After taking into account the attrition
experienced by Wave 2 data,
the final sample of respondents who were married, cohabiting
or
remarried was found to consist of 369 males and 368 females
(n=737).
The demographic characteristics of this subsample drawn from
the
WHADS dataset are outlined below. Table 10 provides a
complete
summary of Wave 2 male and female demographic data.
The mean age for male and female respondents was 47.08 years
(SD. =
11.76, range 22-67) and 44.10 years (SD. = 12.03, range
21-68),
respectively. Frequency data for Wave 2 indicate a
shift in the
proportion of female respondents found in each age
group. For
example, the proportion of respondents found in the 18- 34
year age
group increased (33.4%) whereas the proportion of respondents
found
in the 50+ age group decreased (29.1%).
Wave 2 data included an additional response category for this
variable (cohabiters). The distribution of Wave 2
respondents was
found to be predominantly married (90.5% of males and 91.6%
of
females) followed by males and females who cohabited with a
partner
(7.3% and 6.3%, respectively). Only 2.2 percent of
males and females
were found to be remarried.
Wave 2 analyses conducted on six levels of educational
attainment
indicated that 56.9 percent of males and 51.1 percent of
females
achieved educational status beyond receipt of a high school
diploma.
Wave 1 data indicated a similar distribution pattern for
males
(53.5%) and females (49.6%).
Results of Wave 2 data on current employment status are
consistent
with those found in Wave 1 for male respondents who were
employed
(84.4% in Wave 1 v. 79.4% in Wave 2) but not for females who
were
employed (62% in Wave 1 v. 40.2% in Wave 2). The
category that
experienced a fivefold increase during Wave 2 is that of
"student"
for male respondents (.4% v. 2.2%).
Total family income was distributed across five broadly based
categories. Wave 2 results indicated that among male
respondents,
56.2 percent reported a combined family income greater than
$50,000
per year. The same category was represented by only
42.2 percent of
female respondents. Compared to Wave 1 data, both males
and females
report higher total family incomes in Wave 2. For
example, Wave 2
reports of those earning combined family incomes of $50,000
or more
annually increased from 43.8 percent in Wave 1 to 56.2
percent in
Wave 2 for males and from 35.6 percent in Wave 1 to 42.2
percent in
Wave 2 for females.
The distribution of religious preference categories for both
male and
female respondents remained virtually unchanged from those
reported
in Wave 1 of this project. The largest religious
preference category
indicated by respondents was Protestant (44.0% of males and
44.3% of
females), followed by Catholic (25.8% for males and 31.0% of
females). Combined, these represented 69.8 percent
(males) and 75.3
percent (females) of all response categories.
As described above, the distribution of Wave 1 and Wave 2 data
with
respect to racial groups remained unchanged for both males
and
females. Descriptive analyses conducted on Wave 2 data
indicated that
95.7 percent of males (v. 93.3% reported in Wave 1) and 94.0
percent
of females (v. 92.3% in Wave 1) reported being white.
Category
Males Females
N
%
N %
Mean Age 47.08 years 44.10 years
Age Groups
18-34
years
92 24.9
123 33.4
35-49
years
129 35.0
138 37.5
50 years
+
148 40.1
107 29.1
Total
369 100.0
368 100.0
Marital Status
Married
334 90.5
337 91.6
Living with
partner
27 7.3
23 6.3
Remarried/previously
8 02.2
8 02.2
divorced
Total*
369 100.0
368 100.0
Educational Status
Grade
School
10 2.7
10 2.7
Some High
School
75 20.3
71 19.3
Completed High
School 74
20.1
99 26.9
Some college or technical
diploma
90 24.4
93 25.3
University
Graduate 70
19.0
68 18.5
Post Graduate Education
50 13.6
27 07.3
Total
369 100.0
368 100.0
Current Employment Status
Working full
time
294 79.4
148 40.2
Working part
time
6 01.6
82 22.3
Unemployed, but
looking 6
01.6
11 03.0
Student
8 02.2
6 01.6
Homemaker
--- ----
85 23.1
Retired
45 12.2
26 07.1
Other
10 02.7
10 02.7
Total
369 100.0
368 100.0
Income
<$10,000/Yr.
5 01.4
2 00.6
$10,000-$20,000/Yr.
10 02.8
24 06.9
$20,000-$35,000/Yr.
58 16.0
73 21.1
$35,000-$50,000/Yr.
86 23.7
101 29.2
>$50,000/Yr.
204 56.2
146 42.2
Total*
363 100.0
343 100.0
Table 10 cont'd.... TABLE 10 (continued)
Religious Preference
Catholic
95 25.8
114 31.0
Protestant
162 44.0
163 44.3
Jewish
13 03.5
14 03.8
Other
34 09.2
37 10.1
No religious preference
64 17.4
40 10.9
Total*
368 100.0
368 100.0
Race
White
353 95.7
346 94.0
Non-white
16 04.3
22 06.0
Total
369 100.0
368 100.0
* Note: Not all totals will equal 369 or 368 (100%) due to
missing
data and rounding.
Descriptive analyses conducted on the entire sample of Wave 2
married, cohabiting and remarried respondents indicated that
17.3
percent of males (n=64, Range 6-22, SD. 1.50) and 27.4
percent of
females (n=100, Range 6-17, SD. 1.47) reported perpetrating
at least
one episode of partner abuse at some point during their
relationship
with a current partner (p < .001). The most common
form of partner
abuse tactic reported for both males and females was throwing
or
smashing something (but not at partner) (11.1% and 14.2%,
respectively). Table 11 summarizes an item analysis of
the CTS for
the prevalence of perpetrated partner abuse by males and
females in
Wave 2.
Type of Violence % Males % Females Chi-Square
Minor Violence Acts
Threw or smashed
something
11.1 14.2 4.18
(but not at partner)
Threatened to throw
something
4.4 9.9 11.64*
Threw something at
partner
3.3 8.8 8.58**
Pushed, shoved or
grabbed
6.8 11.8 7.70
Severe Violence Acts
Hit
partner
3.3 8.2 10.60**
Hit partner with something
hard .3
2.2 5.71
Violence Indexes
Minor Violence
Index
16.5 26.0 21.88**
Severe Violence
Index
3.3 9.0 14.41**
Overall Abuse
Index
17.3 27.4 10.69***
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
For males: overall scale means
= 6.43, SD. = 1.50,
range = 6-22
For females: overall scale means = 6.66,
SD. = 1.47,
range = 6-17
The following are the abuse tactics found to
differ significantly
by gender: 1) threatened to throw something (chi-square =
11.64, p <
.05) , 2) threw something at partner (chi-square = 8.58, p
< .01),
3), and hit partner (chi-square = 10.60, p < .01).
In each case, a
greater proportion of females was found to engage in the
perpetration
of partner abuse tactics.
To facilitate an objective comparison of Wave 1 and
Wave 2 prevalence rates for perpetrated partner abuse,
frequency
analyses were repeated on both waves of data based on the
same
sample. These analyses provided similar results to
those just
reported, and indicated that 17.5 percent of males and 27.6
percent
of females perpetrated at least one episode of partner abuse
during
the course of their relationship with a current
partner. Compared to
the prevalence rates of perpetrated partner abuse reported
during
Wave 1, Wave 2 data experienced a 35.01 percent reduction in
abuse
reporting by males and a 29.01 percent reduction in abuse
reporting
by females.
Post hoc analyses found that 18.4 percent of
the males (n=52) and
25 percent of the females (n=63) who reported
"abuse" in Wave 1,
reported "no abuse" in Wave 2. Furthermore,
in order to test the
possibility that respondents' denial of partner abuse may
have been
in response to social pressure, correlations were
conducted on Wave
2 CTS and the EPQL scores. Results indicated a
significant negative
correlation for female respondents (r=-.12, p < .05)
whereby
individuals who scored high on the EPQL (indicating a
tendency for
dissimulation) also scored low on the CTS.
In order to examine the recency of perpetrated partner abuse,
married, cohabiting and remarried respondents were asked to
indicate
the last time they perpetrated any of the six partner abuse
items
against their current partner. On average, the last
episode of
perpetrated abuse occurred 5.99 years ago for males (range
1-30, SD.
8.10) and 7.33 years ago for females (range 1-36, SD.
8.22). Of
those reporting perpetrating partner abuse at some time, 56.5
percent
of males and 35.7 percent of females indicated that their
most recent
episode of perpetrated partner abuse happened within the past
two
years.
Frequency analyses indicated that 41.9 percent of males (n=26)
and
25.5 percent of females (n=24) who had previously reported
perpetrating partner abuse also acknowledged perpetrating
partner
abuse during the past year. This represents 7.1 percent
and 6.6
percent of all married, cohabiting and remarried males and
females
participating in this survey. On average, partner abusing
males
reported 3.08 incidents of abuse (range 1-11, SD. 2.85)
during the
past year, while partner abusing females reported 3.91
incidents of
abuse (range 1-20, SD. 3.92) during that same time period.
Chi-square analyses were conducted on
individual partner abuse
items as well as on the total partner abuse perpetrated
during the
past year. Results indicated only one significant sex
difference
(i.e., males "threw or smashed something" more
often than females).
This item was also found to be the most common partner abuse
tactic
reported by males (5.7%). "Pushing, shoving or
grabbing" was found
to be the most common partner abuse tactic among females
(3.8%).
