Relationship Power Dynamics and Financial Dependence Among Sexual Minority Men in Relationships: Associations With Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Sexual minority men (SMM)’s experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) are a unique and understudied area of study, especially with regard to financial dependence. We explored how power imbalances within couples are associated with IPV victimization and perpetration among SMM, specifically with regard to relationship power dynamics in daily decision-making in couples and financial dependence. Of 423 participants, 33.8% reported experiencing IPV victimization (repeated:21.0%) and 24.3% reported perpetrating IPV (repeated:14.9%). Repeated IPV perpetration was more prevalent among participants who held more power in daily decision-making, while those with partners with greater power were more likely to experience IPV victimization at least once. On the other hand, any type of financial dependence, whether one-way or mutual, was associated with higher likelihood of both IPV victimization and perpetration, challenging assumptions that only dependence on a partner is associated with IPV victimization. These results highlight the critical role of relationship power dynamics and financial dependence in shaping IPV risk among SMM. Our findings underscore the need for more nuanced approaches to understanding economic dynamics in SMM relationships and for public health and clinical strategies that address the complex intersections of power dynamics, financial dependence and IPV.

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV), defined as physical, psychological, and sexual abuse within an intimate relationship (Ali et al., 2016; World Health Organization & London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 2010), knows no bounds by gender and sexual orientation. Traditionally, IPV has been studied in the context of heterosexual relationships, especially focusing on women’s victimization experiences in marriage and domestic partnerships. The literature has laid the foundations for understanding IPV as a byproduct of power inequalities that exist in patriarchal social structures, particularly between man and woman and their ascribed gender roles (De Coster & Heimer, 2021). Violence in relationships may be seen as a way for men to both assert dominance over their female partner as well as a way to reassert their power in relationships where they feel their dominance may be challenged, such as in cases where they experience unemployment or lower income than their female partner (De Coster & Heimer, 2021). This understanding of IPV has been heavily influenced by a heteronormative focus, as studies on IPV in nonheterosexual relationships are sparse. According to a systematic review of studies on IPV experiences inclusive of diverse sexualities and gender identities published between 2006 and 2016, 70% had a sample that only consisted of women in heterosexual relationships and only 11% had samples that included individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+; Laskey et al., 2019). The limited literature on LGBTQ+ individuals’ experiences of IPV highlights a need to examine how power imbalances influence violence and abuse within their intimate relationships to better understand the unique challenges they face.

Research on IPV experiences in LGBTQ+ populations has consistently found that IPV victimization experiences among sexual minority men (SMM) and women are as prevalent, if not more so, than among their heterosexual peers (Callan et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2023; Rollè et al., 2018). In particular, a nationwide study of 27,571 adults in the United States revealed that the rates of sexual, psychological, and physical abuse, and stalking in intimate relationships among SMM (i.e., men with romantic, sexual, or other intimate attractions to men including but not limited to men who identify as gay, bisexual, and queer) are comparable (36%–38%) to those of women in different-sex relationships (40%; Chen et al., 2023). This finding supports the need to address the notable prevalence of IPV and its impact in this understudied population.

Past literature on IPV within relationships between SMM has identified several risk factors. A majority of studies on IPV experiences among SMM has focused on the influences of sexual minority stress, defined as unique challenges that sexual minority individuals face from living in societies that stigmatize them based on their sexuality (Callan et al., 2021; Domingos & de Lira, 2024; Longobardi & Badenes-Ribera, 2017). Across several reviews of studies on IPV among sexual minorities (Longobardi & Badenes-Ribera, 2017), with two focusing on SMM (Callan et al., 2021; Domingos & de Lira, 2024), researchers have consistently found that experiences of homophobic discrimination and violence and internalization of homophobic beliefs are associated with both IPV victimization and perpetration. A review of studies on male IPV survivors reported that SMM survivors of IPV experienced additional vulnerabilities (Huntley et al., 2019). These include lack of cultural and professional competency among service providers to address IPV experiences among SMM, and fears of disclosure that stem from shame and denial of victimhood as they relate to their sexual minority identity. These factors act as barriers to help-seeking and consequently contribute to persistence of IPV experiences among SMM survivors (Huntley et al., 2019). Adding to the issue of underrepresentation, bisexual men remain significantly understudied even within the literature on IPV among sexual minority populations, which reflect the invisibility of experiences of bisexual men in relationship with men and underscores their heightened vulnerability to IPV (Callan et al., 2021). Altogether, these studies propose social stigma against SMM to be an important context to understanding violence in SMM relationships, suggesting that IPV is an enactment of the societal power differential experienced by SMM, which renders SMM both more vulnerable to victimization (Callan et al., 2021; Domingos & de Lira, 2024) and more likely to perpetrate violence as a stress reaction to minority stressors (Bartholomew et al., 2008).

Alongside the sexual minority stress-related factors of IPV within SMM relationships, researchers have also explored relationship-level factors that may lead to violence between same-sex male partners (Bosco et al., 2022; Domingos & de Lira, 2024; Edwards et al., 2015). In particular, studies examined the role of power imbalances between men to explain IPV experiences among SMM (Bosco et al., 2022; Goldenberg et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2024). In their study of 344 SMM in relationships, Bosco et al. (2022) examined power dynamics in the relationship, defined as patterns of dominance in everyday decision-making between couples (Pulerwitz et al., 2000), as a factor associated with IPV victimization. Relationship power dynamics mediated the associations that individual- and relationship-level factors such as depression, sexual communication, and relationship satisfaction, had with IPV victimization among SMM (Bosco et al., 2022). This implies that personal and relationship characteristics affect unequal distribution of power in male same-sex couples, and the resulting imbalance in power may be a precursor to IPV. On the other hand, another study found that relationship power differential was not associated with perpetration of physical violence among distressed SMM couples (McKenry et al., 2006). While the majority of prior research has examined experiences of IPV victimization among SMM, several studies of IPV in SMM have shown that SMM often report both victimization and perpetration (Domingos & de Lira, 2024), which points to a need for research both forms of IPV in this population.

