Male and Female Perpetrated Partner Abuse: Testing a Diathesis-Stress Model 
by Reena Sommer

CHAPTER TWO (part 3)

     Sociological Perspectives

     Resource Theory.

     Goode's (1971) Resource Theory as well as others that have emanated
     from it (i.e., the exchange/ resource theory (Makepeace, 1987),
     social exchange theory (Goode, 1971) and interpersonal
     resource-exchange theory (Teichman & Teichman, 1989), provide an
     influential explanation of spouse abuse. According to this
     perspective, the family is viewed as a power system in which its
     members rely upon some degree of force to ensure that others serve
     their ends (Goode, 1971).  Force is viewed as one of several
     resources that forms the basis of all stratification systems.

          Another important principle of this theory addresses the notion
     of exchange.  Within the family structure, people are bound to each
     other through ongoing transactions or exchanges (Goode, 1971).
     Violence is seen as an outcome of the inequity of exchange.  Goode
     (1971), Makepeace (1987) and Peterson (1991) suggested that families
     from the lower social strata are particularly vulnerable to abuse
     because they have fewer alternative resources.  For example, they
     have less prestige, money, and power.  As a result, they experience
     greater frustration and bitterness.  In addition to these, Peterson
     (1991) also found that women seeking divorces (some of whom cited
     partner abuse as grounds) described their husbands as having meagre
     psychological resources.  For many, having limited social and
     psychological resources also translate into violent behaviour.

          When addressing the issues of power status and frustration as
     they relate to violence, Teichman and Teichman (1989) developed a
     classification system of interpersonal resources that enabled them to
     offer several predictions with regard to the probability of abusive
     episodes.  Among their findings, they reported an increased
     likelihood for women to encounter violence when the
     resource-exchanges between the spouses were unbalanced in their
     favour. This was due to prevailing societal norms and beliefs
     regarding the placement of women within the structure of society.
     This research suggests that imbalances in resource-exchanges exist in
     both macro and micro levels of the social environment.
 

     Social Learning Theory.

     Social learning theory is a conceptual framework that has its origins
     in the work of psychologist, Albert Bandura (1965).  According to
     Bandura (1986), children's acquisition of many complex behaviours are
     due to their exposure to competent models that display appropriate
     behaviour in solving problems and coping with their world.  Inasmuch
     as positive behaviours can be acquired through positive role models,
     conversely, negative behaviours can also be acquired through the
     modelling of negative behaviours.  With this in mind, Bandura (1979)
     applied social learning principles to the acquisition and maintenance
     of aggressive habits.

          It is the latter set of circumstances that has been of interest
     to those in the area of family violence.  Researchers have applied
     social learning theory to explain the following aspects of the
     development and transmission of family violence: the patterning of
     violence among adult children observing violence in their families of
     origin (Kalmuss, 1984), the intergenerational transmission of family
     aggression (Cappell & Heiner, 1990), the generalization of aggression
     from one relationship to another across time (Malone et al., 1989),
     and the continuation of marital violence in remarriage (Kalmuss &
     Seltzer, 1986).

          The above examples of research provide support for the modelling
     effects of early exposure to violence within one's family of origin.
     According to Burgess and Youngblade (1988), families are the primary
     socializing agent of children and have an enduring effect on an
     individual's social development.  Furthermore, they suggested that
     abusive parent's reliance upon coercive patterns of family
     interaction will likely to also be emulated by children in later
     relationships.  For children, being a victim of abuse does not turn
     them against violence, but instead teaches it as a value (Straus,
     1980).  Finally, Burgess and Youngblade (1988) suggested that a
     child's peer relations may function either as a deterrent or a causal
     pathway in carrying out those behaviours observed at home. It
     therefore appears that the influence of other significant role models
     may have a mediating or an indirect effect on the development of
     family violence.
 

     Conflict Theory.

     Murray Straus (1979) introducedthe application of conflict theory
     to the study of family violencewhen he suggested that conflict
     within a relationship is a necessary condition to ensure its
     continued functioning.  Hotaling and Straus (1980) suggested that
     attempts to suppress conflict may result in the collapse of a family
     or any social unit either through its failure to adapt to changing
     conditions or because hostility accumulates, eroding group
     solidarity.  Moreover, an avoidance of conflict situations ironically
     tends to increase hostility as the possibility of violence (Foss, 1980).

