ABSTRACT
Since the mid 1970's, the literature has seen a
proliferation of research conducted in the area of family violence. The
publication of the results of Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz's (1980) national U.S.
survey on family violence, has largely been responsible for raising our
awareness concerning the pervasiveness of this social problem.
In spite of this abundance of recent research, there is still
a lack of longitudinal research on this topic in general population samples.
In addition, previous studies conducted in the general
population have primarily focused on the environmental influences on partner
abuse. Studies investigating individual differences as potential partner
abuse risk factors have been for the most part restricted to research on clinical
samples.
As part of the Winnipeg Health and Drinking Survey (a longitudinal
survey of adult Winnipeg residents) (Barnes & Murray, 1989), data were
gathered on spouse abuse. This thesis examines the pattern of male and
female perpetrated partner abuse and its associated risk factors. The data
of married, cohabiting and remarried males and females between the ages of 18 and
65 years collected at two points in time over two years, provided the basis for
this study's analyses. In both phases of the research, respondents
participated in a 90 minute session involving a structured interview and a self
administered questionnaire.
In addition to the socio-demographic data and multiple
indices of alcohol and personality measures collected during Wave 1 of the data
collection, Wave 2 data included measures of stress, violence in the family of
origin and contextual issues surrounding the perpetration of partner abuse (i.e.,
drinking at the time of an abuse episode, injuries inflicted on a partner, and
abuse perpetrated in self defence). The dependent measure investigated in
both waves of this study was based on six items drawn from the Conflict Tactics
Scale (Straus, 1979).
This research was guided by a diathesis-stress model of
partner abuse. In this model, the importance of underlying variables such as
personality characteristics and violence in the family of origin, and situational
variables such as stress and alcohol in predicting partner abuse were
examined. In the logistic regression analyses predicting the incidence of
partner abuse in the year prior to the follow-up interview, the following
significant predictors emerged for males:
- being young in age,
- non-Catholic,
- perpetrating past partner abuse,
- observing father hitting mother,
- experiencing high stress,
- the interaction between stress and past perpetrated partner abuse and
- the interaction between stress and age.
For females, the significant predictors were:
- having a high score on the EPQP,
- having a high score on the Neuroticism Index ,
- observing mother hitting father,
- not observing parents' mutual violence,
- the interaction between alcohol and neuroticism,
- the interaction between alcohol and observing mother hitting father, and
- the interaction between alcohol and past perpetrated partner abuse.
The major contribution of this research to the
literature on
family violence rests in its demonstration that the experience of
perpetrated partner abuse at a given point in time as well as across time, is
different for males and females. This and other findings challenge researchers to
find ways of preventing partner abuse before it begins. Early
identification of individuals at risk for partner abuse may be critical to
providing effective intervention. Once accomplished, the means to break the
cycle of violence could be at hand.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this dissertation represents more than
just a demonstration of competence as a researcher. Rather, the process
involved in its formulation and writing has provided me with an opportunity for
both personal growth and development. Beyond acquiring the skills needed to
conduct research independently, I have also gained much insight into my potential
as a person. For me, the key to success has been twofold; the desire to
accomplish something, and the belief that it can be done. The latter
however, could not have been possible without the support of those who have been
close to me. For that reason, there are a number of persons to whom I would
like to express my gratitude.
I have been extremely fortunate to have worked with a dissertation
committee as dedicated as the one that guided this research. As a group,
they provided a model for effective research direction through cooperation and
placing the needs of a student ahead of others. They are to be thanked for
never settling for anything less than what they believed I was fully capable
of. I am honoured to have been associated with such a wonderful group of
professionals.
As individuals, each has left an indelible mark on my life
that will not be forgotten. Dr. Gordon Barnes has served as my research
advisor across two degrees. His expert direction, experience and knowledge
have contributed to my development as a researcher. He is a mentor in the
truest sense. Dr. Carol Harvey has also been a member of my thesis
committee across two degrees. Her optimism and sensitivity toward others
have never compromised the high standards she sets for herself, her students and
faculty. Dr. Shiva Halli through his endless patience and encouragement has
demonstrated that the process of data analysis need not be impossible.
Finally, Dr. Neil Malamuth, my external examiner contributed considerable insight
into the research conducted, and provided me with a number of thought provoking
challenges.
My friends in the Family Studies Graduate Program have been,
and still remain a source of support and friendship to me. I have been
very fortunate to have been associated with a group of such bright and
articulate women. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr.
David Patton, Ken Kramer and Lou-Ellen Armstrong with the data analyses as well
as the help of Leonie Stranc who was my Word Perfect editor
"extraordinaire".
I would like to thank those who are closest to me; my family.
