Lauren welcomes Dr. Mark Berg and Kaylin Campbell from the University of Iowa’s Public Policy Center to talk about intimate partner violence (IPV) from sociological, psychological, and public health perspectives and how views and policies about IPV have been changing.

Lauren Lavin:

Hello everybody and welcome back to From the Front Row. This week we have two great guests on the podcast. We have Kaylin Campbell and Dr. Mark Berg. They recently published a study on intimate partner violence, or IPV, and how gender and sexuality play a role in likelihood of individuals to report this type of violence.

Dr. Berg and Kaylin both provide really great insight and context into the problem of intimate partner violence and how gender and sexuality have changed our view of that, especially over the last 20 years. So I hope you learn something from this podcast. I definitely did.

And without further ado, my name is Lauren Lavin and this is From the Front Row. If it’s your first time with us, welcome. We’re a student-run podcast that talks about major issues in public health and how they are relevant to anyone both in and outside of the field of public health.

Welcome back to the podcast. We’re delighted to have Dr. Mark Berg and Kaylin Campbell on the podcast today. To start off, could I have you both introduce yourselves?

Mark Berg:

Hello, I am Mark Berg. I am a professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology. I am a criminologist by training and I study the social psychology of interpersonal violence and more recently, the social determinants of health. And I’m also the director of the Public Policy Center at the University of Iowa.

Lauren Lavin:

You have a few jobs on your plate.

Kaylin Campbell:

And I’m Kaylin Campbell. I am a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Iowa. And I also am a data analyst over at the Medical College of Wisconsin. So I am not in Iowa City anymore, but finishing the dissertation from afar.

Lauren Lavin:

What’s your dissertation topic?

Kaylin Campbell:

I still have to try and figure that out. I just got through the comprehensive exam studies, so stay tuned.

Lauren Lavin:

Well, congratulations. That’s a big milestone in and of itself.

Mark Berg:

Yeah.

Kaylin Campbell:

Thank you.

Lauren Lavin:

So I came across your guys’ study on a Public Policy, I think, Center email. Could you provide us an overview with your most recently published study that you two worked on together and what motivated you guys to pursue this as a topic? I’ll let you introduce the topic yourself.

Kaylin Campbell:

I guess I’ll start us off. Essentially our study was looking at third-party mobilization of the law. In other words, reporting to police when witnessing instances of violence and more specifically, intimate partner violence. And what’s unique about our study is we employed a vignette survey. It was an experimental design.

And then we also included sexuality as a construct, something that we were interested in looking at because typically with studies of intimate partner violence, say third-party responses, they have not included any variation in sexuality. So that was the big piece that we included.

Lauren Lavin:

For our listeners, I’m just going to have you define two things just so that people are on the same page. First off, what is intimate partner violence?

Kaylin Campbell:

Violence between two intimate partners.

Lauren Lavin:

How does that relate to domestic violence? Is that a new term for that? That might be a term people are more familiar with. So how does that relate?

Kaylin Campbell:

From my understanding, domestic violence is violence that occurs within a home. So that can be between partners, it could be between family members, whereas intimate partner violence is specifically between romantic intimates.

Lauren Lavin:

The second thing I’ll have you guys define is what is third-party legal mobilization?

Kaylin Campbell:

The third-party refers to an individual who is not involved in the conflict and is essentially acting as a witness. And then we use the word legal mobilization here to refer to the notification of police. And then also there was a punishment component to this study. So we did ask for respondents to indicate how likely they might be to agree with jail as punishment. And so we referred to this as a mobilization of a facet of the law.

Lauren Lavin:

I think everyone will be on the same page as we keep talking about this stuff. So you mentioned that your study was unique in accounting for sexuality. Criminological research has long focused on IPV as violence between men and women, specifically against women in a heterosexual relationship. So why do you think that that’s been the perspective that’s been dominant so far, and how did you guys start to switch that narrative?

