University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence

(USC Thesis Other)

A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A TYPOLOGY OF MARITALLY VIOLENT MEN AND CORRELATES OF
Copyright 2000
VIOLENCE
by
Catherine Haudek
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2000
Catherine Haudek
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1405237
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 1405237
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA
T H E GRADUATE S C H O O L
U N IV ER SITY P A R K
LOS A N G E LE S. C A L IF O R N IA 0 0 0 0 7
This thesis, written by
_________________
under the direction of hJ2/L- Thesis Committee,
and approtved by all its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the D ean of The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of the
requirem ents for the degree of
(-tftsre*- oFflfcns.
D /i/a J u ly 10^ 2000
SIS CO M M ITTEE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgements
I express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Gayla Margolin, my committee chair and
mentor. She has been tremendously helpful and supportive throughout the entire process
of writing this thesis. I am most thankful to her for challenging and encouraging me to
accomplish what she knew I could accomplish during my moments o f self-doubt.
I am also grateful for the helpful feedback and support I obtained from my
committee members Drs. Gerald C. Davison and Richard S. John. I especially thank Dr.
Richard S. John for his patience in teaching me about research methodology and statistical
analysis. His expertise and assistance in the use of latent class analysis to analyze my
data was and invaluable learning experience for me.
My appreciation goes to my dear friend Dr. Marcia Rorty-Greenfield for her help
and loving support in realizing my dream of attending graduate school and for a wonderful
friendship as well as collegial working relationship.
I am eternally grateful to my mother for her unconditional love, belief in me, and
for always wanting to do all she can to help me reach my goals. Finally, I thank Laurent
Delsol for his love, understanding and encouragement in my attempts at becoming the
person I want to be.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................ii
List of T ables................................................................................................................. iv
Abstract............................................................................................................................ v
Introduction......................................................................................................................1
Method............................................................................................................................17
Results............................................................................................................................ 31
Discussion......................................................................................................................41
References......................................................................................................................55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Batterer Typology Proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994)............6
2. Proportions of Endorsement of Items in the LCA for each Class
(little rho parameters).................................................................................................. 3 2
3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Between-group Differences of
Variables used to set up the Typology......................................................................3^4
4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Between-group Differences on
Developmental Correlates of Violence.......................................................................3 9
5. Characteristics of the Three Types of Maritally Violent Men............................... 4 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Abstract
This study empirically tests a typology of husband batterers proposed by
Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) in a community sample. Latent class analysis
based on severity of physical violence, generality of violence, substance abuse,
depression, and antisocial and borderline personality showed three types of violent men:
family-only, medium-violence, and generally violent/psychologically distressed. This
typology differs from Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s in that no distinct
borderline/dysphoric or generally violent/antisocial types were found. When subtypes of
violent men were compared to each other and to nonviolent/maritally distressed and
nonviolent/nondistressed men in the same sample, the generally violent/psychologically
distressed men differed most often from the other groups on correlates o f marital violence
such as psychological abuse, life stress, marital satisfaction, and attitudes condoning
violence against women.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Introduction
The increased awareness of the high rate o f occurrence of domestic violence has
become a major focus o f public attention in recent years, as seen in the Congress passing
the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, and the President of the United States declaring
October to be the National Domestic Violence Awareness Month starting in 1995.
Although a large number of men are arrested for domestic violence each year, many
incidents still go unreported (U.S. Department o f Justice, 1998). Men convicted of
marital violence are usually required to go to court-mandated counseling in the hopes that
they can be rehabilitated. Currently, violent men tend to receive similar kinds of
treatment, and relapse is quite high (Russell, 1988). Also, the etiology o f marital violence
is not very well understood at this point.
Numerous studies have tried to explain why some men beat their partners while
others do not. Research on the correlates of husband batterers traditionally has focused
on comparing violent to nonviolent men on a number o f psychological and socioeconomic
dimensions. Several characteristics of maritally violent men consistently have been
reported, such as young age (Roberts, 1987), low socioeconomic background, and
unemployment or blue-collar work (Howell & Pugliesi, 1988; Kaufman-Kantor & Straus,
1987; Kaufman-Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994; Roberts, 1987). Behaviorally,
these men are more likely to have experienced or witnessed violence in their family of
origin (Beasley & Stoltenberg, 1992; Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997), have a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
history of violent crime (Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997), and consume drugs
and/or large amounts of alcohol (Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997; Kaufman-
Kantor & Straus, 1987; Roberts, 1987) than are nonviolent men. Also, maritally violent
men tend to hold attitudes condoning violence in general and especially towards women
(Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997; Kaufman-Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo,
1994) and possess limited coping resources and skills (Dutton & Browning, 1988;
Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991). Furthermore, batterers have been found to exhibit
more psychological distress (Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997; Julian &
McKenry, 1993), personality disorders (especially antisocial and/or borderline
personality disorders) (Dutton & Hart, 1992; Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997),
more anger and hostility (Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997; Dutton, 1995;
Leonard & Blane, 1992), and more attachment and dependency problems than do
nonviolent men (Barnett, Martinez, & Bluestein, 1995; Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, &
Bartholomew, 1994).
Although these studies of the differences between maritally violent and nonviolent
men have been helpful in increasing our understanding of the kinds of factors involved in
marital violence, they fail to consider the heterogeneity among maritally violent men.
Treating batterers as a homogeneous group might mask some significant differences
between violent and nonviolent men, and it also might be the source of some of the
inconsistencies in the findings of different researchers (Russell, 1988). For example, it is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
still not clear to what extent alcohol is a factor in wife battering, because the findings on
the prevalence o f alcohol intoxication of the batterer in incidents of marital violence range
from around 20% (Nisonoff amd Bittman, 1979, Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987) to more
than 80% (Leonard and Jacob., 1988). Also, findings regarding attitudinal differences
between violent and nonviolent men about violence and women are inconsistent. Whereas
many researchers find that m ale batterers more than nonviolent men hold attitudes
condoning violence in generaL and especially towards women (Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, &
Lalonde, 1997), others failed to find any differences between violent and nonviolent men
in these types of attitudes (Neadig, Friedman, and Collins, 1986). Furthermore, the
findings on whether attitudes towards women, and especially rigid, traditional sex-role
attitudes are linked to husband violence are equivocal. For example, Neff, Holamon, and
Schulter (1995) found that traditional sex role beliefs were not a predictor of husband
violence, whereas Sith and Farley (1993) found that lack of sex role egalitarianism was a
strong predictor of marital violence. The relationship between individual stress and
marital violence also is not cle=ar, as some researchers (e.g. Julian & McKenry, 1993)
found that amounts of individual stress differentiated between violent and nonviolent
men, while others (e.g. Pan, N~eidig, & O’Leary, 1994) did not find such a difference. A
number of methodological variations could account for this discrepancy in findings, one of
which is differential sample selection. In these cases, alcohol, stress, and/or rigid sex role
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
attitudes might be an important factor in wife abuse for some violent men, but less so for
others.
The awareness of the heterogeneity of husband batterers has led researchers more
recently to try to establish typologies of batterers. A number o f studies have been
conducted in this area following two approaches: in the deductive approach, batterers are
split into groups based on clinical observations or a priori theorizing and then compared
to each other; in the inductive approach, batterer’s scores on different measures are factor
or cluster analyzed to derive different groups. In an example o f the deductive approach,
Cadsky and Crawford (1988) compared men who exclusively beat their wives to men
who also engage in violence outside the family. They found that assaulters who engage in
familial and extrafamilial violence exhibit more delinquent behavior starting at an early age,
are more likely to abuse alcohol, engage in more severe and frequent violence, and view
themselves as more aggressive than the wife-only assaulters. Using the inductive
approach, Gondolf (1988) performed cluster analysis to derive a typology from the
following variables: physical abuse, verbal abuse, blame after abuse, substance abuse,
general violence, and previous arrests. He found three types o f batterers: the sociopathic,
the antisocial, and the typical batterer.
In their review of the existing literature on batterer typologies, Holtzworth-
Munroe and Stuart (1994) examined nine deductive and six inductive typologies, and
noticed that all of these studies looked at one or more of the following dimensions: (1)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
severity and frequency o f physical violence as well as related abuse such as psychological
and sexual abuse, (2) generality of violence (family-only or extra-familial violence) as well
as criminal behavior and legal involvement, and (3) the batterer’s psychopathology or
personality disorders. Using these three dimensions, Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart
identified three types o f batterers in the literature: the family only, the
borderline/dysphoric, and the generally violent/antisocial batterer. A summary o f the
characteristics o f these batterer types can be found in Table 1.
The family-only batterer is characterized by the least severe marital violence, the
least psychological and sexual abuse, violence restricted to the family, the least violence-
related legal troubles, little or no psychopathology, and either no personality disorder, or
a passive-dependent personality disorder. About 50% of maritally violent men are
hypothesized to fall in this category. The dysphoric/borderline batterer is dysphoric,
psychologically distressed and emotionally volatile, showing borderline and schizoidal
personality features. This batterer is characterized by moderate to severe physical abuse,
some psychological and sexual abuse, violence that is mainly directed towards the wife,
with some extrafamilial violence and criminal behavior, drug and alcohol abuse problems,
and difficulties controlling anger, particularly at the wife. This category includes about
25% of maritally violent men. The generally violent/antisocial batterer displays moderate
to severe physical violence, some psychological and sexual abuse, extrafamilial aggression,
extensive history o f violent criminal behavior and legal problems, drug and alcohol abuse,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
and he is the most likely to have an antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy.
This category is estimated to constitute about 25% of maritally violent men.
Table 1.
Batterer typology proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (T994)
Dimensions Family-only Dysphoric/
borderline
Generally
violent/
antisocial
Severity of marital violence Low Moderate-high Moderate-high
Psychological and sexual Low Moderate-high Moderate-high
abuse
Generality o f violence
Extrafamilial violence Low Low-moderate High
Criminal behavior Low Low-moderate High
Psychopathology/personality
disorder
Personality disorder None or passive/ Borderline or Antisocial/
dependent schizoidal psychopathy
- Alcohol/drug use Low-moderate Moderate High
Depression Low-moderate High Low
- Anger Moderate High Moderate
Note. From “Typologies of Male Batterers: Three Subtypes and the Differences Among
Them” by A. Holtzworth-Munroe and G. L. Stuart, 1994, Psychological Bulletin. 116. p.
482. Copyright 1994 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with
permission.
Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) also established a developmental model of
distal and proximal variables associated with spousal abuse. This model is called
developmental, because these correlates can be thought of as risk factors for domestic
violence. The distal correlates include genetic/prenatal factors, family of origin violence,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
and association with deviant peers. The proximal correlates are attachment/dependency,
