|
Abstract
|
The present review involves the evaluation of 97 potential risk markers of husband to wife violence. Using 52 case-comparison studies as the source of data, markers were divided into four categories: consistent risk, inconsistent risk, consistent nonrisk, and risk markers with insufficient data. Based on this classification, it appears that a number of widely held hypotheses about husband to wife violence have little empirical support. Only witnessing violence in the wife's family of origin was consistently associated with being victimized by violence. Furthermore, it seems that characteristics associated with either the husband-offender or the couple have greater utility for assessing the risk of husband to wife violence than characteristics of the wife-victim. Findings are discussed in terms of the methodological and theoretical implications of current research on this form of adult domestic violence.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this paper by Hotaling and Sugarman was to examine the current knowledge of risk markers in husband to wife violence.
METHODOLOGY:
In a non-experimental, exploratory study, the authors conducted a secondary analysis of 52 case-comparison studies. These studies were gathered from the four sources: psychological and sociological abstracts from 1970 to 1985; Dissertation Abstracts International from 1978 to 1985; private and governmental technical reports, manuscripts, and conference papers; and agenda programs from family violence conferences in 1982 and 1984.
In addition to being of case-comparison design, the research had to present statistical analyses. However, this review is not a meta-analysis involving the manipulation of empirical results. Articles included in this study had to show that controls were used ensuring the group defined as violent/victimized did not contain persons who were nonviolent/non victimized. These studies also had to exclude violent members from the nonviolent comparison group.
Upon examination of the 52 studies, 333 measurements and 97 risk markers were identified. These measurements and risk markers were then used to identify patterns of husband to wife violence. Factors identified helped to differentiate violent men from nonviolent men, as well as female victims from female non victims. Risk markers were classified into four categories based on two criteria: the number of studies measuring the relationship between a particular risk marker and violence, and the percentage of studies that supported the predicted relationships between the risk marker and violence. The four categories included consistent risk markers, inconsistent risk markers, consistent nonrisk markers, and risk markers with insufficient data.
Three areas were addressed in this paper. First, upon examination of the measurements and risk markers, items were weighted with regard to wife abuse, (e.g., what prompted husbands' acts of violence and what factors predisposed victims to such violence). Secondly, the methodology and soundness of recent research was considered and its effects on interpretation of this research. Thirdly, the relationships between research, policy and treatment was examined. This paper focused solely on factors associated with men's violence against women. Factors such as marital rape and psychological abuse were excluded.
This paper used a counting strategy to classify markers which raised a number of important methodological issues. The authors acknowledged a number of problems with this strategy and attempted to account for each as best they could. Issues addressed to clarify findings were: prediction vs. outcome markers; single vs. multiple comparison groups; source of report; univariate vs. multivariate analysis; quality of research design; double counting; the exclusion of macrolevel variables; and cut off criteria. The analysis also employed an examination of frequency.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
Ninety-seven risk markers were evaluated in this review for their consistency of association with husband to wife violence. Only 14 risk markers were found to consistently discriminate between violent and nonviolent men, and between victimized and non victimized women. Of the 42 traits of female victims, one met the criteria of consistent risk marker - victims who witnessed violence between parents/care givers while growing up.
9 of the 38 risk markers for men may account for men's use of violence against spouses and female partners, including the use of violence towards children; sexual aggression toward wives; witnessing parental violence as a child or adolescent; alcohol usage; socioeconomic status; assertiveness; employment; age <30; and aggression (violence against non-family and criminal arrest).
In characteristics among couples, 5 variables were found to consistently relate in husband to wife violence: verbal aggression; marital conflict; negative relationship between income and social class; incompatible religious backgrounds; and marital status.
The authors admit understanding of complex interrelationships between risk markers was beyond the scope of this paper. The authors suggested that the current level of research often makes it difficult to classify factors as causes, co-occurrences, or outcomes of violent behavior.
Contrary to the psychiatric model that assumes that internal and stable traits predispose an individual to violent victimization, results of this review indicated that victims of male violence are no more likely than non victims to have symptoms of psychopathology, hostility, or alcohol abuse. Also, personality and symptomological differences were identified as a consequence of battering rather than as a cause of it. This review indicated that the most influential victim precipitant is being female, and that victimization of women may be better comprehended by understanding male behavior.
Several risk markers were compatible with the psychiatric model of males with borderline or antisocial personality disorders. Also, social learning theory predicts witnessing and experiencing violence in childhood an important predictor of later violence. Also reported was that sex role inequality may be so pervasive that indicators of male power and female powerlessness are not capable of distinguishing violent from nonviolent men. Sex role inequality may thus function more as a constant than a variable.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
Confusion in reviewing the husband to wife violence literature stemmed from methodological problems. The authors addressed the following problems of methodology: comparison groups, single subject vs. participating couple, process research, data analysis, and reporting. The authors suggested the need for more macrolevel and cross-cultural research to determine the exact role of sexism in accounting for violent behavior. They also recommended studies to assess pregnancy as a risk factor, the frequency and severity of violence during pregnancy, and the role social isolation plays as a risk marker in adult domestic violence. The authors noted an enormous tendency to explain male behavior by examining characteristics of women. They hoped that future research would reveal more about the factors that promote violent male behavior and that stronger theory would be developed to explain it. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
N1 - Call Number: J, AB-236
KW - 1970s
KW - 1980s
KW - Domestic Violence Risk Factors
KW - Domestic Violence Causes
KW - Domestic Violence Offender
KW - Domestic Violence Victim
KW - Spouse Abuse Risk Factors
KW - Spouse Abuse Causes
KW - Spouse Abuse Offender
KW - Spouse Abuse Victim
KW - Family of Origin Violence
KW - Victimization Risk Factors
KW - Wife Victim
KW - Husband Offender
KW - Adult Female
KW - Adult Male
KW - Adult Offender
KW - Adult Victim
KW - Adult Violence
KW - Female Victim
KW - Male Offender
KW - Male Violence
KW - Violence Against Women
KW - Partner Violence
Language: en |