Mark Berg:

For probably the last 40 years as you describe, Lauren, sociology, criminology, public health, and to some extent psychology has generally conceived of intimate partner violence through the lens of the woman as a victim and the man as a perpetrator. The vast majority of studies exclusively for a long time focused on women as victims. Victim services often, research on victim services, policy around victim services was generally tailored towards women. As a matter of fact, in 1994, Congress and then the Clinton White House signed into law the National Violence Against Women Act to provide you with some context about the policy focus on women as victims.

And so historically there has just been almost a paradigmatic focus on women as victims and especially heterosexual women. And so you could describe this work as heteronormative work that generally conceives of men as a perpetrator and women as a victim. In the last 10 years or more, that all changed.

The lens through which we understand intimate partner violence has been altered in a way that we now … There’s greater consideration to men as victims, but also men and women outside traditionally heterosexual relationships. And the work we cite in this paper that was in some ways the workings of a foundation for thinking about partner violence among same-sex couples, most of that work was conducted in the ’90s, early 2000s, 20 years ago or more.

While that may not seem to be a long period of time, and it isn’t, the public’s view of same-sex relationships was very different. Acceptance of, for instance, same-sex partnerships, acceptance of same-sex marriage. We all know that just, what, maybe 11, 12 years ago same-sex marriage was illegal in the US.

So the changing sentiment around same-sex relationships, the growing acceptance I think has ushered in a greater interest in widening the scope of work in intimate partner violence to include same-sex relationships, but also include men as victims.

Lauren Lavin:

I think you made a good point that while 20 years ago doesn’t seem like that long in this topic in specific, a lot has changed in the last 20 years.

Mark Berg:

It’s a remarkable change. And I’ll add to this something that Kaylin and I have discussed, but I stress in my classes and I stress with colleagues who I work with, some who are senior to me who’ve worked in this a long time, that just because criminology and public health and sociology, especially psychology generally conceived of women in heterosexual relationships as victims and essentially only permitted women in heterosexual relationships to be victims, that by no means reflects the reality of the nature of intimate partner violence in the US dating back centuries.

In fact, we know a large fraction of relationships there are … Sorry. It is a common finding that there is a lot of bilateral aggression in conflicted relationships. A number of studies have shown that men actually report a higher prevalence of intimate partner violence victimization relative to their women partners. And this is based on designs that rely on both partner to report what they’ve done and what people have done to them.

And we also know, however, that when men are attacked or victimized by women partners, their injuries are less severe. Women are actually injured more severely by their male partners, which could in some way alter how people perceive violence against men because the injuries tend to be less severe what is perpetrated by women.

And we also know that when women are killed, they’re more likely to be killed by their intimate partners relative to men. So despite the fact that men have higher homicide rates, men have much higher rates of violent victimization, especially serious violent victimization, men are overwhelmingly the victims of serious violence, women are more likely to be killed by their male partners than men are to be killed by their partners.

And so all of that packaged together creates some facts about intimate partner violence. And these facts I also think create puzzles. And Kaylin, with this study, and I, started to tackle one of those puzzles.

Lauren Lavin:

That provided some really great context and stuff I’m sure a lot of our listeners are not familiar with. How are gender and sexuality linked within intimate partner violence?

Kaylin Campbell:

How we modeled this for our study is we created a vignette situation. So as a part of the survey respondents were presented with a situation where they were walking through a park and they witnessed two people fighting. And it was two people that they were familiar with as being a couple, but the vignette did specify that they were married individuals, and we varied gender and sexuality a few ways.

So we either explicitly told them it was a man and a woman, and then we specified the aggressor whether or not the man hit the woman or the woman hit the man. So that was our heterosexual couple, but two versions of that. And then for the queer relationships, we either specified that it was two men or two women. And then we didn’t name them or anything, we just said that one of the men or one of the women struck their partner. So that’s how we handled it specifically.