impulsivity, social skills both in marital and non-marital relationships, and attitudes
supporting violence as well as hostile attitudes towards women.
In terms of this developmental model, the family-only batterer is hypothesized to
show' the lowest levels of both distal and proximal risk factors, similar nonviolent but
maritally distressed men. With respect to distal variables, there is low genetic risk for
aggression and impulsivity, low to moderate aggression in the family of origin, and no
strong associations with deviant peers. With respect to proximal variables, attachment to
others is normal with some dependent or preoccupied attachment towards the intimate
partner, low impulsivity, no positive attitudes towards violence or hostility towards
women, adequate general social skills with some relationship skills deficits. The
borderline/dysphoric batterer is thought to have some genetic risk factors for
psychopathology, impulsivity, and aggression, a traumatic background with child abuse
and parental rejection, a highly dependent or insecure attachment to the wife, high
jealousy and resentment, poor relationship skills, hostile attitudes towards women, and
moderate support of violence. The generally violent/antisocial batterer looks very much
like other antisocial, aggressive criminal people with genetic or prenatal risk factors for
antisocial and aggressive behavior, high levels of family of origin violence, association with
deviant peers as a youth, no dependency or empathy towards the partner, high
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
impulsivity, poor marital and non-marital social skills, hostile attitudes towards women
and supportive of violence.
Two studies empirically tested components of this typology. Based on a large
clinical sample of maritally violent men, Hamberger, Lo'nr, Bonge, & Tolin (1996) tested a
typology based on the psychopathology/ personality disorder dimension rather than
three separate dimensions proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994). They
then looked at whether the other two dimensions (generality o f violence and severity of
violence) would correlate with the different types of batterers as expected by the
Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart model. Their reasoning behind this approach was to see
whether severity and generality of violence could be predicted from psychopathology and
personality disorders. They indeed found three clusters of batterers that were very
similar to the types of batterers proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart. Overall,
they conclude that their study supports the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart batterer
typology, although they did not test the developmental model.
Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, & Stuart (in press) reported some
preliminary findings supporting their model based on their first 63 subjects from a
community sample. They attempted to empirically validate the model exactly as
proposed by first establishing a typology o f batterers according to their three dimensions,
and then looking at the pattern o f relationships of the proximal and distal correlates to the
different batterer types. Four types o f batterers were found, the expected three, plus an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
additional type that they called ‘low-level antisocial’ that scored in between the family
only batterer and generally violent/antisocial batterer on many measures, but was distinct
from the borderline/dysphoric type in terms of psychopathology. The low-level
antisocial batterers resembled the family-only batterer with respect to amount o f marital
violence, but had higher levels of general violence and were more antisocial.
Holtzworth-Munroe et. al. (in press) try to explain these findings by
hypothesizing that these three groups may fall along a continuum of antisociality, rather
than being distinct groups. Although the borderline/ dysphoric group also falls between
the family only and generally violent/antisocial group on several measures, and resembles
the low-level antisocial group in some respects, it still represents a unique and
theoretically coherent set of elevations and associations. More specifically, the
borderline/dysphoric group scored highest on dysphoric scales, had the highest level of
childhood sexual abuse, dependency, jealousy and sensitivity to rejection. Thus, it
appears as if the borderline/dysphoric type is a distinct group that does not fall on a
continuum with the other three groups, and that maybe batterers would better be
described if placed along two major dimensions (antisociality and dysphoria), rather than
just one (antisociality). Holtzworth-Munroe et. al. (in press) proposed to look into the
possibility of classifying batterers along dimensions rather than by clusters in their final
sample.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994-) typology and the two empirical
studies have several limitations that we tried to address in the present study. First, the
original typology was established based on studies using clinical samples exclusively, and
Hamberger et. al. (1996) also used a clinical sample in their test. Holtzworth-Munroe et.
al. (in press) are the only ones to have tested the typology in a community sample, and
have so far only published preliminary findings. Second, neither empirical study included
a nonviolent nondistressed and a nonviolent but distressed control group, although
Holtzworth-Munroe et. al (in press) reported planning to do so for their final sample.
Third, thus far the Holtzworth-Munroe et. al. study is the only one to examine the
developmental model of marital violence. As a result, we attempted to test Holtzworth-
Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) typology in a community sample. In addition, the patterns
of relationships of the following, possibly related, proximal and distal variables of the
developmental model with the typology were examined: violence in the family of origin
(witnessing parental violence and experiencing child abuse), attitudes towards women, and
attitudes supporting violence. Finally, the batterers were compared to nonviolent/
nondistressed, and nonviolent/distressed husbands.
In the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) typology, psychological abuse is
included in the severity of marital violence dimension. However, due to the multifaceted
nature of psychological abuse, we decided to examine specific aspects of such abuse in
more detail. In Jacobson and Gottman’s (1998) grouping of batterers into Cobras
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
(antisocial batterers) and Pittbulls (emotionally dependent batterers), they discuss
dominance and control of the wife’s life as characteristics of Pitbulls and Cobras, although
the reason for these behaviors differs between the two. Feminist theories o f domestic
violence also view control of the wife as central in domestic violence. According to
Dobash and Dobash (1979; 1988), wife abuse occurs because men want to maintain
dominance and control over their wives, and their patriarchal ideology that condones
violence against women provides the justification for engaging in domestic violence. In
light o f the importance of these two aspects of emotional abuse in maritally violent
relationships, we examined control and a variant of dominance we called humiliation in
this typology. As no predictions were made in Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994)
proposed typology as to how batterers would differ on these dimensions, we did not
include our two psychological abuse variables (control, and humiliation) in the variables
used to set up the typology. Rather, we performed exploratory analysis looking at
differences between the types of batterers on these dimensions in the same way we
examined the developmental correlates of violence.
In an attempt to expand the developmental model, exploratory analyses were also
performed to see whether and how different types of batterers differ in marital
satisfaction and daily as well as lifetime stress. Stress has often been categorized as a
mediator of violence, in the sense that violent men are seen as being unable to effectively
cope with stress that they experience in and out o f the home because of limited financial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
resources and coping skills due to their low SES (Howell & Pugliesi, 1988). Furthermore,
a distinction has often been made between socioeconomic, marital, and individual stress.
Because of their low socioeconomic status, many violent men do experience more stress
in terms o f limited income and unemployment.
The relationship between individual stress (i.e. not marital or sociodemographic
stress) and marital violence is still not clear. In the area o f work stress, some researchers
found that maritally violent men experience more negative stress than do nonviolent men,
and that perceived work strain is associated with husband violence (Barling &
Rosenbaum, 1986; Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988) However, Pan, Neidig, & O’Leary (1994)
found work stress not to be a risk factor for domestic physical aggression. The findings
on negative life events are inconsistent as well. Although some researchers find that
violent men experience more personal stress (Barnett, Fagan, & Booker, 1991; Julian &
McKenry, 1993), others, using the same measure o f stress, find that negative life events
do not predict level of marital violence (McKenry, Julian, & Gavazzi, 1995). Margolin,
John, and Foo (1998) found that stressors such as negative life events are important risk
factors contributing uniquely to the prediction of men’s level of abusiveness.
Furthermore, the number of negative life events differentiated severely abusive men from
less severely abusive men. Margolin et. al. (1998) agree with Straus’ (1990) proposal that
stress may not directly cause violence, but that the relationship is moderated by variables
such as early socialization to stress, positive attitudes towards violence, marital
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
dissatisfaction, and socioeconomic status. The presence of these moderating factors
would make aggression in response to stress more likely. If this is the case, amounts of
stress would be a more important factor in wife abuse among men who experience more of
these mediating variables than among men who do not.
Hence, it is possible that daily and lifetime stress do not contribute to violence in
the same manner for all violent men and that different kinds of batterers could be
influenced by stress in different ways. In light of the many possibilities regarding the
relationship between stress and domestic violence, we tried to incorporate experience and
perception of daily and lifetime individual stress into the proposed developmental model
of the typology to see to what extent male batterers are heterogeneous in this domain as
well.
Another variable on which the findings regarding its relationship to marital
violence are mixed is marital satisfaction. Some studies using clinical samples find that
couples in which there is marital violence tend to report less marital satisfaction than do
nonviolent/nondistressed couples and similar levels of marital satisfaction as nonviolent
but distressed couples (Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981; Russell, Lipov, Phillips, & White,
1989; Telch & Lindquist, 1984; Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994). However,
Sugarman & Hotaling (1989) studied men’s reports of marital adjustment using a large
community sample, and found that level of marital conflict was the most significant
discriminator between violent and nonviolent men. In fact, both minor and severely
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
aggressive men had higher levels of marital conflict than did verbally aggressive or
nonviolent men. Findings using women’s reports were similar (Hotaling & Sugarman,
1990). Also, Pan et. al. (1994) found that marital discord differentiated both mildly
aggressive men from non-aggressive men and mildly aggressive men from severely
aggressive men.
Overall, marital satisfaction has been found to be significantly related to physical
violence in studies using men’s reports only and in studies using both partners’ reports
(Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988; Leonard, Bromet, Parkinson, Day, & Ryan, 1985; Pan et. al.,
1994; Rosenbaum & O ’Leary, 1981). McKenry, Julian, and Gavazzi (1995) even found
marital satisfaction to be one of the best predictors of marital violence. Also, Margolin,
John, and Foo (1998) found marital dissatisfaction to be an important and direct risk
factor for men’s abusiveness.
Nevertheless, while there is an association between marital satisfaction and
violence, it is not clear how these two variables interact. First, there is some evidence that
decreased marital satisfaction is a consequence of marital violence rather than a predictor
(Heyman, O’Leary, & Jouriles, 1995), but this finding needs to be confirmed by
additional studies. Margolin et. al. (1998) argue for a reciprocal relationship between
marital satisfaction and violence in which it is as likely for marital dissatisfaction to lead
to abusiveness as it is for abusiveness to decrease marital satisfaction. Second, not all
maritally violent couples have low levels of marital satisfaction. In fact, in Brinkerhoff
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
and Lupri’s (1988) study of over 500 couples, 29% of the maritally satisfied couples
reported marital violence. Thus, it appears that marital satisfaction is linked to violence
for some couples but not for others. Finally, marital satisfaction may not be directly
linked to violence, but rather through the interaction with other variables. For example, in
a study by Leonard and Blane (1992), alcohol use was associated with violence in couples
with low marital satisfaction, but not in those with high marital satisfaction. Also, marital
distress may be a risk factor for other types o f aggression such as psychological and
verbal aggression, which then in turn predict physical aggression (Malamuth, Linz,
Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995; O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994).
In an attempt to better understand the relationship between marital satisfaction
and marital violence, we looked at whether different types of batterers report different
levels of marital satisfaction. This might help identify the couples mentioned earlier that
are maritally satisfied yet still report violence. If marital satisfaction exerts its influence
on violence through the interaction with other variables such as alcohol use, psychological
aggression and verbal aggression as suggested earlier, then the levels of marital satisfaction
might differ according to which type of batterer also experiences high levels of these other
variables.
In sum, this project tests the batterer typology proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe
and Stuart (1994) by splitting violent husbands along three dimensions: severity of
violence, generality o f violence, and psychopathology. A test of the relationship between
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