Throughout my graduate student years they have shared the highs and the lows;
my successes as well as my disappointments and frustrations. Yet, in spite
of the often tumultuous times, they have all been a source of support and
comfort. My husband, Michael has borne the brunt of much of my frustration,
and for his unwavering belief in my ability, I am forever grateful.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this research to one very
special little girl; my daughter, Leah Rachael Sommer Thomas. Since the
moment of her conception, she has had to share her Mommy with this very demanding
piece of work. For all the times, you had to wait "just another moment
until I jot this down", I thank you Leah; for all your understanding,
your patience and most of all, for your love. Without your cooperation, the
completion of this research could not have been accomplished as expeditiously nor
as effectively as it has.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
|
|
|
Table 1: Demographic
Characteristics of the Married and Cohabiting Sample (Wave 1 Data) |
|
61 |
|
|
|
Table 2: Male Perpetrated
Violence (Wave 1 Data) |
|
64 |
|
|
|
Table 3: Standard
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Male Perpetrated Partner Abuse (Wave 1 Data) |
|
65 |
|
|
|
Table 4: Female
Perpetrated Violence (Wave 1 Data) |
|
66 |
|
|
|
Table 5: Standard
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Female Perpetrated Partner Abuse (Wave 1
Data) |
|
67 |
|
|
|
Table 6: Cronbach's
Alpha Coefficients for Male and Female Respondents in Wave 1 and Wave 2 |
|
94 |
|
|
|
Table 7: Test-Retest
Reliabilities: Pearson's Correlation Coefficients on Wave 1 and Wave 2 Measures for Male
and Female Respondents |
|
95 |
|
|
|
Table 8: Sample
Attrition by Demographic and Partner Abuse Variables for Married and Remarried Male and
Female Respondents who Participated in Wave 1 |
|
97 |
|
|
|
Table 9: Personality
Alcohol and Partner Abuse Scores by Study Participation for Married and
Remarried Male and Female Respondents |
|
99 |
|
|
|
Table 10: Demographic
Characteristics of the Wave 2 Sample of Married Cohabiting and Remarried Males
and Females from Wave 2 |
|
103 |
|
|
|
Table 11: Wave 2
Perpetrated Partner Abuse Prevalence Rates by Married Cohabiting Remarried Males
and Females |
|
105 |
|
|
|
Table 12: Partner Abuse
Perpetrated During the Past Year by gender |
|
107 |
|
|
|
Table 13: Incidence of
Perpetrated Partner Abuse During the Past Year by Demographics for Male
Respondents |
|
109 |
|
|
|
Table 14: Incidence of
Perpetrated Partner Abuse During the Past Year by Demographics for Female
Respondents |
|
110 |
|
|
|
Table 15: Mean CTS
Scores for the Prevalence of Perpetrated Partner Abuse by Drinking Level
for Males and Females Based on Wave 1 and Wave 2 |
|
112 |
|
|
|
Table 16: Mean Number
of Partner Abuse Incidents Perpetrated During the Past Year by Drinking
Level for Males and Females based on Wave 2 Data |
|
112 |
|
|
|
Table 17: Perpetrated
Partner Abuse by Stress During the Past Two Years |
|
114 |
|
|
|
Table 18: Stress by
Perpetrated Partner Abuse and Gender (Weighted Scale) |
|
115 |
|
|
|
Table 19: Stress by
Perpetrated Partner Abuse and Gender (Unweighted Scale) |
|
117 |
|
|
|
Table 20: Pearson
Correlation Coefficients: Demographic Variables and Perpetrated Partner Abuse
Comparing Wave 1 and Wave 2 Data Based on the Same Sample of
Male Respondents |
|
122 |
|
|
|
Table 21: Pearson
Correlation Coefficients: Demographic Variables and Perpetrated Partner
Abuse Comparing Wave 1 and Wave 2 Data Based on the Same Sample of
Female Respondents |
|
123 |
|
|
|
Table 22: Pearson
Correlation Coefficients: Stress Experienced During the Past Two Years and
Current Perpetrated Partner Abuse among Males and Females Based
on Wave 2 Data |
|
124 |
|
|
|
Table 23: Pearson
Correlation Coefficients: Violence in the Family of Origin and Perpetrated
Partner Abuse by Male and Female Respondents |
|
125 |
|
|
|
Table 24: Pearson
Correlation Coefficients: Alcohol Consumption and Dependence and
Perpetrated Partner Abuse Comparing Wave 1 and Wave 2 Data Based on
the Same Sample of Male Respondents |
|
127 |
|
|
|
Table 25: Pearson
Correlation Coefficients: Alcohol Consumption and Dependence and
Perpetrated Partner Abuse Comparing Wave 1 and Wave 2 Data Based on
the Same Sample of Female Respondents |
|
129 |
|
|
|
Table 26: Pearson
Correlation Coefficients: Personality Measures and Perpetrated Partner
Abuse Comparing Wave 1 and Wave 2 Data Based on the Same Sample of
Male Respondents |
|
131 |
|
|
|
Table 27: Pearson
Correlation Coefficients: Personality Measures and Perpetrated Partner
Abuse Comparing Wave 1 and Wave 2 Data Based on the Same Sample of
Female Respondents |
|
134 |
|
|
|
Table 28: Coefficients
Representing the Main Effects of Diathesis and Stress Measures and their Interactions
on the Log Odds of Perpetrating Current Partner Abuse among
Males based on Wave 1 and Wave 2 data |
|
143 |
|
|
|
Table 29: Coefficients
Representing the Main Effects of Diathesis and Stress Measures and their
Interactions on the Log Odds of Perpetrating Current Partner
Abuse among Females based on Wave 1 and Wave 2 data
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIST OF FIGURES
|
Figure 1:
Diathesis-Stress Model of Partner Abuse |
|
73 |
|
|
|
Figure 2: Stress by
Partner Abuse and Gender (Based on Unweighted Stress Scale Means) |
|
116 |
|
|
|
Figure 3: Percentage of
Males Reporting Current Partner Abuse by Age by Stress |
|
139 |
|
|
|
Figure 4: Percentage of
Males Reporting Current Partner Abuse by Past Abuse by Stress |
|
140 |
|
|
|
Figure 5: Percentage of
Females Reporting Current Partner Abuse by Neuroticism by Alcohol |
|
146 |
|
|
|
Figure 6: Percentage of
Females Reporting Current Partner Abuse by Mother Hitting Father by Alcohol
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
Figure 7: Percentage of
Females Reporting Current Partner Abuse by Past Abuse by Alcohol |
|
148 |
Next: Chapter 1
___________
Updates:
2001 02 10 (format changes)
2002 02 13 (added counter, and links to Dr. Sommer's website and e-mail address)
HTML by Walter H. Schneider
|