And there were two levels of severity. So each respondent was only presented with one situation. So in the less severe instance, it was a slap across the face, and in the more severe instance, they were punched and knocked to the ground.

Mark Berg:

And the expectation is that, or at the outset, was based on our appraisal of the existing work, which is limited in scope, was that third-party witnesses or third parties to conflict are less likely to opt for punishment for same-sex couples and less likely to mobilize the police. It’s very important because this is how we bring justice and provide safety to individuals.

Why? Because the literature argues that same-sex people, their challenges, threats against their safety, their wellbeing is devalued in a culture that prioritizes heterosexual norms. And that people also respond, this literature argued, unfavorably to people who violate gender roles. And so two women in a relationship are functioning outside of a traditional feminine gender role as defined by our culture, and therefore we are less willing, the argument goes, to provide assistance. And that manifests in multiple ways, including to people who are facing grave physical harm.

So we expected two things. We expected to find, according to research, some level of bias towards same-sex couples. But also the alternative was that it’s not so much perhaps that people are responding most directly to the sexuality of the couples, but the gender, especially the gender of the victim. And that people will overwhelmingly be willing to enlist aid on behalf of women victims regardless of their sexuality.

And the reason is, Kaylin noted we focused on severity, is that it’s possible, based on a number of social-psychological models, that we are more willing to respond in unique ways to the plight of people in need of assistance according to their status characteristics when the level of threat is minor as opposed to more severe. That the severity then could be that severity overwhelms our inhibitions against helping individuals based on their status characteristics, that at some point the status characteristics no longer motivate our action when the severity reaches a certain threshold.

Lauren Lavin:

Yeah, that makes sense. How many participants did you have in the research study?

Kaylin Campbell:

103.

Lauren Lavin:

Wow. Holy cow. How did you recruit them?

Kaylin Campbell:

We recruited them using Amazon Mechanical Turk.

Lauren Lavin:

Okay.

Kaylin Campbell:

So we ran an online survey where we paid people essentially to respond.

Lauren Lavin:

And then how many vignettes did each person go through? Did they go through all of those or was it randomized within that?

Kaylin Campbell:

No, it was randomized. So each respondent only received one version of the vignette. There were eight different versions of the vignettes. So we had about a hundred respondents per condition.

Lauren Lavin:

Okay. And can you remind me what the eight different scenarios were?

Kaylin Campbell:

Yep. So there was four different couple types. There’s the two couple types in a heterosexual relationship. So in one version, the man hits the woman. In the other version, the woman hits the man. And there’s two women, two men, and each of those scenarios have another severity scenario. So there’s the less severe and the more severe. So essentially two groups of four couple types.

Lauren Lavin:

Perfect. Okay. I’m going to jump ahead here to what are some of the key findings that you found from this research?

Kaylin Campbell:

As Mark was talking about, we expected to find some effect of sexuality, and actually we didn’t really find any effect of sexuality at all. Whether or not a third party would respond on behalf of a couple, or a victim I should say, was purely dependent on gender it would appear, and specifically on behalf of female victims, and even more specifically on behalf of female victims who were being victimized by male partners. So yeah, that was the main … Mark, do you have anything to add? That was our main takeaways.

Lauren Lavin:

Did you notice that that effect changed based on the severity of the violence?

Kaylin Campbell:

No, there was the same pattern, it was just amplified. So essentially people who said that they were maybe likely to intervene, in the less severe it would jump. So we had a larger pool of people say that they would definitely notify police when the incident was more severe, but the same breakdown. So first on behalf of women victimized by male partners and then on behalf of the woman victimized by her female partner.

Lauren Lavin:

Okay.

Mark Berg:

And then the couple type that received the least amount of support was male victims attacked by other men, followed by … I’m sorry, male victims attacked by women.

Kaylin Campbell:

By women.