the following variables o f Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s developmental model and the
different types of batterers was conducted: violence in the family o f origin (witnessing
parental violence and experiencing child abuse), attitudes towards women, and attitudes
supporting violence. First, it is hypothesized that three types of batterers would be
obtained by using severity o f violence, generality of violence, and psychopathology as
dimensions to split batterers into groups: the family-only, the borderline/ dysphoric, and
the antisocial batterer. Second, it is hypothesized that violence in the family of origin
(witnessing parental violence and experiencing child abuse) would be most prevalent in
generally violent/antisocial batterers, moderately prevalent in borderline/dysphoric
batterers and least prevalent in family-only batterers. Third, it is hypothesized that
negative attitudes towards women, and positive attitudes supporting violence are most
strongly held by generally violent/antisocial batterers, moderately held by
borderline/dysphoric batterers, and least strongly or not at all held by family-only
batterers. Finally, exploratory analyses looked at control, humiliation, as well as personal
stress and marital satisfaction as developmental correlates of violence in this typology.
Because most studies o f typologies used only clinical samples and no control groups, a
community sample was used in this study, and the different types of batterers were
compared to nonviolent/distressed men and to nonviolent/nondistressed men.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Method
Participants:
Participants in this study were part of a larger study of family relations, marital
adjustment, and the effects of marital discord on children’s adjustment conducted under
NIMH Grant ROI 36595. Married couples from 180 two-parent families were recruited
through public announcements and direct mailings in the Los Angeles area. The following
criteria were used to enroll families in this study: (1) one child in the family must be
between four and five years old inclusive; (2) this child is the biological child of both
parents; (3) both spouses read and speak English; (3) the family has a telephone; (4) both
the parents and the child have to be willing to participate in one laboratory session; and
(5) the child is involved in a school or day care setting in order to obtain data from a non
family source. For their participation in the laboratory session and the completion of
questionnaires at home each family received $90 (Margolin & John, 1988).
Husbands’ and wives’ ages ranged from 25 to 56 years (M = 36.28; SD = 6.12)
and 21 to 47 years (M = 33.71; SD = 5.48) respectively. Husbands had between 9 and
20 years of education (M = 14.97; SD = 2.25), and wives’ years of education ranged from
11 to 20 years (M = 14.61; SD = 2.15). Couples had been living together for 4 to 22
years (M = 9.54; SD = 3.50). The ethnic composition of the sample was primarily
Caucasian husbands with Caucasian wives (52.6%), but there were 15.8% African-
American couples, 5.8% Latino couples, and 1.2% couples from other ethnic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
backgrounds. In addition, in 24.6% of couples, husbands and wives were from different
ethnic backgrounds (e.g. African-American/Caucasian couples or Hispanic/Caucasian
couples). Most husbands were employed full-time (81.3%), whereas 5.4% o f husbands
were employed part-time, and 13.4% of them were unemployed. However, 46.2% of
wives were unemployed, 29.8% of wives were employed full-time, and 23.4% o f then
v/ere employed part-time.
Measures:
Typology:
Severity o f violence: This dimension includes ratings of severity and
frequency of physical violence, as well as the presence o f other types of abuse such as
sexual and psychological abuse, and will be measured using the Domestic Conflict Index
(DCI: Margolin, Burman, John, & O’Brien, 1990). The DCI is a 51-item self-report
questionnaire that inquires about physical aggression, verbal aggression, psychological
abuse, anger, and withdrawal in the marriage. Eighteen items from the Straus Conflict
Tactics Scale-Form N (Straus, 1979) are included in the DCI. Each item on this
questionnaire describes a conflict behavior, and participants are asked to rate whether
they have engaged in the behavior by answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In addition, participants
are asked to report how often each behavior they endorsed had occurred during the past
year on a scale from 0 to 5 (‘never’, ‘once’, ‘2-5 times per year’, ‘6-12 times per year’,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
‘2-4 times per month’, or ‘more than once a week’). Each participant also reports the
behaviors his partner has engaged in, as well as the frequency o f each behavior in the past
year. Only reports of husband violence will be used in the present study, and an
occurrence will be counted if either spouse endorsed it.
Physical and sexual abuse towards the wife was assessed using the following 14
items: (1) physically twisted her arm, (2) pushed, grabbed, or shoved her, (3) slapped her,
(4) physically forced sex on her, (5) burned her, (6) shook her, (7) thrown or tried to
throw her bodily, (8) thrown an object at her, (9) choked or strangled her, (10) kicked, bit,
or hit her with a fist, (11) hit or tried to hit her with something, (12) beat her up (multiple
blows), (13) threatened her with a knife or gun, and (14) used a knife or gun on her.
Two aspects of psychological abuse were examined once the typology was set up:
control and humiliation. Control of the wife was assessed using the following 8 items: (1)
monitored your spouse’s time and made her account for where she was, (2) been jealous
or suspicious of your spouse’s friends, (3) been very upset if dinner, housework or home
repair work was not done when you thought it should be, (4) told your spouse that she
could not work or go to school, or to other self-improvement activities, (5) tried to
prevent your spouse from seeing/talking to family or friends, (6) restricted your spouse’s
use of the car or telephone, (7) ordered your spouse around, (8) prevented your spouse
from getting medical care that she needed. Humiliation was measured with the following 6
items: (1) insulted or swore at spouse, (2) insulted or shamed spouse in front of others,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
(3) treated spouse like she was stupid, (4) criticized spouse, (5) called spouse names, (6)
ridiculed spouse.
Foo (1996) reports internal consistency reliability coefficients (standardized item
alpha) of .76 for husbands’ self report of physical violence and .84 for wives’ reports of
husband violence. In an independent sample of 136 married women and 77 married men,
two-week test-retest reliability of .70 for husbands’ physical aggression and .90 for
wives’ reports o f husband physical aggression (Burman, Margolin, & John, 1991).
Internal consistency reliability (standardized item alpha) in this sample was .73 for
control and .85 for humiliation.
Husbands were split into high, medium and low violence groups, taking into
consideration Strauss’ (1979) distinction between severe and non-severe violence for
items that were similar to those in his Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). The men
who had engaged only in the following acts at least once in the past year were included in
the low violence group: physically twisted spouse’s arm, threatened to hit spouse or
throw something at her in anger, pushed, grabbed or shoved spouse, slapped spouse,
threw an object at spouse. The medium violence group was comprised of men who had
committed either only medium-severity acts or medium and low severity acts. The
medium severity acts were: (1) burned spouse, (2) shook spouse, (3) threw or tried to
throw spouse bodily, (4) kicked, bit, or hit spouse with a fist, (5) hit spouse or tried to
hit spouse with something. The severe violence group was comprised of men who had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
engaged into at least one the following acts: (1) physically forced sex on spouse, (2)
choked or strangled spouse, (3) beat spouse up (multiple blows), (4) threatened spouse
with a knife or gun, and (5) used a knife or gun on spouse. Two men who had been in the
medium violence group were placed in the severe violence group due to the high frequency
with which they engaged in violence. Of the 72 men who had engaged in physical violence
in the past year, 36 were in the low violence group, 20 were in the medium violence group
and 16 were in the severe violence group.
Generality of violence: This dimension includes extrafamilial violence and
criminal behavior. Extrafamilial violence was assessed with two items from a Personal
Background Questionnaire (Margolin & John, 1992) inquiring about the frequency of
verbal arguments and physical arguments with the following people: mother, father,
brother or sister, mother-in-law, father-in-law, any other relative or in-law, neighbor, co
worker, boss, friends/acquaintances, service personnel, and other/strangers. For each
person, participants indicate the frequency of verbal arguments in the first and physical
arguments in the second question on a scale ranging from 0 to 6 (‘never’, ‘less than once a
year’, ‘once or twice a year’, ‘3-5 times a year’, ‘6-10 times a year’, ‘more than 10 times
a year’, or ‘not applicable’). Generality of violence was determined by separately adding
scores on verbal and on physical arguments with any person other than the wife and
children.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
Criminal behavior was assessed using the Trouble with the Law Questionnaire
(TWTL: John & Margolin, 1992), a 21- item self-report measure o f the types o f violent
and nonviolent criminal behavior people have been arrested for and convicted of.
Participants are asked whether they or their spouse has ever been arrested as an adult
and/or as a juvenile. If they answer ‘yes’ to any o f these two questions, they are
instructed to fill out the remainder of the questionnaire, which lists 21 criminal behaviors
and asks whether they or their spouse has ever been arrested for such a crime and whether
they or their spouse has ever been convicted for such a crime. This questionnaire has
been used to assess criminal behavior in other studies of marital violence (e.g. Foo, 1996)
For this study, husbands’ self reports and wives’ reports on their husband’s criminal
record were used.
Men were considered to be high in general violence if they were in the top 10
percent of the entire sample on either physical or verbal violence as measured by the
extrafamilial violence scale, or if they had been arrested at least twice. O f the 72 violent
men, 18 were in the high general violence group.
Psychopathology/personality disorders: This dimension includes type of
personality disorder, amount of alcohol and/or drug use, and depression. Personality
disorder and depression were assessed using the Personality Assessment Inventory-Short
Form (Morey, 1991), a 163-item self-report inventory of adult personality and
psychopathology that measures the severity o f a broad range of psychological problems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
For each item, participants are asked to rate how accurate a statement is about them on a
4-point scale (‘false’, ‘slightly true’, ‘generally true’, and ‘very true’). The Depression
(12 items), Borderline Features (13 items), Aggression (7 items), and Antisocial Features
(12 items) clinical scales were used to measure psychopathology and personality
disorders. The PAI has been found to have good validity and reliability in both clinical
and non-clinical samples (Morey, 1991). For the six scales used in this study, Morey
(1991) reported high internal consistency, with a coefficient alpha of .87 for the
Depression scale, .87 for the Borderline Features scale, .85 for the Aggression scale, and
.84 for the Antisocial Features scale. Also, test-retest reliabilities of .91 for the
Depression scale, .90 for both the Borderline Features and the Antisocial Features scale,
and .85 for the Aggression scale, as well as good convergent and discriminant validity for
these five scales have been reported by the author.
Because the borderline batterer was hypothesized to also be high in depression, a
single borderline/depression dimension was used to reduce the number of variables in the
model. According to Morey, the correlation between the Borderline Features scale and the
Depression scale is .66 in a census-matched sample and .70 in a clinical sample. Those
men with a T-score of 65 or more on either the Borderline Features or Depression scale
were considered to be in the high borderline/depression group. Similarly, a single
antisocial/aggression dimension was used to further reduce the number of separate
variables. The correlation between these two scales is .55 in a census-matched sample and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
.61 in a clinical sample. Men were considered to be in the high antisocial/aggression group
if they had a T-score of 65 of more on either the Antisocial Features or the Aggression
scale. O f the violent men, 7 were in the high borderline/depression group and 16 were in
the high antisocial/aggression group.
Substance abuse: Alcohol use was measured by the Michigan Alcoholism
Screening Test (Selzer, 1971; Selzer, Vinokur, & van Rooijen, 1975), a 25-item self-report
questionnaire that inquires about various problems associated with alcohol misuse.
Participants answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions about problematic drinking behavior and
negative social, occupational and medical consequences of their drinking. Again, each
participant reports on their own and their spouse’s problems. The MAST has been
found to be a valid and reliable measure of alcoholism with a coefficient alpha of .95
(Selzer, Vinokur, & Rooijen, 1975). It has also been used to measure alcoholism in
numerous studies on the relationship between alcohol use and marital violence (e.g.,
Heyman, O ’Leary, & Jouriles, 1995; Rosenbaum & O ’Leary, 1981, Van Hasselt,
Morrison, & Bellack, 1985). In this study, husbands’ self-report as well as wives’
reports on their husband’s alcohol use were used.
Alcohol and drug use was further measured with the Alcohol Problems (4 items)
and the Drug Problems (7 items) scales of the PAI (Morey, 1991). Internal consistency is
.84 for Alcohol Problems and .74 for Drug Problems. Test-retest reliability is .94 for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Alcohol Problems and .88 for Drug Problems (Morey, 1991). The author also reports
good convergent and discriminant validity for these scales.
Men were considered to be in the high substance abuse group if they either had a
score of 7 or more on the mast or a T-score of 65 or more on either the PAI Alcohol
Problems or Drug Problems scale. O f the 72 violent men in this sample, 30 were in the
high substance abuse group.
Developmental Correlates: The variables examined as developmental correlates
were: family of origin violence, attitudes condoning violence against women, marital
satisfaction, and personal stress. The following measures were used to assess each of
these variables:
Family o f origin violence: History of family of origin violence and abuse