It is also important to consider how financial resources are managed in a relationship when examining power imbalance and its relation to IPV in SMM couples. Qualitative studies have found that SMM perceive nonegalitarian distributions of power that result from financial inequalities in the relationship to contribute to IPV within relationships (Goldenberg et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2024). Through focus group interviews with 64 gay and bisexual men, Goldenberg et al. (2016) identified power imbalances that resulted from dyadic differences in financial abilities to provide for the couple, which were often associated with age differences, to be key sources of tension and conflict in intimate relationships. Several interviewees reported on both personal experiences and observations from their SMM acquaintances where the older and more financially established partner in the couple asserted dominance in the relationship. This asymmetrical power dynamic set the base for coercion and abuse against the younger partner who depended on their older partner for financial resources (Goldenberg et al., 2016). These findings have been corroborated by other qualitative studies that analyzed in-depth interviews and diary entries of gay and bisexual men, which echoed that imbalances in financial resources and reliance on one’s partner’s finances in SMM couples made one more vulnerable to victimization and staying in abusive relationships (Hall et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2024).

Building on past research, this study aims to address gaps in the research on the relationship between unequal distribution of power and IPV in SMM relationships. The study examines relationship power dynamics in daily decision-making and financial dependence as two sources of power imbalance in relationships and aims to investigate their associations with both IPV victimization and perpetration among SMM. We hypothesized that SMM who have less power to assert their opinion in the couple’s daily decision-making are more likely to experience IPV victimization; conversely, those who have more power are more likely to engage in IPV perpetration. Also, it is hypothesized that SMM who are financially dependent on their partner are more likely to experience IPV victimization, while those with partners who are financially dependent are more likely to engage in IPV perpetration.

Methods

Study Design

The data for this analysis is from the EROS (Empowering Relationships and Opportunities for Safety) study, an ongoing observational cohort study that examines IPV as it occurs among SMM residing across the United States and its relationship to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention (Storholm et al., 2022). Because data collection is ongoing, the current analysis used only the baseline data. The study protocol was approved by the San Diego State University Institutional Review Board (HS-2022-0094), and the details of the study protocol are available in a previously published study (Storholm et al., 2022).

Participants

Baseline data collection was conducted between September 2022 and December 2023. Advertisements for study recruitment were carried out online (social networking sites and mobile dating/hook-up apps) and offline (flyers at LGBTQ venues, organizations, and events). The advertisements included links or quick response codes to an online screener that was administered through Qualtrics survey software. A total of 9,010 people completed the screener.

To participate in the study, those who completed the screener had to meet the following eligibility criteria: (a) cisgender male (i.e., men whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth), (b) in a relationship with a cisgender man for at least 3 months at the time of screening, (c) aged between 18 and 45 years old, (d) HIV negative or unknown HIV status, (e) living in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-identified ending the HIV Epidemic priority jurisdictions in the United States (Fauci et al., 2019), and (f) willing to complete home-based HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) test kits. Partners of the enrolled participants were excluded from joining the study to safeguard the participants’ disclosure of information regarding their relationship, especially their IPV experiences. Those who met the eligibility criteria were virtually onboarded, during which participants’ identities were verified and informed consent was orally presented by the researchers and signed electronically. The onboarded participants received a personalized link to the baseline survey that was programmed by the research team. Upon completion, they were compensated with a gift card worth $50.

Of those who completed the screener, 1,042 were screened to be eligible for the study and 690 completed the baseline survey; lastly, 522 of the 690 returned their baseline test kit. Excluding the 22 who had an HIV seropositive test at baseline, the baseline analytic sample was comprised of 500 participants. Of them, 52 participants reported that they were single at the time of the baseline survey and were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, 25 participants who had missing data for either IPV experiences, relationship power dynamics, financial dependence, or covariates were excluded. The final analytic sample was comprised of 423 participants.

Measures

Intimate Partner Violence.

A 62-item measure was used to measure experiences of IPV. The measure was developed based on the IPV-GBM scale, a 23-item measure of physical, sexual, monitoring, controlling, HIV-related, and emotional IPV that had previously been validated among gay and bisexual men (Stephenson & Finneran, 2013). Based on recommendations from the scale’s developer, we collapsed items on unwanted access to texts and email and dropped the item inquiring about non-disclosure of HIV status as a form of IPV as this was not relevant to the current HIV-negative sample. The research team then incorporated 39 additional items based on qualitative interviews conducted with SMM in the previous phase of the study drawing on their IPV and HIV prevention related experiences with additional interviews conducted with key informants (IPV-related service providers to SMM experiencing IPV) (Jessup et al., 2024; Storholm et al., 2023). Three additional items were incorporated to measure economic abuse. These items each corresponded to the 3 factors of economic abuse – controlling financial information, interfering with other’s job, and sabotaging other’s credit – developed by Postmus et al. (2016). In total, the revised measure consisted of 8 domains of IPV: physical abuse (e.g., threw objects; 8 items), sexual abuse (e.g., had non-consensual sex while the partner was drunk or high; 6 items), coercive control (e.g., forced the partner to drink or use drugs against his will; 13 items), sexual health (e.g., lied about STI status, prevented the partner from taking pre-exposure prophylaxis; 12 items), emotional abuse (e.g., told other that he is worthless; 7 items), financial (3 items), stalking (e.g., used technology to spy on the partner; 8 items), and identity-based abuse, and threats (e.g., threats of outing or calling immigration services; 6 items).

Participants were asked two parallel sets of items, one with respect to events of victimization they experienced at the hands of a male partner, and the other set asked about behavior they perpetrated onto a male partner the participant had in the past 6 months. For all items, participants were first asked (yes/no) if the behavior occurred, and if so, they were asked to indicate if the behavior occurred more than once.

Four IPV-related variables were computed. By gathering their initial yes/no responses to IPV victimization and perpetration experiences, two dichotomous variables on any IPV victimization experience (0: no IPV victimization, 1: victimized by partner at least once by at least one behavior) and any IPV perpetrations (0: no IPV perpetration, 1: perpetrated IPV at least once for at least one behavior) were created. Two additional dichotomous variables were created on repeated IPV victimization and repeated IPV perpetration, where 1 denoted repeated occurrence of one or more events or behaviors of IPV victimization or perpetration, respectively, and 0 denoted otherwise.

Relationship Power Dynamics.

Power dynamics in the current relationship were measured using the decision-making dominance subscale of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale, developed by Pulerwitz et al. (2000). This 8-item scale asked which member of the couple had a greater say in everyday decision-making in areas such as “whose friends to go out with,” “whether you have sex,” and “what you do together,” using the following three response options: 1 – your partner, 2 – both of you equally, and 3 – you (Cronbach’s alpha = .64). The mean item score was computed (range: 1–3, in increments of 0.125), and when trichotomized, it produced three categories: partner has more power (range: 1–1.875), egalitarian (mean = 2), and I have more power (range: 2.125–3).

Financial Dependence.

Financial dependence was measured using two questions: “To what extent does your partner rely on you financially?” and “To what extent do you rely on your partner financially?” As response options, participants were given a 5-point Likert scale (1 – Completely, 2 – Mostly, 3 – Somewhat, 4 – A little bit, 5 – None at all). The responses to the two questions were each dichotomized as not dependent (5) and dependent (1–4), financially. The dichotomized variables were combined to make a four-category variable: None (not dependent for both questions), partner dependent on participant (dependent response only for the first question), participant dependent on partner (dependent response only for the second question), and mutually dependent (dependent response for both questions).

Covariates.

The following sociodemographic variables were included as covariates: age (18–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40+), sexual orientation (gay and bisexual/queer/pansexual), race and ethnicity (Latino/Hispanic, Black/African American, Asian American and Pacific Islander, White, and Multiracial/other), highest attained education level (high school graduate [including general educational development (GED)]), some college, college graduate, and graduate school degree), residential situation (living at my own place, a rented place, and someone else’s place at no cost), and employment status (employed, self-employed, home maker or student, and out of work). Since the study focuses on relationship power dynamics, characteristics of the relationship were also accounted for in the analyses. Along with relationship status (in relationship with one person and multiple people) and duration (less than 12 months, 1–3 years, 4–6 years, and more than 7 years), age difference was included. Differences in ages had a standard deviation of 7, and it was used to create three categories: within 7 years of age difference, partner older than 7 years, and partner younger than 7 years.

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive analyses were performed to provide the distribution of IPV experiences and statuses of relationship power dynamics and financial dependence across the covariates. Chi-square tests were used to examine their bivariate associations between these measures of primary interest (IPV, relationship power dynamics, and financial dependence) and the covariates.

Of the four measures of IPV experience, repeated IPV perpetration had the lowest prevalence of 14.9%. Therefore, instead of logistic regression, log-linked Poisson regressions with a robust sandwich estimator were used to estimate the prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all of the multivariate regression models to reduce overestimation biases (Zou, 2004). Models 1 and 2 examined the associations between IPV experiences and relationship power dynamics and financial dependence, respectively. Model 3 included both relationship power dynamics and financial dependence in the model to control for one another in examining the association with IPV experiences. All three models controlled for the covariates and conducted for each of the four experiences of IPV. All analyses were carried out using STATA/MP version 18.0 (StataCorp, 2023).

Results

Descriptive Analyses

The sociodemographic make-up of the 423 partnered SMM participants of the study is presented in Tables 1 to 3. More than half of sample was in their late 20s (22.9%) or 30’s (30–34: 30.3%; 35–39: 20.3%), gay (89.8%), non-White (Latino/Hispanic: 33.8%; Black and African American: 14.4%; Asian American and Pacific Islander: 14.9%; multiracial/other: 3.8%), college-educated (college graduate: 39.5%; graduate school degree: 36.4%), living in a rented place (63.8%), and employed (82.0%). The vast majority (93.1%) were in a relationship with one person, 74.7% had a partner within 7 years of their own age, and relationship duration was evenly spread across from less than 12 months to more than 7 years.

Table 1.

Any and Repeated IPV Victimization Across Individual and Relationship Characteristics Among Sexual Minority Men in Relationships (N = 423).

Variables	Total	Any IPV victimization			Repeated IPV victimization
		Yes	No	p valuea	Yes	No	p valuea
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)		N (%)	N (%)
Total:	423 (100.0)	143 (33.8)	280 (66.2)		89 (21.0)	334 (79.0)
Individual characteristics
Age				.367			.554
18–24	40 (9.5)	14 (35.0)	26 (65.0)		10 (25.0)	30 (75.0)
25–29	97 (22.9)	34 (35.1)	63 (64.9)		19 (19.6)	78 (80.4)
30–34	128 (30.3)	37 (28.9)	91 (71.1)		23 (18.0)	105 (82.0)
35–39	86 (20.3)	36 (41.9)	50 (58.1)		23 (26.7)	63 (73.3)
40+	72 (17.0)	22 (30.6)	50 (69.4)		14 (19.4)	58 (80.6)
Sexual orientation				.875			.441
Gay	380 (89.8)	128 (33.7)	252 (66.3)		78 (20.5)	302 (79.5)
Bisexual/queer/pansexual	43 (10.2)	15 (34.9)	27 (64.3)		11 (25.6)	31 (73.8)
Race and ethnicity				.034			.209
Latino/Hispanic	143 (33.8)	61 (42.7)	82 (57.3)		38 (26.6)	105 (73.4)
Black and African American	61 (14.4)	17(27.9)	44 (72.1)		10 (16.4)	51 (83.6)
Asian American and Pacific Islander	63 (14.9)	15 (23.8)	48 (76.2)		9 (14.3)	54 (85.7)
White	140 (33.1)	47 (33.6)	93 (66.4)		30 (21.4)	110 (78.6)
Multiracial/Other	16 (3.8)	3 (18.8)	13 (81.3)		2 (12.5)	14 (87.5)
Highest attained education level				.466			.819
HS Graduate (includes GED)	16 (3.8)	5 (31.3)	11 (68.8)		2 (12.5)	14 (87.5)
Some college	86 (20.3)	23 (26.7)	63 (73.3)		17 (19.8)	69 (80.2)
College graduate	167 (39.5)	60 (35.9)	107 (64.1)		37 (22.2)	130 (77.8)
Graduate school degree	154 (36.4)	55 (35.7)	99 (64.3)		33 (21.4)	121 (78.6)
Residential situation (living at…)				.268			.018
My own place	115 (27.2)	33 (28.7)	82 (71.3)		14 (12.2)	101 (87.8)
A rented place	270 (63.8)	94 (34.8)	176 (65.2)		64 (23.7)	206 (76.3)
Someone else’s place at no cost	38 (9.0)	16 (42.1)	22 (57.9)		11 (28.9)	27 (71.1)
Employment status				.074			.273
Employed	347 (82.0)	115 (33.1)	232 (66.9)		72 (20.7)	275 (79.3)
Self-employed	27 (6.4)	15 (55.6)	12 (44.4)		9 (33.3)	18 (66.7)
Home maker or student	26 (6.1)	7 (26.9)	19 (73.1)		3 (11.5)	23 (88.5)
Out of work	23 (5.4)	6 (26.1)	17 (73.9)		5 (21.7)	18 (78.3)
Relationship characteristics
Age difference				.204			0.068
Within 7 years	316 (74.7)	101 (32.0)	215 (68.0)		60 (19.0)	256 (81.0)
Partner older than 7 years	63 (14.9)	22 (34.9)	41 (65.1)		14 (22.2)	49 (77.8)
Partner younger than 7 years	44 (10.4)	20 (45.5)	24 (54.5)		15 (34.1)	29 (65.9)
Relationship status (in relationship with…)				.194			0.005
One person	394 (93.1)	130 (33.0)	264 (67.0)		77 (19.5)	317 (80.5)
Multiple people	29 (6.9)	13 (44.8)	16 (55.2)		12 (41.4)	17 (58.6)
Relationship duration				.587			0.861
Less than 12 months	82 (19.4)	28 (34.1)	54 (65.9)		20 (24.4)	62 (75.6)
1–3 years	134 (31.7)	51 (38.1)	83 (61.9)		28 (20.9)	106 (79.1)
4–6 years	100 (23.6)	30 (30.0)	70 (70.0)		20 (20.0)	80 (80.0)
7 years or more	107 (25.3)	34 (31.8)	73 (68.2)		21 (19.6)	86 (80.4)

