Dyadic Patterns of Intimate Partner Violence in Early Marriage.

The recognition of violence between intimate partners as a major social problem dates to the late 1960s and focused on the plight of women in relationships with violent men. Understandably, early research focused on women seeking help through hotlines and shelters in response to severe and unremitting husband violence. This focus suggested that partner violent men were domineering aggressors and women were primarily victims, and supported the position of victim advocates that domestic violence was the result of a society that condoned or at least tolerated violence against women (Dutton & Corvo, 2006). This view was prevalent throughout domestic violence research in the 1970s and 1980s (Frieze, 2005). The conceptualization of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration as a male dominated activity was challenged when Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980) reported findings from a national survey that indicated that women were aggressive toward their partner as frequently as men. These controversial findings were met with considerable criticism. It was argued that these figures were misleading because they did not capture the context of the violent behaviors (Saunders, 1988; Walker, 1984). Thus, it was argued that a woman's violence represented defensive actions to protect herself from an abusive partner, or a pre-emptive strike to prevent further violence. Others suggested that women may use violence against their partner, but primarily at intensities that do not cause significant injury (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Over the past 25 years, the finding that the prevalence of female-perpetrated IPV equaled or exceeded the prevalence of male-perpetrated IPV in community samples has been replicated numerous times (cf Archer, 2000; also Bates, Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2014; O'Leary et al, 1989). In a comprehensive meta-analysis, Archer (2000) reviewed 82 studies and concluded that women were slightly more likely to perpetrate IPV than men. Men, however, were more likely to injure their partners, although a third of those reporting injuries were men (Archer, 2000). Also, Cascardi and Vivian (1995) found that women attribute their aggression to self-defense less than one-fourth of the time; thus, indicating that there are other reasons for their IPV. Increasingly, studies have eschewed simple comparisons of male and female perpetrated violence in favor of examining dyadic combinations of male and female violence. Johnson, for example, (1995) argued that there were two broad types of violence, patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence. While these two dyadic combinations are hypothesized to differ primarily in terms of the motivation of the men to control their partners, Johnson also observed that they were differentially present in shelter versus survey samples. Moreover, he suggested that the patriarchal terrorism group, observed primarily in shelter samples, differed from common couple violence in that patriarchal terrorism was more severe and more frequent, and that it tended to escalate over time. As implied by the name, it was viewed primarily as being perpetrated by the male partner (Johnson (2005) now refers to it as intimate terrorism and has acknowledged that sometimes it is perpetrated by females). The violence by the woman in patriarchal terrorism was viewed as less frequent and as defensive in nature. Common couple violence, on the other hand, was conceptualized as involving mutual aggression of a lower frequency and severity, often resulting from conflicts in everyday life (Johnson, 1995). Subsequently, Johnson (2006) expanded and modified this approach, renaming common couple violence as situational couple violence, and describing two additional groups, violent resistance and mutual violent control. Using cluster analyses, Johnson (2006) found a group of violent resistance couples with violent and controlling husbands, and violent and non-controlling wives. Mutually violent control couples were couples in which both the husband and wife were violent and controlling. A number of studies have examined the distinctions between different dyadic types of violence with supportive as well as non-supportive findings (e.g. Anderson, 2008; Bates, Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2014; Johnson & Leone, 2005). Another approach has been to characterize the couple as to whether violence was perpetrated by the male only, the female only, or by both. Across a number of studies, the most frequent pattern has been mutual violence by both partners, followed by violence by the female only (Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007; Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007; Williams & Freize, 2005). For example, Stets and Straus (1989) examined data from a large national survey and a large dating sample and found couples reported mutual violence in 49%, husband-only violence in 23%, and wife-only violence in 28% of cases. The findings of more mutual than unidirectional violence and comparable or higher levels of female-only than male-only violence are also apparent after accounting for the severity of the violence (Stets & Straus, 1989; Williams & Frieze, 2005). In addition, several studies report that the occurrence of mutual violence is associated with more frequent and more severe aggression and injury for both men and women (Gray and Foshee, 1997; Teten, Sherman, & Han, 2009; Whitaker, et al, 2007). For example, Whitaker, et al, (2007) reported that individuals in reciprocal violent couples were more than 4 times as likely to report an injury as individuals in non-reciprocal violent couples. While viewing partner violence at the dyadic level provides an important perspective, there are at least two fundamental limitations in the literature to date. First, the classification has typically ignored the frequency of each partner's violence, even when considering the severity. As a result, couples in which one has engaged in many aggressive acts and the other only a few are called mutually aggressive. From the patriarchal terrorism position, this could combine patriarchal terrorism couples in which the male is frequently aggressive and the female is occasionally aggressive with common couple violence in which both are occasionally aggressive. A second problem is that the classification provides a static picture of the violence in the couple. Although a considerable body of research has demonstrated an overall stability in violence among the members, this does not preclude shifts in the gender balance of the violence. Indeed, most of the longitudinal research has either examined desistance or overall stability. For example, Quigley and Leonard (1996) found that only 24% of premaritally aggressive husbands completely desisted from aggression over the next 2 years, and that desistance was related to the frequency and severity of violence, a finding replicated by Lorber and O'Leary (2004) in a very different sample of newlyweds over 30 months. Similarly, Lorber and O'Leary (2012) examined the stability of the frequency of aggression over the 30 months and concluded that aggression frequency was a “somewhat stable” trait. Despite a general stability and a gradual reduction in aggression, there may be subgroups that change substantially. In particular, Johnson (2005) has suggested that husbands in couples that fit the concept of intimate terrorism are likely to escalate the violence over time. While we do know that desistance is less likely among those who engage in frequent violence (e.g. Quigley & Leonard, 1996), the nature and extent of changes within dyadic types is not clear, and there is limited prospective data addressing this issue. This study examines aggression within newlywed couples from a longitudinal dyadic perspective (Capaldi & Kim, 2007) and empirically characterizes the gender differences in aggression at the time of marriage. This study is based on a longitudinal study of couples identified as they applied for their marriage license. In this paper, we focus on the baseline assessment (T1) and assessments at the first (T2) and second anniversaries (T3). In contrast to studies that have used a priori definitions that do not consider the frequency of aggression, we utilize cluster analysis to define empirically based groups of couples with different frequencies of partner violence. We describe these clusters with respect to severity of violence, injury, and marital functioning, as well as with respect different constructs which are relevant to hypothesized differences between common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism. Moreover, we track changes in violence over time as a function of the dyadic clusters. Based on research in community samples, we hypothesized the following: 1) we would identify a large cluster of mutually aggressive couples and substantially smaller clusters of husband only and wife only aggression; and 2) we would observe declines in aggression across these clusters. On the basis of clinical and community samples, we also hypothesized (3) that we would identify a gender asymmetric group with a high frequency of husband aggression and a low, nonzero frequency of wife aggression, corresponding to a patriarchal terrorism group and (4) this group, but not the others, would escalate in their aggression, and display characteristics of the prototypic patriarchal terrorism couple, such as higher husband control and antisocial behaviors.