Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 293–311

If Violence Is Domestic, Does It Really Count?

  • Sharon Wofford Mihalic
  • Delbert Elliott
Article

Abstract

Estimates of the prevalence of marital violence have been found to vary dramatically from survey to survey. This paper addresses one potential explanation for this difference which involves the focus and format of different surveys. We examine the extent to which survey respondents are willing to report marital violence in a context which focuses on criminal behaviors as opposed to a family violence context. In a very basic way, this answers a question as to whether individuals are willing to define acts of marital violence as criminal. Methodologically, it is a measurement issue which seriously affects the ability to compare findings across samples. National Youth Survey data are used to compare rates of generalized spousal assault and victimization reported in a crime context with rates of marital assault and victimization reported in a family violence context. Results indicate that 40 to 83% of all marital assaults and victimizations reported in the marital violence section are not reported in a format which focuses on criminal assault and victimization.

marital violence context underreporting of marital violence discrepancies in marital violence rates comparisons of marital violence studies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Arias, I., and Beach, S. R. H. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence. J. Fam. Viol. 2: 139–149.Google Scholar
  2. Bachman, R. (1994). Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report, NCJ-145325. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  3. Bachman, R., and Saltzman, L. E. (1995). Violence against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey. NCJ-154348. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  4. Browning, J., and Dutton, D. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the conflict tactics scale: Using couple data to quantify the differential reporting effect. J. Marr. Fam. 48: 375–379.Google Scholar
  5. Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. P. (1988). Research as social action: the struggle for battered women. In Yllo, K., and Bograd, M. (eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Sage Publications, Newbury Park.Google Scholar
  6. FBI (1980). Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Frieze, I. H. (1983). Investigating the causes and consequences of marital rape. Signs 8: 532–553.Google Scholar
  8. Gaquin, D. A. (1977–1978). Spouse abuse: Data from the National Crime Survey. Victimology 2: 632–643.Google Scholar
  9. Gelles, R. J. (1978). Methods for studying sensitive family topics. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 48: 408–424.Google Scholar
  10. Gelles, R. J., and Straus, M. (1979). Determinants of violence in the family: Towards a theoretical integration. In Burr, W., Hill, R., Ivan Nye, F., and Reiss, I. (eds.), Contemporary Theories About the Family, Vol. 1, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 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. (ed.), The Dark Side of Families, Sage, Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
  12. Hindelang, M. J. (1976). Criminal Victimization in Eight American Cities, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Jouriles, E. N., and O'Leary, K. D. (1985). Interspousal reliability of reports of marital violence. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 53: 419–421.Google Scholar
  14. Kelly, L. (1987). How women define their experiences of violence. In Kersti Y., and Bograd, M. (eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Sage, Newbury Park.Google Scholar
  15. Okun, L. (1986). Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing Myths, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  16. Riggs, D., Murphy, C., and O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Intentional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression. J. Interpers. Viol. 4: 220–232.Google Scholar
  17. Rossi, P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E., and Berk, R. E. (1974). The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences. Am. Sociological Rev. 39: 224–237.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, M. D. (1994). Enhancing the quality of survey data on violence against women: A feminist approach. Gender Soc. 8: 109–127.Google Scholar
  19. Stark, R., and McEvoy, J. (1970). Middle-class violence. Psychology Today (Nov.):52.Google Scholar
  20. Straus, M. A. (1990a). Injury and frequency of assault and the ‘representative sample fallacy’ in measuring wife beating and child abuse. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  21. Straus, M. A. (1990b). The national family violence surveys. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  22. Straus, M. A. (1990c). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  23. Straus, M. A. (1990d). The conflict tactics scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus and R. J. Gelles (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  24. Straus, M. A. (1990e). Appendix B: New scoring methods for violence and new norms for the conflict tactics scales. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptions to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  25. Straus, M. A., and Lincoln, A. J. (1985). A conceptual framework for understanding crime and the family. In Lincoln, A. J., and Straus, M. A. (eds.), Crime and the Family, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
  26. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., and Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, Anchor, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
  27. Sudman, S., and Bradburn, N. (1982). Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  28. Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence. J. Marr. Fam. 45: 633–644.Google Scholar
  29. Walker, L. E. (1984). The Battered Woman, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Weis, J. G. (1989). Family violence research methodology and design. In Ohlin, L., and Tonry, M. (eds.), Family Violence, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon Wofford Mihalic
    • 1
  • Delbert Elliott
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulder

Personalised recommendations