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence, GED = general educational development.

^ap values of Chi-square tests between each IPV outcomes and characteristics of the individual and their relationship.

Table 3.

Relationship Power Dynamics Across Individual and Relationship Characteristics Among Sexual Minority Men in Relationships (N = 423).

Variables	Total	Relationship power dynamics
		Egalitarian	Partner has more power	Participant has more power	p valuea
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
Total:	423 (100.0)	111 (26.2)	133 (31.4)	179 (42.3)
Individual characteristics
Age					.750
18–24	40 (9.5)	12 (30.0)	14 (35.0)	14 (35.0)
25–29	97 (22.9)	26 (26.8)	33 (34)	38 (39.2)
30–34	128 (30.3)	31 (24.2)	40 (31.3)	57 (44.5)
35–39	86 (20.3)	24 (27.9)	29 (33.7)	33 (38.4)
40+	72 (17.0)	18 (25)	17 (23.6)	37 (51.4)
Sexual orientation					.659
Gay	380 (89.8)	101 (26.6)	121 (31.8)	158 (41.6)
Bisexual/queer/pansexual	43 (10.2)	10 (23.3)	12 (27.9)	21 (48.8)
Race and ethnicity					.831
Latino/Hispanic	143 (33.8)	33 (23.1)	44 (30.8)	66 (46.2)
Black and African American	61 (14.4)	19 (31.1)	18 (29.5)	24 (39.3)
Asian American and Pacific Islander	63 (14.9)	19 (30.2)	21 (33.3)	23 (36.5)
White	140 (33.1)	34 (24.3)	45 (32.1)	61 (43.6)
Multiracial/Other	16 (3.8)	6 (37.5)	5 (31.3)	5 (31.3)
Highest attained education level					.312
HS Graduate (includes GED)	16 (3.8)	4 (25)	7 (43.8)	5 (31.3)
Some college	86 (20.3)	24 (27.9)	18 (20.9)	44 (51.2)
College graduate	167 (39.5)	45 (26.9)	57 (34.1)	65 (38.9)
Graduate school degree	154 (36.4)	38 (24.7)	51 (33.1)	65 (42.2)
Residential situation (living at…)					.206
My own place	115 (27.2)	31 (27.0)	28 (24.3)	56 (48.7)
A rented place	270 (63.8)	73 (27.0)	89 (33.0)	108 (40)
Someone else’s place at no cost	38 (9.0)	7 (18.4)	16 (42.1)	15 (39.5)
Employment status					.749
Employed	347 (82.0)	95 (27.4)	107 (30.8)	145 (41.8)
Self-employed	27 (6.4)	4 (14.8)	8 (29.6)	15 (55.6)
Home maker or student	26 (6.1)	6 (23.1)	10 (38.5)	10 (38.5)
Out of work	23 (5.4)	6 (26.1)	8 (34.8)	9 (39.1)
Relationship characteristics
Age difference					.878
Within 7 years	316 (74.7)	80 (25.3)	99 (31.3)	137 (43.4)
Partner older than 7 years	63 (14.9)	19 (30.2)	21 (33.3)	23 (36.5)
Partner younger than 7 years	44 (10.4)	12 (27.3)	13 (29.5)	19 (43.2)
Relationship status (in relationship with…)					.578
One person	394 (93.1)	101 (25.6)	125 (31.7)	168 (42.6)
Multiple people	29 (6.9)	10 (34.5)	8 (27.6)	11 (37.9)
Relationship duration					.242
Less than 12 months	82 (19.4)	23 (28.0)	29 (35.4)	30 (36.6)
1–3 years	134 (31.7)	37 (27.6)	38 (28.4)	59 (44.0)
4–6 years	100 (23.6)	22 (22.0)	40 (40.0)	38 (38.0)
7 years or more	107 (25.3)	29 (27.1)	26 (24.3)	52 (48.6)
Financial dependence					.052
None	257 (60.8)	88 (34.2)	77 (30.0)	92 (35.8)
Dependent on me	51 (12.1)	12 (23.5)	11 (21.6)	28 (54.9)
Dependent on partner	48 (11.3)	13 (27.1)	11 (22.9)	24 (50.0)
Mutually dependent	67 (15.8)	20 (29.9)	12 (17.9)	35 (52.2)

Note. GED = general educational development.

^ap values of Chi-square tests between relationship power dynamics and characteristics of the individual and their relationship.

IPV victimization was more prevalent than IPV perpetration. One-third (33.8%) reported IPV victimization from their partners in the past 6 months, including 21.0% who reported repeated IPV victimization. Just under a quarter of the sample (24.3%) reported perpetration of IPV, with 14.9% having repeatedly perpetrated IPV in the past 6 months. Differences in experiences of IPV victimization were significantly different across race and ethnicity, with Latino/Hispanic participants reporting the highest rate of IPV victimization (42.7%; Table 1).

IPV perpetration was not associated with any of the covariates. On the other hand, both repeated IPV victimization and perpetration were each significantly associated with non-ownership of one’s residence and being in relationships with multiple people. Also, participants who had partners who were more than 7 years younger than them were more likely to report repeated IPV perpetration (Table 2).

Table 2.

Any and Repeated IPV Perpetration Across Individual and Relationship Characteristics Among Sexual Minority Men in Relationships (N = 423).

		Any IPV perpetration			Repeated IPV perpetration
	Total	Yes	No		Yes	No
Variables	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	p valuea	N (%)	N (%)	p valuea
Total:	423 (100.0)	103 (24.3)	320 (75.7)		63 (14.9)	360 (85.1)
Individual characteristics
Age				.882			.277
18–24	40 (9.5)	11 (27.5)	29 (72.5)		7 (17.5)	33 (82.5)
25–29	97 (22.9)	22 (22.7)	75 (77.3)		8 (8.2)	89 (91.8)
30–34	128 (30.3)	29 (22.7)	99 (77.3)		19 (14.8)	109 (85.2)
35–39	86 (20.3)	24 (27.9)	62 (72.1)		16 (18.6)	70 (81.4)
40 +	72 (17.0)	17 (23.6)	55 (76.4)		13 (18.1)	59 (81.9)
Sexual orientation				.343			.788
Gay	380 (89.8)	90 (23.7)	290 (76.3)		56 (14.7)	324 (85.3)
Bisexual/queer/pansexual	43 (10.2)	13 (31.0)	29 (69.0)		7 (16.3)	35 (83.3)
Race and ethnicity				.174			.352
Latino/Hispanic	143 (33.8)	40 (28.0)	103 (72)		26 (18.2)	117 (81.8)
Black and African American	61 (14.4)	12 (19.7)	49 (80.3)		7 (11.5)	54 (88.5)
Asian American and Pacific Islander	63 (14.9)	10 (15.9)	53 (84.1)		6 (9.5)	57 (90.5)
White	140 (33.1)	39 (27.9)	101 (72.1)		23 (16.4)	117 (83.6)
Multiracial/Other	16 (3.8)	2 (12.5)	14 (87.5)		1 (6.3)	15 (93.8)
Highest attained education level				.544			.935
HS Graduate (includes GED)	16 (3.8)	6 (37.5)	10 (62.5)		2 (12.5)	14 (87.5)
Some college	86 (20.3)	19 (22.1)	67 (77.9)		14 (16.3)	72 (83.7)
College graduate	167 (39.5)	43 (25.7)	124 (74.3)		23 (13.8)	144 (86.2)
Graduate school degree	154 (36.4)	35 (22.7)	119 (77.3)		24 (15.6)	130 (84.4)
Residential situation (living at…)				.307			.037
My own place	115 (27.2)	23 (20.0)	92 (80)		11 (9.6)	104 (90.4)
A rented place	270 (63.8)	68 (25.2)	202 (74.8)		42 (15.6)	228 (84.4)
Someone else’s place at no cost	38 (9.0)	12 (31.6)	26 (68.4)		10 (26.3)	28 (73.7)
Employment status				.105			.376
Employed	347 (82.0)	79 (22.8)	268 (77.2)		49 (14.1)	298 (85.9)
Self-employed	27 (6.4)	11 (40.7)	16 (59.3)		7 (25.9)	20 (74.1)
Home maker or student	26 (6.1)	5 (19.2)	21 (80.8)		3 (11.5)	23 (88.5)
Out of work	23 (5.4)	8 (34.8)	15 (65.2)		4 (17.4)	19 (82.6)
Relationship characteristics
Age difference				.144			.016
Within 7 years	316 (74.7)	73 (23.1)	243 (76.9)		42 (13.3)	274 (86.7)
Partner older than 7 years	63 (14.9)	14 (22.2)	49 (77.8)		8 (12.7)	55 (87.3)
Partner younger than 7 years	44 (10.4)	16 (36.4)	28 (63.6)		13 (29.5)	31 (70.5)
Relationship status (in relationship with…)				.385			.047
One person	394 (93.1)	94 (23.9)	300 (76.1)		55 (14.0)	339 (86)
Multiple people	29 (6.9)	9 (31.0)	20 (69)		8 (27.6)	21 (72.4)
Relationship duration				.927			.882
Less than 12 months	82 (19.4)	22 (26.8)	60 (73.2)		13 (15.9)	69 (84.1)
1–3 years	134 (31.7)	31 (23.1)	103 (76.9)		18 (13.4)	116 (86.6)
4–6 years	100 (23.6)	25 (25.0)	75 (75)		14 (14.0)	86 (86)
7 years or more	107 (25.3)	25 (23.4)	82 (76.6)		18 (16.8)	89 (83.2)

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence, GED = general educational development.

^ap values of Chi-square tests between each IPV outcomes and characteristics of the individual and their relationship.

Relationship power dynamics were not associated with any of the covariates (see Table 3), whereas financial dependency was significantly associated with all of the covariates other than sexual orientation, education level, and relationship status (see Table 4). Relationship power dynamics and financial dependence were not associated with each other (see Table 3).

Table 4.

Financial Dependence Across Individual and Relationship Characteristics Among Sexual Minority Men in Relationships (N = 423).

		Financial dependence
	Total	None	Partner dependent on participant	Participant dependent on partner	Mutually dependent
Variables	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)	p valuea
Total:	423 (100.0)	161 (38.1)	67 (15.8)	53 (12.5)	142 (33.6)
Individual characteristics
Age						.022
18–24	40 (9.5)	23 (57.5)	5 (12.5)	6 (15.0)	6 (15.0)
25–29	97 (22.9)	45 (46.4)	12 (12.4)	9 (9.3)	31 (32.0)
30–34	128 (30.3)	47 (36.7)	18 (14.1)	15 (11.7)	48 (37.5)
35–39	86 (20.3)	29 (33.7)	13 (15.1)	14 (16.3)	30 (34.9)
40+	72 (17.0)	17 (23.6)	19 (26.4)	9 (12.5)	27 (37.5)
Sexual orientation						.374
Gay	380 (89.8)	145 (38.2)	59 (15.5)	51 (13.4)	125 (32.9)
Bisexual/queer/pansexual	43 (10.2)	16 (37.2)	8 (18.6)	2 (4.7)	17 (39.5)
Race and ethnicity						.005
Latino	143 (33.8)	47 (32.9)	19 (13.3)	20 (14.0)	57 (39.9)
Black and African American	61 (14.4)	26 (42.6)	9 (14.8)	3 (4.9)	23 (37.7)
Asian American and Pacific Islander	63 (14.9)	32 (50.8)	15 (23.8)	7 (11.1)	9 (14.3)
White	140 (33.1)	45 (32.1)	23 (16.4)	22 (15.7)	50 (35.7)
Multiracial/Other	16 (3.8)	11 (68.8)	1 (6.3)	1 (6.3)	3 (18.8)
Highest attained education level						.071
HS Graduate (includes GED)	16 (3.8)	7 (43.8)	1 (6.3)	3 (18.8)	5 (31.3)
Some college	86 (20.3)	26 (30.2)	7 (8.1)	12 (14)	41 (47.7)
College graduate	167 (39.5)	69 (41.3)	28 (16.8)	22 (13.2)	48 (28.7)
Graduate school degree	154 (36.4)	59 (38.3)	31 (20.1)	16 (10.4)	48 (31.2)
Residential situation (living at…)						.017
My own place	115 (27.2)	33 (28.7)	20 (17.4)	10 (8.7)	52 (45.2)
A rented place	270 (63.8)	115 (42.6)	43 (15.9)	35 (13.0)	77 (28.5)
Someone else’s place at no cost	38 (9.0)	13 (34.2)	4 (10.5)	8 (21.1)	13 (34.2)
Employment status						.002
Employed	347 (82.0)	140 (40.3)	60 (17.3)	33 (9.5)	114 (32.9)
Self-employed	27 (6.4)	7 (25.9)	3 (11.1)	5 (18.5)	12 (44.4)
Home maker or student	26 (6.1)	10 (38.5)	2 (7.7)	6 (23.1)	8 (30.8)
Out of work	23 (5.4)	4 (17.4)	2 (8.7)	9 (39.1)	8 (34.8)
Relationship characteristics
Age difference						<.001
Within 7 years	316 (74.7)	125 (39.6)	41 (13.0)	36 (11.4)	114 (36.1)
Partner older than 7 years	63 (14.9)	28 (44.4)	8 (12.7)	9 (14.3)	18 (28.6)
Partner younger than 7 years	44 (10.4)	8 (18.2)	18 (40.9)	8 (18.2)	10 (22.7)
Relationship status (in relationship with…)						.208
One person	394 (93.1)	155 (39.3)	60 (15.2)	48 (12.2)	131 (33.2)
Multiple people	29 (6.9)	6 (20.7)	7 (24.1)	5 (17.2)	11 (37.9)
Relationship duration						<.001
Less than 12 months	82 (19.4)	58 (70.7)	8 (9.8)	5 (6.1)	11 (13.4)
1–3 years	134 (31.7)	53 (39.6)	26 (19.4)	15 (11.2)	40 (29.9)
4–6 years	100 (23.6)	25 (25.0)	17 (17.0)	16 (16.0)	42 (42.0)
7 years or more	107 (25.3)	25 (23.4)	16 (15.0)	17 (15.9)	49 (45.8)

Note. GED = general educational development.

^ap values of Chi-square tests between financial dependence and characteristics of the individual and their relationship.

Of the participants, 38.1% reported being in relationships with no financial dependence, 15.8% had a partner that financially depended on them, 12.5% depended on their partner, and 33.6% were in a relationship with mutual financial dependence. The proportion of participants in relationships without financial dependence was smaller in older age groups. Those who were 40 years or older had the highest proportion of partners who were financially dependent on them (26.4%; Table 4)

Participants in the multiracial and other race category (68.1%) and Asian American and Pacific Islander participants (50.8%) had higher proportions of being in relationships with no financial dependence compared to other racial and ethnicity categories. In addition, Asian American and Pacific Islander participants had the highest proportion of having a financially dependent partner (23.8%) and ranked the lowest in being in relationships with mutual financial dependence (14.3%; Table 4).

Participants’ residential and employment situations were significantly associated with financial dependence: those who were living in someone else’s place without paying rent (21.1%) and out of work (39.1%) had the highest proportions of being financially dependent, while those who owned their own home (45.2%) and were self-employed (44.4%) had the highest proportion of mutual financial dependence (Table 4).

Relationship characteristics were also significantly associated with financial dependency. Having a younger partner with more than 7 years of age difference was associated with both a higher likelihood of having a partner who was financially dependent (40.9%) and a lower likelihood of being financially dependent on that partner (18.2%). When comparing financial dependence across relationship duration, participants in longer relationships were less likely to be in a relationship without financial dependence, and more likely to be in a relationship in which there was mutual financial dependence (Table 4).

IPV Among SMM and Their Associations With Relationship Power Dynamics and Financial Dependence

Table 5 presents regression analysis results for IPV victimization, after controlling for covariates. For participants with a partner who had a greater say in everyday decision-making, they were 1.69 times (95% CI [1.15, 2.52]) and 1.76 times [1.03, 3.00] more likely to have experienced any and repeated IPV victimization, respectively, compared to participants in egalitarian relationships. No associations were observed between the participant having more decision-making power and experiences of IPV victimization.

Table 5.

Associations Between Relationship Power Dynamics and Financial Dependence With Any and Repeated Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Among Sexual Minority Men in Relationships (N = 423).

	Model 1a		Model 2a		Model 3a
	Any	Repeated	Any	Repeated	Any	Repeated
Variables	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]
Relationship power dynamics (Reference: Egalitarian)
Partner has more power	1.69** [1.15, 2.52]	1.76* [1.03, 3.00]			1.47* [1.00, 2.16]	1.50 [0.88, 2.57]
Participant has more power	1.44 [0.98, 2.12]	1.21 [0.71, 2.07]			1.23 [0.84, 1.81]	1.03 [0.59, 1.78]
Financial dependence (Reference: No dependence)
Partner dependent on participant			2.59*** [1.72, 3.92]	2.67*** [1.42, 4.67]	2.45*** [1.60, 3.74]	2.58** [1.44, 4.64]
Participant dependent on partner			2.70*** [1.74, 4.19]	2.84*** [1.54, 5.23]	2.59*** [1.66, 4.04]	2.73** [1.48, 5.04]
Mutually dependent			2.11*** [1.42, 3.12]	2.03* [1.17, 3.51]	2.00*** [1.34, 2.99]	1.93* [1.10, 3.40]

^aAdjusted for individual characteristics (age, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, highest attained education level, residential situation, employment status) and relationship characteristics (age difference with partner, relationship status, relationship status, relationship duration).

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

As for financial dependence, any form of dependence (i.e., respondent dependent on partner, partner dependent on respondent, and mutual dependence) was associated with greater experiences of both any and repeated IPV victimization, compared to those in relationships with no financial dependence. When both relationship power dynamics and financial dependence were simultaneously included (model 3), having a partner with greater decision-making power was only associated with any IPV victimization (PR = 1.47, 95% CI [1.00, 2.16]); the association with repeated victimization attenuated and lost statistical significance. The associations between financial dependence and both any and repeated IPV victimization remained statistically significant.

Table 6 presents the same models from Table 5 but for IPV perpetration. Compared to IPV victimization, there was a reversal in the associations with relationship decision-making power. Participants with more power than their partner reported repeated IPV perpetration on their partners at greater rates than those in egalitarian relationships (PR = 2.37, 95% CI [1.19, 4.69]); however, association with any IPV perpetration was not statistically significant. Also, no associations were observed between having a partner with greater power and IPV perpetration. Like the findings with IPV victimization, any form of financial dependence was associated with greater prevalence of IPV perpetration compared to those in relationships with no financial dependence. These patterns of associations between decision-making power and financial dependence remained consistent in model 3, when both forms of power were included.

Table 6.

Associations Between Relationship Power Dynamics and Financial Dependence With Any and Repeated IPV Perpetration Among Sexual Minority Men in Relationships (N = 423).

	Model 1a		Model 2a		Model 3a
	Any	Repeated	Any	Repeated	Any	Repeated
Variables	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]	PR [95% CI]
Relationship power dynamics (Reference: Egalitarian)
Partner has more power	1.31 [0.79, 2.15]	1.59 [0.74, 3.44]			1.17 [0.72, 1.91]	1.33 [6.21, 2.84]
Participant has more power	1.48 [0.94, 2.34]	2.37* [1.19, 4.69]			1.29 [0.81, 2.06]	2.02* [1.02, 4.00]
Financial dependence (Reference: No dependence)
Partner dependent on participant			2.33** [1.36, 3.99]	3.01** [1.41, 6.43]	2.18** [1.24, 3.84]	2.51* [1.15, 5.48]
Participant dependent on partner			2.78*** [1.62, 4.75]	4.65*** [2.13, 10.17]	2.69*** [1.55, 4.66]	4.43*** [1.95, 10.03]
Mutually dependent			2.02** [1.23, 3.31]	3.23** [1.55, 6.69]	1.94** [1.18, 3.21]	2.93** [1.39, 6.19]

^aAdjusted for individual characteristics (age, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, highest attained education level, residential situation, employment status) and relationship characteristics (age difference with partner, relationship status, relationship status, relationship duration).

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

Discussion

This study examines both IPV victimization and perpetration in coupled SMM and their associations with relationship power dynamics and financial dependence. The 6-month prevalence of IPV victimization and perpetration was 34% and 24%, respectively. These compared to life-time prevalence of 33% for IPV victimization and 29% for IPV perpetration among SMM pooled across 52 studies (Liu et al., 2021). Even with the much shorter reference period in our study, the prevalence of IPV experiences in our findings is higher than the pooled lifetime estimates from Liu et al. (2021). This may be attributed to the use of a more comprehensive measure of IPV experiences than most existing studies examining IPV among SMM, which mainly focus on limited indicators of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse (Callan et al., 2021; Domingos & de Lira, 2024; Liu et al., 2021).

Relationship Power Dynamics and IPV

Our results show that when decision-making power is skewed to one member of the couple, the individual with more power in the couple’s daily decision-making is more likely to perpetrate violence and the one with less power is more likely to be on the receiving end of the violence. Associations between decision-making power and any IPV victimization and repeated IPV perpetration remained after adjusting for financial dependence, suggesting that power differentials in a couple’s everyday life play a role in IPV occurrences even after accounting for imbalances in financial resources. This supports our hypothesis and aligns with past research that found power imbalances in relationships may escalate into abuse and coercion (Goldenberg et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2024).

Financial Dependence and IPV

On the other hand, financial dependence in all directions was associated with both IPV victimization and perpetration. Participants who were financially dependent on their partner were more likely experience IPV victimization, while those with dependent partners were more likely to have engaged in IPV perpetration. These associations remained after controlling for decision-making power dynamics, suggesting that having the financial dominance may make one more prone to act on their aggression against their partner, independent of other existing power imbalances within the couple. However, inverse relationships were also observed: financially dependent SMM perpetrated IPV at higher rates while SMM with a financially dependent partner experienced IPV victimization at higher rates, compared to those in relationships without financial dependence. These findings imply that the relationship between financial dependence and occurrence of violence in SMM couples is more complex than how it was previously explored in the literature (Goldenberg et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2024).

Studies investigating financially dependent male partners who are also perpetrators of IPV in heterosexual relationship offer insights into this seemingly counterintuitive finding. Men who lack in power, resources, and status in income and employment compared to their female partners are more likely to perpetrate IPV (Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; Zhang & Breunig, 2023; Zito, 2020). For these men, power imbalance in favor of women is a threat to their masculinity, which motivates them to use violence to assert their dominance (De Coster & Heimer, 2021; Fisher et al., 2025; MacGregor et al., 2022; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; Zhang & Breunig, 2023). Other studies on IPV in same-sex couples have provided similar interpretations regarding the perpetration of violence (Bosco et al., 2022; McKenry et al., 2006). Disempowered individuals (i.e., those who feel an inadequacy of power) may overcompensate for their lack of power, leading to aggressive and controlling behaviors (McKenry et al., 2006). Our findings suggest that financial dependency is another source of disempowerment for SMM, which may result in the perpetration of IPV.

It is also important to note that mutual financial dependence was associated with both IPV victimization and perpetration. A third of the participants reported mutual financial dependence, which was more prevalent than being a financial dependent or provider. The proportion of mutual financial dependence was higher among SMM in longer relationships; almost half of SMM in relationships that lasted 7 or more years reported mutual financial dependence. Inclination toward mutual financial dependence among SMM aligns with past research that found SMM to favor a balanced commitment to couple’s finances (Hall et al., 2017; Solomon et al., 2005). Sharing financial resources between same-sex male couples might be a way to cope with the financial challenges that they face, such as wage penalties that exist against gay and bisexual men compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Burn, 2020; Drydakis, 2022). Simultaneously, the economic disadvantages experienced by SMM may introduce financial strain and imbalances in financial power in couples with mutual financial dependence, which in turn, be a source of conflict in the relationship and contribute to occurrence of IPV (Neppl et al., 2024). Further investigation into money management in SMM couples with mutual financial dependence is needed to better understand the distribution of financial power, a potential precursor to violence in SMM couples.