Mark Berg:

And then the third least was male on male. And so there we see there’s just clear evidence throughout the study of that women victims receive the most support, but especially women victims in heterosexual relationships, probably because, not because they’re heterosexual, but because they’re attacked by men. People respond especially unfavorable to violence perpetrated by men against women as opposed to violence perpetrated by women against men.

Kaylin Campbell:

We didn’t ask our respondents to indicate some perception of the level of harm, but I think what we’re seeing here is that respondents view the situation where the man is hitting the woman as the most harmful, whereas that scenario where the woman is hitting the man, it’s least. I think it would be interesting to have asked a question like that. Future studies should.

Lauren Lavin:

Yeah. Did you guys ask any questions on perception of sexuality from the individuals that were responding?

Mark Berg:

Of their own?

Lauren Lavin:

Yes.

Mark Berg:

We asked about their own and then we asked about their attitudes towards-

Kaylin Campbell:

Gay marriage.

Mark Berg:

… gay marriage. Yeah.

Lauren Lavin:

Did you notice any correlations or any significance with that?

Kaylin Campbell:

From my recollection, the gay marriage piece was not significant and neither … I don’t think we had enough of a sample of self-identifying queer individuals to really get an effect.

Lauren Lavin:

The article mentions that same-sex victims of IPV are often reluctant to seek assistance from the police. What factors do you think contribute to this reluctance and how does it impact their access to justice? We’re kind of going bigger scope now.

Kaylin Campbell:

Sure. Yeah. I think, as Mark alluded to, a lot has changed in the last 20 years and it didn’t use to be that same-sex couples could exist so openly as they do now, and in some places they still can’t. So I think just like any other marginalized community, relationships with police and just formal institutions has been strained. And so that’s what I think would be driving that reluctance to notify. Mark, do you have anything to add to that?

Mark Berg:

No. Another point that was made in the literature that we note in the paper is that because there’s a historic problematic relationship between the queer community and agents of the law dating back decades and in large part due to the way folks in that community were treated historically through raids and so forth, and just the unfortunate illegal nature of their relationships under past laws.

But there’s also the piece that might also motivate them or create a barrier, I should say, to legal mobilization, and that is the fear of being outed. It’s noted in the literature that in qualitative studies that many folks, victims of same-sex IPV are concerned that their plight won’t be taken as seriously, but also that their plight then will be heard by others whom are not aware of the fact that they’re in a same-sex relationship, which concerns them.

Lauren Lavin:

Is there any data on whether or not victims of same-sex IPV aren’t taken as seriously by legal authorities?

Mark Berg:

The evidence is a bit mixed. On one hand, the qualitative studies, that is where people are interviewed, who’ve been victims, who are in victim shelters or young people, they overwhelmingly say they have some concerns about whether they’ll be taken seriously, treated equally, as equal as people who are victims of heterosexual violence. And then also they express concerns about their relationship becoming public to people who may not be familiar with their relationship.

Then there’s this work, a very small line of empirical evidence from surveys which ask people who have been victimized, did you report this to the police? And that evidence is mixed meaning right now, I don’t think a researcher could say, if you rely on the studies that are really sound and representative or approach being representative, where there’s a clear line of evidence suggesting that same-sex individuals or victims of same-sex violence are more or less likely to report to the police. I think that work is emerging. It just says work on this topic in criminology is emerging.

And so I will say, just to back up for a moment, one fact that motivated our work was that if you do look at some of the emerging large empirical studies, survey-based studies, especially one that was published in the last three years in a large public health journal, a reputable public health journal I should say, the research tends to show …

And Kaylin, correct me if your interpretation is a bit different based on our memory in this late hour of the day … that same-sex individuals, same-sex couples, especially members of the trans community, but also people who report as bisexual in particular have higher rates of partner violence, significantly higher rates than people in heterosexual relationships.

