Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual Minority Populations: A Critical Review of the Literature and Agenda for Future Research

Summary of the Research Literature on IPV AmongLGB PersonsIncidence and Prevalence Rates Sixty-two studies have reported on the incidence and/or preva-lence rates of IPV among LGB individuals. Rates of IPV rangefrom 1% (e.g., Turell [2000] measuring forced sex perpetration incurrent relationships among LGBT individuals) to more than 97%(i.e.,Hequembourg,Parks,V Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) find-ing that 33.3% of men in same-sex relationships reporting victim-ization (Craft & Serovich, 2005), and 9.5% of gay and bisexualmen reporting sexual victimization using author-created questions(Feldman, Ream, Diaz, & El-Bassel, 2008). Similar to the higherrates reported by Craft and Serovich (2005), these researchers alsofound that 27.5% of men in same-sex relationships reported sexualIPV perpetration (Craft & Serovich, 2005). Finally, research in-vestigating physical IPV has found that 41.0% of gay and bisexualmen report being the victim and 35.0% report being the perpetratorof at least one act of physical IPV in their lifetime (Bartholomew,Regan, White, & Oram, 2008), and Craft and Serovich (2005)found similar rates, with 45.1% of men in same-sex relationshipsreporting physical IPV victimization and 39.2% reporting perpe-tration. Although discrepancies appear to be a result of the differ-entformsofIPVbeingmeasuredandsomeresearchers’tendenciesto aggregate multiple forms of IPV when reporting rates, themeasures used can also influence rates. For instance, includingmilder forms of violence in IPV perpetration and victimizationscales can lead to higher rates of reported violence. Specifically,Miller, Greene, Causby, White, and Lockhart (2001) found that46.1% of the lesbians in their study reported some form of mod-erate physical IPV, whereas 14.1% reported severe physical IPV.As shown above, the gaping discrepancy in rates of IPV isattributable to variability in how IPV is defined (IPV victimizationand/or perpetration; physical, sexual, psychological, and/or stalk-ingIPV;lifetime,currentrelationship,lastyear,orsomeothertimeframe) and measured (standardized measurement, most commonlythe Conflict Tactics Scale Revised [Straus et al., 1996], or itemscreated for the individual study by researchers) as well as thesample used (e.g., demographic make-up, national vs. conveniencesample, clinical vs. community sample). Not surprising, the high-est rates of IPV are documented when the measures and definitionsused by researchers are more inclusive and include a longer timeframe. The highest rates of IPV victimization are also documentedin samples evidencing higher levels of IPV risk factors (e.g.,clinical and criminal justice system samples).IPV estimates ranging from 1% to more than 97% tell usextremely little about the scope of the problem. Consistent withother reviews (e.g., Finkelhor, 2011), herein we draw upon themost recent, nationally representative epidemiological data to pro-vide what we consider to be the most reliable and valid estimatesof IPV among LGB individuals, and how these estimates vary asa function of sexual orientation and gender. The CDC releasedsome of the most recent data from the National Intimate Partnerand Sexual Violence Survey, which documented that lifetimeprevalence rates of IPV (inclusive of physical, sexual, stalkingvictimization, but not psychological victimization) occurred atsimilar to higher rates among self-identified LGB adults (bisexualwomen: 61.1%; lesbian women: 43.8%; bisexual men: 37.3%; gaymen: 26.0%) than heterosexual adults (women: 35.0%; men:29.0%)(Walters,Chen,B lesbian women: 29.4%; gaymen: 16.4%) than heterosexual adults (women: 23.6%; men:13.9%). The findings reported by Walters et al. (2013) are some-what consistent with Messinger’s (2011) analysis of the NationalViolence Against Women Survey, in which Messinger docu-mented that means for all forms of IPV victimization (inclusive ofphysical, psychological, and sexual) were greater for LGB indi-viduals than heterosexual individuals. Messinger also documentedthat sexual minority women were most likely to be victims ofsexual IPV, followed by heterosexual women, sexual minoritymen, and heterosexual men. Further, bisexual individuals weremore likely to be victimized than all other groups, and bisexualwomen were more likely to be victimized than bisexual men for allforms of IPV, except psychological IPV.Data from the National Longitudinal Study of AdolescentHealth provide information on IPV among adolescents and youngadults as a function of gender and sexual orientation (Halpern,Young, Waller, Martin, & Kupper, 2004; Renner & Whitney,2010). Using Wave II, Halpern et al. (2004) found that 24% ofadolescents who were in same-sex relationships during the past 18months reported physical and/or psychological IPV victimization.Girls in same-sex relationships reported higher rates of physical