Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12210
Record ID: b16819ba-4943-403f-a952-5160f47c1226
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Margoen
dc.contributor.authorDaly, Martinen
dc.contributor.authorDobash, Russell Pen
dc.contributor.authorDobash, R. Emersonen
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T22:58:24Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-30T22:58:24Z-
dc.date.issued1992en
dc.identifier.citation39 (1), February 1992en
dc.identifier.issn0037-7791en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/12210-
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherUniversity of California Pressen
dc.subjectMen as victimsen
dc.subjectMeasurementen
dc.titleThe myth of sexual symmetry in marital violenceen
dc.title.alternativeSocial problemsen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.catalogid2482en
dc.subject.keywordInternationalen
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.subject.keywordJournal article/research paperen
dc.description.notesCritiques research which finds that men and women are equally violent and argues that wives’ and husbands’ use of violence differ greatly, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Critically examines research based on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) and US homicide data. Points out that data from the CTS is quite different from injury data, police incident reports, help-seeking statistics and other larger national probability sample surveys of self-reported victimisation from the US, Canada and the UK. Argues that definitions of violence as ‘acts’ are inadequate and fail to take into account issues of intention, context, meanings and consequences.en
dc.identifier.sourceSocial problemsen
dc.date.entered2000-07-08en
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing