Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333 – 361

Situational determinants in intimate partner violence$ Deanna L. Wilkinson*, Susan J. Hamerschlag Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University, 1115 W. Berks Street (025-02), Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA Received 27 May 2003; received in revised form 17 February 2004; accepted 5 May 2004

Abstract A situational or event perspective examines the connections between unfolding events and their surrounding contexts. This perspective offers great promise for increasing our understanding of violence among intimate partners, yet, has been rarely applied to this problem. Using such an approach, this review summarizes what is known in this area and highlights gaps in our knowledge about the connections between specific event characteristics. Surprisingly, domestic violence researchers rarely examine domestic violence events per se. We suggest ways of doing this: By collecting rich data on the heterogeneity of violent events among intimate partners, we can close outstanding gaps in our knowledge of this problem. D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Intimate violence; Event perspective; Situational factors; Weapons; Alcohol or drug use; Police

Contents 1. 2. 3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical framework: The interactionist or event perspective on violence . What is known about situational factors in IPV? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. The relationship matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Situational definitions: Reasons, sparks, and motivations. . . . . . . 3.3. Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Jealousy and threats to the relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Self-defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Threats to identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

334 335 335 335 345 346 346 347 347

A previous version of this paper was delivered to the National Academy of Science, National Research Council’s Violence Against Women Workshop, January, 2002. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-215-204-7918. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.L. Wilkinson). 1359-1789/$ – see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2004.05.001

334

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

3.7. Communication and argumentativeness . . . . . . . 3.8. The violence process: Roles and sequential patterns 3.9. Spatial patterns of IPV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10. Type of weapon and weapon use . . . . . . . . . . 3.11. Alcohol and/or drug use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12. The role of third parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13. The role of law enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14. Event outcomes and aftermaths . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

347 348 349 349 350 351 353 354 355 356 357

1. Introduction Considerable evidence suggests a common set of situational, individual, and structural factors under a variety of violent situations, including violence in intimate relationships (Felson, 1993; Felson, 1996; Felson, Baumer, & Messner, 2000; Felson & Messner, 1998; Felson & Steadman, 1983; Luckenbill, 1977; Wilkinson, 2003). Many scholars, nonetheless, argue that a separate theory of intimate partner violence (IPV) is needed (Straus, 1999). It is our belief that existing perspectives generally applied to violence outside the home can be applied to violence in intimate relationships. This review assesses the utility of one perspective largely ignored (see Dobash & Dobash, 1984, for an exception) by domestic violence researchers—the situational or event perspective. This perspective addresses the occurrence of violence: identifying specific conditions associated with underlying individual motivations and predispositions toward violence becoming manifest. It shifts the focus from traditional concerns about who becomes violent—the propensities or risks of individuals—to a closer examination of criminal events. This view examines motivations that individuals bring to specific events, what takes place during the event, the surrounding circumstances, and the consequences. Violent events and their sequelae emerge from and are shaped by a confluence of motivation, perceptions of risk and opportunity, and social control setting attributes (for assaults, see Oliver, 1994; Wilkinson, 2003; for robbery, see Felson et al., 2000; Wright & Decker, 1997; for homicide, see Decker, 1995; Luckenbill, 1977; Polk, 1994). Despite the promise of an event perspective, however, only two studies focus on violent events among intimate partners (see Dobash & Dobash, 1979, 1984; Eisikovits & Buchbinder, 2000; Eisikovits & Winstok, 2001). For reasons clarified below, we think that an event perspective can advance our understanding of IPV. To move such an agenda forward, we start by describing the event perspective framework. Then, we summarize work from several disciplines delineating the most relevant event domains: the nature and status of the relationship between offender(s) and victim(s), the motivations or sparks for dispute situations, the location, sequential actions of the actors, weapon use, the role of third parties, the role of substance use, law enforcement actions, event outcomes, event aftermaths, and the interactions of these domains. Next, reflecting on these domains, we consider the IPV

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

335

literature. We note that although many studies attempt to explore the role of these domains, they try to do so by examining the domain outside the context of the violent event. The majority of studies have gathered some evidence on a few situational domains while primarily pursuing other research questions. Thus, there is little known about interactions within and across domains. As shown in Table 1, most of the data on situational factors in IPV come from cross-sectional studies, relying on purposive samples of female victims only, official data sources such as the SHR, or a few experimental studies.1 Despite the volume of work to date, our understanding of the situational determinants in IPV is incomplete. We conclude by discussing the methodological issues associated with studying IPV from an event perspective.

2. Theoretical framework: The interactionist or event perspective on violence Studying violence from an event perspective combines the study of offenders, victims, and social context to yield a more complete picture of its etiology (Meier, Kennedy, & Sacco, 2001). The event perspective considers the coproduction by victim(s), offender(s), and others of a violence experience. It emphasizes event precursors, the event as it unfolds, and the aftermath, including reporting, harm, and redress. The event perspective integrates concepts from symbolic interactionism, routine activity, and rational choice theories. Research from an event perspective on violent events among nonintimates shows that they can be explained by interactions between actors, situational context, and event facilitators (Felson, 1993; Luckenbill, 1977; Oliver, 1994; Wilkinson, 2003).

3. What is known about situational factors in IPV? In this section, we review the literature on IPV through an event, or situational, perspective lens. We discuss the available data on violent events among intimates and identify the gaps in our current knowledge surrounding specific situational variables. We begin our discussion by focusing on how the nature of the relationship between the actors shapes violent events. Next, we describe the circumstances or sparks of violent events, the interactional exchange between intimates, including decision-making processes, the role of physical and social space, the role of third parties, weapon type and use, alcohol and drug use, the role of law enforcement, the event outcomes, and the aftermaths of violent events. There is little available information about how situational variables may have moderating impacts. 3.1. The relationship matters The victim–offender relationship is a critical aspect for understanding violent events. A prior victim–offender relationship can affect the manner in which the actors behave towards 1 Details about the methodology, sampling, purpose, and situational domain for each study are provided in Table 1.

336

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Table 1 Summary of reviewed studies by situational domain Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

1

Babcock et al. (1993)

Experiment: 95 couples

Spark communication

2

Barnett et al. (1995)

Experiment: 180 males in cohabiting relationships

3

Baumgartner (1993)

4

Berk et al. (1983)

Explore the concept of mutual combat in intimate partner violence

Relationship matters; alcohol: third parties

5

Berk et al. (1992)

Examined the deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of spouse abuse

Police

6

Block and Christakos (1995) Block et al. (2001)

Review of the ethnographic literature on domestic conflict cross culturally Two hundred sixty-two ‘‘domestic disturbance’’ incidents (heterosexual romantic relationships only), in which police were called Field experiments conducted in four cities – Milwaukee, WI, Omaha, NE, Dade County (Miami), FL, and Colorado Springs, CO Included 2556 homicides in a 29-year Chicago intimate partner homicide data set Evaluation research: 210 Chicago women who had experienced violence by an intimate partner in the past year Included 263 heterosexual couples, men seeking conjoint marital therapy, 49 community comparison matched on demographics. Reports of male violence were provided by both spouses Interviews with 42 U.S. women in 15 states who were charged with the murder or attempted murder of their mates. Compared to 200 other

Examined the link between power discrepancies in the marital relationship and violence; compared violent to nonviolent Examined whether maritally violent men are more jealous than maritally nonviolent men are Examined the role of third parties across cultures

Examined long-term trends in homicide in Chicago

Relationship matters; spark: weapon type: alcohol Spark: place and time: weapon type: third parties; police, aftermath

7

8

Boyle and Vivian (1996)

9

Browne (1987)

Examined the effects of collective efficacy and community capacity to make a difference for battered women Focus on understanding the relationship between anger and violence. Perceptions of their general problem-solving skills as well as spouse-specific assertiveness skills Examined the contextual and situational factors that distinguished women who killed from women who did not kill their abusive partner

Spark: jealousy

Third parties

Spark communication

Third parties

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

337

Table 1 (continued) Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

9

Browne (1987)

10

Browne et al. (1999)

physically abused American women who did not kill their abusers Review paper; summarizes SHR data on intimate homicide 1980 – 1995, disaggregated

11

Burman et al. (1992)

12

Burman, Margolin, and John (1993)

13

Cahn (1996)

14

Delsol, Margolin, and John (2003)

Latent class analysis; 153 couples were recruited from a large urban area

15

Dobash and Dobash (1979)

16

Dobash and Dobash (1984)

In-depth interviews with 109 women found in shelters in Scotland; reported on first, worst, last, and typical event. Also analyzed 933 police record cases of intimate violence In-depth interviews with 109 women found in shelters in Scotland; reported on first, worst, last, and typical event. Also analyzed 933 police record cases of intimate violence

Included 79 married couples; four types: physically aggressive, verbally aggressive, withdrawing, and nondistressed low-conflict couples Videotaped interactions in homes; 65 married couples. Four types: physically aggressive, verbally aggressive, withdrawing, and nondistressed low-conflict couples Theory paper, outlines communication perspective

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

Examined trends and patterns in intimate homicide by disaggregating on key variables, e.g., relationship type Examined interaction patterns of couples to identify differences across couple type

Place and time; weapon type: third parties

Examined conflict styles of couples by type

Roles

Offers some insights into dimensions of communication – aggression relationship Tests the typology of male batterers of Holtzworth-Monroe and Stuart (1994) in a community sample. Examined the nature of violence against wives; grounded the problem in the legacy of patriarchy; uses a contextual approach to studying the problem.

Spark identity

A context-specific study of wife battering

Roles, spark, third parties, aftermath

Roles

Roles

Roles, spark, third parties, aftermath

(continued on next page)

338

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Table 1 (continued) Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

17

Dobash et al. (1992)

A review article

Spark identity

18

Dugan et al. (2003)

19

Eisikovits (1996)

SHR 48 largest cities, resource data generated from survey and document review In-depth interviews with 30 couples in Israel

20

Eighty in-depth interviews with 40 couples; unit of analysis is the couple

22

Eisikovits and Buchbinder (2000, 1996) Eisikovits and Winstok (2001) Fagan (1989)

Criticism of studies using homicide data and CTS to claim that intimate violence is symmetrical. Examined the extent to which social responses to domestic violence have impacted the problem. Phenomenological study of violence among married couples in Israel Phenomenological study of violence among married couples in Israel

Relationship matters; spark; third parties; police, aftermath Spark, aftermath

23

Fagan (1993)

Review paper

24

Fagan and Browne (1994)

Review paper

25

Fagan et al. (1983)

26

Felson (1996)

Felson et al. (2002)

Examined the role of physical size and strength on victim precipitation Examined factors that encourage and inhibit victims of domestic violence from calling the police

Roles; weapon type

27

28

Felson and Messner (2000)

Included 270 face-to-face interviews with victims of domestic violence recruited from counseling or shelter service programs in four cities; 1980 – 1981 Analyses of 69 cases of nonweapon homicide among intimates Included 9176 victimization incidents between 1992 and 1998 collected by the National Criminal Victimization Survey Included 2597 ‘pure’ assaults involving a single unarmed offender and a

Phenomenological study of violence among married couples in Israel Examined the empirical evidence on the cessation of violence in the home Examined the empirical evidence on the alcohol and crime connection Examined the state of knowledge in the field crossing a broad range of data and topics Examined the question of whether men are violent generally or just in their intimate relationships by looking at background and situational factors

21

Sixty in-depth interviews with 30 couples; Policing handling study Review paper

Examined the issue of threats proceeding violence to exert control.

Aftermath

Relationship matters; aftermath Relationship matters; spark; third parties: police

Alcohol

Spark, aftermath

Roles, alcohol, aftermath

Police

Spark

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

339

Table 1 (continued)

28

29

Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

Felson and Messner (2000) Felson and Messner (1998)

single victim reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey Included 2058 homicide cases in prosecutors’ files in the 75 most populated counties in the U.S. Data were derived from 1992 – 1994 U.S. NCVS incident files. Excluding robbery, rape, and burglary

30

Felson et al. (1999)

31

Gottman and Levenson (1999a)

Experiment: 79 couples, longitudinal data over 4 years

32

Greenfield et al. (1998)

33

Harris (1993)

Descriptive analyses of NCVS (1992 – 1996), 1995 NIBRS data; UCR, SHR, study of injured victims of violence NEISS 1994, and surveys of jail and prison inmates Included 229 female and 187 male undergraduate students

34

Hofeiler (1982)

35

HoltzworthMunroe and Anglin (1991)

36

HoltzworthMunroe and Hutchinson (1993)

Sample: experimental group (N = 50)—some history as victims of wife beating comparison group (N = 50)—in nonviolent marriages Experiment: three groups of husbands: 22 maritally violent and distressed, 17 nonviolent but maritally distressed, and 17 nonviolent and nondistressed Experiment: three groups of husbands: 22 maritally violent and distressed, 17 nonviolent but maritally

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

Examined the role of victim precipitation in intimate partner violence

Spark

Examined the effects of the victim’s relationship to the offender on the reporting of assaults to the police by either the victim or by third parties Examined the predictors of deterioration in affective marital interaction over a 4-year period Examined the nature, incidence, prevalence, and correlates of intimate partner violence in the US

Third parties, police

Examined the differences in anger-provoking behaviors and in verbal insults as a function of gender Examined the psychological, social, and situational factors in wife abuse

Spark identity

Examined the social skills of maritally violent men in responding to scenarios of potential marital conflicts

Spark

Examined men’s attributions for negative wife behavior

Spark

Roles

Spark communication; place and time: alcohol

Spark: weapon type: third parties

(continued on next page)

340

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Table 1 (continued)

36

37

Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

HoltzworthMunroe and Hutchinson (1993) Hutchinson and Hirschel (2001)

distressed, and 17 nonviolent and nondistressed

38

Infante, Chandler, and Rudd (1989)

39

Jacobson, Gottman, Waltz, Rushe, Babcock, and HoltzworthMunroe (1994)

40

Johnson (1995)

41

Kellermann and Mercy (1992)

42

Kellermann et al. (1993)

Extensive face-to-face interviews with 419 women in Charlotte, NC, who had reported to the police that they were involved in a misdemeanor spousal abuse incident Comparative study of 60 abused wives found in one of four shelters in a midwestern state; 53 abusive husbands in group therapy SW part of same state; 82 nonabused women recruited in waiting rooms of doctor’s offices; and 80 male college students or factory workers.

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

Examined the role of children as witnesses to intimate partner violence

Third parties

Tested the hypothesis that verbal aggression is a catalyst to violence when societal, personal, and situational factors are strong enough to produce a hostile predisposition.

Spark

Examined the affect, psychophysiology, and verbal content of arguments in couples with a violent husband. Looked at how wife behavior effect husband violence Theory and review paper Described common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism Examined the potential Analyzed FBI UCR data on homicides in the U.S. between differences that distinguish homicides involving 1976 and 1987. A total of women as victims or 215,273 homicides were offenders from those studied involving men Risk factors for homicide Included 1860 homicides in in the home Tennessee, Washington, and Ohio, interviewed proxy, compared with selected controls who were matched by demographic variables, generating a set of 388 matched pairs of homicide cases

Spark, roles

Roles

Weapon type, relationship matters

Weapon type, alcohol

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

341

Table 1 (continued) Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

43

Leonard and Roberts (1998)

Experiment: 60 maritally aggressive and 75 nonaggressive men and their wives

Alcohol

44

Leonard and Senchak (1996)

45

Lloyd (1999); Lloyd and Emery (2000)

Longitudinal Buffalo Newlywed Study (BNS): 541 couples. Couples applying for a marriage license were recruited for a paid interview (US$5). 76% of those approached successfully completed the initial interview; 10% dropped out by Time 2. Interviews with 43 women who were physically or sexually victimized by a man in dating or courtship situation. Recruited through flyers.

Examined the marital interactions of couples under different conditions of alcohol consumption in the laboratory setting Examined the social interactional model of husband marital aggression prospectively.

Relationship matters; spark; spark communication

46

Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, and Silva (1998)

Examined relational courtship aggression specifically connections among power dynamics, verbal aggression, interaction patterns, issues of control and relationship dynamics, and physical aggression Examined risk factors for partner abuse in four domains: socioeconomic resources, family relations, educational achievements, and problem behaviors

47

Makepeace (1997)

Study courtship as a process

Relationship matters

48

Margolin and Burman (1993) Margolin, Burman, and John (1989)

Efficacy of programs

Roles

Examined natural progression of conflict styles in couples

Roles

49

Dunedin, NZ, 1972 – 1973 birth cohort study. Nine hundred forty-one 21-year-olds report about violence in their cohabiting and dating relationships Theory paper outlining integrated developmental theory Review of intervention programs for wife abuse Experiment: 73 couples: 17 physically aggressive (PA), 17 verbally aggressive (VA), 21 withdrawing (WI), and 18 nondistressed, low conflict (ND)

Roles, alcohol

Relationship matters

(continued on next page)

342

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Table 1 (continued) Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

50

Margolin, John, and Gleberman (1988)

Compared the affective responses of couples during two 10-min problemoriented discussions

Roles

51

Maxwell et al. (2002)

Examined the deterrent effect of arrest in spouse assault

Police

52

Miles-Doan (1998)

Experiment: 78 couples: 19 physically aggressive (PA), 18 verbally aggressive (VA), 22 withdrawing (WI), and 19 nondistressed, low conflict (ND) Included 4032 cases drawn from Minneapolis’s Spouse Assault Replication Program (SARP). Victim interviews and other sources. 1992 Law enforcement data for Duval City, FL, and the 1990 U.S. Census

Third parties

53

Moffitt et al. (2000)

54

Moffitt, Robins, and Caspi (2001)

55

Paulozzi et al. (2001) Ptacek (1997)

Examined the role that neighborhood context plays in explaining difference in intimate partner violence compared with other violence. Examined psychological profiles that isolate IPV from general crime. Examined abuse as a dyadic process involving risk characteristics of both couple members looking at the role of negative emotionality. Surveillance for homicide

56

57

58

Rennison and Welchans (2000) Renzetti (1997)

Dunedin 1972 – 1973 birth cohort study (eight hundred forty-nine 21-year-olds) Dunedin 1972 – 1973 birth cohort study. Recruited 360 couples from original birth cohort.

SHR, 1981 – 1998

Relationship matters

Relationship matters; roles

Weapon type

Random sample of 100 cases filed in 1992; women seeking restraining orders; included original complaint forms and the court orders filed by judges NCVS 1992 – 1996; NIBRS in 1995

Analyzed the motives of men who batter from the perspectives of the women they battered

Relationship matters: weapon type

Examined trends and patterns in victimization

Literature review

Stressed importance of acknowledging the problem and doing research in the area. Discussed complex intervention issues in a homophobic society

Relationship matters: place and time: third parties Relationship matters

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

343

Table 1 (continued) Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

59

Rosen (1996)

Examined the seduction process in dating relationships that became abusive and the factors that galvanized women’s commitment to the relationships despite abuse

Relationship matters, spark identity

60

Saltzman et al. (1992) Sherman and Berk (1984a)

Qualitative interviews with 22 women who survived violent premarital relationships; recruited through newspaper ads, flyers reaching the general public as well as university students and referrals by clinicians. SHR Field experiment testing the effects of arrest, advice, order to leave: sample of 314 cases; 205 completed interviews (1981 – 1982) Field experiment testing the effects of arrest, advice, order to leave: sample of 314 cases; 205 completed interviews (1981 – 1982) A survey of police agencies in 117 cities

Examined the deterrent effect of arrest in misdemeanor spouse assault

Police

Examined the deterrent effect of arrest in misdemeanor spouse assault

Police

Examined the extent to which police policy had changed in light of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment Test of deterrence vs. labeling theory

Police

Examined the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence including IPV

Relationship matters: weapon type

61

62

Sherman and Berk (1984b)

63

Sherman and Cohn (1989)

64

Sherman, Smith, Schmidt, and Rogan (1992)

65

Tjaden and Thoennes (1998, 2000)

Experiment conducted in 1987 – 1988, involved 1200 cases of misdemeanor domestic battery in four Milwaukee districts. Victim interview and arrest data. National violence against women survey (NVAWS) telephone survey with a national representative sample of 8000 U.S. women and 8000 U.S. men. Personal safety survey 1995 – 1996

Weapon type

Police

(continued on next page)

344

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Table 1 (continued) Author(s)

Methodology and sample characteristics

Research question/purpose

Situational domain

66

Walker (1983, 1984)

67

Wiebe (2003a)

Examined domestic violence from the battered woman’s perspective Examined sex differences nonfatal firearm-related injuries by victim – offender relationship

Spark; roles: place and time: alcohol: third parties Relationship matter; weapon type

68

Wiebe (2003b)

69

Wilson and Daly (1993)

70

Wolfgang (1958)

Interviews with a convenience sample of 403 women Case Control Study, NEISS data 1993 – 1999; 468,451 patients with nonfatal gunshot trauma and 97,697 patients treated for nonpenetrating gun-related injuries Case control study, data on 1720 homicide deaths from the 1993 National Morality Followback Survey Homicide data in Canada (1974 – 1990), in New South Wales, Australia (1968 – 1986), and in Chicago (1965 – 1990) Homicide data in Philadelphia

Weapon type; place Tested hypothesis that having a gun in the home is a risk factor for homicide and suicide among adults Examined the risks to Relationship matters separated women compared with women coresiding for intimate partner homicide. Examined the patterns of criminal homicide

Relationship matters, spark, weapon type

each other and shapes what each expects the other will say and do before, during, and after the event. Despite the central influence of the intimate relationship on violent incidents, few studies examine the qualities of those relationships. When examining this domain, researchers often rely on official data, such as the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). For all forms of interpersonal violence, the victim–offender relationship is most often treated as a dichotomous variable—stranger versus nonstranger—and thus, data sources such as the UCR provide little information about the relationship. Furthermore, even this minimal relationship variable is undetermined or missing in a large number of cases (see Regoeczi & Riedel, 2003). Self-report data better capture relationship qualities (Felson et al., 2000; Felson & Messner, 2000). For example, Felson et al. (2000), using data from the NCVS, analyze four categories of the victim–offender relationship in robberies: family members (combining spouses, exspouses, romantic partners, and ex-partners), nonfamily acquaintances (combining friends and other well-known acquaintances, including neighbors, roommates, schoolmates, and coworkers), acquaintances recognized by sight only, and strangers. There have been some other improvements. Greenfield et al. (1998) operationalized the relationship variable in domestic violence using NCVS and NIBRS data by aggregating the data into three categories: spouse, ex-spouse, and other intimate. Within public health, the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) includes four general categories with more specific subcategories for additional clarity: stranger, acquaintance (friend, inmate/

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

345

patient, and other known), intimate (spouse, ex-spouse, and boyfriend/girlfriend), and other family (parent, child, sibling, and other relative; see Greenfield et al., 1998; Wiebe, 2003a). For violence between intimates, the quality and stage of the relationship might be as or more important than the general relationship category. Violence affects many types of intimate relationships, ranging from unrequited interest to remarried to divorced (Makepeace, 1997; Moffitt, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000; Renzetti, 1997; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Relationships evolve; static-type variables are thus potentially problematic. Dobash and Dobash (1979, 1984) categorized 314 assaults perpetrated by husbands (first, worst, last, and typical) reported by 109 women and 513 cases content analyzed from police record data. They explored the role of violence in shaping the relationship over time. Based on their interviews with couples (male–female) in Israel, Eisikovits and Buchbinder (2000) disentangled the processes transforming violent events into a violent way of life over the course of the relationship. Thus, over time, it seems that violence shapes the relationship, and vice versa. Abuse incidents are most severe after the couple has separated (Block & Christakos, 1995; Browne, Williams, & Dutton, 1999; Ptacek, 1997; Rennison & Welchans, 2000). A variety of studies have reported that estrangement plays a role in anywhere from 25% to 52% of intimate partner homicides of women (Browne et al., 1999; Crawford & Gartner, 1992; Goetting, 1995; Stout, 1993). Lethal violence motivated by estrangement reportedly occurs soon after the separation—within the first year (Wallace, 1986; Wilson & Daly, 1993) and, often, in less than 1 month (Stout, 1993). Block and Christakos (1995) found that males were more likely to kill their partner when the woman threatened or attempted to leave. Never having lived with an abusive partner protects against continued violence (Block, Skogan, Fugate, & Devitt, 2001). Berk, Berk, Loseke, and Rauma (1983) found that the use of restraining orders increases the likelihood that women will experience subsequent severe beatings compared with women who did not seek restraining orders. These studies suggest that having resided with an abusive partner may place women in greater danger when attempting to leave the relationship. In summary, measurement of victim–offender relationships are complicated by inconsistent definitions, lack of precise indicators for relationship status and dynamics, and reliance on cross-sectional data from convenience samples of female victims. Future research efforts therefore need to examine not only the nature of the relationship, but also how individuallevel characteristics interact, how the characteristics of the dyad influence interaction patterns, and how these factors change over time. Longitudinal research on violent couples with careful attention to relationship shifts and violent behavior within relationships and across victim–offender relationship (dyad) types would advance the field. 3.2. Situational definitions: Reasons, sparks, and motivations The motivations or justifications offered to make sense of violent events are critical. Researchers have not moved far beyond Wolfgang’s ‘‘unsatisfactory taxonomy of motives’’ (Daly & Wilson, 1988, p. 173). Data on circumstances, motivations, or sparks for IPV come primarily from studies relying on small nonprobability samples, where victims provide the only report. The evidence is lean. To understand catalysts of violent events, we must examine

346

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

perceived imbalances in power, control dynamics, relationship problems, and communication patterns (Lloyd & Emery, 2000). Dobash and Dobash (1984) reported the following frequency of sources for ‘‘typical’’ events among their sample: possessiveness and sexual jealousy (45%), expectations about domestic work (16%), money (18%), status problems (3%), sexual refusal (2%), woman’s attempt to leave (0%), relatives and friends (4%), husband’s drinking behavior (6%), children (4%), and other sources (3%). Interestingly, police record data corresponded more closely to the worst or last events, with less possessiveness and sexual jealousy (12%), more expectations about domestic work (37%), and notably more attempts by women to leave (17%). These differences reinforce the importance of collecting longitudinal event-level data (Dobash & Dobash, 1984, p. 273, Table 2). Lloyd and Emery (2000) identified three prominent themes: threats to the relationship, stressful life events, and alcohol/drug use. The range of actions that led to a violent outcome ‘‘was precipitated by the woman engaging in a casual conversation with people waiting at a bus stop, wearing the ‘wrong’ clothes or too much makeup, saying no to the man’s sexual advances, an argument over drinking, and the woman’s request to go home early, to name just a few’’ (Lloyd & Emery, 2000, p. 51). Cross-cultural studies suggest sexual jealousy or infidelity sparks about half of these incidents and perceived that wifely duty failure accounts for about another quarter (Fagan & Browne, 1994, p. 121). 3.3. Control Violent criminals (e.g., armed robbers) like having control over their victims (Wright & Decker, 1997). Felson and Messner (1998) argue that male attacks on female partners are especially likely to involve the control motive. Men are likely to issue threats before using violence in an attempt to change the woman’s behavior; threats of violence precede attacks in about half of the incidents (Felson & Messner, 2000). In intimate partnerships, violence links to control in four ways: domination of the argument, domination of the woman and the relationship, preventing the woman from leaving the relationship, and ownership and extreme control of the woman’s body (Lloyd & Emery, 2000). 3.4. Jealousy and threats to the relationship Sexual jealousy is estimated to spark IPV between 7% and 41% of the time, depending on the data source (Barnett, Martinez, & Bluestein, 1995). Female victims of violence often indicate that jealousy was a key attacker motivation (Hofeiler, 1982; Lloyd & Emery, 2000). Block et al. (2001) found that 86% of the 210 women reported that their partner was jealous and did not want the woman talking to other men or women. Extreme incessant jealousy decreases the likelihood of violence cessation. Several studies consider sexual jealousy from the male point of view (Barnett et al., 1995; Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991; Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993). These studies tell us that maritally violent men are more jealous than their nonviolent counterparts are, and that jealous men attribute more negative motivations to women’s behaviors. Unfortunately, these studies focus on jealousy as an individual character-

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

347

istic rather than on how jealousy is evoked in a potentially violent situation. We need to learn, from the men’s and women’s perspectives, what triggers jealousy, what keeps it going, and when it does or does not feed violence. 3.5. Self-defense When researchers began finding that women engage in violence in intimate relationships at similar rates as men, self-defense was often cited as the reason for the women’s acts of violence (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992). Domestic homicides by women often involve a lethal assault upon a batterer whom the victim believes may kill her or her children if not stopped preemptively (Browne, 1987). Do women use violence only when violence is used against them, or is it also an attempt to prevent future physical harm and/or a sense of self within the abusive relationship (Emery & Lloyd, 1994)? Self-defense is a common feature in homicides committed by females, regardless of the relationship to the victim (Felson & Messner, 1998). Estimates regarding the use of self-defense in nonfatal incidents of IPV are currently inadequate. Therefore, it is impossible at this stage to assess the validity of the selfdefense hypothesis as an explanation for women’s levels of violence in intimate relationships as equal those of men’s. 3.6. Threats to identity Our social identities intertwine with our intimate relationships. Gender roles and traditional notions about the unequal power relationships between men and women make identity construction in intimate relationships a potential source of conflict (Straus, 1999). Identity concerns in intimate communication ‘‘include self-esteem, sexual esteem, a male’s manhood or masculinity, a female’s womanhood or femininity, impression formation and management, egocentrisms, appearing to be in control of others, perceptions of oneself, and traditional stereotypes regarding sex roles’’ (Cahn, 1996). The content of insults used to attack the identity of either males or females varies according to traditional gender roles (Harris, 1993). Romantic ideals, cultural messages about getting and maintaining relationships ‘‘at all costs’’ for women, and love story fantasies undergird contexts where staying in an abusive relationship becomes deeply entangled with personal identity for women (Rosen, 1996). Another aspect of identity relates specifically to how violence and its meanings transform personal identities. Both victims and abusers have difficulty accepting a violent or victim identity (Eisikovits & Buchbinder, 2000). Violence also affects the identity of the couple as a unit. When it becomes publicly exposed, the relationship’s status as ‘‘normal’’ or ‘‘healthy’’ can be jeopardized (Eisikovits & Buchbinder, 2000). 3.7. Communication and argumentativeness What precedes the violent event, and how does it connect to the event itself and help us understand the latter? Arguments precede about 80% of domestic violent events

348

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

(Greenfield et al., 1998). Batterers often call attention to women’s verbal aggression preceding physical violence (Eisikovits & Buchbinder, 2000). Given this connection, physical aggression may be ‘‘a conflict negotiation strategy that is enacted when other strategies have failed and the conflict has escalated out of control’’ (Lloyd & Emery, 2000, p. 56). If it is true that violence among intimates is often the result of an argument that has escalated out of control, it becomes imperative to understand the communication patterns of the couple and the couple’s problem-solving capabilities, which may be deficient (Babcock, Waltz, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993; Boyle & Vivian, 1996; Lloyd, 1999). Such deficits can affect the occurrence of violence if partners feel violence is the only dispute resolution option available. Knowledge about the motivations and provocations of violence among intimates is complicated by who reports on motivation/provocation, often divergent interpretations or meanings attached to violent or potential violent situations by women and men in couples, and a failure in most studies to examine individual, dyadic, and event characteristics in the same study. Psychologists have made considerable headway in identifying personality traits that distinguish violent from nonviolent couples, but more empirical work needs to be done to explore the heterogeneity of motivations/provocations of violent events among intimates. 3.8. The violence process: Roles and sequential patterns Violence, regardless of the particular context, is an interactive and perhaps goal-driven process (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Violence is often an escalation of reciprocal actions— verbal and physical (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Interaction patterns between violent partners are most often reciprocal in a downward spiral: Negative behavior by one is followed by a negative counter attack (Burman, Margolin, & John, 1992; Gottman & Levenson, 1999a, 1999b; Margolin & Burman, 1993). There may be specific stages: verbal until the male feels threatened, female attempts to avoid attack, then violence (Dobash & Dobash, 1984). The violent escalation process between intimate partners can be viewed in a debts and balances framework (Eisikovits & Winstok, 2001). A prominent feminist theory asserts that the violence between intimates is a continuous cycle of battering (Walker, 1984), which consists of three stages: ‘‘tension-building,’’ when the woman ‘‘walks on egg shells,’’ the ‘‘acute battering incident,’’ and the aftermath, when the batterer turns kind and contrite. The length of each of the three stages changes over time, as batterers become less likely to apologize and more likely to engage in victim blaming with the passage of time (Walker, 1983). But the model needs information from both males and females for full validation; others question the aftermath stage (Dobash & Dobash, 1984). Consistent with other types of violence, researchers have found that victim behavior can increase the likelihood of attack. In a longitudinal study of 541 newly married couples, Leonard and Senchak (1996) found that marital conflict styles, husband alcohol use, and wife hostility account were predictors of marital aggression. In a study of 69 nonweapon homicide cases, Felson (1996) found that retaliation or counterattack did not occur as frequently as

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

349

expected and, when it did occur (in 25% of cases), men were more likely to retaliate when attacked by women than vice versa. Similarly, Straus (1993) found that when women used violence against an intimate partner, they faced an increased probability of retaliatory beating. In reporting these data, the authors are not attempting to place blame on those enduring the violence committed by intimate partners. Rather, these data are explored to show that the characteristics and actions of both actors (those using violence and those enduring the violence) are important to consider when examining the context of the violent incident. The event framework places emphasis on the dynamics between actors in specific situational contexts. Women’s participation or involvement in violent relationships does not translate into provocation. By disentangling the role of individual characteristics, such as negative emotionality, dyad characteristics, conflict styles, and situational context variables, in instances of IPV, we may be better able to identify intervention points with couples. 3.9. Spatial patterns of IPV Spatial and temporal patterns of violence are important from an event or situational perspective because these contextual variables potentially capture information about how violence is distributed across actors’ routine activities and life space. As expected, most IPV occurs in private dwellings and, most frequently, at the victim’s home. Current research using national level data has shown that anywhere from 63% to 80% of domestic violence incidents occurred in or near the victim’s home (Greenfield et al., 1998; Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Greenfield et al. (1998) found that 15% of incidents occurred in public settings, and Rennison and Welchans (2000) found that 8% of female victims and 11% of male victims were killed in public spaces. Dobash and Dobash (1984) found that 13% of self-reported violent events and 19% of official record cases occurred in a public setting. Despite the consistence of these findings, our understanding of the role of place in IPV remains narrow. There are many unanswered questions in this domain. For example, was the contact between the actors routine or engineered by the abuser? Was the place legally offlimits to either partner via an order of protection? Was the victim trying escape, hide, or find a ‘‘safe place’’ away from the abuser? Again, longitudinal data from intimates are needed to disentangle these issues. 3.10. Type of weapon and weapon use Although weapon-use violence among intimates is relatively rare, when weapons are used, the injuries are more severe (Ptacek, 1997; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). The availability of firearms and other weapons has been shown to increase the lethality of an assault. Studies report that firearms are used in between 35% (Block & Christakos, 1995) and 71% (Greenfield et al., 1998) of intimate partner homicides. One study showed that the presence of a firearm in the home might be a key factor in the escalation of nonfatal IPV to homicide (Saltzman, Mercy, O’Carroll, Rosenberg, & Rhodes, 1992). Based on a casecontrol study of 1860 homicide in three states, Kellermann et al. (1993) found that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of a domestic homicide by threefold. The case-

350

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

control study of Wiebe (2003b) based on 1720 homicide deaths and 8084 controls supported the earlier findings reported by Kellerman et al. Browne et al. (1999) found that the availability of firearms in the home increased the risk of an incident becoming fatal by a factor of 2.7. Studies using SHR data show that firearms are the most frequently used weapon by men and women to kill intimate partners ( 64.1% and 59.1% respectively; Kellermann & Mercy, 1992; Paulozzi, Saltzman, Thompson, & Holmgreen, 2001). Spouses and ex-spouses are significantly more likely to use firearms in intimate homicide, while women in common-law spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, or same-sex relationships used knives to kill their intimate partner almost as often as they used firearms. In nonfirearm homicides, men are more likely to be killed with knives than women are, while women are more likely to be killed with blunt objects or blows delivered by hands/feet, including strangulation (Block & Christakos, 1995; Paulozzi et al., 2001). Felson (1996) speculates that females may use weapons to overcome the inequity in physical size and strength. Most nonlethal violence occurring among intimate partners does not involve the use of guns or other weapons. Walker (1984) found that only 10% of women reported being threatened with a weapon during an acute battering incident. Hofeiler (1982) found that only 14% of 100 women reported that their husbands had threatened them with a gun during an abusive incident. Block et al. (2001) found that while only 9% of the 210 women in their sample had been injured with a weapon, 56% had been choked or strangled by an abusive partner; 21% reported receiving severe beatings, being choked or strangled, or receiving severe injuries (burns or broken bones). They found that women who had a previous event in which choking or strangling was involved were at greater risk for additional violence. 3.11. Alcohol and/or drug use Alcohol and, to a lesser extent, drug use has been shown to be associated with aggression of all types (Fagan, 1993; Leonard, 1993; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994; Widom, 1993; Wilkinson, 2003). Alcohol use at the time of a violent incident has been well documented (Block & Christakos, 1995; Fagan, Stewart, & Hansen, 1983; Greenfield et al., 1998); yet, the meaning of this pattern is still an empirical question. The role that alcohol use plays in IPV has been examined as both a distal and proximal factor (Leonard, 1999). Problem drinking can impact social, economic, and relational dynamics that exist between intimate partners, thereby increasing the level of stress in the relationship. Although researchers consistently find male problem drinking to be a distal risk factor for IPV (Block & Christakos, 1995; Leonard, 1999), research has produced mixed evidence concerning whether drinking at the time of the violent incident is an immediate and direct cause of violence. Some researchers report that alcohol is associated with physical violence (Fagan et al., 1983; Walker, 1984), while others argue that the relationship is spurious (Berk et al., 1983; Gelles, 1993). For example, Berk et al. (1983) showed no impact between whether either party had been drinking at the time of the conflict and the severity of the woman’s injuries.

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

351

Researchers have articulated two main hypotheses—the expectancy and the cognitive disruption hypotheses—to explain the role that alcohol use plays in violent events. The expectancy hypothesis proposes that alcohol acts as a cue that physical violence is expected and that alcohol use will excuse the actor from responsibility from his or her behavior. The cognitive disruption hypothesis focuses on the psychopharmacologic effects of alcohol on decision making in intimate interactions. According to this hypothesis, alcohol use impairs an actor’s ability to link cause and effect in conflict situations. Tests of these hypotheses have been limited to experiments sampling newlywed couples (Leonard & Roberts, 1998). In one such experiment, Leonard (1999) concluded, ‘‘Alcohol is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of marital aggression. The role of alcohol among newlyweds appears to be one of a facilitative nature, a contributing cause’’ (p. 132). The effect of drug use in violent events among intimate partners is even less well understood. Fagan et al. (1983) found that according to victims, perpetrators used drugs in 16% of situations in which physical violence was used against an intimate partner. Walker (1984) found alcohol use to be more of a problem in physical violence against intimate partners than drug use. Because drug use is frequently combined with alcohol consumption, it becomes a challenge to disentangle its contribution to violent events among intimates. Future research exploring the role that substances play in violent events among intimate partners needs to examine the role of alcohol only, alcohol with drugs, drugs only, different types of drugs, and drug withdrawal. 3.12. The role of third parties The roles of bystanders and third parties in the evolution of interpersonal disputes contribute significantly to their outcomes (Black, 1993; Decker, 1995; Felson, Ribner, & Siegel, 1984; Oliver, 1994; Wilkinson, 2003). In a public dispute, third parties constitute the audience, and their reaction has a strong effect on actors. In dispute situations, the identities and associations of observers of potential conflict can deeply influence the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of the actors. For example, Felson (1982) found that when a dispute occurred between parties of the same sex, the presence of third parties increased the likelihood that a verbal disagreement would turn into a physical fight. It is often assumed that violence in intimate relationships is more likely than other types of violence to involve only the two partners. Researchers have found that compared with violence among nonintimates, third parties or adult witnesses are less likely to be present during a domestic violence incident (Felson, Messner, & Hoskin, 1999). Consequently, the role of third parties is often neglected, and our understanding of their actions in IPV is therefore less developed. Berk et al. (1983) argued that females’ injuries were less severe when third parties are involved in the domestic disturbance—interpreted as a deterrence process. Dobash and Dobash (1984) found that 75% of the arguments and violent events reported by 109 women occurred in the presence of third parties, mostly children. The women reported that third party action included attempts to calm down the male or stop the violence. Eisikovits and Buchbinder (2000) found that third party involvement occurs most frequently after one incident or between violent episodes.

352

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Because the majority of violence between intimate partners occurs inside a private dwelling, however, it is likely that children residing in homes where there is violence are sometimes present during these violent events. Multiple studies have explored how having a child that resides with the couple can affect the occurrence of violence in the relationship. For example, Walker (1984) reported that children in the home added to relationship stress and increased the frequency of violent behavior; however, she found that the presence of adult children in the home acted as a deterrence to violence. In the 1993–1998 NCVS data, 43% of victims admitted that their children witnessed the reported IPV (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). No details, however, were provided about the roles that children might have played during these violent events. Hutchinson and Hirschel (2001) conducted one of the few studies that directly address the presence of children during violent events. They conducted extensive face-to-face interviews with a sample of 419 women who had reported to the police that they were involved in a misdemeanor spousal abuse incident. Results of this study indicate that the presence of children during a violent incident did not impact the degree of injury sustained, the decision-making process of women calling police, or police behavior once they responded to the call. The absence of third parties in the lives victims and the resulting isolation away from others have been shown to be a common feature of severe battering relationships (Browne, 1987). Isolation may affect both the likelihood of the man using violence and the likelihood of the woman remaining in the violent relationship. One technique used to maintain isolation is financial; 45% of the women in one study reported that abusive partners limited access to family income, thereby cutting women off from outside activities. Isolation from social support networks affects women’s perceived efficacy in stopping the violence within their intimate relationships. In her review of the cross-cultural ethnographic literature on domestic conflict, Baumgartner (1993) concludes that the evidence ‘‘indicates that the likelihood that a man will resort to violent self-help varies systematically with the amount of support that he and his wife are able to generate within their larger social networks’’ (p. 213). The strength and intimacy of social ties is important in determining the type of involvement that third parties may have with couples experiencing IPV. Women need what Baumgartner calls ‘‘partisan support’’ from close contacts that are not also close with the man so that the woman can get undivided support. In situations in which third parties offer ‘‘mutual support’’ for both the woman and man, they are more likely to attempt to make peace rather than promote dissolution. Baumgartner finds that when women face opposition from their own support network, they are more vulnerable to repeated abuse. She further argues that individuals who are isolated and have been abandoned by others are more likely to fall prey to IPV. Browne and Williams (1989) further illustrate this point, finding that as the number of intimate partner homicides increase, the number of resources available to women in their communities decrease. Dugan, Rosenfeld, and Nagin (2003) found that intervention resources aimed at reducing women’s exposure to violence, including the availability of welfare funds, is linked to lower levels of intimate-partner homicide using macrolevel data from 48 large U.S. cities in 1976–1996. Using 1992 law enforcement data for Duval City, FL, and the 1990 U.S. Census, Miles-Doan (1998) found that neighborhoods with greater resource deprivation

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

353

also have much higher rates of IPV than for violent encounters between other family, friends, and acquaintances. Recently, however, one study found that Chicago women living in organized neighborhoods with high collective efficacy did not have an effect over and above the woman’s individual situation, on the type of help that she seeks and whether she can escape future violence (Block et al., 2001). Eisikovits and Buchbinder (2000) described how women who sought help from social workers, therapists, and other counselors were often disappointed when their expectations of how the professional would help them did not match the help-seeking experience. Most notably, women felt betrayed when the counselors listened to the man’s side of the story and showed any signs of doubting the women’s side of the story. The authors warn that negative help-seeking experiences may force women deeper into the isolation, thereby facilitating additional violence. 3.13. The role of law enforcement From the event perspective, law enforcement officers can play an important role in the social construction of violent events. The body of literature on police strategies for handling domestic violence incidents has grown in recent years and has sparked considerable policy debate (Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2002). Fagan et al. (1983) found that 55% of men who had experienced informal police mediation and separation following a domestic conflict reported no subsequent assaults (Fagan, 1989). Using 1992–1996 NCVS data, Felson, Baumer, and Messner (2000) found that victims were significantly more likely to call the police on ex-spouses. According to the 1993–1998 NCVS, slightly more than half of victims reported IPV to police (53% of women; 46% of men; Rennison & Welchans, 2000, p. 7). When asked why they had not reported the matter to the police, 36% of the women and 52% of the men felt that it was a private or personal matter, 19% of women were afraid of reprisal, 7% of women and 15% of men felt that it was a minor crime, 6% of women felt that the police would not bother with the incident, and 3% of women and 11% of men felt that the police would protect the offender (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Felson, Messner, Hoskin, and Deane (2002) used the NCVS data to test specific hypotheses regarding reasons for reporting to police in domestic violence situations compared with other types of violence. They found that victims of domestic violence are more likely to call police for self-protection and perceived assault seriousness, but are less likely to call out of fear of reprisal, privacy concerns, or a desire to protect the offender when compared with other victims of assault. The Behind Closed Doors Study found that contacting the police was the most common type of formal help seeking (Block et al., 2001), while 39% call the police after at least one violent incident. Several well-known experimental studies were designed to examine the role that police officers’ actions played when the incident was reported or came to the attention of the police. The Minneapolis Domestic Violence experiment by Sherman and colleagues and the related Spousal Assault Replication Program (SARP) experiments have provided some evidence to support the deterrent effects of arrest for misdemeanor assaults (Berk, Campbell, Klap, &

354

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Western, 1992; Maxwell et al., 2002; Sherman & Berk, 1984a, 1984b). In a recent pooled reanalysis of the SARP data, Maxwell et al. (2002) also found modest support for the preventive effects of arrest. One study provides insights into how police involvement affects each of the partners in a violent relationship and how the affect of police action changes over time. Eisikovits and Buchbinder (2000) found that the first time a woman calls for police assistance, the experience is perceived as negative, generally because officers appear to be placing more value on the man’s nonserious definition of the situation. In most cases, police officers coached the man to calm down and the woman to think about the consequences of getting the law involved in a family problem. It is very likely that women would be reluctant to get the police involved in the future, unless the incident was more serious. On the other hand, the first experience was generally more positive for the man because he interpreted the actions and narratives of the police officers as supportive of his view of the woman’s contribution or blame in the incident. According to the authors, the second time the police came to the house, something very different happened. The police took action against the man either by taking him to the station or arresting him on the spot. This change in procedure left many men confused and angry. The second police action was obviously more satisfying to the woman, although she was not always prepared for the social and economic consequence of her husband’s arrest. The study showed that men, women, and police officers have different scripts about how violent events are to be handled. This study is an important first step in disentangling the complex problem of studying the effects of social control agents on violent relationships. Beyond the study just described, it is impossible to know how police involvement affects violent incidents from the data available. 3.14. Event outcomes and aftermaths Previous research generally has neglected the importance of defining closure in violent events (see Oliver, 1994; Wilkinson, 2003 for exceptions). Data on the outcomes of violent events beyond the immediate incident generally are unavailable in official data sources. The issue of collecting data on event closure is especially problematic for violence among intimates, as this type of violence is often serial in nature that the ending of one violent encounter and its aftermath could clearly play a role in the beginning of the next violent event. One can imagine a variety of outcomes and aftermaths that follow violent events among intimates—injury, resolution, forgiveness, arrest, immediate separation, retaliation, escalation until next opportunity, verbal/psychological abuse, target substitution (e.g., aggressing toward children or other partners), relational distance, counseling/therapy, drug/ alcohol abuse, suicide attempts, shelter stays, other interventions, and so forth. To have a meaningful discussion of event outcomes, researchers need to examine event-level data nested within individuals and dyads. The types of help-seeking behaviors utilized by victims are often the most commonly explored event outcome by researchers in this subfield of violence. Greenfield et al. (1998) report that NCVS data for 1992–1996 show that more than half of victims reported the incident to police, about 17% sought help from a victim service agency, 10% of female victims of IPV sought medical care, and of those, 20% were treated for some type of injury.

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

355

Although the NCVS and the NEISS data sets are helpful for gauging the quantity of service utilization, data on the quality and nature of those experiences is needed. For example, Block et al. (2001) found that the most common type of help-seeking behavior utilized by women was to talk with a friend or other informal social network member. Only 17% of women said that they had consulted an agency or counselor about the violence, 23% sought medical aid, and 39% called the police at least once. Block et al. found a moderate correlation between the number of types of formal help seeking in the previous year and the end of the violence. Overall, the complexities of the aftermath phase of a violent event are rarely studied. Eisikovits (1996) examines the aftermath component of a battering incident because it emerged as a meaningful theme in qualitative interviews with both partners in abusive relationships in Northern Israel. Content analysis of interviews with 20 couples revealed two extreme types of strategies that women used for handling the aftermath of violent events. The ‘‘rejecters’’ were women who actively rejected the violence and used the aftermath period to renegotiate the existing power structure and behaviors of the couple. The ‘‘surrenderors’’ were women who accepted the violence. For these women, the aftermath of the violent event was often short in duration and did not mark a significant period for them. This study provides preliminary insights into the importance of the aftermath stage of violent events for intimate partners who remain together. Future studies, however, should examine event aftermaths for intimates with other relationship statuses.

4. Discussion The full utility of the situational or event perspective needs empirical exploration to illuminate the heterogeneity of violence among intimates. Specifically, research should examine the nature and status of the relationship between offender(s) and victim(s), the perquisites of events, the motivations or sparks for dispute situations, the location, time of day, sequential actions of the actors, weapon use, the role of third parties, the role of substance use, law enforcement actions, event outcomes, event aftermaths, and the interactions of these domains. The event perspective that we advocate has successfully shed new light on other types of violence, including robbery, assaults, and youth violence (see Meier et al., 2001; Wilkinson, 2003). By examining the violence process, including victims, offenders, and situations in context, research will be better able to explain the occurrence of violence and to inform policy. It is important to recognize that efforts to apply the situational or event perspective to IPV must not be built on assumptions that women’s behavior in male–female violent situations is identical to male–male violence (see Dobash & Dobash, 1984, pp. 284– 286, for a different opinion). Researchers need to confront the inherently difficult methodological issues that come with studying violence through an event perspective lens. Specifically, researchers must address concerns about gathering data on events from the actor(s)’ perspective rather than relying on the victims’ perception of events. This can be accomplished by developing research programs that move beyond the commonly used data sources, sampling frames, and quantitative measurement

356

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

strategies. It is important that future studies of violence using an event perspective collect data on violent events among intimate partners as well as violence with nonintimates. We recommend that researchers undertake primary data collection efforts to collect data on violent events among intimates by studying all participants in violent events. With couples as the unit of analysis, interviews with both partners would be ideal for the purposes of triangulation and convergent validity. Event data, as well as important background and contextual data, should be collected separately for each partner and then compared. The set of studies conducted by Eisikovits & Buchbinder (2000); Eisikovits & Winstok (2001) should be replicated in the United States. In addition, researchers should carefully study the approach taken by Dobash and Dobash (1979, 1984). Pilot studies should be done to refine existing measurement. An in-depth analysis is required to be able to advance our understanding of violence in context among intimates. In terms of sampling strategies, to study the problem of IPV, the field must move beyond a reliance on small-scale purposeful or convenience samples. Studies with an adequately large and diverse sample of randomly selected couples are needed. The evolving nature of violence within the context of relationships requires that researchers develop longitudinal data sets on violent events. Future research efforts therefore need to examine not only the nature of the relationship, but also how individual-level characteristics interact, how the characteristics of the dyad influence interaction patterns, and how these factors change over time. Longitudinal research on violent couples, with careful attention to measuring the fluidity of relationships, violent behavior within relationships, and violent behavior across victim–offender relationship (dyad) types, would advance the field. Longitudinal data will be important for examining the interaction of individual, situational, and contextual variables among people who are violent generally, violent only with intimates, and nonviolent. Although these types of inquiry will be costly and time consuming, they would likely lead to theory refinement, measurement improvement, and new suggestions for policy. Official data sets will remain an important source for understanding the trends and patterns in IPV. Efforts should continue to maximize the collection of situational and contextual variables in official data sources. It may also be beneficial for researchers to partner up with local criminal justice officials to improve the quality of event-level data that is included in case investigation files. Additional efforts to conduct laboratory experiments on intimate conflict, decision making, and communication processes should be supported. Attention should be paid to the diversity of the sample with regard to relationship status and demographic factors. Intervention programs that focus on the communication dynamics and skill deficits of intimate partners should be evaluated with adequate sample sizes and control groups.

Acknowledgements Acknowledgment is due to Robert Meier, Jeffrey Fagan, Terrie Moffitt, Carolyn Rebecca Block, Douglas Wiebe, Keith Gooch, Ellen Kurtz, and Ralph Taylor, who provided helpful comments on earlier drafts.

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

357

References Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40 – 50. Barnett, O. W., Martinez, T. E., & Bluestein, B. W. (1995). Jealousy and romantic attachment in maritally violent and nonviolent men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 473 – 486. Baumgartner, M. P. (1993). Violent networks: The origins and management of domestic conflict. In R. B. Felson, & J. Tedeschi (Eds.), Agression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives ( pp. 209 – 32). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Berk, R. A., Berk, S. F., Loseke, D. R., & Rauma, D. (1983). Mutual combat and other family violence myths. The dark side of families: Current family violence research ( pp. 197 – 212). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 698 – 708. Black, D. (1993). Crime as social control. New York: Cambridge University Press. Block, C. R., & Christakos, A. (1995). Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over 29 years. Crime & Delinquency, 41(4), 496 – 526. Block, C. R., Skogan, W. G., Fugate, M., & Devitt, C. (2001). Collective efficacy and community capacity make a difference ‘behind closed doors’? Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Boyle, D. J., & Vivian, D. (1996). Generalized versus spouse-specific anger/hostility and men’s violence against intimates. Violence and Victims, 11, 293 – 317. Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York: Free Press. Browne, A., & Williams, K. R. (1989). Exploring the effect of resource availability and the likelihood of female perpetrated homicides. Law of Society Review, 23, 75 – 94. Browne, A., Williams, K. R., & Dutton, D. G. (1999). Homicide between intimate partners: A 20-year review. In M. D. Smith, & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social Research ( pp. 149 – 64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burman, B., John, R. S., & Margolin, G. (1992). Observed patterns of conflict in violent, nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 15 – 37. Burman, B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1993). America’s Angriest Home Videos: Behavioral contingencies observed in home reenactments of martial conflicts. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 28 – 39. Cahn, D. D. (1996). Family violence from the communication perspective. In D. D. Cahn, & S. A. Llyod (Eds.), Family violence from the communication perspective ( pp. 1 – 19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crawford, M., & Gartner, R. (1992). Women killing: Intimate femicide in Ontario 1974 -- 1990. Toronto, ON: Government of Ontario, Ministry of Social Services, Woman’s Directorate. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter. Decker, S. H. (1995). Reconstructing homicide events: The role of witnesses in fatal encounters. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(5), 439 – 450. Delsol, C., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (2003). A typology of martially violent men and correlates of violence in a community sample. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 635 – 651. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1984). The nature and antecedents of violent events. British Journal of Criminology, 24(3), 269 – 288. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, E. R., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71 – 91. Dugan, L., Rosenfeld, R., & Nagin, D. (2003). Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate-partner homicide. Law & Society Review, 37(1), 169 – 198. Eisikovits, Z. (1996). The aftermath of wife beating: Strategies of bounding violent events. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 459 – 474.

358

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Eisikovits, Z., & Buchbinder, E. (1996). Pathways to disenchanment: Battered women’s views of social workers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 425 – 440. Eisikovits, Z., & Buchbinder, E. (2000). Locked in a violent embrace: Understanding and intervening in domestic violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eisikovits, Z., & Winstok, Z. (2001). Overdrawing and balancing accounts: The contribution of past events to the escalation process from the batterer’s perspective. Violence Against Women, 7, 5 – 21. Emery, B. C., & Lloyd, S. A. (1994). A feminist perspective on the study of women who use aggression in close relationships. In D. L. Sollie, & L. A. Leslie (Eds.), Gender, families, and close relationships ( pp. 237 – 62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fagan, J. A. (1989). Cessation of family violence: Deterrence and dissuasion. In L. Ohlin, & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 11 ( pp. 377 – 426). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fagan, J. A. (1993). Set and setting revisited: Influences of alcohol and illicit drugs on the social context of violent events. In S. Martin (Ed.), Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fostering Multidisciplinary Perspectives, vol. 24 (pp. 161 – 191). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Fagan, J. A., & Browne, A. (1994). Violence between spouses and intimates: Physical aggression between women and men in intimate relationships. In A. Reiss, & J. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence: Social influences Understanding and Preventing Violence, vol. 3 ( pp. 115 – 292). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Fagan, J. A., Stewart, D. K., & Hansen, K. V. (1983). Violent men or violent husbands? Background factors and situational correlates. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research ( pp. 49 – 68). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Felson, R. (1982). Impression management and the escalation of aggression and violence. Social Psychological Quarterly, 45, 245 – 254. Felson, R. B. (1993). Predatory and dispute-related violence: A social interactionist approach. In R. V. Clarke, & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine Activity and Rational Choice, Advances in Criminological Theory, vol. 5 ( pp. 103 – 26). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Felson, R. B. (1996). Big people hit little people: Sex differences in physical power and interpersonal violence. Criminology, 34(3), 433 – 452. Felson, R. B., Baumer, E. P., & Messner, S. F. (2000). Acquaintance robbery. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(3), 284 – 305. Felson, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (1998). Disentangling the effects of gender and intimacy on victim-precipitation in homicide. Criminology, 36(2), 405 – 423. Felson, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (1998). The control model in the intimate partner violence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(1), 86 – 94. Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., & Hoskin, A. (1999). The victim – offender relationship and calling the police in assaults. Criminology, 37(4), 931 – 947. Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., Hoskin, A. W., & Deane, G. (2002). Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology, 40, 617 – 647. Felson, R. B., Ribner, S. A., & Siegel, M. S. (1984). Age and the effect of third parties during criminal violence. Sociology and Social Research, 68(4), 452 – 462. Felson, R. B., & Steadman, H. J. (1983). Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology, 21(1), 59 – 74. Gelles, R. J. (1993). Alcohol and other drugs are associated with violence—They are not its cause. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence ( pp. 183 – 96). Newberry Park, MI: Sage. Goetting, A. (1995). Homicide in families and other special populations. New York: Springer. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999a). How stable is marital interaction over time? Family Process, 38(2), 159 – 173. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1999b). What predicts change in marital interaction over time? A study of alternative models. Family Process, 38(2), 143 – 158.

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

359

Greenfield, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A., Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C., Warchol, G., Maston, C., & Fox, J. A. (1998). Violence by intimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Harris, M. B. (1993). How provoking! What makes men and women angry? Aggressive Behavior, 19(3), 199 – 211. Hofeiler, K. H. (1982). Social, psychological and situational factors in wife abuse. Palo Alto, CA: R & E Research Associates. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Anglin, K. (1991). The competency of responses given by maritally violent versus nonviolent men to problematic marital situations. Violence and Victims, 6, 257 – 269. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476 – 497. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Hutchinson, G. (1993). Attributing negative intent to wife behavior: The attributions of maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(2), 206 – 211. Hutchinson, I. W., & Hirschel, J. D. (2001). The effects of children’s presence on woman abuse. Violence and Victims, 16(1), 3 – 17. Infante, D., Chandler, T. A., & Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interpersonal violence. Communication Monographs, 56, 163 – 177. Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Waltz, J., Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1994). Affect, verbal, content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 982 – 988. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283 – 294. Kellermann, A. L., & Mercy, J. A. (1992). Men, women, and murder: Gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. Journal of Trauma, 33, 1 – 5. Kellermann, A. L., Rivara, F. P., Rushforth, N. B., Banton, J.G., Reay, D.T., Francisco, J.T., Locci, A.B., Prodzinski, J., Hackman, B.B., & Somes, G. (1993). Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1084 – 1091. Leonard, K. E. (1993). Drinking patterns and intoxication in marital violence: Review critique, and future directions for research. In S. E. Martin (Ed.) Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 253 – 280). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Leonard, K. E. (1999). Alcohol use and husband marital aggression among newlywed couples. In X. B. Arriaga, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships ( pp. 113 – 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leonard, K. E., & Roberts, L. J. (1998). The effects of alcohol on the marital interactions of aggressive and nonaggressive husbands and their wives. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107(4), 602 – 615. Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1996). Prospective prediction of husband marital aggression within newlywed couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 369 – 380. Lloyd, S. A. (1999). The interpersonal and communication dynamics of wife battering. In X. B. Arriaga, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships ( pp. 91 – 112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lloyd, S. A., & Emery, B. C. (2000). The dark side of courtship: Physical and sexual aggression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Luckenbill, D. F. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25, 176 – 186. Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Silva, P. A. (1998). Hitting without a license: Testing explanations for differences in partner abuse between young adult daters and cohabitors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 41 – 55. Makepeace, J. M. (1997). Courtship violence as process: A developmental theory. In A. P. Cardarelli (Ed.), Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes, and effects ( pp. 29 – 47). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Margolin, G., & Burman, B. (1993). Wife abuse versus marital violence: Different terminologies, explanations, and solutions. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 59 – 73. Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Gleberman, L. (1988). Affective responses to conflictual discussions in violent and nonviolent couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical, 56(1), 24 – 33.

360

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

Margolin, G., Burman, B., & John, R. S. (1989). Home observations of married couples reenacting naturalistic conflicts. Behavioral Asssessment, 11, 101 – 118. Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2002). The preventive effect of arrest in intimate partner violence: Research, theory, and policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(1), 51 – 80. Meier, R. F., Kennedy, L. W., & Sacco, V. F. (2001). Crime and the criminal event perspective. In R. F. Meier, L. W. Kennedy, & V. F. Sacco (Eds.), The Process and Structure of Crime: Criminal Events and Crime Analysis Advances in Criminological Theory, vol. 9 ( pp. 1 – 28). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Miles-Doan, R. (1998). Violence between spouses and intimates: Does neighborhood context matter? Social Forces, 77, 623 – 645. Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38(1), 199 – 232. Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse—Prevention policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(1), 5 – 36. Oliver, W. (1994). The violent social world of black men. New York: Lexington Books. Paulozzi, L. J., Saltzman, L. E., Thompson, M. P., & Holmgreen, P. (2001). Surveillance for homicide among intimate partners—United States, 1981 – 1998. Weekly Report - Mortality and Morbidity, 50(SS03), 1 – 16. Polk, K. (1994). When men kill: Scenarios of masculine violence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ptacek, J. (1997). The tactics and strategies of men who batter: Testimony from women seeking restraining orders. In A. P. Cardarelli (Ed.), Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes, and effects ( pp. 104 – 123). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Regoeczi, W., & Riedel, M. (2003). The application of missing data estimation models to the problem of unknown victim/offender relationships in homicide cases. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(2), 155 – 184. Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence (NCJ 178247). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Renzetti, C. M. (1997). Violence and abuse among same-sex couples. In A. P. Cardarelli (Ed.), Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes, and effects ( pp. 70 – 89). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Rosen, K. H. (1996). The ties that bind women to violent premarital relationships: Processes of seduction and entrapment. In D. D. Cahn, & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective ( pp. 151 – 76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saltzman, L. E., Mercy, J. A., O’Carroll, P. W., Rosenberg, M. L., & Rhodes, P. H. (1992). Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3043 – 3047. Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984a). The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Police Foundation Reports. Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984b). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261 – 272. Sherman, L. W., & Cohn, E. G. (1989). The impact of research on legal policy: The Minneapolis domestic violonce experiment. Law and Society Review, 23, 117 – 144. Sherman, L. W., Smith, D. A., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 680 – 690. Stout, K. D. (1993). Intimate femicide. A study of men who have killed their mates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 81 – 94. Straus, M. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. L. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence ( pp. 67 – 87). Newberry Park, MI: Sage Publications. Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships ( pp. 17 – 44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

D.L. Wilkinson, S.J. Hamerschlag / Aggression and Violent Behavior 10 (2005) 333–361

361

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey (Research in Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. Research report. Findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Walker, L. E. (1983). The battered woman syndrome study. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research ( pp. 31 – 48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Walker, L. E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer. Wallace, A. (1986). Homicide: The social reality. Sydney, Australia: New South Wales Bureau of Crime and Statistics. Widom, C. S. (1993). Child abuse and alcohol use and abuse. In S. E. Martin (Ed.) Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 291 – 314). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Wiebe, D. J. (2003a). Sex differences in the perpetrator – victim relationship among emergency department patients presenting with nonfatal firearm-related injuries. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 42(3), 405 – 412. Wiebe, D. J. (2003b). Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: A national case control study. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41, 771 – 782. Wilkinson, D. L. (2003). Guns, violence, and identity among African American and Latino youth. New York: LFB Scholarly Publications, LLC. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8, 271 – 294. Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns of criminal homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Wright, R., & Decker, S. (1997). Armed robbers in action: Stick ups and street culture. Boston: Northeastern University Press.