Detailed research has been documented on what causes domestic violence. According to Kernsmith (2006) learning theories, such as socialization, social learning, and elements of feminist theory, assert that behaviors are learned throughout our lives through our interactions with others specifically as children or with what was exposed and witnessed by a victim’s child. These interactions teach individuals, in mostly subtle ways, what behavior is and is not appropriate, as well as what rewards and consequences will be brought about due to these actions (Mihalic and Elliot 1997). In this way, an individual learns the emotional and physical tactics of domestic violence and incorporates them into his or her behavior. Learning and generational models claim that emotional, physical, and sexual violence are learned behaviors, most often modeled after witnessing violent behaviors of family members whether the violence was inflicted against the child or just observed being inflicted on a parent (Cappell and Heiner 1990; Gortner et al 1997).

While research has shown that women report domestic violence abuse more often than men, the reasons stated vary significantly specifically when the domestic violent act was witnessed or suspected in another party. According to Seelau and Seelau (2005) women were more likely to say that they would have called police had they witnessed a dispute, whereas men expressed a preference to talk to a couple who were disputing himself, or simply leave them alone. Although women agreed with men that the best resolution to the dispute was to leave the couple alone when the victim was male, they were more likely to favor system intervention when the victim was female.

Gender differences whether reporting or being the victim of domestic violence has generally been one-sided. Johnson (2010) states that studies using agency samples (e.g., law enforcement, courts, hospitals, shelters) indicate that in heterosexual relationships intimate partner violence is largely male perpetuated;  in contrast, studies using general samples indicate that intimate partner violence is roughly gender symmetric in terms of perpetuation.

A major point Johnson (2010) argues in regards to Langhinrichsen-Rollings review of intimate partner violence is that gender is central to the analysis of intimate partner violence, and the coercive controlling violence that most people associate with the term “domestic violence” is perpetuated by men against their female partners. While research supports the indication that women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence, Allen and Wozniak (2011) state that the real cost of intimate partner violence significantly exceeds the estimated financial cost annually as the lifelong physical, emotional, and financial impact of violence that is felt by women. Thus the researched perceptions show that women are more likely to be the victim of domestic violence both who have reported to the courts and those who have sought other social service agencies for help with domestic violence.

  

  

Other research supports race, gender, and disability correlations as supporting factors in the victimology of domestic violence. Henning and Feder (2004) state with their study that female arrestees were younger than the male arrestees and twice as likely to be younger than their respective victim. Male arrestees were slightly more homogenous with regard to their racial distribution than females, but the majority of both groups were African American.

Lightfoot and Williams (2009) state that similar to the growing realization that people of color have differing needs regarding domestic violence, the field of domestic violence is now recognizing the differing needs of people with disabilities. Lightfoot and Williams (2009) go on to say that there has been a growing awareness in the area of domestic violence that generic services and support for women experiencing domestic violence are inappropriate for all women.  

Women of color and women with disabilities have unique experiences of domestic violence and distinct needs for services and outreach and are reporting domestic violence at an alarming rate but are not met with person-focused attentiveness that is needed. There has been extremely limited research on the nature of and intervention regarding domestic violence among people with disabilities.

In conclusion, of the scholarly articles researched, Evans (2005) aims to make visible the class disparity and poverty in wider conversations about domestic violence. She argues that studies claim there exists a relationship between poverty, low income, and higher frequency of violence in addition to higher severity of domestic violence and that people have been mistaken for too long in the domestic violence field, particularly with regard to privileging gender above a person’s skin color, disability, ethnicity or class when analyzing power or understand access to power.

  

Allen, Karen. & Wozniak, Danielle. F. 2011. “The Language of Healing: Women’s Voices in Healing and Recovering from Domestic Violence.” Social Work In Mental Health. 9(1): 37-55.

Cappell, C. & Heiner, R. B. 1990. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Family Aggression.” Journal of Family Violence. 5(2): 135-152.

Evans, Susan. 2005. “Beyond Gender: Class, Poverty and Domestic Violence.” Australian Social Work. 58(1): 36-43.

Gortner, E. T., Gollan, Jackie. K. & Jacobson, N. S. 1997. “Physiological Aspects of Perpetuators of Domestic Violence and Their Relationships with the Victims.” Psychiatry Clinic of North America, 20(2): 337-350.

Henning, Kris. & Feder, Lynette. 2004. “A Campaign of Men and Women Arrested for Domestic Violence: Who Presents the Greater Threat?” Journal of Family Violence. 19(2): 69-80.

Johnson, Michael. 2010. “Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s Confirmation of the Feminist Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence: Comment on “Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States.” Sex Roles. 62(3/4): 212-219.

Kernsmith, Poco. 2006. “Gender Differences in the Impact of Family of Origin Violence on Perceptions of Domestic Violence.” Journal of Family Violence. 21(2): 163-171.

Lightfoot, Elizabeth. & Williams, Oliver. 2009. “The Intersection of Disability, Diversity, and Domestic Violence: Results of National Focus Groups.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 18(2): 133-152.

Mihalic, Sharon. W. & Elliot, Delbert. 1997. “A Social Learning Theory Model of Marital Violence.” Journal of Family Violence. 12(1): 21-47.

Seelau, Sheila. & Seelau, Eric. 2005. “Gender Role Stereotypes and Perceptions of Heterosexual, Gay and Lesbian Domestic Violence.” Journal of Family Violence. 20(6): 363-371.