Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 339–346 | Cite as

Humiliation, Manipulation, and Control: Evidence of Centrality in Domestic Violence Against an Adult Partner

  • Orin Strauchler
  • Kathy McCloskey
  • Kathleen Malloy
  • Marilyn Sitaker
  • Nancy Grigsby
  • Paulette Gillig


This paper describes two related studies. Study 1 is a literature review of existing adult partner domestic violence assessment scales. Results of the review revealed that the scales varied on the available amount of empirical evidence for validity and reliability. More importantly, results showed that the content of the scales focused most heavily on the physical abuse aspects of domestic violence. Study 2 is a factor analysis performed on the results of 64 items taken from the Artemis Intake Questionnaire, a clinically relevant tool constructed by treatment providers used in working with the victims of domestic violence. Results indicate that reported humiliation and blame of the victim accounted for the largest amount of variance, followed by controlling the victim, and then physical violence. Results of this factor analysis suggest that greater emphasis must be put on factors other than physical violence in the construction of future domestic violence scales.


domestic violence emotional abuse assessment literature review 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Psychological Association (1967). PsychINFO [Online database], Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Attala, J. M., Hudson, W. W., and McSweeney, M. (1994). A partial validation of two short-form partner abuse scales. Woman Health 21: 125–139.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, O. W., and LaViolette, A. D. (1993). It Could Happen to Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  4. Bodin, A. M. (1996). Relationship conflict—verbal and physical: Conceptualizing an inventory for assessing process and content. In Kaslow, F. W. (ed.), Handbook of Relational Diagnosis and Dysfunctional Family Patterns, Wiley, New York, pp. 371–393.Google Scholar
  5. Bograd, M. (1999). Strengthening domestic violence theories: Intersections of race, class, sexual orientation, and gender. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 25: 275–289.Google Scholar
  6. Browne, O. W. (1987). When Battered Women Kill, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Browne, A., and Williams, K. R. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence: Trends from 1976 through 1987. Gender Soc. Rev. 23: 75–94.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. C. (1986). Assessment of risk of homicide for battered women. Adv. Nurse Sci. 8(4): 36–51.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. C. (1995a). Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Sexual Offenders, Batterers, and Child Abusers, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, J. C. (1995b). Prediction of homicide of and by battered women. In Campbell, J. C. (ed.), Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Sexual Offenders, Batterers, and Child Abusers, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 96–113.Google Scholar
  11. Cody, R. P., and Lee, J. K. (1991). Applied Statistics Using SAS Programming Language, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. Comrey, A. L., and Lee, H. B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd edn., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Dutton, D. G. (1995). A scale for measuring propensity for abusiveness. J. Fam. Violence 10: 203–221.Google Scholar
  14. Dutton, D. G., and Golant, S. K. (1995). The Batterer: A Psychological Profile, Basic Books/Harper Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Dwyer, D. (1999). Measuring domestic violence: An assessment of frequently used tools. J. Offen. Rehab. 29: 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Everitt, B. S., and Der, G. (1996). A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using the SAS, Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Feldhaus, K. L., Koziol-McLain, J., Amsbury, H. L., Norton, I. M., and Lowenstein, S. R. (1997). Accuracy of 3 brief screening questions for detecting partner violence in the emergency department. JAMA 277: 1357–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grigsby, N., and Hartman, B. R. (1997). The barriers model: An integrated strategy for intervention with battered women. Psychotherapy 34(4): 485–497.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, M., and Harway, M. (1993). Battering and Family Therapy: A Feminist Perspective, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Hegarty, K., Sheehan, M., and Schonfeld, C. A. (1999). A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: Development and preliminary validation of the composite abuse scale. J. Fam. Violence 14: 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hudson, W. W., and McIntosh, S. R. (1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: Two quantifiable dimensions. J. Marital Fam. 43: 873–888.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, N. A., and Oates, G. C. (eds.) (1998). Violence in Intimate Relationships: Examining Sociological and Psychological Issues, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Kropp, P. R., and Hart, S. D. (1997). Assessing risk of violence in wife assaulters: The spousal assault risk assessment guide. In Webster, C. D., and Jackson, M. A. (eds.), Impulsivity: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment, Guilford, New York, pp. 302–325.Google Scholar
