University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The neglected side of domestic violence research: case studies of female aggressors in intimate partnerships

(USC Thesis Other)

The neglected side of domestic violence research: case studies of female aggressors in intimate partnerships

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE NEGLECTED SIDE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH:
CASE STUDIES OF FEMALE AGRESSORS IN INTIMATE PARTNERSHIPS

by
Amy Elizabeth Lappen

_________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

August 2007

Copyright 2007 Amy Elizabeth Lappen
ii
DEDICATION
To all the women in violent relationships and to those who aim to support
and assist them: With respect for their courage, strength, and perseverance
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In some ways this has been such a long journey. Five years ago when I set
out to complete my doctorate in psychology, I was overwhelmed and excited by the
time that lay ahead of me. I knew that it would be a time of growth and change for
me and others in my life. Although I was up for the challenge, I felt most fearful of
the dissertation process, as this was the most unknown. Now that this time has come,
I can look back with both surprise and knowing that I would end up here, in just the
right place. I have been tremendously blessed to have the support of family, friends,
colleagues and faculty throughout this process. And although there are many more
people who have participated along the way, I would like to say a special thank you
to just a few.
Grandma and Grandpa- It has been such a pleasure to return to Los Angeles
and to get to know you as an adult. I can’t say enough about what an unfailing source
of encouragement and help you have been to me, both financially and emotionally. I
admire you both so much and owe so much of my success to you.
Dad- Your presence provides the ultimate reassurance for me. You have a
way of always making me believe that no matter what “it” is, it will be okay. This is
something that I have relied upon well before, and no doubt long after, my years as a
graduate student. I know how special our relationship is and I truly cherish it!
Mom- I credit you for introducing me to the field of psychology and for
teaching me about balance and adventure. You have spunk, creativity, musicality,
iv
and an aesthetic that I am proud to have adopted. I appreciate all you have done and
continue to do for me.
Step-mom Gail- With you I have learned the invaluable lessons of how to be
a good partner, an advocate for myself, and a woman. Thank you for all the
encouragement, and for accompanying me along all the life phases you have seen me
through.
Jay- I admire so much about you: your generous nature, intelligence and
humor. I think you are one of the few people who can make me laugh regardless of
the situation! I am thrilled that we have continued to become closer over the years
and that we finally share the same city for our home. You are a brother and a best
friend.
Tyler- You are an inspiration in your honesty, creativity, courage, and
enthusiasm. I appreciate your unique perspective, attention to detail, love and care
for nature, and natural music ability. You will always be my “little” brother and I
will support you through easy and hard times, cheering your growth along the way.
To my Los Angeles friends Sheila and Brigid, my Northern California friends
Arcadia and Prima, Carrie and Mirit in between, and Lynn out east with the
cowboys, I can’t thank you enough for being the true sisters that you are. You give
my life meaning and joy.
To my supervisors (Julie Pearce and Michele Getzelman) and colleagues
(especially the interns at postdocs) at UCLA in Student Psychological Services, and
my classmates (especially Melissa McLain who kept me smiling) at USC, I thank
v
you for being some of the few who truly understood what this process meant and
were there to advise, commiserate, and participate with me through it all.
Thank you to my counseling center “family” Dean and Marianne, who were
truly the inspiration for this dissertation and who provided many meals, much
training, the model for “self-care,” and unlimited hugs for all these years.
And finally, thank you, thank you to Dr. Rodney Goodyear. You have been
my dedicated professor, chair, advisor, guider, editor and more! I also want to thank
my outside committee member, Dr. Ron Avi Astor, and my third committee
member, Dr. Alexander Jun. I appreciate your endless hours of work, gentle
feedback, patience, flexibility, and faith.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION: .................................................................................................. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: ................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES: ............................................................................................. vii

ABSTRACT: ....................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER 1: CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS ............. 1

CHAPTER 2: METHOD ..................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS ............................. 63

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS: COMMON THEMES ACROSS
PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................................. 124

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...............................................................................163

REFERENCES: .................................................................................................... 193

APPENDICES: ......................................................................................................204

vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.0: Demographics Table………………………………………………...116
TABLE 3.1: Domestic Conflict Index (Physical Aggression Items) Table…….....117
TABLE 3.2: CAGE Table…………………………………………………………118
TABLE 3.3: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support Table………...119
TABLE: 3.4: World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHO-QOL) Table…...120
TABLE 3.5: Ratings on Significant Items for WHO-QOL Table………………....121
TABLE 3.6: Symptom Checklist-90-Revised Table………………………………122
TABLE 3.7: Aggression Questionnaire Table……………………………………..123
TABLE 4.1: Common Themes Across Participants……………………………….126
TABLE 4.2: Themes and Corresponding Quantitative Measures Table…………..127
viii
ABSTRACT
In contrast to the immense amount of research regarding male perpetrators of
intimate partner violence, relatively little attention has been given female
perpetrators (Orcutt, Garcia, & Pickett, 2005). This multiple case study used a
mixed-methods approach to focus on six female perpetrators of heterosexual partner
violence, all of whom were members of a domestic violence counseling group. Each
participated in a structured interview and completed psychological tests that assessed
alcohol use, trait hostility, severity and frequency of violence by self and partner,
social support and psychological functioning.
All women in this study were partnered with men who had been abusive of
them, but differed in the extent to which this was true. Whereas the men used their
hands or fists, the women were more likely to use weapons such as knives or a
broom handle. Despite the violence, most women expressed positive feelings about
their relationships or their partners. Additionally, they reported conflicting feelings
about violence: most commonly, opposing it in the abstract, but justifying or
minimizing it in the context of their relationships. Although some women reported
experiencing aspects of the “cycle of violence,” these reports were not sufficient to
warrant the assumptions that this phenomenon operated frequently, or even at all.
Three women reported use of substances for a variety of reasons, and four
women were partnered with men who used. Interestingly, some women reported
using drugs as a mechanism to calm down and minimize the chance that they would
react with violence to a provocation by their partner. Most reported some symptoms
ix
of depression, although that was not corroborated with the objective measure (SCL-
90-R). Half showed elevated scores on the measure of aggression (Aggression
Questionnaire).
All women reported being victims of childhood abuse (five reported physical
abuse, and one reported verbal abuse) and most had witnessed domestic violence
between their primary care-givers. Often the violence they witnessed was mutual or
mother-initiated violence. Several women also noted that they had experienced
difficulty connecting to and raising their own children. No clear pattern regarding
gender role beliefs emerged, as women reported both stereotyped and flexible views.
In some cases, the results corroborate existing literature. But new hypotheses
are suggested as well, providing researchers and clinicians alike with new avenues to
explore in their research and with their clients.
1
CHAPTER 1
CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THE STUDY
Violence inflicted within the context of an intimate relationship is a serious
societal problem, yet it was not recognized as such until the early 1970s (Dutton &
Nicholls, 2005). Even then, the problem was framed primarily as violence
perpetrated by men, against women. Any violence committed by women was seen as
either an act of self-defense and/or as negligible (Dutton & Nicholls). Indeed, female
perpetrators’ impact (especially with regard to injuries and fear) on men has been
largely dismissed (Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Malcolm, 1994).
Some theorists maintain that intimate violence is neutral with respect to the
gender of the perpetrator, whereas others believe it to be a problem of “men
victimizing women” (Hamby, 2005, p. 725). Certainly, this latter is the model
pattern. In fact, as many as one-third of American women report being physically or
sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives (Common
Wealth Fund, 1999). In the U.S., approximately 900,000 women are victims of
intimate partner violence each year (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994).
Although the incidence of female-to-male violence is much lower, it is not
insignificant. One estimate is that approximately 167,000 men a year are victims of
assault by their intimate partners (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994). Even this is
likely to be an underestimate because men may be particularly reluctant to view
violence by a partner as a crime (Hines & Malley-Morrison, 2001) and so be hesitant
to report it.
2
In contrast to the immense amount of research which has focused on male-
initiated violence against an intimate female partner, research on female perpetrators
has been negligible (Holtzworth-Monroe, 2005; Stith et al., 2004). Moreover, the
research that does address this population has yielded inconsistent findings. For
example, there are contradictory findings regarding motivation: it is unclear what
proportions of female perpetrators initiate abuse versus undertaking it reactively.
Furthermore, there is controversy regarding the frequency, severity, and
consequences of female-initiated abusive acts (Sotirios, 2004; Straus & Gelles,
1990).
One reason for these inconsistencies may be that research on different
populations seems to yield different results. For example, more severely abusive
samples may yield higher rates of male-perpetrated violence, whereas less severely
abusive samples may yield more equal rates of male and female-initiated violence
(Stacey, Hazlewood & Shupe, 1994). Age of sample also may be a factor, with
younger groups characterized by similar rates of male and female-initiated violence
(Dutton & Nicholls, 2005).
Furthermore, findings may be confounded by the fact that victims tend to
report higher rates of abuse than do their perpetrators (Moffitt, et al., 1997).
Therefore, inquiry will yield different results depending upon whether victims or
perpetrators are reporting. This is particularly true in law-enforcement situations
where there is a strong motivation to slant one’s reporting according to the victim
versus perpetrator status (Moffitt, et al.). In addition, because men are much more
3
likely than women to be violent outside of the home (Malcolm, 1994) it is difficult to
accept that men and women may be more similar when it comes to violence
perpetration within the home.
Finally, it has been suggested that feminist groups may be reluctant to accept
(and expose) the existence of female-initiated violence due to concern that this
would result in decreased services for female victims (Dutton & Nicholls;
Holtzworth-Monroe, 2005). Proposals to investigate female perpetrators were denied
funding and only now is there beginning to be support for this “controversial new
topic of study” (Holtworth-Monroe, p. 251).
Various factors have historically been associated with domestic violence.
These factors include drug and alcohol use, anger/hostility, social isolation, and
mental health (e.g, depression and anxiety). Many of these factors have been
represented in the literature in relation to male perpetrators and violence (Stith et al.,
2004; Straus, 1993; Wallace, 1996). However, insufficient research exists, which
specifically addresses these factors in regards to female aggressors.
Intergenerational transmission of violence is another factor that has been the
focus of research (e.g. Delsol & Margolin, 2004). However, only one known study
(Heyman & Slep, 2002) has considered gender with regard to the differential effects
of exposure to mother-initiated as opposed to father-initiated violence in the family
of origin.
Furthermore, gender role attitudes have been considered in association with
perpetration of intimate partner violence. With regards to men, there is mixed
4
support for the connection between male embracing of traditional gender role
attitudes and interpersonal violence (Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Stith et al., 2004).
And, as with many of the other correlates, the literature which specifically addresses
female perpetrators is scant. In this regard, only one known study has considered the
female equivalent (Cercone, Beach & Arias, 2005). Curiously the results of this
study indicate that female violence is more highly correlated with her endorsement
of more traditional gender role beliefs. Therefore, more attention to this issue is
warranted.
Lastly, the “cycle of violence” is a concept proposed by Walker (1979) to
explain the predictable pattern of interpersonal interactions in male-initiated violence
in intimate relationships. This concept is now widely used among community clinics
and treatment programs (e.g. Oakland County Coordinating Council Against
Domestic Violence; Women’s Crisis Support/ Defensa de Mujeres). Curiously, this
broadly accepted “cycle of violence” has not been the focus of research, regardless
of whether the perpetrator is male or female.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive, multiple case study, was to examine selected
phenomena related to female-initiated physical violence in intimate heterosexual
relationships. The study sample included six women who were (at the initiation of
the study) participating in group counseling at a community counseling center in
Southern California. The sample included four women who had been court mandated
5
for perpetration of violence and two women who had been attending group
counseling of their own accord.
These six women were interviewed to obtain information pertaining to four
broad categories: 1) the perceived nature, quality, and characteristic factors in their
relationships; 2) various correlates including self and partner use of alcohol/drugs,
mental health, anger/hostility, and social support; 3) history of exposure to violence
in the family of origin; and 4) gender role attitudes.
Firstly, regarding the nature of their relationships, women were asked to
describe specific incidents of violence initiated by them (and possibly their partners).
In addition, inquiry was made into the perceived precipitants of the violence. Women
also were asked about potential patterns of relating, including whether or not they
recognized something akin to the “Cycle of Violence.”
Secondly, the correlates (i.e. drug and alcohol use, anger/hostility, social
isolation, and mental health issues-namely depression, and anxiety) associated with
perpetration of violence also were examined. More specifically, these women were
asked to reflect and report on their use and their partner’s use of alcohol/drugs
including the perceived function and patterns of use. Women also were asked about
their mental health status generally and also as it relates to their relationship.
Regarding social support/ isolation, women were asked about their support network
including: whom they received support from and whether or not they perceived
relationship factors as contributing to their support or lack of support.
6
Thirdly, this study also inquired about intergenerational transmission of
violence including possible exposure to mother-initiated, father-initiated, and/or
mutual violence. That is, it explored whether these women had been exposed to
violence in their family of origin and if so, whether one parent was the primary
aggressor or whether the violence was mutual. Furthermore, participants were asked
to reflect on whether or not they perceived exposure as having shaped a number of
different factors (e.g., relationships with parents and intimate partners). And,
fourthly, this study explored the gender role attitudes among this group of women
who have been violent in intimate relationships.
Maykut and Morehouse (1994) assert that the “outcome of any of these
[exploratory or descriptive] studies is not the generalization of results, but a deeper
understanding of experience from the perspectives of the participants selected for
study” (p. 44). Indeed, because this study’s sample size is small and non-random,
generalize-ability of findings is necessarily limited. This study’s findings,
nevertheless, have the potential to be important. Observations obtained from this
study will guide the development of hypothesis and inform future research (e.g.,
larger quantitative studies).
Review of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to provide a context for the study by
examining what is known about female perpetrators of violence in intimate
heterosexual relationships. The first section will address what is known generally
about domestic violence.
7
In the second section, findings with regard to the correlates of domestic
violence are presented. The third section will explore intergenerational transmission
of violence (including attitudes towards gender roles and exposure to family of
origin mother and/or father-initiated violence). Finally, the fourth section will focus
on racial and other demographic factors related to domestic violence.
Many key words, in a variety of combinations, were employed to identify the
literature reviewed here. The key words included: “women” or “females” and
“perpetration” or “aggression” and “domestic abuse/violence,” “partner
abuse/aggression,” “intimate partner aggression/violence” and “interpersonal
aggression/violence.” In addition, different combinations of “drugs,” or “drug use”
and “alcohol” or “alcohol use” and “self-esteem,” “social isolation,” “gender roles,”
“intergenerational transmission,” “shame,” “mental health,” “depression,” “anxiety,”
”stress,” “anger,” “hostility” and “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” were all used.
Different data bases including Psychinfo, Psycharticles, Eric, Expanded Academic,
H.W. Wilson Select, Lexis-Nexis, and Proquest were all searched.
Gender and Domestic Violence Perpetration
Research regarding male perpetrators of domestic violence has far exceeded
research regarding female perpetrators. For example, a search with the key words
“women-abused” revealed 427 citations whereas “men-abused” revealed only two
citations, one of which was not applicable (Coney & Mackey, 1999). Similarly, the
key words “battered women” and “battered men” yielded 283 and one citation
respectively (Coney & Mackey). Although female perpetrators have received
8
increased attention in recent years, the research on female perpetrators lags far
behind (Stuart, Meehan, Moore, Morean, Hellsmutyh, & Follansbee, 2006).
Furthermore, there are conflicting findings regarding whether women ever
perpetrate domestic violence. That is, it may be that intimate violence, in all but rare
instances, is perpetrated by men, against women (Hamby, 2005). Contrarily, violence
in intimate relationships may be gender neutral (i.e., perpetrated by either men or
women) and/or may involve “mutual violence” which can originate from either or
both partners (Archer, 2000).
In addition, findings regarding female perpetration are discrepant in terms of
the specifics including severity, frequency and consequences of female-to-male
violence. Additionally, there is disagreement regarding the rationale for domestic
violence. Whereas male-to-female violence may be used to establish control, female-
to-male violence may be primarily committed by women as a means of self-defense
(Chermack, Walton, Fuller, & Blow, 2001). Conversely, the rationale for use of
violence may be similar among males and females (Frieze, 2005). It is not likely that
these discrepancies can be resolved until a larger body of research has accrued.
Discrepant research findings may occur for a variety of reasons. One of these
is that there is no accepted definition or measure of partner violence (Hamby, 2005).
For example, in meta-analysis, when considering physical consequences of
aggression (visible injuries and injuries requiring medical attention) women are more
likely (small effect size, d =.15 and .08 respectively) to be identified as victims and
men as perpetrators (Archer, 2000). When specific acts were considered, meta-
9
analysis found that women were more likely to perpetrate and men were the more
likely victims (small effect size, d = -.05).
Furthermore, even seemingly “concrete” measures (e.g., arrest records) are
susceptible to changes in the sociopolitical climate (Hamby, 2005). Differential
finding also may be due, in part, to the population being sampled. Specifically,
“clinical” populations may be more likely to report severe acts of violence
committed by males (Stacey, Hazlewood & Shupe, 1994; Stets & Straus, 1995). This
finding is supported by meta-analysis (Archer, 2000). Conversely, a “community”
population may be more likely to report similar rates of (male and female) violence,
both in terms of frequency and severity (Archer; Magdol et al., 1997).
The age of the sample also may affect the findings. Specifically, in younger
samples, female perpetrators may initiate violence at a higher rate than males
(Dutton & Nichols, 2005). For example, among a large sample of young adults,
37.2% of women, compared to 21.8% of men reported perpetration of violence
against an intimate partner (Magdol et al., 1997). Meta-analysis also reflects this
finding (Archer, 2000). In addition, the level and type of aggression (e.g. verbal,
minor, moderate and severe physical) influences results (Magdol et al., 1997).
Additional sample characteristics also may impact the results. For example,
Downs, Rindels, and Atkinson (2007) found that women in a domestic violence
program sample reported initiating violence (not in self-defense) just 2.7% of the
time. The same researchers found that women in treatment for substance use reported
that when violent incidents occurred, they had initiated violence 20.9% of the time.
10
These women indicated that they most often initiated violence out of anger or
frustration in regards to their partner.
Act-based or exclusively quantitative measures for data collection have been
criticized as problematic, contributing to confusion and contradictory results. Act-
based measures may not account for acts committed in self-defense and may also
miss several important components in a violent incident including “which partner
initiated the violence, in what context, and how the other partner responded.”
(Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007, p. 30).
Frequency and Severity of Perpetration
Governmental and independent studies also may yield differential results. On
the whole, governmental studies more often assert that women are less violent and
that they suffer more frequent injury, whereas independent studies find that women
are more violent and only slightly more likely to be injured (Dutton & Nicholls,
2005). Partners also may not provide congruent reports regarding abuse in their
relationships. Indeed Moffitt et al. (1997) found that although perpetrator’s gender
did not seem to influence whether or not reports were congruent, both male and
female victims tended to report higher rates of abuse than perpetrators. When law-
enforcement is involved, it may be even more difficult to sort out the truth regarding
who has initiated violence and how frequently (Moffitt et al., 1997).
On one end of the spectrum in this debate, findings indicate that women are
comparable to men in terms of the frequency of the violent acts that they commit
(Chermack, Walton, Fuller & Blow, 2001; O’Leary, Barling, Arias, Rosenbaum,
11
Malone, & Tyree, 1989; Stets & Straus, 1995; Straus, 1993), with women who are
frequently aggressive averaging one aggressive act per week (Capaldi & Owen,
2001). Furthermore, women may be even more likely than men to behave violently
(Cerconce, Beach, & Arias, 2005; Sotirios, 2004). Indeed, at least one meta-analysis
supports this contention (Archer, 2000). This pattern (i.e. higher female-to-male
violence) has been confirmed in Puerto Rico, Canada and Israel (Coney & Mackey,
1999). Women may even commit acts which are comparable in severity (i.e.,
moderately severe and severe; Cerconce, Beach, & Arias; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005;
Hines, D.A. 2003; Sotirios. Straus 1993) and which result in similar rates of injury
(Capaldi & Owen, 2001). Among younger samples, according to victim and
perpetrator accounts, women may be more likely than men to be verbally and
physically (even severely) violent (Magdol, et al., 1997). Frequently, when men are
hospitalized, use of an object (e.g. broom, scissors, knife, pan, etc.) is implicated
(Dutton & Nicholls; Sotirios).
Conversely, some findings suggest that only the less severe acts of violence
have gender parity (Hamby, 2005; Malcolm, 1994). That is, men clearly commit
more severe acts, (e.g., punching, choking and using a weapon) of violence
(Chermack et al., 2001; Stets and Straus, 1995). Furthermore, they commit violent
acts more frequently (Moe, 2004). In addition, with regard to sexual violence,
women are more likely than men to be victimized (Rhatigan, Moore, & Stuart,
2005). Bennett (1995) reflects on the discrepancy regarding the nature of male and
female directed violence stating, “Most of the violent men with whom I have worked
12
have insisted that their female partners were as violent as they, but none were afraid
to go home at night” (p. 760).
Although there has been more recent support for the idea of gender symmetry
(i.e. women and men committing similar acts in terms of frequency and severity)
gender asymmetry may be relevant in terms of the impact of violence on the non-
offending partner and with regard to the rationale for violence (Cercone, Beach, &
Arias).
Explaining Interpersonal Violence
Several theories have been used to explain male-to-female violence.
Biological theory (Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002), feminist theory, trait-
psychological theory and shame theory (Jennings & Murphy, 2000) are among the
theories that have been posited. Essentially, biological theories explain that higher
levels of hormones (i.e. testosterone and cortisol) in males contribute to violent
behaviors. On the other hand, feminist theories assert that male violence against
women is an extension of patriarchal power dynamics, and trait-psychological
theories claim that personality traits and/or behavioral deficits contribute to male
battering (Jennings & Murphy). Finally, shame theories are based on the premise that
shame-prone men, who fear abandonment and exposure of their vulnerability attempt
to empower themselves by becoming rageful and re-asserting dominance (Jennings
& Murphy).
The theories that address female violence are more straight-forward. That is,
violent behaviors among women are mostly seen as acts of self defense (Hamberger
13
& Potente, 1996; Moe, 2004). Furthermore, victimization and perpetration are highly
correlated for women (Cercone, Beach, & Arias; Swan, Gambone, Fields, Sullivan,
& Snow, 2006) but not for men (Cercone, Beach, & Arias).
Even in situations when a woman “hits first,” self-defense may still be a
factor both in any given incident and in the history of violence within the
relationship over time (Straus, 1993). Accordingly, although women are likely to
become violent in self-defense, men are likely to become violent in an attempt to
dominate or control their partners. For this reason, violent women can be viewed as
battered women who have ultimately responded violently themselves.
And, even women who are arrested for domestic violence and mandated to
counseling, usually have been battered themselves (Hamberger & Potente, 1996;
Rhatigan, Moore, & Stuart, 2005) and are more likely than arrested males to report
self-defense or protection as the rationale for their violence (Downs, Rindels, &
Atkinson, 2007).
Conversely, it may be that a large percentage of women arrested for domestic
violence cannot be considered “victims” (Hamberger & Guse, 2005). In fact, a large
percentage of women report that their violence is not committed in self-defense.
Specifically, those who reported severe or minor violence (56.8% and 62.3%
respectively) said that their use of violence was never in self-defense (Lapierre,
2002). And, women and men have similar motives (i.e. desire to control partner, gain
power, prove “love,” and to gain attention and/or independence) for behaving
14
violently in relationships (Frieze, 2005). Furthermore, when women are emotionally
hurt, they may retaliate with violence (Lapierre, 2002).
Women may also endorse “expressive” (e.g., due to loss of control) violence
whereas men may use instrumental violence (e.g., with the intent of establishing
control) (Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005). Men may use violence instrumentally
because of “positive” consequences (e.g., partner compliance) whereas women’s
violence may instead result in either neutral (e.g., no change in partner’s behavior) or
negative (e.g., retaliatory behavior) consequences (Cercone, Beach, & Arias ).
Reasons for high rates of violence among women have been hypothesized;
females may behave violently due to minimal societal prohibition regarding
aggression against a partner (Frieze, 2000). In addition, increasing numbers of
women may behave violently as gender roles are relaxed and aggression is no longer
seen as unfeminine (Frieze). It also may be that increasing numbers of women have
been labeled as perpetrators, not because of any “real” increase in violence but
because of broadening definitions of abuse (Hamby, 2005) and because of more
recent mandatory arrest laws (Rhatigan, Moore, & Stuart, 2005).
Impact on Victims
Additional issues for consideration include the impact of violence on the
“victim.” Consequences may be physical, psychological or economic in nature. Meta
analysis support the differential gender effects regarding physical injury whereby
men are more likely to inflict injury on their female partners than vice versa and 62%
of those reporting injury by a partner are female (Archer, 2000). In general, men
15
report less concern about their partner’s violence (Frieze, 2005; Williams & Frieze,
2005). And, it is likely that women are more negatively affected (Holtworth-Monroe,
2005; Magdol et al., 1997; O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994; Stacey, Hazlewood &
Shupe, 1994; Stets and Straus, 1995; Vivian and Langinrichsen-Rohling,1996;
Williams & Frieze, 2005), experience significantly more fear (Hamberger & Guse,
2005) and, unlike men, report a significant increase in fear with the transition from
severe psychological abuse to low-level assault (Cercone, Beach, & Arias).
Still, men do experience some similar consequences or even more extreme
consequences as a result of being abused (Lapierre, 2002). These consequences
include emotional hurt, depression, distress, fear, and psychosomatic symptoms
(Hines & Malley-Morrison, 2001). In fact, abused men may experience a similar
amount of fear (Capaldi & Owen, 2001). Additional consequences may include
increased anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms after being assaulted (Frieze,
2005). Furthermore, it is likely that male victims respond by displaying
“externalizing behaviors” (e.g. drinking and/or using drugs). However, because the
majority of studies consider only “internalizing behaviors” it may be difficult to
obtain a fully accurate picture regarding consequences of abuse for males (Hines &
Malley-Morrison).
Findings are conflicting regarding whether men or women are more
negatively affected (e.g., psychologically) when they perpetrate abuse against an
intimate partner. It may be that female perpetrators are more negatively affected
(Vivian & Langinrichsen-Rohling, 1996) or less negatively affected (Rhatigan,
16
Moore, & Stuart, 2005) by their own abusive behavior. One explanation for women
being less negatively affected is the idea that women (whose violence is likely to be
self-defensive and to result in fewer injuries) may feel more justified in their
behavior (Rhatigan, Moore, & Stuart 2005). In addition, it seems that victimization
(as opposed to perpetration) more strongly predicts a variety of relationship measures
including level of satisfaction and intent to leave (Rhatigan, Moore, & Stuart).
The issue of who is violent in relationships and who is more “at fault” is
further complicated by the idea that a person may be both the perpetrator and the
victim at different times in the relationship. Bi-directional or “mutual violence” may
make up approximately 50% of violent relationships (Straus, 1993). In fact
“mutually mild” violence may be the most common form of violence, followed by
“mutually severe” violence (Williams & Frieze, 2005). As with uni-directional (i.e.,
with one primary perpetrator) violence, estimates vary, in part, depending on the
severity of the acts in question and, as with many of the other findings related to
domestic violence, findings may be contradictory.
For example, when only more severe acts of violence are considered, it may
be that a lower percentage of cases (Chase et al. estimate 39%) are mutually violent
(Chase, et al.; Stacey, Hazlewood & Shupe, 1994). Meta-analysis also supports the
finding that in community samples, mutual violence is the modal pattern, whereas
more extreme violence is characterized by male perpetration (Archer, 2000).
Conversely, mutual violence may be especially harmful with even more
frequent threats, violence, sexual aggression and psychological abuse (Orcutt,
17
Garcia, & Pickett, 2005; Temple, Weston, & Marshall, 2005). Furthermore,
(compared to uni-directionally violent couples) these couples report the most fear
and injury (Temple, Weston, & Marshall 2005) due to the escalation of violence that
is more common is situations with mutual violence (Orcutt, Garcia, & Pickett, 2005).
Certain sub-populations (e.g., female alcoholics) are particularly likely to be in
mutually violent relationships (Chase, O’Farrell, Murphy, Fals-Stewart, & Murphy,
2003).
Furthermore, although women’s victimization is highly correlated with their
perpetration, the question of directionality and chronology may be difficult to answer
in mutually violent relationships (Cercone, Beach, & Arias). For example, women
may be responding to violent partners in self-defense or it may be that when women
are violent, their partners are likely to respond, in turn, with violence (Cercone,
Beach, & Arias).
The Cycle of Violence
Walker (1979) first articulated the concept of the “cycle of violence” in the
late 1970s. Since then, it has become broadly employed by treatment programs as a
model for understanding the repeating pattern that characterizes male-to-female
violence in intimate relationships.
Walker hypothesizes that distinct phases occur in an abusive relationship.
The first phase is known as the “tension building phase” in which the “victim” feels
increasing fear and concern and senses impending abuse whereas the abuser begins
to act angrily. This phase is followed by an “incident” whereby one or more violent
18
eruptions and abuse (physical, sexual, and/or emotional) occur. The incident may
then be followed by a period of making up. This phase is sometimes referred to as
the “honeymoon phase.” During this time, the abuser may apologize, attempt to
make reparations, make promises that the abuse will not happen again, or may
simply deny or minimize the severity of abuse. Some programs (e.g., Women’s
Crisis Support) subscribe to this three phase model. Whereas other programs (e.g.,
The Oakland County Coordinating Council Against Domestic Violence) include an
additional “calm” phase characterized by the “victim’s” increased sense of
hopefulness and continued apologies and/or minimization and denial by the abuser.
Although this cycle is commonly accepted by treatment programs and
domestic violence agencies, it is curiously absent in the research literature. No
known study has validated the “cycle of violence” among either female or male
perpetrators. All data bases mentioned at the start of the literature review were
searched. Search words/phrases included “cycle of violence” which only retrieved
information regarding intergenerational transmission of violence. In addition,
“repeating patterns” and “patterns” in conjunction with “domestic abuse/violence,”
“partner abuse/aggression,” “intimate partner aggression/violence” and
“interpersonal aggression/violence” were used. The search, in every combination,
yielded no results.
This study will attempt to provide information about the applicability of this
model in female perpetrators. Again, while the qualitative nature of this study and
19
the limited sample size preclude generalizing findings to other settings, observations
have the potential to guide future studies in this regard.
Correlates of Domestic Violence
Many correlates of domestic violence (including alcohol and drug use, social
isolation, mental health-including but not limited to depression and anxiety, and
anger/hostility) have been previously identified in the literature. Much of the
research, however, has focused on male perpetrators in association with these
correlates (Stith et al., 2004; Straus, 1993; Wallace, 1996). When possible, findings
regarding female perpetrators and associated correlates will be presented. However,
when findings are minimal or absent, the correlates as they relate to male
perpetrators will be presented. Findings regarding alcohol, drug use, anger/hostility,
social isolation and mental health issues will be considered.
Alcohol and Perpetrators
The connection between alcohol and violence among male perpetrators has
been well-established (Caetano, Shaefer, & Cunradi, 2001, Flanzer, 1993, Wallace,
1996, Gelles, 1993; Stith et al., 2004). Among women, however, alcohol use largely
has been associated with victimization (Martino, Collins, & Ellickson, 2005).
Findings regarding men reveal that alcohol use may be implicated before, during
and/or after violent incidents (Flanzer, 1993). Various reasons, for this connection
have been hypothesized. Violence during intoxication may be affected by the actual
physiological disinhibitory effects of alcohol use. It also may be that the expectation
of disinhibition provides an “excuse” for violent behavior. The strongest predictor of
20
violence in association with alcohol use may be one’s expectations that he or she will
behave violently following alcohol use (Field, Caetano, & Nelson, 2004).
Other hypotheses for the alcohol-violence connection include the theory that
they both are influenced by a third, higher order factor (e.g., impulsiveness)
(Caetano, Shaefer & Cunradi, 2001; Flanzer, 1993). Furthermore, alcohol use over
time alters brain functioning which may in turn potentially increase violent behaviors
(Flanzer). Also, withdrawal from alcohol is associated with irritability and anger,
which may in turn increase the likelihood of violent behavior (Flanzer).
Other factors, including race (Caetano et al.,2001; Field, Caetano, & Nelson,
2004), and gender (Field, Caetano & Nelson) may affect the connection between
alcohol and violence. For example, males, when compared to females, and African-
Americans and Latinos, when compared to whites, may be more likely to endorse the
expectation of becoming violent following alcohol use (Field, Caetano, & Nelson).
Other results, however, from a 1995 national data sample indicated that Caucasians
and African-Americans (when compared with Latinos) reported significantly more
alcohol problems in association with violence (Caetano et al.).
Additionally, socioeconomic status, attitudes relating to violence and
personality variables also are likely to influence the relationship between violence
and alcohol use (Gelles, 1993). That is, the connection between alcohol and violence
is mediated and moderated by one’s socioeconomic status, his or her beliefs and
attitudes regarding violence, and his or her character traits.
21
Alcohol and female perpetrators. As with men, there is support for the
connection between alcohol consumption in women and their perpetration of partner
violence (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007; Stuart, Moore, Ramsey & Kahler,
2004). Women who drink heavily on occasion (Caetano, McGrath, Ramisetty-
Mikler, & Field, 2005) were more likely to behave violently. And, women
characterized as “hazardous drinkers” (e.g. greater than 4 drinks at least one time
each month for the past year, drinking to the point of intoxication at least one time
each month for the past year) were even more likely to engage in violence (Stuart, et
al., 2004). Compared with women in the general population, women who have been
arrested for violence perpetration and court-mandated to counseling are more than
seven times more likely to have alcohol dependency problems (Stuart et al., 2004).
Women in treatment for alcoholism also have reported high rates of violence (Chase
et al., 2003; Chermack, Walton, Fuller, & Blow, 2001) with 50% of the women
reporting severe female-to male-violence (Chase et al.). Even when other factors
were controlled for (e.g., anger and antisociality) alcohol problems in perpetrators
directly predicted physical abuse (Stuart, et al., 2006).
However, other research findings do not support this connection. When
comparisons were made regarding a control group and a violent group (which
included women as perpetrator-only and in bi-directionally violent relationships) no
significant differences were found regarding alcohol consumption (Martino, Collins,
& Ellickson, 2005). However, Martino, Collins and Ellickson hypothesized that
these findings may reflect a reduction in general alcohol consumption that tends to
22
occur over time (and may be reflected by the sampling of women at two ages: 23 and
29). They also speculate that violent women may cut down on their drinking,
knowing that alcohol contributes to their violent behaviors.
Sequencing is another issue implicated in the study of the perpetration and
alcohol connection. Although it can be difficult to determine the chronology
involving alcohol use and violence, some longitudinal studies support the existence
of initial alcohol use and subsequent violence (Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi & Silva,
1998).
Drug Use and Perpetrators
Drug use is generally associated with an increase in violent behavior
(Parrott, Drobes, Saladin, Coffey, & Dansky, 2003). Meta-analysis has shown strong
effect sizes for the relationship between violent male behavior and illicit drug use
(Stith et al., 2004). And, women who are drug dependent also are more likely to
perpetrate violent behavior (Magdol et al., 1997). As with alcohol use, it can be
difficult to determine the chronology of drug use and violence. That is, questions
remain regarding whether drug use predisposes one to violent behaviors or whether it
is a consequence (e.g. attempt to cope) of involvement in a violent relationship.
Longitudinal analysis, however, provide support for drug use as a precursor to
violence (Magdol et al., 1998).
Cocaine dependence is particularly predictive of violent behavior in intimate
relationships (Parrott, et al.). Several hypotheses have been offered to explain the
association between cocaine use and violence. Hypotheses include the direct (i.e.,
23
physiological) effects of cocaine use in addition to (particularly with crack cocaine
use) a lifestyle among drug users which normalizes violence (Parrott, et al.). As with
many of the other factors associated with violence, there may be moderating and
mediating variables which complicate the drug and violence connection. For
example, Axis I disorders, and particularly a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, impulsivity, and the character trait, anger, may potentiate the effects of
drug use (Parrott, et al.).
Despite support for the drug and violence connection, possible confounding
factors also must be considered. For example, women who are in treatment for
substance abuse are more likely to have partners that use (and who are therefore
more likely to also be violent). Therefore, it is possible that these women are being
abused and are responding violently in self-defense (Chermack et al., 2001).
Finally, although the majority of research supports the violence and drug use
connection, some does not. That is, female aggressors (including women as
perpetrator-only and women in bi-directionally violent relationships) may not be
significantly different from nonviolent women in terms of substance use (Martino,
Collins, & Ellickson, 2005).
Social Isolation and Perpetrators
There has been some support in the literature for the association between
social isolation and male perpetration of violence (Magdol et al., 1997; Straus 1993).
However, only one known study has considered this correlation among female
perpetrators, and results were not significant (Magdol et al.)
24
Mental Health and Perpetrators
Psychiatric distress has been associated with increased risk of partner
violence (Chermack, et al., 2001). Mental health issues including anxiety, mania, and
psychosis are associated with partner violence in women and men (Magdol et al.,
1997). Impulsive personality characteristics among women (O’Leary, Malone, &
Tyree, 1994) and antisocial behavior among both women and men have also been
associated with violence perpetration (Kim & Capaldi, 2004).
Although depression has been considered as a correlate to partner violence
among abusive males, it has rarely been considered as it relates to violent females
(Kim & Capaldi). Still, studies which have considered depression among women
have found support for this association (Kim & Capaldi; Magdol et al.; Stith et al.,
2004). In addition to the connection between mental health issues and violence, the
co-occurrence of certain mental health issues (e.g., antisocial behavior and
depression) may have additive affects, contributing exponentially to the likelihood of
abusive behaviors (Kim & Capaldi).
High levels of stress also seem to figure prominently among both male and
female perpetrators of abuse. Clearly, experiencing stress does not directly translate
into a woman assaulting her partner (Straus, 1995). However, stress does seem to
make violence more likely (Markowitz, 2000; Straus, 1995). The particular stressors
which may increase the likelihood of assault include “spousal stress” and “economic
and occupational stress” (Straus, 1995). Other factors that compound the experience
25
of stress and make violence more likely include the need to dominate, and childhood
experiences which condone the use of violence (Straus, 1995).
Other studies have found, however, among the five offender risk factors (i.e.,
employment, income, age, education and career/life stress) considered in a meta
analysis, only career/life stress had a moderate effect size in influencing the
likelihood of violence perpetration (Stith et al., 2004).
Male perpetration of violence also has been associated with poor self-esteem
(Schwartz, Waldo, & Daniel, 2005; Wallace, 1996). As with many of the intimate
partner violence correlates, causality can be difficult to determine. One study
suggests that violent behaviors result when “highly favorable views of self that are
threatened” (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Only one known study has
addressed the association between self-esteem and female-initiated violence, with
support for the connection between low self-esteem and perpetration of violence
(Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005). Although self-esteem may be an important
correlate of domestic violence, it is a term/concept that is difficult to define.
Therefore, self-esteem will not be considered for the purposes of this study.
Anger and Hostility and Perpetrators
Moderate effect sizes in meta analysis support the connection between
anger/hostility and male perpetration of domestic violence (Stith et al., 2004).
Among female perpetrators, anger and jealousy (Watson, 2005) and direct
expression of anger, specifically, predicted women’s use of violence towards her
26
partner (Swan, et al., 2006). Among college students, women report that they
become angry as often and as intensely as men (Coney & Mackey, 1999).
Intergenerational Transmission of Violence
Estimates indicate that each year, minimally 3.3 million children and
adolescents witness severe acts of emotional and physical violence between their
parents (Von Steen, 1997). This number is significant in that children who are
exposed to violence are prone to a variety of negative physical and psychological
consequences (Von Steen). These multiple consequences consist of somatic
problems, decreased self-concept, depression and anxiety (Von Steen). These
children, then, continue to be affected into adulthood with a variety of problems
including continued low self-esteem, anger, anxiety, and depression (Von Steen).
In addition, compared to children from non-violent families, children exposed
to early family violence eventually perpetrate (and are victimized) at higher rates in
their adult relationships (Duggan, O’Brien, & Kennedy, 2001; Von Steen). For
example, 60% of violent men (compared with 20% of non-violent men) report
exposure to violence within their family of origin (Delsol & Margolin, 2004). Social
Learning Theory (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1962) has often been used to explain this
transmission of domestic violence from one generation to the next (Stith, et al.,
2000). Social learning theory posits that children who grow up in violent homes are
exposed to violence both directly, when they are themselves abused, and indirectly,
when they witness their parents behaving violently towards one another (Stith, et al.).
27
Transmission is described, then, as a complex process that occurs through learning,
reinforcement, and normalization of violence in childhood.
Despite significant correlations, however, there may be only a modest direct
link between exposure to violence in the family of origin and later involvement in
abusive relationships (Delsol & Margolin, 2004; Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson,
& Trinke, 2003; Stith, et al., 2000). Specifically, the majority of violence-exposed
individuals do not go on to perpetrate violence (Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson,
& Trinke, 2003). Furthermore, when family-of-origin violence is implicated, it may
be that early exposure influences future relationships indirectly. For example,
exposure to violence may predict the development of an attitude which condones use
of violence, and this attitude may predispose couples to violent behavior (Lichter &
McCloskey, 2004). Meta analyses also support this contention with significant
(strong effect size) correlation between an attitude which condones violence and
violent behaviors (Stith, et al., 2004).
If exposure to family of origin violence is neither necessary nor sufficient in
adult male-initiated violence additional childhood and adolescent moderating and
mediating factors may be implicated (Delsol & Margolin, 2004). For example,
childhood abuse (Heyman & Slep, 2002), power-assertive punishment (Ehrensaft et
al., 2003) and early development of anti-social (Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Delsol &
Margolin, 2004) and “problem behavior” (Magdol et al., 1998) or “conduct disorder
(Ehrensaft, et al., 2003) all predict later partner abuse.
28
Identified problem behaviors generally involve a history of using violence
and use of aggression to address interpersonal problems. More specifically,
predictors for girls at age 15 include: parent reports of conduct problems, self-reports
of aggression and delinquency and substance abuse with early problem behavior as a
stronger predictor of eventual female perpetration of partner abuse (Magdol et al.).
In addition, childhood attachment may predict future partner abuse. For
example, women who had weak attachment to a parent or specifically to their mother
(Ehrensaft et al., 2003) in adolescence were more likely to perpetrate violence
against a partner in adulthood (Magdol et al.). For women, having both parents
present in adolescence (possibly also related to socioeconomic status) is associated
with lower risk of eventual perpetration (Magdol et al.). More specifically,
attachment anxiety has been associated with bidirectional (i.e. mutual) violence
whereas attachment anxiety in conjunction with attachment avoidance has been
associated with lower rates of female perpetration (Orcutt, Garcia, & Pickett, 2005).
Having a history of violence in one’s family of origin also predisposes one to
certain maladaptive thought patterns. That is, young adults with early histories of
violence exposure are more likely to have spontaneous negative conflict-outcome
expectations (i.e., belief that an agreement was likely to end badly) and to place
unilateral (i.e., wife) blame (Duggan, O’Brien, & Kennedy, 2001). Furthermore,
beliefs translate into behaviors; those with negative conflict-outcome expectations
were more likely to report verbal aggression and those that assigned unilateral blame
29
to the wife were more likely to report physical aggression in their intimate
relationships (Duggan, O’Brien & Kennedy).
Results regarding intergenerational transmission of violence may also be
influenced by sample population (i.e., clinical, compared to community samples,
show stronger rates of intergenerational transmission), and study design (e.g.,
retrospective vs. prospective and longitudinal) (Delsol & Margolin, 2004). For
example, violence in family of origin may more strongly predict future violence in
clinical (as opposed to community or less severe) samples (Kwong, Bartholomew,
Henderson, & Trinke, 2003).
Furthermore, there may be differential gender effects. However, there are
conflicting findings regarding whether childhood exposure to violence more strongly
predicts perpetration of partner violence among women or men. That is, early
exposure and eventual perpetration of violence may be more highly correlated
among males (Stith, et al., 2000) or, among females (Magdol et al., 1998).
Socialization which encourages aggression and instrumental goals in men (e.g.
dominance and power) and interdependence and nurturance in women has been used
to explain why family-of-origin violence may more strongly predict violence
perpetration in males (Stith et al., 2000). No known theories have attempted to
explain family of origin violence as a stronger predictor in women.
In addition, father-to-mother violence compared with mother-to-father
violence in family of origin may (Heyman & Slep, 2002) or may not (Chermack et
al., 2001; Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke, 2003) result in differential
30
outcomes. That is, a “same gender modeling effect” may or may not apply.
Conflicting study results may be due, in part, to the confounding effects of mutual
(i.e. bidirectional) violence and to the inclusion of different types (e.g. psychological
and physical) of abuse (Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke). The theory of
“same-gender” or “gender-specific” effects hypothesizes that individuals model the
parent of their same sex (Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke). Indeed, there
is some support for the connection between women (raised with violent mothers) and
men (raised with violent fathers) and their increased risk for later perpetration of
violence (Heyman & Slep, 2002). Conversely, other studies have found no evidence
for gender-specific effects, but rather support the more general transmission of
violence across generations (Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke).
For the purpose of this study, domestic violence, and (intimate) partner
aggression/abuse/violence will be used interchangeably. Here, these terms are
defined as any act(s) or attempted act(s) of physical aggression against an intimate
partner (either current or previous). Physical aggression will include a number of
behaviors or attempted behaviors (e.g., pushing, slapping, hitting with a hand or
object, stabbing, shooting). Several survey questions will also address sexual
aggression (e.g., forcing or pressuring one’s partner to have sex, etc.) and
emotional/verbal aggression (e.g., controlling/restricting, berating, etc.). However,
for the purpose of this study psychological/ emotional aggression and/or sexual
aggression are neither necessary nor sufficient to define domestic violence.
31
Furthermore, they are neither necessary nor sufficient in terms of determining
participant inclusion.
Gender Role as a Predictor of Violence
Early learning necessarily involves gender/sex role socialization and
gender/sex role attitudes may be implicated in partner abuse. Conflicting findings
emerge in this regard. Feminist theories link male violence with traditional
sex/gender roles and values (Jennings & Murphy, 2000). Indeed, there is support for
the connection between male violence and endorsement of traditional gender role
beliefs (Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Stith et al., 2004). Furthermore, abusive men
who are conflicted regarding gender roles are more likely to be physically abusive
(Schwartz, Waldo & Daniel, 2005). And, it may be that traditional gender role
ideology in combination with gender role stress predicts violence in males
(Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002). On the other hand, there is also support for
lower levels of male violence among men who endorse traditional gender role beliefs
(Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005), but perhaps only among men with low levels of
gender role stress (Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer).
Lower rates of violence among these low stress, ideologically “traditional”
men is hypothesized to result from chivalrous beliefs (e.g., men should not hit
women) which take precedence in situations of low stress (Jakupcak, Lisak, &
Roemer). One known study has addressed the association between violent females
and gender role beliefs whereby endorsement of more traditional gender role beliefs
was associated with higher rates of violence (Cercone, Beach, & Arias). And, in a
32
meta-analytic study, traditional sex role ideology was correlated (moderate effect
size) with perpetration (Stith et al., 2004).
For the purpose of this study, gender role will be defined as the extent to
which the women endorse behaviors and ideology that are linked to stereotypic
expectations for men versus women.
Demographic Predictors of Domestic Violence
Age, education level, socioeconomic status (SES), and race/ethnicity have
been addressed in the literature as additional risk factors for partner violence
(Chermack, et al., 2001). Although many researchers have found support for the
connection between these factors and increased likelihood of perpetration, other
studies have not supported this contention. For example, in a meta-analysis,
employment status, income, and education were explored and none significantly
predicted perpetration of partner violence (Stith et al., 2004). Mostly, however,
findings regarding age are consistent; younger adults tend to be more severely and
more frequently violent (Chermack et al.). Similarly, according to some researchers,
women with low educational achievement may be more likely to perpetrate violence
(Magdol et al., 1998; Magdol et al., 1997). With SES, results are contradictory and
may be influenced by ethnicity and/or educational achievement. For example, among
African-American college students, low SES did not predict differential rates of
violence (Watson, 2005).
Regarding ethnicity, findings also tend to be contradictory. More than 1 ½
decades ago it was noted that relatively little attention had been given explicitly to
33
violence within that Black family (Hampton, Gelles & Harrop, 1991). Since then,
some researchers have addressed this population. Problems arise, however, when
confounding factors (e.g., income level, social isolation, and drug/alcohol use) are
not controlled for.
For example, even though African-Americans are more likely to report that
they slapped a spouse (Cazenave & Straus, 1995), when class (Cazenave & Straus;
Chermack et al., 2001) and community factors (Genson, Wooldredge,
Thistlethwaite, & Fox, 2004) (including percentage of single parents and number of
unemployed families in a given area) are controlled for, most differences are not
significant. In fact, when controlling for external factors, rates of violence among
African-Americans may be even lower across most income brackets (Cazenave &
Straus; Lockhart, 1991).
Similarly, when drug and alcohol use is controlled for, differential rates of
violence among minority groups are rendered non-significant (Chermack et al.).
Theories have been offered to explain both higher and lower rates of violence among
African-Americans. For example, higher rates of violence among low-income
African-Americans may be explained in part by situational conditions (e.g. crowding
and lack of privacy in the home) (Cazenave & Straus). Furthermore, what may
sometimes appear to be “condoning” of violence is in fact the need to justify
behaviors which result from the above stated external conditions.
Explanations for lower rates of violence among Blacks in certain income
groups are hypothesized to result from less social isolation (due to extended family
34
and neighborhood support) which may act as a buffer against stressors and in turn,
contribute to lower rates of violence between partners (Cazenave & Straus) and
existence of more egalitarian relationships (Lockhart, 1991).
With particular consideration for African-American female perpetrators,
there is some support in the literature for the idea that when compared to Caucasian
women, African-American women are more likely to perpetrate violence against
their husbands (Caetano, Shaefer, & Cunradi, 2001; Markowitz, 2000). Indeed, as
many as 30% of African-American women (a significantly higher rate than
Caucasian and Latina women) in a 1995 national study reported female-to-male
violence (Caetano, Schaefer, & Cunradi).
It is likely that similar objectives are present for both African-American and
Caucasian women. Particularly, when these two groups of women kill their spouses
(violence in the most extreme form) they do so offensively (Goetting, 1991;
Hampton, 1991).
Other Factors
Other risk factors which have been correlated with perpetration of domestic
violence and which emerge with strong effect sizes in meta analysis include:
emotional/verbal abuse or psychological aggression (Stith et al, 2004, Stuart et al.,
2006), forced sex, and low level of marital satisfaction (Stith et al.). Moderate effect
sizes and small effect sizes were found for a history of partner abuse and jealousy,
respectively (Stith, et al.).
35
In addition, type of relationship (i.e., married, co-habiting but not married,
dating but not co-habiting, and estranged/ divorced or ex-partner) may affect rates of
violence. For example, when police calls are taken as a measure of male-to-female
couple violence, co-habiting couples had the highest rate of violence, followed by
couples dating but not co-habiting, and then married couples. The lowest rates of
male-to-female violence were found among divorced husbands or ex-boyfriends
(Coney & Mackey, 1999). And, women who were dating but not co-habiting (as
opposed to married, or dating and co-habiting) were more likely than men to be the
primary aggressors.
Also, in dating and co-habiting couples, the rates of male-to-female and
female-to-male violence were more similar (Archer, 2000). Still, it is possible that
age effects (i.e., younger couples are more likely to be dating than to be co-habiting
or married, and younger couples tend to have higher rates of female violence)
confound findings (Archer, 2000). Finally, impulsivity also has been associated with
violence (Field, Caetano, & Nelson, 2004).
Summary
Despite the immense amount of research on domestic violence and male
perpetration, there continues to be relatively limited literature which specifically
addresses female perpetrators of abuse (Orcutt, Garcia, & Pickett, 2005). In
particular, there are relatively few studies regarding women who are arrested and
mandated to counseling for perpetration of violence (Rhatigan, Moore, & Stuart,
2005). Furthermore, studies which do address female perpetration continue to be
36
mixed regarding whether female perpetrators initiate abuse or whether they are
overwhelmingly responding with violent behaviors as a result of being themselves
assaulted. There also is controversy regarding the frequency, severity and effects of
perpetration (Holtzworth-Monroe, 2005). In fact, despite the more than 30 years that
has passed since the first National Family Violence Survey, many of the original
questions remain (Hamby, 2005).
Questions remain regarding the connection between female-initiated violence
and the identified correlates. In addition, the literature is particularly scant regarding
descriptions of the violence. Specifically, it is not known how the women who
initiate female-to-male violence describe these incidents and the perceived
precipitants of the violence.
General inquiry, then, should be made regarding the subjective experiences
of relationships, the perceived precipitants of violence, and whether and to what
extent violence is initiated by male partners of female aggressors. Specifically,
Downs, Rindels, and Atkinson (2007) “recommend additional research using
qualitative methodology to understand women’s experiences of and responses to
domestic violence from their point of view” (p. 43).
Furthermore, little is known about other subjective relationship factors
including relationship satisfaction. In addition, it is not known whether and to what
extent the “Cycle of Violence” applies to female-initiated violence (or to male-
initiated violence, for that matter). Finally, questions remain concerning
intergenerational transmission of violence.
37
Because few studies have specifically considered female perpetrators, and
even fewer have considered women who have been arrested and mandated to
counseling (Rhatigan, Moore, & Stuart, 2005) it is recommended that this population
be addressed. Furthermore, it is recommended that the identified correlates (i.e.
alcohol and drug use, anger/hostility, social-isolation, and mental health) of domestic
violence be considered with respect to female perpetrators of domestic violence.
Furthermore, intergenerational transmission among female perpetrators
should be considered, as the majority of research regarding transmission patterns has
almost exclusively considered male perpetration and female victimization (Stith et
al., 2004). Future research should also consider “same gender modeling effect” (i.e.,
existence of differential effects of females witnessing mother-to-father and father-to-
mother violence); only 1 known study (i.e. Heyman & Slep, 2002) has addressed this
concept.
In addition, it is recommended that future research consider the effect of
women’s embracing or rejecting of traditional gender roles and the subsequent
relationship to partner abuse. Although studies have considered men’s beliefs in this
regard (Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Stith et al.) only one known study has
considered the female parallel.
Due to the limited information that is available regarding female perpetration
of intimate partner abuse, it is recommended that descriptive data be collected.
Descriptive data, largely qualitative research methods, are commonly collected as an
inductive strategy during the early stages of any science. As noted by Rubin and
38
Rubin (1995) “the purpose of qualitative interviewing is to obtain rich data to build
theories that describe a setting or explain a phenomenon” (p. 56).
Regarding the focus of this study, qualitative methods have been specifically
suggested because they have the potential to “go a long way towards identifying
exactly what types of assault are reported on partner violence surveys” (Hamby,
2005, p. 738). Furthermore, qualitative methods are more amenable to addressing
both the personal and interpersonal behaviors already identified.
Research Questions
The research questions in this study can be understood, generally, as
belonging to one of four broader concepts.
The first set of questions pertains to the general nature, perceived quality and
characteristics of these relationships. Incidents of violence, perceived precipitants,
repeating patterns and feelings about the relationship and one’s partner(s) are
encompassed here.
The second set of questions addresses the correlates of intimate partner
violence that can be described generally as demographic and lifestyle questions. This
includes inquiry into the use (by self and partner) of drugs and alcohol, mental health
symptoms, and social support.
The third set has to do with women’s histories. Encompassed within this set,
are questions about child abuse and exposure to domestic violence in the family of
origin.
39
Finally, the last set of questions pertains to gender perceptions and roles, and
specifically whether or not they are more rigid or flexible among this group of
women.
Relationship Questions
1. How do the women describe the incidents that they (and possibly their
partners) have perpetrated?
2. How do these women understand and describe the precipitating
circumstances of the abusive (self and partner-initiated) incidents?
3. Do these women endorse or deny a fluctuating pattern of violence in their
relationships, akin to the “cycle of violence?”
4. How do they describe the relationship and their partners?
Demographics and Lifestyle/ Correlate Questions
1. How do these women discuss their own and their partner’s use of drugs
and alcohol?
2. How do the women discuss their mental health?
3. How do these women discuss their (perceived presence or lack of) social
support networks?
Intergenerational Transmission Questions
1. How do these women discuss their families of origin?
2. Do these women report exposure to violence in their family of origin?
a. If they report witnessing histories, was the pattern of violence one of
father-to-mother, mother-to-father, or mutual violence?
40
3. Do they report abuse by a parent?
Gender Questions
1. How do these women perceive men and women?
2. Can the expressed attitudes be understood as gender-stereotypical and
rigid or more flexible?
41
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
This chapter will present the research design and methodology used for this
study. First, the participant selection criteria will be discussed. The reader will then
be presented with the participant's demographic data and background information.
The female aggressor participants will first be introduced and staff member
participant introductions will follow.
The reader will then be presented with the relevant information regarding the
background of the researcher, with particular attention given to the researcher’s
relationship with the study population. The rationale behind site selection also will
be given.
Then, the methods employed will be presented, with particular emphasis on
the use of qualitative methods. Finally, measures, data collection, and procedures for
analysis will be discussed.
Participants
Female Aggressor Participants
The six participants were women who ranged in age from 23 to 47 (M=
34.83; SD= 9.77). Two were Caucasian, three were African-American and one was
of mixed race (from Belize). These women had been involved for various lengths of
time with P.A.P. at one particular counseling center. Their length of involvement
ranged from 1.5 months to 2 years, with an average of 6.7 months. More detailed
information about these women is presented in Chapter 3 (see also Table 3.0)
42
43
Staff Member Participants
Two staff members in the domestic violence counseling program at this
counseling center also were recruited as participants. One, the program coordinator,
a Caucasian man in his mid-forties, has been involved with the domestic violence
program at this counseling center for approximately 15 years. He provides
supervision for the entire team (including the intake worker and multiple co-
facilitators) and runs all domestic violence groups (including three male perpetrator
groups, one female victims group and one female perpetrators group).
The other, an intake worker, is an Asian-American woman in her mid-forties.
She has been doing intakes for the domestic violence program for approximately
three years. She does not participate in group counseling with the female perpetrator
groups, but is involved in the process of screening women (both self-referred and
court-mandated) to determine whether they are primarily interacting with their
partners as “victims” or “perpetrators.”
The Researcher
The researcher in this study was a 32 year old Caucasian, Jewish female in
her fifth year of her doctoral studies in counseling psychology at the University of
Southern California. Previously, the researcher obtained a B.A. in Sociology at the
University of California, Berkeley.
Much of her clinical experience (including 2.5 years at a nonprofit women’s
organization in Northern California) has centered on women in violent relationships.
44
There, she counseled women who were affected, mostly as victims, by domestic
violence and sexual assault.
She also has approximately two years part-time experience as a lab assistant
in the clinical psychology department at a private university in Southern California.
Lab work focused primarily on interviewing families and administering a variety of
questionnaires related to family and community violence.
She also co-facilitated domestic violence counseling groups for 18 months at
this community counseling center in Southern California. This included group work
(for approximately 12 months) with women who were victims and group work (for
approximately six months) with women who were perpetrators of domestic violence.
Therefore, the intake worker (and study participant) and director of the
domestic violence program (and study participant) were known to her as were two of
the six participants.
Measures
Six measures with established psychometric qualities (attached as
Appendices F-K) were employed. These included: (1) A measure of one’s own and
one’s partner’s abusive behavior (Domestic Conflict Index, DCI); (2) a measure
regarding participants’ and partners’ use of alcohol (the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty,
Eye-opener, CAGE); (3) a measure regarding social support (Multidimensional
Scale of Perceived Social Support, MSPSS); (4) a scale regarding anger and
hostility (Aggression Questionnaire, AQ), (5) a questionnaire on education, access to
health care, and general physical and mental health (World Health Organization
45
Quality of Life, WHOQOL-BREF); and (6) a general measure of mental health
(Symptom Checklist-90-R, SCL-90-R). Each is described below.