          Hotaling and Straus (1980) also suggested that the likelihood of
     conflict is greatest within the family because unlike other special
     purpose groups (i.e., academic departments, businesses or
     corporations), the activities and interests of a family are all
     encompassing, thus leaving more opportunity for arguments to develop.
     These authors cited the high frequency of interactions between
     spouses as having a major impact on the experience of conflict within
     a relationship.  Finally, these authors suggested that if particular
     conditions exist (i.e., unemployment, stress, history of violence in
     the family of origin), family members are more likely to engage in
     violent behaviour, which in turn also increases the likelihood for
     injuries to occur.

          In presenting the rationale underlying the CTS, Straus (1979)
     distinguished among methods or "tactics" of conflict resolution.  He
     noted that a critical issue in gaining an understanding of conflict
     theory is not the existence or amount of conflict, but the methods in
     which they are resolved.  Studies examining the presence of conflict
     within marital relationships have found that conflict resulting in
     violence is affected by a number of variables.  Coleman and Straus
     (1986) found rates of conflict were lowest among equalitarian couples
     and highest among male-dominant and female-dominant couples.
     Moreover, when conflict did occur in dominant family types, it was
     associated with a higher risk of violence compared to similar levels
     of conflict in equalitarian couples.

          Another study conducted by Lloyd (1990) compared violent and
     nonviolent marriages.  She found that the relationship between
     conflict and violence was mediated by level of distress. Her results
     indicated that distressed-violent couples were characterized by lower
     levels of squabbles, problem solving, negotiations, and apology, and
     by higher levels of verbal attack, withdrawal, and stable heated
     arguments.  Nondistressed-violent couples on the other hand, reported
     a more mixed picture of conflict strategies such as problem solving,
     negotiation, and compromise, combined with anger and verbal attack.

          The research just presented illustrates the important role that
     conflict plays in family relationships.  As shown, the link between
     conflict and violence is affected by structural factors in addition
     to those related to the manner in which conflict is managed and
     resolved.
 

     Stress Theory.

     According to Straus (1980) and Hotaling and Straus (1980), the level
     of stress experienced in the family is related to the ongoing
     structural changes that it experiences.  Examples of these structural
     changes include marriage, the birth of children, divorce, retirement,
     aging, and death.  Moreover, the experience of stress is thought to
     be individualized.  According to Farrington (1986), stressful stimuli
     need not be catastrophic events, but instead, can take the form of
     routine and mundane circumstances.

          The family is also vulnerable because of the effects of stress.
     "Together with the huge emotional investment typical of family
     relationships, it means that the family is likely to be the locus of
     more and more serious stresses than other groups" (p. 17, Hotaling &
     Straus, 1980).  Farrington (1986) outlined two additional
     characteristics of the modern American family that place it at risk
     for the occurrence of violence.  First, he argued that in spite of a
     family's reservoir of skills, attributes, and resources, it is not
     ideally suited to satisfactorily cope with a variety of stressor
     stimuli to which members come into contact.  The ability to cope is
     particularly impeded when families are faced with an overload of
     stressors such as unemployment, illness, and financial problems.

          The other characteristic relates to the acceptance of violence
     as a reasonable response to stress and frustration in American
     society (Farrington, 1986).  Farrington (1986) suggested that the
     existence of powerful social norms both encourage and reinforce the
     relationships between stress, frustration and violent behaviour.
     Although the rates of violent crimes are lower in Canada than in the
     U.S. (Browne, 1987; Statistics Canada, 1988), the dynamics underlying
     violence are thought to be similar.  The high prevalence and
     incidence rates of abuse reported previously seem to suggest that the
     legitimization of these norms are especially evident within the
     context of the family. Summary.  The theories reviewed above are
     reflective of a perspective concerned with gaining an understanding
     of the social underpinnings of intimate relationships experiencing
     violent interactions. Straus et al. (1980) and other proponents of
     sociological conceptual frameworks have been responsible for alerting
     the public to the seriousness surrounding the problem of family
     violence. As a result of their efforts, violence between family
     members is no longer considered a private matter, but one that is a
     concern of society, in general.

          Sociologists' explanations of partner abuse are nevertheless
     incomplete. First, in a review article on family violence, Emery
     (1989) noted that the application of social learning theory to the
     study of family violence ignores the role of emotion in mediating
     some forms of family violence.  Moreover, whereas social learning
     models explain how family members are socialized into becoming
     abusive, they do little to explain how people learn to inhibit
     violence. In as much as violent behaviour can be learned, those
     principles involved in its learning should also be operative in its
     repression.

          Finally, Emery (1989) noted that much of the related data has
     been retrospective.  Reliance on this type of data is subject to the
     effects of respondents' changing recall over time, as well as limited
     opportunities to verify their accounts.  Research aimed at assessing
     both couples' and parents' past and current conflict resolution
     strategies may shed some light the validity of the relationship
     between adult relationship violence and violence in the family of
     origin.  Research employing this type of methodology has yet to be
     tested.
 
 

    Psychological Perspectives

     Researchers conducting psychologically based investigations have
     studied constitutional factors such as temperament or emotionality,
     aggression, and personality, as well as situational factors such as
     alcohol or drug abuse as explanatory agents in family violence.
     However, there is considerable controversy over the role of
     psychopathology in the occurrence of violence.  For example, the
     effects of psychological variables in violent modes of conflict
     resolution have been minimized by Gelles and Straus (1988).
     Nevertheless, some researchers have recently begun to emulate the
     general population survey methodologies popular among sociologists
     through the investigation of psychological risk factors (Sommer et
     al., 1992; Bland & Orn, 1986).
 

     Psychoanalytic Theory.

     Studies that employ a psychoanalytic theory of spouse abuse focus on
     the intrapsychic forces within the individual.  Violence against
     women is seen as an attempt on the part of the abuser to seek
     confirmation of a masculine identity (Gondolf, 1985).  By hating
     women, it is thought that the abuser is able to contain and control
     the feminine aspects of his upbringing. To date, psychoanalytic
     theory has been applied only to the explanation of male perpetrated
     violence.  Explanations of violence by women have not been attempted.
     Although the psychoanalytic theory possesses intuitive appeal,
     hypotheses derived from it are difficult to test.  At best, this
     theory's value lies in post hoc explanations of a phenomenon.  As a
     result, this theoretical perspective is limited in its application to
     empirical research.
 

     Disinhibition Theory.

     The application of the disinhibition theory is evident in research
     conducted by both sociologists and psychologists.  While the former
     are interested in the effects of alcohol consumption as a social
     force (Kantor & Straus, 1987),  the latter focus on the biochemical
     effects alcohol has on the behaviour of individuals (Gustafson,
     1985).

          According to this theoretical perspective, alcohol consumption
     is linked to violent behaviour through its physiological effects
     releasing an individual's violent impulses, tendencies, and
     inhibitions (Hamilton & Collins, 1981; Spielberger, 1970).  Kantor
     and Straus (1987) explained that "alcohol's effects on the central
     nervous system release inhibitions by depressing brain function or
     suppressing super-ego function thereby allowing the expression of
     rage" (p. 214).  Walker (1979) proposed that there may be
     similarities between the specific blood chemistry changes evident
     under a generalized stress reaction such as battering and those found
     in alcoholics.

          There is also evidence that in addition to the physiological and
     cognitive effects of alcohol on the individual, personal
     vulnerability (Barnes et al., 1991) and the context in which the
     interaction occurs (Shapiro, 1982) play a role in determining the
     likelihood of violent behaviour.  The high rates of alcohol
     consumption associated with family violence suggests that the
     disinhibition theory is an appropriate conceptual framework for the
     study of partner abuse.
 

     Personality Theory.

     Research based on personality theory is well documented in clinical
     data, and more recently, in general population survey data.
     Generally speaking, researchers have tended to agree that male
     abusers can be distinguished from the rest of the population based on
     a number of personality characteristics.  For example, while some
     researchers agree that male abusers can be characterized as having
     low self esteem and exhibiting high levels of anxiety (Barnes et al.,
     1991; Goldstein & Rosenbaum, 1985; Walker, 1979),  other
     investigators have found female perpetrators of violence to have
     higher levels of sociopathy (Bland & Orn, 1986; Scheurger & Reigle,
     1988).

