Anda di halaman 1dari 10

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472 DOI 10.

1007/s10896-008-9173-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

From Victim to Offender: The Effects of Male Initiated Violence on Women Arrested for Using Intimate Partner Violence
Catherine A. Simmons & Peter Lehmann & Shannon Collier-Tenison

Published online: 19 March 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract A number of theorists posit that most women who are arrested for using violence against their intimate partners are in-fact victims of IPV themselves and should be treated as such. However, in this population of women IPV arrestees empirical investigation has yet to explore how physical and emotional victimization experiences are associated with arrest related factors, propensity to be abusive or attitude toward using relationship violence. The current study explores these factors finding no difference in arrest factors between women who (a) deny abuse, (b) report rare/occasional abuse and (c) report frequent/very frequent abuse. However, mixed results were found with regard to participants responses on scales measuring propensity to be abusive and attitudes about using violence in marriage. Theoretical and practical related issues are addressed. Keywords Family violence . Domestic violence . Intimate partner violence . Women offenders Women arrested for using violence against their intimate partners are a heterogeneous group. While some women report to be either directly or indirectly fighting back against their violent abuser (e.g., DeLeon-Granados et al.
C. A. Simmons (*) College of Social Work, University of Tennessee, 711 Jefferson Ave, Room 605, Memphis, TN 38163, USA e-mail: cathysimmons@utk.edu P. Lehmann School of Social Work, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA S. Collier-Tenison School of Social Work, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA

2006; Dobash and Dobash 2004; Dobash et al. 1992; Hamberger 2005; Hamberger and Potente 1994; Kernsmith 2005; Miller 2001; Miller and Meloy 2006), others deny such abuse and are, in fact, the primary aggressor in the relationship (e.g., Busch and Rosenberg 2004; McNeely et al. 2001; Swan and Snow 2002, 2003). Conceptually, a great deal of literature asserts that women arrested for intimate partner violence (IPV) who report experiencing partner abuse should be approached in the same manner as non-offending female IPV victims (Hamberger 2005; Hamberger and Potente 1994). However, very little is written about female IPV offenders whom deny such abuse histories, nor have the differences between this population and female IPV arrestees who do report victimization been reported. Indeed, to date, no published work has empirically explored how the frequency of male initiated physical and emotional abuse is associated with factors related to the arresting incident, attitudes justifying the use of relationship violence, and the propensity to be abusive in a population of women adjudicated for IPV offenses. The current study explores these factors by building on an earlier work that identified three groups of women IPV offenders based on experience of abuse from their male partner: (a) women who deny being abused, (b) women who report abuse that was rare/ seldom and (c) women who report abuse that was frequent/ very frequent (Simmons et al. 2008).

Women Arrested for Using Violence Although women constitute only a small portion (15%) of IPV related arrests in the United States (Rennison 2002), their subsequent presentation to IPV offender based programs has increased in recent years (DeLeon-Granados et al. 2006). These increases often leave workers in such

464

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472

programs with a conundrum about how to best prevent future violence from occurring in relationships in which the woman is identified as the offender. Theoretically, different treatment strategies should be implemented for women referred as offenders who are victims of IPV than for women offenders who deny experiencing such abuse. However the line between victim and offender is often blurred with this population. Although women arrested for using IPV report a spectrum of abuse-related experiences (from denying being abused to reporting very frequent abuse), they all share the common experience of having been arrested, convicted, and sentenced to an IPV offenders program. At this point, questions arise regarding whether women arrested for using violence against an intimate partner should be treated as victims, offenders or a combination of the two. Male-Initiated Violence A preponderance of literature indicates that many (if not most) women arrested for IPV offenses report victimization by their male partner. For example, in their study of 108 women arrested for using violence against an intimate partner, Swan and Snow (2002) found that 95% reported physical victimization from this partner. In a study that included 54 women participants of a batterer intervention program, Kernsmith (2005) also found the majority of women reported using violence in response to prior abuse, often citing revenge and retaliation as a primary motivation. Likewise, in their classic study of 67 domestically violent women, Hamberger and Potente (1994) found most participants either felt a need to defend themselves from their partner s assaults or were retaliating for previous battering. Indeed, multiple studies indicate similar findings (e.g., Able 2001; Busch and Rosenberg 2004; Cascardi and Vivian 1995; Dasgupta 1999; DeLeon-Granados et al. 2006; Dobash and Dobash 2004; Dobash et al. 1992; Hamberger 2005; Hamberger and Guse 2002; Hamberger et al. 1997; Hamby and Sugarman 1999; Miller 2001; Miller and Meloy 2006; Temple et al. 2005). The underlying (and sometimes stated) assumptions of these studies is that women who both use and experience partner abuse are justified in this use of violence, and are in some way different from women who use relationship violence, but are not victims of IPV. From a treatment standpoint, it logically follows that traditional batter s intervention programs are inappropriate for women offenders who identify themselves as victims. It has even been suggested that arresting women for these crimes revictimizes them and serves as a deterrent to their seeking police assistance during future assaults (e.g., Hirschel and Buzawa 2002; Houry et al. 2006). However, before either providing services designed for the traditional IPV victim

or changing arrest policy, it is important to develop a better overall understanding of the violence perpetrated against and by this population of women. Womens Use of Violence Significant research indicates that not all women use aggression in self-defense (e.g., Archer 2000; Filbert 2004; Straus 1993) and some women use aggression instrumentally (e.g., Busch and Rosenberg 2004; Drapkin et al. 2005; Dutton et al. 2005; Hamberger et al. 1997; McNeely et al. 2001; Simmons et al. 2008; Swan and Snow 2002, 2003). Babcock et al. (2003) found that 50% of women arrested for IPV offenses had also committed violent offenses against non-intimates. In his commentary on gender symmetry in physical assaults, Straus (2006) points out, that there are more than 150 studies showing equal or higher rates of assault by women (p. 1086). Similarly, in his meta-analysis of 121 empirical articles, Archer (2000) found that women (a) were slightly more likely than men to use acts of physical aggression against their intimate partner, and (b) used these acts more frequently than men. In addition to studies showing instrumentality and frequency of woman initiated violence, recent findings show women who are arrested for using violence in their intimate relationships minimize their actions when reporting and discussing their violent acts. In his meta-analysis of 61 studies using the conflict tactics scale, Archer (1999) found that both men and women underreport their own acts of aggression toward their partners. In two studies of domestic violence offenders, Henning et al. (2003, 2005) found that, like male offenders, women arrested for IPV offenses tended to respond in a socially desirable manner when discussing their own use of violence, either attributing the greater share of blame to their spouse/partner or denying and/or minimizing the severity of the offense. Implicit in these findings is the idea that women adjudicated for IPV offenses may under represent the role they play in IPV; thus, they may not be as similar to the traditional IPV victim as implied by some of the literature. Due to the conflicting views of women arrested for IPV offences, questions can be raised regarding how physical and emotional victimization experiences are associated with (a) factors related to the arresting incident, (b) attitudes toward the use of violence against an intimate partner, and (c) the propensity to be abusive. Therefore, the specific research questions addressed by this study include the following: Does the level of violence used by women arrested for IPV offenses differ by whether or not they report their own victimization experiences? Does the level of reported partner violence experienced by women arrested for an IPV offense affect their attitudes toward when it is

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472

465

justified to use violence against their partner? Is the frequency of violence perpetrated against women arrested for IPV related offenses related their propensity to be abusive in an intimate relationship? The purpose of the current study is to explore these important factors within the context of the degree of victimization women adjudicated for IPV offences report experiencing from their current partner. Hypotheses for the current study are based on prior research indicating that three groups of women arrested for IPV offences exist: (a) those who deny their partner abused them, (b) those who report being abused but reported this abuse was rare and/or seldom, and (c) those who report being abused and reported its occurrence was frequent and/or very frequent (Simmons et al. 2008). Because both physical abuse and emotional abuse are important factors in understanding domestic violence, reports of both are included in this work. Based on these constructs, the following hypotheses were explored: H1 Factors related to the arresting incident will differ between women adjudicated for using IPV who (a) deny their partner abused them,(b) report abuse was rare/ seldom and (c) report abuse was frequent/very frequent (physically and emotionally). H2 Attitudes toward acceptable use of violence against an intimate partner differ between women adjudicated for using IPV who (a) deny their partner abused them, (b) report abuse was rare/seldom and (c) report abuse was frequent/very frequent (physically and emotionally). H3 The propensity to be abusive differs between women adjudicated for using IPV who (a) deny their partner abused them, (b) report abuse was rare/seldom and (c) report abuse was frequent/very frequent (physically and emotionally).

and 2.6% (n =2) reporting to be Asian. Their ages ranged from 18 to 50 with an average age of 29.56 years and their education levels ranged from 5th grade to college graduate, with an average 12.51 years of education reported. Over three fourths of the participants reported having children, with 29.9% (n =23) reporting one child, 28.6% (n =22) reporting two children, 11.7% (n = 9) reporting three children and 6.5% (n =5) reporting four children. Although the abuse experienced by the participants from their partner is addressed in subsequent sections of this manuscript, all of the participants reported to have been the primary aggressor in the incident that resulted in their arrest and subsequent referral to the IPV offender s treatment program. Measuring Partner s Abusiveness The frequency and degree of physical and emotional abuse the participants reported experiencing from their male partners were drawn from a larger instrument looking at multiple aspects of power and control in intimate relationships. Both the physical and emotional abuse scales utilized a 10-question 5-point Likert format. Participants were asked to indicate the number that best described the abusive behavior that they experienced within the relationship that brought them to the program. Answer choices on both scales ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating never, 2 indicating rarely, 3 indicating seldom, 4 indicating frequently and 5 indicating very frequently. For each of the two scales, scores were determined by summing the responses to the ten questions. The first scale, Physical Abuse, addressed both threats and use of physical violence perpetrated by the participants partner. Factor analysis of participant responses indicated one Egan Value of 6.562 and reliability analysis of participant responses indicated a Coefficient Alpha score of 0.9388. The second scale, Emotional Abuse, addressed demeaning statements perpetrated by the participants partner. Factor analysis of participant responses indicated one Egen Value of 6.245 and reliability analysis of participant responses indicated a Coefficient Alpha score of 0.9317. Table 1 illustrates the areas addressed by both of the scales and the frequency of answer choice selection. Comparison Groups Three comparison groups were created for each of the abuse scales reported above by categorizing individual scale scores on both the Physical Abuse scale and the Emotional Abuse scale. Individual scores of 10 indicate the participant reported to never experience any of the ten abusive behaviors assessed and were therefore categorized as denies abuse. Individual scores between 11 and 25 indicate the participant reported to rarely or seldom

Method Participants Participants in this study were 77 women who were court ordered to participate in a year long urban domestic violence diversion program between the years 2001 and 2006. All participants signed informed consent forms and completed the measurement instruments during the intake stage of their involvement with the program. Therefore, results are indicative of participant responses prior to receiving intervention services. Participants ethnic makeup is representative of the urban community in which they reside with 53.2% (n =41) reporting to be Caucasian, 27.3% (n =21) reporting to be African American, 16.9% (n =13) reporting to be Hispanic

466

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472

Table 1 Frequency of answer choice responses provided by women participants regarding physical and emotional violence by an intimate partner Never Physical abuse Threw something at me Pushed or grabbed me Pulled my hair Spit at me Tried to block me from leaving Pinned me to the wall, floor, or bed Hit, kicked, or punched me Hit or tried to hit me with something Threatened me with a knife, gun, or other weapon Choked me Emotional abuse Insulted me in front of others Put down my sexual attractiveness Made out I was stupid Criticized my care of children or home Called me names Swore at me Told me I was crazy Told me I was irrational Blamed me for his problems Made untrue accusations Rarely Seldom Frequently Very frequently

51.9% 23.4% 68.8% 55.8% 37.7% 50.6% 58.4% 88.3% 70.1% 31.2% 50.6% 77.9% 51.9% 54.5% 32.5% 41.6% 33.8% 40.3% 41.6% 35.1%

19.5% 29.9% 10.4% 20.8% 26.0% 24.7% 23.4% 5.2% 13.0% 24.7% 18.2% 7.8% 14.3% 18.2% 19.5% 15.6% 16.9% 22.1% 19.5% 14.3%

16.5% 24.7% 11.7% 13.0% 19.5% 10.4% 10.4% 0.0% 9.1% 13.0% 15.6% 7.8% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6% 9.1% 15.6% 14.3% 11.7% 13.0%

9.1% 16.9% 5.2% 5.2% 10.4% 9.1% 3.9% 2.6% 3.9% 10.4% 9.1% 2.6% 9.1% 3.9% 11.7% 11.7% 14.3% 10.4% 9.1% 15.6%

2.6% 5.2% 3.9% 5.2% 6.5% 5.2% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 20.8% 6.5% 3.9% 9.1% 7.8% 20.8% 22.1% 19.5% 13.0% 18.2% 22.1%

experience some of the ten items assessed and were therefore categorized as reports abuse was rare/seldom. Individual scores between 26 and 50 indicate the participants reported to frequently or very frequently experience the ten items assessed and were therefore categorized as reports abuse was frequent/very frequent. Table 2 illustrates comparisons of demographic characteristics between the three groups in each of the two areas explored (physical abuse and emotional abuse). Factors Related to the Arresting Incident Factors related to the arresting incident were drawn from the police reports and statements made by the offender included in the police report file. The following nine factors were included in this study: (1) arrestee choked the victim; (2) arrestee physically harmed the victim; (3) arrestee had a weapon; (4) arrestee threatened to kill the victim; (5) arrestee had been drinking; (6) arrestee had been using drugs; (7) assault happened in public; (8) there was a witness to the altercation; and, (9) arrestee previously assaulted the victim. Police reports for all 77 of the participants were available and utilized to explore these variables. Attitudes about Marriage Index The Attitudes about Marriage Index (AAM: Margolin & Foo, as cited in Garcia-OHearn and Margolin 2000) is a

25-item scale that assesses the respondents perception of when aggression toward ones spouse is justified given specific circumstances (Margolin & Foo). The scale includes three labels (justifiable, somewhat justifiable, and not justifiable), anchored on a seven-point Likert scale with respondent answers totaling into one sum score. Predictive validity for the original instrument was correlated with both attitudes toward aggression and history of exposure to domestic violence using the answers provided by 47 men recruited from temporary employment agencies (GarciaOHearn and Margolin 2000). In the original version of the AAM, male focused gender specific language is used. For example, a husband slaps or hits his wife if she... For the current study, the language was altered to be appropriate for female participants (e.g., a wife slaps or hits her husband if ... he...). Although validation of the AAM was conducted on men only, reliability analysis of participant responses in the current study indicated Coefficient Alpha scores that are within acceptable range to use the instrument with women (0.9042). Propensity to be Abusive The Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS: Dutton et al. 2001) is a 29 item five-subscale self-report perpetrator profile measure that assesses an individuals predisposition to be abusive in their relationships. The five subscales address aspects of mental functioning that are highly related

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472 Table 2 The demographic characteristics of the study participants including age, years of education, ethnicity and number of children Total Reported physical abuse Reported emotional abuse

467

Total participants Denies abuse Rare/seldom abuse Frequent/very Denies abuse Rare/seldom abuse Frequent/very N =77 N =15 N =41 frequent abuse N =11 N =42 frequent abuse N =21 N =24 Age Education Ethnicity Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Number of children None One Two Three Four 29.56 yrs 12.51 yrs 53.2% 27.3% 16.9% 2.6% 23.4% 29.9% 28.6% 11.7% 6.5% 28.80 yrs 12.73 yrs 6.4% 9.0% 2.6% 1.3% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 2.6% 1.3% 30.54 yrs 12.56 yrs 33.7% 10.3% 9.0% 0.0% 13.0% 34.1% 11.7% 7.8% 2.6% 28.9 yrs 12.24 yrs 13.0% 7.8% 5.1% 1.3% 5.1% 6.4% 11.7% 1.3% 2.6% 30.91 yrs 12.27 yrs 7.8% 5.1% 0.0% 1.3% 5.1% 2.6% 2.6% 3.9% 0.0% 28.67 yrs 12.27 yrs 23.4% 16.8% 14.2% 0.0% 13.0% 35.7% 11.7% 3.9% 6.4% 30.50 yrs 13.04 yrs 22.1% 5.1% 2.6% 1.3% 5.1% 7.8% 14.2% 3.9% 0.0%

* Percentage of total sample

to using violence. Answers to each item per subscale are scored using different versions of a Likert scale that are then added into one sum score identified as PAS Total Score. Risk may also be determined by scoring individual subscales identified as (a) Anger Subscale, (b) Identity Diffusion Subscale, (c) Attachment Subscale, (d) Trauma Symptom Subscale and (e) Parental Warmth & Rejection Scale. To provide greater detail regarding the relationship with each parent, the Parental Rejection and Attachment Style subscale included in the original version of the PAS is labeled as two separate subscales, (1) Paternal Warmth & Rejection Scale and (2) Maternal Warmth & Rejection Scale, thus creating six subscales instead of five. Dutton (1995) addressed predictive validity of the PAS using the answers provided by 144 men in treatment for partner abuse and 44 demographically matched controls. In this work, the PAS correlated significantly with partner reports of abusiveness and correctly classified men 82.2% of the time (Dutton). Since the original study, the PAS has also been validated using male outpatients, gay men, male college students, and a group of male spousal assaulters (Dutton et al. 2001). Again, although validation of the PAS was conducted with men only, reliability analysis of participant responses in the current study indicated Coefficient Alpha scores that are within acceptable range to use the instrument with the current sample of women (Anger Subscale=0.6573, Identity Diffusion Subscale=0.8038, Attachment Subscale=0.7495, Trauma Symptom Subscale= 0.8326, Paternal Warmth & Rejection Scale=0.9484 and Maternal Warmth & Rejection Scale=0.9309).

Results Factors Related to Arresting Incident In response to the first hypothesis, factors related to the arresting incident will differ between women adjudicated for using IPV who (a) deny their partner abused them, (b) report abuse was rare/seldom and (c) report abuse was frequent/very frequent (physically and emotionally), comparisons of the nine factors related to the incident leading to the participants arrest were conducted among the three groups of study participants for both the physical abuse and emotional abuse variables using Chi Square. Table 3 illustrates the results of these comparisons. Differences among the three groups did not meet significance for any of the nine arrest related factors explored for either the physical or emotional abuse group comparisons. Attitudes toward Using Relationship Violence In response to the second hypothesis, attitudes toward acceptable use of violence against an intimate partner differ between women adjudicated for using IPV who (a) deny their partner abused them, (b) report abuse was rare/seldom and (c) report abuse was frequent/very frequent (physically and emotionally), participants attitudes toward the justification of using violence against their partners were measured using the Attitudes About Marriage Index (Margolin & Foo, as cited in Garcia-OHearn and Margolin 2000). Comparisons were conducted among the

468

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472

Table 3 Comparison of arrest related factors between women who reported experiencing no abuse, rare/occasional abuse and frequent/very frequent abuse Denies abuse N =15 Reported physical abuse Arrestee choked the victim Arrestee physically harmed victim Arrestee had a weapon Arrestee threaten to kill the victim Arrestee had been drinking Arrestee had been using drugs Assault happen in public There was a witness to the altercation Arrestee previously assaulted victim Reported emotional abuse Arrestee choked the victim Arrestee physically harmed victim Arrestee had a weapon Arrestee threaten to kill the victim Arrestee had been drinking Arrestee had been using drugs Assault happen in public There was a witness to the altercation Arrestee previously assaulted victim Rare/seldom abuse N =41 Frequent/very frequent abuse N =21 x2 P

0.0% 100% 20.0% 0.0% 13.3% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100% 36.3% 0.0% 27.2% 0.0% 36.2% 63.6% 27.2%

7.3% 87.8% 9.7% 0.0% 21.9% 2.4% 14.6% 34.1% 32.7% 4.7% 85.7% 7.1% 0.0% 14.2% 2.3% 16.6% 33.3% 35.7%

0.0% 85.7% 14.2% 9.5% 14.2% 4.7% 23.8% 38.0% 28.5% 4.1% 91.6% 12.5% 8.3% 20.8% 4.1% 12.5% 29.1% 16.6%

2.960 1.664 1.618 5.526 2.117 1.770 0.742 1.848 1.048 0.609 0.263 6.313 4.492 3.368 3.053 2.425 1.835 2.921

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

three participant groups for both the physical abuse and emotional abuse variables using one-way ANOVA. Table 4 illustrates the results of these comparisons. Differences in AAM index scores noted among the three groups did not meet significance for either the physical or emotional abuse group comparisons. Propensity to be Abusive In response to the third hypothesis, the propensity to be abusive differs between women adjudicated for using IPV who (a) deny their partner abused them, (b) report abuse was rare/seldom and (c) report abuse was frequent/very frequent (physically and emotionally), participants predisposition to be abusive in their relationships was measured using the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (Dutton 1995; Dutton et al. 2001). Comparisons were conducted among the three participant groups on the PAS Total Score and each of the subscales for both the physical abuse and emotional abuse variables using one-way ANOVA. Table 4 illustrates the results of these comparisons. Differences between PAS total score and subscale scores showed mixed results when examining the physical abuse and the emotional abuse group comparisons. For this reason the results stemming from these two variables will be addressed separately.

Physical Abuse Effect When analyzing the effect of male initiated physical abuse on women arrested for using IPV, differences among the three groups met significance for the PAS Total Score (F = 6.970, p =0.002), as well as on a number of the subscales: the Identity Diffusion Subscale (F =3.381, p =0.039), the Trauma Symptoms Subscale (F =5.076, p =0.009), and the Maternal Warmth and Rejection Subscale (F = 4.798, p =0.011). In each of these subscales, participants reporting frequent/very frequent abuse scored highest on each of these measured factors, followed by those reporting rare/ occasional abuse, with participants denying any abuse scoring the lowest in each of these subscales. These differences did not, however, meet significance when looking at comparisons of the Anger Subscale (F =0.067, p =NS), the Attachment Style subscale (F =2.318, p =.NS), and the Paternal Warmth and Rejection Subscale (F = 2.710, p =NS). Emotional Abuse Effect When analyzing the effect of male initiated emotional abuse on women arrested for using IPV, differences between the three groups met significance for the PAS Total Score (F =