The Domestic Conflict Index (DCI- Revised)
The Domestic Conflict Index Revised (DCI-R) is a 122-item questionnaire
(Margolin, Burman, and O’Brien, 2000) measuring one’s own and one’s partner’s
aggressive (including verbal, physical, and sexual) behavior in the context of an
intimate relationship. In addition to original items, items from Straus’ Revised
Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-Mc Coy, & Sugarman, 1996) are
incorporated into the DCI. Participants are asked to indicate their responses on four
columns including whether or not the behavior ever has occurred, whether it has
occurred with more than one partner, how many times in the last year it has occurred,
and how it made the person feel (on a 5-point scale ranging from very bad to very
good).
Used in this study were the 15 physical aggression items on the DCI: (a)
pushed, grabbed, or shoved, (b) slapped, (c) thrown an object at, (d) physically
twisted arm, (e) shaken, (f) kicked, bit, or hit with fist, (g) hit or tried to hit with
something, (h) beat up, (i) thrown or tried to throw bodily, (j) physically forced sex,
(k) burned, (l) choked or strangled, (m) threatened with a knife or gun, (n) used a
knife or gun, and (o) slammed against the wall. A total physical aggression score is
calculated by summing respondents’ maximum response (0 to 5) on the 15 physical
46
aggression items. Higher scores indicate more physical aggression (in terms of one’s
own and/or partner’s behavior).
For the revised DCI, the internal consistency reliability coefficient for
couples’ reports of husbands’ aggression was .78 for physical aggression. Internal
consistency reliability coefficient for couples’ reports of wives’ aggression was also
.78 for physical aggression.
For the original DCI, test-retest reliability was calculated (over a two-week
period) for reports of physical and psychological aggression. Coefficients for
husbands’ self-reports (regarding their own behavior) were .70. Coefficients for
wives’ reports were .90 (Burman, Margolin, & John, 1991). Test-retest information
is not available for wives’ physical and psychological aggression or for the revised
version of the DCI.
Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE)
The CAGE questionnaire (Ewing, 1984) is a brief screening instrument
which includes the following questions: Have you felt that you should cut down on
your drinking? Have people annoyed you by criticizing your drinking? Have you felt
bad or guilty about your drinking? And, have you had a drink first thing in the
morning to steady your nerves or to get rid of a hangover? The CAGE has
demonstrated diagnostic specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 84% (King, 1986).
The “cut off” point for the CAGE is typically one (i.e., the endorsement of
one or more items) which signals that further inquiry into drinking patterns is
recommended (Bradley, Boyd-Wickizer, Powell, & Burman, 1998). For the purposes
47
of this study, participants also were asked about the drinking patterns of their partner,
using the same questions. The four questions pertaining to partner’s use were as
follows: Have you felt that your partner should cut down on his/her drinking? Have
people annoyed your partner by criticizing his/her drinking? Has your partner felt
bad or guilty about his/her drinking? And, has your partner had a drink first thing in
the morning to steady his/her nerves or to get rid of a hangover? It is not known
whether a similar diagnostic specificity and sensitivity would apply regarding other
(i.e., partner) report.
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS)
The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support is a 12-item
questionnaire that inquires about the respondent’s social support on three dimensions
(family, friends, and significant other). Participants rate their perception of received
support on a 7-point scale (ranging from very strongly disagree-1, to very strongly
agree- 7). Examples of questions include: my family really tries to help me, there is a
special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows, and I can count on my
friends when things go wrong.
Overall, the MSPSS has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability
(Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988). The MSPSS also has very good reliability
for the subscales (Friends, Family and Significant Other) with alpha coefficients of
.90, .94, and .95 respectively (Dahlem, Zimet, & Walker, 1991).

48
The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)
The Aggression Questionnaire is a 29-item measure developed by Buss and
Perry (1992). Participants are asked to rate their responses on a 5-point scale which
ranges from extremely uncharacteristic of me to extremely characteristic of me.
Responses yield a composite score which is the sum of four factors (including
Physical Aggression (PA), Verbal Aggression (VA), Anger (A) and Hostility (H)).
Questions include, for example, I get into fights a little more than the average
person, when people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them, I flare up
quickly but get over it quickly, and other people always seem to get the breaks.
The internal consistency of the four factors and total score are the following
alphas: PA, .85; VA, .72; A, .83; H, .77; and a total score of .89. Test-retest
correlations for the four factors are as follows: PA, .80; VA, .76; A, .72; H, .72; and
a total score of .80.
The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF)
The WHOQOL-BREF is an abbreviated version of the WHOQOL-100. This
is a 26-item measure which taps four domains (physical health, psychological health,
social relationships and environment) associated with quality of life. Participants are
asked to rate their responses on a 5-point scale. Questions address social support,
perceived quality/enjoyment of life, satisfaction with health, perceived safety,
finances, leisure time, mobility, sex life, interpersonal relationships, competence, and
moods.
49
Skevington, Lotfy and O’Connell (2004) report strong construct validity with
only seven items on this measure having strong correlations (>.50) with domains that
were not intended to correlate. Internal consistency, (based on US centers) as
measured by Chronbach’s alpha, are as follows in the four domains: Physical, .87;
Psychological, .87; Social, .69 and Environment, .84.
The Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R)
The SCL-90-R is a 90-item self-report inventory. Respondents rate symptoms
on a 5-point rating scale (0-4) ranging from not at all to extremely. This measure
takes approximately 12-15 minutes to administer and requires a 6
th
grade reading
level. Norms are provided for three adult groups (community/non-patients,
psychiatric outpatients, and psychiatric inpatients) and one adolescent group
(community/non-patients).
This instrument measures nine mental health dimensions (SOM-
Somatization, O-C- Obsessions and Compulsions, INT-Interpersonal sensitivity,
DEP-Depression, ANX-Anxiety, HOS-Hostility, PHOB-Phobic anxiety, PAR-
Paranoid ideation and PSY- Psychoticism). In addition, the instrument measures
three global indices including the Global Severity Index (GSI-an overall measure of
psychological distress) the Positive Symptom Distress Index (PSDI-which measures
the intensity of symptoms) and the Positive Symptom Total (PST-which measures
number of self-reported symptoms).
Questions address, for example, crying easily, feeling that one is being
watched and talked about, feeling critical of others, racing heart, checking behaviors,
50
lower back pain, having the urge to smash things, having thoughts that are not one’s
own, being fearful of traveling, etc.
The construct depression (which is of particular interest for this study) is
assessed via 13 items on the SCL-90-R. The depression scale has an internal
consistency alpha of .90 and a test-retest coefficient of .82 (Derogatis, 1983). The
SCL-90-R depression scale is also highly correlated with depression dimensions on
the Wiggins (.75), the Tyron (.68) and the Middlesex Hospital Questionnaire (.73)
(Derogatis).
Interview Questions
Questions for the qualitative (interview portion) of this study (attached as
Appendices L-M) were based in part on a pilot study that was completed with this
population (different participants at this same counseling center) in December 2004.
This pilot study was conducted and completed in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for an Ethnography masters-level course at the University of Southern
California. In addition, questions were based on pertinent literature findings and, in
particular, findings that were contradictory. In addition, the formation of this study’s
questions sought to address the gap in the literature with regards to female
perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
Question construction was based on the three types of questions recommended
by Rubin and Rubin (1995) and included 13 main questions as well as probes, and
follow-up questions. Both main questions and probes were prepared ahead of time,
while follow-up questions were formed in response to the interviewees’ answers.
51
Main questions were worded as to be “open enough to encourage interviewees to
express their own opinions and experiences but narrow enough to keep interviewees
from wandering too far from the subject” (p. 146).
Probes served to inform the interviewees of the depth to which they should
answer the main questions and to provide appropriate details, examples, and/or
evidence (Rubin & Rubin). Probes are a crucial component of the interview because
they pull for a depth of response that is in alignment with the overall purpose of a
qualitative interview “to gain a deep understanding of the interviewees’ experience
and perspective” (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 95).
In this study, the interviewer guided the participants in discussing their
experiences with domestic violence perpetration (and victimization). Participants
also were permitted to speak to the topics that seem most relevant to them.
Methodological Approach
This case study research used both quantitative and qualitative methods. This
“triangulation” of data (i.e., collection of data using more than one method) was a
major component of ensuring accurate data collection (Brewer & Hunter, 1989).
The quantitative measures were the six self-report questionnaires.
Interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner, whereby participants
were asked a series of open-ended questions. The questions were pre-planned, each
to focus on “a particular event or process, and concern with what happened, when,
and why” (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 28).
52
All six interviews were completed prior to the data analysis. This was a non-
emergent design wherein “you collect your data and then analyze it” (Maykut &
Morehouse, 1994, p. 64).
In addition to the qualitative portion of the study (i.e., individual interviews),
participants also were asked to complete a variety of measures. Use of more than one
method to gather data (i.e., triangulation) allows the researcher to identify aspects of
a phenomenon more correctly by approaching it from different vantage points, using
different methods (Brewer & Hunter, 1989).
Inclusion Criteria
All six participants were women who, at the outset of the study, were
involved in group counseling for domestic violence at one community counseling
center in Southern California. Many of the group participants at this center have been
court mandated to counseling due to having been charged with committing one or
more violent acts against a current or “ex” spouse or boyfriend. But the groups also
include women who are attending voluntarily. All women who were willing to
participate were invited to do so regardless of referral status.
All members of the counseling group (fluctuating between 5 and 10 members
over the length of this study) were invited to participate. Six volunteered and were
selected to participate. All were (a) heterosexual women who had been court-
mandated or self-referred to counseling for domestic violence, and who (b) were
identified by self and/or by this counseling center to be perpetrators of domestic
violence.
53
Procedures
The data were collected in the counseling center after obtaining proper
approval from the Institutional Review Board. Written permission to conduct this
study was obtained from both the director of the counseling center and the director of
the domestic violence program within the counseling center (attached as Appendix
E).
This particular center was chosen because it is the only known local center
which attempts to distinguish between female perpetrators and female victims of
domestic violence. This reflects an awareness that women who have been labeled
“perpetrators” and been court mandated to counseling, often may be more correctly
identified as “victims” who had behaved in self-defense. Group assignment is made
after a lengthy intake session to determine whether the woman best fits with the
“victims” group or the “perpetrators” group.
This site also was chosen because of the researcher’s on-going connection to
it as a therapist in training, over a period of one and a half years. Due to the sensitive
nature of this topic, it was believed that this researcher’s prior acquaintance with
some of the participants would be advantageous. Moreover, the knowledge that the
researcher was trusted by the program coordinator and other staff members,
contributed to participants’ level of comfort and seemed to reduce their reluctance to
disclose.
This experience is assumed to have also contributed to participants’
willingness to respond candidly. Rubin and Rubin (1995) suggested that “people are
54
willing to talk in depth if they conclude that you are familiar with and sympathetic to
their world” (p. 76). This researcher, having been involved over a period of time
with this center and with domestic violence work, necessarily had already been
immersed, already understood the issues and was familiar with the vocabulary
(Rubin& Rubin) even prior to the initiation of this study.
Each female aggressor participant was recruited via verbal script (attached as
Appendix A), given both a copy of the consent information (attached as Appendix
B), and permitted to review both the measures to be completed (attached as
Appendices F-K), and the intended interview questions (attached as Appendix L).
Copies of the consent, the measures and the interview questions were provided in
order to assist potential participants with making a fully informed decision about
whether or not to participate.
The consent form contained information about confidentiality and its limits.
Specifically, by receiving counseling credit (towards the completion of court
requirements) this study became linked to the court process; one which does not
guarantee confidentiality. That is, records could be subpoenaed. Therefore,
participants also were given the alternate option to forego receiving counseling credit
and to have more complete confidentiality (although no mandated client chose this
option). Finally, the consent form contained information about compensation for
study participation.
Participants were given four movie tickets upon completion of their
participation in this study. In addition, all participants (ultimately four total) who
55
were court-mandated indicated that they desired group credit (thereby foregoing
complete confidentiality) and were given group credit for the hours (four hours, the
equivalent of two class credits) they participated in interviews and completing
questionnaires. A soft drink and light snack also were offered to participants. Most
accepted.
By virtue of participating, all six women also were eligible for the raffle
prize, a $75.00 gift certificate to Ross. At the completion of the data collection, the
raffle occurred during the regularly scheduled group meeting. The group leader was
assigned to pick a slip of paper at random and the person whose name was written on
the paper received the gift certificate.
Four of the female perpetrators and both staff members agreed to be audio
taped. Two of the female perpetrator participants declined to be audio taped. Notes
were taken during all interviews. Audio-taped interviews were accompanied by
minimal notes and extensive notes were taken during the two interviews that were
not recorded. It was especially important that the un-recorded interviews be
thoroughly documented in order to provide direct quotes from the participants.
The researcher visited the counseling center (Site Permission Letter attached as
Appendix E) and made an announcement on multiple weeks, attempting to recruit
minimally six participants. Recruitment occurred during the regularly scheduled
counseling group (Verbal Recruitment Script attached as Appendix C).
Potential participants, who expressed interest in being involved with the study,
were given a consent form (attached as Appendix D) and a copy of the intended
56
measures and interview questions for review. Interested participants who had
reviewed the study protocol/consent, measures, and interview questions were then
scheduled for the first of two meetings. Some participants chose to begin t he study
immediately, while others preferred to wait. Similarly, some women found it more
convenient to participate during or immediately after the scheduled weekend
counseling group, whereas others chose to meet in the evening during the week.
The female aggressor participants total involvement time was approximately
four hours (two meetings of approximately two hours duration each). During the
initial meeting, four of the women completed all of the measures. Afterwards, a
second meeting was scheduled. Two participants required that the initial portion of
this second meeting be used to complete their questionnaires.
All interviewees were given the option to decline audio recording of their
interview; two did. This second meeting was dedicated primarily to completing the
qualitative interview portion (attached as Appendix L). During the second meeting
(the interview) all participants were able to complete the interview questions within
the allotted two hour time span.
All participants, in the service of the protection of human subjects, also were
given the opportunity to debrief at the close of the interview. They were encouraged
to discuss thoughts and reactions, and to ask any questions that may have presented
themselves in the course of the interview. The researcher was also alert for potential
signs of distress. No participant required services at the close of the interview
although referrals were available should that have been necessary.
57
Although it was originally proposed by the researcher that participants commit
eight hours of time, after conducting the initial interview it became clear that the
majority of the crucial information could be gleaned through the completion of the
survey packet (six measures, requiring a maximum of two hours) and just one
interview (of approximately two hours in duration).
In addition, the researcher determined that sufficient rapport could be built in
just two meetings (one for completion of measures and one for the interview). This
perspective is echoed by Rubin and Rubin (1995) who note that although “the
strongest relationships evolve when interviewer and interviewee talk face-to-face
over several separate encounters [although]…good working relationships can
develop even in a single interview” (p. 143). Similarly, Maykut and Morehouse
(1994) note that “qualitative interviews average one-and-a-half to two hours length,
allowing for prolonged engagement (italics in original)…this time frame allows the
competent interviewer to establish rapport…and to foster a climate of trust” (p. 81).
The decision to shorten the amount of time required for participation was
further confirmed by an increase in the number of participants who were willing to
be involved (for the duration of four hours, but not eight). Five of the six participants
completed the six measures during the first two hours. The majority of these five
preferred to have the questions read (in part or full) to them and to orally dictate the
answers while the researcher took note. One participant, who was concerned about
childcare, was given the option to complete the measures on her own, outside of the
center. She was separated from her husband and living alone. And, after discussing
58
precautions with regard to confidentiality and assessing for any safety issues, it was
determined by both the researcher and the participant that she could take the
measures home to work on them without any increased risk to herself or her
husband.
During the first meeting, all participants were asked to complete the six
measures (attached as Appendices F-K) related to history and current exposure to
violence, including specific violent incidents. In addition, the measures inquired
about aggressive behavior, their drug and alcohol use, mental and physical health
issues, and patterns of violence. Participants were given the opportunity to have
measures read to them and to provide responses aloud. Five of the six participants
chose to complete at least some portion of measures in this format.
Due to the sensitive nature of the material presented, the researcher was alert
for the possibility of distress. In addition, the protocol recommended by Rubin and
Rubin (1995) was referenced. Rubin and Rubin suggest that “once one or two
sensitive topics have been discussed, the goal becomes bringing the interviewee
down [because] you don’t want to leave interviewees exposed, but help them calm
down and feel protected again” (p. 137). Therefore, at the close of the interview in
particular (but also after participants had completed their survey packets) participants
were given the opportunity to debrief. Should it have become necessary, the
researcher would have also provided referrals for further de-briefing (both within the
counseling center and in the community).