were assessed using nine questions from the Personal Background Questionnaire
(Margolin & John, 1992). Each husband reported how often he was verbally aggressed
and physically aggressed by a parent, and how often these same behaviors occurred
between his parents on a 7-point scale (‘never’, ‘once’, ‘2-5’, ‘5-10’, ‘ 10-20’, ‘20-50’,
and ‘more than 50 tim es’) with scores ranging from 0 to 6 for each item. Four types of
family of origin violence were identified by adding the scores of the two items pertaining
to each type: parent-to-child verbal aggression (yelled or screamed at and insulted or
criticized), parent-to-child physical aggression (hit or slapped and physically injured or
bruised), interparental verbal aggression (same behaviors as parent to child verbal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
aggression), and interparental physical aggression (same behaviors as parent to child
physical aggression). Furthermore, each husband was asked to report whether an adult
ever initiated or forced sexual contact with him when he was a child on a 5-point scale
(‘never’, ‘once’, ‘2-4’, ‘5-10’, and ‘more than 10 times’), and if so, who that person was.
Internal consistency reliability coefficients have been reported to be .91, .93, .79, and .72
for interparental verbal aggression, interparental physical aggression, parent-to-child
verbal aggression, and parent-to-child physical aggression respectively in a subset of the
present sample (Foo, 1996).
Attitudes condoning violence against women: The Attitudes About
Marriage Index (Margolin & Foo, 1992) is a 50-item self report measure assessing how
justifiable it is for a husband to hit his wife and vice versa in 25 specific situations, such
as ‘when the partner refuses to have sex’ and the partner uncontrollably smashes personal
belongings’, for example. For each situation, participants rate how justifiable physical
violence is on a 7-point scale, ranging from (0) not justifiable to (7) justifiable. For the
purposes o f this study, only husbands’ attitudes about violence against their wives were
examined. Scores on all items were added to provide a global index of attitudes condoning
violence against women.
Marital satisfaction: The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS: Spanier, 1976)
is a 32-item self-report questionnaire assessing subjective marital satisfaction. Each
participant rates how much the couple agrees or disagrees on a variety of topics such as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
religious matters, household tasks, and career decisions, for example, on a 6-point scale
ranging from ‘always agree’ to ‘always disagree’. They are also asked to rate how often
they are affectionate towards each other, how often they spend time together doing
enjoyable activities, how often they quarrel or think about ending their relationship on 5-
to 6-point scales ranging from ‘all the time’ or ‘every day’ to ‘never’. Finally,
participants are asked to rate their satisfaction with the relationship on a 7-point scale
ranging from ‘extremely unhappy’ to ‘perfect’, and to endorse which of 6 items best
describes how they view the fixture of the relationship. A global DAS score (mean total)
was used to assess marital satisfaction. The DAS is one of the most commonly used
measures of marital satisfaction, and is reported to have good validity and high internal
consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .96) (Spanier, 1976). The nonviolent
husbands were split into nonviolent/nondistressed and nonviolent/distressed groups based
on their score on the DAS. Husbands whose DAS score was less than 97 were considered
maritally dissatisfied and put into the nonviolent/distressed group. A score of 97 or below
is more than one standard deviation below the mean DAS score for married men of 114.8,
as reported by Spanier (1976).
Stress: The Life Experiences Survey (LES; Sarason, Johnson, & Siegel,
1978) is a 43-item list of potentially stressful life events, and participants are asked to
report which of these they experienced in the past year. Additionally, for each item
endorsed, participants rate the kind of an impact (positive or negative) the event had on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
their life at the time on a 7-point scale ranging from — 3 (extremely negative) to +3
(extremely positive), giving information on both the desirability and the impact of each
event. The LES has been reported to have good validity and reliability (Sarason et. ah,
1979). The amount of perceived negative impact of stressful events was assessed by
adding absolute values of the negative impact ratings (-1 to — 3). The amount of perceived
positive impact of stressful events was assessed similarly by adding the positive impact
ratings (1 to 3).
Procedure:
During the original data collection for the larger study, participants filled out
questionnaires pertaining to themselves and their marital relationship both at home and
during one visit to the laboratory. Due to the large amount o f measures administered in
thus study, and in order to minimize participants’ time spent in the laboratory, the
questionnaires with simple instructions were mailed to participants’ home for
completion. Husbands and wrves were instructed to complete these questionnaires
independently and to keep their responses confidential from each other. In the
laboratory, each spouse completed the questionnaires with more complicated instructions
independently with frequent checks from experimenters to answer questions and collect
completed measures. Additionally, instructions to the DCI were read aloud by an
experimenter, and assistance w as given in completing the first three items before leaving
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
participants to complete the remaining items because of the complexity o f this measure.
Furthermore, each item from the Trouble with the Law questionnaire was read aloud and
responses were recorded by an experimenter. Finally, the questionnaires completed at
home were checked by experimenters for inadvertently omitted items, and participants
were asked to complete any missing data. Due to repeated findings of husbands’
underreporting o f potentially negative behaviors (Arias & Beach, 1987; Dutton &
Hemphill, 1992; Riggs, Murphy, & O ’Leary, 1989), both husbands and wives reported
on husbands’ alcohol use, drug use, arrest records, physical and psychological spousal
aggression.
For the present study, maritally violent men were identified as those who
endorsed or for whom the wife endorsed at least one of the physical abuse items on the
DCI in the past year. The remaining participants were split into maritally nondistressed
and distressed control groups using the DAS to evaluate level of marital distress. The
typology of violent men was established using latent class analysis, a statistical procedure
designed to find latent variables and classes that is considered especially well suited for
typologies (McCutcheon, 1987).
Latent class analysis can be seen as a variant of factor analysis for categorical
variables that assumes observed variables to be imperfect indicators of an underlying
latent variable. This latent variable is further assumed to contain a finite number of
mutually exclusive levels or classes. Latent class analysis estimates two main parameters:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
(1) the probability that an individual belongs to a certain class, and (2) the conditional
probability that an individual of a certain class will endorse a certain item as measured by
one of the variables used in the analysis. In this test of a three-class model, we estimated
the likelihood of each violent husband to fall into each of the three classes, as well as the
conditional probability of endorsing each variable used to set up this typology given
membership in each of the three classes. To perform this analysis, scores on the DCI
physical violence, the DCI psychological violence, the TWTL, the MAST, and the
Depression, Borderline Features, Aggression, Alcohol Problems, Drug Problems and
Antisocial Features subscales o f the PAI were split into either high and low or high,
medium, and low scores as described above.
Once the typology was established, the different types of batterers were
compared to each other and to nonviolent/distressed and nonviolent/nondistressed
husbands on the variables used to set up the typology in their continuous form, as well as
on the developmental variables (family of origin violence, attitudes condoning violence
towards women, marital satisfaction, and stress) and control and humiliation using
analyses of variance with post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests to see how the groups differ on
these variables.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Results
The results of the latent class analysis testing a three-class typology based on the
typology proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) can be found in Table 2.
We used a computer program called WinLTA (version 2.0; Collins, Flaherty, Hyatt, &
Schafer, 1999) obtained from the Methodology Center at Pennsylvania State University
to perform the latent class analysis. This program estimates parameters using the EM
algorithm, computing the mean absolute deviation (MAD) at each iteration. MAD is the
mean absolute value of the difference between the current value of each parameter being
estimated and its value at the previous iteration. The overall indicator of the fit of this
model was G2= 16.99 with df = 27. G2is compared to a chi-squared distribution, and in
this case it is smaller than the a = .05 critical value of the chi-squared distribution X (27)
= 40.11, which means that this model fits the data well. In order to assign each husband to
one of the latent classes obtained, we looked at each violent husband’s response pattern
and used the conditional probabilities of responding a certain way given a certain class
membership as well as the probability of belonging to a certain class to calculate, for each
husband, the probability of belonging to class 1, class 2, and class 3. Each husband was
then assigned to the class to which he had the highest probability of belonging.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Table 2.
Proportions of endorsement o f items in the LC A for each class (little rho parameters):
Variables used in the LCA Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Severity of Violence
Low 0.95 0.00 0.43
High 0.05 0.34 0.57
Generality of Violence
High 0.12 0.26 0.71
Antisocial Personality
High 0.12 0.22 0.71
Borderline Personality /Depression
High 0.00 0.00 1.00
Substance Abuse
High 0.24 0.52 0.86
Note: Little rho parameters are probabilities o f responses to items conditional on latent
class membership or the proportion of endorsement o f items
We obtained one class o f maritally violent men that comprised about 48% o f our
sample (n=33) and that was characterized by 95% reporting low severity of violence,
88% reporting low generality of violence, 88% reporting low antisocial personality,
100% reporting low borderline/depression levels , and 76% reporting low substance
abuse. Due to its similarity with the family-only type described by Holtzworth-Munroe
and Stuart (1994), we also labeled this class the ‘family-only’ aggressive men.
Our second class comprised about 42% of our sample of violent men (n=32) and
was characterized by mostly medium-level (66%), but also some high-level violence
(34%). In this group, 74% were low on generality o f violence , 78% low on antisocial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
personality, 100% low on borderline/depression, and 52% had high levels o f substance
abuse. We called this class the ‘medium-violence’ aggressive men.
The third class comprised about 10% of our sample of violent men (n=7). In this
group, 43% reported low levels of violence only, and 57% reported severe violence. 71%
were high on generality of violence, 71% were high on antisocial personality, 100% were
high on borderline/depression, and 86% had high levels of substance abuse. We named this
group the ‘generally violent/psychologically distressed’ batterer.
A series of independent-samples one-way analyses of variance were performed to
look at mean differences between the three types of violent men and nonviolent/distressed
men and nonviolent/nondistressed husbands on the variables used to set up the typology.
Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for the five groups. Here, the
variables were used in their original continuous form.
Significant between-groups differences were found on total DCI score representing
severity of marital aggression, F (4, 180)= 26.88, p < .001, extrafamilial physical
aggression,_F (4, 174)= 8.84, p < .001, TWTL number of arrests, F (4, 166) = 7.28, p <
.001, TWTL number of convictions, F (4, 166) = 4.968, p < .001, the PAI Aggression
subscale, F (4, 176) = 8.04, p < .001, the PAI Antisocial Features subscale, F (4, 176) =
4.55, p < .05, the PAI Borderline Features subscale, F (4, 176) = 16.62, p < .001, the PAI
Depression subscale, F (4, 176) = 11.37, p < .001, the PAI Alcohol subscale, F (4, 176) =
4.12, p < .05, the PAI Drug Use subscale, F (4, 176) = 2.50, p < .05, and the MAST,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T ab le 3 .
Means, Standard Deviations, and Between-group Differences o f Variables used to set up the Typology;
Generally violent/
psychologically
distressed
Medium-violence Family-only Nonviolent/
distressed
Nonviolent/
nondistressed
Severity o f Violence
Total DCI (unweighted) 69 (32.95)*, bc 50.69 (23.17)* dc 40.27 (21.08)* „ f
36.29 (16.85)* bdg 21.70 (10.52)* ecfg
Generality o f Violence
Extrafamilial verbal
aggression 13.57 (8.02) 8.26 (6.61) 8.58 (5.57) 9.25 (7.74) 8.72 (7.11)
Extrafamilial physical
aggression 2.57 (3.99)*. bcd 0 .4 4 (1 .2 4 ), 0.12 (0.54) b 0.5 (1.15) e 0.14 (0.51) d
Number of arrests 2.71 (2.14)*. bed 1.28 (1.80)* , c 0.87 (1.38) b 0.97 (0.98), 0.43 (0.80)dc
Number o f convictions 1.14(1.21) 0 .9 4 (1 .6 4 )* , 0.68(1.14) 0.42 (0.61) 0 .1 7 (0 .4 9 ),
Psvchopathologv
PAI Aggression 66.14 (8.53)*. bCd 52.50 (7.66), 51.61 (9.78) b 49.62 (11.23) c 48.17 (7.69) d
PAI Antisocial 59.86 (12.85)*, 54.06 (9.94) 52.21 (7.70) 55.57 (12.56)* b 49.70 (6,31) , b
PAI Borderline 68.43 (4.39)*, bed 49.03 (7.45). 47.97 (7.41) b 52.48 (12.67)* ec 45.56 (6.33) dc
PAI Depression 64.57 (11.65)* „bd 47.62 (7.06). c 46.12 (5.43) bf 54.09 (12.45)* ecrB
46.45 (7.81) dS
Substance Abuse
PAI Alcohol 63.71 (19.62)*, b 53.81 (15.17) 50.64(10.72), 52.90(14.25) 48.31 (7.78) b
PAI Drug Use 58.43 (12.29) 56.25 (14.14) 53.15 (11.28) 57.19(14.25) 51.03 (8.63)
MAST
10.14 (5.93)* .bed 4.94 (3.69) „ 3.82 (3.12) b 4.67 (3.57) e 3.35 (2.15) d
Note: Means with standard deviations in parentheses. Subscript letter pairs refer to groups whose means are significantly different from each other.
*"p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p<.001.
u>
A
35
F (4, 169) = 8.96, jd < .001. No significant between-groups difference was found on
extrafamilial verbal aggression, _F (4, 174) = .92, ns.
Tukey post-hoc tests were performed to examine differences between the means
of each group. Differences reported here are at the .05 level. The generally
violent/psychologically distressed aggressive men were significantly more maritally
conflictual, engaged in more extrafamilial physical aggression, were arrested more often,
