Investigating the Relationship between Approval, and Experiences of Physical Violence and Controlling Behaviours in Heterosexual Intimate Relationships

<p>Popular theory understands intimate partner violence (IPV) as gendered, and stresses the integral role of a patriarchal society and approval of male to female aggression in the aetiology of men’s IPV to women. This thesis set out to explore this hypothesis using a gender inclusive methodology, and examines the relationship between participants’ approval of men’s and women’s use of controlling behaviours and physical violence in heterosexual intimate relationships. Undergraduate university students (N = 515) completed an online questionnaire about their use and experience of aggression and controlling behaviours, and their beliefs about dating violence. Bivariate analyses found that conflict tactics and controlling behaviours were perpetrated and experienced at equal rates by the sexes. ANOVA found that male and female participants approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence when the aggressor was provoked via infidelity or physical violence, indicating a collective chivalrous belief pattern. Violent students also approved of male and female violence significantly more than non-violent students. Applying Johnson's (1999) typological approach, latent profile analysis found that 77.7% of violent relationships could be classed as Situational Couple Violence (SCV), 10.4% as Coercive Controlling Violence (CCV), 2.1% as Violent Resistant (VR), and 9.8% as Mutual Violent Control (MVC). Bivariate analysis revealed a greater frequency of women than men in the SCV group (n = 92, 61%) with a small effect; no other significant differences were found between the groups. ANOVA also found that the typology groups approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence with CCV men endorsing the highest approval of male and female violence. Further research is required to determine why this group hold high approval in general compared to other groups. The need for interventions to address the approval of a person’s own violence and approval of their partner’s violence is discussed in addition to implications for theory, practice, and policy.</p>

Investigating the Relationship between Approval, and Experiences of Physical Violence and Controlling Behaviours in Heterosexual Intimate Relationships

<p>Popular theory understands intimate partner violence (IPV) as gendered, and stresses the integral role of a patriarchal society and approval of male to female aggression in the aetiology of men’s IPV to women. This thesis set out to explore this hypothesis using a gender inclusive methodology, and examines the relationship between participants’ approval of men’s and women’s use of controlling behaviours and physical violence in heterosexual intimate relationships. Undergraduate university students (N = 515) completed an online questionnaire about their use and experience of aggression and controlling behaviours, and their beliefs about dating violence. Bivariate analyses found that conflict tactics and controlling behaviours were perpetrated and experienced at equal rates by the sexes. ANOVA found that male and female participants approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence when the aggressor was provoked via infidelity or physical violence, indicating a collective chivalrous belief pattern. Violent students also approved of male and female violence significantly more than non-violent students. Applying Johnson's (1999) typological approach, latent profile analysis found that 77.7% of violent relationships could be classed as Situational Couple Violence (SCV), 10.4% as Coercive Controlling Violence (CCV), 2.1% as Violent Resistant (VR), and 9.8% as Mutual Violent Control (MVC). Bivariate analysis revealed a greater frequency of women than men in the SCV group (n = 92, 61%) with a small effect; no other significant differences were found between the groups. ANOVA also found that the typology groups approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence with CCV men endorsing the highest approval of male and female violence. Further research is required to determine why this group hold high approval in general compared to other groups. The need for interventions to address the approval of a person’s own violence and approval of their partner’s violence is discussed in addition to implications for theory, practice, and policy.</p>

The Health Life Quality Portrait of Kaili Da’a Women Couples Violence for the Victims of Tsunami, Earthquake, and Liquefaction through Family Economic Empowerment in Central Sulawesi Indonesia

Background: The tsunami and earthquake occurred in 1927 and 2018 made life quality of Da&rsquo;a Tribe women in refugee camps was affected by violence. It affects on women reproductive health in various aspects of life as high maternal mortality rate of 450 per 100 thousand live births and half of women victims of natural disasters have reproductive health problems such as anemia and malnutrition during pregnancy. The study objective is to explore the health quality of women related to the couple violence during the humanitarian crisis at refugees&rsquo; camps. Method: The population was 798 cases of violence. The 90 samples were selected by simple random sampling and calculated by Slovin method. Data analysis was done by descriptive qualitative and cross tabulation. The research location was Palu City. Results: The research findings showed that health quality of Da&rsquo;a Tribe women after the couple violence is influenced by three factors, namely economic by 40%, psychological by 7%, violence during pregnancy 59.3%. Conclusion: Social life and women violence handling can be done by symbolizing the threat of criminal law for male perpetrators in accordance with applicable laws in Indonesia and improving the life quality of population, especially women in education and skills through empowering the family economy and increasing gender equality justice.

