Level of alcohol consumption. Perpetrated partner
abuse rates for
male and female respondents were computed for four levels of
alcohol
consumption. These levels included: abstainers, and
low, moderate,
and heavy drinkers. The latter three categories were
based on equal
cutpoints along the distribution of the alcohol consumption
variable
(measured in ounces consumed per day). Separate
analyses were
conducted on Wave 1 and Wave 2 data using the same subjects
and
compared the prevalence of perpetrated partner abuse (i.e.,
abuse at
some point during the relationship) by drinking level.
A third set
of analyses examined current rates of perpetrated partner
abuse
(i.e., abuse occurring during the past year) by drinking
level.
In general, a greater proportion of males and
females reporting
perpetrating partner abuse at some point during their
relationships
was found among heavy drinkers. However, with the
exception of Wave
2 females, the proportion of those reporting "ever"
perpetrating
partner abuse did not significantly differ with the amount of
alcohol
consumed. In other words, significantly fewer Wave 2
females who
abstained from alcohol perpetrated partner abuse at some
point during
their relationships compared to the partner abuse perpetrated
at any
other drinking level (chi-square=14.09, p < .05).
Analyses examining
the relationship between partner abuse perpetrated during the
past
year and drinking levels provided findings similar to those
just
described. For example, the proportion of males and
females
reporting perpetrating partner abuse during the past year did
not
significantly differ with the amount of alcohol consumed.
Tables 15 and 16 summarize the results of
anova analyses. Table 15
compares the CTS means for the prevalence of perpetrated
partner
abuse across levels of drinking for males and females in Wave
1 and
Wave 2 data. Table 16 on the other hand, compares the
mean number of
partner abuse incidents perpetrated by males and females
during the
past year also across all drinking levels. In each
case, the
perpetration of partner abuse did not significantly differ
for males
or females with respect to the amount of alcohol consumed.
Altogether, these findings do not support the existence of a
curvilinear relationship between the amount of alcohol
consumed and
the perpetration of partner abuse.
Wave 1 Wave 2
Drinking level
Males Females
Males Females
Abstainers
6.90
8.11
6.68 6.52
Low
6.56
7.44
6.46 6.45
Moderate
6.44
7.27
6.37 6.67
Heavy
6.73
7.37
6.39 6.80
Lambda
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.03
(0.00) (0.00)
(0.00) (0.03)
Note: Asymptotic Standard Errors are presented in
brackets.
Drinking Level Males Females
Abstainers
.08 .27
Low
.13 .43
Moderate
.34 .07
Heavy
.26 .30
Lambda
.00 .00
(.00) (.00)
Note: Asymptotic Standard Errors are presented in
brackets.
Frequency analyses conducted on data gathered from Wave 2
married,
cohabiting and remarried males and females who reported
perpetrating
partner abuse at some point during their relationships
revealed the
following findings with respect to the context of partner
abuse
episodes: 1) 16 percent of males (n=8) and 8 percent of
females
(n=6) drank at the time of an abuse incident, 2) 21.4
percent of
males (n=14) and 14.3 percent of females (n=14) reported that
their
spouse required medical attention as a result of an abuse
incident,
and 3) 14.8 percent of males (n=9) and 9.9 percent of
females (n=10)
reported that their actions were in self defence. No
significant sex
differences were indicated on any of these items.
Married, cohabiting and remarried respondents' experiences of
life
stress events during the past two years were assessed by
analyzing 15
related survey items drawn from Wave 2 data.
Chi-squares were
conducted to assess the relationship between the experience
of these
events and the proportion of those reporting perpetrated
partner
abuse. Three items were eliminated because of
insufficient cases
(i.e., becoming separated, divorced and widowed during the
past two
years) . Results indicated that significantly more
males and females
who perpetrated partner abuse during the past year had
financial
problems (33.3% v. 4.73% of males and 20.59% v. 5.14% of
females) and
stopped school (28.57% v. 6.65% of males and 18.75% v. 6.05%
of
females) during the past two years. Significantly more
males who
perpetrated abuse during the past year lost their jobs
(39.13% v.
4.91% , changed jobs or started work (18.03% v. 4.84%) and
had a
spouse who started work (18.03% v. 5.0%) during the past two
years.
Table 17 provides a summary of chi-square and related item
analyses
for males and females in Wave 2.
Variable N % Abuse Chi-Square
Males Females Males Females Males Females
1. Lost job/unemployed
yes
23 27 39.13 7.51
35.55*** .03
no
346 337 4.91 6.53
2. Changed job/started work
yes
61 64 18.03 7.81
13.47*** .29
no
308 300 4.87 6.00
3. Spouse started work
yes
61 43 18.03 6.98
12.88*** .02
no
300 316 5.00 6.33
4. Spouse lost job
yes
18 28 16.67 10.71
2.51 .96
no
341 333 6.74 6.01
5. Financial problems
yes
30 34 33.33 20.59 34.33*** 11.98***
no
338 331 4.73 5.14
6. Stopped school
yes
7 16 28.57 18.75
5.03* 3.99*
no
361 347 6.65 6.05
7. Quit job/retired
yes
18 19 7.43 0.00
1.44 1.42
no
350 345 6.56 7.81
8. Moved
yes
49 71 12.24 8.45
.33 .51
no
320 294 6.25 6.12
9. Someone moved in
yes
30 47 6.67 12.77
.01 3.37
no
339 318 7.08 5.66
10. Someone moved out
yes
61 64 6.56
7.81 .03 .19
no
308 301 7.14 6.31
11. Had a baby
yes
40 44 10.00 6.82
.59 .004
no
329 320 6.69 6.56
12. Recently married
yes
14 17 7.14
0.00 .00 1.25
no
355 348 7.04 6.90
Note: * p < .05, *** p < .001
In order to measure respondents' overall
experiences of stress, a
scale was constructed combining all the items contained in
the
previous table. For each item, the value "1"
was assigned to a
positive response and the value "0" to a negative
response. The
values were then summed to provide an index in which high
scores
denoted high stress and low scores denoted the
opposite. Two
separate scales were calculated; one using weighted factors
(using
the weights suggested by Holmes & Rahe, 1967) and the
other using
unweighted factors.
Anova results indicated that independent of weighting, a
significant
main effect was found for current perpetrated partner abuse
such that
abusers had higher stress scores than nonabusers. A
significant
interaction effect was also found between gender and abuse by
stress
whereby males who abused their partners during the past year
had
higher stress levels than females who did the same (based on
both
versions of the stress scale) (See Tables 18 and 19).
Figures 2
illustrates the interaction effect based on the unweighted
stress
scale.
Stress Scale Means F
Abuse
No
Abuse
81.93
31.73***
Abuse
116.28
Gender
Males
82.08
2.06
Females
86.48
Abuse*Gender
5.95*
Note: F for model=13.24, p < .0001
* p < .05, *** p <
.001
[Will be shown here when the graphics file has been
received. --WHS]
Stress Scale Means F
Abuse
No
Abuse
1.14
22.88***
Abuse
2.12
Gender
Males
1.12
3.11
Females
1.30
Abuse*Gender
4.75*
Note: F for model=10.25, p < .0001
* p < .05, *** p <
.001
Married, cohabiting and remarried respondents were asked to
indicate
whether they observed violence in their families of origin.
Overall,
6.41 percent of males (n=23) and 6.34 percent of females
(n=22)
observed their mothers hitting their fathers while 11.73
percent of
males (n=42) and 12.68 percent of females (n=44) observed
their
fathers hitting their mothers. It was also found that
4.44 percent
of males (n=16) and 4.02 percent of females (n=14) observed
both
parents hitting each other. While no significant
differences with
respect to respondent's gender were found, observing fathers
hitting
mothers was reported significantly more often than reports of
mothers
hitting fathers (p < .001).
Among those who reported to have perpetrated
partner abuse at some
point during their relationships, 34.78 percent of males and
40.91
percent of females reported having observed their mothers
hitting
their fathers. On the other hand, 30.95 percent of
"ever" abusive
males and 38.64 percent of "ever" abusive females
reported having
observed their fathers hitting their mothers. Mutual
violence was
reported by 37.50 percent of "ever" abusive males
and 35.71 percent
of "ever" abusive females. None of these
findings were significant
with respect to gender.
Among those who reported perpetrating partner
abuse during the past
year, 17.39 percent of males and 18.18 percent of females
reported
having observed their mothers hitting their fathers. On
the other
hand, 21.43 percent of currently abusive males and 9.09
percent of
currently abusive females reported having observed their
fathers hit
their mothers (p < .01). Mutual violence (i.e.,
observing parents
hitting each other) was reported by 25 percent of currently
abusive
males and 7.14 percent of currently abusive females (p <
.001).
Reports of observing violence in the family of
origin by nonabusers
were as follows: 4.97 percent of males and 4.94 percent of
females
observed their mothers hitting their fathers, 9.51 percent of
males
and 10.19 percent of females observed their fathers hitting
their
mothers and 3.56 percent of males and 3.70 percent of females
observed their parents hitting each other. A greater
proportion of
males and females who reported having "ever"
perpetrated partner
abuse, observed violence in the family of origin across all
three
indices compared to nonabusers. This pattern held true when
comparing
the reports of current abusers with those of nonabusers
except in the
case of fathers hitting mothers, where current abusive and
nonabusive
females provided similar reports.
Pearson's Correlation analyses were performed to examine the
relationship between partner abuse and the following sets of
variables: (1) demographic variables, (2) life stress events
scale,
(3) violence in the family of origin, (3) alcohol consumption
and
dependence measures and (4) personality measures. In
the case of
demographic variables, alcohol consumption and dependence
measures
and personality measures, comparisons of Wave 1 and Wave 2
correlations based on same samples were also performed.
Correlation coefficients illustrating the relationships
between
perpetrated partner abuse and demographic variables based on
Wave 1
and Wave 2 data are provided for males in Table 20, and
females in
Table 21. Prior to conducting Pearson's Correlations,
transformations had to be performed on a number of these
categorical
variables. In so doing, the variables "religious
preference", "race"
and "employment status" were dummy coded to form
the following new
variables: Catholic, Protestant, other religious preference,
White
(nonwhite), employed (unemployed). The variable
"education status"
was transformed as follows to reflect "years of
education": 1=3,
2=6, 3=9, 4=12, 5=14, 6=16, 7=18 and 8=20. Separate
correlational
analyses were performed on the prevalence and incidence
of
perpetrated partner abuse. For the most part, the
associations
between the prevalence and incidence of perpetrated partner
abuse and
demographic variables were weak. However, the following
significant
relationships were found in Wave 2 data:
For males,
1) Age was
negatively correlated with the incidence of
perpetrated partner abuse (r=-.17, p < .01).
2) Income (i.e.,
total family income) was negatively
correlated with the prevalence (r=-.15, p < .01) and
incidence of perpetrated partner abuse (r=-.15, p < .01).
3) Employment
status (employed v. unemployed) was negatively
correlated with the prevalence (r=-.15, p < .01) and
incidence of perpetrated partner abuse (r=-.26, p < .001).
4) Race (white
v. nonwhite) was negatively correlated with the
prevalence of perpetrated partner abuse (r=-.11, p < .05).
For females,
1) Age was
negatively correlated with the prevalence of
perpetrated partner abuse(r=-.15, p < .01).
2) Employment
status (employed v. unemployed) was negatively
correlated with the prevalence of perpetrated partner abuse
(r=-.12, p < .05).
Z scores were computed to assess the
significance in proportions
between correlations at Wave 1 and Wave 2. The following are
the
demographic variables found to differ with respect to the
perpetration of partner abuse based on prevalence of abuse
data:
For males,
1)The association between employment status (employed v.
unemployed)
and perpetrated partner abuse was significantly
stronger in Wave 1.
2)The association between income and perpetrated partner
abuse was
significantly stronger in Wave 1.
3)The association between race (white v. nonwhite) and
perpetrated
partner abuse was stronger in Wave 1.
4)The association between Protestant and perpetrated
partner abuse
was significantly stronger in Wave 1.
With the exception of the relationship between
race and the
incidence of partner abuse, Kendal's Tau-b values
approximated those
obtained by Pearson Correlation coefficients.
Bonferroni T tests
(p=.05) conducted on Wave 2 demographic variables with
respect to the
incidence of perpetrated partner abuse by males indicated
that only
employment status and income showed significant differences
between
groups. This finding suggests that there is an
increased likelihood
for a Type 1 error in the associations between partner abuse
and age,
other religions and race.
For females,
1)The association between age and perpetrated partner abuse
was
significantly stronger in Wave 1.
2)The association between income and perpetrated partner
abuse was
significantly stronger in Wave 1.
3)The association between Catholic and perpetrated partner
abuse was
significantly stronger in Wave 2.
4)The association between Protestant and perpetrated
partner abuse
was significantly stronger in Wave 1.
5)The association between other religions and perpetrated
partner
abuse was significantly stronger in Wave 2.
Kendal's Tau-b values assessing the
relationship between
demographic variables and the incidence of perpetrated
partner abuse
approximated those obtained by Pearson Correlation
coefficients.
Bonferroni T tests (p=.05) conducted on Wave 2 demographic
variables
with respect to the incidence of perpetrated partner abuse by
females
indicated no significant differences between groups,
suggesting an
increased likelihood for a Type 1 error in the associations
between
partner abuse and demographic variables.
Partner
Abuse
Kendal's
r Tau-b
Prevalence Incidence
of Abuse of Abuse
Age Wave
1 -.08
Wave 2
-.06 -.17** -.15
+Z Score
1.05
(.45)
Income Wave
1 -.05
Wave 2
-.15** -.15** -.14
Z Score
4.55***
(.06)
Years of Wave
1 -.03
Education Wave
2
.009 -.006 -.004
Z Score
-1.33
(.05)
Employment Wave
1 -.26***
(employed/ Wave
2
-.15** -.26*** -.24
unemployed) Z Score
3.67***
(.05)
Catholic Wave
1 .01
Wave 2
-.03 -.07
-.07
Z Score
.27
(.04)
Protestant Wave
1 -.07
Wave 2
-.03 -.04
-.08
Z Score
-2.50**
(.05)
Other Wave
1 -.06
religions Wave
2
-.05 .17**
.16
Z Score
-.59
(.06)
Race Wave
1 -.22***
(white/ Wave
2
-.11** -.11* -.05
nonwhite) Z Score
4.07***
(.07)
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, p < .001
+ Z Scores were derived from the prevalence data and
demographic
measures measured in Wave 1 and Wave 2, respectively.
Asymptotic Standard Errors are provided in brackets.
Partner abuse was based on the full measure prior to any
transformations being conducted.
Go to: Chapter 5 Part 4
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 # |