were more aggressive, had more borderline personality features, were more depressed, and
had greater alcohol-related problems as measured by the MAST than both groups of
nonviolent men. In addition, this group had more antisocial personality features and
higher PAI Alcohol Use scores than th e nonviolent/ nondistressed, but not the
nonviolent/distressed men. The generally violent/psychologically distressed men did not
differ from either group of nonviolent men on number of convictions, amounts of
extrafamilial verbal aggression, and amount of drug use.
The medium-violence aggressive men were significantly more maritally conflictual
than both nonviolent groups. They w ere also arrested and convicted more often than the
nonviolent/nondistressed men, but n o t more often than the nonviolent/distressed men. In
addition, the medium-violence men w'ere significantly less depressed than the
nonviolent/distressed men. This group of violent men did not differ from either nonviolent
group on extrafamilial verbal and physical aggression, general aggression, antisocial and
borderline personality features, alcohol and drug use, and alcohol-related problems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
The family-only violent men were significantly more maritally conflictual than the
nonviolent/nondistressed men, but not the nonviolent/distressed men. It is important to
keep in mind that this marital aggression score reflects the total DCI score, including both
verbal and physical aggression. The only other significant difference between the family-
only violent men and the nonviolent men was that the family-only violent men were less
depressed than the nonviolent/distressed men, but not the nonviolent/nondistressed men.
The family-only aggressive men did not differ from the nonviolent men on extrafamilial
verbal and physical aggression, number of arrests and convictions, general levels of
aggression, antisocial and borderline personality features, alcohol and drug use, and
alcohol-related problems.
We also looked at mean differences between the three types of violent men on the
variables used to set up the typology. These variables were used as dichotomous
variables in the latent class analysis to group people into high and low levels on each
variable. However, these same variables are used in their continuous form for these
analyses. We found that the generally violent/psychologically distressed men were
significantly more maritally conflictual, engaged in more extrafamilial physical aggression,
were arrested more often, were more generally aggressive, had more borderline personality
features, were more depressed, and had more alcohol-related problems than both other
groups of violent men. Furthermore, this group used more alcohol than the family-only
group, but not the medium-violence group. The medium-violence and family-only men did
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
not significantly differ from each other on any of these measures. Finally, the three types
o f violent men did not differ from each other on extrafamilial verbal aggression, number of
convictions, antisocial personality features, or drug use.
Differences were found between the two groups of nonviolent men as well. The
nonviolent/distressed men were significantly more maritally conflictual, had more
borderline and antisocial personality features, and were more depressed than the
nonviolent/nondistressed men. These two groups did not differ on any other dimension.
In sum, the generally violent/psychologically distressed men differed from the
nonviolent/nondistressed men on 9 variables and from the nonviolent/distressed on 7
variables. The medium-violence aggressive men differed from the nonviolent/nondistressed
men on 3 variables and from the nonviolent/distressed men on 2 variables. The family-
only aggressive men differed from the nonviolent/nondistressed men on one variable and
from the nonviolent/distressed on one variable.
The same type of one-way analyses of variance were performed to look at
differences between batterers and nonviolent/nondistressed and nonviolent/distressed
husbands on developmental correlates of violence. The means and standard deviations of
all five groups can be found in Table 4.
None of the groups differed significantly on the distal correlates of violence
pertaining to family o f origin violence examined in this study: family of origin
interparental verbal aggression, JF (4, 153) = .48, ns., interparental physical aggression, F
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
(4, 153) = 2.09, ns., parent to child physical aggression, F (4, 165) = 1.48, ns., parent to
child verbal aggression_F (4, 165) = .99, ns., and childhood sexual abuse F (4, 172) = 1.01,
ns. However, significant betvveen-groups differences were found for most proximal
correlates of violence examined: control, J 7 (4, 176) = 11.89, £ < .001, humiliation F (4,
176) = 5.30, p.< .001, marital satisfaction, F (4, 176) = 23.17,£ < .001, attitudes
condoning violence against the spouse,X (4, 171) = 5.48, £ < .05, and negative life events,
F (4, 176) = 17.48, £ < .05. The only proximal variable on which the groups did not differ
significantly was positive stressful life events, F (4, 176) = 2.36, ns.
Tukey post-hoc tests were again performed to examine differences between the
means of each group. Differences reported here are at the .05 level. With respect to
psychological abuse, the generally violent/psychologically distressed men were more
controlling than all other groups. In addition, the medium-violence group also was more
controlling than the nonviolent/ nondistressed men. No significant differences were found
between the family-only and both nonviolent groups on control and the medium-violence
group on control. The nonviolent/nondistressed group was found to engage in less spousal
humiliation than the nonviolent/distressed, the family-only, and the medium-violence
groups. None of the other groups differed significantly on humiliation.
As expected, the nonviolent/nondistressed group had significantly greater marital
satisfaction than the nonviolent/distressed group, because these groups were split based
on marital satisfaction using the DAS. The generally violent/psychologically distressed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.
Means. Standard Deviations, and Between-group Differences on Developmental Correlates of Violence:
Generally violent/
psychologically
distressed
Medium-violence Family-only Nonviolent/
distressed
Nonviolent/
nondistressed
Psychological abuse:
DCI Control 7.86 (3.29)* abcd 3.94 (4.77)* ac 2.70 (2.65) b 2.00 (2.61) c 1.28 (1.99) de
DCI Humiliation 3.57 (3.31) 3.41 (2.80) a 3.42 (3.88) b 3.86 (3.10) c 1.65 (2.05)*abc
Marital satisfaction ('DAS') 85.14 (14.13) aeg 102.03 (18.93)* bde 107.15 (19.43)*rg 83.24 (12.09)cdf 113.02 (9.78)*abc
Attitudes condoning violence
against spouse:
Attitudes about Marriage 28.57 (14.84)* abcd 14.72 (13.32) a 12.27 (12.42) b 8.75 (6.23) c 9.81 (10.47) d
Life stress fSRLEV
Negative life events 17.71 (11.50)* abcd 4.59 (5.10) a 3.88 (4.09) b 5.14 (4.31) c 3.12 (3.43) d
Positive life events 8.29 (6.32) 5.78 (8.16) 5.97 (5.13) 2.81 (2.80) 4.08 (4.90)
Familv of origin violence:
Interparental physical
aggression 2.43 (2.64) 2.46 (3.08) 0.87 (1.57) 1.10 (1.94) 1.11 (2.80)
Interparental verbal
aggression 6.43 (4.47) 6.11 (3.71) 5.40 (4.33) 5.84 (3.50) 5.07 (4.28)
Childhood physical
aggression 3.71 (2.21) 4.75 (3.90) 2.93 (3.27) 3.89 (3.60) 3.22 (3.27)
Childhood verbal
aggression 6.71 (3.59) 6.81 (3.74) 5.06 (4.03) 6.47 (3.56) 5.84 (3.87)
Childhood sexual
abuse 0.86 (1.46) 0.35 (0.84) 0.13 (0.43) 0.38 (1.07) 0.37 (0.97)
Note: Means with standard deviations in parentheses. Subscript letter pairs refer to groups whose means are significantly different
from each other. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
OJ
vO
men were significantly less satisfied with their marriage than the nonviolent/
nondistressed group, the family-only group, and the medium-violence group. The
medium-violence men were significantly less satisfied with their marriage than both
nonviolent groups. The family-only aggressive men were also significantly less satisfied
with their marriage than the nonviolent/distressed group. However, the family-only
batterers did not differ significantly from the nonviolent/nondistressed husbands or the
medium-violence batterers on marital satisfaction. The generally violent/psychologically
distressed batterers were significantly more likely to consider violence against a spouse
acceptable and justifiable than all other groups. No other two groups differed significantly
from each other on this dimension. For life stress, the generally violent/psychologically
distressed batterers experienced significantly more negative life events than all other
groups, but none of the other groups differed significantly on the amount of negative
stressful life events experienced. Interestingly, none of the groups differed significantly
from each other on the amount of positive stressful life events in the past year.
In sum, the generally violent/psychologically distressed men differed from the
medium-violence men, the family-only aggressive men, the nonviolent/distressed and the
nonviolent/nondistressed men on 4 proximal correlates of violence. The medium-violence
men differed from the family-only aggressive men on none of the variables, from the
nonviolent/distressed men on one variable, and from the nonviolent/nondistressed men on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
3 variables. The family-only aggressive men differed from the nonviolent/distressed men
on one variable, and from the nonviolent/nondistressed men on one variable.
Discussion
This study is an empirical test in a community sample of a typology o f maritally
violent men proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) based on a review of the
literature on types of maritally violent men. The three types of batterers found in this
study on the basis of severity of violence, generality of violence, and psychopathology
were the family-only batterer, the medium-violence batterer, and the generally
violent/psychologically distressed batterer. A summary of the characteristics of these
three types can be found in Table 5. The family-only type is characterized by
predominantly low levels o f violence. This type is not generally violent outside the
immediate family, and does not appear to have any psychopathology or personality
disorder problems. Substance abuse is also mostly low, with only about a quarter of the
people in this group reporting high levels of substance abuse.
The medium-violence group is characterized by mostly medium-levels o f violence,
with about one third of the people committing high levels of violence. This type is also
mainly violent within the immediate family and generally free of psychopathology. About
half the people in this group report high levels o f substance abuse.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
The generally violent/psychologically distressed type’s main defining feature is
the presence of high levels of psychological distress, such as depression, Axis II Cluster B
borderline and antisocial personality features, and substance abu.se. Most people in this
group are violent outside the immediate family in addition to the domestic violence. This
group is split on levels of violence, with a little more than half o f the people reporting
high levels of domestic violence, and the others reporting low levels of violence.
Table 5.
Characteristics of the three types of maritally violent men
Dimensions Family-only Medium-
violence
Generally violent/
Psychologically
distressed
Severity of marital violence Low Moderate-high Low or high
Generality of violence
Extrafamilial violence Low Low High
and criminal behavior
Psychopathology/
personality disorder
Personality disorder/ None None Antisocial/
depression borderline/depression
- Alcohol/drug use Low Low-high High
While this study supports Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) proposal of
using multiple dimensions for classifying maritally violent men, the typology obtained did
not entirely support the actual typology proposed by these authors. The three types of
batterers found in this study differ from Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
typology in that these types did not differentiate on type of psychopathology. We did
not find a group that had high levels of antisocial personality features that was different
from a type with high levels of borderline personality features and depression. Also, in
our typology, psychopathology was not necessarily accompanied by high levels of
violence, as about 40% of the people in our high psychopathology type engaged in low
levels of violence only. It is important to keep in mind that our sample was a community
sample, whereas the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) typology was established
based on studies using clinical samples. Very few of the people in our sample exhibited
clinical levels of psychopathology, and therefore high normal but still subclinical levels of
psychopathology were used to split people into high and low groups. In addition,
according to the DSM-IV, (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) both antisocial
personality disorder and borderline personality disorder are Cluster B disorders, and
personality disorders of the same cluster are highly correlated. Both types of personality
disorders were measured using the PAI (Morey, 1991), and according to the test manual,
these two scales aie correlated .50 in a clinical sample and .56 in a census-matched
normative sample. These reasons may explain the lack of differentiation in types of
maritally violent m en on these two dimensions. However, we did find a family-only
batterer that was very similar to the one described by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart
(1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Psychopathology tended to be associated with generality of violence in this study,
as the group that was most psychopathological also was the most likely to be violent
outside the family. This result is in line with findings by Gondolf (1988) whose antisocial
and sociopathic batterers are also the ones who are more generally violent and at the same
time more likely to have substance abuse problems (one o f the aspects of
psychopathology in this study) than the other two types o f violent men: the
typical/sporadic and the typical/chronic. On the other hand, Saunders (1992) found a
group of generally violent men that had low to moderate levels of psychological distress
that was distinct from an emotionally volatile type that experienced high levels of
psychological distress, but tended to be violent only within the family.
Comparing the different types of batterers to each other and to nonviolent/
nondistressed and nonviolent/distressed husbands on features used to define the
typology, we found that the generally violent/psychologically distressed violent men
differed the most from all other groups. This finding highlights the importance of
distinguishing between maritally violent men, as it shows that there is a subgroup o f these
men that is really different from other maritally violent men on dimensions that are
important to the understanding of domestic violence. The family-only and medium-
violence men did not differ from each other or both nonviolent groups on most measures,
except for amount of marital conflict and depression. The lack of significant differences
between the family-only and medium-violence men on the continuous version of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
variables used to set up the typology raises the question of whether these two types are
indeed different types, and whether the distinction between these two groups is indeed
useful. The main difference between the two is the amount and severity o f physical
violence against the spouse, but they do not appear to differ much on the other variables
used to set up the typology.
Overall, the findings of this study suggest that there is one type o f maritally
violent men that is characterized by elevated levels of psychological distress and features
of cluster B personality disorders. For these men, marital violence is a part of a more
general tendency to be physically violent in multiple settings. This group, however,
cannot be characterized by the severity o f the domestic violence committed, as some
engage in only low-severity acts, whereas others engage in highly severe acts of violence.
The other two groups of maritally violent men can be distinguished mainly on the basis of
severity of domestic violence, with one group engaging solely in low-level violence, and
the other in medium-severe violence. Both these groups are low on generality of violence
and psychopathology, and therefore cannot be differentiated on the basis of these
dimensions. This means that not all three dimensions are relevant to differentiate and
characterize all three types of aggressive men in this sample, and severity of violence and
psychopathology appear to be the most useful ones. While Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, and
Rolin (1996) found that psychopathology alone can be used to derive a typology similar
to Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) and that this dimension can then be used to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
predict severity and generality o f violence in each type, this study finds it necessary to
use two dimensions: psychopathology and severity o f violence. This difference may be
due to the fact that Hamberger et al. (1996) used a clinical sample in which it may be
easier to differentiate between types of psychopathology, whereas this was not possible
in our community sample. This suggests the possibility that psychopathology is in fact
the only dimension needed to differentiate between types of maritally violent men in
clinical samples, but that two dimensions are needed to do so in community samples. In
addition, generality of violence did not provide classificatory information above and
beyond the information provided by severity of violence and psychopathology, as the
group that was more generally violent than the other two was also the one that was more
psychopathological. In that sense, generality of violence may be an effect of
psychopathology, and it may not be necessary to use this dimension to distinguish
between types when psychopathology is already being used. Therefore, two dimensions,
severity of violence and psychopathology/personality disorder, may be sufficient to
establish a similar typology of maritally violent men in a community sample.
More generally, this study confirms the usefulness of looking at maritally violent
men as heterogeneous and grouping them into separate types. The violent men in this
sample were clearly different on most variables examined, and the typology makes this
heterogeneity clearer and more manageable. Such distinctions are likely to be useful not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
only to better understand the etiology (or etiologies) of marital violence, but also because
o f their probable implications for prevention efforts and treatment planning.
We also examined several distal and proximal variables o f the developmental
correlates of marital violence proposed in Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) model.
These variables can be seen as risk factors for marital violence. The distal variables
examined were all part o f family-of-origin violence: interparental verbal and physical
aggression, parent-to-child physical and verbal aggression, and childhood sexual abuse.
None of the groups o f aggressive men and nonviolent men differed from each other on any
of these variables. These results do not support the model proposed by Holtzworth-
Munroe and Stuart, according to which both groups of nonviolent men were expected to
have experienced low levels of family-of-origin violence, the family-only aggressive men
low to moderate levels, the dysphoric/borderline men moderate levels, and the generally
violent/antisocial men high levels of such violence. This finding also does not support
empirical studies having found differences in experiences o f family-of-origin violence
between different types o f batterers (Fagan, Stewart, & Hansen, 1983; Hershom &
Rosenbaum, 1991; Cadsky and Crawford, 1988; Shields, McCall, & Hanneke, 1988; and
Saunders, 1992). Our results are also contradictory to the findings regarding violent men
having a history of exposure to violence all the way back to childhood (e.g. Jacobson and
Gottman, 1998). This discrepancy may be due to our sample being a community sample
with relatively low levels of violence. Family-of-origin violence may be more prominent
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
among clinical samples of violent men. On the other hand, Garcia O’Hearn and Margolin
(in press) found the relationship between family of origin violence to be moderated by
attitudes condoning violence against the spouse. They found an association between
childhood exposure to violence and later marital aggression only for those men who also
hold attitudes condoning violence against women, but not for those who oppose
aggression against women. Therefore, it appears that childhood exposure to violence is
not a risk factor for future aggression for all men, but only for those who also condone
violence against women. However, as discussed below, we did not find family-of-origin
violence to me more prevalent in the group of violent men who also hold more attitudes
supporting violence against women.
Differences between the types of violent men and the two groups of nonviolent
men were found on the proximal variables examined in this study. With respect to marital
satisfaction, the generally violent/psychologically distressed aggressive men were
significantly less satisfied with their marriage than the family-only, medium violence, and
nonviolent/nondistressed husbands. Interestingly, they were no less satisfied with their
marriage than the nonviolent/distressed husbands, supporting other research finding
couples with marital violence no less dissatisfied than nonviolent but distressed couples
(Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981; Russell, Lipov, Phillips, & White, 1989; Telch &
Lindquist, 1984; Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994). These low marital satisfaction
levels in both the generally violent/psychologically distressed and nonviolent/distressed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
groups may be a part o f general psychological distress that is related to both groups’
elevated levels of depression. This relationship between marital satisfaction and
depression has also been found in other studies, such as Epps, Heiman, and Epps’s
(1995) and Whisman and Bruce (1999). Conversely, the family-only and medium-violence
batterers had similar levels of marital satisfaction, and both were more satisfied with their
marriage than the nonviolent/distressed and generally violent/psychologically distressed
husbands. In addition, even in the presence of marital violence, the family-only batterers
did not significantly differ from the nonviolent/nondistressed husbands on marital
satisfaction. Therefore, it appears that marital violence is not necessarily associated with
dissatisfaction with the marriage relationship, as suggested by Binkerhoff and Lupri
(1988).
With regards to life stress, the generally violent/ psychologically distressed
batterers experienced more negative stressful life events than all other groups and none of
the other groups significantly differed from each other, supporting Barling and
Rosenbaum (1986) and Binkerhoff and Lupri’s (1988) findings that maritally violent men
experience more negative life stress. However, those studies that did not find more
negative life events in violent than in nonviolent men were supported as well, as the
family-only and medium violence aggressive men did not differ from the nonviolent men
on the amount of negative life stress experienced. These results may explain the
inconsistencies found in previous research regarding the contribution of life stress to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
domestic violence, as it appears that only a subgroup of maritally violent men experience
more stress than do nonviolent men. Therefore, our results are in accordance with
Margolin, John and Foo’s (1998) results that show negative life experiences to
differentiate severely abusive men from less severely abusive men. Furthermore, these
results support Margolin, John, and Foo (1998) and Straus’ (1990) proposal that the
relationship between stress and domestic violence may be moderated by positive
attitudes towards violence and marital dissatisfaction, among others, in the sense that
those violent men who experienced the most stress were also the ones most likely to
engage in severe violence, condone violence against women, and report more marital
dissatisfaction. Thus, it is possible that there is a relationship between stress and
domestic violence for some batterers who are also more generally dissatisfied and
psychologically distressed in their lives, but not for other maritally violent men.
When looking more generally at attitudes condoning violence against women
(specifically violence against a spouse), the generally violent/psychologically distressed
men again differed from all other groups in that this type condoned spousal violence to a
greater degree, supporting Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) proposal that the
more generally violent/antisocial batterers would be most hostile and condoning violence
towards women. The two other types of violent men did not differ from each other or the
nonviolent husbands on this dimension. This suggests that even though some men engage
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
in medium-high levels o f violence, as in the case o f the medium violence batterers, they do
not appear to necessarily condone spousal violence more than do nonviolent men.
We did not include psychological abuse in the variables used to set up the
typology, because we wanted to examine how the types o f violent husbands differed on
specific aspects of psychological abuse, as this type of aggression is very multifaceted
and research does not often differentiate between types or aspects of psychological
abuse. We looked specifically at behaviors on the part o f the husband that were trying to
control the wife’s daily activities and at humiliation or public ridicule which also can be
seen as attempts to make the wife more submissive. We found that the generally
violent/psychologically distressed husbands engaged in more controlling behaviors. In
addition, the medium-violence husbands were also more controlling than the
nonviolent/nondistressed husbands, but they did not differ from the nonviolent/distressed
and family-only groups on this dimension. Because not all types of maritally violent men
are more controlling than nonviolent men, the feminist theory of domestic violence
occurring because abusive men want to maintain dominance and control over their wives
(Dobash and Dobash, 1979; 1988) may only apply to a subgroup of violent men.
Furthermore, the fact that the men that were most controlling were also the ones who
condoned violence against the spouse to a greater degree further supports Dobash and
Dobash’s (1988) theory that domestic violence occurs in the context of a patriarchal
ideology condoning violence against women with the goal of dominance over wives. It is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
important to keep in mind though that patriarchal ideology is not necessarily a causal
factor in domestic violence, because, as Dutton (1994) proposes, some forms of
psychopathology may be what leads men to adopt a patriarchal ideology. The present
findings support this possibility, as psychopathology, attitudes condoning violence
against women, and control seem to go together in that one type of violent husbands is
elevated on all these dimensions with respect to other violent men as well as nonviolent
men. Again, this patriarchal explanation of domestic violence is likely to only apply to a
subset of violent men. With regards to humiliation, all aggressive men and the
nonviolent/distressed husbands displayed similar levels o f humiliation that were all higher
then the amount of humiliation reported by the nonviolent/nondistressed husbands,
pointing to the possibility that humiliation is an aspect o f psychological abuse
characteristic of more dysfunctional or unhappy relationships.
The reason why the present findings differed from the findings of other studies
may lie in the nature of the sample used in this study. Our sample was a community
sample of men who were all still living with their spouses and had children, and therefore
may not be representative of all violent men. This community sample also had hardly any
clinical levels of psychopathology and mostly low levels o f violence. In that sense, we did
not expect to find many severely and generally violent antisocial people. However, the
type of sample used in this study is underrepresented in marital violence research, as
most studies use clinical samples. But marital violence is so widespread, even among men
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
who are not reported to the courts or referred for treatment that it is important for a fuller
understanding of this phenomenon to examine such community samples.
Another strength of this study is the use of latent class analysis, as this
methodology is well-suited for typologies and has been used in a variety o f domains in
psychology and medicine to examine the existence of subtypes of disorders (e.g. Sullivan,
Bulik, & Kendler, 1998; Fossati, Maffei, Bagnato, Donati, Namia, & Novella, 1999)).
One advantage of latent class analysis is that it permits statistical testing o f how well the
model fits the data, which is not possible with k-means cluster analysis.
Furthermore, we compared different types of violent men not only to each other,
but to two types of nonviolent men from the same sample: one group that was maritally
satisfied and one that was maritally distressed or dissatisfied. These analyses show not
only on which dimensions violent men differ from nonviolent men, but also inform us
about which types of violent men do not differ from nonviolent men on those dimensions.
For example, we found the family-only and medium violence aggressive men to not differ
from either group of nonviolent men o n generality of violence, psychopathology (except
for depression), and substance abuse. The generally violent/psychologically distressed
men, however, differed from nonviolent men on all of these dimensions.
Among the limitations of this study is the fact that our generally violent/
psychologically distressed group included only 7 men. This small sample size poses some
potential generalizability problems, as well as problems identifying general characteristics
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
o f this group without relying to a large extent on the idiosyncrasies o f this particular small
sample. In addition, we restricted our typology to three classes, because this was a test of
Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart’s (1994) three class typology. However, a model with
more or fewer classes may provide a better fit for the data and may be a more accurate
and useful representation of the population o f maritally violent men, and future research
may want to address this issue. In addition, different methodologies should be used to
classify violent men in order to see how consistent the results are across classification
methodologies, as these comparisons give an idea of how accurate and stable the
classification is.
Other suggestions for future research include the used of a mixed sample o f men
from both community and clinical settings to get a sample that is more representative of
the entire population of men who engage in domestic violence, including the full range of
severity of violence and psychopathology. Also, future studies should try to examine
more correlates of violence in their typologies in order to test and add to the
developmental model o f domestic violence proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart
(1994).
In sum, this study shows that differentiating between maritally violent men on the
basis of severity of physical violence and psychopathology can be useful in that such
analyses show the heterogeneity there is among these men. Aside from differing on the
dimensions used to set up the typology, different types of violent men also differ on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
proximal risk factors for marital violence, which raises the possibility that marital violence
is a multifaceted phenomenon with multiple etiologies and contexts within which it
occurs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
References
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders. Fourth Edition. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
Arias, I. & Beach, S. R. H. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence.
Journal of Family Violence. 2. 139-149.
Barling, J. & Rosenbaum, A. (1986). Work stressors and wife abuse. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 71. 346-348.
Bamett, O., Fagan, R., & Booker, J. (1991). Hostility and stress as mediators of
aggression in violent men. Journal of Family Violence. 6. 217-241.
Bamett, O. W., Martinez, T. E., & Bluestein, B. W. (1995). Jealousy and
romantic attachment in maritally violent and nonviolent men. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. 10.473-486.
Beasley, R. & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1992). Personality characteristics of male
spouse abusers. Professional Psychology. 23. 310-317.
Brinkerhoff, M. B. & Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal violence. Canadian Journal of
Sociology. 13. 407-434.
Burman, B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (19911 Test-retest reliability of the
Domestic Conflict Index fDCD. Unpublished manuscript. University of Southern
California.
Cadsky, O. & Crawford, M. (1988). Establishing batterer typologies in a clinical
sample of men who assault their female partners. Canadian Journal of Community Mental
Health. 7. 119127.
Clinton, W. J. (1995). National domestic violence awareness month. Proclamation
by the President of the United States of America. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Collins, L. M., Flaherty, B. P., Hyatt, S. L„ & Schafer, J. L. (1999). WinLTA
Manual (version 2.0). The Pennsylvania State University.
Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence Against Wives: A Case Against
the Patriarchy. New York: Free Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. P. (1988). Research as social action: The struggle for
battered women. In K. Yllo & M. Bogard (Eds.). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dutton, D. G. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence
and Victims. 9. 167-182.
Dutton, D. G. (1995). Trauma symptoms and PTSD-like profiles in perpetrators
of intimate abuse. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 8. 299-316.
Dutton, D. & Browning, J. (1988). Concern for power, fear o f intimacy, and
aversive stimuli for wife assault. In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A.
Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions for research, (pp. 113-
121). Newbury Park: Sage.
Dutton, D. G. & Hart, S. G. (1992). Evidence for long-term, specific effects of
childhood abuse and neglect on criminal behavior in men. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 36. 129-137.
Dutton, D. G. & Hemphill, K. J. (1992). Patterns of socially desirable responding
among perpetrators of and victims of wife assault. Violence and Victims. 7. 29-39.
Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., & Bartholomew, K. (1994).
Intimacy-anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 24. 1367-1387.
Epps, P. H., Heiman, J. R., & Epps, J. (1995). Subjective evaluation o f self and
spousal marital satisfaction in depressed and nondepressed couples. Journal of Mental
Health and Aging. 1. 97-109.
Fagan, J. A., Stewart, D. K , & Hansen, K. V. (1983). Violent men or violent
husbands? Background factors and situational correlates. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G.
T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.). The dark side of families: Current family violence
research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Foo, L. (1996). Physical and psychological aggression in marriage: An analysis of
risk factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Fossati, A., Maffei, C., Bagnato, M., Donati, D., Namia, C., & Novella, L. (1999).
Latent structure analysis of DSM-IV borderline personality disorder criteria.
Comprehensive Psychiatry. 40. 72-79.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology o f
batterers. Violence and Victims. 3.187-203.
Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D. & Tolin, D. F. (1996). A large sample
empirical typology o f male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions o f abuse.
Violence and Victims. 11. 277-292.
Hanson, R. K., Cadsky, O., Harris, A., & Lalonde, C. (1997). Correlates of
battering among 997 men: Family history, adjustment, and attitudinal differences.
Violence and Victims. 12. 191-208.
Hershom, M. & Rosenbaum, A. (1991). Over- vs. undercontrolled hostility:
application of the construct to the classification of maritally violent men. Violence and
Victims. 6. 151-158.
Heyman, R. E., O ’Leary, K. D., & Jouriles, E. N. (1995). Alcohol and aggressive
personality styles: Potentiators of serious physical aggression against wives? Journal of
Family Psychology. 9. 44-57.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Anglin, K. (1991). The competency of responses
given by maritally violent versus nonviolent men to problematic marital situations.
Violence and Victims. 6. 257-269.
Holt2worth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K. & Stuart, G. K. (in press). A
typology of male batterers: An initial examination. In X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.).
Interpersonal violence in intimate relationships (in press). Newbury Park: Sage.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers:
Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin. 116. 476-497.
Hotaling, G. & Sugarman, D. (1990). A risk marker analysis of assaulted wives.
Journal of Family Violence. 5. 1-13.
Howell, M. & Pugliesi, K. (1988) Husbands who harm: Predicting spousal
violence bv men. Journal of Family Violence. 3. 15-27.
Jacobson, N. & Gottman, J. (1998). When men batter women: New insights into
ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
John, R. S. & Margolin, G. (1992). Trouble with the Law Questionnaire.
Unpublished instrument. University of Southern California.
Julian, T. & McKenry, P. (1993). Mediators of male violence toward female
intimates. Journal of Family Violence. 8. 39-55.
Kaufman-Kantor, G. K., Jasinski, J. L., & Aldarondo, E. (1994) Sociocultural
status and incidence of marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims. 9. 207-
222.
Kaufman-Kantor, G. & Straus, M. A. (1987). The ‘drunken bum’ theory of wife
beating. Social Problems. 34. 213-230.
Leonard, K. & Blane, H. (1992). Alcohol and marital aggression in a national
sample o f young men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 7. 19-30.
Leonard, K. E., Bromet, E. J., Parkinson, D. K., Day, N. L., & Ryan, C. M.
(1985). Patterns of alcohol use and physically aggressive behavior in men. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol. 46. 279-282.
Leonard, K. E. & Jacob, T. (1988). Alcohol, alcoholism, and family violence. In V.
B. van Hasselt, R. L. Morrison, A. S. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of family
violence (pp. 383-406). New York: Plenum Press.
Malamuth, N. M., Linz, D., Heavey, C. L., Barnes, G., & Acker, M. (1995).
Using the confluence model o f sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A
ten year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 69. 353-369.
Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O ’Brien, M. (1990). Domestic Conflict
Index. Unpublished instrument. University of Southern California.
Margolin, G. & Foo, L. (1992). Attitudes about Marriage Index. Unpublished
instrument. University of Southern California.
Margolin, G. & John,, R. S. (1988). Marital Conflict: Interpersonal and
intrapersonal factors. National Institute of Mental Health Grant ROl 36595.
Margolin, G. & John, R. S. (1992). Personal Background Questionnaire.
Unpublished instrument. University of Southern California.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Foo, L. (1998). Interactive and unique risk factors for
husbands’ emotional and physical abuse. Journal of Family Violence. 13. 315-344.
McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent Class Analysis. Sage University Paper series
on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-102. Thousand Oalcs, CA: Sage.
McKenry, P. C., Julian, T. W., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1995). Towards- a biophysical
model of domestic violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 57. 307-320.
Morey, L. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory. Florida: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., & Schulter, T. D. (1995). Spousal violence among
Anglos, Blacks, and Mexican Americans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial
predictors, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Family Violence. 10. 1-21-
Neidig, P. H., Friedman, D. H., & Collins, B. S. (1986). Attitudinal characteristics
of males who have engaged in spouse abuse. Journal of Family Violence. 1- 223-233.
Nisonoff, L. & Bittman, I. (1979). Spouse abuse: Incidence and relationship to
selected demographic variables. Victimology. 4. 131-140.
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. 594-602.
Pan, H., Neidig, P., & O’Leary, D. (1994). Predicting mild and severe husband-to-
wife physical aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 6 2 . 975-981.
Riggs, D. S., Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). IntentionaL falsification in
reports of interpartner aggression. Journal o f Interpersonal Violence. 4. 220-232.
Roberts, A. R. (1987). Psychosocial characteristics of batterers: A study of 234
men charged with domestic violence offenses. Journal of Family Violence. 2 . 81-93.
Rosenbaum, A. & O’Leary, D. K. (1981). Marital violence: Characteristics of
abusive couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 49. 63-71-
Russell, M. (1988) Wife assault theory, research, and treatment: A literature
review. Journal of Family Violence. 3. 193-208.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Russell, M. N., Lipov, E., Phillips, N., & White, B. (1989). Psychological profiles
of violent and nonviolent maritally distressed couples. Psychotherapy. 26. 81-86.
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. 932-946.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1979). Assessing the impact of life
changes. In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielberger fEds.L Stress and anxiety. Volume 6 (pp.
131-149). New York: Wiley.
Saunders, D. G. (1992). A typology of men who batter: Three types derived from
cluster analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 62. 264-275.
Selzer, M. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new
diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry. 127. 1653-1658.
Selzer, M. L., Vinokur, A., & van Rooijen, L. (1975). A self-administered Short
Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 36. 117-
126.
Shields, N. M., McCall, G. J., & Hanneke, C. R. (1988). Patterns of family and
nonfamily violence: Violent husbands and violent men. Violence and Victims. 3. 83-98.
Sith, S. M. & Farley, S. C. (1993). A predictive model o f male spousal violence.
Journal of Family Violence. 8. 183-201.
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the
quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 38. 15-28.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict
Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 41. 75-88.
Straus, M. A. (1990). Social stress and marital violence in a national sample of
American families. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.) Physical violence in American
families (pp. 181-202). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Sugarman, D. B. & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Violent men in intimate relationships:
An analysis o f risk markers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 19. 1034-1048.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Sullivan, P. F., Bulik, C. M., & Kendler, K. S. (1998). The epidemiology and
classification of bulimia nervosa. Psychological Medicine. 28. 599-610.
Telch, C. & Lindquist, C. (1984) Violent versus nonviolent couples: A
comparison of patterns. Psychotherapy. 21. 242-248.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1998) Violence by intimates (NCJ
167237). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Van Hasselt, V. B., Morrison, R. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1985). Alcohol use in wife
abusers and their spouses. Addictive Behaviors. 10. 127-135.
Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 13971 (1994).
Vivian, D. & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent
couples mutually victimized? A gender-sensitive comparison. Violence and Victims. 9.
107-123.
Whisman, M. A. & Bruce, M. L. (1999). Marital dissatisfaction and incidence of
major depressive episode in a community sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 108.
674-678.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mediator between family-of-origin aggression and marital aggression

PDF

Affection and conflict in family relationships

PDF

Articulated thoughts about intentions to commit anti-gay hate crimes

PDF

Hedonic aspects of conditioned taste aversion in rats and humans

PDF

Neuropsychological And Psychological Correlates Of Marital Violence In A Clinical Sample

PDF

Content analysis of articulated thoughts of chronic worriers

PDF

Expectancies for alternative behaviors predict drinking problems: A test of a cognitive reformulation of the matching law

PDF

The Emotional, Physiological, And Cognitive Reactions Of Boys And Girls From High-Conflict And Low-Conflict Homes To Simulated Marital Conflict

PDF

Articulated thoughts regarding cognitions toward older adults

PDF

Applying the theory of reasoned action to condom use: The effect of immediate consequences on intention-behavior consistency

PDF

An integrative analysis of racism and quality of life: A comparison of multidimensional moderators in an ethnically diverse sample

PDF

Head injury and dementia: A co-twin control study of Swedish twins

PDF

Children's immediate reactions to interparental conflict

PDF

Insights into the nature of phonological and surface dyslexia: Evidence from a novel word learning task

PDF

Childhood videotaped neuromotor and social precursors of schizophrenia: A prospective investigation

PDF

Depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents: A study of acculturation and gender role beliefs

PDF

Does intense probation monitoring of truants work? An empirical econometric analysis of its effect on school and individual attendance, grades, and behavior

PDF

An examination of affective modulation, psychopathy, and negative schizotypy in college and community samples

PDF

Hostile family environments and children's perceptions of social support

PDF

Violent environments and their effects on children

Asset Metadata

Creator Haudek, Catherine (author)

Core Title A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical,sociology, criminology and penology

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), Davison, Gerald C. (committee member), John, Richard S. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-35033

Unique identifier UC11341488

Identifier 1405237.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-35033 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1405237.pdf

Dmrecord 35033

Document Type Thesis

Rights Haudek, Catherine

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA