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 Website: Presented at The European Society Of Criminology, Prague, 13 September 2014 Other publications on this and related issues can be downloaded from http//: 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

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

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

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): 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 DATA FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY  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

Region NationN % Fe- male Mean Age All Nations 14, Africa ZAF S. Africa TZA Tanzania Asia CHN China HKG China-HK IND India JPN Japan SGP Singapor KOR S. Korea TWN Taiwan Eur- ope BEL Belgium DEU Germany GBR Grt. Brit GRC Greece HUN Hungary LTU Lithuania MLT Malta Region NationN %Fe- male Mean age NLD Netherlands PRT Portugal ROU Romania RUS Russia SWE Sweden CHE Switzerland Latin Amer. BRA Brazil GTM Guatemala MEX Mexico VEN Venezuela Middle East IRN Iran ISR Israel North Amer. CAN Canada USA United St Oce- ania AUS Australia NZL New Zealand Table 1. International Dating Violence Study Sample – Students In A Relationship 7

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, 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), doi: / * 8

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 9

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

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% %8% 74% % 79% %8%7% 86% %5%4% 90% %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?

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 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

Psychological Aggression Dyadic Type by Nation Nation Preval ence Male Only Female Only Both All Nations 44%9% 18%73% Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China Taiwan Germany Greece Guatemala Hong Kong Hungary India Iran Israel Japan Nation Preval ence Male Only Both South Korea 34%16%20%64% Lithuania Malta Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Portugal Romania Russia Singapore South Africa Sweden Switzerland U. Kingdom Tanzania United States Venezuela Table??Table 3. Prevalence and Dyadic Concordance Types For Psychological Aggression In Relationships Of University Students In 32 Nations 14

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% Male Female AsiaTotal Male Female Australia-New ZealandTotal Male Female EuropeTotal Male Female Latin AmericaTotal Male Female Middle EastTotal Male Female North America-CanadaTotal Male Female North America-USATotal Male Female

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

Source Of VarianceType III Sum of Squares dfMean SquareF Sig. Corrected Model a Intercept CTdtPA4gT a CONT1M5r CTdtPA4gT * a CTdtPA4gT * CONT1M5r CTdtPA4gT * WNations a04a LDT1M a03a Error Total Corrected Total Table 5. Analysis of Covariance For Relation of Dyadic Concordance Types Of Psychological Aggression To Physical Assault 17

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

Source of Variance Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square FSig. Corrected Model a Intercept CTdtPA4gT a CONT1M5r CTdtPA4gT * a CTdtPA4gT * CONT1M5r a04a LDT1M a03a Error Total Corrected Total Table 6. Analysis of Covariance For Relation of Dyadic Concordance Types Of Psychological Aggression To Chronicity Of Assault 19

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

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 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)

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

Downloadable Papers On Dyadic Concordance Types Link is 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), Doi: /J.Chiabu 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, 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, doi: /j.avb