  24. Kropp, P. R., and Hart, S. D. (2000). The spousal assault risk assessment (SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law Hum. Behav. 24: 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, B. Y. (1985). The wife abuse inventory: A screening device for the identification of abused women. Soc. Work 30: 32–35.Google Scholar
  26. Malloy, K. A., McCloskey, K. A., and Monford, T. M. (1999). A group treatment program for male batterers. In Vandecreek, L., and Jackson, T. L. (eds.), Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book, Professional Resource Press, Sarasota, FL, pp. 377–395.Google Scholar
  27. Marshall, L. L. (1992). Development of a severity of violence against women scales. J. Fam. Violence 7: 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCloskey, K. A., and Fraser, J. S. (1997). Using feminist MRI brief therapy during initial contact with victims of domestic violence. Psychotherapy 34(4): 433–446.Google Scholar
  29. MEDLINE [Online database] (1966). National Library of Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  30. Milner, J. S., and Campbell, J. C. (1995). Prediction issues for practitioners. In Campbell, J. C. (ed.), Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Sexual Offenders, Batterers, and Child Abusers, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 20–40.Google Scholar
  31. NiCarthy, G. (1987). The Ones Who Got Away: Women Who Left Abusive Partners, Seal Press, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  32. Pan, H. S., Neidig, P. H., and O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Male–female and aggressor-victim differences in the factor structure of the modified conflict tactics scale. J. Interpers. Violence 9: 366–382.Google Scholar
  33. Pence, E., and Paymar, M. (1993). Working With Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Petretic-Jackson, P., Sandberg, G., and Jackson, T. L. (1994). The domestic violence blame scale (DVBS). In Vandecreek, L., and Jackson, T. L., (eds.), Innovations in Clinical Practice: A Source Book, Vol. 13, Professional Resource Press, Sarasota, FL, pp. 265–278.Google Scholar
  35. Rhodes, N. R. (1992). The assessment of spousal abuse: An alternative to the conflict tactics scale. In Viano, E. C. (ed.), Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Hemisphere, New York, pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
  36. Rodenburg, F. A., and Fantuzzo, J. W. (1993). The measure of wife abuse: Steps toward the development of a comprehensive assessment technique. J. Fam. Violence 8: 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saunders, D. G. (1995). Prediction of wife assault. In Campbell, J. C. (ed.), Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Sexual Offenders, Batterers, and Child Abusers, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
  38. Shepard, M. F., and Campbell, J. A. (1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. J. Interpers. Viol. 7: 291–305.Google Scholar
  39. Soeken, K. L., McFarlane, J., Parker, B., and Lminack, M. C. (1998). The abuse assessment screen: A clinical instrument to measure the frequency, severity, and perpetrator of abuse against women. In Campbell, J. C. (ed.), Empowering Survivors of Abuse: Health Care for Battered Women and Their Children, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 195–203.Google Scholar
  40. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. J. Marital Fam. 41: 75–88.Google Scholar
  41. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., and Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. J. Fam. Issues 17: 283–316.Google Scholar
  42. Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence Vict. 4: 159–177.Google Scholar
  43. Walker, L. E. A. (1994). Abused Women and Survivor Therapy: A Practical Guide for the Psychotherapist, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orin Strauchler
    • 6
  • Kathy McCloskey
    • 1
  • Kathleen Malloy
    • 1
  • Marilyn Sitaker
    • 2
  • Nancy Grigsby
    • 3
  • Paulette Gillig
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Hartford Graduate Institute of Professional PsychologyHartford
  2. 2.Ellis Human Development InstituteWright State University of Professional PsychologyDayton
  3. 3.Washington State Department of HealthOlympia
  4. 4.Georgia Coalition Against Domestic ViolenceAtlanta
  5. 5.Wright State University School of MedicineDayton
  6. 6.Manhattanville College Counseling CenterPurchase

Personalised recommendations