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472

469

Table 4 ANOVA results for comparisons between women who reported experiencing no abuse, rare/occasional abuse and frequent/very frequent abuse Mean denies abuse N =15 Reported physical abuse AAM PAS Total Score PAS Anger Subscale PAS Identity Diffusion Subscale PAS Attachment Style Subscale PAS Trauma Symptom Subscale Paternal Warmth & Rejection Scale Maternal Warmth & Rejection Scale Reported emotional abuse AAM PAS Total Score PAS Anger Subscale PAS Identity Diffusion Subscale PAS Attachment Style Subscale PAS Trauma Symptom Subscale Paternal Warmth & Rejection Scale Maternal Warmth & Rejection Scale Mean rare/seldom abuse N =41 Mean frequent/very frequent abuse N =21 F P

14.40 43.27 5.54 9.60 5.53 2.27 10.38 11.33 18.00 41.09 3.82 8.73 5.09 3.36 10.30 10.73

21.32 58.66 5.80 11.71 7.41 5.32 15.29 14.03 17.33 55.29 6.19 11.81 7.14 4.55 12.03 15.10

20.62 64.79 5.67 13.53 7.90 6.62 16.54 17.70 24.88 68.68 5.75 13.17 8.21 6.79 21.89 15.17

0.586 6.970 0.067 3.381 2.318 5.076 2.710 4.798 0.986 11.006 4.142 3.748 3.227 3.260 17.975 2.239

NS 0.002 NS 0.040 NS 0.009 NS 0.011 NS 0.000 0.020 0.028 0.045 0.044 0.000 NS

11.006, p =0.000), as well as the Anger Subscale (F =4.142, p =0.020), the Identity Diffusion Subscale (F =3.748, p = 0.029), the Attachment Style Subscale (F =3.227, p =0.045), the Trauma Symptoms Subscale (F =3.260, p =0.044) and the Paternal Warmth and Rejection Subscale (F =17.975, p =0.000). With the exception of the Anger Subscale, in each of the areas that met significance in the emotional abuse comparisons, the group reporting frequent abuse/very frequent abuse scored highest with the group reporting rare/ occasional abuse scoring second highest and the group denying abuse scoring the lowest in each of these variables. Additionally, in one area, the Maternal Warmth & Rejection Subscale (F =2.239, p =NS), differences between the three groups did not meet significance.

findings highlight two important aspects of the population of women adjudicated for IPV related offences. First, assigning victim or offender labels to women in the population is not as clear or as simple as once thought. Indeed, findings of the current study indicate most of the respondents in this study are both victims and offenders. Second, it is important to address womens use of violence in offender based treatment programs, as both the participants attitudes toward using violence and arrest related factors are similar across these samples, regardless of the level of abuse reported. Arrest Factors and Attitudes It is not entirely surprising that the three groups were not significantly different on factors related to the arresting incident and attitudes toward justification of violence. Indeed, these findings may be a function of the types of women arrested for using relationship violence. Because sufficient data concludes that women use violence as regularly as men (e.g., Archer 2000; Straus 1993, 2006), even though relatively few women are arrested (e.g., Rennison 2002; Straus 2006), it may be that there is something inherent in the arresting incidents of the women in this study that stands out. Given the persistent stereotypes that women are almost always the victims of domestic violence (Pearson 1997), it is likely that the violence perpetrated by these women may have been interpreted as the most serious cases by judicial system decision makers (e.g., police, prosecutors, and judges). Likewise, women who are arrested for IPV and sentenced to intervention

Discussion The current study adds to the understanding of women arrested for IPV offenses by exploring how the level of abuse perpetrated against them by their partners is related to (a) factors related to the arresting incident, (b) attitudes toward using relationship violence, and (c) propensity to be abusive. The findings are interesting as the null was not disconfirmed for two of the three hypotheses tested. Indeed, no differences were noted within the comparison groups on the physical or emotional abuse variables for either factors related to the arresting incident or attitudes justifying the use of relationship violence. Additionally, mixed findings were noted when exploring differences in factors related to ones propensity to be abusive toward their partner. These

470

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472

programs may share attitudes justifying the use of violence, regardless of their experiences as victims of partner violence. Therefore, finding no difference among the three groups on the first two hypotheses may be a function of both the degree of violence perpetrated by, and the belief systems intrinsic to, women who use adjudicatable levels of violence, regardless of the violence that is perpetrated against them. Propensity to be Abusive Among the most interesting findings of the current study are the outcomes of comparisons made on the Propensity to be Abusive Scale. In the subscale comparisons that met significance, the more abuse participants reported experiencing from their intimate partners, the more likely they were to score high on PAS subscales related to both past parental maltreatment and psychopathology (e.g., identity diffusion, trauma symptoms). These findings raise a number of interesting questions. Did the past parental maltreatment the participants experienced lead them to enter into relationships with abusive men? Social learning theory (Bandura 1977), which supports the notion of violence as a learned behavior, would indicate that the more violence perpetrated against these women by their parents and/or partners, the greater their likelihood to experience psychopathological symptoms, enter intimate relationships that are violent and/or use violence themselves. This is certainly consistent with recent studies, such as Murrell et al. (2007) research on males arrested for intimate partner violence, which found support for an intergenerational model of abuse. For these male batterers, both aggression and levels of psychopathology increased with childhood exposure to violence. If, however, the psychopathology possibly indicated here was not present prior to the participants relationships with their abusive partners, but arose during these violent relationships, another explanation may be indicated. Although very little research has focused on the psychopathology of women arrested for IPV, there is evidence of a causal link between IPV victimization and psychopathology (Golding 1999) and between sexual and psychological abuse and Axis I diagnoses (Stuart et al. 2006). If psychopathology is a likely result of, rather than an antecedent to, IPV victimization of women arrested for battering, the treatment needs of these women need to be carefully considered when designing IPV offender programs. It is also interesting that inconsistencies exist in relation to histories of childhood abuse reported by the different groups of women in this study. Women who reported high levels of male initiated emotional abuse also reported greater abuse from their fathers but not from their mothers. Inversely, women who reported high levels of male initiated

physical abuse also reported greater abuse from their mother but not from their father. What is most intriguing is that these inconsistencies are not easily explained as two studies have conducted similar comparisons with incongruous results. In the first, Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (1995) studied both men and women mandated to marital violence treatment and found that similar patterns for men and women. For both, mother-perpetrated childhood abuse predicted marital perpetration while father-perpetrated childhood abuse predicted marital victimization. In the second study, Hendy et al. (2003) found that, while motherperpetrated childhood abuse predicted violence in a present romantic relationship, for women, it was associated with IPV victimization, whereas for men it was associated with both IPV victimization and perpetration. Given this, it is entirely possible that women who perceive rejection from their fathers will respond more readily with violence when faced with similar emotional abuse from their male intimate partner. Similarly, women who are modeled violent behavior from their mother may both seek out violent partners and respond to their violence with violence themselves. The current study, combined with the findings cited above, suggests a clinical picture of women arrested for IPV related crimes must consider both intergenerational modeling of violence and psychopathology. For this population of women, it is unlikely that traditional victims services alone will meet the needs of women IPV offenders (Henning et al. 2003, p. 852). Indeed, further research into the specific treatment needs of the population of women arrested for IPV offences is certainly warranted. Limitations It is important to highlight three of the main limitations of the current study. First, there is the possibility that a continuum of female domestic violence aggressors exists, with the current sample representing only an outlying portion rather than the entire population. Those arrested and subsequently admitting to having harmed their partners may be the women who are deemed the most obvious sole perpetrators by those in the judicial system (police, prosecutors and judges). Additionally, the current sample was taken from a relatively small geographic region; therefore, these participants may not be indicative of all women who use violence in their interpersonal relationships, just a specific subset. Second, as was discussed in the introduction of this manuscript, IPV perpetrators have a propensity for minimizing their violence in the treatment setting, regardless of their gender. Therefore, caution should be taken with regard to the participants response patterns; however, as was indicated earlier, analyses of participants response patterns indicated high reliability and likely are representative. Finally, the measurement instrument used

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472

471 Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 7191. Drapkin, M. L., McCrady, B. S., Swingle, J. M., & Epstein, E. E. (2005). Exploring bidirectional couple violence in a clinical sample of female alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66 (2), 213220. Dutton, D. G. (1995). A scale for measuring propensity for abusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 10(2), 203221. Dutton, D. G., Landolt, M. A., Starzomski, A., & Bodnarchuk, M. (2001). Validation of the propensity for abusiveness scale. Journal of Family Violence, 16(1), 5973. Dutton, D. G., Nicholls, T. L., & Spidel, A. (2005). Female perpetrators of intimate violence. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41(4), 132. Filbert, M. S. (2004). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated bibliography. Sexuality and Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 8, 140177. Garcia-OHearn, H., & Margolin, G. (2000). Mens attitudes condoning marital aggression: A moderator between family of origin abuse and aggression against female partners. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24(2), 159174. Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99132. Hamberger, K. L. (2005). Mens and womens use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: Toward a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 131151. Hamberger, K. L., & Guse, C. E. (2002). Mens and womens use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 13011331. Hamberger, K. L., Lohr, J. M., & Bonge, D. (1997). An empirical classification of motivations for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 3(4), 401423. Hamberger, K. L., & Potente, T. (1994). Counseling heterosexual women arrested for domestic violence: Implications for theory and practice. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 125137. Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 959970. Hendy, H. M., Weiner, K., Bakerofskie, J., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C., & McLeod, K. C. (2003). Comparison of six models for violent romantic relationships in college men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 645665. Henning, K., Jones, A., & Holdford, R. (2003). Treatment needs of women arrested for domestic violence: A comparison with male offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(8), 839856. Henning, K., Jones, A., & Holdford, R. (2005). I didnt do it, but if I did I had a good reason: Minimization, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 20(3), 131139. Hirschel, D., & Buzawa, E. (2002). Understanding the context of dual arrest with directions for future research. Violence Against Women, 8(12), 11491473. Houry, D., Reddy, S., & Parramore, C. (2006). Characteristics of victims coarrested for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(11), 14831492. Kernsmith, P. (2005). Exerting power or striking back: A gendered comparison of motivations for domestic violence perpetration. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 173185. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Neidig, P., & Thorn, G. (1995). Violent marriages: Gender differences in levels of current violence and past abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 10(2), 159176. McNeely, R. L., Cook, P. W., & Torres, J. B. (2001). Is domestic violence a gender issue, or a human issue? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 4(4), 227251. Miller, S. L. (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 7(12), 13391376.

two highly similar terms rarely and seldom that may not represent an even gradation when moving from never to very frequently. Although the two terms are grouped together in the analysis, the outcomes of the study may have been affected differently than if other, more accurately calibrated, terms had been used.

Conclusion It appears that women who use violence in their intimate relationships are a heterogeneous population in which both victimization and perpetration experiences need to be addressed. As Schwartz (2000) eloquently stated, North Americans are only interested in charity for the deserving poor and violent women are not seen as deserving (p. 817). In order to prevent future violence from occurring in the relationships of women arrested for IPV related offenses, that belief must be addressed and refuted. Indeed, findings of the current work indicate that women who use violence can simultaneously be victims and offenders in need of services tailored to meet their unique needs as both.

References
Able, E. M. (2001). Comparing the social service utilization, exposure to violence, and trauma symptomalogy of domestic violence female victims and female batterers. Journal of Family Violence, 16(4), 401420. Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(12), 12631289. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners; A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651680. Babcock, J. C., Miller, S. A., & Siard, C. (2003). Toward a typology of abusive women: Differences between partner only and generally violent women in the use of violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(7), 153161. Bandura, A. (1977). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Busch, A. L., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2004). Comparing women and men arrested for domestic violence: A preliminary report. Journal of Family Violence, 19(1), 4957. Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences. Journal of Family Violence, 10(3), 265293. Dasgupta, D. S. (1999). Just like men? A critical view of violence by women. In M. F. Shepard, & E. L. Pence (Eds.) Coordinating community responses to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond (pp. 195222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeLeon-Granados, W., Wells, W., & Binsbacher, R. (2006). Arresting developments: Trends in female arrests for domestic violence and proposed explanations. Violence Against Women, 12(4), 355371. Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Womens violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 324349.

472 Miller, S. L., & Meloy, M. L. (2006). Womens use of force: Voices of women arrested for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(1), 89115. Murrell, A. R., Christoff, K. A., & Henning, K. R. (2007). Characteristics of domestic violence offenders: Associations with childhood exposure to violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 523532. Pearson, P. (1997). When she was bad; Violent women and the myth of innocence. New York: Viking Penguin. Rennison, C. M. (2002). Intimate partner violence, 19932001, Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Schwartz, M. D. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6, 815838. Simmons, C. A., Lehmann, P., & Cobb, N. (2008). A comparison of women versus men charged with intimate partner violence: General risk factors, attitudes regarding using violence and readiness to change. Violence and Victims (in press). Simmons, C. A., Lehmann, P., & Collier-Tenison, S. (2008). Mens use of controlling behaviors: A comparison of reports by women

J Fam Viol (2008) 23:463472 in a domestic violence shelter and women in a domestic violence offender program. Journal of Family Violence (in press). Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assault by wives: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.) Current controversies on family violence (pp. 6787). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in physical assaults on partners. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 10861097. Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Gordon, K. C., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2006). Psychopathology in women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(3), 376389. Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2002). A typology of womens use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 286319. Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2003). Behavioral and psychological differences among abused women who use violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 9(1), 75109. Temple, J. R., Weston, R., & Marshall, L. L. (2005). Physical and mental health outcomes of women in nonviolent, unilaterally violent, and mutually violent relationships. Violence and Victims, 20(3), 335359.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai