Advertisement

Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 13–40 | Cite as

Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review

  • David B. Sugarman
  • Susan L. Frankel
Article

Abstract

Using the framework of patriarchal theory, the present meta-analytic review examined the predicted relation between wife assault and the maintenance of a patriarchal ideology. This relationship was evaluated using three measures of patriarchal ideology: (1) attitudes toward violence, (2) gender attitudes, and (3) gender schemas. Overall, assaultive husbands reported more positive attitudes toward marital violence and lower scores on masculine and feminine gender schema scales than nonassaultive husbands. Methodological factors accounted for the significant heterogeneity among the gender attitude effect estimates for men. A nonsignificant average effect in the males' gender attitude emerged in studies which used husbands' self-report data and case-control comparison groups. In contrast to men, assaulted wives held more feminine gender schema and tended to exhibit more liberal gender attitudes than nonassaulted wives across studies. These meta-analytic findings offer limited support for the ideological component of the patriarchal theory of wife assault and are discussed with respect to their theoretical and methodological implications.

Key Words

patriarchal ideology wife-assault gender schemas and role violence attitudes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

  1. Anderson, M. L. (1988).Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender, McMillan Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Apt, C., and Hurlbert, D. F. (1993). The sexuality of women in physically abusive marriages: A comparative study.J. Fam. Viol. 8: 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, J. (1989). The relationship between gender-role measures: A review.Brit. J. Social Psychol. 28: 173–184.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, O. J., and Hamberger, L. K. (1992). The assessment of maritally violent men on the California Psychological Inventory.Viol. Vict. 7(1): 15–28.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, O. J., and Sweet, J. S. (1986).Masculinity, hypermasculinity, and sex-role perceptions in maritally violent men, Unpublished manuscript, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Baucom, D. H. (1976). Independent masculinity and femininity scales in the California Psychological Inventory.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 44: 876–878.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Baucom, D. H., Notarius, C. I., Burnett, C. K., and McCabe, S. B. (1990). Gender differences and sex-role identity in marriage. In Fincham, F. D., and Bradbury, T. N. (Eds.),The Psychology of Marriage: Basic Issues and Applications, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 150–171.Google Scholar
  8. Beere, C. A., King, D. W., Beere, D. B., and King, L. A. (1984). The Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale: A measure of attitudes toward equality between the sexes.Sex Roles, 10: 563–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–62.Google Scholar
  10. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42: 155–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bem, S. L. (1977). On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 45: 196–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bem, S. L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. In Sonderegger, T. B. (ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 32, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 179–229.Google Scholar
  13. Bem, S. L. (1993).The Lens of Gender, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  14. Browning, J. J. (1984).Violence against women: Towards a profile of the wife assaulter, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  15. Burger, A. L., and Jacobson, N. S. (1979). The relationship between sex role characteristics, couple satisfaction, and couple problem-solving skills.Am. J. Fam. Ther. 7: 52–60.Google Scholar
  16. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape.J. Personal. Social Psychol. 38(2): 217–230.Google Scholar
  17. Caesar, P. L. (1985, August).The wife beater: Personality and psychosocial characteristics. Paper presented at the American Psychological meetings, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bull. 56: 81–105.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. (1966).Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  20. Carrillo, R. A. (1984, August).The male batterer: A multivariate social learning analysis, Paper presented at the Second National Conference for Family Violence Researchers Durham, NH.Google Scholar
  21. Cate, R., and Sugawara, A. I. (1986). Sex role orientation and dimensions of self-esteem among middle adolescents.Sex Roles 15(3–4): 145–158.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, J. (1977).Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (rev. ed.), Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Coleman, K. H., Weinman, M. L., and Hsi, B. P. (1980). Factors affecting conjugal violence.J. Psychol. 105: 97–102.Google Scholar
  24. Comrey, A. L., and Schiebel, D. (1983) Personality test correlates of psychiatric outpatient status.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 51(5): 757–762.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  26. Cooper, H., and Hedges, L. V. (eds.) (1994).The Handbook of Research Synthesis, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  27. Crossman, R. K., Stitch, S. M., and Bender, M. M. (1990). Sex-role egalitarianism and marital violence.Sex Roles 22(5–6): 293–304.Google Scholar
  28. Dibble, U., and Straus, M. A. (1980). Some social structure determinants of inconsistency between attitude and behavior: The case of family violence.J. Marr. Fam. 42(1): 71–80.Google Scholar
  29. Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. P. (1979).Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Dutton, R. E., and Hemphill, K. J. (1992). Patterns of socially desirable responding among perpetrators and victims of wife assault.Viol. Vict. 7: 29–39.Google Scholar
  31. Eagly, A. H., and Chaiken, S. (1992).The Psychology of Attitudes, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  32. Edelson, J. L., Eisikovits, Z., and Guttmann, E. (1985). Men who batter women. A critical review of the evidence.J. Fam. Issues, 6(2): 229–247.Google Scholar
  33. Eisikovitz, Z. C., Edelson, J. L., Guttman, E., and Sela-Amit, M. (1991). Cognitive styles and socialized attitudes of men who batter: Where should we intervene?Fam. Relat. 40: 72–77.Google Scholar
  34. Fazio, R. H., and Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 14, Academic Press, New York, pp. 161–202.Google Scholar
  35. Gauthier, J., and Kyervik, D. (1982). Sex-role identity and self-esteem in female graduate nursing students.Sex Roles 8(1): 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gellen, M. I., Hoffman, R. A., Jones, M., and Jones, M. (1984). Abused and non-abused women: MMPI profile differences.Person. Guid. J. 62: 601–603.Google Scholar
  37. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., and Smith, M. L. (1981).Meta-Analysis of Social Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Goldstein, D., and Rosenbaum, A. (1985). An evaluation of the self-esteem of maritally violent men.Fam. Relat. 34: 425–428.Google Scholar
  39. Gough, H. G. (1957).California Psychological Inventory, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Gravdal, B. W. (1982). A study of locus of control and sex role typology in two groups of battered women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University (Dissertation Abstract International, 43(2–B), 556, Order No. 8215143).Google Scholar
  41. Greenblat, C. S. (1983). A hit is a hit is a hit … Or is it? Approval and tolerance of the use of physical force by spouses. In Finkelhor, D., Gelles, R. J., Hotaling, G. T., and Straus, M. A. (eds.),The Dark Side of Families. Current Family Violence Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 235–260.Google Scholar
  42. Harvey, J. H., Weber, A. L., and Orbuch, T. L. (1990).Interpersonal Accounts. A Social Psychological Perspective, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  43. Hathaway, S. R., and McKinley, J. C. (1975).MMPI Inventory Manual, Psychological Corporation, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  44. Hedges, L. V., and Olkin, I. (1985).Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  45. Hofeller, K. H. (1980).Social, psychological, and situational factors in wife abuse, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School.Google Scholar
  46. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1992). Attributions and maritally violent men: The role of cognition in marital violence. In Harvey, J. H., Orbuch, T. L., and Weber, A. L. (eds.),Attributions, accounts, and close relationships, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 165–175.Google Scholar
  47. Hotaling, G. T., and Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge.Viol. Vict. 1(2): 101–124.Google Scholar
  48. Houts, A. C., Cook, T. D., and Shadish, W. R. (1986). The person-situation debate: A critical multiplist perspective.J. Personal. 54(1): 52–105.Google Scholar
  49. Hunter, J. E., and schmidt, F. L. (1990).Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting Errors and Bias in Research Findings, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  50. Ickes, W. (1985). Sex-role influences on compatibility in relationships. In Ickes, W. (ed.),Compatible and Incompatible Relationships, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
  51. Ickes, W. (1993). Traditional gender roles: Do they make, and then break, our relationships?J. Social Issues 49(3): 71–85.Google Scholar
  52. Johnson, D. (1989).DSTAT: Software for the Meta-analytic Review of Research Literatures, L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  53. Johnston, M. E. (1984, August).Correlates of early violence experiences among men who are abusive toward female mates, Paper presented at the Second National Conference for Family Violence Researchers, Durham, NH.Google Scholar
  54. Johnston, M. E. (1988). Correlates of early violence experiences among men who are abuse toward female mates. In Hotaling, G. T., Finkelhor, D., Kirkpatrick, J. T., and Straus, M. A. (eds.),Family Abuse and Its Consequences. New directions in Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 192–202.Google Scholar
  55. Kalin, R. (1979). Method for scoring androgyny as a continuous variable.Psychological Rep. 44: 1205–1206.Google Scholar
  56. Kalin, R., and Tilby, P. J. (1978). Development and validation of a sex-role ideology scale.Psychological Rep. 42: 731–738.Google Scholar
  57. Kurz, D. (1989). Social science perspective on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions.Gender Soc. 3: 489–505.Google Scholar
  58. LaViolette, A. D., Barnett, O. W., and Nyland, (1985, April).Wife abusers' predispositions on attitudes toward women scale, Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  59. LaViolette, a. D., Barnett, O. W., and Miller, C. L. (1984, August).A classification of wife abuse on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, Paper presented at the Second National Conference for Family Violence Researchers, Durham, NH.Google Scholar
  60. Levinson, D. (1989).Family Violence in Cross-cultural Perspective, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  61. Light, R. J., and Pillemer, D. B. (1984).Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  62. Long, V. O. (1986). Relationship of masculinity to self-esteem and self-acceptance in female professionals, college students, clients and victims of domestic violence.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54(3): 323–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Lopez, S. C. (1981).Marital satisfaction and wife abuse as a function of sex-role identity, self-esteem, and interpersonal style, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 1982,42(11-B), 4560–4561, Order No. DA8209780).Google Scholar
  64. Lyman, S. M., and Scott, M. B. (1970).A Sociology of the Absurd, Appleton-Century-Croft, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  65. Margolin, G. (1988). Interpersonal and intrapersonal factors associated with marital violence. In Hotaling, G. T., Finkelhor, D., Kirkpatrick, J. T., and Straus, M. A. (eds.),Family Abuse and Its Consequences: New Directions in Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 203–217.Google Scholar
  66. Mason, K. O. (1975).Sex-Role Iterms and Scales from U.S. Sample Surveys, NIMH, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  67. Millet, K. (1969).Sexual Politics, Avon Books, New York.Google Scholar
  68. Moore, J. H. (1983).Sex-role stereotyping in battered women: Responses to the Bem sex-role inventory, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University (Dissertation Abstracts International, 1982,43(5-B), 1663–1664, Order No. DA8223350).Google Scholar
  69. Mosher, D. L., and Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation.J. Ed. Psychol. 18: 150–163.Google Scholar
  70. Moskowitz, D. S. (1986). Comparison of self-reports reports by knowledgeable informants, and behavioral observation data.J. Personal., 54(1): 265–317.Google Scholar
  71. Neidig, P. H., Friedman, D. H., and Collins, B. S. (1985). Attitudinal characteristics of males who have engaged in spouse abuse.J. Fam. Viol. 1(3): 223–234.Google Scholar
  72. Pagelow, M. (1984).Fam. Viol., Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  73. Read, S. J. (1992). Constructing accounts: The role of explanatory coherence. In McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., and Read, S. J. (eds.),Explaining One's Self to Others: Reason-Giving in a Social Context, L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
  74. Riggs, D. S., and O'Leary, K. D. (1989). A theoretical model of courtship aggression. In Pirog-Good, M. A., and Stets, J. E. (eds.),Violence in Dating Relationships: Emerging Social Issues Praeger, New York, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar
  75. Rosenbaum, A. (1986). Of men, macho, and marital violence.J. Fam. Viol. 1(2): 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rosenbaum, A., and O'Leary, K. D. (1981). Marital violence: Characteristics of abusive couples.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., 49(1): 63–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Rosenthal, R. (1984).Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  78. Saunders, D. G., Lynch, A. B., Grayson, M., and Linz, D. (1987). The inventory of beliefs about wife beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes.Viol. Vict. 2(1): 39–57.Google Scholar
  79. Saunders, D. G., and Size, P. B. (1986). Attitudes about woman abuse among police officers, victims and victim advocates.J. Interpers. Viol. 1(1): 25–42.Google Scholar
  80. Sayers, S., and Baucom, D. H. (1989).Sex role identity and communication among maritally distressed couples, Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  81. Schechter, S. (1982).Women and Male Violence, South End Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  82. Semmelman, P. S. (1982).Battered and non-battered women: A comparison, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University (Dissertation Abstracts International, 1983,43(8-B), 2716–2717, Order No. DA8300345).Google Scholar
  83. Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis.Viol. Vict. 5(4): 257–274.Google Scholar
  84. Spence, J. T. (1984). Gender identity and its implications for the concepts of masculinity and femininity. In Sonderegger, T. B. (ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 32, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, (pp. 59–95)Google Scholar
  85. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory.J. Personal. Social Psychol. 64: 624–635.Google Scholar
  86. Spence, J. T., and Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The attitude toward woman scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society.JSAS Cat. Select. Doc. Psychol. 2(66), (Ms. No. 153)Google Scholar
  87. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., and Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the attitude toward women scale (AWS).Bull. Psychon. Soc. 2(4): 219–220.Google Scholar
  88. Spence, J. T., Helmriech, R. L., and Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attribute questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity and femininity.JSAS Cat. Select. Doc. Psychol. 4(43), (Ms. No. 617)Google Scholar
  89. Stark, E., and Flitcraft, A. (1988). Violence among intimates. An epidemiological review. In Van Hasselt, V. B., Morrison, R. L., Bellack, A. S., and Hersen, M. (eds.),Handbook of Family Violence, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 293–317.Google Scholar
  90. Sugarman, D. B., and Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context and risk markers. In Pirog-Good, M. A., and Stets, J. E. (eds.),Violence in Dating Relationships: Emerging Social Issues, Praeger, New York, NY, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
  91. Walby, S. (1990).Theorizing Patriarchy, Basil Blackwood Inc., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  92. Walker, L. E. (1983).The Battered Woman Syndrome, Springer Publishers, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  93. Warren, J., and Lanning, W. (1992). Sex-role beliefs, control, and social isolation of battered women.J. Fam. Viol. 7(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T. Schwartz, R. D., and Sechrest, L. (1966).Unobtrusive Measures, Rand McNally, Skokie, IL.Google Scholar
  95. Whitley, B. E., and Gridley, B. E. (1993). Sex role orientation, self-esteem, and depression: A latent variable analysis.Personal. Social Psychol. Bull. 19(4): 363–369.Google Scholar
  96. Yllo, K. A. (1983). Sexual equality and violence against wives in American states.J. Comp. Fam. Studies 14: 67–85.Google Scholar
  97. Yllo, K. A., and Bograd, M. (Eds.) (1988).Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  98. Yllo, K. A., and Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative factors. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.),Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 383–399.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Sugarman
    • 1
  • Susan L. Frankel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRhode Island CollegeProvidence
  2. 2.University of New HampshireUSA

Personalised recommendations