Presentation on theme: "Dr Elizabeth A. Bates Elizabeth.Bates@cumbria.ac.uk Testing predictions from the male control theory of men’s partner violence Dr Elizabeth A. Bates Elizabeth.Bates@cumbria.ac.uk."— Presentation transcript:
1 Dr Elizabeth A. Bates Elizabeth.Bates@cumbria.ac.uk Testing predictions from the male control theory of men’s partner violenceDr Elizabeth A. Bates
2 Overview To give a brief overview of the background literature To present the results of a study that was part of my PhD with a large student sample (N = 1104)To discuss the implications and future directions
3 Intimate Partner Violence Research IPV Stereotypical view – dominant male perpetratorTypologies – to influence treatmentMale Victims – Steinmetz “Battered Husband Syndrome”A lot of early DV research focused on comparing men who were domestically violent to men who weren’t. Later the research moved on to typologies, trying to categorise men into different types of batterers with the aim of being able to influence treatment. This type of research focusing solely on male perpetrators is part of a large and growing body of literature regarding this type of violence.Steinmetz was one of the first researchers to flag up the concept of male victims of domestic violence. She also documented the historical records of husband abuse. For example in France a husband who “allowed” his wife to beat him was made to ride around the village backwards on a donkey wearing a ridiculous outfit. She also discussed the appearance of battered husbands in comic strips across the world. This combined with early court and community records convinced her that this was not a new phenomenon in society. Steinmetz posited that there were men being beaten by their wives but that the stigma attached to it was prevented them from seeking help or reporting even the most serious incidents to the police. She further commented that it may be because female victims are more often, and more seriously, injured that they receive more press and media attention.
5 Sex Differences in Aggression Differing pattern of sex differences (e.g. Archer, 2000; Archer, 2004)Feminists (e.g. Dobash & Dobash, 1979) believe these two types of aggression are etiologically different – a “gender perspective”Others (e.g. Felson, 2002, 2006) take the “violence perspective”.Dual Belief TheoryDual belief theory – two theories, one that is ok to hit women, patriarchy etc and the other that it isn’t – fits with chivalry and benevolent sexism
6 Feminist PerspectiveIPV is perpetrated by men driven by patriarchal values and controlPatriarchal society tolerates thisWomen’s aggression is expressive and motivated mainly by self-defence.IPV male perpetrators are different from other offendersSimilar to evolutionary theories in predictions, different reasons
7 Felson (e.g. 2002) and Chivalry IPV not “special”, like other types of aggression rather than having different motivesSociety doesn’t tolerate it, quite the oppositeOriginating at early age where boys don’t hit girlsSuggests norms of chivalry cause men to inhibit their aggression towards womenWomen have no such inhibitions as there are few social sanctions to their aggressionStudies (e.g. Harris & Cook, 1994) suggest men’s violence is condemned much more
8 Johnson’s Theory of IPV Johnson (1995) tried to bridge feminist and family violence research.“Patriarchal terrorism” vs. “common couple violence”Later added “violent resistance” and “mutual violent control”Evidence for the typology:Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003)Johnson (1995) attempted to build a bridge between the family violence and the feminist researchers. Where many researchers before him had argued that it was methodology leading to these conflicting findings, Johnson (1995) proposed that they were more to do with the sample population used. Family violence researchers tend to use data from representative community samples whereas those that subscribe to the feminist school of thought tended to use samples found in women’s refuges or men that are in treatment for their violence and so contain those that have been through the most serious of incidents. He originally put forward that incidents of domestic violence could be categorised into one of two types of physical aggression. The first he labelled “common couple violence” and is found among representative samples of married, dating and cohabiting couples. This type encompasses the kind of violence that occurs when arguments get out of control; he did not believe it to be of any serious consequence and unlikely to escalate into anything else. It is this type of violence that Johnson believes is involved when studies show equal numbers of male and female victims. The other type of violence Johnson labelled “patriarchal terrorism”. In this situation the violence used in the relationship is part of a range of behaviours that men use to dominate and control their female partners. It is this type of violence that is more likely to escalate into something more serious and have much more damaging physical and psychological outcomes. Johnson wished to make clear that these were two distinct forms of violence and the latter not merely a more serious version of the former.Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003b) used four British samples to test if there were in fact the two distinct sub-groups of intimate terrorism and common couple violence. They chose a diverse range of samples and found there was broad support found for Johnson’s theory
9 Same-Sex Aggression Sex difference usually in favour of men Archer (2004) Sex differences in real world settings confirmed thisSupported by crime statistics – 19% of commit violent crimes compared to 10% women.Felson (2002) men are most at risk for being victims of violenceWhy? Women and fear?British Crime Survey. For example, for young people aged 16 to 25, 19% of men committed violent crimes compared to 10% of women (Home Office, 2006).Felson – from both same-sex others and from partners within the home
10 Do women increase, or men decrease, their violence from same-sex to partner? Tee & Campbell (2009) had participants rate the likelihood of using physical & verbal aggression to a same-sex and opposite sex targetFound women were more likely to be aggressive to partner and men more likely to be aggressive to same-sex.Men’s decrease was greater than women's increaseRichardson & Green (2006)Richardson & Green – examined the effect of target gender and target relationship on reports of direct and indirect aggression in two studies with two different samples.They concluded that aggression responses vary according to the relationship type and the fact the same type of aggression is being used for both types of friendships indicates that it is the relationship type that is more meaningful than the gender
11 Aim of StudyTo test the male control theory (feminist perspective) of IPVMen would show more controlling behavior to partnerControlling behavior to a partner would be linked to IPV for men but not for women;Men’s controlling behavior to a partner would be unrelated to their physical aggression to same-sex non-intimatesAdditionally test assumptions from Johnson’s Typology:Similar proportions of men and women are to be found among perpetrators of low-level non-controlling physical aggression (“situational couple violence”),Men are to be found disproportionately among the perpetrators of high-level controlling physical aggression (“intimate terrorists”).tested three predictions from male control theory: (1) that men would show more controlling behavior to their partners than women would; (2) that controlling behavior to a partner would be linked to IPV for men but not for women; and (3) that men’s controlling behavior to a partner would be unrelated to their physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates. We further examined predictions from Johnson’s typology of IPV, notably: (1) that similar proportions of men and women are to be found among perpetrators of low-level physical aggression that does not involve controlling motives (“situational couple violence”), whereas (2) men are to be found disproportionately among the perpetrators of high-level physical aggression accompanied by controlling motives (“intimate terrorists”).
12 Method1104 participants were recruited with 706 women and 398 men. There was an average age of 23.55Some online and some paper versionThe following measures were used:Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) – Perpetration and Victimisation for IPV, Perpetration for aggression to same-sex non-intimatesControlling Behaviour Scale (CBS-R: Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005) – Perpetration and Victimisation
13 ResultsWomen perpetrated significantly more physically and verbally aggressionWomen reported more verbal aggression from partner but no difference for physical
14 ResultsMen used significantly more verbal and physical aggression to same-sex non intimates
15 ResultsWithin-subjects analyses of d values were performed to ascertain the extent to which men and women were raising or lowering their aggression from same-sex non-intimates to their partnersThe within-subjects effect size for physical aggression was d = -.22 (t = -4.21, p < .001) for men, and d = .20 (t = 5.21; p < .001) for women.This indicates that men lower their aggression from same-sex non-intimates to their partners whereas women raise their aggression from same-sex non-intimates to partner to a similar extent.
16 ResultsWomen perpetrated significantly more controlling behaviour but similar victimisation scores
17 Johnson’s TypologyNo sig differences in category type
18 IPV and Aggression to Same-Sex Others IPV, aggression to same-sex others and control were all strongly associatedThese were strongly associated for both men and womenMen and women had similar predictorsIn correlation and regression analysisSimilar magnitudeContradicts several aspects of the theory
19 Hypotheses Men would show more controlling behavior to partner Controlling behavior to a partner would be linked to IPV for men but not for women;Men’s controlling behavior to a partner would be unrelated to their physical aggression to same-sex non-intimatesSimilar proportions of men and women are to be found among perpetrators of low-level non-controlling physical aggression (“situational couple violence”),Men are to be found disproportionately among the perpetrators of high-level
20 Hypotheses Men would show more controlling behavior to partner Controlling behavior to a partner would be linked to IPV for men but not for women;Men’s controlling behavior to a partner would be unrelated to their physical aggression to same-sex non-intimatesSimilar proportions of men and women are to be found among perpetrators of low-level non-controlling physical aggression (“situational couple violence”),Men are to be found disproportionately among the perpetrators of high-level
21 Summary of Findings Sex differences in both types of aggression Partial support for Johnson’s typologyVery little support for male control theorySimilar findings for men and womenAssociation of control and same-sex aggressionMen inhibited their aggression towards their partners
22 Implications for Research Supports studying IPV within context of other types of aggression – focus on perpetrator characteristics not societal valuesControl and same-sex aggression - controlling IPV perpetrators have a coercive interpersonal style rather than being patriarchalSupport for chivalry theory and normative protection of women
23 Implications for Policy and Practice Current IPV interventions in UK, US and Canada, roots in feminist research and theoryThe Duluth Model (Pence & Paymar, 1993) designed to protect women from controlling and abusive men – curriculum based on power and control, perceived to be male problemOther models (e.g. Finkel, 2009) argue self regulatory training would be more useful, framework for both IPV and other aggressionAffects resources – 4000 refuges for women, 78 for men (some actually available for both)
24 Thank you for listening! Any questions?Bates, E. A., Graham-Kevan, N. & Archer, J. (under review) Testing predictions from the male control theory of men’s partner violence. Manuscript Submitted to Aggressive BehaviorCopies available on request, please take a card with my address on.