1. 1. * Dyadic Concordance In Psychological Aggression And Its Relation to Physical Assault Of Dating Partners By Male And Female University Students In 32 Nations Murray A. Straus & Yahayra Michel-Smith Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 603-862-2594 murray.straus@unh.edumurray.straus@unh.edu Website: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2 Presented at The European Society Of Criminology, Prague, 13 September 2014 Other publications on this and related issues can be downloaded from http//:www.pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2 Earlier phases of the work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant T32MH15161 and by the University of New Hampshire. Your are welcome to download these slides from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/dt.htm

2. Questions Addressed  Prevalence, Chronicity, And Dyadic Concordance in Psychological Aggression (PsyAgr) How prevalent and how chronic is PsyAgr of partners? To what extent do men and women differ in perpetration of psychological aggression, and in chronic PsyAgr (60 th percentile)? Dyadic Concordance Types: When there is chronic PsyAgr, in what percent of cases is the male partner the only one high in PsyAgr, the female partner the only one, and what percent of couples were both high in PsyAgr?  Relation of PsyAgr to assault Does PsyAgr predict assault and does it do so for both men and women? How does the risk of assault differ for each of the three Dyadic Concordance Types (Male-Only, Female-Only, Both high in PsyAgr)? Does the link between PsyAgr and assault apply across nation?  What are the Theoretical, Methodological, and Practice Implications? 2

3. Dyadic Concordance Types  Examples: Partner Violence of couples: Male-Only, Female-Only, Both Assault Corporal Punishment by parents: Father-Only, Mother-Only, Both use corporal punishment  DCTs identify characteristics of a relationship Based on characteristics of each member, but different Compare couples A and B o In both the husband is helpful and supportive o Couple A: wife is also helpful and supportive o Couple B: wife is not helpful and supported o A and B are likely to be very different relationships even though husband A and B are the same o DCTs measure a characteristic of the relationship, which emerges from the characteristics of the partners, but is different t 3

4. Straus, Murray A. (1974). Leveling, civility, and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36(February), 13-29, plus addendum 36 (August): 442-445. 4 Previous research on Link Between PsyAgr and Assault My 1973 study found that the more PsyAgr by either partner, the more likely that partner was to also physically assault  Cross sectional Since Then longitudinal studies Murphy,1989, O’Leary,2009 Salis,2014 Testa,2011 Rhodes,2014  But None at the couple level or Cross-National  This Study: Couple-level Multinational Controls By Husbands ------- By Wives Physical Assault Psychological Aggressioni

5. 5 DATA FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID.htm  14,252 Students At 68 Universities  In 32 Nations  All Major World Regions  Convenience Samples Questionnaire Completed In Class  Analyses Control For And/Or Examine Interactions With: * Gender and Age * Score on Social Desirability Response set scale * Other controls as needed  VALIDITY OF THE DATA Concurrent validity: correlated with recognized international statistics Construct Validity: Shown in many published papers

6. 6

7. Region NationN % Fe- male Mean Age All Nations 14,25271.423.1 Africa ZAF S. Africa 10993.624.1 TZA Tanzania 17549.126.3 Asia CHN China 75661.921.6 HKG China-HK 55169.924.6 IND India 9576.822.3 JPN Japan 13353.420.4 SGP Singapor 21669.025.0 KOR S. Korea 19059.524.8 TWN Taiwan 16275.920.2 Eur- ope BEL Belgium 70678.527.5 DEU Germany 48569.524.2 GBR Grt. Brit. 41885.921.0 GRC Greece 23176.221.1 HUN Hungary 16168.322.3 LTU Lithuania 38966.620.5 MLT Malta 10378.622.6 Region NationN %Fe- male Mean age NLD Netherlands 38587.523.5 PRT Portugal 36067.221.8 ROU Romania 24490.221.0 RUS Russia 42960.119.9 SWE Sweden 67475.828.7 CHE Switzerland 31777.033.9 Latin Amer. BRA Brazil 24568.221.1 GTM Guatemala 17648.319.7 MEX Mexico 20583.920.6 VEN Venezuela 26162.524.2 Middle East IRN Iran 9876.522.4 ISR Israel 31882.131.0 North Amer. CAN Canada 113572.921.8 USA United St. 416269.121.7 Oce- ania AUS Australia 23382.023.7 NZL New Zealand13078.521.7 Table 1. International Dating Violence Study Sample – Students In A Relationship 7

