Sex Role Identity and Jealousy
as Correlates of Abusive Behavior
in Lesbian Relationships

Grace A. Telesco

SUMMARY

This article presents the findings of a study from a crosssectional sample of 105 lesbians taken from a nonclinical setting to investigate to what extent they exhibited abusive behavior toward an intimate female partner and whether the abuse was physical, psychological, or both. This study examined whether an association exists between a lesbian's sex role identity, particularly the dimension of femininity, and her abusive behavior. The hypothesis that jealousy in the relationship would be positively associated with reported incidences of abusive behavior was also examined. The results show that when abuse is broadly defined a sizable minority report high incidences of overall, abuse and psychological abuse at some time during their current relationship. The most salient finding of this study was the strong evidence of a relationship between jealousy and abusive behavior. The implications of these findings underscore the need for continued and enhanced delivery of services. Other implications of this study point toward consciousnessraising to the larger community about institutionalized and individual homophobia and heterosexism.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades, there has been a great amount of research and literature written on the subject of heterosexual partner abuse. There is much known about the incidence, prevalence, and severity of heterosexual partner abuse. Theorists have looked at various correlates and explanations for abusive behavior between heterosexual intimates, focusing their attention on gender difference and looking at battering using a male batterer paradigm.

This study addresses existing gaps in the research on lesbian partner abuse by looking through a multitheory lens and shifts the focus from gender differences to explain abusive behavior to examining sex role identity and relationship factors. This research investigates specifically whether a lesbian's sex role identity is associated with her abusive behavior toward an intimate female partner, focusing on whether the dimensions of masculinity and femininity help explain abusive behavior. Additionally, building on existing research in the field of lesbian partner abuse, this study examines to what extent the relationship factor of jealousy in lesbian relationships is related to abusive behavior. Variables of dependency and power in the relationship were also examined.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Although the research on heterosexual abuse serves to inform theoretical explanations for lesbian partner abuse, the issues surrounding gender difference are not applicable for lesbian intimates. While there is a wealth of research and theoretical models to choose from when investigating heterosexual partner abuse, the lack of research and scarcity of the literature as it relates to lesbian partner abuse is glaring. It is clear that the research on the heterosexual population has been me( with fewer challenges than it has for the hidden and underrecognized lesbian population, and as a result of the deficit in the research, practitioners have relied largely on a heterosexual paradigm to understand lesbian partner abuse.

There are currently no national probability studies to research the incideuce, prevalence, and severity of lesbian pariner abuse. Hornophobia and heterosexism continue to keep lesbians a hidden subpopulation within society and make generalizations of the findings of nonprobability studies conducted with lesbians limiting.

Lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual people face verbal and physical assault on the street, face termination from their employment, losing custody of their children, abandonment by their families, and suicide all resulting from rcactions to their sexual orientation (Greene, 1994). Moreover, the institutions that serve to protect people at large have often been the very source of oppression and discrimination for lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual people (Holmes & Hodge, 1997).

Mainstream religious institutions are often at odds with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the spirit of morality and religiosity, promoting heterosexuality as normative (Holmes & Hodge, 1997). Policies and practices of the courts and the criminal justice system suggest a failure to protect the rights of the lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual communities. Allen and Leventhal (1999) examined domestic violence laws in fifty states and concluded that in some states lesbian and gay victims of partner abuse were afforded no protection under the law and in most states were more likely to receive less protection when compared to heterosexual victims. Legislation has also been negligent in failing to protect the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, particularly in the absence of laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Greene, 1994).

Despite the progressive mentality of the American Psychiatric Association removing "homosexuality" from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973 and "ego dystonic homosexuality" in 1988, efforts to change lesbian and gay clients through conversion therapy continue to persist for some (Greene, 1994). Medical, mental health, domestic violence advocates, and social work professionals often make assumptions that all people are heterosexual (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997; Greene, 1994; Hammond, 1986; Holmes & Hodge, 1997). Because of homophobia and heterosexism, lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual people struggle to attain a positive selfidentity and often endure lifelong negative selfimages, fear, shame, embarrassment, and isolation because of their sexual identity. Some research indicates that lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual youth are three times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts'to attempt suicide (Hunter & Schaecher, 1995).

Homophobia magnifies the effects of partner abuse. A lesbian, who is a victim of this abuse, may he reluctant to seek help from the police or service providers fearing a homophobic reaction. Anecdotal evidence from service providers suggests that many lesbians deliberately change pronouns when reporting partner abuse, in order to safeguard themselves from homophobie reactions from law enforcement officials. Others may also hide the reality of abuse from their family because they may not be open about their sexuality. Even the openly lesbian victim may not want family or friends to know about the abuse for fear that her sexuality will be perceived as the justification for the abuse. This internalized homophobia may be one of the many reasons wily victims of lesbian partner abuse remain hidden (Elliott, 1996; Lie & Gentlewarrier, 199 1; Pharr, 1988; Renzetti, 1992).

In the late eighties, some theorists offered explanations for the lack of data on lesbian partner abuse. Morrow and Hawxhurst (1989) posited that the lesbian community's reluctance to acknowledge that partner abuse is a real problem for them might lie in the notion that lesbian relationships are egalitarian, loving, and not violent. Additionally, the reluctance to acknowledge lesbian partner abuse may stem from the fear that lesbianism will be seen as pathological.

Lesbian survivors may be reluctant to admit abuse in their relationship, mirroring the same dynamics of selfblame, fear, economic and emotional dependency, and low self esteem that are experienced by heterosexual women who are survivors of partner abuse (Hammond, 1986). Further, the data on lesbian partner abuse from official sources are limited. Police, hospital, and crisis hotline reporting may not accurately reflect the incidence and severity of lesbian partner abuse and may be minimized by crisis workers, perhaps due to their own homophobia. Therefore, same sex partner abuse is often left out of police statistics and is consequently not counted in criminal justice reports (Hart, 1986; Island & Letellier, 1991).

There has been a considerable increase in the research of lesbian partner abuse within the last few decades. Findings for these studies suggest that rates and severity of violence among lesbian partners is comparable to that of heterosexual partners (Brand & Kidd, 1986; Coleman, 1990; Elliot, 1996; Lie & Gentlewarrier, 199 1; Lockhart, White, Causby, & Isaac, 1994; Renzetti, 1992).

With the increase in the research, there has been a substantial growth in the amount of literature pointing to several explanations for lesbian partner abuse. Some of these explanations include power imbalance, dependency and autonomy, jealousy, substance abuse, and intergenerational violence (Caldwell & Peplau, 1984; Coleman, 1990; Lynch & Reilly, 1986; Peplau, Rook, & Padesky, 1978; Peplau, Padesky, & Hamilton, 1982; Reilly & Lynch, 1990; Renzetti, 1992).

The existing research has limitations. The studies investigating lesbian partner abuse have almost exclusively used convenience samples that are comprised of lesbians who are mostly white, middle class, and feminist (Lie & Gentlewarrier, 1991; Lockhart et al., 1994; Schilit, Lie, Bush, Montagne, & Reyes, 199 1). While some of this research has focused on client populations of survivors, examining abusive behavior through the eyes of the victim (Lobel, 1986; Renzetti, 1988), other studies have been conducted with client populations of batterers participating in intervention programs (Farley, 1996). The findings from these studies make generalizations to the general lesbian population difficult and limit inferences. Another issue threatening the gcneralizability of these studies to the larger lesbian population lies within the methodologies used. Some of these studies rely on retrospective accounts of the abuse from the victim. The limited number of studies on lesbian partner abuse that utilize selfreport methods in a nonclinical setting make it difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of lesbian partner abuse among the general lesbian population.

In intimate heterosexual relationships where violence is occurring, the primary aggressors are typically men, and the victims are women. Feminist theorists posit that it is patriarchal domination and the control of women that contributes to partner abuse, specifically among heterosexual intimates (Bograd, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1979, 1998).

Dobash and Dobash (1979, 1998) dominate the literature in this feminist argument and sociocultural framework, suggesting that societal belief systems sustain partner abuse at the individual level. They suggest the factors that contribute to partner abuse are embedded in patriarchal privilege and male entitlement and further posit that the sense of entitlement that a husband believes he possesses to punish "his" wife, lies in the very position of husbandry, allowing men to be abusive simply because of their rank in the relationship.

Some feminist theorists suggest that men are inclined to be more abusive than women because this abuse is embedded in an accumulated web of physical strength and male tradition describing masculinity in terms of aggression, power, and a predatory spirit. These theorists suggest that when "masculinity" is threatened, acts of aggression may follow (Thompson, 1998). In the Violent Men Study of 1996, the data reported by Dobash and Dobash (1998) suggest that when men recounted their physical abuse against a female intimate partner, it was usually accompanied by anger and rationalization. The evidence of masculine identity associated with the abusive behavior was indicated through statements made by the batterer which suggested a strong belief system that the batterer was forced to "put the victim in her place," "show her who the boss was," and "could not let a 'woman' get away with anything" (Dobash & Dobash, 1998, 0. 144).

Thompson (1998) argues that femininity in this society is viewed as weak and Nubordinate. Thompson adds:

The boy who is called a fag is the target of other boys' homophobia as well as the victim of his own homophobia. While the overt message is the absolute need to avoid being fernininized, the implication is that femalesand all that they traditionally representare contemptible. The United States Marines have a philosophy, which conveniently combines homophobia and misogyny in the belief that "when you want to create a group of male killers, you kill the 'woman' in them." (p. 561)

The paradigm of patriarchy, which is male created and driven, is one of domination and control where the feminine is viewed as subordinate (Dobash & Dobash, 1998). Regardless of one's biological gender or sexual orientation, these messages can become internalized and inform behavior, particularly in a patriarchal setting where the feminine is not valued and is seen as inferior. Coleman (1996) posits that we exist within a heterosexist system where the relationship model is comprised of two roles: one being dominant and the other submissive. Therefore, lesbians are not immune to the potential for one partner to dominate the other.

Traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity can be limiting, gender based, and viewed in terms of dress, roles, and personality attributes (Bern, 1993). Further, as these traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity are limiting, so is the construct of gender. Lesbian partner abuse should not be framed exclusively in terms of gender because of the unique differences in the dynamics of lesbian relationships and the fact that the partners are the same sex. Coleman ( 1996) also argues that regardless of gender or sex. role identity, patriarchal values are internalized and may play a role in abusive behavior. Since biological gender difference between lesbian partners does not serve as an explanation for abusive behavior, a closer examination of a lesbian's level of masculinity and femininity may help to explain the incidence and severity of abuse in their relationships. Further, building on existing research, this study examines to what extent the relationship factor of jealousy is related to abusive behavior among lesbian intimates. Relationship factors of dependency and power were also examined.

METHODS

This descriptive study makes use of a crosssectional survey of a convenience sample of 105 lesbians. In order to participate, respondents had to self identify as lesbians and be in a relationship with another woman for at least six months at the time of the study.

Four questions guide the research: (1) To what extent does partner abuse exist among lesbian intimates? (2) What is the nature of this abusive behavior (physical or psychological abuse)? (3) Is there an association between sex role identity and abusive behavior? (4) To what extent is the relationship factor of jealousy related to abusive behavior in lesbian relationships? It was expected that low levels of femininity would be positively associated with high rates of abusive behavior. The relationship of dependency, jealousy, and power imbalance with abusive behavior was also of interest, and it was expected that high levels of dependency, jealousy, and power imbalance in the relationship would be positively associated with higher rates of abusive behavior.

Measures

The self-administered multi-item questionnaire contained 125 questions and asked participants to rate themselves on their perceived level of masculinity and femininity, as well as the level of dependency, jealousy, and power imbalance present in their current relationship. Respondents were also asked to report on whether they have been physically or psychologically abusive toward an intimate partner at any time during their current relationship. Sex role identity was measured utilizing the Bem Sex Role Inventory Scale (BSRI). The BSRI measures 60 different personality attributes related to constructs of masculinity and femininity (13=, 1974). The masculine items describe traits and characteristics that are considered socially agreed upon, although stereotypical, "masculine" attributes that are related to problem solving, assertiveness, and leadership. Respondents are asked to rate themselves on twenty masculine attributes from "never or almost never true" to "always or almost always true" on statements like "I act as leader," "I am assertive," and "I am ambitious." The feminine items describe traits and characteristics that arc considered socially agreed upon, although stereotypical, "feminine" attributes that are related to concern for the well being of others and nurturing. Respondents are asked to rate themselves on twenty feminine attributes from "never or almost never true" to 16 always or almost always true" on statements like: " I soothe hurt feelings ... .. lam sensitive to the needs of others," and "I am sympathetic." Twenty questions are fillers and are not counted. Raw scores were totaled for masculinity and femininity separately so that each respondent receives a separate masculine and feminine score. The BSRI for this sample showed an alpha coefficient of .73 for masculinity and.77 for femininity.

Participants were also asked to report whether they have been physically or psychologically abusive at any time toward their current partner at any time during their current relationship. The 30 item Abusive Behavior Inventory was used to measure the construct of abusive behavior (Shepard & Campbell, 1992). Respondents were asked how often they exhibited each of the 30 physical or psychological abusive behaviors from "never" to "very frequently." Some items included "called her names or criticized her," "slapped, hit, or punched her ... .. put her down ... .. choked or strangled her," and "drove recklessly when she was in the car." Raw scores were totaled for physical abuse,
psychological abuse and overall abuse. Respondents with raw scores in the top twentyfive percentile were categorized as "high abuse" for cross tabulation and categorical purposes. The sample was then categorized into high and low abuse for descriptive purposes. Continuous raw scores were used for correlation and hierarchical regression analysis. Reliability analysis for the ABI indicated an alpha coefficient of .74.

A series of questions about the participants' relationship as it relates to issues of dependency, jealousy, and power imbalance were asked utilizing a combination of items from Renzetti's (1992) research and original items designed for this study. Respondents were asked to rate their behavior from 46 never" to "very frequently" on characteristics of jealousy, dependency, and power in their relationship. Some jealousy items included I don't like it when my partner spends time with her friends," and " I don't like it when my partner pays attention to other things and not me." Reliability analysis indicated alpha coefficients of .75 for the dependency items, .71 for the jealousy items, and .73 for the power imbalance items.

SAMPLE

Study participants were volunteers who frequent the New York City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center for social events. Although a nonprobability sampling strategy, this type of "location" sampiing, sometimes referred to as "target" sampling, is often used when studying hidden populations who lack a sampling frame (Watters & Biernacki, 1989). This sample consisted of individual responses from participants in regards to their own behavior and was not a sample of paired couples.

African American lesbians accounted for 22% of the sample, and I I% of the sample identified themselves as Latino. Similar studies investigating abusive behavior among lesbian intimates has primarily been focused on white, middle class, feminist, lesbians, and has largely ignored the experience of lesbians of color.

The mean age of the respondents was 40 years old with ages ranging from 21 to 66 years. Twenty percent of the sample's income fell within the $ 10,000 to $35,000 income category and 26% of the respondents fell within the $35,000 to $50,000 income category. Eightyfive percent of the respondents said that they were employed and categorized their work in terms of a wide range of whitecollar occupations. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents held at least a bachelor's degree.

The mean number of years respondents reported being in their current relationship was an average of 5 years with 84% categorizing the relationship as a committed one. Ninety-seven percent described their relationship as mollogamous and 55% reported that they reside with their partner.

Respondents were also asked to report on their partner's demographic characteristics. The same information requested from them was asked about their partners. Results indicated no differences between respondents and partners on demographic variables, as provided by the respondent.

RESULTS

Physical and Psychological Abuse

The results show 34% of the sample categorized as "high" levels of overall abuse. These raw scores of overall abuse were placed in the top twenty-five percentile and represent both physical and psychological abuse. On psychological abuse, 34% were categorized as exhibiting "high" levels of abuse, with 66% reporting "low" levels of abuse. Thirty-seven percent of the sample is categorizcd as "high" on physical abuse with 63% as low. It is important to note that although 34% of the sample reported high rates of abuse, these specific abuse items fell within a lower range ofseverity and would not have incurred serious physical or psychological injury. The classifications of high and low abuse percentages are presented in Table 1.

Seventy-five percent of the sample admits to demonstrating more than one incident of overall abusive behavior toward their current partner, As Table 2 indicates, eight percent of the sample report never abusing a current partner ill any way, and 17% admit to exhibiting one abusive act toward their current partner at some time during the relationship.

The physical abuse items and the percent of the sample who reported never, occasionally, frequently, or very frequently exhibiting these abusive behaviors toward their current partner within the last year are presented in Table 3. The top items are ranked in the order of those that were most reported by the respondents. Twenty percent of the respondents admitted to occasionally throwing or smashing something or bitting their partner. Twenty percent also admitted to occasionally pushing her.

The six most reported psychologically abusive acts that respondents admitted to either occasionally or frequently / very frequently exhibiting toward their partner were: gave partner angry looks or stares (71 %), called partner names or criticized her (55%), ended a discussion with partner and made the decision yourself (50%), accused partner of paying too much attention to others (4 1 %), put partner down (36%), and kept partner from doing what she wanted (21 %).

TABLE 1. Sample Percentages Based on Top 25% for Levels of Overall Abuse, Psychological Abuse, and Physical Abuse (N = 105)

TABLE 2. Sample Percentages of Overall Abuse (N = 88*)

* Missing data

TABLE 3. Rank Order of Sample Percentages for Individual Physical Abuse
Items (N = 105)

Femininity and Abusive Behavior

To test whether a respondent's low level of femininity would be positively associated with abusive behavior, correlation analysis was conducted. It was expected that the characteristic of femininity contains dimensions that are concerncd with the well being of others and thought to contribute to nonabusive behavior. In contrast, individuals who possess low levels of these characteristics may be more likely to demonstrate abusive behavior.

Correlation analysis results are presented in Tables 4 and 5. The findings indicate that femininity is neither positively nor negatively correlated with overall abuse. It was expected that low femininity would be positively associated with abusive behavior. This was not supported by the data. It is difficult to determine why low levels of femininity were not related with high rates of abuse as predicted. Perhaps respondents perceived themselves as having high levels of both masculine and feminine attributes, when in fact they may really possess lower levels of both masculinity and femininity. There may be a difference between the perception one has of the attributes they possess and the reality of their behavior.

Jealousy and Abusive Behavior

To test the hypothesis that jealousy is associated with abusive behavior, correlation analysis was conducted, utilizing a listwise deletion of data with a twotailed test of significance and are also presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Correlation analysis shows that jealousy and overall abuse were positively correlated and significant (r = .37, p < .01). As jealousy increased so did reported abusive behavior. Jealousy and psychological abuse were also positively correlated and significant (r = .36, p < .01). Neither masculinity nor femininity was correlated with abuse.

Jealousy as a Predictor of Abuse

To examine predictors of abuse, three hierarchical regression models were conducted using continuous scores for all variables. Utilizing twotailed significance, with a listwise deletion of missing data, the independent variables of dependency, jealousy, power imbalance, masculinity, and femininity were entered into the first regression model to determine how much of the variance in abuse is explained by these variables.

Tables 6 and 7 summarize the results of the regression models and are presented in this section. As a group, the variables of dependency, jealousy, power imbalance, masculinity, and femininity significantly explain 18% of the variance in overall abuse (R'=. 18, p <.05), andjealousy was the strongest predictor when all the other variables were held constant (t = 3,26, p < .0 1).

The results of the second regression model, entering psychological abuse as the dependent variable indicate that as a group, the variables of dependency, jealousy, power imbalance, masculinity, and femininity significantly explain 17% of the variance in psychological abuse (R2 = .17, p < .05). Jealousy was the strongest predictor of psychological abuse when all the other variables were held constant (t = 3.189, p < .0 1).

TABLE 4. BiVariate Correlations Between Masculinity, Femininity, Dependency, Jealousy, Power Imbalance, and Overall Abuse

Note: *p <.05 **p <.01

TABLE 5. BiVariate Correlations Between Masculinity, Femininity, Dependency, Jealousy, Power Imbalance, and Psychological Abuse (n = 88*)

Note: *p <.05 **p <.01

DISCUSSION

It was expected that a respondent's femininity would be negatively associated with high rates of abusive behavior that she reported exhibiting toward her partner. The results indicated that femininity was neither positively nor negatively correlated with overall physical and psychological abuse, Although not part of the hypotheses testing, femininity was weakly associated with dependency, jealousy, and power imbalance.

TABLE 6. Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Overall Abuse

Note: For Jealousy, F (6, 73) =.013% R2 =.18, **p <.01

TABLE 7. Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Psychological Abuse

Note: For Jealousy, F (5, 73) = .016*, R2 = .17, **p < .01

As a group, the variables of dependency, jealousy, power imbalance, masculinity, and femininity significantly explain 18% of the variance in overall abuse and 17% of the variance in psychological abuse. The correlate of jealousy, in this sample, was the strongest predictor, when all the other variables were held constant. While 18% of the variance in physical and psychological abuse are explained by the variables, there is a substantial percentage that is not explained and requires further examination. Other variables for further examination include lesbians exposed to violence in their family origin, substance use and abuse, and prior abusive relationships.

Consistent with existing research, thirtyfour percent of the sample was categorized as exhibiting high rates of physical and psychological abuse toward a current intimate female partner. Thirtyseven percent was classified as demonstrating high rates of physical abuse toward their partner at some time during the relationship.

Despite the finding that a sizable minority reported high rates of physical and psychological abuse, it is important to note that the. psychological abuse items that were most reported may not be considered "serious" psychological terror and the physical abuse items most reported would not have required hospitalization.

LIMITATIONS

It is unclear whether respondents were forthcoming about their abuse and whether the instrument used accurately measured the true level of physical and psychological abuse demonstrated by the respondent. Straus (1990) acknowledges that batterers tend to underreport their own abusive behavior. Additionally, the findings indicate that 15% of the respondents failed to accurately complete the Abusive Behavior Inventory portion of the questionnaire suggesting that higher rates of abuse may have been indicated but were not reported. Further, the selfreport nature of the research suggests that the actual abuse occurring, both physically and psychologically, may be even higher.

The ability to generalize the findings of this present study is limited by the location and nature of the sample; however, the findings confirm prior research suggesting that the incidence of abuse among lesbian intimates is similar to their heterosexual counterparts. The examination of the extent to which violence in the family of origin, substance use/abuse, and prior abusive relationships is related to a lesbian's abusive behavior in a current relationship was not explored in this research. These may account for the variance that is not explained by the variables investigated in this study and require further examination.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK

The present study indicates that not only was jealousy significantly associated with abusive behavior, but it was the strongest predictor of overall (both physical and psychological) and psychological abuse by itself. This finding is consistent with the literature.

For lesbians, issues of attachment, autonorny, and monogamy may serve to complicate jealous tendencies by either of the partners. Further, jealousy among lesbian couples may also be explained by a lack of institutional validation and legitimacy, resulting from institutionalized heterosexism and homophobia.

The results of this study underscore the need to recognize that abuse occurs among lesbian couples and takes tile form of psychological abuse as well as physical abuse. The findings also suggest thatjealousy may be a strong predictor of abuse. The results of this study highlight the commitment needed for the continued and enhanced delivery of services to battered lesbians, expanded intervention programs for lesbian batterers, and innovative prevention initiatives designed to adequately address the issue of partner abuse in lesbian relationships.

Since assessment is critical in the intervention of partner abuse (Morrow & Hawxhurst, 1989), service providers can benefit from continuing education on how to effectively assess abusive behavior in lesbian relationships. The implications for practice suggest that social workers who serve lesbians and lesbian couples examine how issues of jealousy and its manifestations may serve to create an environment of abuse,

Other implications point toward consciousnessraising to the larger community about institutionalized and individual homophobia and heterosexism and how they can serve to magnify the problem of partner abuse. Additionally, homophobia and heterosexism present unique challenges in researching this hidden population, making inferences from study results complex and generalizations to the larger population of lesbians limiting.

REFERENCES

Allen, C., & Leventhal, B. (1999). History, culture, and identity: What makes GLBT battering different. In B. Leventhal & S. Lundy (Eds.), Samesex domestic violence: Strategies for change (pp. 738 1). CA: NASW Press.

Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 42,155162.

Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Berkman, C., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and Heterosexism in Social Workers. Social Work, 42 (4), 319332.

Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In K. Yllo, & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 11 28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brand, P., & Kidd. (1986). A frequency of physical aggression in heterosexual & female homosexual dyads. Psychological Reports, 59, 13071313.

Caldwell, M., & Peplau, L. (1984). The balance of power in lesbian relationships. Sex Roles, 10, 587599.

Coleman, V. (1990). Violence between lesbian couples: A between groups' comparison. Doctoral dissertation (University Microfilms No. 9109022).

Coleman, V. (1996). Lesbian Battering: The relationship between personality & the perpetration of violence. In L. K. Hamberger, & C. Renzetti (Eds.), Doinestic partner abuse (pp. 77102). New York: Springer Publishing.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.

Dobash, R.E., & Dobash, R. (1998). Rethinking violence against women. CA: SAGE.

Elliott, P. (1996). Shattering illusions: Samesex domestic violence. In C. Renzetti, & C. Miley (Eds.), Gay & lesbian domestic partnerships (pp. 18). New York: Tile Haworth Press, Inc.

Farley, N. (1996). A survey of factors contributing to gay and lesbian domestic violence. In C. Renzetti, & C.H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships (pp. 3542). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Greene, B. (1994). Lesbian and gay sexual orientations: Implications for clinical training, practice, and research. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian & gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 124). CA: SAGE.

Hammond, N. (1986). Lesbian victims and the reluctance to identify abuse. In K. Lobel (Ed.), Naming the violence: Speaking out about lesbian battering (pp. 190197). Seattle: Seal Press.

Hart, B. (1986). Lesbian battering: An examination. In K. Lobel (Ed.), Naming the violence (pp. 173189). Seattle: Seal.

Holmes, K., & Hodge, R. (1997). Gay and lesbian people. In J. Philleo, & F. Brisbane (Eds.), Cultural competence in substance abuse prevention (pp. 153176). Washington D.C.: NASW Press.

Hunter, J., & Schaecher, R. (1995). Gay & lesbian adolescents. In R. Edwards, & J. Hopps (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Work (19th ed., pp. 10551063). NASW Press.

Island, D., & Lettellier, P. (199 1). Men who beat the men who love them: Battered gay men and domestic violence. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Lie, G., & Gentlewarrier, S. (1991). Intimate violence in lesbian relationships: Discussion of survey findings and practice implications. Journal of Social Service Research, 15 (2), 4159.

Lobel, K. (1986). Naming the violence: Speaking out about lesbian battering. Seattle, WA: Seal.

Lockhart, L., White, B., Causby, V., & Isaac, A. (1994). Letting out the secret: Violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9(4), 469492.

Lynch, J., & Reilly, M. (1986). Role relationships: Lesbian perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 5370.

Morrow, S., & Hawxhurst, D. (1989). Lesbian partner abuse: Implications for therapists. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 5862.

Peplau, L., Cochran, S., Rook, K., & Padesky, C. (1978). Loving women: Attachment and autonomy in lesbian relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 727.

Peplau, L., Padesky, C., & Hamilton, M. (1982). Satisfaction in lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 8, 2335.

Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. CA: Chardon Press.

Reilly, M., & Lynch, J. (1990). Power sharing in lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 19(3), 130.

Renzetti, C. (1988). Violence in lesbian relationships; A preliminary analysis of causal factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 381399.

Renzetti, C. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. CA: Sage.

Schilit. R., Lie, G., Bush, J., Montagne, M., & Reyes, L. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of violence in lesbian relationships. Affilia, 6 (1), 7287.

Shepard, M., & Campbell, J. (1992). The Abusive Behavior Inventory: A measure of psychological and physical Abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 291305.

Grace A. Telesco, PhD, Assistant Professor, is affiliated with East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, Department of Sociology, 200 Prospect Street, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301.

[Haworth coindexing entry note): "Sex Role Identity and Jealousy as Correlates of Abusive Behavior in Lesbian Relationships." Telesco, Grace A. Copublished simultaneously in Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment (The Haworth Social Work Practice Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 8, No. 2/3, 2003, pp. 153169; and: Sexual Minorities: Discrimination, Challenges, mid Development in America (ed: Michael K. Sullivan) The Haworth Social Work Practice Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2003, pp. 153169. Single or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1800HAWORTH, 9:00 am. 5:00 p.m. (EST). Email address: docdelivery@haworthpress.com].

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, Vol. 8(2/3) 2003

http://www.haworthpress.conm/web/JHBSE

© 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.