The most important piece of evidence that I’m referencing here was based on the nation’s largest study of violent victimization that’s fielded by the US Census Bureau and Justice Department. And that seems to be a common finding, even in small survey studies of high school kids and college kids and convenience samples, that intimate partner violence among same-sex couples seems to be higher than among heterosexual couples. And that doesn’t seem to be an artifact of the survey.

The reasons for that are not clear. It could be that people who perpetrate this feel they can do so with impunity because of the perception their victim is unlikely to go to the law, unlikely to seek informal assistance from friends and family for the reasons we just discussed. It could be that the perpetrator feels they can do this with impunity because the victim’s plight and the gravity of the crime committed against them won’t be treated as seriously by prosecutors and juries and judges and so forth.

We don’t know, that’s for future researchers to determine, but we think more work should be done on intimate partner violence among same-sex individuals in large part because of the high prevalence relative to heterosexual. And even if the prevalence rates were equal or less than, it’s still a topic which we know very little about.

Lauren Lavin:

Right. That was really insightful. Could you elaborate on the concept of third-party legal mobilization and its importance in addressing IPV cases, both in regards to heterosexual couples as well as same-sex couples?

Kaylin Campbell:

I think what’s really important about third parties particularly is, I mean, we’ve spent a lot of time talking about reluctance to notify on one’s behalf, right? If you’re the victim of this violence and you feel the reluctance to notify police, then you’re reliant on people who witnessed this happen to you. It can be out in public, it can be your neighbors through the wall, which another future direction is varying that setting for sure. I think third parties are really instrumental in getting justice for victims and survivors of intimate partner violence.

Lauren Lavin:

When you say third party, it could be just someone walking down the street or like you mentioned, a neighbor in your apartment community. So we’re all third parties by that measure. Correct?

Mark Berg:

Yeah.

Kaylin Campbell:

Yeah, exactly.

Mark Berg:

Citizen reporting is the primary vehicle through which violent crimes become known to law enforcement. It’s a well-established fact. Police rarely observe them. Victims rarely report. Third parties often are the conduit through which members of the law enforcement community come to understand the experiences of people in the community. Third parties play a very important role in the application of law, the distribution of law.

When they’re less willing to report, this hinders the effective deployment of police resources as we’ve noted in the paper. It can lead to biases in official crime data, which is especially problematic. So it could, if people are unwilling to report acts of intimate partner violence against male victims or same-sex victims, give the impression, which I think has happened, that men have significantly lower rates of non-fatal intimate partner violent victimization than women. Or that if it’s the case that there is a level of bias, that creates a barrier to reporting for same-sex persons, that same-sex individuals have suffered less intimate partner victimization than heterosexual persons.

And if we are concerned in a democratic system that in which we uphold the rule of law with the equal protection under the law regardless of the characteristics of a person including their gender or sexuality or age or social class, then we should be concerned about whether victims, regardless of their gender or sexuality, receive not only equal treatment from the police and the courts once they’re notified, but also among members of the community who are the primary means through which the criminal justice system, the courts come to understand or come into contact with the victims and perpetrators.

The broader motivation of our study is to think about the distribution of law in a society, particularly around gender and sexuality in the case of intimate partner violence.

Lauren Lavin:

[inaudible 00:26:46] Yeah, that’s a good point. For individuals that are listening, if they witness something like IPV in their community, do you have any resources or what do you suggest?

Mark Berg:

I have just a few, two things to think about. One, first, if you witness, report to the police regardless of who the person is. But second, be aware of that when a person is attacked that may be more physically capable than the offender, they may be larger, bulkier, stronger, that is just as serious when the reverse occurs, when there’s a significant power imbalance and when the victim is weaker or not as large, doesn’t seem to have the physical capacity to defend themselves in the same way.

And so when you see a man attacked, for instance, by a woman, that should merit or warrant a significant level of concern in a way where it also compels a person to notify some authority because those cases can also escalate and result in very serious incidents that result in serious injury or death just as cases where a woman is attacked by a man. The same level of concern should apply, I should say, regardless of the sexuality or gender of the victim or perpetrator.