Table 12 provides a summary of these analyses.
Variable
Number of % Abuse
Chi-Square
Occurrences
M F M F
1. Threw or smashed
21 7
5.7 1.9 7.20**
something (not at
partner)
2. Threatened to
7 12 1.9
2.6 1.41
throw something
(not at partner)
3. Threw something
5 4
1.4 1.1 0.11
at partner
4. Pushed, shoved or 12
14 3.3
3.8 0.17
grabbed partner
5. Hit partner 6 9 1.6 2.5 0.63
6. Hit partner with
1 3
0.3 0.8 1.02
something hard
Total Abuse 26 24 7.1 6.6 0.07
Note: ** p < .01
In order to assess the bivariate relationships between current
partner abuse (i.e., abuse occurring during the past year)
and the
demographic measures included in Wave 2 of this research,
analysis of
variance and chi-squares were performed on these variables.
The mean number of partner abuse incidents
perpetrated during the
past year was found to be significantly greater for males who
cohabited and who were unemployed, nonwhite and earned less
than
$20,000 per year. Males who were 50 years old and over,
reported
significantly fewer partner abuse incidents during that same
time.
For females, the age group of 18 and 34 years was associated
with
significantly more partner abuse incidents perpetrated during
the
past year.
Chi-square analyses indicated the following:
Significantly more
males who had perpetrated partner abuse during the past year
were
found to be unemployed (50%), earned less than $20,000 per
year
(26.67%) , and belonged to the religious preference category
"other"
(17.65%). Significantly fewer of these same males were
also found to
be 50 years and over (2.03%) and married (5.09%).
Significantly more
females who had perpetrated partner abuse during the past
year were
between the ages of 18 and 35 (11.4%), cohabited (27.3%), and
had
some high school education (14.1%). Tables 13 and 14
summarize the
results of these bivariate relationships for males and
females,
respectively.
Variable
N Mean # of F
%Abuse Chi-Square
Abuse Incidents
Age Groups
18-34
yrs.
92 .36 3.60*
11.96 10.08**
35-49 yrs.
129
.33 9.30
50 yrs.
+
148
.04 2.03
Marital Status
Married
334 .14 10.40***
5.09 22.77***
Cohabiting
27
1.07 22.23
Remarried
8
.63 37.50
Educational Status
Grade school
10 .33 0.47
16.67 4.54
Some high Sc
75
.29 9.33
High diploma
74
.07 2.70
Some college
90
.26 8.89
or tech
College degree
70
.31 7.14
Post
grad
50
.17 14.24
Current Employment
Employed
300 .21 4.46***
7.00 15.05***
Unemployed
6
2.33 50.00
Annual Income
<$20,000/yr
15 1.00 3.04*
26.67 12.18***
$20-35,000/yr
58
.31 10.34
$35-50,000/yr
86
.15 6.98
>$50,000/yr
204
.16 4.41
Religious Preference
Catholic
95 .17
1.44 3.16 12.01*
Protestant
162
.19 4.94
Jewish
13
.08 7.69
Other
34
.32 17.65
No religious
64
.47 12.50
preference
Race
White
353 .19
4.08* 6.80 .76
Nonwhite
16
.75 12.50
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Variable
N Mean # of F
%Abuse Chi-Square
Abuse Incidents
Age Groups
18-34
yrs. 123
.54 3.84* 11.4
7.10*
35-49
yrs. 137
.10
3.6
50 yrs.
+ 105
.13
4.8
Marital Status
Married
335 .23
.65 5.1 7.03***
Cohabiting
22
.55 27.3
Remarried 8
.50 12.5
Educational Status
Grade school
10 .00
0.98 0.0 13.48*
Some high Sc
71
.39 14.1
H.sc diploma
99
.31
9.1
Some college
92
.04
2.2
or tech
College degree
66
.47
4.5
Post
grad
27
.00
0.0
Current Employment
Employed
228 .34
.46 8.3 1.00
Unemployed
11
.00
0.0
Annual Income
<$20,000/yr
25 .12
0.46 4.0 4.77
$20-35,000/yr
73
.41 12.3
$35-50,000/yr
99
.18
5.1
>$50,000/yr 146
.27
5.5
Religious Preference
Catholic
114 .23
.81 7.9 4.45
Protestant
162
.36
8.0
Jewish
14
.50
7.1
Other
37
.00
0.0
No religious
38
.08
2.6
preference
Race
White
343 .25
0.14 6.7 0.16
Nonwhite
22
.36
4.6
Note: * p < .05, *** p < .001
Next: Chapter 5 Part 3
HTML by Walter H. Schneider
___________
Updates:
2001 02 10 (format changes)
|
Walter H. Schneider Children need Both Parents --
Once a Parent, a Parent for Life You are visitor # |