Citation

Archer J. Psychol. Bull. 2000; 126(5): 697-702.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom. j.archer@uclan.ac.uk

Copyright

(Copyright © 2000, American Psychological Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

10989618

Abstract

The following points are made in reply to critical comments on the author's meta-analysis of partner physical aggression (J. Archer, 2000): (a) The theoretical dichotomy used in the review is one clearly identifiable in published articles, and the distinction between acts (aggression) and consequences (violence) is clearer than alternative definitions involving victims' perceptions; (b) despite the database containing many samples of U.S. students, there were sufficient other samples to draw meaningful conclusions; (c) the Conflict Tactics Scale may be limited, but in contrast to suggested alternatives, it involves clearly defined categories; (d) sexual aggression, although forming an important part of partner violence, cannot legitimately be aggregated with nonsexual physical aggression; and (e) there is a marked contrast between sex differences in physical aggression toward partners and toward same-sex opponents.

Language: en