Lauren Lavin:

I think that’s probably going to be my biggest takeaway from this episode is that violence happens to both genders and equal importance should be taken for both. Did you notice that the gender of the respondent, so the individual listening or the third-party had any impact on how likely they were to report?

Kaylin Campbell:

Yeah, we actually did find that individuals who identified as female were more likely to report to police. So that was an interesting takeaway.

Lauren Lavin:

Were you surprised by that?

Kaylin Campbell:

No, I wasn’t too surprised by it. I think typically women exhibit more helping behaviors, so that to me wasn’t super surprising.

Lauren Lavin:

Okay. And then I just have two final questions for you guys. So first off, how can the insights that you have gained from this study inform policies and practices aimed at improving legal resources for IPV or just reducing the instance of it, especially for marginalized communities, like same-sex couples?

Kaylin Campbell:

Just to start us off, I’m sure Mark has lots of thoughts about this too, but I think that resources targeted towards victims of intimate partner violence need to tailor to other victims besides heterosexual women. I think we need to think about what it looks like to be victimized in a same-sex relationship and what resources might need to become available to that individual.

Same goes for men in heterosexual relationships. Those needs might be different and I know that often shelters don’t allow for men to stay there because of the safety risk for the women. So there really needs to be a broadening of those resources, I would say.

And also just more public education and awareness around this issue because I think while a lot has changed in the last 20 years surrounding acceptance of same-sex couples, I think we all still think about intimate partner violence as violence against women exclusively perpetrated by men.

Lauren Lavin:

Well, hopefully this is a good start to the public education component of that conversation. And secondly, as you brought up the marketing component, I’m thinking about my own community and all of these resources are so heavily tailored towards female and heterosexual relationships. I think making these resources more inclusive and available to individuals outside of that relatively narrow bubble is a really important factor in reducing this going forward.

Mark Berg:

Yeah.

Kaylin Campbell:

Absolutely.

Mark Berg:

And I think, again, the public education too. We often offer a lot of public education around the prevention of intimate partner violence beginning in elementary school all the way through high school and especially at college. We used to, I think, have a program here for freshmen. I think years ago it was also paired with programming around sexual assault violence.

I think Kaylin hit on all the key points, but I think there’s also, we need to think about how we develop policies and programs which encourage people to recognize that the term victim can apply to a person regardless of their gender or sexuality. And if we do so, I think it might encourage a greater number of people who are victims of violence outside of traditional configurations that is either heterosexual or configurations where the man is attacked by a woman to seek assistance to escape these unhealthy relationships, to notify the law.

But it’s not clear to me at this point that the way we introduce and teach people to think about the harms of intimate partner violence and the appropriate ways to respond actually are inclusive in a way that allows male victims and victims in non-traditional relationships to be considered victims.

Lauren Lavin:

Yeah.

Mark Berg:

The framing.

Lauren Lavin:

Right. And the more we can frame that at a young age, probably the better off we are. We can like de-genderize the term victim and perpetrator because it’s really important, and that starts so young.

Mark Berg:

Yeah.

Kaylin Campbell:

Yeah.

Mark Berg:

I say to people, when you think about this work, one thing that is in my work, and to some extent Kaylin’s and I hope going forward more of it, but that we think about is that even these minor acts that don’t involve great serious injury that are harmful, they have the potential to escalate. And we are in a society where firearms are prevalent, easily accessible, and where we know they are instruments that are more likely to lead to lethal outcomes in interpersonal disputes.

And so, if we can take steps that reduce immediately the escalation process to ultimately reduce the possibility of more serious harm, and then at the extreme end, death in intimate partner relationships, we should do that. And one step I think we could take is to implement the type of programming we just discussed, where we recognize that other people can be victims. And also, that these interpersonal conflicts can escalate where even the victim or victims can the next day become offenders and perpetrators who do harmful things to retaliate against the person who assaulted them.

And so my point is, I think this could also be part of a broader conversation about preventing the escalation process, serious and lethal violence that erupts often from in the context of intimate partner violence, where one day it may be the woman who is a victim, the other day the man in heterosexual relationships. And those roles can reverse and they can reverse and escalate.

Lauren Lavin:

Okay, final question. What are some potential avenues for future research? As you guys think about this topic going forward, what are some additional questions that it prompted you to think about?

Kaylin Campbell:

I think we’ve alluded to a few things over the course of this episode. Certainly want to dive in a little bit more to see if maybe we would find something different if other status characteristics were included. I can think of race specifically, if we could expand these vignettes to incorporate more of what do these people look like and see if we find anything different based on that.

I also think varying the setting is important. The relationship of the third party to the couple in conflict, not just a stranger walking by them in the park, but what do you do if it’s your neighbor? What do you do if it’s your friend? What do you do if it’s a family member? Those kinds of things.

I think we are just really at the tip of the iceberg in our thinking about what this third-party intervention looks like, and including same-sex couples. So there are just truly so many different directions that this work could go in.

Mark Berg:

Another is, it would be important to finally unpack why people are more sympathetic towards women victims. So one argument is in the literature that it’s been around for a while, it’s difficult to test, is that it’s people are responding to a norm of chivalry, that a societal norm that prioritizes the protection of women from harm is what motivates people regardless of their gender to be especially responsive to the plight of women who are victims of partner violence and other crimes and misfortunes.

And so that’s one possibility in the larger context, the puzzle of why it is that people are responsive to certain status characteristics. And by the way, you see this level of responsivity across dozens and dozens of studies dating back decades in a laboratory, naturalistic designs. You see it evident in children, adults, older adults, in a variety of contexts. And it’s a mystery. It’s intriguing.

And we think if we could resolve the puzzle of a special protection that people seem to afford to women in situations where they’re facing harm, but especially at the hands of men, could help us to unlock the clues that might move us in the direction of sound policy as a wider ability to protect people regardless of their status characteristics.

Kaylin Campbell:

We kept it a little narrower in this study just to make it feasible, but I also think the inclusion of other gender identities is absolutely necessary by expanding this work to include the trans and non-binary communities. It certainly creates a lot of vignette conditions, and we were limited in the scope for this project, but I think future directions and future studies should absolutely consider relationships-

Lauren Lavin:

Absolutely. Especially because I think they’re really underrepresented within research.

Kaylin Campbell:

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Lauren Lavin:

Well, anything else you guys want to address before we close this out?

Mark Berg:

No. Thank you so much for asking us to sit for the interview and for reading our paper, and we hope it has some impact.

Lauren Lavin:

Well, thank you guys so much for doing this really important research in addressing IPV, especially for minority populations. I’m really appreciative of your willingness to talk about your research with me and our larger audience. And I do really hope that our listeners feel empowered to respond to IPV within their own communities based off this conversation, and that maybe it encourages them to think about gender stereotypes in terms of victim and perpetrator and how they can address that within their own circles. So with that, thank you both for coming on here. And that’s it.

Kaylin Campbell:

Thanks so much, Lauren.

Mark Berg:

Thanks, Lauren.

Lauren Lavin:

That’s it for our episode this week. Thank you to Kaylin Campbell and Dr. Mark Berg for joining me today. This episode was hosted and written by Lauren Lavin and edited and produced by Lauren Lavin. You can learn more about the University of Iowa College of Public Health on Facebook. Our podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and SoundCloud.

If you’ve enjoyed this episode and would like to help support the podcast, please share it with your colleagues, friends, or anyone interested in public health. Have a suggestion for our team? You can reach us at cph-gradambassador@uiowa.edu. This episode was brought to you by the University of Iowa College of Public Health. Until next week, stay healthy, stay curious, and take care.