This article is in response to Fergusson, Horwood, and Ridder (2005), "Partner Violence and Mental Health Outcomes in a New Zealand Birth Cohort", which appears in the same issue of the Journal of Marriage and the Family (as does Johnson, 2005, "Domestic Violence: It's Not About Gender - Or Is It?". Fergusson et al. explore the relationship between domestic violence and mental health outcomes in a birth cohort of 1,003 participants involved in the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study, assessed at age 25. The authors sought to dispel the belief that domestic violence is gendered, typically involving a male offender and a female victim. Their findings indicate that men and women had similar rates of victimisation and perpetration of partner abuse; exposure to domestic violence had a positive relationship with mental disorders, and mental health outcomes were similar for men and women. This article provides context for these controversial research findings and summarises the situation by stating that we currently lack the "data to fully understand the differing ratio of male to female violence across differing samples and at differing levels of violence severity." While commending Fergusson et al. for their attempts to examine this issue in several ways, the author points out their inadequate consideration of the significant gender differences in experiences of fear of partners and its impact on women. She suggests that the study of posttraumatic stress disorder might address this short-coming. The author also points out that, not being originally designed to specifically study partner violence, the Christchurch Health and Development Study lacks measures of factors such as jealously and borderline personality disorders as predictors of violence. She also points out that it is important "to understand whether similar theories adequately explain both male and female intimate partner violence or whether they are different phenomena, requiring differing models", as these questions have important implications for prevention and intervention initiatives. Lastly the author reiterates the ethical need for such controversial research to be placed in context, when currently there is an imbalance in our scientific understanding of male and female intimate partner violence. To not do so risks simply fuelling political agendas.

xxu

Journal of Marriage and Family 67(5) December 2005 : 1120-1125