          Proponents of personality theory believe that individuals are
     born with an inherent predisposition to develop certain personality
     traits (Buss & Plomin, 1984).  According to Buss and Plomin (1984),
     this is evidenced in variations in temperament found among infants.
     Eysenck (1965) developed a genetic theory of personality that
     proposed that the nature of an individual's biology is a determinant
     of his or her personality make-up.  He suggested that some of the
     variability in human behaviour could be accounted for by the finding
     that criminals consistently score higher than the general population
     along extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism personality
     dimensions (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Wilson, 1981).  Research by
     Malamuth (1988) demonstrated that high scores on psychoticism among
     males were also associated with sexual aggression and predicted
     aggression against females in a laboratory setting.

          The existence of a continuum of antisocial behaviour (Eysenck &
     Eysenck, 1985) ranging from minor infractions (i.e., drinking alcohol
     at a bar while below the legal age) to major criminal offenses (i.e.,
     armed robbery) is indicative of an individual's predisposition toward
     criminality.  It is along this continuum that the perpetration of
     partner abuse is thought to lie.  Based on Eysenckian theory, an
     individual most likely to abuse his/her partner would be one who is:
     1) impulsive and disinhibited, therefore failing to acquire social
     rules (extravert), 2) anxious and whose anxiety acts as a trigger to
     learned deviant responses such as violence (neurotic), and 3)
     uncaring and unlikely to feel guilt, empathy or sensitivity,
     therefore having little difficulty behaving anti-socially (psychotic)
     (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).  While heredity is though to be "a strong
     predisposing factor, ...the actual way in which a crime is carried
     out... is subject to the vicissitudes of everyday life" (p. 79,
     Eysenck, 1977). This delineation suggests that the interface between
     a person's inborn characteristics and those found in his/her social
     environment is extremely important in determining the likelihood that
     a deviant mode of conduct will emerge.
 

     Summary.

     Research employing the psychological theories described above have
     contributed to our understanding of violence between intimate
     partners.  Their findings confirm the wide range of effects
     contributed by individual differences in the occurrence of family
     violence.  In spite of the limitations associated with methodological
     precision and the omission of variables measuring the social origins
     of abuse (i.e., unemployment), research based upon psychologically
     based frameworks have provided support for the inclusion of related
     factors in family violence research.
 

     Family Systems Perspective

     The application of family systems theory to family violence
     research was initially concerned with the investigation of child
     abuse (Emery, 1989).  Since that time, researchers and family
     therapists have found family systems theory to be a useful tool in
     explaining the development and maintenance of other forms of abuse
     within the family.  This theoretical framework has also provided the
     means to develop strategies for the treatment of abuse (Gelles &
     Maynard, 1987). Much of the appeal of this approach has been in its
     ability to be jointly implemented with other theoretical perspectives
     such as the feminist (Bograd, 1984) and social learning (Emery, 1989)
     approaches.

          According to systems theory, domestic violence is viewed as a
     phenomenon affecting all members of the family; not just those
     individuals identified as either perpetrators or victims of abuse.
     Straus (1974) described the family as an adaptive goal seeking system
     with the resulting violence as a "system product" or output. His
     systems model specified positive feedback loops thought to be
     responsible for the escalation of violence as well as negative
     feedback loops that were conversely thought to either maintain or
     lessen the present level of violence.

          Much of the strength of this perspective lies in its ability to
     focus on the entire family system without losing sight of the
     influences and effects of individual family members.  However, family
     systems perspective has been criticized by feminists because of its
     apparent subtle biases against women (Bograd, 1984).  These biases
     are thought to be found in the language of family systems theory, in
     the formulations of how domestic violence develops and in types of
     interventions recommended.  Ironically however, inasmuch as Bograd
     (1984) attempts to make a case for proponents of the feminist
     perspective, his critique is also inherently biased because it is
     based on the assumption that only women are victims of abuse.
 