8. Psychological Aggression Scale Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2)* Minor Insulted or swore at my partner Shouted or yelled at my partner Stomped out of the room or house or yard during disagreement Said something to spite my partner Severe Called my partner a name like fat or ugly Destroyed something belonging to my partner Accused my partner of being a lousy lover Threatened to hit or throw something at my partner Alpha: By participant Males =.65, Females =.71, Total =.70 By partner – Males =.63 Females =.70, Total =.68 * Straus, Murray A., & Douglas, Emily M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for seventy and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520. Straus, Murray A., Hamby, Sherry L., Boney-McCoy, Susan, & Sugarman, David B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283- 316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001 * 8

9. Assault Scale of Revised Conflict Tactics Scales * Minor Physical Assault: Threw something at partner that could hurt Twisted my partner’s arm or hair Pushed or shoved my partner Grabbed my partner Slapped my partner Severe Physical Assault: Punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt Choked my partner Slammed my partner against a wall Beat up my partner Burned or scalded my partner Kicked my partner Used a knife or gun on my partner Alpha: By participant - Males =.77, Females =.77, Total =.78 By partner - Males =.76, Females =.80, Total =.80 * See http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2 9

10. Data Analysis  Psychological Aggression Participant classified as at or above the 60 th using reports of their own behavior Partner classified as at or above the 60 th percentile using participant’s report of partner’s behavior DCTs identified by cross-classifying respondent’s PsyAgr by that of partner. Resulting 4 cells are a couple-level measure of PsyAgr: ~ Male-Only, ~Female-Only, ~Both, ~Reference Category Neither  Analysis of covariance Independent variables: DCTs for PsyAgr, Gender, Nation Interaction of each of the above with each Covariate controls: Limited Disclosure scale score, age of participant, father’s education 10

11. Acts Of Psychological Aggression MenWomenBothCumulative % Both 0 34%25%27% 1 9%8% 35% 2 7% 42% 3 3%4% 46% 4 7%6% 52% 5 3% 55% 6 3% 58% 7 2%2%2% 60% 8 4% 64% 9 1%2% 66% 10-14 7%8% 74% 15-19 5% 79% 20-24 7%8%7% 86% 25-29 3%5%4% 90% 30-39 3%5% 95% 40+ 6%10%9% 104% Table 2. Frequency Of Psychological Aggression By Men and Women 11 Women perpetrated acts of PsyAgr somewhat more often than men Median Men = 3 times Women = 4 times Mean Men = 9.2 times Women = 13.2 times What about differences within couples?

12. According to MenAccording to Women Figure 1. Dyadic Concordance In Chronic Psychological Aggression In The Relationships Of University Students in 32 Nations Female- Only Both Male-Only Female- Only Both 12  When there was chronic PsyAgr, in 3/4 th of the cases it was by both  When there was a sole-perpetrator, it was more likely to be the female partner % Dyadic Concordance Type

13. 13 Figure 2. Number of Acts Of Psychological Aggression By Male and Female Partners In Each Dyadic Concordance Type  Women in the Both chronic PsyAgr type do it somewhat more often than men in the Both type  Women in the Female-Only type tend to do it slightly more often than men in the Male- Only type PsycAgr Acts (Mean In past 12 months) Dyadic Concordance Type

14. Psychological Aggression Dyadic Type by Nation Nation Preval ence Male Only Female Only Both All Nations 44%9% 18%73% Australia 49101675 Belgium 4391676 Brazil 47162064 Canada 4581478 China 36164441 Taiwan 40153154 Germany 4982469 Greece 4915 70 Guatemala 4452768 Hong Kong 4593457 Hungary 42131572 India 37111771 Iran 4913 75 Israel 5251679 Japan 38161866 Nation Preval ence Male Only Both South Korea 34%16%20%64% Lithuania 4372271 Malta 4251284 Mexico 3572568 Netherlands 34142067 New Zealand 47161272 Portugal 29112465 Romania 41112861 Russia 36102368 Singapore 4182172 South Africa 4051482 Sweden 44111772 Switzerland 26112564 U. Kingdom 5561282 Tanzania 3120970 United States 5181280 Venezuela41141967 Table??Table 3. Prevalence and Dyadic Concordance Types For Psychological Aggression In Relationships Of University Students In 32 Nations 14

