

pushed, or shoved by an intimate 

partner at some point in their 

lifetime. The lifetime prevalence 

of being slapped, pushed, or 

shoved by an intimate partner was 

significantly higher among women 

compared to men (p < .05).

Any physical violence

Slapped, pushed, or shoved

Slapped

Pushed or shoved

Any severe physical violence

Hurt by pulling hair

Hit with a fist or something hard

Kicked

Slammed against something

Tried to hurt by choking or suffocating

Beaten

Burned on purpose

Used a knife or gun

32.9†

30.4†

20.4†

28.1

18.3

25.6

27.5†

19.4

24.3†

13.8

10.4†

2.9

14.2†

9.4

7.1†

4.3

17.2†

2.7

9.7†

1.1

1.1†

0.6

11.2†

2.6

4.6†

2.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 2.1

Lifetime Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men

NISVS 2010

Women

Men

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

Percent
16 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

Twelve-month Prevalence

The prevalence of physical violence 

victimization by an intimate partner 

in the 12 months prior to taking the 

survey was 4.0% among women 

compared to 4.7% among men 

(Figure 2.2). The prevalence of severe 

physical violence victimization 

by an intimate partner in the 12 

months prior to taking the survey 

was 2.7% among women compared 

to 2.0% among men. The 12-month 

prevalence of being slapped and 

being kicked was significantly higher 

for men, whereas the prevalence 

of being hurt by hair pulling, being 

slammed against something, and 

being beaten was significantly 

higher for women (p < .05). All other 

comparisons that were conducted 

were not statistically significant. 

Frequency of Individual 

Physically Violent Behaviors

Respondents who reported that 

they had experienced a particular 

physically violent behavior were 

asked how many times in their 

lifetime they had experienced that 

behavior by that specific intimate 

partner. Response options included 

once, two to five times, six to 10 

times, 11 to 50 times, or more than 

50 times. Figure 2.3 displays the 

higher frequency categories (11 to 50, 

more than 50) of individual physically 

violent behaviors among victims 

of physical violence by an intimate 

partner. The proportion experiencing 

the following behaviors 11 or more 

times was significantly higher (p < .05)

for female victims, in comparison 

to male victims: slapped, pushed, 

or shoved; hurt by pulling hair; hit 

with a fist or something hard; kicked; 

and beaten. Formal statistical testing 

comparing the frequency of being 

hurt by choking or suffocating 11 or 

more times, comparing women and 

men, was not undertaken because 

the number of men reporting this 

behavior 11 or more times within 

an individual relationship was too 

small to generate a reliable estimate. 

Women

Men

Any physical violence

Slapped, pushed, or shoved

Slapped

Pushed or shoved

Any severe physical violence

Hurt by pulling hair

Hit with a fist or something hard

Kicked

Slammed against something

Tried to hurt by choking or suffocating

Beaten

Burned on purpose

Used a knife or gun

4.0

3.6

1.6

4.7

2.7†

4.5

3.4

3.8

2.7

2.0

0.8†

0.3

1.1

1.4

0.3

0.7†

1.5†

0.4

*

0.7†

0.3

0 1 2 3 4 5

*

*

*

*

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

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

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate 

a reliable estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.

0.9#

Figure 2.

12-month Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Me

NISVS 2010

Percent
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 17

Similarly, the number of women and 

men who reported the following 

behaviors 11 or more times was too 

small to generate reliable estimates 

for statistical testing between groups: 

being burned on purpose and having 

a knife or gun used on them.

Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

Lifetime and 

12-month Prevalence

The lifetime prevalence of stalking 

by an intimate partner in which the 

victim felt very fearful or believed 

that they or someone close to 

them would be harmed or killed 

was significantly higher for women 

(10.7% or an estimated 12.8 million) 

than for men (2.1% or an estimated 

2.4 million), p < .05 (Table 2.3). 

Table 2.

Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men

NISVS 2010

Lifetime 12-month

Weighted % 95% CI Estimated Number of Victims1 Weighted % 95% CI Estimated Number of Victims1

Women 10.7† 9.8 – 11.7 12,786,000 2.8† 2.3 – 3.4 3,353,000

Men 2.1 1.7 – 2.8 2,427,000 0.5 0.3 – 0.7 519,000

1 Rounded to the nearest thousand.

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

†Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in the proportion of victims that experienced the behavior 11 or more times in an individual relationship.

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

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a reliable 

estimate for at least one of the comparison groups. 

Slapped

Pushed or shoved

Hit with a fist or something hard

Kicked

Hurt by pulling hair

Slammed against something

Tried to hurt by choking or suffocating

Beaten

Burned on purpose

Used a knife or gun

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 2.

Number of Times Individual Physically Violent Behaviors Were Experienced among 

Victims of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010

11-50 times

>50 times

W = Women

M = Men

15.2 12.0

6.9 3.1

*

*

*

*

*

*

10.8 3.8

17.7 11.6

11.3 4.3

18.7 10.6

6.7

17.5 8.3

14.2

20.2 10.5

15.2 8.7

9.8 5.0

W†

M

W†

M 

W†

M

W†

M 

W†

M

W

M

W#

M

W†

M

W#

M

W#

M

*

*

*

*

21.2 17.3

Percent
Nearly half of women 

and men in the U.S. 

have experienced 

psychological 

aggression by an 

intimate partner 

in their lifetime.

18 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Figure 2.4

Lifetime Reports of Stalking by an Intimate Partner among Victims by Type of Tactic 

Experienced — NISVS 2010

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a 

reliable estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

77.4

26.9

83.7

17.8

12.1#

8.8#

* *

37.4

26.3

64.8

28.1

23.4

52.1

Unwanted 

phone calls

Unwanted 

emails or 

messages

Unwanted 

gifts

Watched or 

followed

Approached 

or showed up

Left strange 

items

Snuck into 

home or car

Women

Men

Similarly, the 12-month prevalence 

of stalking by an intimate partner in 

which the victim felt very fearful or 

believed that they or someone close 

to them would be harmed or killed 

was significantly higher for women 

(2.8% or an estimated 3.4 million) 

than men (0.5% or an estimated 

519,000), p < .05).

Tactics Used in Lifetime 

Reports of Stalking 

Victimization by an 

Intimate Partner

Among lifetime victims of stalking 

by an intimate partner, the most 

commonly reported tactics 

experienced include: receiving 

unwanted phone calls (77.4% of 

female victims; 83.7% of male 

victims); being approached, such 

as at home or work (64.8% of 

female victims; 52.1% of male 

victims); and being watched or 

followed (37.4% of female victims; 

28.1% of male victims) (Figure 

2.4). There were no significant 

differences between female and 

male victims with respect to 

the likelihood of experiencing 

particular stalking tactics.
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 19

Psychological 

Aggression by an 

Intimate Partner

Lifetime Prevalence

Nearly half of all women (48.4%) 

and half of all men (48.8%) 

have experienced at least one 

psychologically aggressive 

behavior by an intimate partner 

during their lifetime (Figure 2.5). 

Four in 10 women (40.3%) and 

approximately 3 in 10 men (31.9%) 

have experienced at least one 

form of expressive aggression 

by an intimate partner during 

their lifetime. Four in 10 women 

(41.1%) and 4 in 10 men (42.5%) 

have experienced at least one 

form of coercive control by an 

intimate partner during their 

lifetime. The lifetime prevalence 

of experiencing expressive 

Figure 2.5

Lifetime Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women an

Men, NISVS 2010

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

Women

Men

Any psychological aggression

Any expressive aggression

Acted very angry in a way that seemed dangerous

Told you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of

Told you no one else would want you

Any coercive control

Tried to keep from seeing family and friends

Made decisions that should have been yours to make

Kept track of by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing

Made threats of physical harm

Threatened to hurt himself/herself or commit suicide 

because he/she was upset

Threatened to hurt pet or take pet away

Threatened to hurt someone you love

Hurt someone you love

Threatened to take your child away from you

Kept you from leaving when you wanted to go

Kept you from having your own money to use

Destroyed something that was important to you

Said things like, "if I can't have you then no one can."

48.4

48.8

31.9

12.9

12.6

7.3

12.0

15.1

26.8

8.5

10.5

8.3

12.2

6.5

5.5

5.5

1.8

1.7

2.3

13.5

16.5

40.3†

23.3†

23.4†

15.8†

17.9†

16.9†

25.4

18.7†

15.2†

14.8†

16.3†

11.2†

8.8†

9.1†

4.7†

5.9†

5.5†

19.7†

25.9†

42.5

41.1
Nearly 1 in 9 women 

and more than 1 in 

48 men in the U.S. 

have experienced 

stalking by an 

intimate partner 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.

20 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

aggression by an intimate partner 

was significantly higher for women, 

compared to men (p < .05). With 

the exception of having an intimate 

partner keeping track of them by 

demanding to know where they 

were and what they were doing, 

the lifetime prevalence of individual 

psychologically aggressive 

behaviors was significantly higher 

among women, compared to 

men (p < .05). 

Twelve-month Prevalence

The prevalence of psychological 

aggression by an intimate partner 

was significantly higher among 

men (18.1%) than among women 

(13.9%) in the 12 months preceding 

the survey, p < .05 (Figure 2.6). 

The overall prevalence of expressive 

aggression by an intimate partner 

in the 12 months prior to the survey 

was not significantly different (p < .05) 

between women and men (10.4% 

and 9.3%, respectively), although 

there were significant differences 

for specific behaviors. Women had 

a significantly higher 12-month 

prevalence (p < .05), compared to 

men, with respect to being told 

they were a loser, a failure, or not 

good enough; being called names 

like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid; being 

insulted, humiliated, or made fun 

of; and being told no one else 

would want them (p < .05). There 

were no significant differences for 

the remaining specific expressive 

aggression behaviors.

The prevalence of coercive control 

by an intimate partner in the 

12 months prior to taking the 

survey was significantly higher 

among men (15.2%) than among 

women (10.7%) (p < .05). With 

respect to the specific coercive 

control behaviors, men had a 

significantly higher 12-month 

prevalence (p < .05) than women 

in relation to having a partner 

who made decisions that should 

have been theirs to make, and 

having a partner who kept track 

of them by demanding where 

they were and what they were 

doing. Women had a significantly 

higher 12-month prevalence 

(p < .05) than men with regard to 

having an intimate partner who 

made threats to physically harm 

them. There were no significant 

differences for the remaining 

specific coercive control behaviors.
Figure 2.6

12-month Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Wome

and Men, NISVS 2010 

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

Percent

0 5 10 15 20

Women

Men

Any psychological aggression

Any expressive aggression

Acted very angry in a way that seemed dangerous

Told you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of

Told you no one else would want you

Any coercive control

Tried to keep from seeing family and friends

Made decisions that should have been yours to decide

Kept track of by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing

Made threats of physical harm

Threatened to hurt himself/herself or commit suicide 

because he/she was upset

Threatened to hurt pet or take pet away

Threatened to hurt someone you love

Hurt someone you love

Threatened to take your child away from you

Kept you from leaving when you wanted to go

Kept you from having your own money to use

Destroyed something that was important to you

Said things like, "if I can't have you then no one can."

13.9

10.4

9.3

3.5

3.1

4.6†

3.5

6.5†

4.8

4.7†

3.4

2.6†

1.6

2.3

10.7

15.2†

2.8

3.2

5.8†

6.0

9.2†

2.4†

1.6

2.2

1.3

2.0

1.2

2.1

1.6

0.8

0.7

2.0

1.3

2.0

1.6

1.7

1.8

0.5

0.6

0.5

0.4

18.1†

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 21
22 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Frequency of Individual 

Psychologically 

Aggressive Behaviors

Respondents who reported that 

they had experienced a particular 

psychologically aggressive behavior 

were asked how many times in their 

lifetime they had experienced that 

behavior by that specific intimate 

partner. Response options included: 

once, two to five times, six to 10 

times, 11 to 50 times, or more than 

50 times. Figure 2.7 displays the 

percentage of women and men who 

experienced each of the individual 

psychologically aggressive 

behaviors 11 to 50 times, and more 

than 50 times, within an individual 

relationship. The proportion of 

female victims that experienced a 

particular behavior 11 or more times 

within an intimate relationship 

was significantly higher than the 

proportion of male victims that 

experienced a particular behavior 

11 or more times with respect 

to the following psychologically 

aggressive behaviors: partner acted 

very angry in a way that seemed 

dangerous; were told they were a 

loser, a failure or not good enough; 

called names like ugly, fat, crazy, or 

stupid; were insulted, humiliated, 

or made fun of; told no one else 

would want them; partner made 

decisions that should have been 

theirs to make; partner kept track 

of them by demanding to know 

where they were and what they 

were doing; partner made threats 

to physically harm them; kept them 

from having their own money to 

use; partner destroyed something 

that was important to them; partner 

said things like “if I can’t have you 

then no one can.” The difference 

in the frequency of the following 

behavior was not tested as the 

number reporting a frequency of 

11 or more times was too small to 

generate a reliable estimate for at 

least one of the comparison groups: 

partner threatened to hurt or take a 

pet away. 

Control of Reproductive 

or Sexual Health by an 

Intimate Partner 

Approximately 4.8% of women in 

the United States had an intimate 

partner who tried to get them 

pregnant when they did not 

want to become pregnant, while 

8.7% of men in the United States 

have had an intimate partner 

who tried to get pregnant when 

they did not want her to become 

pregnant, a statistically significant 

difference, p < .05 (data not shown). 

Approximately 6.7% of women in 

the United States had an intimate 

partner who refused to use a 

condom, while 3.8% of men in the 

United States have had an intimate 

partner who refused to use a 

condom, a statistically significant 

difference, p < .05. 

Overlap of Rape, 

Physical Violence, 

and Stalking across 

Relationships in 

Lifetime Reports 

of Violence by an 

Intimate Partner

Among those who experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner in their 

lifetime, male victims (92.1%) were 

significantly more likely than female 

victims (56.8%) to experience 

physical violence only, (p < .05) 

(Figures 2.8 and 2.9). In addition, 

14.4% of female victims and 

6.3% of male victims experienced 

physical violence and stalking, a 

statistically significant difference 

(p < .05). Too few men reported 

other combinations of rape, physical 

violence, and stalking to produce 

reliable estimates. Among female 

victims, 12.5% experienced all 

three forms; 8.7% experienced both 

rape and physical violence; 4.4% 

experienced rape only; and 2.6% 

experienced stalking only.

Among those who experienced 

physical violence only, there were no 

significant differences in prevalence 

between female and male victims 

who reported experiencing severe 

physical violence only by a partner 

(10.3% and 8.7%, respectively). 

For victims who experienced a 

combination of severe physical 

violence and slapping, pushing, or 

shoving by a partner, the prevalence 

was significantly higher for female 

victims than male victims (55.4% 

and 37.5%, respectively; p < .05). 

The prevalence of experiencing 

slapping, pushing, or shoving only 

was significantly higher among male 

victims than female victims (53.8% 

and 34.3%, respectively; p < .05). 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 23

Figure 2.7

Number of Times Individual Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Were Experienced 

among Victims of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in the proportion of victims that experienced the behavior 11 or more times in an individual relationship.

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

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a reliable 

estimate for at least one of the comparison groups. 

Acted very angry in a way that seemed dangerous

Told you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of

Told you no one else would want you

Tried to keep from seeing family and friends

Made decisions that should have been yours to decide

Kept track of by demanding to know where 

you were and what you were doing

Made threats of physical harm

Threatened to hurt himself/herself or commit 

suicide because he/she was upset

Threatened to hurt pet or take pet away

Threatened to hurt someone you love

Hurt someone you love

Threatened to take your child away from you

Kept you from leaving when you wanted to go

Kept you from having your own money to use

Destroyed something that was important to you

Said things like, "if I can't have you then no one can."

M 

W†

M 

W†

M 

W†

M 

W†

M 

W†

M 

W

M 

W†

M 

W†

M 

W†

M 

W

M 

W#

M 

W#

M 

W

M 

W

M 

W

M 

W†

M 

W†

M 

W†

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

*

*

22.6

18.4

16.6

14.6

14.9

20.3

23.7

28.5

31.6

10.5

19.6

13.8

23.3

14.3

15.2

13.8

10.5

12.2

14.6

3.5

9.3

12.9

22.3

33.3

42.9

15.0

13.1

24.9

28.0

28.2

28.3

30.8

29.0

28.4

19.5

25.0

13.3

13.0

10.3

16.6

26.0

22.2

28.3

22.6

32.5

36.0

10.3

21.8

3.3

3.8

6.0

45.2

18.9

20.4

20.5

26.8

20.1

26.3

16.9

24.9

11.7

21.9

17.5

35.2

19.4

29.7

12.6

19.2

W = Women

M = Men

11 to 50 times

> 50 times
* Estimate is not reported; relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20.

24 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Physical violence only 

56.8%

Severe physical 

violence and 

slapped, pushed, 

or shoved

55.4%

Slapped, pushed,

shoved only

34.3%

Severe physical violence only 

Rape, physical 10.3%

violence 

and stalking

12.5%

Rape and physical 

violence

8.7%

Rape and stalking

0.6%

Rape only 4.4%

Stalking only 2.6%

Physical violence 

and stalking

14.4%

Figure 2 .8 

Overlap of Lifetime Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Violence, and Stalking among 

Women — NISVS 2010

Figure 2 .9 

Overlap of Lifetime Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Violence, and Stalking among 

Men — NISVS 2010

Physical violence only 

92.1%

Physical violence 

and stalking

6.3%

Other combinations *

Slapped, pushed,

shoved only

53.8%

Severe physical 

violence and slapped, 

pushed, or shoved

37.5%

Severe physical 

violence only 

8.7%
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 25
26 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
More than 4 in 10 

lesbian women, 6 in 

10 bisexual women 

and, more than 1 

in 3 heterosexual 

women have 

experienced rape, 

physical violence, 

and/or stalking by 

an intimate partner 

during their lifetime.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 27

Prior research has established that 

the prevalence of intimate partner 

violence can vary with respect to 

a number of sociodemographic 

characteristics. This section 

examines the prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner by race/

ethnicity, current household 

income, respondent age, sexual 

orientation, the experience of 

food or housing security within 

the preceding 12 months, and 

whether the respondent was 

born inside or outside of the 

United States. Both lifetime and 

12-month prevalence are examined 

except in cases where a particular 

sociodemographic characteristic 

is unlikely to have bearing on a 

particular prevalence estimate (e.g., 

the experience of food or housing 

security within the preceding 

12 months on lifetime prevalence) 

or if there are an insufficient number 

of reliable estimates in which to 

present a table (e.g., 12-month 

prevalence by sexual orientation).

As a point of reference for the 

demographic comparisons, 

approximately 35.6% of women 

and 28.5% of men in the United 

States have experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by 

an intimate partner at some point 

in their lifetime (p < .05), and 5.9% 

and 5.0%, respectively, experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner in the 

12 months preceding the survey 

(data not shown). 

Prevalence of Rape, 

Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner 

by Race/Ethnicity 

Lifetime Prevalence 

among Women

Approximately 4 out of every 10

Black non-Hispanic women 

(43.7%) and American Indian or 

Alaska Native women (46.0%), and 

1 in 2 multiracial non-Hispanic 

women (53.8%) in the United 

States have been a victim of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner in their lifetime 

(Table 3.1). 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%) have experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner in their 

lifetime. Black and multiracial 

non-Hispanic women had a 

significantly higher prevalence 

of rape, physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate partner 

compared to White non-Hispanic 

women (p < .05); Asian or Pacific 

Islander non-Hispanic women 

had significantly lower prevalence 

compared to White non-Hispanic 

women (p < .05). 

3: Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence 

by Sociodemographic Characteristics 
28 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Table 3 .1

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, 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 % 8.4 12.2 9.2

* *

20.1†

95% CI 6.1 – 11.6 9.4 – 15.6 8.2 – 10.3 14.2 – 27.8

Estimated Number of Victims2 1,273,000 1,768,000 7,475,000 273,000

Physical 

violence

Weighted % 35.2 41.0† 31.7

*

45.9† 50.4†

95% CI 30.3 – 40.5 36.4 – 45.7 30.1 – 33.4 33.3 – 59.0 41.9 – 58.9

Estimated Number of Victims2 5,317,000 5,955,000 25,746,000 399,000 683,000

Stalking

Weighted % 10.6 14.6† 10.4

* *

18.9†

95% CI 8.0 – 14.0 11.3 – 18.6 9.3 – 11.5 13.2 – 26.3

Estimated Number of Victims2 1,599,000 2,123,000 8,402,000 256,000

Rape,

physical 

violence, 

or stalking

Weighted % 37.1 43.7† 34.6 19.6† 46.0 53.8†

95% CI 32.1 – 42.4 39.0 – 48.4 32.9 – 36.3 11.8 – 30.7 33.5 – 59.2 45.2 – 62.2

Estimated Number of Victims2 5,596,000 6,349,000 28,053,000 1,110,000 400,000 729,000

 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. 

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to White non-Hispanic women.
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 29

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 have experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner during 

their lifetime (Table 3.2). 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. American 

Indian or Alaska Native men, Black 

non-Hispanic men, and multiracial 

non-Hispanic men had significantly 

higher prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking compared to 

White non-Hispanic men (p < .05).

Table 3 .2

Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, 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 %

95% CI * * * * * *

Estimated Number of Victims2

Physical 

violence

Weighted % 26.3 36.8† 28.1

*

45.3† 38.8†

95% CI 21.9 – 31.2 31.6 – 42.3 26.3 – 29.9 31.5 – 59.8 29.4 – 49.2

Estimated Number of Victims2 4,277,000 4,595,000 21,524,000 365,000 507,000

Stalking

Weighted %

* *

1.7

95% CI 1.2 – 2.3 * * *

Estimated Number of Victims2 1,282,000

Rape,

physical 

violence, 

or stalking

Weighted % 26.6 38.6† 28.2

*

45.3† 39.3†

95% CI 22.2 – 31.6 33.3 – 44.2 26.4 – 30.0 31.5 – 59.8 29.8 – 49.6

Estimated Number of Victims2 4,331,000 4,820,000 21,596,000 365,000 513,000

 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. 

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to White non-Hispanic men.

Twelve-month Prevalence 

among Women

Black non-Hispanic women had 

a significantly higher prevalence 
30 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

(p < .05) of rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an intimate partner in 

the 12 months prior to the survey, 

compared to White non-Hispanic 

women (9.2% and 5.1%, respectively) 

(Table 3.3). Among other racial/

ethnic groups, 8.7% of multiracial 

non-Hispanic women and 8.1% of 

Hispanic women experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking in 

the 12 months prior to the survey. 

Prevalence of these forms of violence 

were not significantly different 

than the prevalence among White 

non-Hispanic women (p < .05).

Twelve-month Prevalence 

among Men

Approximately 9.9% of Black 

non-Hispanic men in the United 

States experienced rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months preceding 

the survey, as compared to 6.2% 

of Hispanic men and 4.2% of 

White non-Hispanic men. Black 

non-Hispanic men had a significantly 

higher 12-month prevalence of 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

as compared to White non-Hispanic 

men (p < .05). 

Table 3 .3

Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Race/Ethnicity1 — U .S . Women and Men, NISVS 2010

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic

Black White

Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander

American 

Indian or 

Alaska Native

Multiracial

Women

Weighted % 8.1 9.2† 5.1

* *

8.7

95% CI 5.6 – 11.6 6.6 – 12.5 4.3 – 6.2 5.0 – 14.6

Estimated Number of Victims2 1,220,000 1,333,000 4,177,000 118,000

Men

Weighted % 6.2 9.9† 4.2

95% CI 4.2 – 9.2 7.0 – 13.9 3.5 – 5.1 * * *

Estimated Number of Victims2 1,016,000 1,240,000 3,247,000

 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.

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to White non-Hispanic women/men.

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

Lifetime Prevalence 

of Rape, Physical 

Violence, or Stalking 

by an Intimate Partner 

by Sexual Orientation 

Prevalence among Women

More than 4 in 10 lesbian 

women (43.8%), 6 in 10 bisexual 

women (61.1%), and over 1 in 

3 heterosexual women (35.0%) 

have experienced rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner at some point in their 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 31

lifetime (Table 3.4). This translates 

to 714,000 lesbian women, 

2.0 million bisexual women, and 

38.3 million heterosexual women. 

The prevalence of lifetime rape, 

physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner was 

significantly higher among bisexual 

women compared to lesbian and 

heterosexual women (p < .05), 

whereas there was no significant 

difference in prevalence between 

lesbian and heterosexual women.

Prevalence among Men

More than 1 in 4 gay men (26.0%), 

more than 1 in 3 bisexual men 

(37.3%), and nearly 3 in 10 

heterosexual men (29.0%) have 

experienced rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an intimate partner at 

some point in their lifetime (Table 

3.5). No significant differences 

in prevalence were found when 

comparing gay, bisexual, and 

heterosexual men. This translates 

to 708,000 gay men, 711,000 

bisexual men, and 30.3 million 

heterosexual men. However, these 

numbers predominantly represent 

the experience of physical violence 

as too few men reported rape, 

and too few gay and bisexual men 

reported stalking, to produce 

reliable estimates. The prevalence 

of physical violence by an intimate 

partner was 25.2% among gay men, 

37.3% among bisexual men, and 

28.7% among heterosexual men.

More detailed information related 

to the prevalence of intimate 

partner violence by sexual 

orientation is available in The 

National Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on 

Victimization by Sexual Orientation

(Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013).

Twelve-month Prevalence 

of Intimate Partner 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by Current 

Household Income 

Prevalence among Women

The 12-month prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner was significantly 

higher among women with a 

combined household income of 

Table 3.4

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

by Sexual Orientation1 — U.S. Women, NISVS 20

Lesbian Bisexual Heterosexual

Weighted 

% 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims2

Weighted 

% 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims2

Weighted 

% 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims2

Rape HB * 22.1 14.9-31.5 731,000 9.1 8.3-10.1 9,984,000

Physical violence HB, BL 40.4 28.8-53.2 659,000 56.9 46.6-66.7 1,886,000 32.3 30.8-33.9 35,291,000

Stalking HB * 31.1 22.0-42.0 1,030,000 10.2 9.3-11.2 11,126,000

Rape, physical violence, 

or stalking HB, BL 43.8 31.8-56.6 714,000 61.1 50.7-70.6 2,024,000 35.0 33.5-36.6 38,290,000

1 Sexual orientation is self-identified.

2 Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

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

HB Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence between heterosexual and bisexual groups.

BL Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence between bisexual and lesbian groups.
32 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Table 3.6

Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Current Household Income — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 20

Under $25k $25k to < $50k $50k to < $75k $75k+

Women

Weighted % 9.7† 5.9† 3.0 2.8

95% CI 8.0 – 11.8 4.2 – 8.1 2.0 – 4.5 2.0 – 3.9

Estimated Number of Victims1 3,789,000 1,646,000 485,000 754,000

Men

Weighted % 6.9† 6.6† 2.9 3.4

95% CI 5.4 – 8.9 4.9 – 8.7 1.8 – 4.6 2.4 – 4.8

Estimated Number of Victims1 2,129,000 1,715,000 474,000 1,114,000

1 Rounded to the nearest thousand.

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to the $75k+ income group. Statistical comparisons are made 

across level of income, not across sex of respondent.

Table 3.5

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

by Sexual Orientation1

 — U.S. Men, NISVS 20

Gay Bisexual Heterosexual

Weighted 

% 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims2

Weighted 

% 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims2

Weighted 

% 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims2

Rape * * *

Physical violence 25.2 16.7 – 36.1 685,000 37.3 24.1 – 52.7 711,000 28.7 27.1 – 30.3 29,926,000

Stalking * * 2.1 1.6 – 2.8 2,222,000

Rape, physical 

violence, or stalking 26.0 17.4 – 37.0 708,000 37.3 24.1 – 52.7 711,000 29.0 27.4 – 30.7 30,250,000

1 Sexual orientation is self-identified.

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 | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 33

less than $25,000, and between 

$25,000 and $50,000, than for 

women with a combined income 

over $75,000, p < .05 (Table 3.6). 

The prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner reported by women in 

these income groups was 9.7% 

and 5.9%, respectively, compared 

with 2.8% for women in the highest 

income group.

Prevalence among Men

The 12-month prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner was significantly 

higher among men with a 

combined household income of 

less than $25,000, and between 

$25,000 and $50,000, than for men 

with a combined income over 

$75,000 (p < .05). The prevalence of 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner reported 

by men in these income groups 

was 6.9% and 6.6%, respectively, 

compared with 3.4% for men in the 

highest income group.

Twelve-month 

Prevalence of Intimate 

Partner Rape, Physical 

Violence, or Stalking by 

Age at Time of Survey

Prevalence among Women

Approximately 14.8% of women 

who were 18 to 24 years old at the 

time of the survey experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner in the 12 

months preceding the survey, as 

compared to 8.7% of women 25 to 

34 years of age, 7.3% of women 35 

to 44 years of age, 4.1% of women 

45 to 54 years of age, and 1.4% of 

women 55 years of age or older 

(Table 3.7). Women aged 25 years 

and older at the time of the survey 

had a significantly lower 12-month 

prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner, compared to those in the 18 

to 24 year old age group (p < .05).

Prevalence among Men

Approximately 9.8% of men who 

were 18 to 24 years old at the time 

of the survey experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner in the 12 months 

preceding the survey, as compared 

to 8.6% of men 25 to 34 years of 

age, 5.6% of men 35 to 44 years 

of age, 3.3% of men 45 to 54 years 

of age, and 1.4% of men 55 years 

of age or older. The 12-month 

prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner was significantly lower 

among men in the three older 

age groups compared with 18 to 

24 year old men (p < .05). There 

were no significant differences in 

prevalence between men in the 

25 to 34 age group compared with 

18 to 24 year old men. 

Table 3.

Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Age at Time of Survey — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 20

18-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55+ years

Women

Weighted % 14.8 8.7† 7.3† 4.1† 1.4†

95% CI 11.2 – 19.3 6.8 – 11.2 5.2 – 10.1 3.0 – 5.7 0.9 – 2.3

Estimated Number of Victims1 2,184,000 1,833,000 1,463,000 908,000 576,000

Men

Weighted % 9.8 8.6 5.6† 3.3† 1.4†

95% CI 7.3 – 13.2 6.5 – 11.3 4.0 – 7.7 2.2 – 4.8 0.8 – 2.3

Estimated Number of Victims1 1,540,000 1,766,000 1,203,000 705,000 477,000

1 Rounded to the nearest thousand.

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to 18 to 24 year old women/men. Statistical comparisons are 

made across age at time of survey, not across sex of respondent.
34 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Twelve-month 

Prevalence of Intimate 

Partner Rape, Physical 

Violence, or Stalking 

by Experiences of Food 

and Housing Insecurity

Prevalence among Women

Food and housing insecurity 

are two key measures of the 

potential influence of the social 

environment on health. In the 

National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 

they were measured using two 

questions: “In the past 12 months, 

how often would you say you were 

worried or stressed about having 

enough money to buy nutritious 

meals?” and “In the past 12 months, 

how often would you say that you 

were worried or stressed about 

having enough money to pay your 

rent or mortgage?” Responses of 

“always,” “usually,” or “sometimes” 

were classified as a “yes” response; 

responses of “rarely” or “never” were 

classified as a “no” response.

The 12-month prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner was significantly 

higher among women who 

experienced food insecurity in 

the 12 months prior to taking the 

survey (11.6%) compared to those 

who did not experience food 

insecurity (3.2%; p < .05). Similarly, 

women who experienced housing 

insecurity had a significantly 

higher prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months prior to 

the survey (10.0%) compared with 

those who did not experience 

housing insecurity (2.3%) in the 

12 months prior to taking the 

survey (p < .05). 

Prevalence among Men

The 12-month prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner was 

significantly higher among men 

who experienced food insecurity 

in the 12 months prior to taking 

the survey (8.2%) compared to 

those who did not experience food 

insecurity (4.0%; p < .05). Similarly, 

men who experienced housing 

insecurity had a significantly 

higher prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner in the 12 months prior to 

the survey (7.9%), compared with 

those who did not experience 

housing insecurity (3.1%) in the 

past 12 months (p < .05).

Table 3.

Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, 

by Experiences of Food and Housing Insecurity within the 12 Months Prior to Taking 

the Survey — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 20

Food Insecurity Housing Insecurity

Yes No Yes No

Women

Weighted % 11.6† 3.2 10.0† 2.3

95% CI 9.6 – 13.9 2.6 – 3.9 8.5 – 11.7 1.8 – 3.0

Estimated Number of 

Victims1 4,388,000 2,594,000 5,506,000 1,475,000

Men

Weighted % 8.2† 4.0 7.9† 3.1

95% CI 6.4 – 10.5 3.3 – 4.8 6.5 – 9.6 2.4 – 3.9

Estimated Number of 

Victims1 2,281,000 3,410,000 3,637,000 2,054,000

1 Rounded to the nearest thousand.

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence. Statistical comparisons are made across food and housing insecurity status, 

not across sex of respondent.
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 35

Prevalence of Rape, 

Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner 

among U .S . Natives and 

Foreign-Born Residents

Lifetime Prevalence

The lifetime prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner was significantly 

higher among those women born in 

the United States (37.3%), compared 

to women born outside of the United 

States (24.0%), p < .05 (Table 3.9). 

Similarly, men who were born in the 

United States were significantly more 

likely to experience rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner in their lifetime (30.2%), 

compared to men born outside of 

the United States (17.0%; p < .05). 

Twelve-month Prevalence

Approximately 6.1% of women born 

in the United States experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner in the 

12 months preceding the survey, 

compared to 4.1% of women born 

outside of the United States. Among 

men, 5.1% who were born in the 

United States experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner in the 12 months 

preceding the survey, compared 

to 4.6% of men born outside of 

the United States. The differences 

between native and foreign-born 

populations were not statistically 

significant for women or men. 

Table 3 .9

Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner, U .S . Natives and Foreign-Born — U .S . Women and Men, NISVS 2010

U.S. Native Foreign-Born

Women

Lifetime

Weighted % 37.3† 24.0

95% CI 35.7 – 38.9 19.5 – 29.2

Estimated Number of Victims1 37,435,000 3,903,000

12-month

Weighted % 6.1 4.1

95% CI 5.3 – 7.1 2.3 – 7.0

Estimated Number of Victims1 6,152,000 660,000

Men

Lifetime

Weighted % 30.2† 17.0

95% CI 28.6 – 32.0 13.5 – 21.3

Estimated Number of Victims1 28,506,000 2,851,000

12-month

Weighted % 5.1 4.6

95% CI 4.4 – 6.1 2.9 – 7.3

Estimated Number of Victims1 4,851,000 774,000

 1 Rounded to the nearest thousand.

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence. Statistical comparisons are made across birthplace, not across sex of respondent.
36 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
1 in 10 women and 

nearly 1 in 25 men 

have experienced 

rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an 

intimate partner and 

missed at least one 

day of work or school 

as a result of these or 

other forms of intimate 

partner violence in 

that relationship.

4: Impact of Intimate Partner Violence 

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 37

To inform intimate partner violence 

prevention efforts and achieve a 

more complete picture of the true 

burden of intimate partner violence 

within populations, it is important 

to measure and understand factors 

beyond whether or not a person 

has ever experienced IPV. Evidence 

from several studies suggests a 

dose-response 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 

IPV victimization can range from a 

single act experienced once (e.g., 

one slap) to multiple acts of severe 

violence over the course of many 

years, it is difficult to represent 

this variation in the severity of 

violence experienced by victims in a 

straightforward manner. 

To address these issues, the National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey (NISVS) included a number 

of questions to assess a range of 

impacts that victims of IPV may 

have experienced. This information 

provides not only a measure 

of the severity of the violence 

experienced, but also documents 

the magnitude of particular 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 IPV. IPV-related 

impact was assessed in relation to 

individual perpetrators, without 

regard to the time period in which 

impact occurred, and asked in 

relation to the totality of intimate 

partner violence experienced 

(sexual violence, physical violence, 

stalking, psychological aggression, 

and control of reproductive or 

sexual health) in that relationship. 

A description of the IPV-related 

impacts assessed is provided in 

Appendix A.

Lifetime Prevalence of 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner with 

IPV-related Impact 

Nearly 3 in 10 women (28.8%) and 

nearly 1 in 10 men (9.9%) have 

experienced rape, physical violence, 

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 (Figure 4.1). Women 

were significantly more likely than 

men to experience rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner during their lifetime and 

experience an IPV-related impact as 

a result of these or other forms of 

violence in that relationship (p < .05). 

More than 1 in 4 women (25.7%) 

was fearful, more than 1 in 5 women 

(22.2%) was concerned for her 

safety, and more than 1 in 5 women 

(22.3%) experienced at least one 

post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) symptom as a result 

of violence experienced in a 

relationship in which 
38 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

1 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 (if female). 

2 IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators 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.

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

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

numb or detached.

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

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

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a reliable 

estimate for at least one of the comparison groups. 

Figure 4.1

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

IPV-related Impact — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 201

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Percent

Women

Men

Any IPV-related impact1,2,3

Fearful

Concerned for safety

Any PTSD symptoms4

Injury

Needed medical care

Needed housing services

Needed victim's advocate services

Needed legal services

Contacted crisis hotline

Missed at least one day of work/school

Contracted a sexually transmitted disease5

Became pregnant5

28.8†

9.9

25.7†

22.2†

22.3†

14.8†

7.9†

2.4†

1.6

4.0

4.7

4.5

5.2

2.7#

7.6†

2.1#

10.0†

1.5#

3.9

3.1

 0.4

1.7#

NA

*

*

*

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

occurred. More than 1 in 7 women 

(14.8%) experienced an injury and 

1 in 10 women (10.0%) missed at 

least one day of work or school, as a 

result of violence experienced in a 

relationship in which rape, physical 

violence, or stalking took place. 

In contrast, 1 in 20 men (5.2%) 

was fearful, 1 in 25 men (4.0%) 

experienced an injury, and nearly 

1 in 25 men (3.9%) missed at least 

one day of work or school as a 

result of violence experienced in a 

relationship in which rape, physical 

violence, or stalking occurred.

Women had a significantly higher 

lifetime prevalence (p < .05) than men 

for a number of individual IPV-related 

impacts including: being fearful, being 

concerned for safety, experiencing 

one or more PTSD symptoms, being 

injured, needing medical care, 

needing housing services, needing 

legal services, and having missed at 

least one day of work or school. 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 39

Distribution of 

IPV-related Impacts 

among Lifetime Victims 

of Rape, Physical 

Violence, or Stalking 

by an Intimate Partner

Among victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner, approximately 8 in 10 women 

(80.8%) and more than 1 in 3 men 

(34.7%) experienced one or more 

of the impacts measured within a 

relationship, a statistically significant 

difference (p < .05) (Figure 4.2). 

Among women who experienced 

rape, physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate partner, 

72.2% were fearful, 62.3% were 

concerned for their safety, 62.6% 

experienced at least one PTSD 

symptom, 41.6% were injured as 

a result of the violence, and 28.0% 

Figure 4.2

Distribution of IPV-related Impacts among Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking 

by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010

1 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 (if female). 

2 IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators 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.

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

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

felt numb or detached.

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

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

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate 

a reliable estimate for at least one of the comparison groups. 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Women

Men

Any IPV-related impact1,2,3

Fearful

Concerned for safety

Any PTSD symptoms4

Injury

Needed medical care

Needed housing services

Needed victim's advocate services

Needed legal services

Contacted crisis hotline

Missed at least one day of work/school

Contracted a sexually transmitted disease5

Became pregnant5

80.8†

34.7

72.2†

62.3†

62.6†

41.6†

22.1†

6.9†

5.5

13.9

16.4

15.7

18.4

7.5#

21.2†

5.9#

28.0†

4.3#

13.6

10.8

1.5

4.8#

NA

*

*

*
40 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

missed at least one day of work 

or school as a result of these or 

other forms of violence in that 

relationship. In contrast, among 

men who experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by 

an intimate partner, 18.4% were 

fearful, 15.7% were concerned for 

their safety, 16.4% experienced at 

least one PTSD symptom, 13.9% 

were injured, and 13.6% missed at 

least one day of work or school as 

a result of these or other forms of 

violence in that relationship. 

Among victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner, a significantly higher 

proportion of women than men 

experienced individual IPV-related 

impacts as a result of these or 

other forms of violence in that 

relationship including: being 

fearful, being concerned for safety, 

experiencing one or more PTSD 

symptoms, being injured, needing 

medical care, needing housing 

services, needing legal services, 

and having missed at least one day 

of work or school (p < .05). 

Lifetime Prevalence of 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner with 

Physical Injury

As mentioned previously, more 

than 1 in 7 women (14.8%) and 

1 in 25 men (4.0%) in the United 

States experienced rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner and reported at least one 

injury related to experiencing these 

or other forms of violent behavior 

within that relationship. In terms 

of severity, 12.8% of women and 

3.1% of men have experienced 

minor scratches or bruises; 10.4% 

of women and 2.3% of men have 

experienced cuts, major bruises, or a 

black eye; 3.2% of women and 0.6% 

of men have experienced broken 

bones or teeth; 5.2% of women and 

0.5% of men have been knocked 

out; and 4.4% of women and 1.1% 

of men have experienced some 

other type of injury (Table 4.1). The 

prevalence of each type of injury 

was significantly higher for women 

compared to men (p < .05).

Table 4.

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

Specific IPV-related Injuries1 — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 20

Women Men

Type of Injury Weighted % 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims2

Weighted % 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims2

Any injury 14.8† 13.7 – 15.9 17,640,000 4.0 3.4 – 4.7 4,483,000

Minor bruises or scratches 12.8† 11.8 – 13.9 15,257,000 3.1 2.6 – 3.8 3,540,000

Cuts, major bruises, or black eyes 10.4† 9.5 – 11.4 12,395,000 2.3 1.9 – 2.9 2,647,000

Broken bones or teeth 3.2† 2.7 – 3.7 3,773,000 0.6 0.4 – 1.0 729,000

Knocked out after getting hit, slammed 

against something, or choked 5.2† 4.6 – 5.9 6,202,000 0.5 0.3 – 0.9 581,000

Other injury 4.4† 3.8 – 5.0 5,204,000 1.1 0.8 – 1.5 1,257,000

1 IPV-related injury was assessed in relation to specific perpetrators 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.

2 Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 41

Distribution of Physical 

Injury Types among 

Lifetime Victims of 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

As shown in Figure 4.2, 41.6% of 

female victims and 13.9% of male 

victims who experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner reported at least 

one injury related to experiencing 

these or other forms of violent 

behavior in that relationship. Figure 

4.3 shows the proportion of victims 

that experienced specific injuries 

as a result of violence within a 

relationship in which rape, physical 

violence, or stalking occurred. 

Female victims were significantly 

more likely than male victims to 

experience each of the individual 

types of injuries (p < .05).

Among victims of rape, 

physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate 

partner, approximately 

4 in 10 female victims 

and 1 in 7 male 

victims reported 

experiencing a physical 

injury as a result of 

the violence within 

that relationship.

1 IPV-related injury was assessed in relation to specific perpetrators 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.

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

Figure 4 .3 

Distribution of Specific IPV-related Injuries1 Experienced among Female and Male Victims 

of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

Any injury

Minor bruises or scratches

Cuts, major bruises, or black eyes

Broken bones or teeth

Knocked out after getting hit, slammed 

against something, or choked

Other injury

36.0†

41.6†

13.9

29.2†

8.2

11.0

8.9†

2.3

14.6†

12.3†

1.8

3.9

Women

Men
42 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 43

The unique method of data 

collection utilized by the National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey (NISVS) allows 

for an examination of the totality 

of a victimization experience 

related to individual intimate 

partners. Specifically, by linking 

violent behaviors experienced 

to specific intimate partner(s), 

NISVS is better able to describe 

the victim’s experience within a 

particular relationship. Whereas 

previous methods only allow for an 

examination of a victim’s experience 

across multiple perpetrators, they 

do not allow for the disentangling 

of violent behaviors by perpetrators. 

The method utilized by NISVS allows 

for a better understanding of the 

context in which an individual act of 

violence is experienced, specifically 

whether an act of violence occurred 

in isolation or whether the violence 

was part of a larger pattern of 

violent behaviors. This method 

can also be utilized to connect the 

combined victimization experiences 

within an individual relationship to 

specific impacts experienced as a 

result of victimization.

This section provides information 

related to:

•	 The total number of unique 

behaviors experienced by victims 

in an individual relationship, within 

each of the four violence subtypes 

(sexual violence, physical violence, 

stalking, and psychological 

aggression), with the maximum 

number utilized for those with 

multiple perpetrators

•	 The total number of unique 

impacts experienced by victims

•	 The prevalence of the overlap 

of rape, physical violence, and 

stalking within a single relationship

The following analyses examine 

violence experienced in individual 

relationships across the life span. 

For those with multiple perpetrators, 

the maximum number of violent 

behaviors experienced is analyzed. 

For example, if a respondent 

reported an intimate partner that 

perpetrated two unique physically 

violent behaviors, and another that 

perpetrated five unique physically 

violent behaviors, they would be 

considered to have experienced five 

unique physically violent behaviors 

within an individual relationship. 

Maximum Number 

of Sexually Violent 

Behaviors Experienced 

in an Individual 

Relationship

NISVS measures nine types of 

sexually violent behaviors: rape 

(completed forced penetration, 

attempted forced penetration, 

alcohol/drug facilitated 

penetration); being made 

to penetrate someone else 

(completed forced penetration, 

attempted forced penetration, 

alcohol/drug facilitated 

penetration); sexual coercion, 

unwanted sexual contact; and 

non-contact, unwanted sexual 

experiences. Figure 5.1 displays a 

distribution describing the largest 

number of discrete sexually violent 

behaviors experienced by an 

individual intimate partner. Across 

male and female victims, the 

median number of unique sexually 

violent behaviors experienced 

was one. Among victims of sexual 

violence by an intimate partner, the 

proportion of female victims that 

experienced more than the median 

number (two or more) of unique 

sexually violent behaviors by an 

individual intimate partner was 

higher than the proportion of male 

victims (p < .05).

5: Accumulation of Intimate Partner Violence 

Behaviors Experienced by Individual Perpetrators 
44 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

Figure 5.1

Distribution of the Number of Discrete Sexually Violent Behaviors Experienced 

by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator1 — NISVS 2010 

1 Victims who experienced sexual violence by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship in which 

they experienced the largest number of discrete sexually violent behaviors.

2 Estimates not reported for > 5 behaviors experienced, relative standard error > 30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.

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

Percent

Sexually Violent Behaviors Experienced2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1

2

3

4

5

Women

Men

54.4

72.8

22.7

13.9

12.4

8.0

5.7

*

3.6

*
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 45

Maximum Number 

of Physically Violent 

Behaviors Experienced 

in an Individual 

Relationship

NISVS measures 10 discrete physically 

violent behaviors. Figure 5.2 provides 

a distribution of the maximum 

number of discrete physically violent 

behaviors experienced among 

victims of physical violence by an 

individual intimate partner. Across 

male and female victims of physical 

violence, the median number of 

unique physically violent behaviors 

experienced was two. Among victims 

of physical violence by an intimate 

partner, the proportion of female 

victims that experienced more than 

the median number (three or more) 

of unique physically violent behaviors 

by an individual intimate partner was 

higher than the proportion of male 

victims (p < .05). 

Figure 5.2

Distribution of the Number of Discrete Physically Violent Behaviors Experienced by Victims, 

Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator1 — NISVS 2010

1 Victims who experienced physical violence by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship in 

which they experienced the largest number of discrete physically violent behaviors.

2 Estimates not reported for > 9 behaviors experienced, relative standard error >30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.

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

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50

Physically Violent Behaviors Experienced2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Women

Men

27.7

16.1

12.6

13.4

10.1

7.8

7.5

3.8

7.9

2.1

7.7

5.7

3.8

1.8

24.0

45.6

*

*
46 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Maximum Number of 

Stalking Behaviors 

Experienced in an 

Individual Relationship

NISVS measures seven discrete 

stalking behaviors. Figure 5.3 

provides a distribution of the 

maximum number of discrete 

stalking behaviors experienced 

by an individual intimate partner 

among stalking victims. Across 

male and female victims of stalking, 

the median number of unique 

stalking behaviors experienced 

was two. There was no significant 

difference between male and 

female victims of stalking with 

regard to having experienced more 

than the median number (three or 

more) of unique stalking behaviors 

by an individual intimate partner. 

Figure 5.3

Distribution of the Number of Discrete Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Victims, 

Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator1 — NISVS 2010

1 Victims who experienced stalking by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship in which they 

experienced the largest number of discrete stalking behaviors. Individual stalking behaviors are counted only when the criteria for 

stalking were met with respect to an individual perpetrator. Consequently, those who are shown as having experienced one stalking 

behavior will have experienced that behavior multiple times by the same perpetrator.

2 Estimates not reported for > 6 behaviors experienced, relative standard error > 30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.

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

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

Stalking Behaviors Experienced2

1

2

3

4

5

6

29.6

26.2

19.3

24.4

15.7

6.0

2.7

16.8

44.2

*

*

*

Women

Men
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 47

Figure 5.4

Distribution of the Number of Discrete Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Experienced 

by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator1 — NISVS 2010 

1 Victims who experienced psychological aggression by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship 

in which they experienced the largest number of discrete psychologically aggressive behaviors.

2 Estimates not reported for > 17 behaviors experienced, relative standard error >30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.

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

Percent

Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Experienced2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Women

Men

22.0

13.4

18.4

14.2

8.4

6.7

6.4

3.1

4.8

3.4

4.2

2.5

4.2

2.6

1.6

1.1

1.5

2.5

2.7

2.5

1.6

1.0

0.6

9.0

9.1

7.1

6.3

4.5

33.6

*

*

*

*

*

Maximum Number 

of Psychologically 

Aggressive Behaviors 

Experienced in an 

Individual Relationship

NISVS measured a total of 18 discrete

psychologically aggressive behaviors. 

Figure 5.4 provides a distribution 

of the largest number of discrete 

psychologically aggressive 

behaviors experienced by an 

individual intimate partner among 

victims of psychological aggression. 

Across male and female victims of 

stalking, the median number of 

unique psychologically aggressive 

behaviors experienced was three. 

Among victims of psychological 

aggression by an intimate partner, 

the proportion of female victims 

that experienced more than the 

median number (four or more) of 

unique psychologically aggressive 

behaviors by an individual intimate 

partner was higher than the 

proportion of male victims (p < .05). 
48 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Maximum Number of 

IPV-related Impacts 

Experienced in an 

Individual Relationship

NISVS measures 11 different 

intimate partner violence 

(IPV)-related impacts for women 

and men, as well as pregnancy as 

a consequence of rape for women. 

Figure 5.5 displays the distribution 

of the largest number of discrete 

IPV-related impacts experienced by 

victims as a result of IPV perpetrated 

by an individual intimate partner. 

Examining the maximum number 

of IPV-related impacts experienced 

as a result of IPV perpetrated by 

an individual intimate partner, the 

median number was three unique 

impacts experienced. Among 

victims of rape, physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate partner that 

experienced IPV-related impact, the 

proportion of female victims that 

experienced more than the median 

number (three or more) of unique 

impacts by an individual intimate 

partner was higher than the 

proportion of male victims (p < .05). 

Figure 5.5

Distribution of the Number of Discrete IPV-related Impacts1 by Victims, Maximum Number 

by an Individual Perpetrator2 — NISVS 2010

1 Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any post-traumatic stress disorder 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. 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. By definition, all stalking incidents result in 

impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and concern for safety.

2 Victims who experienced IPV-related impact by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship in which they 

experienced the largest number of discrete impacts.

3 Estimates not reported for > 10 impacts experienced, relative standard error > 30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.

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

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Percent

IPV-Related Impacts Experienced3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Women

Men

10.6

12.2

22.8

20.1

18.1

11.3

6.5

4.5

3.9

1.7

1.0

15.4

14.0

14.2

9.8

29.9

*

*

*

*
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 49

Overlap of Rape, 

Physical Violence, 

and Stalking within 

Relationships in 

Lifetime Reports 

of Violence by an 

Intimate Partner

In contrast to the analyses in 

Section 3 that examined the 

overlap of violence across the 

life span, NISVS data can also 

be used to look at the overlap 

of different forms of violence 

within an individual relationship. 

Approximately 6.2% of women in 

the United States have experienced 

rape and physical violence in 

the same relationship, whereas 

too few men reported both rape 

and physical violence in the 

same relationship to produce 

reliable estimates (Table 5.1). 

Approximately 3.9% of U.S. women 

have experienced rape and stalking 

in the same relationship during 

their lifetime, while too few men 

reported both rape and stalking in 

the same relationship to produce 

reliable estimates. Also, 8.7% of 

U.S. women have experienced 

physical violence and stalking in 

the same relationship, as compared 

to 1.7% of U.S. men, a statistically 

significant difference (p < .05). 

Finally, 3.5% of women experienced 

all three forms of violence (rape, 

physical violence, stalking) in the 

same relationship, whereas too 

few men reported all three forms 

in the same relationship to produce 

reliable estimates.

Table 5 .1

Lifetime Prevalence of Overlapping Forms of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking 

by an Individual Perpetrator — U .S . Women and Men, NISVS 2010

Women Men

Violence Experienced Weighted % 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims1

Weighted % 95% CI

Estimated 

Number 

of Victims1

Rape and physical violence 6.2# 5.5 – 7.0 7,377,000 *

Rape and stalking 3.9# 3.3 – 4.5 4,622,000 *

Physical violence and stalking 8.7† 7.9 – 9.7 10,407,000 1.7 1.3 – 2.2 1,875,000

Rape, physical violence, and stalking 3.5# 3.0 – 4.1 4,195,000 *

 1 Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

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

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a reliable 

estimate for at least one of the comparison groups. 
50 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 51

This section describes a number 

of characteristics of intimate 

partner violence (IPV) victimization, 

including the number of lifetime 

perpetrators among victims, the 

sex of perpetrators, and the age of 

victims of rape, physical violence, 

or stalking at the time of the first 

IPV victimization.

Number of Perpetrators 

in Lifetime Reports 

of Violence by an 

Intimate Partner 

The majority of women (70.8%) and 

men (73.1%) who ever experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking by 

an intimate partner were victimized 

by one partner only (Figure 6.1). 

Approximately 20.9% of female 

victims and 18.6% of male victims 

were victimized by two partners; 

and 8.3% of female victims and 8.3% 

of male victims were victimized by 

three or more intimate partners.

Sex of Perpetrator 

among Victims of 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

Approximately 97.1% of female 

victims of rape, physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate partner had 

only male perpetrators, whereas 

2.1% had only female perpetrators 

(data not shown). Among men, 

96.9% who experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner had only female 

perpetrators, whereas 2.8% had only 

male perpetrators. The number of 

female and male victims reporting 

victimization by both male and 

female perpetrators was too small 

to produce a reliable estimate.

Age at the Time of First 

IPV Experience among 

those Who Experienced 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

Among those who ever experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner, more than 

1 in 5 female victims (22.4%) and 

more than 1 in 7 male victims 

(15.0%) experienced some form 

of intimate partner violence for 

the first time between the ages of 

11 and 17 years (Figures 6.2 and 

6.3). Additionally, 47.1% of female 

victims and 38.6% of male victims 

were between 18 and 24 years of 

age when they first experienced 

violence by an intimate partner. 

6: Characteristics of Intimate Partner 

Violence Victimization

Figure 6.

Number of Perpetrators among those Who Experienced Rape, Physical Violence, or 

Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010

Women

Men

70.8% 20.9% 8.3%

73.1% 18.6% 8.3%

1 2 3 or more
52 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 

1 IPV includes physical violence, all forms of sexual violence, stalking, psychological 

aggression, and control of reproductive or sexual health.

1 in 5 women and 

1 in 7 men who ever 

experienced rape, 

physical violence, 

or stalking by an 

intimate partner first 

experienced some 

form of intimate 

partner violence 

between 11 and 

17 years of age.

1 IPV includes physical violence, all forms of sexual violence, stalking, psychological 

aggression, and control of reproductive or sexual health.

22.4%

47.1%

21.1%

6.8%

2.5%

11-17

18-24

25-34

35-44

45+

Figure 6 .2 

Age at Time of First IPV1 among Female Victims of Rape, 

Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — 

NISVS 2010

30.6%

38.6%

15.0%

5.5%

10.3%

11-17

18-24

25-34

35-44

45+

Figure 6 .3 

Age at Time of First IPV1 among Male Victims of Rape, 

Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — 

NISVS 2010
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 53
54 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 55

In addition to understanding the 

number of people who are victims 

of intimate partner violence (IPV), 

it is also important to estimate the 

number of people who need services 

as a result of victimization, as well 

as the number who were able to 

receive the needed services. These 

estimates inform efforts to provide a 

coordinated community response 

for victims of IPV. It also provides 

information that is necessary to 

focus preventive services and allocate 

resources to the most heavily 

affected populations. This section 

estimates the proportion of IPV 

victims that needed services as a 

result of the violence experienced in 

a relationship and also their patterns 

of disclosure. Further, this section 

describes the proportion of victims 

who received services among those 

who needed them, as well as the 

perceived helpfulness of disclosure 

among victims that disclosed their 

victimization experience. Questions 

about services and disclosure were 

asked in relation to the violence 

experienced by an individual perpetrator and for any violence committed 

by that perpetrator. It is important to 

note that victimization experiences 

could have occurred several years ago 

and that the service needs reported 

relate to the victimization and not 

to any particular time period.

Services Needed among 

Lifetime Victims of 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

Among lifetime victims of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner, female victims 

(36.4%, or 15.5 million women) were 

significantly more likely than male 

victims (15.6%, or 5.0 million men) 

to report that they needed services 

as a result of these or other forms 

of violence they experienced in 

the relationship (Figure 7.1). With 

respect to specific service needs as 

7: Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate 

Partner Violence Victimization

Figure 7.1

Services Needed among Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010

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

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate 

a reliable estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percent

Women

Men

Any services

Medical care

Housing services

Victim's advocate services

Community services

Legal services

36.4†

15.6

22.1†

6.9†

1.5

5.5

7.5#

*

6.1†

21.2†

1.1

10.8
56 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

a result of the violence experienced 

in the relationship, 22.1% of female 

victims needed medical care, 

21.2% needed legal services, 7.5% 

needed victim’s advocate services, 

6.9% needed housing services, 

and 6.1% needed community 

services. Among men who were 

victims of rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an intimate partner, 

10.8% needed legal services, 5.5% 

needed medical care, 1.5% needed 

housing services, and 1.1% needed 

community services. For each of 

these services, except for advocacy 

services, the proportion of female 

victims reporting that they needed 

a particular service was significantly 

higher than the proportion of male 

victims who said they needed 

the same service (p < .05). Formal 

statistical testing comparing the 

need for advocacy services was not 

undertaken because the number 

of men reporting the need for 

advocacy services was too small 

to generate a reliable estimate.

Services Received 

among Victims who 

Needed Services 

Female Victims who 

Needed Services

Among lifetime victims of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking, those 

who reported a need for each of 

the individual services were asked 

whether they ever received that 

service. Overall, approximately half 

of the female victims (49.0%) who 

needed services reported that they 

always received the services that 

were needed (Table 7.1). However, 

44.9% of female victims who 

needed services reported that they 

did not receive any of the needed 

services. Additionally, 6.1% of 

female victims who needed services 

reported that they received some 

but not all of the needed services. 

With respect to specific services, 

among the 7.9% of women in the 

United States who experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

and reported they needed medical 

care, 89.5% said that they always 

received them. Among the 2.4% of 

women in the United States who 

experienced rape, physical violence, 

or stalking and reported they 

needed housing services, 48.3% 

always received them. Additionally, 

among the 2.7% of women in the 

United States who experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

and reported they needed victim’s 

advocate services, 46.4% always 

received them. Among the 7.6% of 

women in the United States who 

experienced rape, physical violence, 

or stalking and reported they 

needed legal services, 33.1% always 

received them. Finally, among the 

women in the United States who 

experienced rape, physical violence, 

or stalking and reported they 

needed community services, 49.6% 

always received them. 

Male Victims who 

Needed Services

Among victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking who reported 

a need for services, the proportion 

Table 7.

Proportion of Female Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner Who Received Needed Services — NISVS 20101

Always Received Needed Service(s) Did Not Receive Any Needed Service(s)

Service Weighted % 95% CI Weighted % 95% CI

Any services 49.0 44.7 – 53.3 44.9 40.7 – 49.2

Medical care 89.5 84.8 – 92.9 9.1 5.9 – 13.6

Housing services 48.3 38.7 – 58.0 51.5 41.8 – 61.1

Victim’s advocate services 46.4 37.5 – 55.6 50.4 41.3 – 59.4

Community services 49.6 39.5 – 59.8 45.1 35.2 – 55.3

Legal services 33.1 28.5 – 38.1 63.6 58.4 – 68.4

1 6.1% of female victims who needed services received some but not all of the needed services. Too few female victims received some 

but not all needed services, for the individual services, to calculate reliable estimates.
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 57

of men who reported that they 

always received those services 

(33.0%) was significantly lower than 

the proportion of female victims 

who reported that they always 

received those services (49.0%), 

p < .05. Nearly 2 in 3 male victims 

(65.7%) who reported a need for 

services never received any of the 

needed services (data not shown). 

With respect to specific services, 

among the 3.1% of men in the 

United States who experienced rape, 

physical violence, or stalking and 

reported they needed legal services, 

10.9% always received those services, 

significantly lower than the 33.1% 

of female victims that needed legal 

services and always received those 

services (p < .05). Too few male victims 

reported a need for other individual 

services to calculate reliable estimates 

that break down the degree to which 

individual services were received, 

and, therefore, formal statistical 

comparisons between women and 

men were not made. 

Disclosure among 

Lifetime Victims of 

Rape, Physical Violence, 

or Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

Among victims of lifetime rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner, 84.2% of women 

and 60.9% of men disclosed the 

violence they experienced to another 

person (Figure 7.2). The proportion 

of female victims who disclosed 

Figure 7.2

Disclosure among Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate 

Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010 

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

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a 

reliable estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Percent

Women

Men

Any disclosure

Police

Doctor/Nurse

Psychologist/Counselor

Crisis hotline

Friend

Family member

Intimate partner

Other

84.2†

60.9

36.3†

12.6

21.1†

5.6

36.5†

18.7

70.6†

51.9†

30.5†

48.4

31.6

17.7

6.6†

4.2

5.9#

*
Among those who 

experienced rape, 

physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate 

partner, 84.2% of 

women and 60.9% of 

men disclosed their 

experience with IPV 

to someone else.

Among those who 

experienced rape, 

physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate 

partner during their 

lifetime, more than 1 

in 3 female victims and 

more than 1 in 7 male 

victims reported the 

need for at least one 

service as a result of 

their victimization.

58 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

their IPV experience was significantly 

higher than the proportion of 

male victims who disclosed their 

experiences to someone else (p < .05). 

Some of the most common groups of 

people that victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking disclosed their 

victimization to included: a friend 

(70.6% of female victims, 48.4% 

of male victims); a family member 

(51.9% of female victims, 31.6% 

of male victims); a psychologist or 

counselor (36.5% of female victims, 

18.7% of male victims); and the police 

(36.3% of female victims, 12.6% of 

male victims). Additionally, 21.1% 

of female victims and 5.6% of male 

victims disclosed their victimization 

to a doctor or nurse. The proportion 

of female victims who disclosed their 

experience with IPV was significantly 

higher than the proportion of 

male victims who disclosed their 

experience with IPV for each of the 

groups of people that were examined 

(p < .05). While 5.9% of female 

victims disclosed to a crisis hotline, 

formal statistical testing comparing 

disclosure to a crisis hotline was not 

undertaken because the number of 

men reporting disclosure to a crisis 

hotline was too small to generate a 

reliable estimate. 

Degree of Helpfulness 

of Disclosure among 

those Who Disclosed 

Lifetime Rape, Physical 

Violence, or Stalking by 

an Intimate Partner 

It has been well established 

that disclosure of victimization 

experiences can be very helpful 

to IPV victims as a way to elicit 

support (Sylaska & Edwards, 2013). 

However, such disclosures also have 

led to negative reactions, such as 

victim-blaming, pressure to leave an 

abusive relationship, or minimizing 

the abuse (Sylaska & Edwards, 2013). 

In the National Intimate Partner 

and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), 

victims of IPV who disclosed their 

experience with IPV were asked 

about the degree of helpfulness 

of the disclosure (very helpful, 

somewhat, a little, not at all) in 

relation to each source of help 

consulted. Information about the 

helpfulness of each source was 

asked in relation to victimization 

from each perpetrator mentioned 

by the respondent.
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 59

Female victims of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking who chose to 

disclose their experiences generally 

found most sources to be “very 

helpful” or “somewhat helpful” 

(Table 7.2). With the exception of 

disclosure to police, the percentage 

of victims who found disclosure 

to the various sources to be “not 

at all helpful” ranged from 10% 

(psychologist/counselor/friend) to 

15% (intimate partner). In contrast, 

33.7% found disclosure to the police 

to be “not at all helpful.” A similar 

pattern was found for male victims. 

The proportion of male victims 

who considered their disclosure 

being “very helpful” is significantly 

lower than the proportion of 

female victims who considered 

their disclosure being “very helpful” 

for the following sources of help: 

police, psychologist/counselors, 

friends, family members, and 

“other” (p < .05). The difference 

in proportions between male and 

female victims reporting disclosure 

to a doctor or nurse or to an 

intimate partner being “very helpful” 

is not significant. Formal statistical 

testing comparing disclosure to a 

crisis hotline was not undertaken 

because the number of men 

reporting disclosure to a crisis 

hotline was too small to generate 

a reliable estimate. 

Table 7 .2

Degree of Helpfulness of Various Sources among those Who Disclosed Lifetime Rape, Physical 

Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 

Very (%) Somewhat (%) A little (%) Not at all (%)

Women

Police 36.5 22.2 14.2 33.7

Doctor/nurse 45.6 29.9 14.0 11.6

Psychologist/counselor 54.0 31.3 12.7 10.1

Crisis hotline 50.0 20.6 18.5 14.3

Friend 47.0 34.9 16.8 10.2

Family member 49.8 31.5 15.3 11.8

Intimate partner 40.6 33.7 16.0 15.0

Other 61.0 27.0 * *

Men

Police 21.0 17.8 13.1 52.0

Doctor/nurse 41.2 26.4 17.8 20.9

Psychologist/counselor 40.6 29.9 19.3 16.3

Crisis hotline * * * *

Friend 36.6 37.5 18.8 15.1

Family member 38.2 38.9 16.9 11.7

Intimate partner 34.0 30.3 14.8 23.4

Other 34.7 27.0 * *

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

Note: Row totals may add up to more than 100% due to the possibility of respondents disclosing to the same source more than once 

related to having more than one perpetrator.
60 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
Men and women with 

a lifetime history of 

rape, physical violence, 

or stalking by an 

intimate partner were 

more likely to report 

frequent headaches, 

chronic pain, difficulty 

sleeping, activity 

limitations, and poor 

physical health in 

general compared 

to those without a 

history of these forms 

of IPV. Women who 

have experienced 

these forms of 

violence were also 

more likely to report 

asthma, irritable bowel 

syndrome, diabetes, 

and poor mental 

health compared to 

women who did not 

experience these 

forms of violence. 

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 61

Previous research suggests that 

victims of intimate partner 

violence (IPV) 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 conditions over their 

lifetime compared to nonvictims 

(Black, 2011; Coker et al., 2002). 

Many studies document increased 

risk for a number of adverse 

physical, mental, reproductive, and 

other health conditions among 

those who have experienced 

intimate partner violence. Most 

studies that evaluate the adverse 

health consequences of intimate 

partner 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).

The cross-sectional nature of the 

National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 

does not allow for a determination 

of causality or the temporality 

of violence victimization and 

associated health conditions. 

However, extensive research 

describes a number of mechanisms 

that link chronic stress to a wide 

range of adverse health conditions 

(Black, 2011). While some health 

conditions may 

result directly from a physical 

injury, others may result from 

the biological impacts of stress 

on nearly all body systems 

(e.g., nervous, cardiovascular, 

gastrointestinal, reproductive, and 

immune systems). Furthermore, 

some research indicates that 

victims of violence are more 

likely to adopt health-risk coping 

behaviors such as smoking and 

the harmful use of alcohol or drugs 

(Campbell, 2002; Coker et al., 2002). 

This section compares the 

prevalence of various health 

conditions among persons with 

a lifetime history of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner in relation to those who 

have not experienced these forms 

of IPV in their lifetime. Respondents 

were asked about a number of 

health conditions: asthma, irritable 

bowel syndrome, diabetes, high 

blood pressure, frequent headaches, 

chronic pain, difficulty sleeping, 

activity limitations, and whether 

they considered their physical 

health and mental health to be 

poor. Verbatim health questions 

are available within the National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report 

(Black et al., 2011).

8: Physical and Mental Health Conditions 

by Victimization History
62 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Among Women

With the exception of high blood 

pressure, the prevalence of reported 

adverse mental and physical health 

conditions was significantly higher 

among women with a history of 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner compared to 

women without a history of these 

forms of violence (Table 8.1). This 

includes a higher prevalence of 

asthma (p < .001), irritable bowel 

syndrome (p < .001), diabetes 

(p < .05), frequent headaches 

(p < .001), chronic pain (p < .001), 

difficulty sleeping (p < .001), and 

activity limitations (p < .001). 

Additionally, the percentage of 

women who considered their 

physical or mental health to be 

poor was significantly higher 

among women with a history 

of rape, physical violence, or 

stalking by an intimate partner, 

compared to women who have not 

experienced these forms of violence 

(p < .001). The experience of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner was significantly 

associated (p < .05) with each of 

the health conditions except for 

high blood pressure, even after 

controlling for age, race/ethnicity, 

Table 8 .1

Prevalence of Physical and Mental Health Conditions among those with and without 

a History of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U .S . Women 

and Men, NISVS 2010

Women Men

 Weighted %

p-value2

Weighted %

p-value2

Health Condition History No History1 History No History1

Asthma 23.1 15.5 < .001 14.4 13.0 ns3

Irritable bowel syndrome 12.0 7.7 < .001 4.2 3.6 ns3

Diabetes 12.9 10.3 < .05 9.7 10.6 ns3

High blood pressure 28.1 27.1 ns3 30.1 29.3 ns3

Frequent headaches 29.5 17.4 < .001 16.0 9.8 < .001

Chronic pain 30.0 17.8 < .001 23.7 13.5 < .001

Difficulty sleeping 38.4 22.4 < .001 32.7 19.1 < .001

Activity limitations 35.7 20.9 < .001 29.1 18.7 < .001

Poor physical health 6.7 2.7 < .001 4.9 2.8 < .01

Poor mental health 3.6 1.2 < .001 2.6 1.4 ns3

 1 No history of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner.

2 p-values determined using chi-square test of independence in SUDAANTM.

3 Nonsignificant difference.
income, education, and the 

experience of rape and stalking 

by non-intimates (Table 8.2).

Among Men 

Compared to men without a history 

of rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner, men with 

such histories had a significantly 

higher prevalence of frequent 

headaches (p < .001), chronic pain 

(p < .001), difficulty sleeping 

(p < .001), activity limitations 

(p < .001), and considered their 

physical health to be poor (p < .01). 

Each of these health conditions 

was significantly associated 

(p < .05) with having experienced 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner, even after 

controlling for age, race/ethnicity, 

income, education, and the 

experience of rape and stalking 

by non-intimates. There were no 

significant differences between 

the two groups of men in the 

prevalence of asthma, irritable 

bowel syndrome, diabetes, high 

blood pressure, and self-assessed 

poor mental health.

 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 63

Table 8 .2

Association between Physical and Mental Health Conditions and the Experience of Rape, 

Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U .S . Women and Men, NISVS 2010

Health Condition

Comparison of History vs. No 

History among Women

Comparison of History vs. No 

History among Men

AOR1 95% CI AOR1 95% CI

Asthma 1.4* 1.2 – 1.7 1.1 0.9 – 1.4

Irritable bowel syndrome 1.5* 1.2 – 1.9 1.3 0.9 – 2.0

Diabetes 1.3* 1.0 – 1.6 1.0 0.8 – 1.3

High blood pressure 1.1 0.9 – 1.3 1.1 0.9 – 1.4

Frequent headaches 1.6* 1.4 – 2.0 1.4* 1.1 – 1.8

Chronic pain 1.6* 1.4 – 1.9 2.0* 1.6 – 2.4

Difficulty sleeping 1.7* 1.5 – 2.0 1.8* 1.5 – 2.2

Activity limitations 1.8* 1.5 – 2.1 1.7* 1.4 – 2.1

Poor physical health 2.0* 1.4 – 3.0 2.2* 1.4 – 3.3

Poor mental health 2.0* 1.2 – 3.3 1.4 0.8 – 2.5

1 Adjusted odds ratio controlling for age, race-ethnicity, income, education, and the experience of rape and stalking by non-intimates.

* Statistically significant, p < .05.
64 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 65

Highlights and 

Cross-Cutting Findings

Beyond reporting the overall 

prevalence of individual forms of 

intimate partner violence (IPV), 

the National Intimate Partner and 

Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 

was designed to examine and 

describe in more detail the context 

of IPV victimization experienced 

by women and men. This report 

describes a number of these 

important contextual elements 

such as the frequency, severity, 

and the overlap of violence types, 

as well as the need for services, 

and impact of IPV victimization. 

Moving beyond the primary focus 

of IPV prevalence allows for a 

deeper understanding of the broad 

range of victimization experiences. 

From a public health perspective, 

a better understanding of the 

context in which intimate partner 

violence occurs is necessary to 

inform and focus preventive 

services and community responses 

to the needs of victims. 

Intimate Partner Violence 

Remains a Significant Public 

Health Problem

The results presented in this 

report indicate that IPV remains a 

public health issue of significant 

importance, affecting many 

women and men in the United 

States. Specifically, with regard 

to women’s lifetime experience 

of violence by an intimate 

partner: nearly 1 in 10 has been 

raped; approximately 1 in 6 has 

experienced sexual violence other 

than rape; approximately 

1 in 4 has experienced severe 

physical violence and nearly 

1 in 3 has been slapped, pushed, 

or shoved; more than 1 in 10 has 

been stalked; and nearly 1 in 2 

has experienced psychological 

aggression. With regard to men’s 

lifetime experience of violence by 

an intimate partner: approximately 

1 in 12 has experienced sexual 

violence other than rape; nearly 

1 in 7 has experienced severe 

physical violence and 1 in 4 has 

been slapped, pushed or shoved; 

nearly 1 in 48 has been stalked; 

and nearly 1 in 2 has experienced 

psychological aggression.

Further, the results indicate that a 

significant proportion of IPV victims 

experience negative impacts as a 

result of IPV victimization. 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.

Women are Disproportionately 

Affected by Intimate 

Partner Violence

Consistent with previous national 

studies (Tjaden & Thoennes, 

2000), the findings in this 

report indicate that women are 

disproportionately affected by IPV. 

While women have a significantly 

higher lifetime prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by 

an intimate partner, compared 

to men, it is important to look 

beyond the overall numbers as 

they encompass a wide range of 

violence experiences and do not 

speak to differences in severity 

among victims.

In multiple ways, the data in this 

report indicate that IPV reported 

by women was typically more 

severe and resulted in a greater 

number of negative impacts 

than IPV victimization reported 

by men. Specifically, during their 

lifetime, women were more likely 

than men to experience: severe 

physical violence; sexual violence 

other than rape by an intimate 

partner; stalking by an intimate 

partner; and expressive aggression. 

Furthermore, women were more 

likely than men to experience: 

multiple forms of intimate partner 

violence (including rape, physical 

violence, and stalking), both across 

the life span and within individual 

violent relationships; a need for 

services in general; and at least one 

of the negative IPV-related impacts 

that were measured, including 

injury and having missed at least 

one day of work or school. 

Looking at the variation in IPV 

experiences among victims only, 

female victims were more likely than 

male victims to experience: a greater 

number of discrete physically violent, 

sexually violent, and psychologically 

aggressive behaviors within an 

individual violent relationship; each 

of the negative IPV-related impacts 

that was measured, including injury, 

need for housing services, need for 

victim’s advocate services, and having 

missed at least one day of work or 

school; and a greater number of 

9: Discussion
66 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

discrete IPV-related impacts within 

an individual relationship. Finally, 

female victims were more likely 

than male victims to experience 

more than the median number of 

violent behaviors in an individual 

relationship for: sexual violence 

(two or more sexually violent 

behaviors), physical violence (three 

or more physically violent behaviors), 

and psychological aggression 

(four or more psychologically 

aggressive behaviors). 

Many Men Experience Severe 

IPV and Negative Impacts

Despite numerous indicators 

suggesting that women are more 

likely to experience severe IPV 

compared to men, and are more 

likely to be negatively impacted, 

the data show that many men also 

experience severe forms of IPV and 

negative impacts. Specifically, in 

the United States:

•	 Nearly 14% of men have 

experienced severe physical 

violence by an intimate partner 

in their lifetime.

•	 Nearly 10% of men have 

experienced rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an 

intimate partner in their lifetime 

and experienced at least one 

IPV-related impact.

•	 Approximately 4% of men 

have been physically injured 

in their lifetime as a result of 

violence experienced in an 

intimate relationship.

•	 Approximately 4% of men have 

missed at least one day of work 

or school in their lifetime as a 

result of violence experienced in 

an intimate relationship.

Furthermore, a comparison of the 

differences in 12-month prevalence 

estimates show much smaller 

differences between men and 

women (e.g., unwanted sexual 

contact, various forms of severe 

physical violence) and, in some 

cases, more men than women 

experienced certain behaviors 

in the 12 months preceding the 

survey such as being slapped 

and being kicked. Additionally, 

men had a higher 12-month 

prevalence of psychological 

aggression than women.

Racial/Ethnic Minorities are 

Disproportionately Affected 

by Intimate Partner Violence

Consistent with other studies, 

the burden of IPV is not shared 

equally among racial/ethnic 

groups. This report indicates that 

Black and multiracial non-Hispanic 

women had significantly higher 

lifetime prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by 

an intimate partner, compared to 

White non-Hispanic women; Asian 

or Pacific Islander non-Hispanic 

women had significantly lower 

prevalence than non-Hispanic 

White women. Also, American 

Indian or Alaska Native men, 

as well as Black and multiracial 

non-Hispanic men, had a 

significantly higher lifetime 

prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking compared to 

White non-Hispanic men. These 

findings may be 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. 

Women and Men with 

Lower Incomes are 

Disproportionately Affected 

by Intimate Partner Violence 

The 12-month prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking by 

an intimate partner was significantly higher among women and 

men with a combined household 

income of less than $25,000 and 

between $25,000 and $50,000 

than for women and men with a 

combined income over $75,000. 

The median U.S. household income 

in 2010 was $49,455, so the two 

lowest income groups combined 

roughly correspond to the bottom 

50th percentile for household 

income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). 

This finding is consistent with 

previous studies demonstrating 

an inverse relationship between 

income and IPV prevalence 

(Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 2008).

Victimization is More 

Prevalent among 

Young Adults

For women and men, the 12-month 

prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking was highest 

among the youngest age group 

(18 to 24). Prevalence decreased 

within each subsequent age group. 

Furthermore, nearly 60% of female 

victims and over 55% of male 

victims first experienced some 

form of intimate partner violence 

prior to age 18.

Victimization is Associated 

with Recent Food and 

Housing Insecurity 

Higher levels of 12-month 

prevalence of rape, physical 

violence, or stalking by an intimate 

partner were observed among 

those with food and housing 

insecurity. Additional analysis is 

needed to fully understand the 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 67

independent effects of income, 

education, employment status, and 

other sociodemographic variables 

that may be related to both food 

and housing insecurity and to IPV. 

Foreign-born Adults 

Experienced Lower Levels 

of Victimization

The lifetime prevalence of rape, 

physical violence, or stalking 

was significantly lower for 

adults that were born outside 

of the United States compared 

to those born in the United 

States. Additional analysis is 

needed to better understand 

whether this finding reflects a 

lower likelihood of experiencing 

IPV among immigrants in their 

country of origin, or whether it is 

the result of a lower likelihood of 

experiencing IPV since arriving 

in the United States. Another 

possible explanation is that there 

are cultural differences in reporting 

violence experiences, and that 

those cultural differences, and not 

a true difference in prevalence, may 

explain the differences found.

Bisexual Women are at 

Greater Risk of Victimization

Bisexual women were significantly 

more likely to experience lifetime 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

by an intimate partner, compared 

to lesbian and heterosexual 

women. While the prevalence of 

rape, physical violence, or stalking 

for bisexual men was somewhat 

elevated compared to gay men and 

heterosexual men, there were no 

statistically significant differences.

Services and Disclosure

A range of services have been 

needed by a large number of 

people in the United States as a 

result of having experienced IPV 

at some point during their lifetime. 

The estimated number of men 

and women who reported that 

they needed services as result of 

victimization in their lifetime was 

more than 20 million. However, 

women, in particular, had a need 

for housing and victim’s advocate 

services, with millions of women 

needing each of these forms 

of assistance in their lifetime. 

Importantly, less than 50% of female 

victims who indicated a need 

for housing or victim’s advocate 

services during their lifetime 

reported that they received them. 

Overall, among female victims that 

needed services during their lifetime, 

44.9% did not receive any services. 

For male victims, nearly 2 out of 3 

(65.7%) that needed services during 

their lifetime did not receive any 

services. Clearly, there is a need to 

better understand the barriers to 

receiving these services for both 

women and men. Specifically, 

there is a need for an improved 

understanding of whether the 

barriers are largely due to lack of 

availability or other factors that lead 

to a victim choosing not to access 

available services.

A larger percentage of female 

victims disclosed their lifetime IPV 

experiences, in general, compared to 

men (84.2% and 60.9%, respectively), 

and a larger percentage of female 

victims disclosed their IPV to 

individual sources compared to 

men. However, among victims 

that disclosed their lifetime IPV 

victimization, the proportion of men 

who considered the disclosure as 

being “very helpful” was significantly 

lower than the proportion of women 

who considered the disclosure as 

being “very helpful.” This was true 

for disclosure in general and for 

disclosure to particular sources such 

as police, psychologists/counselors, 

friends, family members, and “others.” 

Intimate Partner Violence 

Is Associated with Negative 

Physical and Mental Health 

Conditions

The findings in this report confirm 

and extend the literature by 

documenting the association 

between IPV and a wide range 

of adverse physical and mental 

health conditions as the findings 

presented here are the first to 

examine these associations in a 

nationally-representative dataset. 

The significant associations 

between IPV victimization and 

negative health outcomes 

remained after controlling for 

sexual violence and stalking by 

non-intimates, suggesting that IPV 

uniquely contributes to long-term 

health difficulties. 

Results Provide Greater 

Context Surrounding 

IPV Victimization

The methodology used in the 

survey responds to calls from 

the field to add greater context 

to prevalence estimates that 

frequently do not explicate the 

range of severity that exists among 

victims. Specifically, by examining 

information related to individual 

perpetrators, including the overlap 

of types of IPV, discrete number 

of violent behaviors experienced, 

frequency and severity of the 

violence experienced, and the 

impact of violence perpetrated 

by a specific intimate partner, the 

results described in this report allow 

for a better understanding of the 

patterns of violence that exist within 

individual relationships, shedding 

light on the totality of the violence 

experienced. Additionally, this 
68 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

information allows for a description 

of the range in severity of 

victimization experiences that is not 

fully represented by IPV prevalence 

estimates that combine many 

diverse victimization experiences 

into a binary outcome measure. 

Despite these methodological 

improvements that shed light on 

the context of IPV victimization, 

the data do not speak to other key 

aspects of context, specifically, 

motive on the part of perpetrator 

(e.g., self-defense) and whether 

the victim also engaged in 

perpetration of IPV. Prior research 

suggests that IPV is reciprocal in 

many relationships (Graham-Kevan 

& Archer, 2003). Consequently, it 

is likely that a certain number of 

victims identified within this report 

were themselves perpetrators 

of IPV who may or may not have 

acted in self-defense. It is also 

possible that some of the victims 

identified within this report may 

have been the primary perpetrator 

within the relationship and that 

the victimization they reported 

may have occurred solely when a 

partner was acting in self-defense. 

Perpetration of IPV is not measured 

within NISVS because data 

from the NISVS pilot found that 

perpetration was significantly 

underreported relative to 

victimization. Further, the motives 

of perpetrators were not assessed 

in NISVS, given the difficulties 

a respondent would have in 

accurately assessing the specific 

motives of another person. Not 

only is asking a victim to describe 

the motive of a perpetrator likely 

unreliable, but motives behind 

the violence are likely to change 

over time and change with the 

specific circumstances surrounding 

multiple episodes of IPV. 

Limitations 

The findings of this report 

are subject to a number of 

limitations. Random digit dial 

(RDD) telephone surveys face two 

substantive challenges that have 

the potential to affect the national 

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 

non-responders were contacted 

and offered an increased incentive 

for participation. In addition, the 

inclusion of a cellphone component 

provided increased coverage of a 

growing population that would 

have otherwise been excluded. 

The cellphone-only population 

tends to be young, low income, 

and comprised of racial/ethnic 

minorities (Peytchev, Carley-Baxter, 

& Black, 2011). Importantly, these 

demographic groups have 

a higher prevalence of IPV.

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 

undertaken in the development 

of NISVS 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. For example, a 

respondent may not be able to 

attribute their concern for safety 

to the psychological aggression 

or the physical violence that they 

experienced. Second, because we 

used victims’ reports of their age 

and relationship at the time violence 

started with each perpetrator, it 

was not always possible to calculate 

the respondent’s age or specify the 

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 between the experience 

of the first and last victimizations 

(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 NISVS captures a full 

range of victimization experiences, 

the estimates reported here likely 

underestimate the prevalence of 

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 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 69

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 ongoing 

emotional trauma or the social 

stigma associated with being a 

victim of these forms of violence; 

(4) although potentially mitigated 

by the use of a cell phone sample, 

RDD surveys may be less likely 

to capture populations living in 

institutions (e.g., nursing homes, 

military bases, college dormitories), 

or those in prison, those living in 

shelters, or those who are homeless 

or transient; and (5) it is possible 

that some respondents could no 

longer recall violence experiences 

that were less severe in nature or 

that occurred long ago. 

This report provides lifetime and 

12-month prevalence estimates, 

as both estimates are important 

indicators of the burden of IPV. 

For an ongoing public health 

surveillance system, 12-month 

prevalence estimates are important 

indicators needed to determine 

the current public health burden of 

these forms of violence and to track 

trends over time. However, given 

the sensitivity of these outcomes, 

there are important limitations to 

consider when interpreting the 

12-month prevalence of IPV. As 

mentioned, some respondents 

may be less likely to disclose IPV 

victimization due to ongoing 

emotional trauma or discomfort, 

or due to concern for their safety 

due to an ongoing relationship 

with a perpetrator. We would 

expect that this would particularly 

affect those who have experienced 

recent severe IPV. Additionally, it 

is possible that those who have 

experienced recent severe IPV 

may be less likely to participate at 

all. One study found that women 

who had experienced severe IPV 

within the past 12 months were 

less likely to participate in a study 

of IPV (Waltermaurer, Ortega, & 

McNutt, 2003). There are a number 

of potential reasons why those 

who have experienced recent 

severe IPV may be less willing to 

participate in a survey. First, a victim 

of severe IPV who is currently living 

with the perpetrator may fear 

for their safety. Second, a recent 

victim of IPV who has recently 

left a relationship may be in a less 

stable living arrangement, such 

as a shelter, or temporarily living 

with a friend or family member, 

and may be less likely to have 

the opportunity to participate. 

Third, those who are currently 

involved in a particularly controlling 

relationship may have restricted 

or no use of a telephone. For these 

reasons, 12-month prevalence 

estimates of IPV victimization 

may be an underestimate of the 

current public health burden of IPV. 

Because women are more likely to 

experience severe IPV compared to 

men, women’s 12-month prevalence 

may be particularly affected. 

In addition to the possible 

causes of underestimation of 

the prevalence, it is important to 

consider other potential limitations 

related to the data being based 

on self-reports. For example, 

12-month estimates may reflect a 

degree of recall bias with victims 

believing that victimization 

experiences occurred closer in 

time than they actually did (i.e., 

telescoping). Also, there may be 

reluctance for respondents to 

discuss specific types of violence 

(e.g., forced vaginal sex) or specific 

types of perpetrators (e.g., same 

sex). These are factors that 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). Despite these 

limitations, population-based 

surveys that collect information 

directly from victims remain one 

of the most important and most 

reliable sources of data on IPV. For 

example, the wide range of impacts 

of IPV that was measured by 

NISVS can only be captured from 

the victim directly. Furthermore, 

population-based surveys are likely 

to capture IPV victimization that 

does not come to the attention of 

police, as well as IPV victimization 

that does not require treatment 

or is not reported to a health 

provider. Population-based surveys 

that are carefully conducted, with 

well-trained 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. 

Considerations Related to 

Combining Violence Types

Many of the results in this report 

focus on a summary measure 

that examined whether a victim 

experienced some combination of 

rape, physical violence, or stalking. 

This summary measure utilized 

is a conservative representation, 

including only those violence 

types for which there is broad 

agreement regarding inclusion, but 

most certainly excludes a number 

of violence types that in specific 

instances should be classified as 

IPV. The exclusion of certain forms 

of IPV from the summary measure 
70 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

is not meant to suggest these 

forms of IPV that were measured 

in NISVS (i.e., sexual violence 

other than rape, psychological 

aggression, control of reproductive 

or sexual health) are less important. 

One overriding concern about 

including all types of IPV measured 

by NISVS into a single summary 

measure is that by combining 

many forms of IPV, ranging from 

severe to less severe, the meaning 

of the summary measure is lost. 

Specifically, the summary measure 

may lead to the false impression 

that all experiences are equivalent 

under the umbrella of the summary 

measure. However, it is important 

to consider the variation in severity 

that exists and is represented by 

the other measures described in 

this report. 

The reasons for not including 

specific types of IPV in the summary 

measure vary. For some types of IPV, 

such as psychological aggression, 

there is little agreement in the field 

from a measurement perspective 

about when psychological 

aggression becomes psychological 

abuse or violence. The prevalence 

estimate included in this report 

describes the number of people 

who experienced any form of 

psychological aggression at 

least once. As the understanding 

of psychological aggression 

improves (for example, how to 

make the distinction between 

psychological aggression and 

psychological abuse), the ability to 

appropriately describe and present 

this important data will improve. 

Similarly, another form of violence, 

being made to penetrate someone 

else, is a relatively new addition 

that may be particularly important 

to improve our understanding 

of the sexual violence that men 

and boys experience. With further 

research, and with broader 

agreement within the field, 

changes may be warranted to the 

summary measure by including 

some of the forms of IPV that are 

currently described outside of the 

summary measure. In so doing, a 

broader summary measure would 

describe a more comprehensive 

representation of IPV experiences. 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 71
72 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 73

This report documents the public

health burden that intimate partner 

violence (IPV) exerts on a wide 

range of populations with differing 

demographic characteristics. 

Consequently, a community-level 

response is needed to implement 

effective and appropriate measures 

to prevent and respond to those 

who are affected by IPV.

Primary Prevention

The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s (CDC's) core strategy for 

preventing IPV is the promotion of 

respectful, nonviolent relationships 

through individual, relationship, 

community, and societal change. 

This prevention strategy is 

organized around the following 

principles: understanding ways to 

interrupt the development of IPV 

perpetration; improving knowledge 

of factors that contribute to 

respectful relationships and protect 

against IPV; creating and evaluating 

new approaches to prevention; 

and building community capacity. 

Comprehensive community-based 

approaches building upon and 

joining well-organized, broadbased coalitions are important 

and can effectively create change 

in communities. One example 

of these efforts, The Domestic 

Violence Prevention Enhancement 

and Leadership Through Alliances 

(DELTA) FOCUS program seeks to 

prevent IPV at the national, state, 

and local levels by funding states 

and communities to implement and 

evaluate IPV prevention strategies. 

DELTA FOCUS grantees are working 

toward changing the conditions 

that lead to IPV through activities 

such as: promoting healthy 

relationships and communications 

skills, engaging men and boys in 

violence prevention, developing 

youth assets and leaders, and 

working with communities 

to implement and evaluate 

population-level strategies that 

prevent IPV. 

CDC places an emphasis on 

primary prevention, prioritizing the 

prevention of IPV from occurring 

in the first place. This report 

indicates that IPV victimization 

begins early with nearly 70% of 

female victims and nearly 54% of 

male victims having experienced 

IPV prior to age 25. This suggests 

that primary prevention of IPV 

must begin at an early age. CDC’s 

approach to primary prevention 

of IPV is the promotion of healthy 

relationship behaviors among 

young people, with the goal of 

reaching adolescents prior to their 

first relationships. By influencing 

relationship behaviors and patterns 

early through dating violence 

prevention programs, the hope is 

to promote healthy relationship 

behaviors and patterns that can be 

carried forward into adulthood. 

This report identified groups that 

are at most risk for IPV victimization. 

While primary prevention programs 

exist, it is unknown whether they 

are effective within specific groups 

of people, particularly among 

those identified in this report as 

being most at risk. Further work 

needs to be done to test existing 

strategies with specific groups, as 

well as to develop and test other 

strategies to determine whether 

they are effective in preventing 

IPV. One of the goals of CDC’s 

Dating MattersTM program, which 

is a comprehensive program for 

youth, their parents, educators, and 

the neighborhoods in which they 

live, is to test evidence-based and 

evidence-informed strategies within 

high-risk urban communities (Teten 

Tharp, 2012). By making adaptations 

to existing evidence-based program 

components to make them more 

culturally relevant and developing 

and testing other strategies tailored 

for urban communities, this 

program will help identify potential 

strategies for groups at high-risk for 

teen dating violence. Outside of this 

specific program, continued efforts 

are needed to develop prevention 

strategies that address the culturally 

specific concerns of at-risk groups 

across the United States.

Efforts to build positive and healthy 

parent-child relationships are 

also important for the primary 

prevention of IPV. Children benefit 

from safe, stable, and nurturing 

familial environments that 

facilitate respectful interactions 

and open communication. Other 

opportunities to build parent-child 

relationships include programs 

to promote effective parenting 

skills and efforts to include and 

support relationships between 

fathers and children. Beyond 

providing children an opportunity 

10: Implications for Prevention
74 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

to share with their parents the 

experiences they have had with 

dating violence and other forms 

of violence, parents who model 

healthy, respectful intimate 

relationships free from violence 

foster these relationship patterns 

in their children. Furthermore, 

children who have experienced 

adverse childhood events, such 

as witnessing violence between 

parents, are at increased risk of 

short- and long-term health and 

social problems (Felitti, et al., 1998). 

Reducing parental IPV is likely to 

decrease the risk of IPV and other 

forms of violence in the next 

generation, decrease the likelihood 

of children engaging in risky 

behaviors, and decrease the risk 

of a wide range of adverse 

health conditions.

The focus of this report is on 

describing the public health 

burden of victimization. To better 

understand how to prevent IPV, 

CDC also supports work that seeks 

to better understand the causes 

of IPV perpetration. Research 

examining risk and protective 

factors is key to understanding how 

perpetration of violence develops 

and to determine the optimal 

strategies for preventing intimate 

partner violence. While much is 

known about risks factors at the 

individual and couple level, there 

have been few studies examining 

community- and societal-level 

factors related to perpetration of 

IPV. Identifying community and 

societal-level factors, while difficult, 

could be most useful in identifying 

perpetration prevention strategies 

that have the most potential for 

broad impact. In addition, future 

research is needed to identify 

protective factors that decrease 

the likelihood of IPV perpetration. 

Protective factors are particularly 

critical to developing prevention 

programs as they are more likely to 

point to environments or situations 

that reduce the likelihood of 

violence perpetration, in general, 

or reduce the likelihood of IPV 

perpetration in the first place 

among those who are at high risk.

Finally, as the risk and protective 

factors for IPV perpetration are 

better understood, additional 

research is needed to develop and 

evaluate strategies to effectively 

prevent the first-time perpetration 

of IPV. This includes research that 

addresses the social and economic 

conditions that increase the risk for 

perpetration and victimization —

such as poverty, food and housing 

insecurity, and sexism — as well as 

other forms of discrimination and 

social exclusion. Such research will 

complement efforts focused on 

preventing initial victimization and 

the recurrence of victimization.

Secondary and 

Tertiary Prevention

Secondary and tertiary prevention 

programs and services are essential 

for mitigating the short- and 

long-term consequences of IPV 

among victims, as well as reducing 

the violence-related health burden 

across the life span. This report 

examined a range of services 

that victims reported needing as 

a result of IPV at some point in 

their lifetime and whether they 

received them, including medical 

care, housing, victim’s advocacy, 

legal, and community services. The 

vast majority of women who were 

victims of IPV indicated that they 

needed medical services; nearly 

half said they needed housing, 

victim’s advocacy, and community 

services; and a third of women 

needed legal services. Among the 

female victims who needed at least 

one of these services at some point 

during their lifetime, nearly half 

did not receive any of the services 

that were needed. Among the male 

victims who needed at least one 

of these services, approximately 

two-thirds did not receive any of 

the needed services. This indicates 

that a significant gap has existed 

over time, and may still exist, 

between a need for services and 

the receipt of those services. Future 

work is needed to understand the 

degree to which this gap currently 

exists and, if so, whether this gap is 

due to services being unavailable 

or because available services were 

not utilized. Regardless, a better 

understanding of the current 

barriers to service utilization is 

always important.

Disclosing victimization 

experiences is a necessary first step 

for victims to be able to obtain the 

resources and services they need. 

One primary method by which IPV 

victims may disclose victimization 

and receive appropriate help is 

through disclosure to medical 

professionals. While 84.2% of 

female victims and 60.9% of 

male victims disclosed their IPV 

victimization to someone, only 

21.0% of female victims and 5.0% 

of male victims reported having 

disclosed their victimization to 

a medical professional at some 

point in their lifetime. A number 

of medical associations (e.g., 

American Congress of Obstetricians 

[ACOG] and Gynecologists, 

American Medical Association [AMA]) 
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 75

recommend asking all patients 

about their experiences with IPV at 

every visit and providing referrals 

for services as indicated (AMA, 

1992; ACOG, 1995). Further, in 

2013, the U.S. Preventive Services 

Task Force recommended that 

clinicians should screen all women 

of childbearing age for IPV and 

provide or refer women who screen 

positive to intervention services 

(Moyer, 2013). The questions about 

disclosure in National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey were asked in relation to 

the violence experienced by an 

individual perpetrator and were 

not specific to any particular 

time period. However, the 

findings suggest a need to better 

understand any potential barriers 

that may prevent victims from 

disclosing to a medical professional 

or those that may make some 

medical professionals reluctant 

to assess patients’ victimization 

experiences, even among those 

that show signs of victimization 

(Black, 2011). Victims choosing to 

disclose to health care providers 

is likely to improve if clinicians 

are prepared and able to ask 

about IPV in a compassionate 

and non-judgmental manner. 

One of the largest barriers to 

physicians asking about IPV is that 

they frequently feel inadequate 

and unprepared to appropriately 

respond to a patient who reports 

experiencing IPV. A study of 

final-year primary care residents 

regarding “perceived preparedness” 

found that only 21% reported 

being prepared to talk about IPV 

(Park, Wolfe, Gokhale, Winichoff, 

& Rigotti, 2005). The amount of 

time spent on IPV training remains 

quite limited and the majority 

of medical textbooks still do not 

contain adequate information 

on IPV (Hamberger, 2007). To 

train health care providers to 

effectively identify, treat, and 

provide secondary prevention for 

victims of IPV, there remains an 

urgent need to raise awareness 

about the pervasiveness of IPV and 

the far-reaching implications for 

patient health (Block, 2005).

Conclusion

To reduce the burden of intimate 

partner violence in the United 

States, it is essential to have solid 

data to inform IPV prevention 

efforts and to provide services 

and resources to those who have 

been victimized. Additionally, it 

is critical for all sectors of society, 

including peer groups, schools, 

medical professionals, and 

communities, to work together 

to decrease IPV. Continued 

efforts are required to extend the 

gains that have been made in 

understanding and implementing 

IPV prevention strategies. 
76 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 77

References

American College of Obstetricians 

and Gynecologists (ACOG). (1995). 

Domestic violence (ACOG 

Technical Bulletin No. 209). 

Washington, DC: American College 

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

American Medical Association. (1992). 

American Medical Association 

Diagnostic and Treatment 

Guidelines on Domestic Violence. 

Archives of Family Medicine, 1, 39–47.

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

violence and adverse health 

consequences: Implications for 

clinicians. American Journal of 

Lifestyle Medicine, 5, 428–439. 

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.

Block, R.W. (2005). Medical student 

exposure to family violence issues: 

a model curriculum. Family Violence 

Prevention and Health Practice, 1, 1–4.

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.

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

G.W. (2008). Prevalence and risk 

factors of intimate partner violence 

in 18 U.S. states/territories, 2005. 

American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine, 34, 112–118.

Campbell, J. (2002). Health 

consequences of intimate partner 

violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331–1336.

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

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

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

and mental health effects of 

intimate partner violence for men 

and women. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, 23, 260−268.

Coker, A.L., Smith, P.H., & Fadden, 

M.K. (2005). Intimate partner 

violence and disabilities among 

women attending family practice 

clinics. Journal of Women’s Health, 

14, 829–838.

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.

Crofford, L.J. (2007). Violence, stress, 

and somatic syndromes. Trauma, 

Violence, & Abuse, 8, 299–313.

Edwards, K.M. (2012). Women's 

disclosure of dating violence: A mixed 

methodological study. Feminism & 

Psychology, 22(4): 507–517

Felitti, V.J., Anda, R.F., Nordenberg, 

D., Williamson, D.F., Spitz, A.M., 

Edwards, V., Koss, M.P., & Marks, 

J.S. (1998). The relationship of 

adult health status to childhood 

abuse and household dysfunction. 

American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine, 14, 245–258.

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.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. 

(2003). Intimate terrorism and 

common couple violence: A test of 

Johnson’s predictions in four British 

samples. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 18, 1247–1270.

Hamberger, L.K. (2007). Preparing 

the next generation of physicians: 

medical school and residencybased intimate partner violence 

curriculum and evaluation. Trauma, 

Violence, and Abuse, 8, 214–225.

Harned, M.S. (2001). Abused 

Women or Abused Men? An 

Examination of the Context and 

Outcomes of Dating Violence. 

Violence and Victims, 16, 269–285.

Houry, D., Rhodes, K., Kemball, R., 

Click, L., Cerulli, C., McNutt, L.A., 

& Kaslow, N.J. (2008). Differences 

in female and male victims and 

perpetrators of partner violence with 

respect to WEB scores. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1041–55.
78 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

Kelly, J.B. & Johnson, M.P. (2008). 

Differentiation among types of 

intimate partner violence: Research 

update and implications for 

interventions. Family Court Review, 

46, 476–499. 

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). 

Controversies involving gender and 

intimate partner violence in the 

United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179–193.

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.

Moyer, V.A. (2013). Screening for 

intimate partner violence and 

abuse of elderly and vulnerable 

adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task 

Force recommendation statement. 

Annals of Internal Medicine, 158, 

478–486.

Park, E.R., Wolfe, T.J., Gokhale, M., 

Winichoff, J.P., & Rigotti, N.A. (2005). 

Perceived preparedness to provide 

preventive counseling: reports of 

graduating primary care residents 

at academic health centers. Journal 

of General Medicine, 20, 386–391.

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.

Pico-Alfonso, M.A., Garcia-Linares, 

M.I., Celda-Navarro, N., Herbert, 

J., & Martinez, M. (2004). Changes 

in cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone in women victims of 

physical and psychological intimate 

partner violence. Biological 

Psychiatry, 56, 233–240.

Randall, T. (1990). Domestic 

violence intervention: Calls for 

more than treating injuries. 

Journal of the American Medical 

Association, 264, 939–940.

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.

Sylaska, K.M., & Edwards, K.M. 

(2013). Disclosure of intimate 

partner violence to informal 

social support network members: 

A review of the literature. 

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 

Advance online publication. doi: 

10.1177/1524838013496335

Teten Tharp, A. (2012). Dating 

MattersTM: The next generation of 

teen dating violence prevention. 

Prevention Science, 13, 398–401.

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.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Income, 

poverty, and health insurance

coverage in the United States: 2010. 

Retrieved from http://www.census.

gov/prod/2011pubs/p60–239.pdf. 

Last accessed: July 24, 2013.

Waltermaurer, E.M., Ortega, 

C.A., & McNutt, L. (2003). Issues 

in estimating the prevalence 

of intimate partner violence: 

Assessing the impact of abuse 

status on participation bias. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 

18, 959–974.

Walters, M.L., Chen J., & Breiding, M.J. 

(2013). The national intimate partner 

and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 

2010 findings on victimization by 

sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: 

National Center for Injury Prevention 

and Control, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention.

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.
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 79
80 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 81

Violence Domains

Five types of intimate partner 

violence were measured in National 

Intimate Partner and Sexual 

Violence Survey (NISVS). These 

include sexual violence, physical 

violence, stalking, 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 below.

•	 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 below. 

•	 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. 

A list of the victimization questions 

used in the survey can be found in 

Appendix B. 

Sexual Violence by an 

Intimate Partner

Five types of sexual violence were 

measured in NISVS. These include 

acts of rape (forced penetration), 

being made to penetrate someone 

else, sexual coercion, unwanted 

sexual contact, and non-contact 

unwanted sexual experiences.

•	 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 a man’s anus or 

another female’s vagina or anus. 

It also includes perpetrators 

attempting to make female 

victims penetrate them, though 

penetration did not happen. 

– Among men, being made to 

penetrate someone else could 

have occurred in multiple 

ways: being made to penetrate 

a female’s vagina or anus, or 

another man’s anus, using one’s 

own penis; being made to 

penetrate another man’s anus, 

or a woman’s vagina or anus, 

using one’s own mouth; being 

made to penetrate a man’s or 

woman’s mouth using one’s 

own penis. It also includes 

perpetrators attempting to 

make male victims penetrate 

them, though penetration did 

not happen.

•	 Sexual coercion is defined as 

unwanted sexual penetration 

that occurs after a person is 

pressured in a nonphysical way. 

Appendix A: Violence Victimization 

and Other Domains Assessed
82 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

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.

Physical Violence by 

an Intimate Partner

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 can also be severe 

in terms of the effect on victims, 

this report distinguishes between 

these forms of violence and the 

physical violence that is generally 

categorized as severe. 

Stalking by an 

Intimate Partner

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. 

Psychological Aggression 

by an Intimate Partner

Psychological aggression, including 

expressive aggression and coercive 

control, is an important component 

of intimate partner violence (IPV). 

Expressive aggression includes 

behaviors such as name-calling, 

insults, and humiliation. Coercive 

control includes behaviors that 

are intended to monitor and 

control an intimate partner 

through threats to harm, 

interference with family and 

friends, and limiting access to 

money. 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 

should be classified as IPV. 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 IPV. 

Control of Reproductive 

or Sexual Health by 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.

Other Domains Assessed

IPV-related Impact

For each perpetrator of IPV, 

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 health care

•	 Needing housing services
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 83

•	 Needing victim’s advocate 

services

•	 Needing legal services

•	 Contacting a crisis hotline

•	 Missing days of work or school

•	 For those reporting rape by an 

intimate partner:

– Contracting a sexually 

transmitted infection

– 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.

Perpetrator Information

Respondents who reported 

experiencing IPV were subsequently 

asked to identify individual 

perpetrators by initials, nickname, 

or in some other general way 

so that each violent behavior 

reported could be tied to a specific 

perpetrator. For each perpetrator 

reported, respondents were asked 

their age and their relationship to 

the perpetrator at the time violence 

first began and at the last time 

violence was experienced. This 

report describes violence for which 

the respondent indicated that the 

perpetrator was a current or former 

intimate partner at the time when 

the violence first began.

Services and Disclosure

Respondents who reported 

experiencing violence were 

subsequently asked whether they 

needed various services (e.g., 

medical care, housing services, 

advocacy services, crisis hotline). If 

a respondent indicated a need for 

a particular service, the respondent 

was asked whether that service was 

received. In addition, respondents 

who reported experiencing 

IPV were asked whether they 

disclosed their victimization to 

various sources (e.g., health care 

provider, family member, friend). 

Respondents who sought services 

or disclosed their victimization were 

asked the degree of helpfulness of 

that source.
84 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 85

Appendix B: 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 many people have ever used physical 

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 many people have you had vaginal, 

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?
86 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010

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?

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

been there?

•	 made unwanted phone calls to you or left you messages? This includes hang-ups, text, 

or voice messages.

•	 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 toward 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?

•	 threatened to hurt someone you love?

•	 hurt someone you love?

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

•	 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”?
 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 87

Control of Reproductive or 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?
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

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 

Division of Violence Prevention