Implications for Clinical Practice and Future Research

Our findings provide implications for clinical practice and research addressing public health needs that arise from IPV within the SMM community. IPV is a well-known risk factor for poorer physical and mental health, substance use, HIV seroconversion, and sexual risk behaviors, such as unprotected anal sex (Buller et al., 2014; Edwards et al., 2015; Lagdon et al., 2014), and necessitates reduction efforts, particularly among SMM whose IPV experiences have been overlooked in research and interventions (Huntley et al., 2019; Laskey et al., 2019). Simultaneously, due to the stigma that comes with IPV experiences, both IPV perpetration and victimization tend to be underreported (Walsh & Stephenson, 2023). Therefore, effective ways to capture occurrences of IPV in same-sex relationships between men are needed.

Clinical screenings may benefit from assessing for these IPV risk factors among SMM. For example, asking about how decisions are made in everyday lives of the couple may allow the clinicians to examine how power is distributed within the couple and also gauge the dangers of IPV occurrence without directly asking about episodes of violence which can be stigmatizing or have yet to occur. The decision-making dominance subscale of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale (Pulerwitz et al., 2000) or individual items of the subscale, such as “who usually has more say about what you do together?” and “in general, who do you think has more power in your relationship?”, are prompts that can guide the initial conversations about power dynamics within SMM client’s relationship and ease the client into disclosing their IPV experiences.

In addition, how financial resources are shared within the couple is important to examine in understanding the relationship power dynamics (Goldenberg et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2024). Financial dependence itself does not equate to IPV victimization (MacGregor et al., 2022; Zhang & Breunig, 2023) and therefore, clinicians should approach with caution in interpreting the role of financial imbalance in the power dynamic within SMM relationships. It is also important to acknowledge that sharing financial resources is necessary for some SMM couples; this should be complemented by clinician awareness to examine for sources of financial strain and disruption of balance in financial power in an effort to provide interventions at individual- and dyadic-levels to deal with conflicts that root from sharing financial resources.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. While the sample was highly diverse in terms of racial and ethnic identity, with two-thirds identifying as non-White, it lacks the representation of important segments of the SMM community, specifically those who do not identify as gay (i.e., bisexual and queer men), those with less educational attainment, and those living with HIV, despite their unique experiences with IPV within the SMM community (Callan et al., 2021; Lemons-Lyn et al., 2021). Additionally, most participants were in a relationship with one partner and had partners similar to their own age (within 7 years). This limits the ability to draw inferences about the experiences of SMM in nonmonogamous relationships and relationships with larger age differences, which are subgroups that may face unique challenges related to power, financial imbalance, and IPV.

The analysis was cross-sectional; therefore, causal relationships cannot be inferred. Furthermore, the associations that IPV experiences have with relationship power dynamics and financial dependence are likely bidirectional. Also, our analytic approach did not account for participants with dual experiences of victimization and perpetration. As noted by Messinger (2018), acts of self-defense could have been reported as perpetration of IPV, leaving room for improvement in how IPV, especially perpetration, is measured and examined in sexual minority populations.

There were limitations related to the measurement of several constructs. The decision-making dominance subscale of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale (Pulerwitz et al., 2000) showed low internal consistency, as noted in other research as well (McMahon et al., 2015). Due to this, the robustness of the associations between power dynamics in decision-making between SMM in relationship might have been compromised, thereby requiring caution when interpreting our results. Furthermore, although relationship power dynamics and financial dependence were measured within the context of participants’ current relationships, their reported experiences of IPV may involve other partners. While this methodological limitation is partially addressed by controlling for relationship duration and relationship status, the study can be improved by specifically assessing IPV experiences within the current relationship. Finally, the assessment of financial dependence relied on two self-report items; future studies could utilize relative income (Zhang & Breunig, 2023) and measures of money management in couples modified for sexual minorities (Burgoyne et al., 2011) to better understand the power differential that results from differences in financial capabilities.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, our findings contribute to existing literature with the use of a three-way categorization of relationship power dynamics and consideration for both IPV victimization and perpetration in the same sample of SMM. Our data showed that specifying the direction of power imbalance is important in understanding IPV experiences among SMM couples. Our findings acknowledge that violence is a manifestation of one’s dominance in the same-sex relationships of men. Those who have a greater say than their partner in the couple’s everyday decision-making is seen to perpetrate violence at greater rates. The results regarding financial dependence and its association with IPV show how financial resources are shared within couples may influence IPV occurrences and allude to violence becoming a means of asserting one’s dominance to compensate for a lack of financial power.

Biographies

Sungsub Choo, PhD, is postdoctoral researcher in the School of Public Health at San Diego State University. Dr. Choo’s research focuses on health inequities faced by sexual and gender minority individuals, with particular attention to the social determinants of health, such as experiences of anti-LGBTQ+ stigma.

Glenn J. Wagner, PhD, is a senior behavioral scientist and clinical psychologist at the RAND Corporation. His research interests include studying interpersonal violence among same-sex couples and pregnant women, mental health interventions in low-to middle-income countries, and the use of peer advocacy to promote health behaviors.

Dan Siconolfi, PhD, is a behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation with a portfolio addressing behavioral health, healthy aging, and access to home and community-based services. His current and past research activities focus on marginalized populations, including older adults, persons with dementia, persons living with or affected by HIV, and sexual and gender minorities.

Erik D. Storholm, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Public Health at San Diego State University. Dr. Storholm is a licensed clinical psychologist with an established behavioral research program focused on reducing health inequities through multi-level interventions that prevent HIV/STI transmission by preventing violence and trauma and improving relationships among sexual and gender minority populations. Dr. Storholm is currently leading several NIH-funded projects focused on biobehavioral HIV prevention uptake and adherence among sexual and gender minorities.

Data Availability Statement

The study is ongoing. Following completion of final analyses, de-identified data will be made available to researchers upon reasonable request, contingent on submission of a proposal and approval by the study team.