Evaluating Measures of Intimate Partner Violence Using Consensus-Based Standards of Validity

The assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) by mental health, medical, and criminal justice practitioners occurs routinely. The validity of the assessment instrument they use impacts practitioners’ ability to judge ongoing risk, establish the type of IPV occurring, protect potential victims, and intervene effectively. Yet, there is no known compendium of existing assessment measures. The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to present a systematic review of measures used to identify or predict IPV, (2) to determine which of these measures have psychometric evidence to support their use, and (3) to determine whether any existing measure is capable of differentiating between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism. A systematic search was conducted using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies on the reliability or validity of specific measures of IPV were included, regardless of format, length, discipline, or type of IPV assessed. A total of 222 studies, on the psychometric properties of 87 unique measures, met our a priori criteria and were included in the review. We described the reliability and validity of the 87 measures. We rated the measures based on the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments–revised criteria and other established validity criteria, which allowed us to generate a list of recommended measures. We also discussed measures designed to differentiate IPV types. We conclude by describing the strengths and weaknesses of existing measures and by suggesting new avenues for researchers to enhance the assessment of IPV.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIDWIFERY STUDENTS’ ACCEPTANCE OF VIOLENCE BETWEEN COUPLES AND LEVEL OF AGGRESSION: A MULTICENTERED STUDY: ACCEPTANCE OF VIOLENCE BETWEEN COUPLES AND LEVEL OF AGGRESSION

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify the relationship between acceptance of violence between couples and level of aggression among 1st and 4th year midwifery students enrolled in various universities in Turkey. Methods: The study is cross-sectional descriptive in nature. The data were collected through “Personal Information Form”, "Acceptance of Couple Violence Scale" and “Aggression Scale". Results: Of all the participants, 1843 were 1st year students and 1337 were 4th year students. There was a weak positive relationship between Aggression Scale and Acceptance of Couple Violence Scale. Acceptance of violence between couples was found to increase with the increase in aggression level. Conclusion: Identification of adolescents’ views about aggression between girls or boys is of great importance in terms of providing opportunity for early intervention and maintaining healthy relationships. It could be suggested that midwifery departments which give health education should involve these issues in their curriculum.

Extending Johnson’s Typology: Additional Manifestations of Dating Violence and Coercive Control

In this study, we explored patterns of violence and coercive control in young adult dating relationships by testing and extending Johnson’s typology of intimate partner violence. Young adults ( N = 398) between 18 and 27 years old completed an online survey about experiences of violence and coercive control in current and past dating relationships. Using cluster analysis, we classified relationships as no/low coercive control and high coercive control. We then categorized relationship types according to Johnson’s typology using the coercive control clusters and the absence/presence of violence. In total, 35% of relationships were abusive (i.e., violent and/or high coercive control), with 24% of all reported relationships including violence with and without high coercive control, and 11% including nonviolent coercive control. Among violent relationships, situational couple violence was more common than other types of dating violence, and two additional types of violence were found: (a) violence toward a nonviolent coercive controlling partner and (b) nonviolent coercive control toward an intimate terrorist, both of which are potentially types of resistance distinct from Johnson’s concept of violent resistance. Additionally, victims of intimate terrorism and victims of nonviolent coercive control were significantly more fearful of their partners than victims of situational couple violence, and victims of situational couple violence did not differ in their fear of partners compared to respondents in nonabusive relationships. These findings identify additional abusive relationship types and elucidate the importance of extending Johnson’s typology to more comprehensively capture the complex dynamics of coercive control and/or violence in young adult dating relationships.

Types of Partner Violence in Couples Affected by Incarceration: Applying Johnson’s Typology to Understand the Couple-level Context for Violence

In prior research, samples of incarcerated and reentering men and their partners report partner violence at roughly 10 times the frequency found in the general population. The relationship dynamics underlying these experiences remain poorly understood. Addressing this gap and expanding prior applications of Johnson’s typology in other populations—which typically rely on survey data alone and include reports from just one member of a couple—we applied latent class analysis with dyadic survey data from 1,112 couples to identify types of partner violence in couples affected by incarceration. We assessed congruence between quantitative types and couples’ qualitative accounts and compared the two major types using two-sample t-tests. In some couples, one partner used various tactics to systematically dominate and control the other, as in Johnson’s coercive controlling violence. In others, physical violence arose in the context of jealousy but no other controlling behavior. This type resembled Johnson’s situational couple violence. Qualitative data suggested that jealousy represented a common, situational response to periods of prolonged separation, relationship instability, status insecurity, and partnership concurrence and not a tactic of control per se. Victims of coercive controlling violence experienced more PTSD symptoms and felt less safe in their relationships than victims of jealous-only violence. Perpetrators of coercive controlling violence were more likely to use severe physical violence against their partners than perpetrators of jealous-only violence. Findings indicate that broader context is critical for interpreting the presence of jealousy (and whether it constitutes a control tactic). They indicate that prevention and response strategies tailored to these types could help couples cope safely with the extreme relationship stressors of incarceration and reentry. Finally, they suggest a need to move from an exclusive focus on individual accountability and services toward a model that also incorporates institutional accountability and change.