Summary: This keynote address explores:

• Who uses domestic, family, and sexual violence in Australia?
• At what age do people start using domestic, family and sexual violence, do they typically keep doing so over time, and why do some people stop?
• What are the patterns of perpetration among specific groups, settings, and communities?
• What are the drivers of perpetration?
• What does all this mean for preventing and reducing domestic, family, and sexual violence?

START

Large proportions of the population in Australia have perpetrated domestic or sexual violence. Let’s take a look at the maths. 1.6 million women (17%) and 548,000 men (6.1%) in Australia have experienced physical or sexual violence from a current or previous cohabiting partner since the age of 15. Given these figures, then in turn, large numbers of people are the perpetrators of this violence.

Yet remarkably little is known about who is perpetrating this violence. Most of what we know about domestic, family, and sexual violence is focused on the victims. Most attention in the community and by governments has focused on victims and victimisation. Yes, responses to domestic and sexual violence must start by providing safety, support, and justice for victim-survivors. But we must also work to reduce and prevent the perpetration of violence.

There is no national Australian data on people’s perpetration of domestic or sexual violence. While we have good data on violence victimisation, we know far less about violence perpetration. Existing scholarship, however, does give us some idea of the extent and patterns of perpetration. 

The State of Knowledge Report on Violence Perpetration was released last week. It is a collaboration by the Queensland University of Technology, the Equality Institute, and the Accountability Matters Project. It explores what we know so far about who uses domestic and sexual violence, how, and why, in order to enhance national efforts to end domestic, family and sexual violence.

Data from victims and police

One of the consistent findings from victimisation data, legal system data, and survey self-reports is that most violence is perpetrated by men. 

Among all people in Australia who have suffered violence, nearly all had experienced violence from a male perpetrator (95% of male victims and 94% of female victims). Around one quarter of all victims had experienced violence from a female perpetrator (28% of male victims and 24% of female victims).

Close to nine in ten perpetrators of homicide in Australia are male. Three-quarters (75%) of all victims of domestic violence reported the perpetrator as male. Among all genders of victims of sexual violence since the age of 15, six times as many people reported violence by a male perpetrator as by a female perpetrator.

As most victims do not formally report to authorities, police and legal data are limited sources of information on perpetration. Police data tends to capture only the most severe cases, legal definitions vary across Australia, and existing data are shaped by the over-policing of First Nation and ethnic minority communities.

Self-report data

Another stream of data comes from surveys in which people report on their own use of violent behaviours. A key issue here is that most self-report data on domestic violence relies only on asking individuals if they or their partners have ever committed any violent acts from a specified list (slapping, kicking, punching, and so on). 

Popular measures such as the Conflict Tactics Scale do not also ask about severity, frequency, impact (injury or fear), intent, whether the acts were in self-defence, or their history and context. They omit sexual violence, stalking, other violent acts, and violence after separation.

This means that many studies purporting to measure domestic violence, intimate partner violence, or dating violence primarily are measuring individuals’ use of a range of physically aggressive acts. They do far less, however, to measure what many researchers and practitioners consider to be domestic violence in the ‘proper’ sense, that is, a pattern of power and control exerted by an individual over their intimate partner or former partner. In this latter view, domestic violence is seen to involve a range of physical and/or non-physical strategies of violence and abuse, taking place within an intimate or familial relationship, and forming a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour (Harne & Radford, 2008, p. 4). It is in this sense that researchers and others describe domestic violence in terms of ‘intimate terrorism’ (Johnson, 1995, pp. 284-285), ‘coercive controlling violence’ (Johnson, 2010, p. 213), or simply ‘coercive control’ (Stark, 2010).

Studies that ask people if they have ever used any of a series of violent acts against an intimate or dating partner find that substantial proportions of men and women and young people have ever done so. Anywhere from one in ten to one in three people has used physical aggression against an intimate partner. For example, in a US study among university students, 18% of men and 34% of women reported perpetrating physical aggression towards their partners and 98% of both men and women reported perpetrating psychological aggression.

Studies of domestic violence that use the Conflict Tactics Scales or other similar, acts-based measures tend to find that males and females perpetrate aggression against intimate partners at similar rates, or in some instances that women report higher rates of perpetration than men. 

Apparent findings that men and women are using domestic violence at similar rates must be interpreted with caution, for five reasons. 

• First, most studies are just ‘counting the blows’, measuring any use of a set list of violent acts. They involve false positives or over-reporting, including of harmless and innocuous behaviours.
• Second, there is evidence that men are less likely than women to report their own use of violence.
• Third, CTS-style studies often mistakenly counted as domestic violence behaviours that were undertaken in a light-hearted or non-abusive context. That is, they mistakenly counted behaviours that were playful, unintentional, and so on.  
  • E.g., in an Australian study, this ‘over-reporting’ was twice as common among men as women. In fact, one quarter of men’s experiences were overreports (Ackerman, 2016).  
• Fourth, more of women’s than men’s violence is in self-defence.
• Fifth, even where overall rates of the use of various violent acts are similar among males and females, males’ use of violence typically is more frequent, severe, fear-inducing, injurious, and harmful than females’ use of violence. 

If studies ask though about the frequency and severity of domestic violence, its impacts (injury and fear), the use of coercive control, and the history of and contexts for the use of violence, they find gender contrasts. They find that males’ perpetration of domestic and dating violence is more severe, injurious, controlling, and harmful that females’. 

Likewise, studies find that far more men than women report pressuring or coercing others into sex. Boys and young men have significantly higher rates of sexual violence perpetration than girls and young women, as documented in reviews of studies among teenagers and young people.

• For example, a survey in ten European countries among young adults aged 18-27 found that 16.3% of men, and 5% of women, had perpetrated sexual aggression (Krahé et al., 2015).

What are the most common strategies used in coercing or forcing others into sex? Studies among young people that disaggregate different forms of sexual coercion or sexual violence typically find that verbal coercion and alcohol- or drug-facilitated or incapacitated sex are more common than assaults involving physical force. For example:

• In a US study of high school students, alcohol- or drug-facilitated or incapacitated sex was the most common form of sexual coercion (perpetrated by 8.5% of males and 4.1% of females), then sexual coercion (5.3% of males, 2% of females), and then physically forced sex (4.3% of males, 1.4% of females) (Badour, Bell, Clear, Bush, & Coker, 2019).
• In a systematic review of 77 studies among male university students in Canada and the USA, sexual violence involving verbal tactics such as pressuring behaviour, expressions of anger, or threats to the relationship was more common than sexual intercourse obtained via incapacitation, physical force, or threats of physical force (Anderson, Silver, Ciampaglia, Vitale, & Delahanty, 2021). 

Significant minorities of males have ever perpetrated sexual violence. For example, close to one-third (29%) of men at universities in the USA and Canada have perpetrated sexual violence in their lifetimes. 

Studies among university students in other countries also find substantial rates of sexual violence perpetration. For example:

• A recent UK study among male university students found that 11.4% reported having perpetrated some form of sexual aggression in the last 24 months (Hales & Gannon, 2022).
• In the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), proportions of men ranging from 2 to 25% had ever perpetrated sexual violence against a woman, with men’s lifetime reported use of sexual violence around 9% in most countries (Barker et al., 2011).
• In a multi-country self-report study in the Asia-Pacific, proportions of men reporting some form of rape of a woman or girl ranged from 10% to 62%.

International studies among community samples of men find that significant proportions of men have perpetrated sexual violence:

What about other forms of violence? Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) involves three key behaviors: the non-consensual taking or creation of nude or sexual images; the non-consensual sharing or distribution of nude or sexual images; and threats made to distribute nude or sexual images.

Males show higher rates of perpetration than females in nearly all studies. For example:

• In a national Australian study, 12.0% of males and 6.2% of females reported having nonconsensually taken images and 9.1% of men and 4.4% of females reported having nonconsensually distributed images (Powell, Henry, Flynn, & Scott, 2019).

Drivers of perpetration

Domestic, family, and sexual violence have their roots in factors at multiple levels of society, including at the individual, relationship, and community levels. 

People may use violence because they have learnt that behaving in abusive ways is normal or acceptable; they believe that such behaviour is expected in their social circles and settings; or they have become invested in domination and control over their intimate partners or others. 

Some people’s use of violence is shaped by their own exposure to violence as children, impacting their emotional and social development and attitudes. Some people have grown up in communities and contexts that normalise their use of coercion and abuse as part of sexuality or relationships. Some people’s use of violence is enabled by wider gender inequalities and other social inequalities.

In other words, perpetration is driven by risk factors at the individual, relationship, and community levels. Factors that receive consistent emphasis, particularly in explaining men’s use of violence, include:

• The features of neighbourhoods, communities, and cultures, particularly gender-inequitable structures and norms;
• Violence-supportive settings and contexts;
• Situational variables such as separation and firearm availability;
• Sexist and violence-supportive peers;
• Violence-supportive and hostile masculine attitudes;
• Witnessing or experiencing childhood violence

Prevention efforts must address childhood exposure to domestic and family violence, violent and sexist norms, peers’ condoning of violence, community disadvantage, and other factors.

However, there is much we do not know about the risks for perpetration of different forms of violence or the respective influence and interaction of risk and protective factors at multiple levels of the social ecology. We know more about male perpetrators of violence against women and less about female perpetrators and same-sex perpetrators.

There is much more I could say here about the drivers of perpetration, and I urge you to read the full report’s discussion. But I want to move to some further points about perpetration itself.

Diversity in perpetrators and perpetration

There is considerable diversity among perpetrators and in perpetration. 

One dimension of diversity is who perpetrators are using violence against. Among the people who assault their intimate partners, some are ‘specialists’ who assault only their partners, while others are ‘generalists’ involved in various forms of violent and criminal behaviour.

• In an Australian examination of a cohort of family violence perpetrators over 2012-2016, 40% were classified as generalist perpetrators with records for committing both non-family and family violent offences, while 60% were specialists who were only recorded for family violence incidents and related offences (Coghlan & Millsteed, 2017).
• Scholarship on domestically violent women has emphasised three types of female perpetrator: women who use violence in self-defense, women who use violence and exert power and control in a mutually violent relationship, and women who are the primary perpetrators of violence (Ali, Dhingra, & McGarry, 2016, pp. 21-22).

Overlapping with typologies of perpetrators, there are typologies of perpetration. There is now considerable evidence that there are different types of domestic violence, with differing causes, dynamics, and impacts. 

In some couples there is occasional, minor violence, that tends not to escalate or cause injury and fear. In other couples, one partner uses violence in combination with other controlling tactics to dominate and coerce their partner, with devastating and sometimes lethal effects.

There is considerable diversity among perpetrators and in perpetration. 

There is also diversity in what drives people’s use of violence. The research finds that risk factors for violence differ between men and women, for more and less severe forms of violence, and between heterosexual and LGB people. 

There are also patterns of co-occurrence and overlap

At the same time, there are also patterns of co-occurrence and overlap. Individuals who perpetrate one form of violence also may perpetrate others. 

• One of the most frequently documented risk markers for forms of violence such as intimate partner violence or sexual violence, and for more specific behaviours such as intimate partner physical violence, is the perpetration of other forms of violence and abuse.
• Men who perpetrate sexual harassment also are more likely than other men to perpetrate sexual assault.
• There is a significant pattern of the co-occurrence of violence. For example, intimate partner violence and child maltreatment often co-occur within the same household (Guedes, Bott, Garcia-Moreno, & Colombini, 2016; Nichols & Slep, 2022). 

Finally, the risk factors for different forms of violence perpetration overlap. For example, violence against women and violence against children have shared risk factors for perpetration at the community level, including violence-supportive social norms, weak legal sanctions, male dominance, high levels of social and economic and political inequality, and high levels of community violence.

Perpetrators in society

Perpetration starts young

People’s use of violence often starts young. Substantial proportions of adolescents perpetrate dating violence against their intimate partners and ex-partners. 

Perpetrators of sexual violence, and particularly male perpetrators, start young, typically committing their first acts of sexual coercion as teenagers. US studies find that the average age of first perpetration of sexual violence by males is 16. 

Most individuals who commit sexual coercion as young adults will continue to do so, especially if, like the vast majority of perpetrators, they avoid criminal detection and sanction. There is diversity in the trajectories of perpetration. Many young people’s patterns of perpetration and non-perpetration of violence persist over time.

Emerging knowledge on people’s use of violence has powerful implications for efforts at violence prevention.

Most sexual violence perpetration starts young, in boys’ and young men’s teenage years, and then persists. So we must address sexual coercion and its risk factors early in young people’s lives. Young people of all genders need respectful relationships education and comprehensive sexuality education in every school. School curricula should be complemented by interventions aimed at those at risk of or already exposed to or using violence.

Few perpetrators are held to account

Few perpetrators are held to account for their crimes. The vast majority of the people who use domestic and sexual violence never come to the attention of police or legal systems, so it would be foolish to pin our hopes for violence prevention just on better laws and policing. 

Cultural change is necessary to shift the widespread norms that encourage young men to pressure others into sex or that make everyday forms of non-physical abuse and control seem acceptable in relationships. Systemic change is necessary to shift the entrenched forms of community disadvantage that breed cycles of violence.

We need data

To prevent domestic and sexual violence, we need to know far more about perpetrators and perpetration. 

• We need national data on the extent and character of people’s use of domestic and sexual violence. We need a regular, nationally representative, population-based survey of the use of domestic, family, and sexual violence. In other words, a perpetration survey.

There are effective and ethical ways to gather data on violence perpetration.

I want to note three things about surveying people about their own use of violence.

• First, it is feasible. It is practical or feasible to conduct research in which people report on their use of domestic, family, and sexual violence. Substantial proportions of survey respondents will report their own perpetration of violence, particularly if asked questions about specific behaviours. And there is evidence that people’s reports of perpetration are at least as reliable as people’s reports of their victimisation.
• Second, it is ethical. There is growing experience in measuring perpetration, and there are established protocols for conducting this research safely and ethically.

• Third, it is impactful.  Similar surveys of violence perpetration in other countries have been incredibly impactful, with policymakers and professionals immediately taking up the findings and recommendations, and contributing to positive change in community awareness and norms.

  We also need:

• We need well-designed methods that capture the character, breadth, severity, impact, and contexts of violence perpetration. Moving beyond a simplistic focus on counting whether any violent acts took place, studies should examine dimensions of violence including injury, fear, motivations, frequency, severity, context (whether violence is initiated, self-defensive, retaliatory, etc.), and a range of coercive and controlling behaviours.
• We need research on female and LGBT perpetrators and on diverse forms of violence.
• We need to know more about the risk and protective factors that either feed into perpetration or protect against it.

Without this information we do not know where best to target interventions against perpetration effectively, when to intervene early, and whether Australia’s efforts to reduce the use of violence are making progress. 

A problem above all of perpetration

It is time to reframe the problems of domestic, family, and sexual violence such that the individuals perpetrating violence are both more visible and more accountable. It is time to know much more about the extent and character of people’s use of violence and about the social conditions that make this more or less likely. And it is time to use this knowledge to guide efforts to prevent and reduce violence.

The problems of domestic, family, and sexual violence, fundamentally, are problems of perpetration. Every act of violence involves a perpetrator and a victim, and it is time to increase our attention to perpetrators and perpetration. Perpetration, ultimately, is the problem we must solve if we are to end domestic, family, and sexual violence.

ENDS

Citation: Flood, M. (2023). Patterns of violence perpetration in Australia. Working with Men to End Family Violence Conference, Australia, February 16.

Note that the slides summarising this presentation are available here.