     Feminist Perspectives

     The women's movement has been responsible for bringing the issue
     of "wife battering" to the forefront.  Dobash and Dobash (1979) were
     the first to suggest that the fundamental causes of violence against
     wives is "a patriarchal society". According to feminist ideology,
     wife abuse is viewed as being the result of an imbalance of power
     between men and women.  Feminists have asserted that throughout time,
     women have been subjugated by the greater patriarchal society that
     has placed limits on their opportunities and leaving them vulnerable
     to a number of abuses.

          Two theories explaining why women stay in abusive relationships
     have emerged from this ideological perspective.  The first is the
     "Cycle of Violence" theory which describes the dynamics of an abusive
     relationship, and the second is the "Learned Helplessness" Theory
     which explains the victimization process. While both theories
     integrate structural features of sociological frameworks and
     psychodynamic features of psychological frameworks, only the first
     will be discussed because of its relevance to the perpetration of
     violence.
 

     Cycle of Violence.

     The Cycle of Violence Theory was born out of the research conducted
     by Lenore Walker (1979) on battered wives.  This theory is based on
     the premise that women are not constantly being abused, and their
     willingness to remain in an abusive relationship is related to
     cyclical fluctuations betweenperiods of abuse and relative peaceful
     coexistence.  The theory also explains how women become victimized,
     how they fall into "learnedhelplessness" behaviour, and why they do
     not attempt to escape(Walker, 1979).

          The cycle of violence is made up of three separate and distinct
     phases. The first stage is called the "tension building" phase where
     upon the abusing spouse exhibits moodiness, is short tempered, and is
     critical of his spouse.  It is during this stage that the other
     spouse may feel as if she "were walking on egg shells", and attempts
     to avert any further escalation of the tension.  The second stage is
     called the "explosion" phase.  This is a relatively short lived
     period in which the tensions of the previous stage reach crisis
     proportions and a physical assault ensues.  The third, and final
     stage, has been called the "honeymoon" phase because it is during
     this stage that the abusing spouse shows great remorse for his
     actions and promises never to repeat the episode. According to Walker
     (1979), it is not uncommon that the abused spouse and her perpetrator
     will engage in lovemaking soon after the assault.

          It is thought that the interchange between caring and abuse
     keeps the abused wife from leaving the relationship and the abuser
     from changing his behaviour.  In spite of its cyclical nature, it is,
     nevertheless, difficult to predict the timing of each phase or the
     repetition of the cycle due to the influence of situational factors
     (Walker, 1979).
 

     Summary.

     The cycle of abuse provides an explanation of partner abuse that is
     consistent with the large number of women who refuse to press charges
     against their partners, and those that welcome them back into their
     homes following an arrest or imprisonment.  At the same time, it
     should also be kept in mind that the development of the cycle of
     violence theory and the application of learned helplessness theory by
     Walker (1979) were based on a self selected sample of abused women.
     Thus, while these theoretical frameworks may exemplify abuse within
     this specific population, their generalizeability to abuse occurring
     within the general population needs to be considered cautiously.

          Feminist scholars subscribe to the belief that "women subjected
     to domestic abuse need to be portrayed realistically as oppressed and
     victimised" (Knight & Hatty, 1987, p. 460). This statement implies
     that within the context of an intimate relationship,  only women can
     be viewed as victims, and conversely, only men can be viewed as
     perpetrators.  As demonstrated previously, this is inconsistent with
     the much of the data on spousal violence.  This view is also
     incompatible with other research that women are over-represented as
     perpetrators in incidents of physical child abuse (Coleman & Charles,
     1990; Star, 1983; Straus et al., 1980). Finally, the empirical
     evidence demonstrating the occurrence of violence within lesbian
     relationships (Marie, 1984) challenges the argument that violence
     against women is the result of men's overt attempts to dominate
     women.
 

     Summary of Theoretical Perspectives

     Regardless of the conceptual framework employed, each serves the
     purpose of providing an explanation of a particular phenomenon and in
     so doing, guide the research investigating it.  The above review has
     highlighted several theories commonly applied to the study of partner
     abuse.  This review has demonstrated that each theory has uniquely
     contributed to the explanation of abuse between partners.  However,
     in spite of this, none are complete in their account of domestic
     violence, nor void of limitations.

Next: Chapter 3

HTML by Walter H. Schneider

___________
Updates:
2001 02 10 (format changes)