Police Evaluations of Intimate Partner Violence in Heterosexual
and Same-Sex Relationships: Do Experience and Training Play a Role?
Brenda Russell
1
&
John A. (Drew) Sturgeon
2
#
Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2018
Abstract
In recent years, law enforcement agencies have enhanced intimate partner violence (IPV) policies and increased the frequency of
required training. Yet, there is limited research that addresses how experience and training are related to evaluations of hetero-
sexual and same-sex disputants in an IPV incident. This research investigates how officers perceive heterosexual and same-sex
disputants in IPV incidents and examines how officer experience, frequency, and recency of required IPV training affect
evaluations. Law enforcement officers (n = 309) across 27 states responded to a hypothetical scenario of an IPV incident between
a heterosexual or same-sex couple. Dependent variables included perpetrator and victim arrest, perceived fairness of non-arrest
options, willingness to provide referrals for perpetrator and victim, and severity of victim injury. Officers believed that the use of
some non-arrest options was fairer when the perpetrator was a gay male or heterosexual female and there were no significant
effects for arrest options. Referrals to a domestic violence hotline and injury severity varied by perpetrator and victim gender and
sexual orientation. While officer experience played a role in non-arrest options, frequency and recency of officer training were not
related to dependent variables of interest. Officers embrace evaluations of IPV that demonstrate differential evaluations of the
incident as a result of gender and sexual orientation. These evaluations may have implications for the legitimacy of claims and
safety and justice for victims and officers.
Keywords Police
.
Officer
.
Evaluations
.
Same sex
.
LGBT
.
Sexual minorities
.
Arrest
.
Non-arrest
.
Gender
.
Training
.
Experience
.
Injury
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been increasingly recog-
nized as a serious social issue over the last 40 years.
Professional responses such as victim services and wide-
spread policy changes have enhanced police response and
training to improve victim safety (Saunders et al. 2016).
Traditionally, IPV was considered a private matter between a
husband and a wife, and law enforcement response might
include informal mediation and separation (Berk and Loseke
1981). Law enforcement has since evolved from such reactive
responses to implement more proactive measures such as pro-
viding resources, victim assessment, and preventing future
violence (Farris and Holman 2015). Traditionally considered
a crime against heterosexual women, shifts in societal views
led to an influx of academic research, social policies, and
protections for sexual minorities victimized by IPV. Despite
numerous policies designed to help lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) victims, they continue to be reticent to
report IPV or believe that such policies would be helpful
(Briones-Robinson et al. 2016).
Regardless of the widespread changes in IPV policy and
enhanced content and frequency of IPV law enforcement
training on this issue (Police Executive Research Forum
(PERF) 2015; Saunders et al. 2016), many local and state
training agencies continue to focus on male power and con-
trol, providing little information about LGBT and heterosex-
ual male victims (Hamel and Russell 2013). Additionally, lit-
tle data has investigated whether training effects officer eval-
uations toward disputants as a function of gender and sexual
orientation. This study examines police officers’ evaluations
of non-arrest and arrest options, referrals, and victim injury
severity of heterosexual and same-sex disputants in an IPV
incident. Further, we examine the extent to which officer ex-
perience and training relate to officer evaluations.
* Brenda Russell
Blr15@psu.edu
1
Applied Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, Berks,
Reading, PA 19610, USA
2
University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9279-8
@Phil_Robichaud
@deepthiw
@JoseServera