15. Table 4 Prevalence and Dyadic Concordance Types For Psychological Aggression In the Relationships of University Students in 32 Nation, As Reported By Men and Women Psychological Aggression Dyadic Types GenderPrevalence Male-Only Female-Only Both AfricaTotal35%13% 11%76% Male2918 64 Female3711 980 AsiaTotal3913 3355 Male3516 2757 Female411135 54 Australia-New ZealandTotal4812 1474 Male4110 3159 Female5012 1177 EuropeTotal411019 71 Male37824 69 Female431018 72 Latin AmericaTotal3911 2267 Male378 2468 Female4012 2166 Middle EastTotal517 1678 Male5112 2266 Female51514 81 North America-CanadaTotal458 1478 Male398 1477 Female478 1478 North America-USATotal51812 80 Male46913 78 Female53712 81 15

16. Figure 3. Percent Who Physically Assaulted Partner, By Dyadic Concordance Type of Chronic Psychological Aggression, As Reported By Men and Women % Who Assaulted The risk of violence is four times higher when both partners are at or above the 60 th percentile in PsyAgg. Among couples in the Both type, more than half assaulted For both men and women, chronic being high in PsyAgg is more strongly associated with both perpetration of physical assault and being a victim of assault by a partner Dyadic Concordance Type For Psychological Aggression Women Men 16

17. Source Of VarianceType III Sum of Squares dfMean SquareF Sig. Corrected Model 7684442.928 a 14254115.79534.961.000 Intercept 980656.7431 633.538.000 CTdtPA4gT 1570295.7383523431.913338.155.000 a01 15033.8451 9.712.002 CONT1M5r3 29927.155214963.5789.667.000 CTdtPA4gT * a01 61914.670320638.22313.333.000 CTdtPA4gT * CONT1M5r3 71555.132611925.8557.705.000 CTdtPA4gT * WNations 1011030.9141248153.4755.267.000 a04a 868.7611.561.454 LDT1M5 134837.4891 87.110.000 a03a5 66674.9241 43.074.000 Error 21839396.533141091547.905 Total 41760000.00014252 Corrected Total 29523839.46114251 Table 5. Analysis of Covariance For Relation of Dyadic Concordance Types Of Psychological Aggression To Physical Assault 17

18. Number of Assaults in past year (Mean) Figure 4. Chronicity of Assault By Men And Women In Each Dyadic Concordance Type of Psychological Aggression, As Reported By Men and Women  When there was physical violence, men and women assaulted about equally when they were the only partner high in PsyAgr  For couples with both partners high in PsyAgr, women assaulted somewhat more often than men Dyadic Concordance Type For Psychological Aggression Women Men 18

19. Source of Variance Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square FSig. Corrected Model 17.043 a 18.9474.473.000 Intercept 221.1711 1044.921.000 CTdtPA4gT 6.10632.0359.617.000 a01.2461 1.161.281 CONT1M5r3 1.7382.8694.104.017 CTdtPA4gT * a01.3303.110.520.668 CTdtPA4gT * CONT1M5r3.7476.124.588.740 a04a.0401.189.664 LDT1M5 1.8261 8.627.003 a03a5 1.5051 7.109.008 Error 444.2802099.212 Total 6435.0002118 Corrected Total 461.3222117 Table 6. Analysis of Covariance For Relation of Dyadic Concordance Types Of Psychological Aggression To Chronicity Of Assault 19

20. Figure 5. Percent of Women Who Hit First In Each Dyadic Concordance Type of Psychological Aggression, As Reported By Men and Women Women Men Percent of women who hit first  If neither high in PsyAgr, & there is violence, 65-70% of the time the woman was first to hit  If Male-Only high in PsyAgr, about 40% of the time the woman hit first  If Female-Only high in PsyAgr, the woman hit first about 80% of the time  If Both high in PsyAgr, the woman hit first about 70% of the time, according to both men and women 20

21. Summary Of Results  Psychological aggression occurred in the relationships of at least ¾ of couples world wide  If 7 or more instances indicates “chronic” PsyAgr, it occurred in 40% of the relationships  When there was chronic PsyAgr, in 3/4 th of the cases it was both When there was a sole-perpetrator, it was more likely to be the female partner  The more PsyAgr, the greater the probability of physical assault Theoretical Implications  Further evidence of limitations of single cause-patriarchy theory of partner violence Escalation of PsyAgr to assault is just one example of the 16 empirically demonstrated risk factors for partner violence listed by the World Health organization and the 32 listed by the US Centers for Disease Contol. Both organizations focus on patriarchy and ignore the multi-cause evidence  Partner violence should be conceptualized primarily as a crime, not as “gender violence.” Gender is involved because most couples are heterosexual, but partner violence is as or more prevalent among same-sex couples  The same escalation process that result in bar-room assaults explain domestic assaults 21

22. 22 Methodological Implications  Make Identification of Dyadic Concordance Types a default part of research on family violence Provides unique data on a crucial aspect of violent relationships Practical to implement because DCTs are easy to identify and analyze  Easy to Measure Even one question, if repeated for both, will do, such as: In the past year, how often did you hit your partner? In the past year, how often did your partner hit you Or can use more in-depth instruments such as the Conflict Tactics Scales  Easy To Analyze No statistics needed - qualitative research or clinical analysis For statistical analysis, almost any method can be used ~Cross-tabs, ANOVA, regression etc. `~Methods designed for dyadic data such as the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM)

23. Practice Implications Because Psychological Aggression is so prevalent, it is probably one of the most prevalent risk factor for physical assault of a partner. In addition, when it is present in about ¾ of the cases, it is by both partners. Therefore:  Treatment of PV should include an initial assessment to identify the Dyadic Concordance Type of PsyAgr and of physical assault  Prevention of partner violence needs to emphasize learning relationship skills such as negotiation and compromise Applies to secondary as well, i.e. to offender treatment  Current treatment programs focus too exclusively on male-dominance, and male- maladaptive behaviors Part of the explanation for the failure of current programs* Need to treat the relationship, not just the presenting partner Identifying the Dyadic Concordance Type at intake can help accomplish that * National Institute of Justice. (2011). Batterer Intervention Programs Often Do Not Change Offender Behavior. Washington D.C.: Department of Justice. 23

24. Downloadable Papers On Dyadic Concordance Types Link is http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ or Google Murray Straushttp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ Michel-Smith, Yahayra, & Straus, Murray (2014). Dyadic Patterns of Perpetration of Physical Assault and Injury of Dating Partners By Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Paper presented at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden. Straus, Murray A, & Michel-Smith, Yahayra (2012). Straus, M. A., & Michel-Smith, Y. (2014). Mutuality, Severity, And Chronicity Of Violence By Father-only, Mother-only, And Mutually Violent Parents As Reported By University Students In 15 Nations. Child Abuse Negl, 38(4), 664-676. Doi: 10.1016/J.Chiabu.2013.10.004 Straus. M.A. (in press) Dyadic Concordance In Family Violence: A Powerful and Practical Approach to Research and Practice on Perpetration and Victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior Straus, Murray A. (2013, November). Relation of Corporal Punishment By Father-Only, Mother-Only, And Both Parents To Crime by University Students In 15 Nations. Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology, Atlanta. Straus, Murray A, & Michel-Smith, Yahayra (2012). Relation Of Violence Between Parents Of University Students In 15 Nations To Student Criminogenic Beliefs And Crime: A comparison of father-only, mother- only, and mutual parental violence Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology annual meeting, Chicago, 15 November, 2012. Straus, M. A., & Winstok, Z.. (2013). Relation of Dyadic Concordance-Discordance Types of Partner Violence to Depression of Male and Female University Students in 15 Nations. Paper presented at the Society for the Study of Social Problems, New York. Winstok, Z. & Straus, M. A. (2014). Gender Differences in the Link between Intimate Partner Physical Violence and Depression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 91-101. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.01.003 24