59
Staff Recruitment and Interviews
In addition to the female aggressor interviews, two staff interviews were
conducted to allow for further triangulation and “richness” of data. The staff
members were approached via verbal recruitment (attached as Appendix C). Both
staff members participated in one interview (for a total of approximately one hour).
Prior to participation, they were given the opportunity to review the consent to
participate (attached as Appendix D) and a copy of the proposed interview questions
to review (attached as Appendix M). Both of these were provided to potential staff
member participants in order to assist them in making a fully informed decision
about whether or not to participate. Staff members were specifically informed that
they would not be compensated for their participation in the study.
As with the female aggressor participants, the staff interviews were topical
(or semi-structured). Staff members were asked about their experiences in working
with this population of women. Specifically, they were asked to comment on these
women’s drug and alcohol use, behavioral patterns, moods, and other factors
associated with aggressive behavior.
Protection of Human Subjects
This research study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines
of both the American Psychological Association (2002) and the large private
university in Southern California where this researcher was attending. Information
regarding the ethical responsibilities was included in the Informed Consent Form
(Verbal) (attached as Appendices B and D) and was also relayed in the Verbal
60
Recruitment Script (attached as Appendices A and C). Participants were informed of
the voluntary nature of their participation and their right to terminate involvement in
the study at any time, without penalty.
Confidentiality was maintained by assignment of pseudonyms to the
individual participants. Both audio-taped interviews and survey packets were labeled
with pseudonyms. Participants also were informed about the limits of confidentiality
(in the event of concern regarding harm to self or others, child abuse, elder abuse
and/or abuse of a dependent person). Participants were aware (due to involvement in
the counseling program) of the limits prior to involvement with this study. However,
participants were reminded of these limits both in the recruitment phase and prior to
(and/or during) the interview. In addition, participants were given the option to not
tape-record their interview. Of the six participants, two, due to concern about
confidentiality, declined to be taped.
All written material regarding this study including measures, audio tapes and
interview notes was stored in a locked file. Advisors on this dissertation committee
had access to this information, but were not aware of the true names of participants.
The director of the community counseling center and the director of the domestic
violence program will receive a copy of the final paper, upon completion. This final
paper will only contain de-identified data. In the event of publication, this
information will be made available to the public, while still concealing the identities
of the individuals involved.

61
Qualitative Data Analysis
Maykut and Morehouse (1994) describe data analysis as “fundamentally a
nonmathematical analytical procedure that involves examining the meaning for
people’s words and actions” (p. 121). And, Rubin and Rubin (1995) define coding as
“the process of grouping interviewees’ responses into categories that bring together
the similar ideas, concepts, or themes” (p. 238). Maykut and Morehouse termed this
the “constant comparative method,” explaining that “as each new unit of meaning is
selected for analysis, it is compared to all other units of meaning and subsequently
grouped…with similar units of meaning. If there are no similar units of meaning, a
new category is formed” (p. 134).
Major themes (defined by Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) were selected when
topics (ideas/thoughts, feelings or behaviors) were discussed by four or more of the
female participants. Minor themes (also defined in accordance with Maykut &
Morehouse) were selected when topics were endorsed by three of the female
participants.
Data were analyzed in accordance with standard qualitative analysis
procedures (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Specifically, the
following 11 steps were employed in analyzing the qualitative data:
1. Interviews were synthesized into a written narrative. Immediately following the
interview (or maximally, within one week’s time) the researcher synthesized the
information into a written narrative. These write-ups consisted of the background
of the participant, and where significant, the style of relating to the researcher,
62
group leader and members. In addition, other significant quotes from the
interview were noted. The purpose of these write-ups was to record immediate
impressions that may have otherwise been forgotten.
2. Audio-taped interviews were transcribed verbatim. At the completion of the
sixth interview, all tapes (four female aggressors and two staff members) were
transcribed verbatim in full (Note that two participants had not consented to
being taped.).
3. Transcripts were printed out and the hard copies were reviewed.
4. Segments (or “units of meaning”) were underlined in each transcript and a word
or phrase that captured the meaning of the segment was written in the margin.
5. Transcripts and the “units of meaning” were reviewed with particular attention
to repetition (e.g., of statements, words, ideas, etc.) across interviews.
6. Units of meaning were cut and copied to a new electronic document.
7. Similar units of meaning were grouped as “themes” when applicable.
8. New themes were formed for each unit of meaning that could not be assigned to
pre-existing themes.
9. With the identification of each new theme, all transcripts were reviewed for units
of meaning that might support the theme.
10. Themes that were supported by three participants (minor themes) or four or
more participants (major themes) were retained.
11. Themes endorsed by less than three participants (i.e., one or two participants)
were discarded.
63
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS: INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS
Results are presented in this and the next chapter. This chapter presents a
profile of each participant, including basic demographic data (age, race, obtained
education level, yearly income, religion, and number of months in the P.A.P. group;
see also Table 3.0, at the end of this chapter). Participant descriptive information is
organized to address, in turn, each of the four main realms of inquiry in this study
(relationships with partner; lifestyle; intergenerational transmission of violence; and,
gender conceptualizations). Both qualitative and quantitative data will be presented
(see also Tables 3.1-3.7, at the end of this chapter).
The results in this chapter (which presented information within participants)
lay the foundation for those in Chapter Four, which focused on themes revealed in
the data across participants.

General Observations and Participant Feedback
Participants expressed mixed reactions to the process of completing the
questionnaires. Several women indicated that this had been somewhat tiresome and
repetitive. On the other hand, one indicated that she was glad that “someone” had
taken the time to formulate these surveys which were apparently well thought-out;
she thought that the existence of these measures indicated interest and concern
regarding her experience. Another participant expressed some shame around hearing
64
herself endorse multiple items (indicating a high level of her own and her partner’s
violence).
The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a presentation of information about
each of the participants and the two staff members. Pseudonyms are used in each
case.
Participant Profile: Ann
Ann is a 47-year old Baptist, Caucasian woman with a seventh grade
education. She relies on her SSI check to bring in approximately $9,600 a year. Ann
has participated in P.A.P. for approximately two years, mandated to attend after
being arrested for violence against her boyfriend.
Ann’s interpersonal style is straightforward, almost gruff. She speaks with
the voice of a cigarette smoker and someone who has consumed alcohol to excess
over time. A woman of few words, she is now overweight by about 40 pounds, but
told of her diet (two hot dogs a day, and three hours of exercise) that had her much
slimmer in the past. She grew up in Alabama, and lived with her mother after age six
when her parents divorced.
Ann seemed not to have connected much with other group members.
Although she is generally likeable, she talks quickly and somewhat incoherently,
speaking with a Southern accent. In her narrative about herself, Ann often leaves out
details that others would require in order to follow the story-line. But prompted by
probing questions, Ann presented a surprising, interesting, and unique life. When this
65
was suggested to her she responded, “I have a confused fucked up life.” “I can talk
about it. It doesn’t bother me, I mean I am here and that’s my history it’s in the past.”
Ann dropped out of school after 7
th
grade; she was married at age 14 and
pregnant at age 15. Her husband, who was 17 or 18 at the time, went into the military
after they had been married for a couple of months and she was pregnant with their
son. Ann did not stay in touch with her ex-husband, but she heard that, many years
after returning to the US, he died from a gunshot to the head. Although she thought
that it was a drug-related crime, she never got the details.
Several years after divorcing him, she had two other children (a son and a
daughter). But, Ann did not raise any of her children: Her first son was raised by her
father; her second son was raised by a couple in their town; and, her daughter was
raised by her mother.
When Ann was in her twenties she worked for five years as a topless dancer.
“A long time ago I was a titty dancer” she reported “That was a long time ago.
That’s when I used to look better. I wasn’t this heavy before I had any kids.” She
danced until she “showed” in her second pregnancy, and then returned again to
dance after giving birth. Around this time, she also was raped at gun-point by a
stranger:
I have been raped before…I was comin’ back from the store early in the
morning [and the rapist] came up to me with a gun sat me in the back seat put
a shirt over my head… I was raped and I didn’t go to the police I didn’t even
go to the police…I didn’t tell him (the guy she had been dating) I didn’t tell
him. I told my mom [later], but then I didn’t tell anybody…I was scared, shit,
if somebody sticks a gun at your head [I’m] glad to be here.
66
I first met Ann when she was participating in the female perpetrators group
that I was co-facilitating. She agreed to participate in the study for course credit,
interested mostly in completing her required court-required groups as soon as
possible.
The Relationship
Ann has had two intimate relationships that were violent. The first one she
barely counts as violent because only one violent incident occurred: he hit her in the
back of the legs with a pool stick. In the second relationship, there was no violence
during the first couple of months of their dating. But, like all six of the women, Ann
was not only physically abusive, but also the victim of abuse. After a couple of
months of dating, she moved in with him and he began initiating physically violent
incidents that occurred weekly. She reported that her partner’s abuse was more
frequent and severe than her abuse of him.
Ann noted that her boyfriend never felt guilt or regret, but instead blamed her
for his behavior. For example, once after he beat her badly he said, in response to her
bruised face, “Look what you made me do.” Often the violent incidents involved
alcohol and/or drug use on his part, and often when she was drinking. However, Ann
did not necessarily attribute his violence with use of drugs or alcohol.
In addition, emotional abuse would often precede his physical abuse. This
consisted, in part, of calling her a “bitch” about five or six times a day. He did this
throughout most of the relationship (approximately 2 years). When he was abusive
towards her, she often fought back. During other times (especially when he was
67
drunk) she typically did not fight back because at those times she “didn’t stand a
chance.” But in one incident, she “scratched” her boyfriend down his back with a
knife. Because of her aggression in this, the most violent incident, she was court-
mandated to group counseling.
He had locked me out of the house before then, all that night [then the next
day] I was drinking and then I was cooking and he, cuz we weren’t supposed
to cook upstairs, he said he was going to go tell that I was cooking. I said
‘you mama, you fuckin’ mama’s baby’ or some shit like that and I pushed
him against the frigerator, that’s when he said he was gonna go tell. Then he
was going down the stairs and I got the butcher knife and scratched him on
his butt… Then I picked up a garbage can and put it on his head…Wadn’t but
a little bit of garbage in there anyway cuz I don’t use that one that much….
He wasn’t scared. You couldn’t scare that ass. Couldn’t scare him, he don’t
get scared.

When she scratched him, he called the police and reported the incident.
According to Ann, he also lied, saying that she had threatened to kill him and that
she had put a knife to his throat. Ann mistakenly thought that if she were to tell the
truth, that she would not be punished.
Quantitative measure of the relationship: Intimate partner violence. On the
DCI, Ann reported that she had been physically aggressive with her partner, just
three times in the past year. She reported that she once “hit or tried to hit [him] with
something,” that she once “threatened [him] with a knife or gun” and that she once
“used a knife [against him].” Overall, Ann reported that the number of incidents
initiated by her boyfriend far exceeded the number that she had initiated.

68
Demographics and Lifestyle.
Ann was the woman who talked most openly about her relationship with
alcohol. Of the six women, she reported the heaviest use, saying that she began
drinking early and that she had been in jail more than once for alcohol-related issues.
Her ex-boyfriend also drank and used crack cocaine. Ann’s boyfriend had been
drinking the night in which he was most physically violent with her. She, in turn, had
been drinking when she became violent with him (the incident that led to her
subsequent arrest). As a consequence, the court mandated Ann to participate in both
domestic violence classes and to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Ann also
reported feeling depressed at times, and using cigarettes, especially, to cope. Ann felt
especially depressed when her boyfriend would attempt to control her.
Like many of the women, Ann has little regular social support although she
reports that she feels close to both her mother and her daughter who live together a
few hours north of Los Angeles. She sees them every two or three months, and
speaks with them on the phone four to five times a week. Additionally, there is a lot
of separation/ distance between her and other family members. Although she feels
close to one of her sons (who was raised by her father) she has typically only spoken
with him about one time a month and she has not seen him in 12 or 13 years. Her
second son (who was raised by a couple from her town) and she have had no phone
or in-person contact since he was a baby.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Alcohol use. Ann’s responses on the CAGE
were consistent with interview responses. Specifically, she answered “yes” to two
69
items on the CAGE: 1) Have people annoyed you by criticizing your drinking? And,
2) Have you had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves? Her two
“yeses” possibly indicate a problem with alcohol use. She also answered yes to one
item regarding her partner’s use, which is also consistent with problematic drinking.
Her responses on the CAGE regarding her partner’s use also were consistent with
what she reported in the interview.
Quantitative measures of lifestyle: Social support. Ann’s answers on the
MSPSS indicated that she perceived the greatest amount of support from her family
members. Perceived friend support was far behind family support and support from a
significant other support received the lowest possible rating.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Quality of life. With regard to the
WHOQOL-BREF, Ann scored significantly below the norm group for her perceived
physical health. However, scores regarding social relationships, psychological, and
environmental domains were not significant. On the item from the WHOQOL-BREF
that asks specifically about general social support (Do you get the kind of support
from others that you need?) Ann chose two indicating not much.
On the one item from the WHOQOL-BREF that asks about moods (How
often do you have negative feelings such as blue mood, despair, anxiety,
depression?) she responded “three” indicating quite often. However, when asked to
provide the number of days in the past month when her mental health was not good,
she indicated five. Although the mood item from the WHOQOL-BREF seemed
70
consistent with information provided in the interview, five days in the past month
(when her mental health was not good) seemed slightly low.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: mental health symptoms. Ann’s scores on
the SCL-90-R were significantly elevated on four indices: Somatization, Obsessive-
Compulsive, Anxiety, and the Global Severity Index (GSI). These elevated scores
are consistent with someone who experiences distress from perceived bodily
dysfunction, along with other symptoms traditionally associated with obsessive
compulsive disorder (e.g., repeated and unwanted thoughts, impulses and actions)
and symptoms associated with anxiety (e.g., nervousness and tension). Finally,
Ann’s elevated score on the GSI is consistent with someone who has endorsed a high
number of symptoms and/or someone who has indicated a high level of perceived
distress overall.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Aggression. With regard to the Aggression
Questionnaire, Ann’s scores on the five realms of aggression it measures (Physical,
Verbal, Anger, Hostility, and Total) were non-significant when compared with the
college sample.

Intergenerational Transmission
Although Ann does not directly remember the violent incidents that occurred
between her parents, she remembers hearing stories (relayed by her mother and
brother) about the abusive incidents between them. She and her four siblings also
were physically abused by their father.
71
With Ann, the intergenerational pattern of abuse seems to have continued in
that both her mother and she have been in violent relationships as is her daughter
currently. In addition to the relationship with Ann’s father, her mother has been in
another violent relationship. When she was in her 50s, she dated a man who
“blackened her eye” and who owned a gun that he would shoot at people.
Ann also recently learned that her daughter was in an abusive relationship. In
a conversation with her cousin, Ann’s daughter asked whether it was normal to be
hit. She also told her cousin that her boyfriend had dragged her around by her hair.
Ann says that she is also aware of at least one time when her daughter threw things at
her boyfriend and one time when he broke her windshield. “They take turns hitting
each other,” Ann says.
Gender
Ann, like most of the women, had a difficult time articulating her
perspectives about gender. However, she was the woman who seemed to be the most
cynical. She said:
Most [women] are pretty good….Yeah, pretty nice, sweet. [And men] they’re
not nice, most of ‘em [are] dogs…Abusive…The last one I picked just made
it bad for all of them. All men are not like that but it’s the way I feel about
the ones from El Salvador…I know, I have had a lot of American men and a
lot of them are sweet and nice it’s just this one, they’re set in their ways.
They’re really set in their ways.

If Ann could go back in time and change things, she would stay in school
longer and perhaps go into nursing. Most importantly, she would cut out the period
72
of time she spent with her most violent boyfriend. This time, she reports, was “the
worst part of [her] life.”
Participant Profile: Charlie
Charlie is a 23 year-old Christian African-American woman. She attended a
Cal State University for two years at a Cal State University and a trade-school for
one and a half years. She was court-mandated to participate in the counseling
program about six months prior to our interview. She has made just one friend in the
group, an older woman who seems able to have glimpsed beneath Charlie’s tough,
angry, and unpredictable exterior. Although Charlie longs for more connection, she
seems unaware of how she might make herself unapproachable. She is articulate,
creative, and intelligent in presentation. In some ways, her circumstances are
therefore all the more tragic.
Charlie seemed slow to trust me. At first she was skeptical about participating
in the study. She finally agreed because she was eager to complete her legal
requirements. However, she declined to be audio taped. Ultimately she seemed
mostly to enjoy our time together, grateful for the connection and conversations.
After the interview (second meeting) Charlie asked for a ride home. It was
raining and her bus ride home would be a long one and so I obliged. The
conversation during the drive was interesting, as she told me about having
participated in a documentary about children who excel despite their background of
limited means. This created an awkward situation, however, as Charlie asked in-
73
depth questions about whether I had struggled with similar circumstances (a violent
relationship perhaps, or financial difficulty in getting through school).
And, she inquired about this researcher’s free time and travels, with a mixture
of curiosity and envy. After our time together I felt acutely more exhausted than I
had with other participants. Perhaps it was her depression that felt draining. Perhaps
it was my own awareness of the many barriers, and of how much she would have to
overcome to fulfill her apparent potential.
Charlie too is conscious of her potential which greatly exceeds her current
reality. She had high hopes for herself and was working to live up to her own and
other family members’ expectations. Due to her musical talent and apparent
potential, she had secured a full scholarship to college many years ago. Ultimately,
she completed approximately two years of school at a state college and is currently
interested in pursuing a career in fashion design but is presently unemployed. She is
struggling to pay rent, find adequate transportation, and provide the basics for herself
and her son. She reported approximately $7,000 yearly income at the time of
interview, and was obtaining subsidized housing for indigent mothers near
downtown Los Angeles.
For Charlie, it is a mixed blessing that her boyfriend’s parents are involved.
They are apparently quite wealthy and participate in care-taking for her son on the
weekends. Although she is grateful for their assistance, she feels undermined by the
way that they treat her and by the way they defy her instructions while she is in the
74
presence of her son. This is not easy for Charlie, a stubborn and proud person, to
accept.
When I ask Charlie if she became the aggressor to avoid being the victim
(after being abused in her family) she says, “I am not the aggressor. I am the physical
attacker, but I do it in response to him verbally attacking me. I do it because it hurts
my self-esteem and I don’t want to hurt like that.”
The Relationship
As was true of most of the women, Charlie reported that she did not believe
violence was appropriate or necessary except in the case of self defense even though
she is herself violent. On the other hand, she reported that perhaps violence had
permitted her to know her boyfriend better in some ways.
She has been with her boyfriend for six years and speaks about him with
strong positive and secondarily negative feelings. “There is so much passion in this
relationship that it burns…I become disabled and abusive and abusive to myself.”
Charlie has been only in this one long-term relationship and therefore had no
prior experience as either a victim or perpetrator. The violence in this relationship
commonly begins with her boyfriend’s verbal abuse. Like several of the women,
Charlie reported that being called a “bitch” was the most common trigger for her. In
addition, fights often would begin when she was concerned about her boyfriend’s
possible infidelity.
Like several of the women, Charlie reported that her boyfriend and she began
to live together shortly after meeting. She remembers that he had asked if he could
75
move in with her, telling her that he was essentially homeless. At first she laughed,
thinking that he could not be serious: It just did not fit with the way that he had
presented himself. She also wondered if it might be a test: Maybe he wanted to see
how far she would extend herself, and how much she “loved” him. It was a lot to
expect having only known each other for a week or so. Still, she explains, “he was a
mystery to me and I adored that.”
She agreed to let him move in thinking all the while that it was just a “bluff.”
But, he appeared on her doorstep with a suitcase, and she realized just how bold (or
desperate) he really was. She struggled, knowing that it was a bad decision to have
him move in but did not think she had the option at this point to say “no.”
Quantitative measure of the relationship: Intimate partner violence. Of the
six women, Charlie reported the most severe and frequent violence initiated by her
partner and by herself. On the DCI, she endorsed several self-initiated and partner-
initiated behaviors that occurred on at least a weekly basis. Perhaps most notable was
her report that she has, in the past year, choked or strangled her partner more than 52
times, beaten him up and threatened him with a knife or gun 24-48 times, and used a
knife or gun against him two to five times. Furthermore, she was the only one to
indicate that she had beaten up her partner (multiple blows) and the only one to
indicate that she also had shaken him.
Her partner has also initiated certain severe behaviors with a very high
frequency. For example, among other behaviors she reported that in the past year he
has forced sex, thrown or tried to throw her, and strangled her between 24-48 times.
76
Demographics and Lifestyle
She does not currently drink much, but reports using marijuana and cigarettes
regularly. In fact, she was the one woman who refused to have me buy her lunch
during our first meeting, hoping instead that I would purchase for her a pack of
cigarettes. She told me, “My self is-esteem is boosted up when we get along and
when we don’t [I] don’t take care of myself [and I] smoke [cigarettes].”
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Alcohol use. With regard to the CAGE,
Charlie responded “yes” to one question regarding her own alcohol use (Have you
felt you should cut down on your drinking?) and “yes” to two questions regarding her
partner’s alcohol use (Have you felt that your spouse should cut down on his/her
drinking?; Do you think that your spouse has felt bad or guilty about his/her
drinking?).
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Social support. On the MSPSS, Charlie
was the person to indicate the lowest level of perceived social support from family
members. Furthermore, her scores regarding friendships indicate a deficit in terms of
support network. Both of these responses were consistent with what she reported
during the interview. However, Charlie provided the highest number (i.e., very
strongly agree) in response to items that typically tap support from a significant
other (e.g., There is a special person who is around when I am in need; and I have a
special person who is a real source of comfort to me). However, when she was asked
77
about who this “special person” was, she indicated that it was Jesus and not her
boyfriend.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Quality of life. Charlie’s scores in the
Social Relationships and the Environmental domains on the WHOQOL-BREF were
significantly below that of the norm group, though she scored within the average
range on other domains. Her response to the item tapping social support (Do you get
the kind of support from others that you need?) was not at all. The low score on the
Social Relationships domain and the above-mentioned response on the item were
consistent with Charlie’s reporting regarding social support during the interview.
Regarding another item (How often do you have negative feelings such as
blue mood, despair, anxiety, depression?) Charlie responded always. In addition, she
indicated that in the last 30 days, she had 30 days where her mental health was not
good. This was consistent with her reporting in the interview, and also consistent
with her presentation (e.g., flat affect, hopelessness).
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Mental health. On the SCL-90-R, Charlie’s
scores were elevated on each of the indices (Somatization, Obsessive-Compulsive,
Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid
Ideation, Psychoticism, and the Global Severity Index) when compared to the non-
patient sample. Charlie was the only woman to have this pattern (i.e., elevated scores
across all indices). This was the case for all of the indices except for Anxiety, Phobic
Anxiety, and Psychoticism. Because of her significantly elevated scores (both with
regard to the non-patient sample and other participants) her scores also were
78
compared with the female out-patient norm group. Using this norm group, Charlie’s
scores were more variable but with significant elevation on the indices:
Somatization, Obsessive-Compulsive, Hostility, Paranoid Ideation, and Global
Severity Index. These scores are consistent with the experience of somatic distress,
obsessions and/or compulsions (e.g., repeated and unwanted thoughts, impulses and
actions), hostility (e.g., aggression, irritability, rage and/or resentment), and paranoia
(e.g. disordered thinking with regard to suspiciousness, and/or grandiosity). Finally,
Charlie’s elevated score on the GSI is consistent with someone who has endorsed a
high number of symptoms and/or someone who has indicated a high level of
perceived distress overall.
Charlie’s score pattern is consistent with her affective presentation and her
subjective reports of distress (which were significantly greater than other
participants).
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Aggression. On the AQ, Charlie scored
significantly higher than the norm groups on the Anger and Physical Aggression
subscales. In addition, she scored significantly higher than the other women in this
study with regard to Physical Aggression. Elevated scores on these subscales is
consistent with reported aggression and anger. However, Charlie also indicated that
she was often verbally abusive of her boyfriend. Therefore, her score (below the
mean) on Verbal Aggression was inconsistent with what she reported in the
interview.
Intergenerational Transmission
79
Charlie had left her father’s house around the age of 16 when mother had
already been gone some 14 years. Charlie, like the majority of the other women,
reported experiencing child abuse in her family of origin. She and her nine siblings
were abused by her father; her brother with schizophrenia was especially abused and
neglected. This brother had also been hit by a truck at age three and was severely
injured. Charlie remembers that her father always thought that this brother was
intentionally defying him and he would beat him severely in response. It was Charlie
who did her own “research” and finally understood and explained to others that her
brother was suffering from severe mental illness.
In addition to the child abuse, Charlie was witness to abuse between her
father and at least five women whom he had dated. Her father was most often the
aggressor, but she also remembers that these women occasionally would hit him as
well.
Gender
Charlie is reluctant to categorize women and men in patterned ways or to
describe a “typical man” or “typical woman.” This seems to be the most upsetting
part of the interview where she challenged me for even asking the question,
wondering aloud if I might hold stereotyped views. She was the one woman to stick
to her perspective: that men and women are flexible, and not constrained by their
gender. Charlie’s perspective is that men and women both share “masculine” and
“feminine” traits.
80
In wrapping up the interview, Charlie seemed reflective and hopeful, stating
with strength, “with my attitude this is not the story of a loser. This is the story of a
champion [and] I’ll kill that beast [violence]. It’s a beast, it’s a disease.”
Participant Profile: Daria
Daria is a 41 year-old non-religious Caucasian woman who differed from the
other women in the group in several ways. Foremost among those is that she
presented as more intellectualized, inaccessible, and defended. Several weeks after
the completion of our interview, another woman in group became agitated and angry
and she verbally attacked Daria. Although the group leader, James, continually
encouraged this woman to take responsibility for her behavior, she was adamant
about having been triggered by Daria’s “offensive” way of being. It may be that her
style of presentation is a way to cope with her self-proclaimed “low self-esteem and
low self-confidence.” She seems quite intelligent but has apparent trouble connecting
with others. She presents as angry and bitter, and is disappointed with herself for not
having achieved more.
Daria comes from a family that values formal education and many of her
family members have accomplished professional success. Daria earned an A.A., but
regrets that she has not yet gone further, stating that she thought she at least would
have finished her B.A. by now and that she imagined being in a fulfilling career. She
would like to “be compensated monetarily for a job well done.”
But instead, she is unemployed. In part, Daria attributes her not having
completed college with having had undiagnosed (until she was in her 30s) Attention
81
Deficit Disorder (ADD). Although Daria reports that money is tight, with her
husband making less than $30,000 a year, this was significantly more than the
income reported by most other participants.
Daria was self-referred to group when she decided that she wanted to
improve her marriage by working on better managing her anger. But although she
has been in the group for approximately one and a half months at the time I
interviewed her, she had not yet established good rapport with other group members
or the leader. Of the women I interviewed, Daria was the most concerned about her
identity being concealed and refused to be audio taped. Even with this concession to
her wish for privacy, she was the participant who revealed the least about herself and
her situation.
Daria agreed to be interviewed, only after significant bargaining. Initially she
asked for eight movie tickets (as opposed to the four offered). She argued that
because she had trouble finding child-care, and because she was not court-mandated
(and would not receive class credit) that she should receive more. Ultimately, she
was satisfied with meeting just once for the interview, and with being permitted to
complete her questionnaires at home. Other participants completed them at the
counseling center with me present.
Daria and her husband have one child, a son who is a toddler. She reports
feeling the additional stress of her son being “mildly special needs” child with slight
linguistic and motor delays. Daria worries that her father-in-law might have
something akin to Aspergers and that this may have been passed on to her son. In
82
addition, he was born with a congenital defect and needed surgery as an infant to
correct the positioning of his urethra.

The Relationship
Daria reported that both she and her husband were abusive to one another.
Most of the abuse was verbal and emotional. She reported calling him names and
that mostly he was “passive aggressive.” But occasionally, they both were both
physically abusive. When her irritability has been especially high, Daria has punched
her husband in the arm, and has thrown things at him (mostly empty water bottles
and a plastic laundry basket). Once she bit him on the arm. Her husband has grabbed
her forcefully, leaving bruises on her arms.
Daria could not identify anything similar to the “cycle of violence” in her
relationship. She reported instead that the basic pattern seemed to be: something
would happen to upset her and then she would become angry and withdraw but her
husband would not acknowledge the disagreement. There were no make-up periods,
and no “honeymoon” except for maybe after the first time they were separated.
Unlike the other participants who reported abusive incidents earlier on, Daria
said that there was no abuse for the first three or four years they were together. Now
(spring, 2007) they have been married more than a decade, but separated in early
October 2006 due to Daria’s abusiveness.
Quantitative measure of the relationship: Intimate partner violence). Daria
was the woman who (compared to the other participants) indicated the lowest level
83
of violence (both self-initiated and partner-initiated) on the DCI. Still, according to
her responses on the DCI, she did indicate initiating more frequent and more severe
(albeit still low) violence than her partner. Specifically, on the DCI, Daria reported
that, in the last year, her husband had once twisted her arm and that he had pushed,
grabbed or shoved her two to five times. With regard to the violence initiated by her:
Daria reported she had pushed, grabbed or shoved, thrown an object at, kicked, bit or
hit, and hit or tried to hit her husband with something. Each of these behaviors had
occurred two to five times during the last year. Additionally, she indicated that she
had once slapped him within the past year. Although this was the reported pattern on
the DCI, in the interview Daria did not give the impression that she was responsible
for more frequent and severe violence than her partner. Instead, she subtly implied
that while others saw him as the “victim” she nonetheless felt that he was more to
blame than she.
Demographics and Lifestyle
Daria was the one woman to report that she “never” drank alcohol or used
drugs. She also reported that her husband would drink only a couple of drinks over
the course of a month and abstained from drug use of any kind.
Daria was quick to attribute her abusive behavior to ADD, to Premenstrual
Syndrome (PMS) and to pregnancy-related hormones. During early pregnancy and
post-birth, Daria recalls that her “patience level went down to zero” and she became
emotionally abusive. In addition, Daria notes that she becomes more abusive and
irritable when depressed (and not on medication).
84
Like many of the other women, Daria reported having minimal social
support. Although she felt some connection with an uncle and brother who lived in
town, her father lived abroad and she often continued to feel criticized in interactions
with her mother.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Alcohol. Consistent with what she reported
during the interview, Daria answered “no” to all items on the CAGE, both in regards
to her own use and to her partner’s use of alcohol.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Social support. Daria’s scores on the
MSPSS were neutral with regard to perceived family, friend and significant other
support.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Quality of life. Regarding support from
others, Daria also indicated, moderately, in response to the item on the WHOQOL-
BREF, Do you get the kind of support from others that you need? This seemed
consistent with her interview responses regarding social support.
Daria’s score in the Psychological Domain was significantly below that of the
norm group. All other domains (including Social Relationships) were within the
average range. In addition, she answered seldom for the item, how often do you have
negative feelings such as blue mood, despair, anxiety, depression? These responses
seem both consistent and inconsistent in that Daria reported some trouble with
mental health (specifically ADD, depression and over-eating). But during the
interview she also indicated that she was using psychotropic medication.
85
She was also the person to indicate the lowest number (two) indicating the
least number of days (in the past 30 days) when her mental health was not good.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Mental health. None of Daria’s scores on
the SCL-90-R were significantly elevated in relationship to the comparison norm
group (female non-patients).
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Aggression. Daria’s scores on the AQ were
significantly higher than that of the norm group on the subscales Verbal and Physical
Aggression. This was consistent with what she reported in the interview. However,
her (non-significant) score on Hostility was surprising given the apparently hostile
way she seemed to interact with other group members and with the group leader.
Intergenerational Transmission
Daria reported a history of exposure to abuse which consisted mostly of her
parents yelling and throwing things. She was also directly affected by her mother’s
verbal abuse of the children.
Gender
Daria seemed unable to comment definitively on gender roles.
Participant Profile: Flora
Flora is a 25 year old Dominican woman of Anglican faith. She was born and
raised outside of the U.S., and immigrated here three and a half years ago. She is
pretty, thin, and stylish. She seems, on initial impression, to be wealthier than other
group members. She often comes to group in new clothing, with her hair and nails
done. She is well-liked by other participants and is the group member who presents
86
as the least affectively depressed. She is a single mother with a toddler son and she
works as an in-home caregiver for $12.50 an hour.
Flora was initially reluctant to be interviewed, but ultimately agreed, in the
hope of being done with her required groups as soon as possible. I found our
connection easy and by the end of the interview she seemed to also. Like Charlie,
Flora expressed wanting to continue our conversation. She reported to the group that
I had been quite helpful to her and encouraged others to participate in the study.
The Relationship
Flora has been violent towards two of her last five partners. Like all of the
other women, Flora’s second (most recent) partner has also been abusive towards
her.
In the first violent relationship (when Flora was 18 or 19) only one incident
of violence occurred and she initiated it. This incident occurred when she felt her
partner had criticized her.
I got really upset and I went and I got a broom and he wasn’t wearing any
shirt and I took the broom and I swung at him on his back as hard…with the
wood end. As hard as I can, with all of my might…I just did it like it was a
bat. I just swung at him really hard.

When asked about this incident she says that she did it because she knew
“that [she] could get away with it.”
The second violent relationship was with the father of her son. With him,
Flora reports too many incidents of violence to even recall. Her violent behavior in
this relationship twice lead to her arrest and to court mandated counseling.
87
Throughout their relationship, her boyfriend has remained married but separated
from his wife. He and his wife still have some contact (including sexual contact), but
Flora is not sure to what extent.
Flora and he dated for approximately three years, living together for most of
this time. Flora reports that she often resorts to violence either when she feels that he
is trying to control her or when she has lost control in some way. Although they no
longer are together, they still communicate regarding their son. Her perspective is
that their communication has improved in part because of her participation in P.A.P.
Like Charlie, Flora reported that the trigger for fights (including one of their
biggest fights) was her concern that he had been out, cheating on her. She responded
by literally kicking him out of the bed when he came home late. This fight escalated,
quickly leading to her throwing something at him, him calling the police, and Flora
ultimately getting mandated to counseling.
He went out at 7:00 that night and didn’t come back until 2 o’clock…He said
he was at the doctor but I didn’t believe him because he didn’t have a wrist
band. He didn’t have anything. He came home with a ziplock bag with some
pills in it and I’m like, ‘No doctor’s gonna give you no pills in a ziplock bag’
you know? That’s not professional or legal, they’ll give you a
prescription…He would never tell me but I knew he was probably out with
someone and when he got home he got in the bed with me and I didn’t want
him to lay in the bed next to me and I kicked him out the bed. And then he
got in the bed and pushed me out the bed…And then I got mad and I threw
something at him… a air filter and that’s what cut his thumb and he got really
upset…And then he called the police

The police were called a second time when Flora bit her boyfriend on the
hand. She was arrested and ordered to counseling, even though this time he had
initiated the violence by hitting her in the face.
88
Flora reported that her boyfriend often would behave as if he did not care
about her. He would also say things to belittle her, and would become controlling,
trying to prevent her from leaving the house. Although Flora initially reported that he
was physically abusive only in response to her abuse, she later reported that in
addition to the time he hit her in the face, he once had “body-slammed” her.
Like the majority of the women, she was able to identify some, but not all of
the patterns typically associated with the “cycle of violence.” For Flora this
manifested mostly as feelings of guilt and regret after behaving violently.
Additionally, she reported that the severity of violence increased over a time.
Quantitative measure of the relationship: Intimate partner violence. Like
Ann, Flora had a response pattern on the DCI which indicated that her partner
initiated more severe and more frequently abuse than she. Flora indicated that in the
past year, she had once thrown an object at, once kicked, bit or hit with a fist, and
once hit or tried to hit her partner. In contrast, within the same period of time, she
reported that her boyfriend had pushed, grabbed or shoved her 6-12 times, had
physically forced sex and had choked or strangled her 2-5 times, and had once
shaken, thrown or tried to throw her, thrown an object at, and hit or tried to hit her
with something. This was inconsistent with what Flora reported during the interview.
Demographics and Lifestyle
Flora reported that, although she drinks minimally, she previously smoked
marijuana on a regular (approximately weekly) basis. Like Charlie, she often would
smoke to avoid fights. Flora thought that if she could just be calm enough and, for
89
example, not react to her boyfriend wanting to leave when she got home, then
perhaps she could avoid a fight.
Flora, as was common among many of the participants, also reported that she
sometimes felt depressed and would be prone to “staying in bed and crying a
lot...eating less, [and] feel[ing] down”. Moreover, like most of the women who were
interviewed, Flora also reported minimal social support. “I don’t feel like I fit in with
nobody,” she said. “I don’t feel like I have a lot of friends. I know a lot of people and
I socialize with a lot of people but…I don’t have a lot of friends.” Although she does
have close to a couple of female friends, she hadn’t seen them in several years and
only had contact via phone.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Alcohol. Flora’s score (zero) on the CAGE
regarding her use of alcohol was consistent with the minimal use of alcohol she
reported in the interview. However, her responses (two yeses) regarding her
boyfriend’s use of alcohol were surprising because Flora had not given the
impression during the interview that her boyfriend’s drinking was problematic.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Social support. Flora’s scores on the
MSPSS indicated that she most strongly agreed with statements about receiving
support from family. Her second and third sources of support were perceived as
significant other (slightly higher) followed by friend support. Compared to other
participants, Flora indicated significantly higher perceived support from friends.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Quality of life. Flora’s scores, except for
the Social Relationships Domain, on the WHOQOL-BREF domains all were within
90
the non-significant range. For this domain, though, she scored significantly above
(with a z-score of 1.48) the norm group, the only one of the six participants to score
similarly. This score was incongruous because her reporting in the interview
indicated minimal support. However, the response to one global social relationships
item (Do you get the kind of support from others that you need?), moderately,
seemed more in alignment with her responses in the interview.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Mental health. None of Flora’s scores on
the SCL-90-R indices were elevated (when compared with the female non-patient
norm group).
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Aggression. With regard to the four
aggression subscales, Flora scored in the average (i.e., non-significant) range for
both Physical Aggression and Anger. However, she scored significantly above the
mean on both the Verbal Aggression and the Hostility scales.
Intergenerational Transmission
Flora was the only woman (initially) to report that she was neither a witness
to nor a direct victim of abuse in her family of origin. She reported being close to her
father, and having love and respect for him. Still today she recalled his rules and
reported being influenced by them currently.
My father was very strict on me growing up…he only had like 10 rules. His
rules were like…no phone calls after nine…I must know your whereabouts
24-7. No boyfriends until you finish high school…I should not exceed my
allowance, my spending allowance for the week. You know just, he just had a
set of rules.

91
During the interview, she also reported that up until puberty, she was the
“bully,” often beating up on her younger brother. Flora remembers always having a
temper and being quite stubborn.
I used to fight with my brother a lot from very young…I guess I had a bad
temper… I was like a bully. I was a bully big sister, you know. We would
always play school and I would always want to be the teacher. If we played
house then I was the mom and he was the child. You know I always wanted
to be in control.

During our interview Flora reported that she had not been abused and that she
had not witnessed abuse between her parents. But later, in group, she shared
obviously contradictory information. She told the group that growing up her mother
had an on-going affair that Flora was privy to. Her father eventually inquired about
this and Flora responded truthfully. Her parents separated temporarily and Flora
went to live with her mom. During that time in particular, Flora describes her mother
as regularly physically abusive towards her. Flora remembered that her mother often
would pick up whatever she could find (e.g., kitchen spoons) and hit Flora.
Gender
As with most of the women, Flora began her discussion of gender by saying
that it would be hard to stereotype men and women because “everybody is different.”
However, she then went on to offer some more rigid notions, indicating that “one of
the functions of a typical man is for someone to be in charge, kinda set the rules, or
lead the way. And a woman would be more like a follower.”
In closing, it is worth noting that despite such a difficult history, Flora
seemed optimistic and positive about the future like many of the women. She said:
92
I really could see myself being confident being a nurse, making money, being
independent. You know, and finding a really nice husband who’s gonna
appreciate who I am….It’s not gonna be so bad for me cause…my life is
gonna be back on track. I’m gonna be working again, I’m gonna be making
money, I’m gonna be paying bills and come February, I’m gonna be going to
school and actually trying to get my life the way I want it to be.
Participant Profile: LaShonda
LaShonda is a 28 year old Christian, African-American woman. She has
acne and is at approximately 5’6” weighs well over 200 pounds. Her warmth and
affectionate manner make her attractive. She is wide-eyed, friendly, and surprisingly
innocent given all that she has been through. James, the group leader, and other
members, often seemed puzzled by her logic, but appreciate her “good heart” and
sincerity. She has a 12
th
grade education and was working as a Mc Donald’s cashier
when we first met. Her yearly income was approximately $8,700. She later decided
to take the necessary classes to become a medical technician and was in the process
of getting certified.
LaShonda spoke to me in a familiar and casual way throughout the interview,
often responding with an enthusiastic “girl!” and then moving on to excitedly report
something or other. After one interview, I invited her to share a burrito at the
Mexican restaurant next to the counseling center. She agreed and was eager to talk
about things other than herself. Mostly, she hoped to hear about my dating life and
was interested in providing me with tips on dating (e.g., when you are with a guy,
relax, kick your shoes off and put your feet on his dashboard, leaning back in a
casual and open way).
93
The Relationship
LaShonda reports having had three serious relationships. Only that with her
boyfriend has been violent. Like all of the women in this study, both LaShonda and
her boyfriend had been violent with one another, each initiating several serious
offenses. She reported that her boyfriend once had choked her, and another time had
pulled a gun on her. The violence also was quite frequent: They would fight verbally
on a daily basis, and fight physically once or twice a month. One unique thing about
their relationship was that LaShonda was significantly larger than her boyfriend
(who was shorter and weighed perhaps 70 pounds less than she). A second unique
factor was that her boyfriend had had a stroke. Following his decrease in physical
functioning she more clearly became the primary aggressor, despite the fact that he
would still try to get at her with his “good arm.”
I pushed him down because he had a stroke. I pushed him down. I know it’s
not right. But, I don’t know, you know, when he does what he does, it’s right.
Because he’s a disrespectful person…I have pushed him. And, I put my foot
in his neck like that (demonstrates across the neck). And, he couldn’t breathe,
and you know, he had stroke so he couldn’t get up. He was like “let me up
[LaShonda].” You know, and that was that...I think I’m being more abusive
right now, I think I’m starting to be bad…. And I think that I need to stop.

The incident that resulted in her arrest began with her boyfriend “annoying”
her, and preventing her from resting or sleeping after a long day at work. He had
been questioning her repeatedly and calling her a “bitch,” as he often did.
That word [bitch] just triggers me. You know…but the way he says it is just a
feeling that lures me. It makes me powerless, man, and that’s when I have to
react Amy! That makes me powerless when I hear him say that to me…That
makes me feel like I’m not a woman. That makes me feel like I’m not even
human. That makes me feel very degraded. That makes me feel like a whore!
94
That particular day he also had interrogated her about where and with whom
she had been. LaShonda first threatened, then picked up a knife to stab him.
According to her, it was an “accident” and that she had just wanted to scare him, but
that she had quickly reacted when he moved towards her, thinking that he was going
to hit her.
I said, “if you don’t leave me alone, I’m gonna go get a knife and I’m gonna
stab you!”…So I jump up and I walked to the kitchen, I picked up the knife
and his back was turned and he was doing something…I was trying to scare
him but he wasn’t paying attention. When he jumped back, I don’t know if I
reacted towards if he was going to hit me or not, then bam (noise of being
struck)! The knife stabbed him a little bit. He fell to the floor, blood start
gushing out, and I hurried up and got a sock and tried to stop the bleeding.

LaShonda , scared at the bleeding, called the paramedics. She saw it as an
“accident” and like Ann, thought that because she had told the truth, she did not
deserve to be arrested.
During the time she was in jail, her boyfriend had a stroke, resulting in his
not being as physically quick or functional. LaShonda then more clearly took the role
of primary aggressor. She described other times after the stroke whereby she had
pushed him, shoved him so that he fell through a glass table, “stomped him,” tried to
kick him in the groin, and stepped on his throat when he had fallen.
Like Charlie, LaShonda had strongly positive, albeit also some negative,
things to say about her boyfriend. Of all the women interviewed, however, she
seemed most proud and most positive regarding her relationship.
95
Quantitative measure of the relationship: Intimate partner violence.
LaShonda’s scores on the DCI were largely consistent with what she reported in the
interview. That is, she had reported committing frequent and severe acts of violence
and that her boyfriend had done the same, mostly prior to his stroke. She endorsed a
number of items that were more severe including, in the past year: strangling or
choking her boyfriend 2-5 times, threatening him with a knife or gun 2-5 times, and
once using a knife or gun on him. LaShonda and Charlie were the only women to
report they had choked or strangled their boyfriends.
Demographics and Lifestyle
LaShonda does not drink much. She also reported that she avoids drugs both
currently and historically. Also, like most of the women, she has little social support,
other than her mother, finding it easier to avoid making friends due to the possible
upset that would result in the relationship were she to spend time with anyone other
than her partner.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Alcohol. LaShonda answered no to all of
the questions on the CAGE, which is consistent with what she reported (i.e., of
minimal drinking) in the interview. However, she did respond yes in response to a
question about her partner’s drinking. This was somewhat consistent with the
interview information in that she noted that he had been drinking when they got into
the fight that ultimately led to her arrest. On the other hand, during the interview, she
had given the impression that she was not concerned about his drinking, whereas the
question she responded to affirmatively (Have you felt that your spouse should cut
96
down his/her drinking?) would seem to indicate that she had some concerns in this
regard.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Social support. On the MSPSS, LaShonda
indicated that she received a solid amount of support from family members, a
moderate amount from her significant other, and a very low (lowest score possible)
of friend support. These ratings are mostly consistent with her reporting during the
interview.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Quality of life. In response to the social support
item (Do you get the kind of support from others that you need?) LaShonda indicated
that she did (A great deal). However, her score on the Social Relationships scale was
in the non-significant range. Similarly, her WHOQOL-BREF scores for the domains
Psychological Health and Environment also were non-significant. Neither of these
scores were surprising. More than the other participants, LaShonda reported good
mental health and limited concerns regarding her life style. LaShonda’s one
significant score was in the domain of Physical Health. Here, LaShonda scored
significantly higher than the norm group and significantly higher than the norm
group and significantly higher than the other participants. Although LaShonda did
not specifically discuss physical health during the interview, her high ratings of
physical health are consistent with her high level of optimism.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Mental health. LaShonda’s scores on the
SCL-90-R were elevated with regard to the Somatization (SOM), Interpersonal
Sensitivity (INT) and Paranoid Ideation indices (PAR). Elevation on SOM is
97
consistent with someone who perceives physical distress (with regard to symptoms
that are typically associated with psychological etiology). Furthermore, someone
with this profile may also feel inadequate in comparison with others and/or
experience discomfort in social interactions (INT). Finally, a person with elevation
on PAR may be characterized by suspiciousness, grandiosity, and/or hostility.
LaShonda’s affective presentation, her interview style, and her witnessed
interactions with James and other group members is incongruent with elevation on
the INT and PAR indices.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Aggression. On the Aggression
Questionnaire, LaShonda scored within the average range for all four subscales.
These non-significant scores are somewhat inconsistent with her interview reporting
of frequent anger, frustration, and physical violence.
Intergenerational Transmission
LaShonda was aware of abuse that had occurred in her mother’s past, but
never directly witnessed it. Like the majority of the women, LaShonda also was hit
as a child. Lashonda at first reported that she was not often hit because she was not
“that bad.” Later, however, she reported that she was hit by her mother every other
week and that she would “try to catch the belt” so that she would not get as injured.
Her boyfriend also was punished physically. “Yeah, he used to get whuppings with a
switch and an extension chord. Yeah, his momma whupped him real bad, you
know.”
98
LaShonda was unique in that she reported violence in other relationships
(with her mother initiating these currently). Also, she reports physically fighting
recently with her cousins, aunt, and brother.
I had a fight with my auntie I think and my two cousins. I mean fight…But I
won every last one of them. Of all of them…I’m the craziest one I guess,
besides my brother cause he’s a crazy psychopath too. That’s why I was
trying to burn him too, with those curlers.

She also notes that her boyfriend has tried to be physical with her mother.
And although LaShonda has prevented this, her mother has initiated physical
conflicts with her boyfriend.
Gender
LaShonda had a complex view of gender. On the one hand, she seemed to
hold views that were non-stereotypical and perhaps more indicative of her
perspective on her own relationship, rather than on men, in general. She said:
How would I explain to a man...a kind, gentle, sensitive, maybe jealous,
respectful man…I feel every man have a kindness heart, but got a little
jealous, maybe don’t show it. Try not to show it, but there’s something there.
Trust me. Respectful, you know...Overprotective.
On the other hand, LaShonda also seemed to expect the worst of men. When
relaying to me why she felt grateful for her boyfriend she commented:
Even though he was an ass, he was supporting me and was helping me, other
men out there is going to want to have sex with me, dump me in a dumpster
and just move to go the next woman….And he doesn’t just have sex with me
and leave me.
Like Flora, she was looking forward to an improved future. She also has the
goal of continuing on to be a registered nurse, as she reported proudly:
I went back to school and it’s like I’m addicted to work, too. It’s like I’m
going to school and I want to focus just on school, but then I want to work. I
just need a job…Oh! Mc Donalds can, goodbye! And, I’m going to be doing
99
work, I have to go to my externship to a clinic, do my externship, my hours.
Hopefully, I can get hired on the spot, Amy….And if I do get work, then I’m
going to go back to school for R.N., girl!..I’m gonna go back to school Amy!
I’m gonna do it!
Participant Profile: May
May is a non-religious, 45 year-old African-American woman. She is
friendly, kind and intelligent. She is approximately 5’6” and about 250 pounds. She
also smokes and has health problems. She is unique in that she is involved in the
court system, yet is self-referred for counseling. She reports coming for counseling
mostly in order to impress the courts. Her kids have been taken from her custody due
to, among other things, DCFS’ concern about her children witnessing domestic
violence. Her kids have been staying with a relative for the past four months. May
hopes that by attending classes, she will have a better chance to regain her rights as a
mother. In addition to group counseling for domestic violence, she also is
participating in parenting classes, and hopes to do family and couple counseling.
May was the only one to mention that her minor kids are involved with
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), which got involved when her
seven-year-old reported wanting to jump from a balcony at school. She recalled:
DCFS got involved because my son went to school and someone said at the
school that he said he wanted to jump out the building, jump out the
balcony…I never seen him act like he’s gonna kill himself… it was kinda
weird…So anyway, they call and when I went to pick him up they said they
were gonna call some social worker… some psychologist. And she came in
and she talked to me and talked to me and said she was trying to figure out,
you know. According to her she said, “we’re gonna put him on a three day
hold. I think he needs to be put in the hospital.” And I was like, “whatever.”
There was nothing I could do about it.

100
Once she and her boyfriend (the kids’ father) were interviewed, however, and
May mentioned fighting, DCFS became concerned about her children’s exposure to
domestic violence. They were then taken from her home and placed with a relative.
May hopes to re-unite with them and reports feeling very stressed by the separation.
The Relationship
May was the one person who brought me to tears in our interview. I felt quite
sad in hearing her story about how she had been so emotionally and verbally
mistreated by her father and about how she has continued to interact similarly with
her boyfriend of many years. Like Ann, May reported that there was nothing positive
about her relationship. She feels hopeless to change things and wondered if she could
ever find someone who would treat her better. She reported that her boyfriend never
once had bought her a gift, even for Christmas or her birthday. Furthermore, she
could not recall one time that he had spoken kindly to her or given her a compliment.
She remarked:
I am totally used to being treated like this. It’s nothing, it’s normal, it’s all my
life. I’ve never been treated good…I don’t even know what that is. It is
totally just the way I’ve lived. That’s all I know…(Crying)…Since I’ve been
with [my boyfriend], it’s been 10 years. Like he’s never bought me nothing
for my birthday [crying more], never gave me anything, never gave me
anything for Valentine’s day, never got me anything for Mother’s day. I’m
talking about nothing for Christmas, I’m talking about nothing for 10
years….I never had anybody treat me good.

May has been in two violent relationships. In the first, she was married for 13
years and recalls only a couple of violent incidents. In one, for example, her husband
101
hit her in the head with his shoe. Regularly, though, he would attempt to control her
and behave jealously.
She has been with her current boyfriend for 10 years. Occasionally May will
throw things at him, punch him, or push him, but his violence towards her is more
frequent and severe. She reports that he has been violent on many occasions,
sometimes extremely so. She recalls that he has choked and suffocated her, head
butted her, hit her with a belt, and thrown things at her. Still, May seems to feel the
need to defend him. She said:
He was trying to scare me or control me cause I might have been crying or
going off, what he calls is going off. You know but I mean I didn’t like it and
I was scared at the time but he’s never tried to kill me, he’s never tried to
really hurt me. It was more stuff like, I mean all the stuff was real, but I never
got beat up like that like I had a broke arm or a bad cut or something.

Another unique aspect of May’s relationship is her boyfriend’s truly bizarre
behavior. What she describes is consistent with a diagnosis of severe mental illness
(perhaps paranoia and/or psychosis). He would inspect his drinks for potential
poison, and assume that men who drive by and honk have been given a secret signal
by her. He also inspects his wallet to see if she has taken out any of his money. He
once accused her of trying to “scratch off” his tattoo while he slept. May reports that
he tends to fixate on different things and to mention his fears daily for several
months. Then, suddenly, he will stop and never report them again. She observed:
He will say a certain thing and then after a certain time he’s onto something
new. Then it’s the poison. Like one time he didn’t use to say that. Then he
started the poison thing and now it’s this. Like these little things that he
will… like one time it was the tattoo. He has this tattoo on his chest and then
he would talk about that like he’d be crazy like he’d wake up in the morning
102
and I’d see him trying to scratch off his tattoo while he’s sleeping and he was
saying that everyday for months and then he never said anything. And then
he went on to another thing.

Another unique aspect of her relationship is that on several occasions, it
seems that her boyfriend has become violent with her without provocation or
warning. In the first incidents, he had “kicked her out of the car” and also pushed her
when she was seven or eight months pregnant. At that point, they had been together
for about a year. The incident that first really stood out for her, though, was when he
hit her multiple times on the arm. This occurred when their son was five weeks old:
He was working and I remember he was having problems with his job. And I
remember the night before he hit me that night I remember coming home and
he was just acting really like, “I’m dealing with a psycho” like he really
would do that weird not speak to me stuff all the time. So he came in and he
just started doing stuff like going through his closet and he had this basket of
clothes and just different items and things and he was starting going through
the stuff and he was like talking crazy and I was like, “What is wrong with
him?” And I didn’t say one word. [He was] not talking about me but just
saying all kinds of stuff kinda talking to his-self. So anyway, I just went to
bed…I was really scared… And in the morning I got up and I remember I
had a daybed in the room…I was over by the day bed and I don’t really
remember what happened cause he didn’t want to talk anymore he just came
over and said, “Pow, Pow Pow” and just started punching me. And I was
like… I was floored, I could not believe it.

May’s violence against him usually is set off either by his bizarre behavior or
thoughts or by his tendency to ignore her (sometimes for several days). The worst of
these incidents occurred when her boyfriend refused to take her money out of the
bank. She had asked him to deposit it for her and then needed it pay the bills. After
several days of refusing to get her the money, she attacked, using the automobile
theft prevention, “Club,” a long and heavy iron stick. “I picked up the club and I
103
started swinging it but it was so funny…I was trying to hit the window and stuff, I
wasn’t trying to hit him. I was trying to hit the front window.”
Quantitative measure of the relationship: Intimate partner violence. On the
DCI, May indicated that her violence was less extreme, both in terms of frequency
and severity, than the violence initiated by her boyfriend. For example, May
indicated that she had: pushed grabbed or shoved her boyfriend 2-5 times in the past
year. Additionally, in the last year she once had thrown an object at and once kicked,
hit or bit him with a fist. Her boyfriend, on the other hand had initiated many other
acts (in addition to the ones she endorsed). May indicated that 2-5 times in the past
year he had forced sex and that he had once choked or strangled her, once beat her
up, once hit her with something and once slammed her against the wall (among other
things). May’s responses on the DCI were consistent with her reporting during the
interview.
Demographics and Lifestyle
May drinks little and does not use drugs. In the past, she smoked cigarettes
infrequently: never buying them, but smoking other’s cigarettes when she went out.
More recently, she has come to smoke them more regularly (10-12 daily), to calm
her nerves. Food is another source of soothing and she admits to using it frequently.
Her boyfriend smokes marijuana between three to seven times a week and May is
uncertain about his other drug use. She has no “proof” about his using but wonders if
drug use might explain some of his bizarre behavior.
104
Unlike Ann who presented as angry, remarking that she would never let
anything like that happen to her again, May seemed defeated:
I feel anxiety, depression, I cry a lot. There are things that I should be… it
affects my whole…you know I don’t take care of my business like I should. I
used to like to cook and keep house and now I don’t really care about
anything.

As with most of the women, May reports minimal social support, also finding
that it is “easier” just not to interact much with other people. Following most
incidents where he and/or she has been abusive, May feels depressed and
contemplates leaving; she feels depressed, unmotivated, apathetic, anhedonic and
tearful. When the relationship is better, she feels noticeably less depressed and less
anxious. May also reports having insomnia, although because she has experienced
this for so long, she is unsure about whether or not it is related to what is occurring in
her relationship. When considering the overall progression of violence, May does not
think that the severity of the violence has increased but notes that the frequency has
certainly increased over the years.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Alcohol. May did not endorse any of the
items on the CAGE. This was consistent with her interview report that although her
boyfriend regularly smoked marijuana, neither of them drank regularly.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Social support. With regard to the MSPSS,
May indicated that she most strongly agreed with the statements that indicated
support from family members. With regard to friends, she “very strongly disagreed”
that they were a source of support (rating this group as low as possible). And,
105
regarding the questions that generally tap significant other support, May indicated
experiencing some level of support, more than from friends; less than from family.
During her interview, May had reported having minimal support from friends and
did not mention parental support. It is likely that her MSPSS may indicated
perceived support from her cousins, and possibly also her children.
May clearly indicated in the interview that she did not receive support from
her boyfriend. It is possible, therefore, that scores on this measure may have tapped
an alternative relationship (e.g., close relationship with a cousin) because this
measure is worded using special person which leaves participants able to interpret
this for themselves.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Quality of life. On the WHOQOL-BREF,
May indicated always in response to the question, how often do you have negative
feelings such as blue mood, despair, anxiety, depression?
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Mental health. May’s scores on the SCL-
90-R, when compared with other participants, were the second (after Charlie) most
elevated. All indices except Phobic Anxiety were elevated. Unlike Charlie, however,
May’s scores could be accommodated in the lower end of the T-score range of the
provided comparison norm group (ranging across subscales from 30 to 81). May’s
elevated scores were consistent with her affective presentation and with her reported
distress in the interview.
Quantitative measure of lifestyle: Aggression. May scored in the non-
significant range for three of the four subscales on the Aggression Questionnaire. On
106
the Hostility subscale, however, May scored significantly below the norm group. As
noted, May seemed depressed, tired and hopeless. It could be that May simply did
not have the energy to be angry or aggressive.
Intergenerational Transmission
May says that her father was very short-tempered, mean and verbally
abusive towards her siblings, her mother, and her. Although May reported that abuse
was mostly verbal, she also recalled one time when her father had punched her. It
was notable that May used many of the same negative words to describe both her
father and her boyfriend. For example, she referred to them both as being “mean”
and never having anything nice to say to or about her.
Gender
When asked about a typical man and a typical woman, May says that most
women want, among other things, to be loved and supported. She believes she is like
a typical woman in that she wants what every women wants, although she does not
get it.
The Staff: James
James was one of two staff members interviewed for this study. James is the
director of The Program of Abuse Prevention (P.A.P.) and leader of all four (two
women’s and two men’s) domestic violence groups at the counseling center. In some
ways, this seems an unlikely role for James who comes to the center most days after
a long shift as an electrician. He is transported by his Harley or alternately his work
truck which he parks in his spot at the top of the lot. James is Caucasian,
107
approximately 6 feet tall and 250 pounds. The gray at his temples and sprinkled
throughout, reflect a man in his mid-late forties. Still, a youthfulness and gritty-ness
is evident in his dress: jeans and a short-sleeve button-down, usually plaid, over a
long-sleeve t-shirt. A silver chain hangs from his pocket, and he wears black work
boots. James laughs large from his belly; his that laughs often turn to coughs when
something is especially funny. But he listens intently and his interventions reflect a
confidence.
Although technically, a “lay therapist,” James is one of the more talented
clinicians I know. I had the fortune of getting to know him over the 18 months that I
co-facilitated groups with him. He tells the story of how he first came to be involved
with the program 15 years ago. “I was escalating” he says referring to his anger at his
first wife. He was about to get married and although things were supposed to be
ideal, the tension was mounting. James came to the group, seeking help and support
for himself.
Eventually, he moved from participant to group leader. For many years now,
he has offered help and support to others. James presents as an “expert” in most
fields might present. That is, it is somewhat difficult for him to put what he does into
words. He knows what is effective and he does it well, but explaining it is somehow
more difficult.
I interviewed James about his experience with the women who have been
identified (self, court, and/or center-identified) as perpetrators. During the course of
the interview, James and I spoke about a variety of factors related to domestic
108
violence including: family history of exposure to violence, drug and alcohol use,
emotional contributors to violence, social support, and comparisons between female
perpetrators and female victims.
Although, according to James, “relationship factors” (e.g., whether a couple
is dating or married, living together or not, etc.) do not necessarily influence
likelihood, frequency, and severity of violence in the relationship, James believes
that certain personality factors, emotions and violence in the family-of-origin do
have an impact. The main trait or tendency that makes violence more likely, he
believes, is one’s inability to be in touch with themselves. As an extension of this,
they are unable to identify and cope with certain emotions (in particular, hurt, fear,
pain, guilt, shame, and regret) and they use violence as a way to rid themselves of
these emotions.
The Relationship
James believes that the majority of these women (he guesses 85%) are
actually committing violence in self-defense. It comes down to the belief that many
of these women have, that they have two options: either “accept it” or “nail them
back” with violence when they are mistreated (physically or otherwise).
Also, although all kinds of issues might be present, including infidelity,
finances and raising the kids, James believes that these emotions underlie these
issues.
In commenting on both female victims and perpetrators, James notes that
there are many similarities. Although the court may have identified some of the
109
“victims” who fought back as “perpetrators” James and Janet do their best to sort this
out. According to James, the more “true perpetrators” convey anger as their primary
emotion. Although this seems counter-intuitive, the aggressive women tend to place
blame on their partners (e.g., “he made me do it.”). On the other hand, “victims” are
more likely to present with fear and to say things like “it was probably my fault.”
He gives an example of how it can be sometimes difficult and confusing to
sort out “victims” vs. “perpetrators,” saying:
She was labeled by the courts as the aggressor, as the abuser and what she
did, she nailed him with a broom and I mean, nailed him good to get away.
But what she was upset about was that the courts didn’t recognize that he had
her by the throat up against the wall, in the corner, punching her and the only
thing she could do was grab a broom and swing.

Demographics and Lifestyle
James believes that when substances are involved the risk of violence is
higher. He explains this by saying that often prior to violent incidents people are not
reflective enough to make a decision about whether or not to behave violently. Use
of substances further reduces the ability to think through one’s decisions. In addition,
James believes that both alcohol/drug use and violence may be related to a third
factor, which is the overall desire to distract oneself and/or the inability to cope with
uncomfortable emotions. Similarly, he notes that many of the women are overweight
and hypothesizes that in addition to using violence and drugs or alcohol, they also
use food as a distraction from difficult emotions.
In discussing social support, he raised an interesting question wondering, if
the specific type (as opposed to any or all forms) of social support impacts the
110
likelihood of violence. His idea was that for some women, being isolated might
increase the likelihood of violence. On the other hand, social support may also foster
violence if, for example, women are getting support from their families that serves to
justify the violence and encourage external blame.
James often poses the question about where the best sources of support might
be, challenging the women to ask themselves “is family the best place I can go for
support?” He goes on to explain that family may not be the appropriate because
family members may support these women’s behaviors (and assign blame to the
women’s partners). When this is the case, he says, women are not likely to consider
the ways in which they are responsible for their own behavior and interactions.
Intergenerational Transmission
Even though James could not comment definitively, he does believe that
violence is “learned behavior” and that both father-to-mother and mother-to-father
violence occurs in many of these women’s families. Some women who have
violence in their histories may become more averse to it, while others might become
more accepting, viewing violence as inevitable.
Gender
It is also interesting to note that, according to James, some of these women
hold seemingly “unusual” conceptions about their own and their partner’s violent
behavior. For example, many women believe that if a man is disrespectful to her in
some way and she does not retaliate physically, then she will not be respected by
him. James explained further, saying:
111
I have heard, “if I don’t hit him, he won’t respect me. He’ll just keep
disrespecting me…cheating on me” or yeah… pick your evil. But, the
particular person that I’m thinking of was into cheating and she nailed him
and her reasoning was, he would never respect her as a woman and he would
not think there was a consequence for his behavior….“He’s gonna get an iron
skillet”…That’ll straighten him out.
Similarly, James notes that many of the women think that if they hit a man
and he does not hit them back, it means that he is less than a “real man.”
I’ve had women say, women talking about their husbands and other women
in the group will say, “he don’t have no balls, he’s not a man”…Because he
didn’t hit her back and I’ve actually had guys report that that their partners
have said, “you don’t have any huevos” (balls)…Because you’re not being
the man you’re supposed to be and that falls into their belief system. How I
think a man should be, how I grew up, witnessing, and the ideas that I made
in my mind of how a relationship between and man and a woman should be.

The Staff: Janet
Janet is an Asian-American female, with a short and round physique. She
shocks people by announcing that she is in her early 50s, when she clearly could pass
for a woman a decade younger. She is a member of the staff at the community
counseling center and has worked with P.A.P. for approximately the last 5 years. Her
primary responsibility is to interview potential group members (both female and
male) who are self-referred and court-mandated to the domestic violence groups.
Like James, Janet has a warm persona. For some of the counselors, she is the
“mother” of the program, always available with a hug, the latest center gossip story,
or a freshly baked delicious dessert of some kind. It is quite clear, however, that no
one wants to get on Janet’s “bad side.” She has a no nonsense attitude, and she “tells
it like it is” without hesitating. She has a certain look (peering over her large
frameless glasses) that conveys “I am on to you!” whenever a staff member or group
112
participant seems to be out of line. Janet once told me that she broke her foot and
with her characteristic stubbornness refused to let the doctor put a cast on her.
After gathering information during the lengthy intake, Janet is responsible for
providing input about which group is appropriate (i.e., the female “victims” group or
the female “perpetrators” group) for each woman. Many of the court-mandated
women have been identified by the courts as “perpetrators” of violence against their
partners. However, Janet must help to sort out whether these women are “true
perpetrators” or whether they may be better understood as “victims” whose physical
self-defense resulted in their arrest.
Still, Janet notes that their aggressive behavior is not limited to intimate
relationships. Often these women report that other family members have complaints
about them. Specifically, Janet has noticed that these women will behave in
aggressive, or minimally, verbally abusive ways towards their mothers.
The Relationship
One of the ways that Janet sorts this out is by looking for and asking about
the primary emotion. Like James, she reports that for “perpetrators,” more often the
presenting emotion and subsequent action(s) are based on anger. With “victims” on
the other hand, the driving force is more often fear. In addition, the matter of “intent”
informs her suggestions for group assignment. For the “victims” who have been
aggressive, they have usually acted with the purpose of “stopping what was going
on” (i.e., self-defense) whereas for “perpetrators” the more common purpose in
acting aggressively is “revenge” or punishment.
113
Perpetrators more often report that their partners have done things to provoke
the abuse. Usually, they will talk about the fact that he has been with other women,
or will focus on other jealousy-related issues. Secondarily, they will talk about his
physical and verbal abuse of her. Janet has also heard stories where she will report
that he was drunk, that she did not like the way that he was interacting with her, and
that she then responded aggressively.
In many of the stories, Janet has heard themes of jealousy and money
presented as precipitants to the fights. She has also noted that female perpetrators are
more often financially independent. In fact, it seems to her that it may be more
common that her male partner is dependent on her financially.
A common denominator is money…Money and jealousy. And more often
than not a lot of these guys are living with the women as opposed to the
women living with the men. The men are living with the women. “I shoved, I
pushed him out of my house. I kicked him out of my house.” That type of
thing and, “if he has the nerve to bring that girl back to my house.” That
comes up…Financially she’s got something going that he needs or she has a
stable home that he’s coming to.

Janet also reported that most often, unlike the “victims” who report a series
of abusive relationships, the women that come to group as “perpetrators” are usually
first-time aggressors. That is, their current or most recent romantic relationship is the
only one where they have been violent.

Demographics and Lifestyle
114
Janet thinks that the majority of the women she has worked with, despite
their denial, use drugs and/or alcohol. Most commonly, they deny their own use,
however, and they mostly focus on their partner’s use. The exception is women who
are former addicts and have been in recovery or are otherwise involved with
Alcoholics Anonymous or similar program. These women are more aware of, and
more readily discuss, their own involvement with drugs and alcohol. Like James,
Janet believes that most commonly, drugs and alcohol facilitate the “dropping of that
last inhibition” thereby potentiating violence.
Also, like James, Janet commented on the fact that women may sometimes
receive support (especially from family members) that encourages them to continue
to behave abusively. She believes that male “perpetrators” are more likely to be
challenged for their actions.
Intergenerational Transmission
Regarding family of origin violence, Janet also noted that some women have
disclosed growing up with abuse in the home. She believes then, that this history has
influenced some women to view violence as “accepted.” That is, they may be more
likely to hold a “matter of fact” attitude about the violence and view it as a “part of
life.” Janet notes that most violence in the family-of-origin was father-to-mother (as
opposed to mother-initiated) violence.
Gender
Janet was not able to comment definitively on gender perspectives.
Tables referred to elsewhere in this chapter follow:
115
116
Table 3.0

Number of
partners
with whom
violence
Occurred
Age
Race
Education
Yearly Income
(self)
Partner Status
P
1
S
1
M
1
Weeks in
T.A.P.P.
Court-mandated
Ann 47 White 7
th

grade
$9.6K
(SSI)
Single 1 1 104 X
Daria 41 White 2 years
college
$<30K Separated 1 7
Charlie 23 Black 2 years
college
$7K Dating 1 24 X
Flora 25 Mixed:
Latina
& Black
2 years
college
$15.5K Single 1 1 20 X
LaShonda 28 Black High
School
$8.7K Live-in
boyfriend
1 78 X
May 45 Black High
School
$48K Live-in
boyfriend
1 1 6
1
s=self initiated; p=partner initiated; m=mutual initiated
117
Table 3.1

Numbers here represent reported number of times (self or partner-initiated) that incident occurred in the past year
O indicates this occurred, but not in past year
? = indicates this occurred, but number not known

DCI Physical Aggression Items Ann
Self Partner
Charlie
Self Partner
Daria
Self Partner
Flora
Self Partner
LaShonda
Self Partner
May
Self Partner
Physically twisted arm 1 1 0
Pushed, grabbed or shoved 2-5 52+ 52+ 2-5 2-5 6-12 2-5 2-5 2-5
Slapped 1 24-48 24-48 1 2-5 1
Physically forced sex 1 24-48 2-5 6-12 2-5
Burned (not accidentally)
Shaken ? 24-48 1
Thrown or tried to throw bodily 2-5 24-48 1
Thrown an object at 6-12 2-5 2-5 1 1 1 1
Choked or strangled 52+ 24-48 2-5 2-5 6-12 1
Kicked, bit or hit with a fist 6-12 24-48 6-12 2-5 1 1 1 1
Hit or tried to hit w/ something 1 6-12 24-48 2-5 1 1 1
Beat up (multiple blows) 1 24-48 1
Threatened with a knife or gun 1 24-48 0 2-5
Used a knife or gun 1 2-5 1 0
Slammed against wall 52+ 1
118
CAGE Table

4-ITEM CAGE
(CUT-DOWN, ANNOYED, GUILTY,
EYE-OPENER)
ANN
CHARLIE
DARIA
FLORA
LASHONDA
MAY
Have you felt that you should cut down
on your dringing?
X X
Have people annoyed you by criticizing
your drinking?

Have you felt bad or guilty about your
drinking?

Have you had a drink first thing in the
morning to steady your nerves?
X
Have you felt that your spouse should
cut down his/her drinking?
X X X
Have people criticized your spouse’s
drinking?

Do you think that your spouse has felt
bad or guilty about his/her drinking?
X
Has your spouse ever had a drink the
first thing in the morning to steady
his/her nerves or get rid of a hang over?
X X
Table 3.2

119
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support Table

Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support
(MSPSS)
Ann Charlie Daria Flora LaShonda May
Significant Other Support 1.00 7.00* 4.00 5.25 4.50 5.25
Family Support 7.00 1.25 4.13 6.25 5.50 6.50
Friend Support 1.75 3.50 4.00 5.00 1.00 1.00
Table 3.3

Note: data are expressed as the average of items on each scale.
Items were scaled on a 7-pt scale where 1= very strongly disagree; 7= very strongly
agree

* Charlie answered these questions in reference to Jesus (worded in the questions as
“a special person”)
120
World Health Organization Quality of Life Table

WHOQOL-
BREF
Ann Charlie Daria Flora LaShonda May
Physical
Health
-1.03 -.06 -.71 .90 1.23 -1.68
Psychological
Health
-.36 -.71 -1.07 .36 .36 -2.5
Social
Relationships
-.45 -2.06 -.45 1.48 .19 -.77
Environment -.73 -1.88 .04 .81 .42 -.35
Table 3.4
Note: Scores are expressed as z-scores; the norm group consisted of 6,270 women in
twenty-four countries.

Bold indicates at least one SD from the mean
121
Ratings on Significant WHOQOL items Table

Ratings on Significant
WHOQOL items
Ann Charlie Daria Flora LaShonda May
Do you get the kind of support
from others that you need? (5 pt.
scale where 1=not at all;
5=completely)
2 1 3 3 4 5
How often do you have negative
feelings such as blue mood,
despair, anxiety, depression? (5
pt. scale where 1=never;
5=always)
3 5 2 4 3 5
How would you rate your quality
of life? (5 pt. scale where 1=very
poor; 5=very good)
3 2 3 3 3 1
Table 3.5

122
Symptom Checklist-90-Revised Table

Table 3.6

SCL-90-R Ann Charlie* Daria Flora LaShonda May
SOM 67 >81 50 48 63 66
O-C 66 >81 56 53 60 71
INT 64 76 58 52 68 71
DEP 60 >75 41 61 59 74
ANX 66 76 44 52 54 71
HOS 52 >79 45 <40 52 73
PHOB 62 70 <44 54 <44 <44
PAR 47 >81 47 47 63 66
PSY 60 79 <44 <44 44 73
GSI 64 >81 50 53 61 73
Note: Scores are expressed as t-scores; the norm group consisted of 478 non-patient
women.

Bold indicates at or above the significant cut-off (63).

Note: SOM=Somatization’ O-C= Obsessions and Compulsions; INT= Interpersonal
sensitivity; DEP= Depression; ANX= Anxiety; HOS= Hostility; PHOB= Phobic
Anxiety; PAR= Paranoid Ideation; PSY= Psychoticism; GSI= Global Severity Index

* Many of Charlie’s scores could not be accommodated by t-scores provided because
they were so high.
123
Aggression Questionnaire Table

Table 3.7

Aggression
Questionnaire
Ann Charlie Daria Flora LaShonda May
Physical .47 2.44 1.23 .17 .77 .62
Verbal -.38 -.13 1.41 1.41 .64 -.64
Anger .74 1.26 .57 -.47 .74 -.12
Hostility .92 .13 -.19 1.24 .29 -1.14
Note: Scores are expressed as z-scores; the norm group consisted of 1,253
college students from introductory psychology classes
Bold indicates at least one SD from the mean
124
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS: COMMON THEMES ACROSS PARTICIPANTS
This chapter builds on what was introduced in Chapter 3, presenting the
major and minor themes that emerged in the analysis of the qualitative (interview)
data. The procedure for the identification and extraction of themes has been outlined
in detail in Chapter 2. Specifically, a major theme was that which occurred in the
narrative of at least four participants; a minor theme was that which occurred with
three participants. In the sections that follow, both major and minor themes are
presented. The inclusion criteria (i.e., how statements were determined to qualify as
theme support) also are presented. Throughout the chapter, quotes from participants
are provided to illustrate themes.
The 11 themes have been presented in Table 4.1. Participants whose
comments reflected the theme are indicated as an “X” in the table. Minor themes are
identified by an asterisk next to the number of the theme. The table is organized so
that the themes are clustered to correspond with the four research questions.
Themes 1-4 partially answer the first set of research questions regarding the
relationship. Themes 5-8 partially answer the second set of research questions
pertaining to lifestyle/ correlates of domestic violence. And, themes 8-11 partially
answer the third set of research questions with regard to intergenerational
transmission of violence. The fourth set of questions, pertaining to gender, was not
discussed by participants in a coherent way. Therefore, no themes emerged in regard
to this fourth set.
125
The remainder of the chapter presents information related to each theme, in
the order in which they appear in the table. Related quantitative information is
presented after each theme. In each section, particular attention will be given to
whether, across participants, the themes and measure results are compatible or
contradictory. Table 4.2 presents the quantitative measures that best correspond with
themes.
126
Table 4.1
Major themes are endorsed by four or more participants.
Minor themes are endorsed by three participants and are demarcated by an asterisk.
Themes Ann Charlie Daria Flora LaShonda May
1. Women report initiating extreme levels
of violence
(in terms of frequency and/or severity)
X X X X
2. Women are partnered with abusive men X X X X X X
3. Women have positive feelings about
their partners
X X X X
4. Women hold conflicting attitudes about
violence
X X X X X X
*5. Women use substances (drugs and/or
alcohol)
X X X
6. Partners use substances X X X X
7. Women report limited social support
(especially with regard to friendships)
X X X X X X
8. Women report depressive symptoms X X X X X
9. Women report being physically abused
in their family of origin
X X X X X
10. Women report mutual and/or mother-
initiated intimate partner violence in
family of origin
X X X X
*11. Women struggle to maintain
connections with their children
X X X
127
Themes and Corresponding Quantitative Measures Table
Themes Quantitative Measures
1. Women report initiating extreme
levels of violence
(in terms of frequency and/or severity)
DCI-self

2. Women are partnered with abusive
men

DCI-partner
3. Women have positive feelings about
their partners

No measures correspond
4. Women hold conflicting attitudes
about violence

No measures correspond
*5. Women use substances (drugs
and/or alcohol)
CAGE-self
6. Partners use substances CAGE-partner
7. Women report limited social
support
(especially with regard to friendships)
MSPSS
WHOQOL-BREF (Social Relationships)
8. Women report depressive
symptoms
WHOQOL-BREF (Psychological)
SCL-90
**Aggression Questionnaire
9. Women report being physically
abused in their family of origin
No measures correspond
10. Women report mutual and/or
mother-initiated intimate partner
violence in family of origin
No measures correspond

*11. Women struggle to maintain
connections with their children
No measures correspond
**The Aggression Questionnaire does not
necessarily correspond with depression, it
best fits with the discussion about mental
health
Table 4.2
128
Major Theme #1: Severity of Violence
Major Theme #1: Women initiate variable levels of violence which may be
severe. Inclusion Criteria: This theme incorporates statements by women who
reported: 1) Use of a weapon against their partner; and 2) injury to their partner
requiring medical intervention [Note: With regard to this theme, the term “weapon”
was defined as something that could easily result in severe injury]
As with many of the other themes that follow, women varied widely in the
frequency and severity of the violence they initiated. Women varied in terms of
whether or not they used weapons, in the potential for producing injury, and in
whether or not injury actually resulted.
With regard to the severity, behaviors ranged from low-level violence (Daria)
to higher-level violence (LaShonda). Examples of lower-level violence include
punching ones partner in the arm, and throwing things that were not likely to result
in injury (e.g., empty water bottles or a plastic laundry basket). Moderate level
violence would include biting which was endorsed by three women (Daria, May and
Flora). Examples of higher-level violence include pushing one’s partner, “stomping”
him, and stabbing him
LaShonda described some of the more higher-level incidents that occurred
after her boyfriend had a stroke and became less mobile. Since then, especially when
she perceived that he was being verbally abusive, she initiated several severely
violent incidents. Once she pushed him through a glass coffee table and another time
129
she knocked him down and stepped on his throat. She described two of these
incidents. In the first she said:
I pushed him down. I know it’s not right…And, I put my foot in his neck like
that (demonstrates across the neck). And, he couldn't breathe, and you know,
he had stroke so he couldn’t get up.
With another incident, she explained:
Recently too, yeah we were arguing about something, I don’t know, and I
pushed him. We broke my mom's table. He fell through it, I mean, he fell
then broke it! When I pushed him he fell…I forgot he was off balance, so I
got a stop. I really got to stop. I think I'm being more abusive right now, I
think I'm starting to be bad…. I’m letting this man, he don't even have all his,
he can't even function his body that good or balance it that good and I’m
letting his verbal abuse take control of me and take power from me to make
me react towards him. And I think that I need to stop.

Although all six women reported using a variety of objects when initiating
violence against their partners, severity of violence was impacted by the weapon of
choice and potential for injury. The low end of the spectrum included, for example,
throwing empty water bottles (Daria) the moderate range included use of a broom
handle and air filter (Flora) and the high end of the range included use of knives
(Ann and LaShonda).
Regarding the incident with the broom handle, Flora reported:
I got really upset and I went and I got a broom and he wasn’t wearing any
shirt and I took the broom and I swung at him on his back as hard…with the
wood end. As hard as I can, with all of my might…I just did it like it was a
bat. Like I just swung at him really hard…I think I just did that because… I
probably knew I could get away with it…I don’t even know why I did that. I
guess that day I was just going through something…Because he was very
130
nice, very sweet, very caring, very affectionate, gave me a lot of attention.
Basically, a real perfect boyfriend.

Ann describes the incident whereby she used a knife against her boyfriend
saying:
I pushed him against the frigerator, that’s when he said he was gonna go tell.
Then he was going down the stairs and I got the butcher knife and scratched
him on his butt… He said, um, that he was going to go tell on me and that
just, it pissed me off. You gon’ tell on me, then I just, as he was going down
stairs…to tell, I got to the butcher knife and up his (demonstrates using the
knife) like that, up his butt…up the crack of his ass. Then I picked up a
garbage can and put it on his head…Wadn’t but a little bit of garbage in there
anyway…. he wasn’t scared. You couldn’t scare that ass. Couldn’t scare him,
he don’t get scared…I was laying in bed drinking my drink when [the police]
came.

LaShonda also described an incident where she actually stabbed her
boyfriend when he was keeping her from getting a nap in the afternoon after she had
come home from work. Ultimately, he had to be taken to the hospital for treatment.
She relayed the incident in detail:
He just kept going and going, and I’m trying to get some rest and I couldn't
get no rest! So I jump up and I walked to the kitchen, I picked up the knife
and his back was turned and he was doing something. And I was constantly
(making motion of stabbing) in a motion of going to do it. Basically I was
trying to scare him but he wasn’t paying attention. When he jumped back, I
don't know if I reacted towards if he was going to hit me or not, then bam
(noise of being struck)! The knife stabbed him a little bit. He fell to the floor,
blood start gushing out, and I hurried up and got a sock and tried to stop the
bleeding. I stopped it for a minute. Then, I wasn't thinking, that's when I
called the paramedics and I straight told them. I accident stabbed him. Then,
by me saying that, these fools bring the cops to my house. And I told him it
was an accident, I didn’t think I was going to jail. They put me in handcuffs,
they asked for the weapon. I said, “It’s in the kitchen, it’s in the thing” they
found it and took me to jail. He didn't press charges, okay? But I went to jail
because I stabbed him, you know… But, they’re not understanding, I’m not,
if I was gonna stab and stab him to kill him, I would stabbed him to kill him.
I wasn't planning to stab him. I was just trying to scare him and when he
131
jumped back, the knife went in! But my intention was not to stab him! Okay,
I stabbed him. I know that now. But like I said, my intention was not to really
stab him. But it happened… Then, a week later my dude had a stroke.
As with severity, the women reported a range of frequency from one-time
incidents (e.g., Ann using a knife against her boyfriend) to incidents which occurred
on a weekly basis (e.g., multiple behaviors endorsed by Charlie).
Quantitative Measure: DCI (self)
Consistent with their narrative reports, women in this study endorsed a
variety of behaviors indicating that they had initiated violence against their partners
that was often severe and sometimes frequent. The behaviors are arranged, roughly
to correspond with increasing severity. The behaviors include:
pushing grabbing or shoving (Chalie, Daria, LaShonda and May)
slapping (Daria and LaShonda)
shaking (Charlie)
throwing an object at (Charlie, Daria, Flora and May)
choking or strangling (Charlie and LaShonda)
kicking, biting or hitting with a fist (Charlie, Daria, Flora, and May)
hitting or trying to hit with something (Ann, Charlie, Daria and Flora)
beating up-multiple blows (Charlie)
threatening with a knife or gun and also using a knife or gun (Ann, Charlie
and LaShonda).
Finally, there were some behaviors (most notably threatening to use or using
a knife or gun) which women indicated that they had initiated, more than their
132
partners had. For example, three women (Ann, Charlie and LaShonda) indicated that
they had threatened to and used a weapon against their partner. Whereas only one
woman (Charlie) indicated that, more than a year ago, her partner had threatened her
with a knife or gun. And just one woman (May) indicated that, more than a year ago,
her partner had used a knife or gun against her.
Major Theme #2: Abusive Partners
Major Theme #2: Female Perpetrators are partnered with men who are
abusive of them. Inclusion Criteria: This theme includes statements that imply that
the women are not only “perpetrators,” but also are “victims” of abuse in their
intimate relationships. Statements that support this theme include: verbal and
physical abuse by partners.
All six women indicated that their partners were abusive in both verbal/
psychological/emotional (hereafter referred to as “emotional” or “verbal”) and
physical ways. And overall, all of the women indicated that at some point in the
relationship, their partners were at least as abusive towards them as the women were
towards their partners in that the frequency and severity of violence initiated by their
partners often matched or exceeded the abuse initiated by them. For two women
(Ann and May) the abuse was markedly differential (i.e., more severe and frequent
initiation by their partners, compared to the violence they initiated). Two women
(Charlie and LaShonda) described a pattern whereby although they were initially
victimized at the hands of their partners, they later became the primary aggressors in
their relationships.
133
Emotional Abuse by Partners
The various forms of abuse by their partners resulted in emotional and
psychological damage to the women. Many women, for example, described a
common variant of abuse that included their partners’ jealousy and attempts to
control them. They differed in terms of the severity of the emotional abuse they
described. Low-range emotional abuse included statements about one’s partner being
“passive-aggressive” or “patronizing” (Daria endorsed both of these and gave
examples). Moderate levels of emotional abuse included having one’s social class
insulted (Flora), and never receiving compliments or gifts even for holidays and
birthdays (May).
More severe and frequent forms of emotional abuse included being called a
“bitch” on a regular basis (Ann, LaShonda, and May), sometimes five or six times a
day (Ann). LaShonda’s statement about being called a “bitch” and about the jealousy
that was commonly expressed exemplifies the upset that she and several of the other
women also felt:
That type of profanity. That word [bitch] just triggers me. You know…but
the way he says it is just a feeling that lures me. It makes me powerless, man,
and that’s when I have to react Amy! That makes me powerless when I hear
him say that to me…That makes me feel like I’m not a woman. That makes
me feel like I’m not even human. That makes me feel very degraded.

All of the women also described that their partners displayed jealous and controlling
behavior. This behavior was also very upsetting to the women and often triggered
greater conflict. May explained:
134
He accuses me of sleeping with everybody. I mean… he has no absolute
grounds and it’s not based on anything real. It’s just totally bizarre. You
know one time, the gardeners were outside and I was out with the kids [and] I
went inside and said, “What’s wrong?” Before I could say anything, he just
pinned me and head-butted me just like that. And I was like, “Why?” And he
was like, “You were out there with the gardeners.”

Charlie had a similar experience with her partner. She described an incident
in which she believes that her partner thought she was with another man. She
reported that at three o’clock in the morning, her boyfriend came by her apartment
and knocked on her door. She was sleeping soundly and did not hear the knock. He
thought that she was intentionally not opening the door. In response, he broke her
window (on the third story of her apartment complex) and jumped through it.
LaShonda indicated that her partner was jealous and controlling, explaining:
He wasn’t a really abusive man. It’s just that he didn’t want me running the
streets. So he used to stand in front of the door and don’t let me leave [and
so] his friends be coming over, and his friends be drinking beer and watching
football and I’m just in the room watching t.v. He don’t want me to go
nowhere he wants me to be where he knows where I'm at, where he knows he
can open up the door and see me [or] he has his friends in the yard…he don't
want me to be out there with all these men.

Ann also described her boyfriend’s attempts to control her and how this
would often result in further problems:
In the relationship with him, he tells you to “shut up” you have to shut up
[but] I’m, I’m my own woman. I’m 47 years old. I don’t believe that a
woman has to stay in a woman’s place. We’re not in the 50s anymore. If you
say, “shut up,” you have to do it. “Fix me something to eat,” at 3 o’clock in
the morning you’re supposed to do it. I’m not, I’m not gonna do that…And
that’s how it would get escalated, cuz I wouldn’t do what he said.

Physical Abuse by Partners
135
As with the verbal and emotional abuse, all of the women described their
partners’ physically abusive behaviors. Also similarly, the severity of the violence
reported by the women was variable. In the interview, four of the six women
described more severe violence while one (Daria) described low-level violence. One
woman (Charlie) didn’t report high-level violence in the interview, but did report
being victimized by such behaviors in the quantitative measure (discussed below).
Low-level violence included being grabbed by the arms in such a way that
bruises resulted. Higher-level violence included being “body slammed” (Flora) and
choked (May and LaShonda). May recalled:
He did push me while I was pregnant, kick me out the car [and another
time]He had accused me of something. I don’t remember. You know
something crazy. Which he did a lot. And he got mad…I remember going in
the bathroom and him coming in there with the belt…and hitting me several
times with it. And I had some bruises on my arms and legs…You know [he]
pushes me, he’s hit me, punches me, head-butted me in the nose. I mean he’s
done so many things [he will] choke me, suffocate me with a pillow…. just
various things…throw things at me.

Similarly, LaShonda commented:
If he thinking I’m cheating on him or doing something, he will hit me. You
know, he will try to hit me and sometimes he does hit me [and] he used to
choke me and he pulled a gun out on me before…I just can remember the
gun. I really can’t remember what was happening.

Quantitative measure: DCI (partner). As was consistent with the narrative
theme, all six women endorsed multiple items (regarding their partner’s behaviors)
on the DCI. Behaviors endorsed included partner’s emotional and physical abuse. In
considering only the 15 physical abuse items, women varied in terms of their reports
136
regarding partner’s abuse of them both generally, and compared with their abuse
towards their partners.
The lowest levels of violence (reported by Daria) indicated that in terms of
frequency and severity, minimal violence was partner-initiated and slightly higher
levels of violence was self-initiated. Two of the women (Charlie and LaShonda)
reported “mutual” violence (i.e., proportionately severe and frequent, in terms of
self-initiated and partner-initiated violence). And, two women (May and Ann)
indicated that their partners initiated more frequent and more severe violence (i.e.,
more likely to result in injury) than they.
Finally, women indicated that certain abusive behaviors were initiated by
their partners but not by the women. For example, five of the six women (everyone
except Daria) also indicated that their partners had physically forced sex, whereas
none of the women indicated that they had forced sex with their partners. Three of
the women (Daria, Flora and May) indicated that their partners had physically
twisted their arms, but none of the women indicated that they had twisted their
partner’s arms.
Furthermore, three women (Ann, Charlie, and Flora) indicated that their
boyfriends had thrown or attempted to throw them bodily, whereas none of the
women indicated that they had done this with their partners. And lastly, two women
(Charlie and May) indicated that their boyfriends had slammed them against the
wall, whereas none of the women indicated that they had done this with their
partners.
137
Major Theme #3: Positive Aspects of the Relationship
Major Theme #3 Female perpetrators reported positive aspects about their
interactions, and their relationships in general, with their (ex) partners. Inclusion
Criteria: This theme includes positive statements about these women’s partners
including positive feelings regarding past, present and future.
Despite the obviously negative components (including violence) of these
relationships, four of the six women reported a number of things that they liked
about their relationships. Only two women (Ann and May) reported consistently
negative things about their boyfriends. For example, Ann, who was no longer with
her partner at the time of the interview, was not able to say anything positive about
the relationship and gave it a “zero or a one” when rating on a scale of 1-10, with one
being the absolute worst relationship she could imagine.
As with the other themes, the four women that did have positive things to say
varied in terms of the degree of their affirmative expression. Their sentiments range
from being pleased and hopeful (Daria and Flora) to actively positive (Charlie and
LaShonda). Charlie said:
I know that sounds crazy. I love him, but I’ve caused a lot of damage…we’re
still as attractive to one another as in the beginning. We are both young,
good-looking people with the qualities we wanted since we were young. He
[has] a rough edge, but is a cotton ball on the inside…he’ll be respected as an
old man.

LaShonda also noted that despite the negative aspects of the relationship, she
felt grateful:
138
I love him, even though all these names he be calling me, but he cares for me,
cause he do for me. He's the only one that do for me. He’s so much, so much
of a gentleman. He is a man that a woman would love, even though the
bullshit he put you through but you can never forget the good part of him and
what he does he, he, he had a stroke but he still provides for me. He cooks,
you know?

And she continued:
Yeah, I love him. I love him. You know, he's so amazing that like he had a
stroke and he cannot use his left arm, but he still works for me. He does a lot
of stuff (crying). He does a lot of stuff. And, like me, I try to be like so
strong, so strong about this whole situation, you know? I don’t want to be
crying every day when I wake up knowing that he had a stroke and can't walk
like he used to, he use to run the track. My man could like take off running
like so fast. I only seen him run one time, since I been with him, and he can
run man. He used to be in the service, in the Army. He's really good, that
little short guy.

Major Theme #4: Perspectives on Violence
Major Theme #4 Female perpetrators’ perspectives and opinions regarding
violence are contradictory in one of several ways. Inclusion Criteria: This theme
includes statements that illustrate: 1) Women’s views about violence (mostly
condemning) which are discrepant with their violent behaviors; 2) inconsistent and
defensive statements about their own violence including feeling guilty/remorseful
and justified; and 3) inconsistent and defensive statements about their partner’s
(often severe) violence which they also tended to justify and/or minimize.
Condemning Views about Violence in General
All six women indicated that, in general, violence was un-necessary with the
exception of self-defense. When discussing violence in the abstract (i.e., not in
139
regards to themselves and their relationships) they were clear about this perspective.
For example, Charlie said:
[Violence] should only be necessary when you are trying to defend
yourself…it shouldn’t be a tool used to get what you want. That’s repulsive.

LaShonda said:
I don’t think it’s necessary, period, to be violent. I think violence is really a
bad thing. But, the world cannot keep going round and round if there wasn’t
any violence. Things is not going to be perfect…I think it’s just gonna
happen…But I don’t think we need it…I mean, there’s some psychos out
there, that probably do need it, but not me…I don’t need no violence in my
life. Nah.

Inconsistent Statements about One’s Violence
Women tended to simultaneously discuss feeling guilty or remorseful for their
violent behaviors and also to describe their behaviors as justifiable reactions to their
emotional states and/or to provocation (including verbal attacks) by their partners.
One woman (Charlie) described the rationale behind her violence saying:
I am not the aggressor. I am the physical attacker, but I do it in response to
him verbally attacking me. I do it because it hurts my self-esteem and I don’t
want to hurt like that.

Another woman (LaShonda) after explaining that violence was unnecessary
in general went on to explain how emotional abuse prompted to respond with
physical abuse. In her discussion she with considers whether or not her response was
warranted:
Sometimes I would hit first too…I would hit first when he'd call me a name
that just like triggers me, but now I don't try to hit him even though he says
“bitch.” A month or two ago I slapped the shit of him. I don't know he just
kept, kept, kept, and I just went (makes hitting noise). Slapped him. And I
was thinking to myself, I shouldn't have did that, but I don’t know why I was
140
thinking I shouldn’t have did that. He deserved it. He was a dick… No. No.
I am not a type of person. I’m not a violent person. I’m not a violent person,
it’s just that when he pisses me off, I’m going to just react sometimes. And
see, sometimes I don’t even react. It can just be that “b-i-t-c-h” word and then
he just keeps striving at it, keeps striving at it. Then I say, “stop calling be a
bitch, okay? Just stop calling me a bitch.” And, then if he don’t, I’ll say “If
you call me a bitch one more time, then I’m going to put hands on you.
Okay?” So, then sometimes I just go and I just smack him…I have never
punched him…Oh no, I never kicked him in his face. And, I never kicked
him. The only thing that have done is I just stomped him…When I had
pushed him down, I had stepped on his chest. That’s it. But I never, like,
kicked him, or nothing. Oh, wait a minute, one time I did try to kick him in
the groin. Yeah.

Another woman (Charlie) also indicated that she thought that violence had
served to improve her relationship saying:
It’s difficult to think about how violence can be useful but out of the
arguments I’ve been in, it’s gotten me to know how to love [my boyfriend]
better, instead of [just] guessing.

Additionally, several of the women indicated that their violence was not “as
bad” as their partners. May said:
My aggressive is not the same…Well it’s just, it’s more in relation to how
he’s treating me. It’s not like I’m just starting a fight and I’m aggressive and
I’m just, you know? It’s like “Ohhh… you’re just really pushing my buttons,
you make me so insane.” I feel like I’m gonna go insane sometimes and I just
lose it. I’ll be throwing things or shove him or push him. It’s more out of
frustration then, you know?

Inconsistent Statements about Partners’ Violence
Regarding their partners’ violence, women tended to report severe incidents
and then to minimize their own fear and the apparent dangerousness. This was
sometimes the case, even with extremely violent behaviors. One woman (Charlie)
described incidents when her boyfriend has locked her in a room. He has done this
141
when she accused him of cheating on her, and he tried to convince her that he has
been faithful. On the one hand, she perceived his response as understandable and
perhaps even protective and caring. On the other hand, it felt condescending and
scary. Other women (including LaShonda and May) down played their victimization.
LaShonda answered:
Why wasn't I scared of him? I don't know because I felt, I felt, I didn't think
he would hurt me. But you know what? He had choked me and I couldn’t
breathe, he had done that a few times. I've been through a lot.

And, although May conceded that she could actually be killed (saying, “I think that
could happen [that he could kill me]. That could happen, of course.”), she also said:
He was trying to scare me or control me cause I might have been crying or
going off, what he calls is going off. You know but I mean I didn’t like it and
I was scared at the time but he’s never tried to kill me, he’s never tried to
really hurt me. It was more stuff like, I mean all the stuff was real, but I never
got beat up like that like I had a broke arm or a bad cut or something….

Furthermore, May recalled:
Well one time I did which I had to get stitches cause he threw a plate on the
floor and it hit my foot, my ankle. I don’t even think he was even trying to hit
me but he did throw it at me. Like I said I’m trying to make light of it but I
don’t feel like…. He’s never came at me with everything in a vicious way
where I knew he was trying to hurt me. You know what I’m saying?

Minor Theme #5: Women’s Use of Alcohol and/or Drugs
Minor theme #5: Female perpetrators use alcohol/drugs. Inclusion Criteria:
This theme includes statements involving the use of alcohol/drugs such as: 1)
Women’s general use of alcohol/substances; 2) use of alcohol/substances in
conjunction with initiation of violence; and 3) use of substances as a way to prevent
violence or cope with emotional responses to violence
142
Women’s Use of Alcohol/Substances
Half of the participants (Ann, Charlie and Flora) described regular use of
alcohol and/or drugs, whereas the other half (Daria, May, and LaShonda) described
no drug use and minimal alcohol use. One woman (Ann) reported extensive alcohol
use and previous use of cocaine. Two women (Charlie and Flora) reported use of
marijuana on a regular basis. All of these women indicated that they used substances,
but did not seem to have identified the negative impact that drugs and/or alcohol
played in their relationships or their lives. An exception to this is the obvious impact
(that Ann seemed to recognize) regarding her alcohol use. She indicated:
I had been drinking all my life so…if I get the urge, a lot of times I will
drink. [I started] when I was about 14 or 15…I liked it, I liked the taste of it, I
liked my Bloody Mary’s…And I don’t care for beer that much but I will
drink it…[I had been in jail] …two or three [times for drinking and] for a
DUI…but I don’t do drugs…I don’t do drugs [but] smoke cigarettes…I used
to (makes cocaine snorting motion).
Alcohol/Substance Use and Initiation of Violence
One woman (Ann) described a violent incident whereby she had been
drinking. Although she did not make the connection between alcohol use and her
drinking, this incident was the one (reportedly her most violent) that resulted in her
arrest. She said:
He had locked me out of the house before then, all that night [then the next
day] I was drinking and then I was cooking and he, cuz we weren’t supposed
to cook upstairs, he said he was going to go tell that I was cooking. I said,
“you mama, you fuckin’ mama’s baby” or some shit like that and I pushed
him against the frigerator, that’s when he said he was gonna go tell. Then he
was going down the stairs and I got the butcher knife and scratched him on
his butt [After the incident] I was laying in bed drinking my drink when [the
police] came.
143
Substance Use as Violence Prevention and Coping
Two of the women (Charlie and Flora) reported that they had used marijuana,
in part, as a way to prevent violence. Charlie said that by using marijuana
(approximately one time a week) she was more distracted and more likely to engage
in creative activities (including sketching and writing poems) which helped her avoid
arguments. Flora described previously using marijuana on a weekly basis. Similarly,
she used marijuana as a way to prevent herself from escalating in anger. She said:
Let’s say I’m out all day and he is home before me…I already know because
he called me….that when I get home it’s going to be very, it’s going to be a
little arguing, a little static when I get home… Yeah, [he would say] “where
are you or why are you not home yet?” And, “this is the shit that I’m talking
about, you’re always out and gone” and blah blah blah. So on my way home I
would smoke because…like I don’t want to argue. It kind of calms me down,
so by the time I get home I don’t really care…to control my own behavior
[and not become violent] I felt like it was working.

Three women (Ann, Charlie, Flora) also described using alcohol, cigarettes
and marijuana to cope with their emotions after incidents would occur. This pattern
was present whether they had initiated the violence or their partners had.
Specifically, two women (Ann and Charlie) noted using cigarettes to cope with
interpersonal stress and anxiety. Ann’s quote illustrates this pattern:
I would smoke a …But I don’t smoke lot of cigarettes…I [got] nervous and I
would smoke and a lot of times I would have to go outside and smoke or else
go in the bathroom and blow the smoke out the window…[he didn’t] like
smoke. Not unless he’s [was] getting high, then he [didn’t] care [I got
nervous] when he would start hollering at [me]. He used to love to do that all
the time, now I can smoke maybe 2-3 cigarettes a day but then I was smoking
a pack, a pack and a half, two packs a day.

144
Similarly, Charlie commented, “My self is-esteem is boosted up when we get
along and when we don’t [I] don’t take care of myself [and I] smoke.” And, Ann
said, “When we fight there was drinking [and after an incident] I felt like drinking.”
Flora, too, indicated that she used smoking marijuana to cope with her feelings after
a fight. She said, “If I would be really mad or aggressive or fighting, I would just
want to get away to go smoke and calm down and then come back.”
Quantitative Measure: CAGE-self
One woman (Ann) endorsed two items on the CAGE and one woman
(Charlie) endorsed one item. As noted previously, endorsing even one item on the
CAGE would typically signify to the clinician (or physician) that further inquiry into
the respondent’s alcohol use, may be advised (Bradley, Boyd-Wickizer, Powell, &
Burman, 1998). Specifically, both women indicated that they thought they should cut
down on their drinking, and additionally, Ann indicated that she had drunk first thing
in the morning to steady [her] nerves. None of the women indicated that they had felt
bad or guilty about their drinking.
Major Theme #6: Partners’ Use of Alcohol and/or Drugs
Major theme #6: Partners use drugs and alcohol. Inclusion Criteria: This
theme includes statements involving the use of alcohol/substances by partners such
as: 1) Partner’s general use of alcohol/substances; 2) partner’s use of alcohol in
conjunction with violence (both self and partner-initiated).

145
Partner’s Use of Alcohol/Substances
Four of the women (Ann, Charlie, LaShonda and May) reported that their
partners regularly used drugs and/or alcohol. One woman (Daria) reported that her
husband’s use of alcohol was very minimal (i.e., not more than several drinks a
month).
One woman (LaShonda) reported that her boyfriend used alcohol somewhat
regularly, and another woman (Ann) described especially problematic and regular
use of both alcohol and crack cocaine by her boyfriend. Two women (Charlie and
May) described their boyfriends’ regular marijuana use. Charlie reported that her
partner had previously used marijuana, but was not using currently because he was
on probation (for allegedly “taking the rap” for a cousin who had stolen something).
In addition to marijuana, May also indicated that her boyfriend may use other
substances that she is unaware of. She commented:
I know he smokes marijuana everyday, regularly [and] I think he might do
something [else] …he doesn’t do it at home, I never see it, he doesn’t bring
stuff home... I just go by what his behavior looks like.

Partner’s Use of Alcohol/Substances and Violence
Two of the women (Ann and LaShonda) specifically described violent
incidents that involved the use of alcohol by their boyfriends. For one woman (Ann)
alcohol use was associated with partner-initiated violence. For the other woman
(LaShonda) the incident she describes includes alcohol use associated with the most
extreme example of self-initiated violence whereby the end result was her arrest.
Ann commented:
146
He worse than an Indian (laughing). He’d knock things off the counters, he’d
break dishes, throw, throw water in the floor, pee on me, stuff like that, so I
don’t know…The alcohol would just make him be violent. [One time] I had
blood, knots in my face. My face was bruised up for over a month….he just
went off without no reason he said because I gave him vodka and I got him
drunk. He said it was my fault because he beat me up.

And, LaShonda said:
One weekday, I came home from a hard day of stress, and I was very tired
and I was irritable. Okay? I was laying down in my mother's room because I
live in a one bedroom apartment. So my mom wasn't home that day so I laid
in her bed. And I tried to get some rest. This man comes through the door,
blobbing all, “you bitch” and “where were you at I was looking for you why
you didn’t come straight home from work? You must have been messing
around with some other guy” and all of this, and he had been drinking!

Quantitative Measure: CAGE-partner
Two women (Ann and LaShonda) each endorsed one item regarding their
partner’s use of alcohol. Additionally, two women (Charlie and Flora) endorsed two
items regarding their partner’s use of alcohol. Specifically, three women thought that
their partner should cut down on [his] drinking, two indicated that their partner had a
drink the first thing in the morning to steady [his] nerves or to get rid of a hangover,
and one indicated that she thought her partner had felt bad or guilty about [his]
drinking. None of the women indicated that people criticized [their partner’s]
drinking.
Major Theme #7: Social Support
Major Theme #7: Female Perpetrators experience limited social support.
Inclusion Criteria: This theme includes: 1) Minimal (or no) friend connection and/or
147
support, in part, due to relationship factors; and 2) limited connection and/or
perceived support from family members.
Minimal (or No) Friend Support
All of the women noted having few friends or no friends. Flora, for example,
said:
I don’t feel like I fit in with nobody. I don’t feel like I have a lot of friends. I
know a lot of people and I socialize with a lot of people but…I don’t have a
lot of friends. A couple of people that I do call my friends, they don’t even
live in the same state.

Four of the women specifically explained that they were unable to maintain
friendships due to negative consequences that would result in their relationships
(when they would form friendships). Two women (LaShonda and May) reported that
their boyfriends would become increasingly controlling when they would make
outside connections even with female friends. LaShonda explained:
I don’t have friends. The only friend I have is my boyfriend. He’s my best
friend. I don’t socialize with females. I don’t have them in my life…I mean,
I’m a sociable person, but not with friends anymore…I don’t keep contact, I
don’t call…And you know why? You know why it is like that? Cause of my
dude…He’s really a picky guy. So he don’t want me going nowhere….I think
he don’t want me to go out. That’s what it is.

And similarly, May described:
Over the years I stopped having any friends cause every time I would go out
he would act like that so I would not go nowhere. Never. Because he was
gonna trip and I just didn’t want to do it….I didn’t see people for years. I
didn’t have any friends…I don’t have any friends. I cannot have friends with
him…I just can’t because it just cause too many problems. I don’t have any
friends.

Additionally, two women (Flora and Charlie) expressed feeling protective of
and concerned about including other people in their lives due to the chaos in their
148
relationships. They explained that friends could be negatively impacted by indirect
involvement and exposure to the relationship problems that were occurring. Flora
noted:
Whenever things are going really bad sometimes I wouldn’t call right away
because I was too emotional and I didn’t want to spend my time crying and
make my friends feel bad cause I feel…like they feel my pain. Like my friend
in Oregon…I was telling her one time about something I was going through
and what was going on with me and I was really crying a lot on the phone
and she was crying too on the phone with me.

Limited Family Connection/Support
This group of women was somewhat disconnected from their families.
Sometimes it seemed that they withdrew from their families and other times it
seemed as if their families withdrew from them. Still, five of the women (everyone
except Charlie) reported that they felt some level of support from one or more family
members. Two women (Ann and LaShonda) specifically reported perceived support
from their mothers. LaShonda indicated that she felt supported by her mother,
especially when it came to her attendance at the domestic violence classes. And Ann,
as evidence for support, indicated that her mother had visited her while she was in
jail.
Additionally supportive family members included a daughter (Ann’s), an
uncle and brother (Daria’s), and cousins (May’s). Despite the claim of support,
however, these women’s descriptions implied that this support was minimal. One
woman (Ann) for example, received support via phone but did not have much face-
to-face contact. And another woman (May) said that although she enjoyed regular
149
interactions with her cousins, she felt unable to share with them the concerns
regarding her relationship.
Another woman (Charlie) indicated that she had not had regular contact with
her mother growing up. Her mother left when she was just four years old and other
than the occasional post-card, she had no contact at all with her mother until she was
21. Currently, she did not find support through either of her parents or any other
relatives.
The women’s relationships with their fathers were also notable. One woman
(LaShonda) had never known her father, and every other woman indicated that she
received no (or very limited) support from her father currently. Ann reported, “now I
haven’t seen [my dad] in 20 years, so I just talk to him on the phone. It’s just weird
for a family to be like that…I mean I thought families were supposed to be closer.”
Quantitative Measures: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
(MSPSS)
On the MSPSS, five women (everyone except Charlie) most strongly agreed
that their families were a source of support. Charlie indicated that she most felt
support from her connection (through Christianity) to Jesus. Women varied in terms
of how much they agreed with statements that they had friend support. Two women
(LaShonda and May) rated all items a one indicating that they very strongly disagree
with statements about friend support. Five women (everyone except Flora) had an
average of four (neutral) or lower with regard to endorsing statements about friend
150
support. Flora was the one woman to exceed this, with an average of five (mildly
agree) regarding endorsement of statements about friend support.
Additionally, three women (Flora, LaShonda and May) indicated that they
more strongly agreed with statements thought to tap significant other support than
statements regarding friend support. That is, these three women agreed most with
statements about family support, followed by significant other support and lastly,
friend support. One woman (Daria) equally agreed that she received support from
friends and significant other (second to family support) and just one woman (Ann)
ranked friend support above statements consistent with significant other support.
WHOQOL-BREF (Social Relationships)
Four of the women (Ann, Daria, LaShonda and May) scores were non-
significant with regard to the Social Relationships Domain. One woman (Charlie)
however, scored significantly below the norm group and one woman (Flora) scored
significantly above. Additionally, one of the items from the Social Relationships
domain was considered. This item (Do you get the kind of support from others that
you need?) had a wide range of responses from the women (from one to five). One
woman (Charlie) indicated a one (not at all), one woman (Ann) indicated a two (not
much), two women (Daria and Flora) indicated three (moderately), one woman
(LaShonda) indicated four (a great deal) and one woman (May) indicated five
(completely).

151
Major Theme #8: Mental Health
Major Theme #8: Female perpetrators report depressive symptoms. Inclusion
Criteria: This theme includes statements that involve the discussion of depression
including: 1) Depressive symptoms (e.g., general feelings of hopelessness or
despair); and 2) reported depression in response to relationship factors.
It is, of course, difficult to separate characterological or trait depression, from
depression as a reaction to external circumstances (e.g., negative interpersonal
interactions). However, for the purposes of discussion here, charaterological
depression has been separated artificially from reactionary depression.
Charaterological Depression
All of the women reported symptoms associated with mental health issues.
Just one woman (LaShonda) denied ever feeling depressed, and although she did not
report any other symptoms consistent with depression, she did indicate that she was
prone to over-eating. The other five women directly reported some symptoms of
depression and/or being depressed. In addition to directly reporting that they felt
depressed at times, four women (Ann, Daria, Flora and May) reported, one or more
symptoms consistent with depression. Two women (Daria and May) reported over-
eating, whereas one woman (Ann) reported both under and over-eating at times.
And, one woman (Flora) also reported eating disturbances; she would under-eat
when she was upset. One woman (May) also indicated that she has struggled with
insomnia for some time.
152
In addition to their verbal reports, some of these women appeared to be
currently struggling with depression. Two women (May and Charlie) specifically
presented as depressed, as indicated by flat affect, hopelessness and tearfulness. And,
whereas only one woman (Charlie) talked about suicide, it is not unlikely that the
other women also have experienced these thoughts or feelings. Charlie explained
that she sometimes felt so helpless to change her circumstances that she had
“fantasized” about taking her own life in order to have some relief from the stress of
her relationship and her negative feelings. [Note: client was assessed for safety
during the interview and it was determined that the threat was not imminent]
Reactionary Depression
Three women (Ann, Charlie, and May) directly connected their depression to
their experiences within their relationships. For example, in discussing her mood and
response to violence in the relationship, Ann expressed this connection clearly:
I’d get depressed, when we were together, if he hit me, I’d get depressed.
And I’d just go in the bathroom, look out the window and he’d tell you to get
out the window…Small shit like that.

And regarding her depression (also in conjunction with the relationship) and
tendency to under-eat Flora said, “The relationship affected me and made me a lot
depressed….My depression is mostly staying in bed and crying a lot [and] whenever
I am depressed, I eat less. Like I forget to eat or I don’t have a appetite.”
Similarly, regarding her insomnia, depression and over-eating May said:
Well I just feel, you know, really depressed, you know. I always think I
should leave [the relationship] you know, I just feel bad…. Yeah I feel
anxiety, depression, I cry a lot… I don’t take care of my business like I
153
should. I used to like to cook and keep house and now I don’t really care
about anything [and] I have insomnia. I don’t sleep hardly…I don’t sleep at
night, I stay up and eat, I get depressed so I eat and I just gained a lot of
weight. That’s a lot of weight, 50 lbs.

Quantitative Measure: WHOQOL-BREF (Psychological Domain)
One of the items (Psychological Health Domain) on the WHOQOL-BREF
asked: How often do you have negative feelings such as blue mood, despair, anxiety,
depression? As with other significant items, there was a wide range of responses.
One woman (Daria) marked two (seldom), two women (Ann and LaShonda) marked
three (quite often), one woman (Flora) indicated four (very often), and two women
(Charlie and May) indicated five (always).
Additionally, with regard to gathering general background information,
women were asked to report the total number of days (over the past 30 days) that
their mental health was not good. Answers were consistent with the above-
mentioned item from the WHOQOL-BREF measure. Ann, Charlie and Daria
reported: 5, 30 and 2 respectively. Whereas, Flora, LaShonda and May reported: 26,
8 and 30 respectively.
Overall, four of the women’s scores (Ann, Charlie, Flora, and LaShonda) on
the Psychological Health Domain were within the normal range. Two women (Daria
and May) however, scored significantly below the norm group.
Quantitative Measure: Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R)
Three women scored significantly above the norm group (non-patent female
sample) on the following indices: Obsessive-Compulsive, Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation
154
and Global Severity Index. Furthermore, four women scored significantly above the
norm group on the Somatization and Interpersonal Sensitivity indices.
Quantitative Measure: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)
At least one woman scored significantly above the norm group with regard to
the four subscales on the Aggression Questionnaire. Specifically, two women
(Charlie and Daria) scored higher on the Physical Aggression subscale, two women
(Daria and Flora) scored higher on the Verbal Aggression subscale, one woman
(Charlie) scored higher on the Anger subscale and two women (Flora and May) were
significantly higher on the Hostility subscale.
Major Theme #9: Child Abuse in the Family of Origin
Major Theme #9: Women describe being abused as children and witnessing
abuse of their siblings. Inclusion Criteria: This theme includes statements that
describe emotional/verbal/ psychological and/or physical abuse by primary care-
takers in the family of origin. Statements about both their siblings’ and their own
abuse are included.
All six women noted that they had been directly abused by one of their
parents in their family of origin, although none of the women indicated that they had
been abused by both parents. In addition, four women (Ann, Daria, Charlie, and
May) reported witnessing abusive of their siblings. For five women (everyone except
Daria) the abuse was physical (and for some, there was also
emotional/verbal/psychological abuse). Daria, however, noted that although there
was emotional/verbal/psychological abuse, she was not physically abused.
155
Several of the women described abuse by the female caregivers in their lives.
One woman (LaShonda) who was raised by her mother reported that she had been
physically abused by her. Another woman (Flora) although raised by both parents
reported that (especially during the time that her parents were separated) her mother
was physically abusive. And another woman (Charlie) was raised by various women
(romantically involved with her father) reported physical and emotional abuse by
them, in addition to emotional abuse by her aunt who was her primary caretaker
during a couple of her teenage years. Three women (Ann, May, and Charlie) also
reported emotional/verbal/psychological abuse and physical abuse by their fathers.
In recalling the abuse of herself and her brothers at the hands of her father,
Ann said:
I remember my father sticking an electric wire at our screen winda and that
electrocuted my hand…after they got a divorce I remember him hitting me on
the leg with a belt (partial yawn), and I still called my mom and she still came
and got me cuz he had left bruises on my legs where he hit me with a belt and
she said she told him don’t ever hit me again… I know he used to kick my
brothers in the ass for not doing their chores.

May also recalled her father’s verbal abuse of her and her siblings:
My father was verbally abusive…he was just mean and very short tempered
and very always angry at us. He was always mad at us… He would always be
mad. Always call us names like, “stupid. Stupid idiot, you can’t do anything
right …” He never said nothing nice to you. Never ever. I don’t remember
my father saying nothing nice to me ever in my life, when I was growing up.
He never acted like he loved you or, “this is my daughter, you’re so pretty…”

And his physical abuse:
There was one incident that he punched me that I thought was kind of crazy
when I was a kid...I remember everything about it cause it was a big thing at
the time. I remember I had this poncho that my mother got, it was this grey
156
poncho and I came home from school…I was probably about in the 5
th
grade,
it was a cold day and I had it on. And I remember I came home and my
mother was in the kitchen you know? And I was like, “I’m gonna make some
hot chocolate cause it’s cold.” And I started warming the milk cause we had
the envelope when you warmed up the milk and put the thing in. And I put
the pot on some milk on this little pot and there was this little space between
the pot and the stove and I was standing there waiting for it to cook and I still
had the poncho on. And then my father came in the kitchen and he saw that I
had the poncho on and that made him mad cause I guess he thought the
poncho was gonna catch on fire like that was dumb…He didn’t say all that…
He just comes in the kitchen and he screams something and he walked over
to me and he punched me in the chest and I remember falling…And my
mother… she didn’t say a word.

Major Theme #10: Partner Violence in the Family of Origin
Major Theme #10: Women report that their mothers (and primary female
care-givers) have perpetrated intimate partner violence. Inclusion Criteria: This
theme includes statements that describe directly witnessing or hearing about: 1)
Mutual parental abuse in the family of origin; 2) mother-initiated abuse in the family
of origin.
All six women described either witnessing or hearing about verbal (including
emotional/psychological) and/or physical abuse between the primary care-givers in
their homes. Four of the women described some mutual and or female-initiated
violence, whereas two (LaShonda and May) indicated that their mothers had been
victimized by, but had not been aggressive with, their partners. Among the four
women that indicated they had heard about and/or witnessed “mutual” violence, two
(Ann and Charlie) indicated that male-initiated violence had been more frequent and
severe than the female-initiated violence. Ann’s quote was the most severe and best
exemplified the mutual violence:
157
My father took [my mother] out to the barn and tried to hang her. He cut her
4 tires…I know my mom said my dad used to drink a lot, so I guess when he
would get drunk…My mom she don’t tell that story anymore cuz it’s so old.
But she used to tell us…she told me about one time she drug my father off
the Harley Davidson he was on the back of it hanging on. She drug him off.
That’s the only stories I remember her telling me about that what she
did…She was drivin’ it…Yeah it was their Harley. It was their bike together
and somehow she pulled him off or something. Or else he was holding onto
something and she took off.

And, two (Daria and Flora) women indicated that their mothers were the
primary aggressors in their marriages to these women’s fathers. One (Daria) noted
that her mother would often scream and yell and throw things. And one (Flora)
although she did not report this in the interview, noted in group (after the interview)
that her mother had been physically abusive of her father and that she had mistreated
him otherwise (e.g., by having an affair).
Minor Theme #11: Relationships with their Children
Minor Theme #11: Female perpetrators have difficulties maintaining
functional/ positive relationships with their children. Inclusion Criteria: This theme
includes statements about: 1) The women not having raised their children; 2)
minimal contact currently with children; and 3) legal involvement which has resulted
in limited control over child-rearing.
All six women have children and three women (Ann, LaShonda and May)
had narratives which provided some support for this theme. One woman (Ann)
although she currently has regular contact with her daughter, did not raise any of her
three kids (two sons and a daughter) who are now adults. One of her sons was raised
by a couple from the town where she was living when he was born. Her second son
158
was raised by her father, and her daughter was raised by her mother. Although she
implied that she was okay with her that her parents each raise one of her children,
she was upset about what had occurred regarding the raising of her other son. She
said:
I love my kids, but I just couldn’t raise them. I’ve not raised none of my kids.
My father’s raised the boy and my mom’s raising my daughter. [And my
other son] they got him…and never did bring him back…they got custody of
him there. Her husband was, um, a police officer. I think they paid, they paid
the courts or something, cuz my mom….went, besides my mom, his dad
went, and no one get him, cuz they paid the judge off…They raised him, no
one signed no adoption papers… I talk to him sometimes on the phone, and
my mother just seen him so I’ll get some pictures when she comes back [the
last time I saw him was] when he was a little baby, about 19 years ago.

Another woman (LaShonda) has never had regular contact with her daughter
(currently an adolescent) who was raised by her ex. She explained that although she
did not initially want her daughter, she did now. However, her daughter is, at this
point, more attached to her father (LaShonda’s ex). She noted:
So, my daughter she just like, I don’t know she hypnotized by her dad or
what cuz, you know, and I don’t even like to think about it, cuz all it does is
bring me down. Cuz I do want my daughter, like when I was pregnant with
her, I didn’t even want her. So, I don’t know if it’s the best for her to be with
her dad or not [because] I didn’t want my daughter [before].

And, the third woman (May) also reported trouble with her children; they
have recently been placed in the care of a relative due to Department of Children and
Family Services’ (DSFS) involvement. With her, however, the separation was recent
(a couple of months prior to the interview) and she intended (and believed strongly)
that the separation would be quite temporary. She described the circumstances with
159
her seven-year-old son and the situation which precipitated the separation between
herself and her boyfriend (the kids’ father) and her son and daughter:
DCFS got involved because my son went to school and someone said at the
school that he said he wanted to jump out the building, jump out the
balcony…I don’t know how much of that is true, but that’s what they said.
Cause I never seen him act like he’s gonna kill himself… it was kinda
weird…So anyway, they call and when I went to pick him up they said they
were gonna call some social worker… some psychologist. And she came in
and she talked to me and talked to me and said she was trying to figure out,
you know. According to her she said, “We’re gonna put him on 3 day hold. I
think he needs to be put in the hospital.” And I was like, “Whatever.” There
was nothing I could do about it.

She continued to tell me that after her son was in the hospital for three days,
she told the case worker that she and her boyfriend “fight.” Although there was some
concern on the part of the social worker, they planned to close the case after they
were sufficiently satisfied that her son was not suicidal. Then, however, May said:
A couple of months right after that we were at my cousins house and my son
was in the yard playing with several other kids and they ended up rough
housing and they were swinging him around but he had on a dress shirt cause
he had been to church that day and he had a red mark around his neck. I knew
the next day, I had just started to put him into therapy. It was gonna be his
first therapy session…and I saw the mark so I said “I’ll just go to the school
and tell then what happened.” So obviously, I’m not gonna just drop him off
so I talked to the vice principal and I told him he has this mark and I told him
what happened. When I picked him up they had taken him out of school and
called the police. And I had even told them what happened. It made me so
mad. So then the same social worker she comes back into the picture and
that’s basically how they’re not in the home right now.

Ad Hoc Findings Regarding the Cycle of Violence
As noted in Chapter 1, no known research had previously addressed the
concept of the Cycle of Violence regardless of whether the perpetrator was male or
160
female. The findings from this study indicate that the question about whether or not
the Cycle of Violence exists is complex.
Although some women were able to identify certain aspects of the cycle,
most were unable to identify all necessary components. That is, the Cycle of
Violence is typically understood as consisting of minimally, a tension building
phase, an incident and a honeymoon or make-up period. In addition, the model for
understanding the pattern of violence indicates that overtime the Cycle of Violence
typically occurs more rapidly and the incidents become more severe. Similarly,
although some of the women were able to identify either increasing severity or
frequency, the response pattern was not clear enough to qualify as either a major or
minor theme.
Only one woman (Charlie) reported a pattern that closely resembled this
cycle in terms of the increasing tension, incident, and release. She confirmed that
after she learned about the “cycle of violence” she had identified it in her
relationship. She sees a build-up of tension (whereby she feels anxious and
depressed). This build-up is followed by an incident which is then followed by relief.
Most often, it is her concerns about his cheating and jealous feelings that build up
until it’s too difficult to resist the impulse and she picks a fight. Fighting, she
explains, “takes away the confusion and makes it black and white again.” So then,
she is relentless, questioning him for long enough to feel satisfied with what he has
said and she can feel briefly secure. Only then can she feel temporarily independent
161
and liberated. Soon though, the jealous thoughts creep in again and the cycle begins
once more.
All but one woman (Flora) were adamant that no “honeymoon” existed. That
is, there was no period of make-up, apologies, or gifts. For example, LaShonda said:
I don't say nothing to him…and eventually he’ll say something he'll give in
or eventually I'll try to say something to him but he will give me the silent
treatment…Probably for less than an hour (laughing)…And then after he
ignores me, he will just ask me something stupid like, he’ll say “any more of
this left?” or “can I watch my western?”…but you know it's kissing butt.
And, regarding the lack of make-up, Ann said, “There’s no apology….There
was never no apology.” Similarly, May, “He never says he’s sorry he never
apologizes. Ever…He never apologizes. He’s never sorry. He doesn’t bring you
flowers the next day or buy you nothing.” And, regarding her lack initiation of the
honeymoon, May said, “Yeah. I have [said ‘sorry’]. You know usually I’m not really
sorry because I feel that he is such a mean person sometimes that I don’t feel sorry.”
As noted Flora was the one woman to endorse having initiated a make-up
period which was discussed in the interview:
Amy: …So, when you think about this most recent relationship, and after an
aggressive incident, what kinds of thoughts and feelings do you usually have?

Flora: Very sorry, I’m very sorry, I’m sorry. [After an incident] I would be
very sorry, trying to be nice, trying to do things that I know he liked, trying
to just make up for being so violent and out of control.

Regarding frequency and severity over time, Flora and Daria, reported
increased severity (initiated by them), but not frequency. Charlie reported increased
frequency but not severity. May reported that the first time she was hit by her
boyfriend was the most severe incident.
162
Flora said:
Well, it got worse [over time]…Like first we would have a fight, maybe I
wouldn’t break something or maybe I wouldn’t throw something, but as the
fight got worst then one time maybe I would throw something at him and the
next time I would throw something and break something, and then maybe the
next time I would break something, and hit him, and bite him. Like it just got
worse. Like it was just adding and adding and adding.

It was difficult for LaShonda to identify a pattern, but noted that her
boyfriend was not abusive in the beginning, then he became abusive and then he
became less abusive again (without any identifiable influences):
No he wasn't abusive like that, like in the beginning like I told you he was
like holding me back [then] he wouldn’t let me go, be choking me, then [later
in the relationship] he just relaxed. I don't know, he became calm then two
years later, it just comes again, something comes over him.

163
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this groundbreaking study was to obtain an in-depth
understanding of intimate partner violence among female perpetrators in
heterosexual relationships. The relatively few studies to have focused on this
population have employed an epidemiological approach, focusing on “small slices”
of behavior across large numbers of participants. But this study employed a different
window on these women’s attributes and experiences, holistically focusing on a
small number of participants. This was the only known study so far to have
considered female aggressors in this manner.
This study also was unique among studies of women aggressors in its use of
more than one data. Both qualitative and quantitative information was elicited from
six participants who had been self and/or court-identified as “perpetrators” of partner
violence. It is likely that these results provide a more accurate picture of this group
of women.
The specific purpose was to explore (1) these women’s experiences in
relationships, including the particulars of violence, (2) several correlates of
aggression (drug and alcohol use, anger/hostility, social isolation, and mental health
issues), (3) their histories of exposure (or lack of exposure) to violence in the family
of origin; and, (4) their perceptions of gender role behavior. These four research
goals informed the types of questions asked of the women, although the obtained
data were then organized thematically, as described in Chapter 4.
164
The discussion that follows is organized by research goal, so that each of the
four is addressed in turn. In those discussions, the results of this study will be
considered in relation to previous research.
Research Goal #1 Understanding the Relationship
Participants were asked about experiences in their romantic relationships
including the severity and frequency of the (self and partner-initiated) violence, their
subjective feelings about the relationship, and their perspectives on violence. These
areas of inquiry provide topic headings below.
Frequency and Severity of Violence
Previous research yielded mixed findings with regard to the frequency of
abuse perpetrated by women in intimate partnership. Some studies indicated gender
parity (Chermack, Walton, Fuller & Blow, 2001); others, higher female frequency
(e.g., Cerconce, Beach, & Arias, 2005); and, still others, higher male frequency of
perpetration (Moe, 2004).
The results of this study suggested how complex the issue is and therefore
how difficult it may be ever to arrive at a single definitive conclusion about which
gender bears the greater responsibility. All six women in this study indicated that
they were partnered with men who were abusive. However, some women were more
often victimized, whereas others indicated that they were the primary perpetrators.
Furthermore, there was substantial variability in the frequency with which women
(and their partners) committed violent acts.
165
This study also is important in suggesting that the role of “primary
perpetrator” in the relationship is not static. Two of the women, for example,
indicated that although they previously had been primarily the victims of partner
violence, they now were more likely than their partners to behave violently. In one
case, the circumstances that led to this role switch (i.e., her boyfriend’s stroke) were
unique. But regardless of the idiosyncratic reason for this role shift, the notable issue
is that it did occur.
It may be important for researchers to consider factors which influence the
adoption of the role of primary perpetrator. Clinicians also may better serve clients
by maintaining awareness of this possible role flexibility. Clinicians may be
particularly alert to this possibility in circumstances whereby a man is acting
aggressively and then changes his behavior (e.g., after seeking treatment or due to
the development of a disability).
The dynamic that develops between violent couples, especially as illustrated
in the changing of roles over time, may be understood in the context of the principle
of complementarity (Kiesler, 1983). This is the phenomenon whereby one type of
behavior in a person will elicit a specific responsive behavior in the other person.
These behaviors typically are organized along a dominance continuum so that a high
dominance behavior elicits a low dominance response and vice versa. It is possible in
a relationship for these roles to reverse so that as a person who previously exhibited
primarily dominant behavior begins to exhibit more submissive behavior (perhaps
166
because of physical changes, as in a stroke), the other person assumes the
complementary role and exhibits dominant behavior.
It is also worth noting that all of the women in this study were in a low
income bracket. And, perhaps significantly, the person who more frequently
committed acts of violence was especially low income and also seemed quite
intelligent. It is possible that this combination (awareness of potential and limited
means to achieve her potential) was a source of frustration and an impetus to
violence. And although not likely the cause of her aggression, certainly may have
contributed to feelings of frustration and powerlessness.
The frustration-aggression hypothesis (Miller, Sears, Mowrer, Doob &
Dollard, 1941) maintains that the experience of frustration may produce a number of
different responses including aggression. This hypothesis holds an enduring place in
psychology despite sometimes mixed evidence. Perhaps this is because it is
intuitively appealing.
And, powerlessness (which engenders frustration) particularly among men
has been associated with the tendency to be aggressive (Cowan & Mills, 2004). Also,
it may be that low-income status contributes to violence in that it limits that available
ways of reducing tension (e.g., staying in a hotel) prior to escalation to the point of
physical conflicts.
One also might argue that low-income can be a circumstance for unequal
enforcement of the law. That is, a woman who is lower-income may be more likely
to be arrested and prosecuted as a result of prejudice among police officers, judges,
167
and/or other legal personnel. If she had been in a higher SES group the same
behaviors may have escaped attention. Therefore, whereas women are perpetrators,
only the lower income women become publicly labeled as such.
As with most of the hypotheses discussed in this chapter, causality is difficult
to sort out. It may be that frustrations borne of low-income status contribute to
interpersonal violence (or to a more aggressive legal system). Alternatively, it may
be that being in a controlling, abusive relationship is a factor that contributes to and
maintains a low-income status. For example, a woman may be forced not to work
due to her partner’s prohibitions. It is also possible, for example, that a woman may
lose her job if she is often out (e.g., due to partner-inflicted injury) or unable to
concentrate due to violence in her relationship. Another possibility may be the
existence of a third factor (e.g., poor mental health) that contributes both to poverty
and to the likelihood of being in an abusive relationship.
Severity
Severity of violence is another area in which previous findings have been
conflicting. Results have indicated either that men commit more severe acts of
violence (e.g., Chermack et al., 2001) or that women commit comparably severe
violence (e.g., Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). No known study has found that women
commit more severe violence than men.
The results of this study so not resolve those inconsistencies. For example,
five of the six women reported that their partners had forced sex. Although the
consequences of this may not be severe in terms of physical injury, it is likely to be
168
in terms of its emotional consequences. Sexual assault, in particular, is likely to
induce feeling devaluated, disrespected and, particularly, helplessness (Moscarello,
1991). As noted previously, feeling powerless may have further contributed to the
violence these women perpetrated.
When considering the severity of women’s acts, it was significant that they
were more likely to report that they had used a weapon against their partner than that
he had done so against her. For example, three women reported on the DCI that they
had used a knife or gun against their partner, whereas just one woman reported that
her partner had done the same. An additional woman verbally reported that her
partner also had pulled a gun on her.
Because size and strength differences between men and women typically are
present, a weapon may serve, in the words of the staff member interviewee, James,
as “an equalizer.” That is, use of a weapon may be the only way that women are able
to fight against male partner. Unfortunately, the use of a weapon may be perceived
by those in authority as a more severe behavior.
Positive Aspects of the Relationship
Four of the women spontaneously reported that they felt positive about
several of the aspects of their relationship and/or their partner. No known previously-
identified research had addressed the pervasive, ongoing “feeling” one has about her
partner and/or the relationship despite the existence of violence.
This is a particularly important finding because it illuminated one of the
primary questions that researchers, clinicians and the general public are likely to
169
have. That question, often asked to the chagrin of feminist researchers who implore
us not to “blame the victim” is “why doesn’t she leave?” Here, the more appropriate
question might be, “why don’t either of them leave?”
When feminist organizations (e.g., Women’s Web, or the National Coalition
Against Domestic Violence) have spoken to this question, they have considered
multiple factors which serve to preserve the relationship. For example, they point to
issues of safety (e.g., the most dangerous time in a relationship is often considered to
be the period shortly after the woman leaves the relationship). Additionally,
feminists often discuss financial issues (e.g., the woman may be dependent on her
partner for survival) as contributing to the preservation of the relationship.
These practical issues are important, but insufficient to explain the powerful
emotional connections people can have to one another notwithstanding the hurt they
inflict on one another. Despite the violence, many of these women expressed feeling
loved by and loving towards their partners. Additionally, they expressed feeling
hopeful and positive about their relationships. And whereas the Cycle of Violence
has been used to explain this “hopefulness,” that cycle was not much apparent in this
study.
One possible explanation for staying in abusive relationships may be found in
what has been called the Stockholm syndrome. The syndrome was named by a
psychologist and criminologist who worked with police to understand a holdup that
occurred in Stockholm Sweden, 1973, when four people were held for six days and
developed positive feelings about and defended the men who had held them hostage.
170
This syndrome generally has been described as difficulty leaving one’s “captor,”
concern about retaliation, and extreme gratitude for small kindnesses that are shown
by the person who holds great power (Farley, Baral, Kiremire, & Sezgin, 1998).
Similarly, Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967) have noted, in discussing
Albee’s play “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf” that the main couple participates in
mutual escalation. To outsiders, they seem not to have much in the way of “positive”
interactions. In fact, the majority of their exchanges seem destructive and hateful.
The authors note, however, that somehow these characters don’t seem to “take the
content of each other’s insults personally [and] they seen to respect each other in the
system” (Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson, 1967, p. 155). This systemic approach to
relationships characterizes much of what was observed in this study.
Perspectives on Violence
Meta-analytic research (e.g., Stith, et al., 2004) has provided support for the
connection between an attitude which condones violence and violent behavior. This
makes sense when the concept of “cognitive dissonance” (Festinger, 1957) is
considered. Specifically, it is often assumed that when one’s behavior and ideology
are in conflict, one works to alter either their behavior or their perspective in order
that they become congruent. If person is violent, therefore he or she must believe that
violence is acceptable.
This belief was evident with one woman in particular, who reported that
violence was not an entirely negative thing since it had assisted her with getting to
know her boyfriend better. As well, it gave her more concrete information about him.
171
With this participant especially, the fusion of the concepts of love and violence was
evident.
But none of the women either wholly endorsed or condoned violence.
Instead, all women expressed strong feelings of disapproval, at least in the abstract.
For example, even the woman who indicated that violence had been a positive
influence in her relationship and another woman who continue to be regularly
violent, indicated that they fervently opposed violence except in self-defense.
Rationale for Female-Initiated Violence
There is no consensus about why women behave violently. Hypotheses
include, but are not limited to violence as self-defense (Moe, 2004) and violence as a
response to emotional hurt (Lapierre, 2002).
Women in this study reported several reasons for committing acts of
violence. Certainly some women were violent in self-defense. However, women also
frequently reported that they used instrumental violence. Specifically, women
indicated that they behaved violently in the case of jealousy, for example, to prevent
their partners from leaving the house. They also used violence as revenge toward
partners who previously had been violent, or as retribution for verbal or emotional
abuse.
Another participant explained that she believed that some women felt
gratified when they could provoke their partner to the point of violence. From her
perspective, this might confirm that she had really gotten to him (and thus had some
control and/or confirmation that he felt strongly). This finding, regarding the variable
172
rationale for committing violence, may be particularly important for clinicians who
are typically interested in understanding the reasoning behind a client’s actions. If
clinicians can further explore the purpose of the violence, they can work with women
to find alternative means of achieving their goals.
Research Goal #2 Correlates of Domestic Violence
Drug and Alcohol Use
The literature has been inconsistent in finding a connection between alcohol
and drug use and female perpetration of abuse. Either no connection between alcohol
and drug use and perpetration has been found (e.g., Martino, Collins, & Ellickson,
2005) or high rates of perpetration have been found among females in treatment for
alcoholism (Chase et al., 2003) and among men, who abuse drugs (Stith et al., 2004).
Three of the women in this study reported regular use of drugs and/or
alcohol. Their usage corresponded with violence (i.e., use contributed to, prevented,
and was used as a method of coping with violent incidents). Use of drugs and/or
alcohol also was separate from violent incidents. That is, use did not always
correspond with relationship factors.
Significantly, no study previously has addressed drug or alcohol use as
violence prevention. Yet this was reported by two of the women. One woman noted
that when her boyfriend was in an angry mood she often was concerned about how
she might respond to his anger. She was aware, however, that for example, if she
were on her way home and received an angry phone call from him, she could smoke
marijuana in order to better control her reaction. By stopping somewhere to smoke
173
before arriving at the house, she would be more relaxed, less likely to respond to his
provocation, and would perhaps avoid a fight.
This observation suggests a potentially important hypothesis that both
researchers and clinicians can explore. For example, if a clinician is working to
reduce alcohol and/or drug use, it would be important for him or her to be aware of
drug and/or alcohol use as potentially serving this important purpose. Then, the
clinician might work to find alternative ways of de-escalating and/or preventing
conflict.
There is research support for the connection between alcohol use and female
victimization (e.g., Martino, Collins, & Ellickson, 2005). That was borne out in this
study, whereby four of the women reported that their partners regularly used alcohol
and/or drugs. Similarly, the four items on the CAGE were used to further understand
patterns of drinking. CAGE results were largely consistent with women’s interview
reporting regarding their own and their partner’s use. As with the women’s use,
partner’s use of alcohol and drugs seemed both connected to and distinct from
specific incidents of violence. Because alcohol and drug use was partially connected
to the occurrence of specific incidents, drug and alcohol treatment may be an
important factor to address both among men and women in treatment for domestic
violence.
Social Isolation
There has been moderate support for the connection between male
perpetration of violence and social isolation (e.g. Magdol et al., 1997) but only one
174
known study (whereby results were non-significant) previously addressed this
connection among females (Magdol et al., 1997). Most women in this study, though,
reported diminished social support. Most notable was their lack of friendships. And,
although several reported that they experienced family support, objective indicators
(including actual face-to-face time) imply that even family support was
compromised. Future researchers may wish to consider whether it is the perceived or
actual level of support that is important.
These self-reports were not confirmed by the objective measure, the Social
Relationships subscale on the WHOQOL-BREF. For one woman support was
minimal, one had above average support, and four scored in the average range.
Another woman’s response to one question in particular was quite surprising.
With regard to this question (do you get the kind of support from others that you
need?), she indicated five (completely). This was unexpected because in the
interview, she had clearly described receiving no support from her boyfriend. It is
not known to what extent she and other women may have answered this question
with the expectation that they needed minimal support. If their expectations were
low, it would not be difficult to meet that expectation. Alternatively, it may be, for
example with her, that she received support from her children.
As with other factors, though, hypothesis about diminished social support are
subject to questions about cause and effect. For example, the relationship issues of
these women may have contributed to a decrease in social support. Alternately, it
may be that having diminished social support would make one more prone to
175
participate in a violent relationship, as either victim or perpetrator. A person without
more support may not be met with challenges from friends and family, imploring
them to get out of the relationship. Also, those with limited support may feel more
invested in holding on to what support they do have (i.e., the partners who they
abuse and are abused by). Furthermore, it may be that a third factor such as poor
social skills may contribute both to diminished support and abusive romantic
relationships.
Mental Health Issues
As noted in Chapter 1, psychiatric distress has been associated with increased
risk of partner violence (Chermack, et al., 2001). Mental health issues including
anxiety, mania, and psychosis are associated with partner violence in women and
men (Magdol et al., 1997). Impulsive personality characteristics among women
(O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994) and antisocial behavior among both women and
men have also been associated with violence perpetration as has depression among
women (Kim & Capaldi, 2004).
All of the women in this study reported at least one mental healthy symptom.
Primarily, these were symptoms of depression. Five noted that they experienced
depression in some form, even though they would not necessarily meet diagnostic
criteria for depression. This is significant in that although some women may not be
labeled “depressed,” it is possible that sub-clinical and/or subjective depression are
contributing factors to aggressive behavior. Or it may be, as the literature suggests,
that people who are prone to aggression become aggressive with drops in serotonin,
176
whereas others (i.e., those who don’t have pre-existing aggressive traits) are not
affected by the serotonin changes (Cleare & Bond, 1994).
Information regarding mental health also was collected via psychometrically
valid measures (the WHOQOL-BREF and the SCL-90-R). Two women scored
significantly below the norm group on the overall WHOQOL-BREF subscale
Psychological Health and, five indicated that they often experienced “negative
feelings such as blue mood, despair, anxiety, depression.”
It is perhaps notable, that whereas five women discussed depression
symptoms in the interview, only two had elevated scores on the SCL-90-R
Depression index. But, on the other hand, most women had significantly elevated
scores on other subscales (i.e., not Depression). Specifically, four of the women had
significantly elevated scores on the Somatization and Interpersonal Sensitivity
subscales. And, three women had significantly elevated scores on Obessions and
Compulsions, Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation, and the overall Global Severity Index
subscales.
Clinicians are aware that somatization has been associated with depression
and so perhaps the elevated levels of somatization was an indicator of depression.
Large numbers of women with unrecognized depression often will present to their
medical doctors with physical concerns (Betrus, Elmore, & Hamilton, 1995).
Furthermore, interpersonal sensitivity has been associated with earlier onset, more
severe, and more chronic depression (e.g., Davidson, Zisook, Giller, & Helms,
1989).
177
Therefore, it may be that these women experience and express their
depression in “typical” ways (e.g., sadness) and in atypical ways (e.g., sensitivity and
reactivity to others, or somatic complaints). This finding indicates that it would be
important for clinicians to collect information in a variety of ways. For example,
clients who are given diagnostic measures (e.g., the Beck Depression Inventory or
the SCL-90) should also be asked about their subjective experience of depression
(including possibly interpersonal sensitivity and somatic issues), and perhaps their
somatic complaints and/or interpersonal sensitivity. This may assist clinicians in
obtaining a fuller and more accurate picture of client’s experiences.
Furthermore, although it makes intuitive sense that these women would be
hostile, only two had elevated scores on the SCL-90-R Hostility Index. There are six
items that make up the Hostility Index (Feeling easily annoyed or irritated; Temper
outbursts you cannot control; Having Urges to beat, injure or harm someone;
Having urges to break or smash things; Getting into frequent arguments; and
Shouting or throwing things).
Many of these items are consistent with information reported on the DCI, and
with reported events in the interview. Therefore the fact that only two women had
elevated scores on this index seemed inconsistent. Furthermore, with regard to the
Aggression Questionnaire, it was interesting to note that one woman did not have
elevated scores on any of the four indices, despite an elevated Hostility index on the
SCL-90-R.
178
It may be, though, that women are experiencing other emotions when they
become aggressive. That is, rather than feeling annoyed or irritated or that they have
an “uncontrollable temper,” perhaps they are fearful (as in the case of self-defense or
concern about a partner’s infidelity). Furthermore, for a person to endorse “having
urges” they would have to be self-aware prior to committing an act. Instead, it seems
that many of the women here acted impulsively without previously identifying an
“urge.” Also, with the question of frequency (i.e., “getting into frequent arguments”)
these women may have considered the fact that, especially after participation in
group for several months, the frequency of arguments may be relatively less.
Anger and Hostility
Meta-analysistic studies (e.g., Stith et al., 2004) have found moderate effect
sizes for the relationship between anger/hostility and violent behavior among men.
With regard to women, anger and jealousy (Watson, 2005) and direct expression of
anger, specifically, have predicted women’s use of violence towards her partner
(Swan, et al., 2006).
Although women did not discuss anger and hostility in the interview for this
study, they completed the Buss and Perry Anger Questionnaire which is designed to
tap trait anger and hostility. Results were largely non-significant (only two scored
above the norm).
One hypothesis, if we assume the measure results are valid, is that these
women are not necessarily angry and/or hostile outside the context of their
179
relationships. That is, they do not necessarily have higher trait anger, but their anger
is specific to the relationship.
Research Goal #3 History of Exposure to Violence
Another research goal was to examine the extent to which the women had
witnessed violence in their family of origin. The researcher originally framed
exposure to violence as intimate partner violence between the participant’s primary
care-givers, with particular interest in participant’s reporting of gender with regard to
perpetration (i.e., mother-to-father violence, father-to-mother violence, and mutual
violence). Many of the participants spontaneously indicated that they had also been
abused directly in their family of origin and that they more recently had had concerns
or problems with raising their own children. These findings will be discussed below.
Child Abuse
Findings from this study were consistent with previous studies which have
provided support for the connection between child abuse and perpetration of violence
(Heyman & Slep, 2002). Specifically, all of the women reported that they were the
direct childhood victims of emotional and/or psychological abuse; all but one
reported childhood physical abuse.
Four women were raised by both parents, or at least had some regular contact
with both parents. Two of them reported that their fathers were the primarily abusive
ones and two reported that their mothers were the primarily abusive ones. The one
woman who had been raised by just her mother indicated that her mother had been
180
abusive towards her. Another woman indicated that she had been abused by both her
father and various female care-givers.
It is not known whether other factors may be important in further
understanding the connection between child abuse and later perpetration of intimate
partner violence. For example, the idea of parenting style may be significant. That is,
although not explored here, it may be that women who are physically disciplined, but
who are secure in knowing that they are loved may not go on to perpetrate violence
against others.
Domestic Violence in the Family of Origin
Many studies have supported the connection between violence in the family
of origin and later perpetration of abuse (e.g., Duggan, O’Brien, & Kennedy, 2001)
yet violence in family of origin may be neither necessary nor sufficient as a predictor
of later violence (Delsol & Margolin, 2004). There also may be differential gender
effects, though family of origin violence has been shown both to more strongly
predict aggression in males (Stith et al., 2000) or females (Magdol et al., 1998).
Five women in this study noted that intimate partner abuse had occurred in
their family of origin. The one woman who did not report intimate partner abuse in
her family indicated that her mother never had a man live in the house.
One woman indicated that parents were severely abusive to one another but
did not directly recall the incidents that occurred. Mostly, she became aware of this
abuse through the transmission of stories by her mother and brother. Future
researchers may wish to consider the effects of direct witnessing versus knowing
181
about violence that has occurred. For example, it may be that hearing about family
violence could inform the formation of one’s relationship “template,” and that even a
child who does not experience violence may come to understand that this is typically
an aspect of relationships.
As noted in Chapter 1, father-to-mother violence compared with mother-to-
father violence in family of origin may (Heyman & Slep, 2002) or may not
(Chermack et al., 2001; Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke, 2003) result in
differential outcomes. In this study, it is notable that a significant number of women
did report mutual and/or mother-initiated violence. With mutual violence, the women
reported that it was more frequently and/or more severely perpetrated by the men.
Only one woman indicated that her father was emotionally abusive of her mother
although her mother was not emotionally or physically abusive of her father.
It makes intuitive sense that these women would be more likely than other
women (i.e., women in non-violent relationships and/or women who are victimized
by their partners) to have experienced mother/ female-caregiver initiated violence.
One woman reported mutual abuse, more heavily perpetrated by her father. Another
woman reported that her father had been abusive of her mother and the other women
in his life, and that mutual violence would occur, also to a lesser extent, between her
father and the women he dated. One woman also reported mutual abuse to some
extent between her parents, but implied that her mother had been the primary
aggressor (mostly yelling and throwing things). And another reported that her mother
was abusive of her father, but did not provide details of the abuse.
182
Problems with Child-Rearing
Three of the women spontaneously divulged problems with regard to rearing
their children. Two reported that they had not been much involved with raising their
children and one indicated that the Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS) recently had become involved. Although she hoped it was temporary, their
involvement had forced her to have limited access to her children, who were
mandated to stay with relatives.
Perhaps women in violent relationships feel overwhelmed and are less able to
care for others, including their children. It may be that a violent relationship creates
this feeling of being overwhelmed. Conversely, it may be that feeling overwhelmed
or difficulty with coping precipitates being in a violent relationship. That is, that
these women are more easily overwhelmed to begin with.
Research Goal #4 Perspectives on Gender
Meta-analysis provides support for the connection between endorsement of
traditional female sex roles and higher rates of female perpetration (Stith et al.,
2004). With regard to this study, it was difficult to obtain clear information regarding
the participant’s perspectives on gender. In part, the difficulty stemmed from the fact
that most women seemed to hold simultaneously flexible and rigid ideas about
gender. The majority of the women reported that men and women are very similar
and that they had a hard time making gender-related distinctions.
The answers given by these women also were complicated by the fact that
they seemed to be reporting “societal perspectives” without necessarily personalizing
183
them. Therefore, it is not known to what extent these women actually endorsed the
views they were reporting as opposed to acknowledging the generally held
stereotypes
Limitations
The validity of a study such as this depends on the level of honesty and
accuracy of the respondents’ self-reports. In part, this researcher’s stance was aligned
with that of most qualitative researchers who note, “You usually assume that people
are basically telling you the truth” (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 218). With this study in
particular, it also was assumed that participants may have been more willing to
divulge information because of this researcher’s prior acquaintance with some of
them and with the program coordinator, whom they trusted. This was an additional
factor contributing to the importance and uniqueness of this study: in no other known
study on intimate partner violence has the researcher had such a long-standing
relationship with participants and/or trusted acquaintances of participants.
Despite the assumption of basic truthfulness, however, it must be stated that
especially with any non-anonymous study, participants are likely influenced by
social desirability and the wish to manage other’s impressions of them. Furthermore,
this researcher was particularly aware of some of the participants’ guardedness (e.g.,
as evidenced through unwillingness to be audio-taped).
Also, on several occasions the researcher noted participants’ conflicting
reports about particular events. For example, one participant indicated during the
interview that her partner had pulled a gun on her, but she did not report this on the
184
DCI measure. Similarly, she first reported over-eating in the interview, and then later
did not endorse a related item on a quantitative measure.
As part of the regular intake process, this particular counseling center
performs a secondary screening, whereby female clients’ status (i.e., as true
“perpetrators” or “victims”) is confirmed or altered. For the purposes of this study, it
was assumed that the participants who have been labeled “perpetrators” have been
identified correctly (although, as noted, the even the label “perpetrator” itself is
complicated). Incorrectly identified participants would negatively affect the validity
of this study.
A number of components of this study also limit this study’s conclusions.
Limits of this study include the qualitative nature and small convenience sample
which was constrained by the availability of willing participants, and the researcher’s
time, and financial resources. This sample exclusively consisted of women who were
involved (at the initiation of the study) in the domestic violence program at this
particular counseling center in Southern California. The participants were women in
the lower socioeconomic range. It is possible that a more economically balanced
sample (and/or sample from the middle and upper socioeconomic range) would yield
different results.
For example, it is possible that low-income is itself a relationship stressor,
contributing to higher rates of violence among low-income couples. Furthermore, it
is not known how additional financial resources may impact the counseling group
sample at this center. It is possible that women who have been mandated to
185
counseling may choose to pursue alternative (e.g., more private) forms of counseling.
Additionally, women who have some financial means and are in violent relationships
may choose to stay in a hotel temporarily, thereby avoiding escalation of violence
and police/court involvement. Also, women who have more means financially also
may have more privacy (e.g., they live in larger houses and are less likely to have
neighbors call the police) and/or receive differential treatment by the courts and law-
enforcement. As noted above, alternative explanations (including those which
support poverty preceding or resulting from violence and/or other factors that
contribute to both poverty and violence) also may be applicable.
Age was also delimited in this study. Only participants between the ages of
23-47 were included. Although this is a broad range, future research might consider
how older female perpetrators function or whether abusive behaviors fade.
Implications and Suggestions for Future Research
In addition to those previously mentioned, this section outlines additional
suggestions. In the context of the interviews, several women made thought-
provoking statements that, although they did not qualify as themes for this study,
suggested areas that might be the focus of future research. These ideas include: 1)
Investigation into the differences between women who perpetrate violence (i.e., hit
and/or hit back) compared with women who do not; 2) investigation into the personal
experiences of women in counseling and the rates of recidivism; 3) continued
violence in the present (e.g., through continued abuse by a parent and/or
multigenerational transmission); and 4) family member legal involvement.
186
Finally, although this did not emerge from conversations with participants,
future research may also seek to obtain information from both partners in a violent
relationship. The rationale for this suggestion and implications regarding safety are
discussed below.
Women Who Hit/Hit back (and those that do not)
This researcher and one participant discussed how women in aggressive
relationships may or may not react to being aggressed upon with violence. The
personality traits, life circumstances, and/or relationship characteristics of a woman
may influence her response to partner violence. Future research may consider these
factors in connection with violent and non-violent reactions to abuse.
Personal Experience in Domestic Violence Groups and Recidivism
Although several of the women commented on their experiences in P.A.P., a
coherent theme wasn’t apparent. Nevertheless, it seemed significant that four of the
women noted positive changes in themselves and/or positive experiences, more
generally, through participation in P.A.P. One woman for example, shared the ways
in which she was able to consider the consequences of her actions before reacting
and how this had prompted her to change her behavior in response to provocation by
her partner.
However, it is also worth noting that when considering the most extreme (and
perhaps objective) measure of improvement, one might bear in mind whether or not
these women are arrested again, and also whether or not they report continued
aggression. Two women described just that; each was arrested for violence after their
187
interview (during which time they had indicated improvement). Another woman also
noted continued and recent violence against her partner. She first described all the
ways that she had changed for the better with regard to acting in physically abusive
ways. She then continued to describe how she would sometimes still slap him.
Future research might consider more in-depth experiences of female
aggressors in
group counseling. Research might address the subjective experience of improvement
and/or other’s perceptions (including partners) about improvement. One woman
reflected this observed difference in her, recalling how others had observed her
positive changes.
Furthermore, recidivism (including re-arrest rates, and/or continued violence)
may be the focus of inquiry. Additionally, a total abandonment of physically abusive
behaviors, as well as reduction in either severity or frequency of incidents may be
considered.
Current/ Continued Violence
Although participants were not specifically asked about this, it was perhaps
notable that one participant reported that even currently she would fight with her
mother, or rather, her mother would be physically abusive with her (“She hits me and
I don’t do nothing…no, she don’t hit me now. But she has shoved me.”) She also
reported that her mom has pushed her boyfriend. Future research may seek to
address whether or not (and how often) “child” abuse continues into adulthood.
188
In addition, one woman indicated that her daughter was currently involved in
an abusive relationship. Although previous studies have addressed intergenerational
transmission, it is not known whether or not some studies have attempted to trace
transmission of violence through multiple (i.e., three or four) generations. Future
research may address this concept.
Legal Involvement
Some of the women mentioned their own and/or family member involvement
with the legal system. As with some of the other suggestions for research, however,
no coherent theme emerged (in terms of content and sufficient number of
participants’ endorsements). Specifically, one woman noted that she had been
arrested and had done time in jail for driving under the influence on more than one
occasion. In addition, two women noted that their brothers were in jail for having
committed crimes.
One woman described her brother’s jailing for having committed murder.
And, another explained that one of her brothers was also in jail currently for selling
drugs and had been in and out of jail several times before now.
Finally, although this was also not asked directly, one woman noted that her
boyfriend had done jail time and was on probation (due to allegedly “taking the rap”
for his cousin’s stealing). It is not know to what extent other women might report
that their partner’s involvement in the legal system for crimes other than perpetration
of violence.

189
Interviewing Both Partners
Although Gayla Margolin, Ph.D., professor of clinical psychology has
conducted research whereby both partners in a relationship were interviewed.
Margolin’s research has typically addressed samples of “community” or “common
couple’s” (i.e., less severe) violence, no known study has interviewed both partners
in relationships with more severe (i.e., “clinical” violence). In order to maintain
parameters of safety, it would be important for both parts of the couple to be
interviewed separately and the content of their disclosures kept in confidence.
However, it would be interesting to compare partner perspectives, for example,
regarding the precipitants of violence (in general and in specific incidents) and for
example, who they perceive to be more “at fault.”
Finally, and more generally, Rubin and Rubin (1995) state that although
“qualitative interviewing focuses on the small, a single setting, one agency, one city
or neighborhood, the implications of the study should extend beyond the immediate
arena” (p. 53). Although it is not yet possible to determine whether or not this would
be the case, it is suggested that future studies seek to confirm or disconfirm results in
other settings.
Conclusion
In sum, this research has made essential contributions to the existing body of
literature by considering this group of women in a novel way. Although previous
studies have considered various aspects of the lives of women aggressors in intimate
190
partnership, no known study has considered women with as much depth and
wholeness.
Furthermore, previous studies have been limited by the researcher’s restricted
access to this generally highly inaccessible population. Inherently, many women who
have been in violent relationships are understandably guarded. Women who are
court-involved and especially those who have been mandated to counseling are
naturally skeptical of “outsiders” or people that may be perceived as part of the
“system.” This study was highly unique because of this researcher’s ongoing
involvement with the counseling center, and “recommendation” (i.e., vote of
confidence in this researcher) by both group leader and fellow group members. Due
to the exceptional relationship, this researcher was granted entrée.
This study’s findings have important implications for the direction of future
researchers, for clinicians who hope to provide the most informed and effective care,
and for the general public who seem to struggle with understanding this complex and
often counter-intuitive occurrence.
Findings are best summarized as:
Variability among women in terms of the severity and frequency of self-
initiated and partner-initiated violence
Women use of violence as self-defense, to achieve instrumental goals (e.g.,
preventing one’s partner from leaving the house) and as a response to
emotional hurt
191
Women and their partners use alcohol and/or substances in conjunction with
and separate from violence
Women are socially isolated (particularly in terms of lack of peer-group
support)
Women have a history of exposure to parental or primary-caretaker violence
in family of origin
Additionally, they report a history of being abused in family of origin
Women in this study did not consistently convey an attitude whereby they
condoned violence. This was especially true with regard to violence in the
abstract (i.e., in general and not related to their relationships)
Women in this study did not consistently score significantly above the norm
group with regard to hostility or depression (as measured by these subscales
on the SCL-90-R). Furthermore, they did not consistently score significantly
above the norm group with regard to aggression (as measured by the AQ)
Women in this study did not clearly indicate support for or rejection of
traditional gender role ideation
Women report trouble with maintaining connections to and raising one’s
children
Some substance use (marijuana, in particular) is perceived as a way to
prevent violence
192
Women have significantly elevated scores on several mental health indices
(SCL-90-R) including Obsessions-Compulsions, Somatization, and
Interpersonal Sensitivity
Women have high rates of mutual or female-initiated partner violence in the
family of origin
Future researchers should consider addressing some of the topics that were
revealed but not addressed by this study (as noted in Chapter 5). Furthermore,
researchers may address findings, especially with regard to those that are unique to
this study but heretofore not represented in the literature. Additionally, researchers
may consider a larger sample size, and/or random sample, and one that is more
variable demographically.
193
References
Anderson, K.L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate
partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851-
863.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680.

Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L., & Boden, J.M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to
violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103(1), 5-33.

Bent-Goodley, T.B. (2004). Perceptions of domestic violence: A dialogue with
African-American women. Health & Social Work, 29(4).

Bennett, L.W. (1995). Substance abuse and the domestic assault of women. Social
Work, 40(6), 760-771.

Benson, M.L., Wooldredge, J., Thistlethwaite, A.B., & Fox, g.L. (2004). The
correlation between race and domestic violence is confounded with
community context. Social Problems, 51(3), 326-337.

Betrus, P.A., Elmore, S.K., & Hamilton, P.A. (1995). Women and somatization:
Unrecognized depression. Health Care for Women International, 16 (4), 287-
97

Bowker, L.H. (1993). A battered woman’ s problems are social, not psychological.
In Richard J. Gelles & Donileen R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on
family violence (pp. 154-165). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications

Buss, A.H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 63(3), 452-459.

Caetano, R., Schaefer, J., & Cunradi, C.B. (2001). Alcohol-related intimate partner
violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States.
Alcohol Research and Health, 25(1), 58-65.

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Kozoil-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry,
M.A.,
194
Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, J, Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt,
S.A.,Manganello, J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V. & Laughon, K.
(2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a
multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93 (7),
1089-1097

Capaldi, D.M., & Owen, L.D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of
at risk young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury and
fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 425-440.

Cercone, J.J., Beach, S.R.H., Arias, I. (2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate
partner violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence
and Victims, (20)1, 207-218

Chase, K.A., O’Farrell, Murphy, C.M., Fals-Stewart, W., & Murphy, M. (2003),
Factorsassociated with partner violence among female alcoholic patients and
their male partners. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 137-149.

Chermack, S.T., Walton, M.A., Fuller, B.E., & Blow, F.C (2001). Correlates of
expressed and received violence across relationship types among men and
women substance abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(2), 140-
151.

Cleare, A.J., & Bond, A.J. (1995). The effect of tryptophan depletion and
enhancement on subjective and behavioural aggression in normal male
subjects. Psychopharmacology, 118 (1), 72-81.
Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of
Women’s Health, May, 1999.

Coney, Nancy, S., & Mackey, Wade, C. (1999). The feminization of domestic
violence in America: The woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 8(1), 45-56.

Cowan, G. & Mills, R.D. (2004). Personal inadequacy and intimacy predictors of
men’s hostility toward women. Sex Roles, 51(1), 76-78.

Davidson, J., Zisook, S., Giller, E., & Helms, M. (1989). Symptoms of interpersonal
sensitivity in depression. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 30 (5):357-68.
Dahlem, N.W., Zimet, G.D., & Walker, R.R. (1991). The Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support: A confirmation study. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 47, 756-761.
195
Delsol, C. & Margolin, G. (2004). The role of family-of-origin violence in men’s
marital violence perpetration. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(1), 99-122.

Derogatis, L. R. (1983). SCL-90-R: Administration, Scoring, & Procedurs Manua
l II for the Revised Version. Clinical Psychometric Research: Townson, MD.
Downs, W.R., Rindels, B., & Atkinson, C. (2007). Women’s use of physical and
nonphysical self-defense strategies during incidents of partner violence.
Violence Against Women, 13(1), 28-45.

Dutton, D.G., & Nicholls, T.L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence
research and theory: Part I-the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714.

Ehrensaft, M.K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J.G.
(2003).Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year
prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4),
741-753.

Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. Journal
of theAmerican Medical Association, 252, 1905-1907.

Farley, M., Baral, I., Kiremire, M., & Sezgin, U. (1998). Prostitution in five
countries: Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Feminism and
Psychology, 8(4), 405-426.

Felson, R.B. & Burchfield, K.B. (2004). Alcohol and the risk of physical and sexual
assault victimization. Criminology, 42(4), 837-859.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Field, C.A., Caetano, R., & Nelson, S. (2004). Alcohol and violence related
cognitive risk factors associated with the perpetration of intimate partner
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19(4), 249-253.

Flanzer, J.P. (1993). Alcohol and other drugs are key causal agents of violence. In
Richard J. Gelles & Donileen R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on
family violence (pp. 171-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

Frieze, I.H. (2000). Violence in close relationships-development of a research area:
Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 681-684.
196
Frieze, I.H. (2005). Female violence against intimate partners: An introduction.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 229-242.

Gelles, , R.J. (1993). Alcohol and other drugs are not the cause of violence. In
Richard J. Gelles & Donileen R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on
family violence (pp. 182-196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

Gilgun, J.F. (2005). Qualitative Research and Family Psychology. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19(1), 40-50.

Gondolf, E.W., Fisher, E., & McFerron, R.J. (1991). Racial differences among
shelter residents: A comparison of Anglo, Black, and Hispanic battered
women. In Robert L. Hampton (Eds.), Black family violence (pp. 103-113).
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books

Hamberger, L.K., & Guse, C. (2005). Typology of reactions to intimate partner
violence among men and women arrested for partner violence. Violence and
Victims, 20(3), 303-317

Hamberger, L.K., & Potente, T. (1996). Counseling heterosexual women arrested for
domestic violence. In L. Kevin Hamberger & Claire Renzetti (Eds.),
Domestic partner abuse (pp. 53-75). New York: Springer Publishing

Hamby, S.L. (2005). Measuring gender differences in partner violence: Implications
from research on other forms of violent and socially undesirable behavior.
Sex Roles, 52(11/12), 725-742.

Hampton, R.L., Gelles, R.J. & Harrop, J. (1991). Is violence in Black families
increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 National Survey rates. In Robert
L. Hampton (Eds.), Black family violence (pp. 3-18). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books

Heyman, R.E., & Slep, A.M. (2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead
to adulthood family violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 864-
870.

Hines, D.A., & Mally-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse
against men: A neglected research area. Psychology of Men and Masculinity,
2(2), 75-85.

197
Hines, D.A., & Saudino, K.J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical
and sexual aggression among college students using the Revised Conflict
Tactics Scales. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 197-217.

Holtzworth-Monroe, A. (2005). Female perpetration of physical aggression against
an intimate partner: A controversial new topic of study. Violence and Victims,
20(1), 251-259.

Humphreys, C., & Thiara, R. (2003). Mental health and domestic violence: ‘I call it
symptoms of abuse’ British Journal of Social Work, 33(2), 209-226.

Hutchison, I.W. (1999). Alcohol, fear, and woman abuse. Sex Roles, 40(11/12), 893-
920.

Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., Roemer, L. (2002). The role of masculine ideology and
masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3(2), 97-106.

Kaufman, G.K., & Straus, M.A. (1995). The ‘drunken bum’ theory of wife beating.
In Murray A. Straus & Richard J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in
American Families:Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families
(pp. 203-224). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Kiesler, D.J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity
in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185-214.

King, L.A., King, D.W., Leskin, G., & Foy, D.W. (1995) The Los Angeles Symptom
Checklist: A self-report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder. Assessment,
2(1), 1-17

King, M. (1986). At risk drinking about general practice attenders: Validation of the
CAGE questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 16, 213-217.

Kurz, E. (1993). Physical assaults by husbands: A major social problem. In Richard
J. Gelles & Donileen R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family
violence (pp. 88-103). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kwong, M.J., Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A., & Trinke, S.J. (2003). The
intergenerational transmission of relationship violence. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17(3), 288-301.

Lapierre, T.A. (2002). Domestic violence: The bigger picture. Canadian Home
Economics Journal, 51(2) 25-28.
198
Lewis, S.F., Travea, L., & Fremouw, W.J. (2002). Characteristics of female
perpetrators and victims of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 17(5), 593-
606.

Lichter, E.L. & McCloskey, L.A. (2004). The effects of childhood exposure to
maritalviolence on adolescent gender role beliefs and dating violence.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 344-362.

Linder, J.R. & Collins, W.A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical
aggression and conflict management in romantic relationships in early
adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 252-262.

Lockhart, L.L. (1991). Spousal violence: A cross-racial perspective. In Robert L.
Hampton (Eds.), Black family violence (pp. 85-101). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Magdol, L., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Newman, D.L., Fagan, J., & Silva, P.A. (1997).
Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year olds:
Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(1), 68-78.

Magdol, L., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., & Silva, P.A. (1998). Developmental
antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective-longitudinal study. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 107(3), 375-389.

Malcolm, G. J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable
victims of marital violence. Journal of Men’s Studies, 3(2), 137-151.

Mann, C.R. (1991). Black women who kill their loved ones. In Robert L.
Hampton (Eds.), Black family violence (pp. 129-146). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O’Brien, M. (2000). The Domestic
Conflict Inventory. Unpublished measure, University of Southern California.

Markowitz, S. (2000). The price of alcohol, wife abuse and husband Abuse.
Southern Economic Journal, 67(2), 279-303.

Martino, S.C., Collins, R.L., Ellickson, P.L. (2005). Cross-lagged relationships
between substance use and intimate partner violence among a sample of
young adult women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(1), 139-148.

199
Martinson, L.M. (2001). An analysis of racism and resources for African-American
female victims of domestic violence in Wisconsin. Wisconsin women’s law
journal, 16(259), 259-285.

Matlock, T. (1994). Familial variables related to partner abuse (Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Research Association (Nashville, TN,
November 5-11, 1994).

Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A
philosophical and practical guide. New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P.L. (1990). The focused interviews: A manual
of problems and procedures (2
nd
Ed.). New York: Free Press.

Miller, B.A., & Downs, W.R. (1993). The impact of family violence on the use of
alcohol by women. Alcohol Health and Research World, 17(2), 137-143.

Miller, N.E., Sears, R.R., Mowrer, O.H., Doob, L.W., & Dollard, J. (1941). The
frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological Review, 48, 337-342.

Moffitt, T.E., Avshalom, C., Krueger, R.F., Magdol, L., Margolin, G., Silva, P.A., &
Sydney, R. (1997). Do partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A
psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement. Psychological
Assessment, 9(1), 47-56.

Moe, A.M. (2004). Blurring the boundaries: Women’s criminality in the context of
abuse. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32(3/4), 116-138.

Moscarello, R. (1991). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder after sexual assault: Its
psychodynamics and treatment. The Journal of the American Academy of
Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 19, 235-253.

O’Leary, K.D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989).
Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(2),
263-268.

O’Leary, K.D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early
marriage: Prerelationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 594-602.

200
Orcutt, H.K., Garcia, M., Pickett, S.M. (2005). Female-perpetrated intimate partner
violence and romantic attachment style in a college student sample. Violence
and Victims, 20(3), 287-202

Parker-Corell, A. & Marcus, D.K. (2004). Partner abuse, learned helplessness, and
trauma symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23(4), 445-462.

Parrott, D.J., Drobes, D.J., Saladin, M.E.m Ciffey, S.F., & Dansky, B.S. (2003).
Perpetration of partner violence: Effects of cocaine and alcohol dependence
and posttraumatic stress disorder. Addictive Behaviors, 28(9), 1587-1602.

Roberts, G.L., Lawrence, L.M., Williams, G.M., & Raphael, B. (1998). The impact
of domestic violence on women’s mental health. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 22(7), 796-801.

Rhatigan, D.L., Moore, T.M., & Stuart, G.L. (2005). An investment model analysis
of relationship stability among women court-mandated to violence
interventions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 313-324.

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sarason, I.G., Johnson, J.H., & Siegel, J.M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life
changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(3), 932-946.

Schilit, R. Lie, G-Y., & Montagne, M. (1990). Substance use as a correlate of
violence in intimate lesbian relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 19(3),
51.

Schwartz, J.P., Waldo, M., & Daniel, D. (2005). Gender-role conflict and self-
esteem: Factors associated with partner abuse in court-referred men.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(2), 109-113.

Short, K.H., & Johnston, C. (1997). Stress, maternal distress, and children’s
adjustment following immigration: The buffering role of social support.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(3), 494-503.

Skevington, S.M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, K.A. (2004). The World Health
Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric
properties and results of the international field trial. Quality of Life Research,
13, 299-310.

201
Skinner, H. A. & Holt, S. (1987). Alcohol Clinical Index. Toronto: Addictions
Foundation.

Sommer, B. & Sommer, R. (1997). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools
and Techniques. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sotirios, S. (2004) Deconstructing Self-Defense in Wife-to-Husband Violence.
Journal of Men’s Studies, 12(3), 277-290.

Stacey, W.A., Hazlewood, L.R., & Shupe, A. (1994). The violent couple. Westpoprt,
CT: Greenwood Publishing Group..

Stets, J.E. & Straus, M.A. (1995). Gender differences in reporting marital violence
and its medical and psychological consequences. In Murray A. Straus &
Richard J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors
and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151-165). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Stewart, M.W. (2002). Ordinary violence: Everyday assaults against women.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group

Stith, S.M., Smith, D.B., Penn, C.E., Ward, D.B., Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner
physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65-98.

Stith, S.M., Rosen, K.H., Middleton, K.A., Busch, A.L., Lundeberg, K., Carlton,
R.P. 2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta
analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 640-654.

Straus, M. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In Richard J.
Gelles & Donileen R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family
violence (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

Stuart, G.L., Meehan, J.C., Moore, T.M., Morean, M., Hellmuth, J., & Follansbee, K.
(2006). Examining a conceptual framework of intimate partner violence in
men and women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 67(1), 102-112.

Stuart, G.L., Moore, T.M., Ramsey, S.E., & Kahler, C.W. (2004). Hazardous
drinking and relationship violence perpetration and victimization in women
arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46(8), 46-53.

202
Swan, S.C., Gambone, L.J., Fields, A.M., Sullivan, T.P., & Snow, D.L. (2006).
Women who use violence in intimate relationships: The Role of anger,
victimization, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression.
Violence and Victims: Special Issue: Women’s and Men’s Use of
Interpersonal Violence, 20(3)267-285.

Temple, J.R., Weston, R., Marshall, L.L. (2005). Physical and mental health
outcomes of women in nonviolent, unilaterally violent, and mutually violent
relationships. Violence and Victims, 20(3), 335-359.

U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by
Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March, 1998

Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). Ar bi-dimrectionally vilenct
couples mutually victimized? A gender sensitive comparison. In L. Kevin
Hamberger & Claire Renzetti (Eds.), Domestic partner abuse (pp. 23-52).
New York: Springer Publishing.

Von Steen, P.G. (1997). Adults with witnessing histories: The overlooked victims of
domestic violence. Psychotherapy, 34(4), 478-484.

Walker, L.E.A. (1993). The battered woman syndrome is a psychological
consequence of abuse. In Richard J. Gelles & Donileen R. Loseke (Eds.),
Current controversies on family violence (pp. 133-153). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Wallace, H. (1996). Spousal abuse. In Harvey Wallace (Eds.), Family
violence:Legal, medical and social perspectives (pp.161-190). Needham
Heights, MA: Simon & Shuster Company.

Watson, T.N. (2005). Issues of intent and injury: A comparative analysis of gender
differences in African-American college students’ perceptions of dating
violence. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 65(7-B) 373.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of human
communication. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

Williams, S.L., & Frieze, I.H. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological
distress, and marital satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex
Roles, 52(22/12), 771-784.

203
Zimet, G.D., Dahlem, N.W., Zimet, S.G., & Farley, G.K. (1988). The
Multidimesional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 52, 30-41.
204
APPENDIX A

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

VERBAL RECRUITMENT SCRIPT FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH

Intimate Partner Aggression

Hi, my name is Amy Lappen and I am involved in a research study focused on
Intimate Partner Aggression with my research advisor, Rodney Goodyear, at the
University of Southern California. I used to work with xxxxxx in the the xxxx
Program and I am back to ask for participants in this study. Participation is
voluntary, and you can stop the survey or interview at any time without any
consequences to you.

Don’t worry about remembering all of this information. I am going to read the basics
to you now, and if you choose to participate, I will give you a written copy of
everything that I have said. We are asking you to take part in a research study
because we are trying to learn more about partner aggression from a female
perspective. You will be asked to participate in a total of four meetings, lasting two
hours each. First, you would participate in three individual interviews/meetings on
three different days. Each interview should last approximately two hours. During the
first meeting, you will also be asked to fill out questionnaires. You will also be asked
about specific incidents, life experiences, drug and alcohol use, mental and physical
health and attitudes about gender roles. During the second two interviews, you would
be asked questions about your history and current exposure to violence, and about
similar topics covered by the questionnaires. Before consenting to participate, you
will be given a copy (to review) of the intended questions that you would be asked.

After the first three individual meetings, you will be asked to participate in a group
discussion with other women from the study. You will be familiar with these women
since everyone in group discussion will be from the xxxx Program. The group
discussion is also expected to last about two hours. During the group discussion you
will be asked to talk about what you learned from the individual interviews/meetings.
You will also be asked to contribute any addition information that you believe is
necessary to further the discussion and to increase the researchers’ understanding of
partner aggression. All meetings will take place at the xxxxxx Center. Your
participation time is expected to total eight hours. You will be asked permission to
have the interviews and group discussion audio-taped. If even one participant in the
group discussion does not wish to be audio-taped, I will only take notes. If you do
205
not want to be audio-taped, you may still participate in the study. There are no
foreseeable risks, discomforts or inconveniences that are expected to result from
your participation. Although you will be asked about sensitive subjects, it is expected
that you will already be used to discussing similar topics on a regular basis (e.g.,
through your participation in the xxxx Program). Should you experience any
unexpected consequences you will be provided time to discuss your experience, and
you will be given group and/or individual referrals to counseling at this center and at
other community centers, as required.

You will not benefit directly from participating in this study. You will be given four
movie tickets upon completion of your participation. You will also be entered in a
raffle for the prize of a $75 gift certificate to Ross. In addition, you will have the
(less confidential) option to receive program credits for up to eight hours (4 classes)
depending on the amount of time you spend participating. If you choose to receive
program credit, the tapes and notes have the (although unlikely) possibility of being
subpoenaed by the court. Therefore, even though my notes and the tapes will not be
associated with your real name, if you choose to receive credit, your confidentiality
may be compromised. If you prefer complete and guaranteed confidentiality, it is
suggested that you participate in the study without receiving credit.

If you terminate participation in the study, before the scheduled time, you will not be
penalized. Similarly, if you are legally detained or otherwise institutionalized while
participating in the study, you will be withdrawn from the study but without penalty.
In either case, you will still be given the movie tickets. You also will be entered in
the drawing and will be eligible for the raffle prize. You also will receive course
credit if you have chosen this option. However, with both voluntary withdrawal and
in the case of detainment/institutionalization you will only receive program credit for
the number of hours you have actually completed.

A drink and a light snack also will be provided during individual
meetings/interviews and during the group discussion.

The information from this study is considered confidential but there are 2 exceptions
to the confidentiality: I am required to report to authorities if I have any reason to
believe that there is child abuse and/or if I have reason to believe that you or another
person is in danger of immediate and serious physical harm.

Please know that the statements on all questionnaires and in all interviews have been
worded carefully so that none of them ask about behaviors that fall into the category
that would be reportable by law. I would learn about reportable behavior only if you
specifically say something beyond the requested information.

206
Any information released will not be associated with your name or personal
information. Any time a name is used in the final write up it will be a pseudonym
(i.e., not your real name). A final copy of the dissertation paper will be given to
xxxxxx xxxxxx, the director of the counseling center and to xxxxxx xxxxxx, the
director of the xxxx Program. In addition, final copies of the paper (either partial or
in full) will be available for review by colleagues and four professors (Rodney
Goodyear, Alexander Jun, Ron Astor, and Gayla Margolin) from the University of
Southern California. In the event that the study based on these interviews ever is
published, the results will be presented in such a way that it will not be possible to
identify you.

If you choose to be audio-taped, you will have the right, per your request, to review
and edit any tapes. The original tapes will only be heard by me. However, direct
quotes may be used in the dissertation write-up. They will be erased after three years
of the original recording.

All personal information will be converted into a code and given a pseudonym so
that it is not associated with your real name or any identifying information. All
research data, audio-recordings and related records will be given the same code and
pseudonym in order to connect all the information. Everything will be kept in a
locked cabinet and will be destroyed three years after completion of the study.

Before making a decision about participating, make sure that you have taken the time
to review the consent forms, the interview questions, and the questionnaires. Then,
let me know if you are interested in participating. If so, I will schedule the first
interview for a time that is convenient for you. Remember that even if we schedule
the interview, you have the right to change your mind at any time and to not
participate.

Do you have any questions?

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Amy Lappen through the Xxxxxx Center at (xxx) xxx-xxxx or Rodney Goodyear at
(xxx) xxx-xxxx.

If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori
Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
207
APPENDIX B

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

******************************************************************

CONSENT (VERBAL) TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Intimate Partner Aggression

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Amy Lappen, M.S. and
Rodney Goodyear, Ph.D., from the Department of Education at the University of
Southern California because you are involved in counseling at this center. Results of
this study will be contributed to Amy Lappen’s dissertation. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because you are currently involved (or have
recently been involved) in group counseling with the xxxx Program. A maximum of
12 subjects will be selected (from all adult women, currently or recently, in the
Saturday Women’s Group) to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to better understand intimate partner aggression (also
known as “domestic violence”) from a female perspective. Specifically, we are
interested in better understanding women who are involved in group counseling,
whether court mandated or self-referred, to address perpetration of violence against a
romantic partner.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:

1) You will be asked to participate in three individual meetings/interviews
(lasting approximately two hours each- for a total of six hours) with Amy
Lappen. Meetings will take place at the xxxxxx Center on three different
dates, and would be scheduled at your convenience.
INFORMED CONSENT (VERBAL) FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
208
Should you choose to participate, you will be asked questions about your
history and current exposure to violence, including specific violent incidents.
In addition, you will be asked about your own aggressive behavior, your drug
and alcohol use, mental and physical health issues, attitudes about gender
roles, and patterns of violence. During the first meeting, you will also be
asked to fill out several questionnaires regarding these topics. You will be
given a copy of the questionnaires to review before consenting to participate.
During the second and third interviews, the researcher, Amy Lappen, will ask
you questions regarding these same topics. You will be given a list of the
expected questions to review, before consenting to participate. The researcher
will take notes on what you are saying. You will also be asked for your
permission to make an audio recording of the interview portion. Audio taping
of the interview is also voluntary. If you choose not to be audio taped, you
may still participate in the study. When you are filling out the questionnaires
and during the individual interview/meetings, you may choose to skip any
question, to only reveal certain details, and to stop talking or participating at
any time.

2) You will be asked to participate in one group meeting/discussion (lasting
approximately two hours) with Amy Lappen and with the other women from
the study. The women in the discussion group will be women you are
familiar with, since they will also be from the xxxx Program The discussion
will take place at the xxxxxx Center, and scheduled to accommodate the
maximum number of participants.

Should you choose to participate, during this time you will be asked to
participate in a discussion group about aggression. You will be asked to
discuss what you discovered, if anything, in the process of the individual
interview/meeting. In addition, you will be asked to discuss anything that you
have not previously mentioned but that you believe would contribute to the
discussion and to the researcher’s better understanding of partner aggression.
During this time, you will also be asked to reflect on the patterns that are
found in the process of doing this study (i.e., in the individual meetings).
Other women who have participated in the study will also be involved in the
discussion group. These women will be familiar to you since they will be the
same women that you meet with in the xxxx Program It is important that you
know, that while I won’t share the specifics of what you have told me, the
group discussion (since there are more people involved) will necessarily be
less confidential. The discussion group will be tape recorded, only if all
participants agree. In the event that one person does not wish to have the
discussion group tape recorded, only notes will be taken. As with the
individual interviews, you can choose to participate a lot or a little, depending
209
on your own level of comfort in the group. You can choose to skip any
question, to only reveal certain details, and to stop talking or participating at
anytime.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Your participation in this study does not include exposure to any foreseeable
psychological, social, legal, or financial risks, discomforts, or inconveniences.
Although you will be asked about sensitive material, it is expected that you will be
familiar with and accustomed to talking about most of these things on a weekly basis
(for example, in the weekly group meetings at the center). Although no discomfort is
expected, should you experience any, you will be provided with the opportunity to
discuss concerns at any point. Particular attention will be made to ensure your
comfort at the conclusion of the interview/meeting. In addition, counseling referrals
(group and individual) within the center and outside of the center will be provided, as
necessary.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this research study. However, you may assist in benefiting
society through helping to further our understanding about partner aggression. Better
understanding of partner aggression may lead to improved counseling and legal
services for others.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be given four movie tickets upon completion of your participation in this
study. In addition, you will be given the option to receive xxxx Program credit for
the hours that you participate in interviews and questionnaires. Depending on the
amount of participation time, you can receive up to eight hours (four classes) of
credit. However, you must know that if you choose to recive credit, although
unlikely, the court has a right to ask for the notes from this study. Even though your
name will not be associated with the information that you give me, this may present
a risk regarding your confidentiality. If you prefer to have complete confidentiality,
it is recommended that you participate without receiving program credit. If you have
any questions or concerns regarding this aspect of your participation, please feel free
to discuss this further with Amy Lappen.

A drink and light snack will also be provided during each individual meeting and
during the group discussion. You also will be eligible for the raffle. The raffle prize
is a $75.00 gift certificate to Ross. If you decide to terminate your participation in the
210
study prior to completion you will not be penalized. Similarly, if you are legally
detained or otherwise institutionalized while participating in the study, you will be
withdrawn from the study but without penalty. That is, you will still be given the
movie tickets. You will also be entered in the drawing and will be eligible for the
raffle prize. You will also receive course credit if you have chosen this (less
confidential) option. However, with both voluntary withdrawal and in the case of
detainment/institutionalization you will only receive class credit for the number of
hours you actually complete.

CONFIDENTIALITY
No information will be collected for this study that can be directly identified with
you. Only pseudonyms (i.e., fake names) and codes (i.e., numbers) will be associated
with the information that you provide. Xxxxxx xxxxxx, the director of the
counseling center, and xxxxxx xxxxxx, the director of the program, will receive a
copy of the final study write-up, though no real names will be connected with the
information you have provided. Similarly, colleagues and four University of
Southern California professors, Rodney Goodyear, Ph.D., Alexander Jun, Ph.D., Ron
Astor, Ph.D., and Gayla Margolin, Ph.D., will receive a final copy of the study write-
up, but without the use of real names. In the event of publication, the de-identified
information would be available to the public. You will be allowed to participate
regardless of whether or not you consent to be audio-taped. If you consent to be
audio-taped, a pseudonym (i.e., not your real name) will be used to mark the tapes.
Per your request, you will be permitted to listen to and edit your own audio-
recording. Only one researcher, Amy Lappen, will have access to the original audio
recordings. However, direct quotes may be used in the final write-up. The original
audio-recordings will be destroyed within approximately three years (i.e., August
2009) of their recording.

Personal information, research data and audio-recordings will be stored in a locked
file cabinet. Only the primary researcher, Amy Lappen, will have access to the
original, information. All original data (including audio-recordings, notes and
questionnaires with codes and pseudonyms) will be destroyed within approximately
three years of collection.

If the results of the research are published or discussed for educational purposes
(e.g., at conferences) no information will be included that would reveal your identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
211
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so. If for whatever reason you end participation before the
scheduled time, you will not be penalized and will still receive the movie tickets, and
be entered in the raffle.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Amy Lappen through the xxxxxx Center at (xxx) xxx-xxxx or Rodney Goodyear at
(xxx) xxx-xxxx.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

VERBAL CONSENT OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

Participation:
K I agree to participate in this study

Program Credit:
K I wish to receive program credit (and have been informed that in doing so,
my confidentiality may be compromised if the study records are subpoenaed).

K I do not wish to receive program credit

Audio Taping:
K I agree to be audio-taped

K I do not agree to be audio-taped

Date
212
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative, and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information
described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date (same as subject’s)

K Verbal Consent Obtained
213
APPENDIX C

University of Southern California

Rossier School of Education

VERBAL RECRUITMENT SCRIPT FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH
STAFF VERSION

Intimate Partner Aggression

I am involved in a research study focused on Intimate Partner Aggression with my
research advisor, Rodney Goodyear, at the University of Southern California.
Participation is voluntary, and you can stop the survey or interview at any time
without any consequences to you.

Don’t worry about remembering all of this information. I am going to read the basics
to you now, and if you choose to participate, I will give you a written copy of
everything that I have said. We are asking you to take part in a research study
because we are trying to learn more about partner aggression from a female
perspective. You will be asked to participate in two interviews/meetings on two
different days. Each interview should last approximately one hour. You will also be
asked about the women you work with including specific incidents, drug and alcohol
use, mental health and attitudes about gender roles. Before consenting to participate,
you will be given a copy (to review) of the intended questions that you would be
asked. Both meetings will take place at the xxxxxx Center. Your participation time is
expected to total two hours. You will be asked permission to have the interviews and
group discussion audio-taped. If you do not want to be audio-taped, you may still
participate in the study. There are no foreseeable risks, discomforts or
inconveniences that are expected to result from your participation. You will already
be used to discussing similar topics on a regular basis (e.g., through your
participation in the xxxx Program supervision and trainings). Should you experience
any unexpected consequences you will be provided time to discuss your experience.

You will not benefit directly from participating in this study.

In addition, in the unlikely event that you are legally detained or otherwise
institutionalized while participating in the study, you will be withdrawn from the
study.

214
Any information released will not be associated with your name or personal
information. Any time a name is used in the final write up it will be a pseudonym
(i.e., not your real name). A final copy of the dissertation paper will be given to
xxxxxx xxxxxx, the director of the counseling center and to xxxxxx xxxxxx, the
director of the program. In addition, final copies of the paper (either partial or in full)
will be available for review by colleagues and four professors (Rodney Goodyear,
Alexander Jun, Ron Astor, and Gayla Margolin) from the University of Southern
California. In the event that the study based on these interviews ever is published, the
results will be presented in such a way that it will not be possible to identify you. If
you choose to be audio-taped, you will have the right, per your request, to review
and edit any tapes. The original tapes will only be heard by me. However, direct
quotes may be used in the dissertation write-up. They will be erased after three years
of the original recording.
The information from this study is considered confidential but there are 2 exceptions
to the confidentiality: I am required to report to authorities if I have any reason to
believe that there is child abuse and/or if I have reason to believe that you or another
person is in danger of immediate and serious physical harm.

Please know that the statements on all questionnaires and in all interviews have been
worded carefully so that none of them ask about behaviors that fall into the category
that would be reportable by law. I would learn about reportable behavior only if you
specifically say something beyond the requested information.

All personal information that you provide will be connected with a pseudonym so
that it is not associated with your real name or any identifying information.
Everything will be kept in a locked cabinet and will be destroyed three years after
completion of the study.

Before making a decision about participating, make sure that you have taken the time
to review the consent forms and the interview questions. Then, let me know if you
are interested in participating. If so, I will schedule the first interview for a time that
is convenient for you. Remember that even if we schedule the interview, you have
the right to change your mind at any time and to not participate.

Do you have any questions?

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Amy Lappen at (xxx) xxx-xxxx or Rodney Goodyear at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.

If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori
Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
215
APPENDIX D

University of Southern California

Rossier School of Education

******************************************************************

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Staff Version

Intimate Partner Aggression

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Amy Lappen, M.S. and
Rodney Goodyear, Ph.D., from the Department of Education at the University of
Southern California because you are involved in the xxxx Program. Results of this
study will be contributed to dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant
in this study because you are currently working as a staff member in this program. A
maximum of three staff members (in addition to the Saturday women’s group
participants) will be selected to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to better understand intimate partner aggression (also
known as “domestic violence”) from a female perspective. Specifically, we are
interested in better understanding women who are involved in group counseling,
whether court mandated or self-referred, to address perpetration of violence against a
romantic partner.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following:

You will be asked to participate in two individual meetings/interviews
(lasting approximately one hour each- for a total of two hours) with Amy
Lappen. Meetings will take place at the xxxxxx Center on two different dates,
and would be scheduled at your convenience.

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
216
Should you choose to participate, you will be asked questions about your
work with female aggressors including their history and current exposure to
violence, including specific violent incidents. In addition, you will be asked
about their aggressive behavior, drug and alcohol use, mental health issues,
gender roles, and patterns of violence. You will be given a list of the
expected questions to review, before consenting to participate. The researcher
will take notes on what you are saying. You will also be asked for your
permission to make an audio recording of the interview portion. Audio taping
of the interview is also voluntary. If you choose not to be audio taped, you
may still participate in the study. When you are filling out the questionnaires
and during the individual interview/meetings, you may choose to skip any
question, to only reveal certain details, and to stop talking or participating at
any time.

You can choose to participate a lot or a little, depending on your own level of
comfort in the group. You can choose to skip any question, to only reveal
certain details, and to stop talking or participating at anytime.

In the unlikely event that you are legally detained or otherwise
institutionalized while participating in the study, you will be withdrawn from
the study.

After reviewing this consent form, the questionnaires and the interview questions if
you are interested in participating, you will be asked to schedule the first meeting, at
a time that is convenient for you.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Your participation in this study does not include exposure to any foreseeable
psychological, social, legal, or financial risks, discomforts, or inconveniences. It is
expected that you will be familiar with and accustomed to talking about most of
these things on a weekly basis (for example, in the weekly group supervision/
training meetings at the center). Although no discomfort is expected, should you
experience any, you will be provided with the opportunity to discuss concerns at any
point. Particular attention will be made to ensure your comfort at the conclusion of
the interview/meeting.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this research study. However, you may assist in benefiting
society through helping to further our understanding about partner aggression. Better
understanding of partner aggression may lead to improved counseling and legal
services for others.
217
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be not be compensated for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
No information will be collected for this study that can be directly identified with
you. Only pseudonyms (i.e., fake names) and codes (i.e., numbers) will be associated
with the information that you provide. Xxxxxx xxxxxx, the director of the
counseling center, and xxxxxx xxxxxx, the director of the program will receive a
copy of the final study write-up, though no real names will be connected with the
information you have provided. Similarly, colleagues and four University of
Southern California professors, Rodney Goodyear, Ph.D., Alexander Jun, Ph.D., Ron
Astor, Ph.D., and Gayla Margolin, Ph.D., will receive a final copy of the study write-
up, but without the use of real names. In the event of publication, the de-identified
information would be available to the public. You will be allowed to participate
regardless of whether or not you consent to be audio-taped. If you consent to be
audio-taped, a pseudonym (i.e., not your real name) will be used to mark the tapes.
Per your request, you will be permitted to listen to and edit your own audio-
recording. Only one researcher, Amy Lappen, will have access to the original audio
recordings. However, direct quotes may be used in the final write-up. The original
audio-recordings will be destroyed within approximately three years (i.e., August
2009) of their recording.

Personal information, research data and audio-recordings will be stored in a locked
file cabinet. Only the primary researcher, Amy Lappen, will have access to the
original, information. All original data (including audio-recordings, notes and
questionnaires with codes and pseudonyms) will be destroyed within approximately
three years of collection.

If the results of the research are published or discussed for educational purposes
(e.g., at conferences) no information will be included that would reveal your identity.

Exceptions to Confidentiality:
There are two possible exceptions to confidentiality:

(a) The interviewer is required to report to authorities any reasonable
suspicion of child abuse; and

(b) The interviewer also is required to report to authorities any
information that leads the interviewer to believe you or any person is in
danger of imminent serious physical harm.
218
Please know that the statements in all interviews have been worded carefully so that
none of them ask about behaviors that fall into the category that would be reportable
by law. The interviewer/researcher would learn about reportable behavior only if
you specifically say something beyond the requested information.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Amy Lappen at (xxx) xxx-xxxx or Rodney Goodyear at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

K I agree to be audio-taped

K I disagree to be audio-taped
Name of Subject

219
Signature of Subject Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative, and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information
described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date (same as subject’s)
220
APPENDIX E
221
APPENDIX F
Domestic Conflict Index
Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O’ Brien, M. (1990)
University of Southern California
No matter how well intimate partners get along, there are times when they disagree on major
decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just have spats or fights because
they’re in a bad mood, or tired, or for some other reason. People have many different ways of
expressing frustration, annoyance, or hostility with one another. Attached you will find a list of some
things that you and your partner(s) may have done. You will find that some of these items apply,
while others do not. Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem extreme. Please consider
all partners with whom you have been in an intimate relationship.

First, decide if this behavior has ever occurred (Section A). If the behavior has never occurred in the
history of your relationship(s), circle “No” under “Ever” and go on to the next question.
If the behavior has occured, indicate whether it has occurred with one or more than one partners
(Section B). Next, indicate how frequently this behavior occurred within the last year (consider all
partners) (Section C). Finally, indicate how this behavior made you feel when it happened (Section
D).
222
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
Section
D
From one year ago until today… If yes, how did it make you feel?
Have you: Ever? One (1) or
More than
one (M)
partners?
0 per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-
12
per
year
2-4
per
month
>1
per
week
Very
bad
A
little
bad
Not
good
or
bad
A
little
good
Very
good
1. screamed or yelled at your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
2. insulted or swore at your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
3. damaged a household item, or some part of
your home, out of anger towards your partner(s)
No Yes 1 M
4. withheld affection from your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
5. deliberately disposed of or hid an important
item of your partner(s)’s
No Yes 1 M
6. sulked or refused to talk about an issue No Yes 1 M
7. monitored your partner(s)’s time and made
him or her account for where he/she was
No Yes 1 M
8. made plans that left your partner(s) feeling
excluded
No Yes 1 M
9. left your partner(s) and were unsure whether
you were going to return
No Yes 1 M
10. been angry if your partner(s) told you that
you were using too much alcohol or drugs
No Yes 1 M
11. been very upset if dinner, housework, or
home repair work was not done when you thought
it should be
No Yes 1 M
12. done or said something to spite your
partner(s)
No Yes 1 M
13. been jealous and suspicious of your
partner(s)’s friends
No Yes 1 M
14. purposely hurt your partner(s)’s pet No Yes 1 M
223
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
Section
D
From one year ago until today… If yes, how did it make you feel?
Have you: Ever? One (1) or
More than
one (M)
partners?
0 per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-
12
per
year
2-4
per
month
>1
per
week
Very
bad
A
little
bad
Not
good
or
bad
A
little
good
Very
good
15. purposely damaged or destroyed your
partner(s)’s clothes, car, and/or other personal
possessions
No Yes 1 M
16. insulted or shamed your partner(s) in front of
others
No Yes 1 M
17. locked your partner(s) out of the house No Yes 1 M
18. told your partner(s) that he/she could not
work, go to school, or go to other self-
improvement activities
No Yes 1 M
19. tried to prevent your partner(s) from seeing/
talking to family or friends
No Yes 1 M
20. had an affair No Yes 1 M
21. restricted your partner(s)’s use of the car or
telephone
No Yes 1 M
22. made threats to leave the relationship No Yes 1 M
23. blamed your partner(s) for your problems No Yes 1 M
24. tried to turn family, friends, or children
against your partner(s)
No Yes 1 M
25. ordered your partner(s) around No Yes 1 M
26. been insensitive to your partner(s)’s feelings No Yes 1 M
27. frightened your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
28. treated your partner(s) like he/she was stupid No Yes 1 M
29. given your partner(s) the silent treatment/cold
shoulder
No Yes 1 M
30. criticized your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
224
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
Section
D
From one year ago until today… If yes, how did it make you feel?
Have you: Ever? One (1) or
More than
one (M)
partners?
0 per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-
12
per
year
2-4
per
month
>1
per
week
Very
bad
A
little
bad
Not
good
or
bad
A
little
good
Very
good
31. called your partner(s) names No Yes 1 M
32. stomped out of the room, house, or yard No Yes 1 M
33. stayed away from the house No Yes 1 M
34. ridiculed your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
35. physically twisted your partner(s)’s arm No Yes 1 M
36. threatened to hit your partner(s) or throw
something at him/her in anger
No Yes 1 M
37. pushed, grabbed, or shoved your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
38. slapped your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
39. physically forced sex on your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
40. burned your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
41. shaken your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
42. thrown, smashed, hit, or kicked something No Yes 1 M
43. prevented your partner(s) from getting
medical care that he/she needed
No Yes 1 M
44. thrown or tried to throw your partner(s)
bodily
No Yes 1 M
45. thrown an object at your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
46. choked or strangled your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
47. kicked, bit or hit your partner(s) with a fist No Yes 1 M
48. hit your partner(s), or tried to hit your
partner(s), with something
No Yes 1 M
49. beat up your partner(s) (multiple blows) No Yes 1 M
50. threatened your partner(s) with a knife or gun No Yes 1 M
51. used a knife or a gun on your partner(s) No Yes 1 M
225
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
Section
D
From one year ago until today… If yes, how did it make you feel?
Have you: Ever? One (1) or
More than
one (M)
partners?
0 per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-
12
per
year
2-4
per
month
>1
per
week
Very
bad
A
little
bad
Not
good
or
bad
A
little
good
Very
good
52. used humiliation to make your partner(s)
have sex
No Yes 1 M
53. used threats to make your partner(s) have sex No Yes 1 M
54. coerced your partner(s) to engage in sexual
practices he/she did not want
No Yes 1 M
55. slammed your partner(s) against the wall No Yes 1 M
56. physically prevented your partner(s) from
leaving an argument or blocked his/her exit
No Yes 1 M
57. showed your partner(s) that you cared even
though the two of you disagreed
No Yes 1 M
58. showed respect for your partner(s)’s feelings
about an issue
No Yes 1 M
59. suggested a compromise to a disagreement No Yes 1 M
60. agreed to a solution your partner(s) suggested No Yes 1 M
61. took responsibility for your part in a problem No Yes 1 M
226
In this section, you will answer the same types of questions about your partner(s). Again, you will find that some of these items apply, while
others do not. Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem extreme.
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
Section
D
From one year ago until today… If yes, how did it make you feel?
Has your partner(s): Ever? One (1) or
More than
one (M)
partners?
0
per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-12
per
year
2-4 per
month
>1
per
week
Very
bad
A
little
bad
Not
good
or
bad
A
little
good
Very
good
1. screamed or yelled at you No Yes 1 M
2. insulted or swore at you No Yes 1 M
3. damaged a household item, or some part
of your home, out of anger towards you
No Yes 1 M
4. withheld affection from you No Yes 1 M
5. deliberately disposed of or hid an
important item of yours
No Yes 1 M
6. sulked or refused to talk about an issue No Yes 1 M
7. monitored your time and made you
account for where you were
No Yes 1 M
8. made plans that left you feeling excluded No Yes 1 M
9. left you and (you) were unsure whether
he/she was going to return
No Yes 1 M
10. been angry when you told him/her that
he/she was using too much alcohol or drugs
No Yes 1 M
11. been very upset if dinner, housework,
or home repair work was not done when
he/she thought it should be
No Yes 1 M
12. done or said something to spite you No Yes 1 M
13. been jealous and suspicious of your
friends
No Yes 1 M
14. purposely hurt your pet No Yes 1 M
227
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
Section
D
From one year ago until today… If yes, how did it make you feel?
Has your partner(s): Ever? One (1) or
More than
one (M)
partners?
0
per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-12
per
year
2-4 per
month
>1
per
week
Very
bad
A
little
bad
Not
good
or
bad
A
little
good
Very
good
15. purposely damaged or destroyed your
clothes, car, and/or other personal
possessions
No Yes 1 M
16. insulted or shamed you in front of
others
No Yes 1 M
17. locked you out of the house No Yes 1 M
18. told you that you could not work, go to
school, or go to other self-improvement
activities
No Yes 1 M
19. tried to prevent you from seeing/talking
to family or friends
No Yes 1 M
20. had an affair No Yes 1 M
21. restricted your use of the car or
telephone
No Yes 1 M
22. made threats to leave the relationship No Yes 1 M
23. blamed you for his/her problems No Yes 1 M
24. tried to turn family, friends, or children
against you
No Yes 1 M
25. ordered you around No Yes 1 M
26. been insensitive to your feelings No Yes 1 M
27. frightened you No Yes 1 M
28. treated you like you were stupid No Yes 1 M
29. given you the silent treatment/cold
shoulder
No Yes 1 M
30. criticized you No Yes 1 M
228
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
Section
D
From one year ago until today… If yes, how did it make you feel?
Has your partner(s): Ever? One (1) or
More than
one (M)
partners?
0
per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-12
per
year
2-4 per
month
>1
per
week
Very
bad
A
little
bad
Not
good
or
bad
A
little
good
Very
good
31. called you names No Yes 1 M
32. stomped out of the room, house, or yard No Yes 1 M
33. stayed away from the house No Yes 1 M
34. ridiculed you No Yes 1 M
35. physically twisted your arm No Yes 1 M
36. threatened to hit you, or throw
something at you, in anger
No Yes 1 M
37. pushed, grabbed, or shoved you No Yes 1 M
38. slapped you No Yes 1 M
39. physically forced sex on you No Yes 1 M
40. burned you No Yes 1 M
41. shaken you No Yes 1 M
42. thrown, smashed, hit, or kicked
something
No Yes 1 M
43. prevented you from getting medical
care that you needed
No Yes 1 M
44. thrown, or tried to throw you, bodily No Yes 1 M
45. thrown an object at you No Yes 1 M
46. choked or strangled you No Yes 1 M
47. kicked, bit or hit you with a fist No Yes 1 M
48. hit you, or tried to hit you, with
something
No Yes 1 M
49. beat you up (multiple blows) No Yes 1 M
50. threatened you with a knife or gun No Yes 1 M
51. used a knife or a gun on you No Yes 1 M
229
Section
A
Section
B
Section
C
Section
D
From one year ago until today… If yes, how did it make you feel?
Has your partner(s): Ever? One (1) or
More than
one (M)
partners?
0
per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-12
per
year
2-4 per
month
>1
per
week
Very
bad
A
little
bad
Not
good
or
bad
A
little
good
Very
good
52. used humiliation to make you have sex No Yes 1 M
53. used threats to make you have sex No Yes 1 M
54. coerced you to engage in sexual
practices you did not want
No Yes 1 M
55. slammed you against the wall No Yes 1 M
56. physically prevented you from leaving
an argument or blocked your exit
No Yes 1 M
57. showed you that he/she cared even
though the two of you disagreed
No Yes 1 M
58. showed respect for your feelings about
an issue
No Yes 1 M
59. suggested a compromise to a
disagreement
No Yes 1 M
60. agreed to a solution you suggested No Yes 1 M
61. took responsibility for his/her part in a
problem
No Yes 1 M
4.19.00
230
APPENDIX G
Alcohol and Drug Questionnaire: CAGE
In the past year…
1. Have you felt that your partner should cut down on his/her drinking?
Yes No

2. Have people criticized your partner’sdrinking?
Yes No

3. Do you think that your partner has felt bad or guilty about his/her drinking?
Yes No

4. Has your partner had a drink the first thing in the morning to steady his/her
Yes No
nerves or to get rid of a hangover?

5. Have you felt that you should cut down on your drinking?
Yes No

6. Have people annoyed you by criticizing your drinking?
Yes No

7. Have you felt bad or guilty about your drinking?
Yes No

8. Have you had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves
Yes No
or to get rid of a hangover?
231
APPENDIX H
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet &
Farley, 1988)

Instructions: We are interested in how you feel about the following statements.
Read each statement carefully. Indicate how you feel about each statement.

Circle the “1” if you Very Strongly Disagree
Circle the “2” if you Strongly Disagree
Circle the “3” if you Mildly Disagree
Circle the “4” if you are Neutral
Circle the “5” if you Mildly Agree
Circle the “6” if you Strongly Agree
Circle the “7” if you Very Strongly Agree
1. There is a special person who is around
when I am in need.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
2. There is a special person with whom I
can share my joys and sorrows.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
3. My family really tries to help me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
4. I get the emotional help and support I
need from my family.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
5. I have a special person who is a real
source of comfort to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
6. My friends really try to help me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
7. I can count on my friends when things
go wrong.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
8. I can talk about my problems with my
family.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
9. I have friends with whom I can share my
joys and sorrows.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
10. There is a special person in my life who
cares about my feelings.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
11. My family is willing to help me make
decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
12. I can talk about my problems with my
friends.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri

The items tended to divide into factor groups relating to the source of the social
support, namely family (Fam), friends (Fri) or significant other (SO).

References
232
Canty-Mitchell, J. & Zimet, G.D. (2000). Psychometric properties of the
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support in urban adolescents.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 391-400.
Zimet, G.D., Dahlem, N.W., Zimet, S.G. & Farley, G.K. (1988). The
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 52, 30-41.
Zimet, G.D., Powell, S.S., Farley, G.K., Werkman, S. & Berkoff, K.A. (1990).
Psychometric characteristics of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 610-17.
233
APPENDIX I
Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992)

Instructions:

Using the 5 point scale shown below, indicate how uncharacteristic or characteristic
each of the following statements is in describing you. Place your rating in the box to
the right of the statement.

1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me
2 = somewhat uncharacteristic of me
3 = neither uncharacteristic nor characteristic of me
4 = somewhat characteristic of me
5 = extremely characteristic of me

1. Some of my friends think I am a hothead A
2. If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will. PA
3. When people are especially nice to me, I wonder what they
want.
H
4. I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them. VA
5. I have become so mad that I have broken things. PA
6. I can’t help getting into arguments when people disagree with
me.
VA
7. I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things. H
8. Once in a while, I can’t control the urge to strike another
person.
PA
9.* I am an even-tempered person. A
10. I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers. H
11. I have threatened people I know. PA
12. I flare up quickly but get over it quickly. A
13. Given enough provocation, I may hit another person. PA
14. When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them. VA
15. I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy. H
16.* I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person. PA
17. At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. H
18. I have trouble controlling my temper. A
19. When frustrated, I let my irritation show. A
234
20. I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. H
21. I often find myself disagreeing with people. VA
22. If somebody hits me, I hit back. PA
23. I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode. A
24. Other people always seem to get the breaks. H
25. There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows. PA
26. I know that “friends” talk about me behind my back. H
27. My friends say that I’m somewhat argumentative. VA
28. Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason. A
29. I get into fights a little more than the average person. PA

Scoring
The two questions with the asterisk are reverse scored.
The Aggression scale consists of 4 factors, Physical Aggression (PA), Verbal
Aggression (VA), Anger (A) and Hostility (H). The total score for Aggression is the
sum of the factor scores.

References
Buss, A.H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.
235
APPENDIX J
WHOQOL-BREF

This assessment asks how you feel about your quality of life, health, or other areas of your
life. Please answer all the questions. If you are unsure about which response to give to a
question, please choose the one that appears most appropriate. This can often be your first
response.
Please keep in mind your standards, hopes, pleasures and concerns. We ask that you think
about your life in the last two weeks. For example, thinking about the last two weeks, a
question might ask:
Do you get the kind of support
from others that you need?
Not at
all
1
Not
much
2
Moderately

3
A great
deal
4
Completely

5
You should circle the number that best fits how much support you got from others over the
last two weeks. So you would circle the number 4 if you got a great deal of support from
others. You would circle number 1 if you did not get any of the support that you needed
from others in the last two weeks.
Please read each question, assess your feelings, and circle the number on the
scale for each question that gives the best answer for you.
Very Poor Poor Neither poor
nor good
Good Very
good
1. How would you rate your
quality of life?

1 2 3 4 5
Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neither
satisfied nor
dissatisfied
Satisfied Very
satisfied
2. How satisfied are you with
your health?

1 2 3 4 5
The following questions ask about how much you have experienced certain things in the last two
weeks.

Not at all A little A moderate
amount
Very
much
An extreme
amount
3. To what extent do you feel that
physical pain prevents you
from doing what you need to
do?

1 2 3 4 5
4. How much do you need any
medical treatment to function
in your daily life?

1 2 3 4 5
5. How much do you enjoy life?
1 2 3 4 5
236
6. To what extent do you feel
your life to be meaningful?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all A little A moderate
amount
Very
much
Extremely
7. How well are you able to
concentrate?

1 2 3 4 5
8. How safe do you feel in your
daily life?

1 2 3 4 5
9. How healthy is your physical
environment?

1 2 3 4 5
The following questions ask about how completely you experience or were able to do certain things
in the last two weeks.

Not at all A little Moderately Mostly Completely
10. Do you have enough energy for
everyday life?

1 2 3 4 5
11. Are you able to accept your
bodily
appearance?

1 2 3 4 5
12. Have you enough money to
meet your needs?

1 2 3 4 5
13. How available to you is the
information that you need in
your day-to-day life?

1 2 3 4 5
14. To what extent do you have the
opportunity for leisure
activities?

1 2 3 4 5
Very Poor Poor Neither poor
nor good
Good Very
good
15. How well are you able to get
around?

1 2 3 4 5
The following questions ask you to say how good or satisfied you have felt about various aspects of
your life over the last two weeks.

Very
dissatisfie
d
Dissatisfie
d
Neither
satisfied nor
dissatisfied
Satisfie
d
Very
satisfied
16. How satisfied are you with
your sleep?

1 2 3 4 5
17. How satisfied are you with
your ability to perform your
daily living activities?

1 2 3 4 5
18. How satisfied are you with
your capacity for work?

1 2 3 4 5
19. How satisfied are you with
yourself?

1 2 3 4 5
20. How satisfied are you with
your personal relationships?

1 2 3 4 5
237
21. How satisfied are you with
your sex life?

1 2 3 4 5
22. How satisfied are you with the
support you get from your
friends?

1 2 3 4 5
23. How satisfied are you with the
conditions of your living
place?

1 2 3 4 5
24. How satisfied are you with
your access to health services?

1 2 3 4 5
25. How satisfied are you with
your transport?

1 2 3 4 5
The following question refers to how often you have felt or experienced certain things in the last two
weeks.

Never Seldom Quite
often
Very Often Always
26
.
How often do you have
negative feelings such as blue
mood, despair, anxiety,
depression?

1 2 3 4 5
238
APPENDIX K

SCL-90-R
DIRECTIONS: Below is a list of problems that people sometimes have. Please
mark the response that best describes how much discomfort that problem has caused
you during the past week, including today. Please do not skip any items.

Not at
all
A little
bit
Moderately Quite a
bit
Extremely
1. Headaches
2. Nervousness or shakiness inside
3. Repeated unpleasant thoughts that
won't leave your mind

4. Faintness or dizziness
5. Loss of sexual interest or pleasure
6. Feeling critical of others
7. The idea that someone can control
your thoughts

8. Feeling others are to blame for most
of your troubles

9. Trouble remembering things
10. Worried about sloppiness or
carelessness

11. Feeling easily annoyed or irritated
12. Pains in the heart or chest
13. Feeling afraid of open spaces or on
the streets

14. Feeling low in energy or slowed
down

15. Thoughts of ending your life
16. Hearing voices that other people do
not hear

17. Trembling
18. Feeling that most people cannot be
trusted

19. Poor appetite
20. Crying easily
239
Not at
all
A little
bit
Moderately Quite a
bit
Extremely
21. Feeling shy or uneasy with the
opposite sex

22. Feeling of being trapped or caught
23. Suddenly scared for no reason
24. Temper outbursts that you could not
control

25. Feeling afraid to go out of your house
alone

26. Blaming yourself for things
27. Pains in lower back
28. Feeling blocked in getting things
done

29. Feeling lonely
30. Feeling blue
31. Worrying too much about things
32. Feeling no interest in things
33. Feeling fearful
34. Your feelings being easily hurt
35. Other people being aware of your
private thoughts

36. Feeling others do not understand you
or are unsympathetic

37. Feeling that people are unfriendly or
dislike you

38. Having to do things very slowly to
ensure correctness

39. Heart pounding or racing
40. Nausea or upset stomach
41. Feeling inferior to others
42. Soreness of your muscles
43. Feeling that you are being watched or
talked about by others

44. Trouble falling asleep
45. Having to check and double-check
what you do

240
Not at
all
A little
bit
Moderately Quite a
bit
Extremely
46. Difficulty making decisions
47. Feeling afraid to travel on buses,
subways, or trains

48. Trouble getting your breath
49. Hot or cold spells
50. Having to avoid certain things,
places, or activities because
they frighten you

51. Your mind going blank
52. Numbness or tingling in parts of your
body

53. A lump in your throat
54. Feeling hopeless about the future
55. Trouble concentrating
56. Feeling weak in parts of your body
57. Feeling tense or keyed-up
58. Heavy feeling in your arms or legs
59. Thoughts of death or dying
60. Overeating
61. Feeling uneasy when people are
watching or talking about you

62. Having thoughts that are not your
own

63. Having urges to beat, injure, or harm
someone

64. Awakening in the early morning
65. Having to repeat the same actions
such as touching,
counting or washing

66. Sleep that is restless or disturbed
67. Having urges to break or smash
things

68. Having ideas or beliefs that others do
not share

241
Not at
all
A little
bit
Moderately Quite a
bit
Extremely
69. Feeling very self-conscious with
others

70. Feeling uneasy in crowds, such as
shopping or at a movie

71. Feeling everything is an effort
72. Spells of terror or panic
73. Feeling uncomfortable about eating
or drinking in public

74. Getting into frequent arguments
75. Feeling nervous when you are left
alone

76. Others not giving you proper credit
for your achievements

77. Feeling lonely even when you are
with people

78. Feeling so restless you couldn’t sit
still

79. Feelings of worthlessness
80. The feeling that something bad is
going to happen to your body

81. Shouting or throwing things
82. Feeling afraid that you will faint in
public

83. Feeling that people will take
advantage of you if you let them

84. Having thoughts about sex that bother
you a lot

85. The idea that you should be punished
for your sins

86. Thoughts and images of a frightening
nature

87. The idea that something serious is
wrong with your body

88. Never feeling close to another person
89. Feelings of guilt
90. The idea that something is wrong
with your mind

242
APPENDIX L
Interview Questions for Intimate Partner Violence

1. Consider all of the romantic relationships (with men) that you have
had. In how many of these relationships were there one or more incidents
of violence?
Was he ever aggressive/ violent towards you? How often?
Were you aggressive/ violent towards him? How often?
Were you both aggressive/violent with each other? How often?
o Did mutual violence occur in the same incident, at different points in
the relationship, or both?

2. Please describe the first time you hit, shoved, scratched, or were
otherwise physically aggressive toward a partner.
Who was he (e.g., were you married, dating, living together, how long)?
When did this occur?
What led up to it (e.g., who initiated it, what was going on at the time, etc.)?
What actually happened? Please describe it in as much detail as you can.
What were the immediate and then longer-term results? (who, if anyone, was
injured, what feelings resulted- e.g., anger, sadness, etc.)
Looking back on this incident, why do you think it happened?

3. Please describe the most recent aggressive incident.
How is it similar to or different from the first incident that you described?
When you consider that relationship overall, how would you characterize the
quality of it?
o On a scale of 1-10 (where 1 is a really bad relationship and 10 is the
best
relationship that you can imagine) what number would you give this
relationship?

4. In addition to the first incident and the most recent one, have
there been other incidents? How are they similar and/or different from
these two?

5. In all of these incidents, what pattern, if any, do you see (e.g.,
he hits first, increasing severity, feelings (e.g., jealousy), etc.)?

6. What is your (current or most recent) relationship like following an
aggressive incident?
What kinds of thoughts and feelings do you have?
What would you say he thinks and feels?
243
How do you both behave?
How does that change when more time (from the incident) passes?
Do you notice any patterns in terms of making up and then physically
fighting again?
How are these patterns similar or different now from at the beginning of the
relationship?
o (Repeat question for each relationship where there has been
violence)

7. Describe your drug and alcohol use.
How often do you use drugs or alcohol?
How much?
What exactly?
When?
How often do you drink or use drugs during, before or after violent incidents?
Do you notice any pattern of drug and alcohol use that is correlated with what
is occurring in the relationship? Please explain.

8. Are there people who you feel close to and supported by? If you are feeling really
awful, how many people could you turn to for help?
Who are some of these people?
o Where do they live?
o How much/ how often do you have contact with them?
o How comfortable would you be/are you with telling them about the
incidents that you describe above?
o Did you actually tell them about any or all of the aggressive incidents
that you described before?
o How did they respond?
o How was that for you?
o Do you notice any pattern of connecting to others that is correlated
with what is occurring in the relationship? Please explain.

9. Do you notice any pattern in your moods (e.g., feeling nervous, sad,
irritable, tired, etc.) that is correlated with what is occurring in the
relationship? Please explain.

10. Are there eating habits that you have that you are concerned about
(e.g. eating too much, or too little)? What about other related
behaviors (e.g. over-exercising, binging, etc.)?
Do you notice any pattern in your eating habits that is correlated with what is
occurring in the relationship? Please explain.

244
11. When you were growing up, did you ever see your parents being
aggressive with each other?
How often?
Were either of your parents ever injured?
o Who?
o How often?
What happened? Describe it (e.g. who initiated,
was it mutual, etc.).
How was that for you?
How do you think you would have been affected if you had experienced (the
opposite of what they report- i.e., mother-to-father or father-to-mother
violence) something different?
How did you/ do you think and feel about violence in general?
o Do you believe it is sometimes necessary? If so, when?
How did/does it affect your relationship with each of them and the way that
you felt about them?
Did/Does it affect your current or past romantic relationships? If so, how?

12. Imagine that someone from Mars has landed on earth and wants to use
you as an interpreter of life on earth, including what humans are like.
How would you describe a typical male (in terms of feelings, thoughts,
behaviors)?
How would you describe a typical female?
In what ways do other people see you as similar to and different from the
typical female you describe.
In what ways do you see yourself as similar to or different from this?
Explain.

13. What else would be important for me to know?
245
APPENDIX M

Interview Questions for Intimate Partner Violence
(Staff Version)

1. When you think about all the female aggressors that you have worked with, would
you say that they usually have had more than one relationship where they were
violent or is the violence usually particular to one relationship?
Is/are her male partner(s) aggressive with her too?
Have you ever heard of/seen a case where she is the only abusive one?
o When mutual violence occurs do you think it usually occurs in the
same incident, at different points in the relationship, or both?

2. How, if at all, do you think that various factors (i.e., length of relationship, being
married, dating or living together) affect the likelihood, frequency and severity of
violent incidents in relationships?
What are some things that commonly lead up to violent incidents?
What are some of the common immediate and then longer-term results?
(who, if anyone, is injured, what feelings result- e.g., anger, sadness, etc.)
Considering some of the recent incidents that you have heard about, why do
you think they happened?

3. Please describe some of the recent aggressive incidents that you have heard about.
How do you think that these women would characterize the quality of the
relationships they are currently or recently in (i.e., the one that lead them to
come to counseling)?
o For example, on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is a really bad relationship
and 10 is the best relationship what number do think they would give
that relationship?

5. In all of these incidents, what pattern (between and across women), if any, do you
see (e.g., he hits first, increasing severity, feelings (e.g., jealousy), etc.)?

6. What kinds of things do you think characterize a relationship following an
aggressive incident?
What kinds of thoughts and feelings do these women have?
How do think her partners think and feel?
How do they both behave?
How does that change when more time (from the incident) passes?
Do you notice any patterns in terms of making up and then physically
fighting again?
How are these patterns similar or different now from at the beginning of these
relationships?
246
7. What do you notice in terms of drug and alcohol use?
Do you think use is similar to or different from a nonviolent population?
Explain.
How often do you think that drinking or using drugs occurs during, before or
after violent incidents?
Do you notice or have you heard about any pattern of drug and/or alcohol use
that is correlated with what is occurring in the relationship? Please explain.

8. Do you think that these women have many people who they are close to and feel
supported by?
Who are some of these people?
o How comfortable do you think the women are with telling people
about different violent incidents?
o In actuality, do they generally tell others?
o Does it make a difference whether they or their partner has initiated
the violence (in terms of telling someone)?
o What kind of response (from friends/ acquaintances and/or family
members) do these women usually get?
o How do they usually feel about the response(s)?
o Do you notice or have you heard about any pattern of connecting to
others that is correlated with what is occurring in the relationship?
Please explain.

9. Do you notice any pattern in the moods (e.g., feeling nervous, sad,
irritable, tired, etc.) of these women that is correlated with what is occurring in their
relationships? Please explain.

10. Do these women report eating habits that you are concerned about
(e.g. eating too much, or too little)? What about other related
behaviors (e.g. over-exercising, binging, etc.)?
Do you notice or have you heard about any pattern in their eating habits that
is correlated with what is occurring in the relationship? Please explain.

11. Have you noticed or do these women report that when growing up they saw their
parents being aggressive with each other?
Is it more often mother-to-father violence, father-to-mother violence or
mutual violence?
How do you think the configurations (i.e., mother-to-father, mother-to-father,
and/or mutual violence) would differentially affect these women?
How do you think that exposure affects these women’s thoughts and feelings
about violence in general?
247
How do you think this affects/ affected their relationship with their parent(s)?
How did/does it affect their current or past romantic relationships? How?

12. Imagine that someone from Mars has landed on earth and wants to use
you as an interpreter of life on earth, including what humans are like.
How would you describe a typical male (in terms of feelings, thoughts,
behaviors)?
How would you describe a typical female?
In what ways do you think that these women are similar to and/or different
from the typical female you describe?

13. What else would be important for me to know?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In contrast to the immense amount of research regarding male perpetrators of intimate partner violence, relatively little attention has been given female perpetrators (Orcutt, Garcia, & Pickett, 2005). This multiple case study used a mixed-methods approach to focus on six female perpetrators of heterosexual partner violence, all of whom were members of a domestic violence counseling group. Each participated in a structured interview and completed psychological tests that assessed alcohol use, trait hostility, severity and frequency of violence by self and partner, social support and psychological functioning.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Spouse aggression, depression, and physical health: a multivariate longitudinal study of midlife couples

PDF

The role of acculturation in Asian Americans' attitudes towards domestic violence and of male privilege as a mediator in placing blame

PDF

Exploring the development of psychological empowerment among survivors of intimate partner violence: does the Personal Empowerment Program live up to its name?

PDF

A sociocultural and developmental approach to intimate partner violence among a sample of Hispanic emerging adults

PDF

Problematic alcohol use in Hispanic emerging adults: the role of perceived discrimination, cultural identity, and salient cultural values

Asset Metadata

Creator Lappen, Amy Elizabeth (author)

Core Title The neglected side of domestic violence research: case studies of female aggressors in intimate partnerships

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/18/2009

Defense Date 06/05/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag aggression,aggressors,case studies,Domestic,Female,Females,heterosexual,intimate,OAI-PMH Harvest,partner,perpetrators,qualitative,Violence,Women

Language English

Advisor Goodyear, Rodney K. (committee chair), Astor, Ron Avi (committee member), Jun, Alexander (committee member)

Creator Email lappen@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m627

Unique identifier UC1422560

Identifier etd-Lappen-20070718 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-532222 (legacy record id),usctheses-m627 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Lappen-20070718.pdf

Dmrecord 532222

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lappen, Amy Elizabeth

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu