Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 251–266 | Cite as

Is Partner Aggression Related to Appraisals of Coercive Control by a Partner?

  • Miriam K. Ehrensaft
  • Dina Vivian
Article

Abstract

Research and clinical reports on men who are aggressive towards their intimate partners find that these men tend to behave in highly controlling ways towards such partners (e.g., restricting their social interactions, monitoring of activities, and reducing decision-making power). This study tests the hypothesis that men and women in violent dating relationships appraise such behaviors differently than individuals in nonviolent relationships. Based on clinical and empirical partner abuse literature, 119 college students rated the extent to which they perceived hypothetical behaviors towards a partner as ‘controlling.’ Results suggest that individuals who had either engaged in or received partner aggression appraised restrictive, domineering, and coercive behaviors from a male to a female partner, and from a female to a male partner as less controlling than individuals who had neither perpetrated nor received partner aggression. Men also viewed those behaviors as less controlling than did women. Generalizability, clinical implications, and directions for future research are discussed.

partner violence coercive control dating attitudes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Arias, I., and Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. J. Interpers. Viol. 4: 298–307.Google Scholar
  2. Baucom, D. H., Sayers, S. L., and Duhe, A. (1989). Attributional style and attributional patterns among married couples. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 56: 596–607.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, A. (1993). Men, Women and Aggression, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., and Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Arch. Intern. Med. 152: 1178–1184.Google Scholar
  5. Cascardi, M., and Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital aggression. J. Family Violence, 10: 265–293.Google Scholar
  6. Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. (1979). Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. (1984). The nature and antecedents of violent events. Brit. J. Criminol. 24: 269–288.Google Scholar
  8. Dutton, D. G. (1988). The Domestic Assault of Women, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  9. Downey, G., and Feldman, S. (1996). Rejection sensitivity and male violence against romantic partners. Under review.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrensaft, M. K. (1994). Control Interview. Unpublished manuscript, University Marital Therapy Clinic, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  11. Ehrensaft, M. K., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Heyman, R. E, O'Leary, K. D., and Lawrence, E. (1994, November). Assessing perceptions of spousal control in physically aggressive versus nonaggressive husbands and wives. Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Ehrensaft, M. K. (1996). Coercive control and physical aggression: An observational study of behaviors in context, Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  13. Ehrensaft, M. K., and Vivian, D. (1996). Spouses' reasons for not reporting existing marital aggression as a marital problem. J. Fam. Psychol. 10: 443–453.Google Scholar
  14. Fincham, F. D., and Bradbury, T. N. (1988). The impact of attributions in marriage: An experimental analysis. J. Social Clin. Psychol. 7: 147–162.Google Scholar
  15. Finkelhor, D. (1983). Common features of family abuse. In Finkelhor, D., Gelles, R. J., Hotaling G. T., and Straus, M. A. (eds.), The Dark Side of Families: Current Research on Family Violence, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
  16. Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., and Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. J. Fam. Viol. 5: 107–120.Google Scholar
  17. Gondolf, E. W. (1985). Men Who Batter: An Integrated Approach to Stopping Wife Abuse, Learning Publications, Holmes Beach, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Hamberger, K. L. (1993, November). The function of aggression is different for men and women. Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  19. Kurtz, D. (1993). Physical assault by husbands: A major social problem. In Gelles, R. J., and Loseke, D. R. (eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 88–103.Google Scholar
  20. O'Leary, K. D. (1988). Physical aggression between spouses: A social learning theory perspective. In Van Hasselt, V. B., Morrison, R. L., Bellack, A. S., and Hersen, M. (eds.), Handbook of Family Violence, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 31–55.Google Scholar
  21. O'Leary, K. D., and Jouriles, E. N. (1993). Psychological abuse between adult partners: Prevalence and effects on partners and children. In Abate, L. L. (ed.), Handbook of Developmental Family Psychology and Psychopathology, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Pan, H. S., Neidig, P., and O'Leary, K. D. (1994). Male-female and aggressor-victim differences in the factor structure of the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale. J. Interpers. Viol. 9: 366–382.Google Scholar
  23. Rathus, J., and O'Leary, K. D. (1993, November). Attachment, spouse-specific dependency and use of control in maritally violent, discordant nonviolent and happily married men. Poster presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  24. Rogers, L. E. (1972). Relational Communication Control Coding Manual. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  25. Rouse, L. (1990). The dominance motive in abusive partners: Identifying couples at risk. J. Coll. Stud. Devel. 31: 330–335.Google Scholar
  26. Saunders, D. (1988). Wife abuse, husband abuse, or mutual combat? In Yllo, K., and Bograd, M. (eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 90–113.Google Scholar
  27. Stets, J. E. (1988). Domestic Violence and Control, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Stets, J. E. (1991). Psychological aggression in dating relationships: The role of interpersonal control. J. Marr. Fam. 6: 97–114.Google Scholar
  29. Stets, J. E., and Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships. Social Psychol. Quart. 50: 237–246.Google Scholar
  30. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scale. J. Marr. Fam. 41: 75–88.Google Scholar
  31. Straus, M. A. (1990). The Conflict Tactics Scale and its critics. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 49–74.Google Scholar
  32. Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assault by husbands: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles, and Loseke, D. R. (eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 67–87.Google Scholar
  33. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., and Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, Anchor Press/Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Viol. Vict. 4: 159–177.Google Scholar
  35. Tolman, R. M. (1992). Psychological abuse of women. In Campbell, J. (ed.), Assessing the Risk of Dangerousness, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 290–310.Google Scholar
  36. Vivian, D., and Heyman, R. E. (1994, November). Aggression against wives: Mutual verbal combat ‘in context.’ Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Vivian, D., and Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A gender-sensitive comparison. Viol. Vict. 9: 107–124.Google Scholar
  38. Vivian, D., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., and Ayerle, C. (1995). Thematic Coding of Dyadic Interactions Manual, Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Stony Brook, NY.Google Scholar
  39. Walker, L. E. (1981). The Battered Woman, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Warren, J., and Lanning, W. (1992) Sex role beliefs, control and social isolation of battered women. J. Fam. Viol. 7: 1–8.Google Scholar
  41. Yllo, K. (1983). Using a feminist approach in quantitative research: A case study. In Finkelhor, D., Gelles, R. J., Hotaling, G. T., and Straus, M. A. (eds.), The Dark Side of Families Current Research on Family Violence, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 277–288.Google Scholar
  42. Yllo, K., and Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miriam K. Ehrensaft
    • 1
  • Dina Vivian
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryColumbia UniversityNew York
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySUNY at Stony BrookStony Brook

Personalised recommendations