Test 3: Violence and Marraige Flashcards
Why close relationships and violence?
Relationships and Gender are largely linked with violence.
Nobody knows exactly why but there are two main ideas-
(A) A global health perspective believes the primary focus should be on violence towards women. High rates of women being abused by men.
(B) A gender inclusive framework which looks at violence in more general terms rather than specifically males being violent towards women. I.e. we do not need to unnecessarily specify gender and this inclusive model includes non-heterosexual relationships. (its prominent in ALL relationships)
Intimate Partner Violence in NZ
40%- 50% of Women and up to 25-35% of men experience IPV ever.
Specify solely to experience of IPV in the last year this drops to 2.8% of all women and 1.2% of all men yearly
*accounts for approx. 50% of NZ violence each year
No available statistics for non-binary genders but one would estimate that the rates will be similar and potentially higher.
*NZ has the best rates of capturing IPV statistics in the world, but we are also the worst in OECD countries for high rates of violence-may be due to our high reporting rate capturing more than other countries miss.
NZ has relatively higher legal protections for victims of violence (I.e. protection/police safety orders and violence act revisions).
There are NO current government treatment/intervention programs for family violence offenders (I.e. no specific programs for family violence, offenders would be placed in anger management programs).
Why does NZ not have a treatment program for family violence?
Treatment didn’t work
They had one for a while, but it didn’t work-and subsequently closed in 2016.
Family violence recidivism rates and re-imprisonment is 30-40% HIGH
IF, they were placed into a community-based treatment the recidivism rates dropped to 27-37%.
*only like 3% difference really, there are better places to put government money that can produce better results.
A large meta-analysis revealed that the effects for batterer treatment programs was 5% (minimal effect and small range- the polite way to say ineffective & a waste of money).
*it failed so bad that the government dropped it- the truth is we really do not understand why people are aggressive
Primary IPV model
(A) The Duluth Model
Most well-known and used model
Comes from the gendered perspective where males are violent towards women
Begins with presenting violent men with all the reasons why they are violent and why
At the core is that men are violent because they desire to exert their patriarchal power and control over women (I.e. rooted in societal inequality).
The problem with this claim is not the inequality but it’s that the motivation for all IPV is due to a desire to exert power and control.
Returning to Social Psychology Principles: to explain the Duluth model failed model/treatment
(A) Kurt Lewin- behavior is the function of disposition and situation (I.e. person x context).
The Duluth Model did not consider the person or the situation and was probably why it failed.
Perpetrators x Situations:
Asking perpetrators why they were violent
Q: Asking people about a violent situation
asking the perpetrator what they were considering when they were violent to other people.
Henning, Jones & Holdford (2005) one of the first studies to do this.
Attributions by male and female violent offenders about an event that just happened:
Self-Blame: - Jealousy, insecurity, they were unfaithful, not willing to make compromises (all relationship things) - Anger and emotion instability - Substance abuse
- male and women had similar motivations apart from unfaithfulness and alcohol and drugs.
- these percentages do not add up to 100 because people gave multiple reasons for why they were violent – there is not just a single pathway to violence.
Three most common themes:
(A) Feeling insecure, jealous
and afraid of losing a
partner
(B) Feeling out of control with
limited emotion regulation
skills
(C) Rarely blamed on alcohol
or drugs
Foran & O’Leary (2008) took three common attributions of violence and tried to predict high violence in relationships
Prediction of Partner aggression map
*each line reflects a different combination of the three themes (jealousy, drinking and anger control against partner aggression).
(A) Red:
High Jealousy and had limited emotion control predicted high aggression (regardless of alcohol- it’s a flat line). This group had high violence and stayed high violence regardless of drinking.
(B) Orange:
High Jealousy and high emotional control predict aggression WHEN there is alcohol abuse (a positive relationship with alcohol I.e. lost emotional regulation control). This group went from moderate levels of violence to high violence when drinking.
(C) Blue and Black:
These are flat lines which hover around 0 indicating no increase or decrease in aggression with alcohol. These groups had no jealousy and regardless of having emotional regulation or drinking they still showed no violence.
*jealousy and not being able to control your anger are strong predictors of violence (goes against people’s assumption that alcohol is the cause of aggression- alcohol is only effective when you have high anger control and drinking removes that).
Evidence contradicts Duluth model that men’s violence is not due to power and control-it’s actually due to men feeling out of control.
Victims x Situations
- dultuth on why women stay
- relationship perspective using behavioural questionnaires
How do we understand victim’s response to violence?
The Duluth model claims that victims tolerate violence because of internalization of societal norms that legitimize this behavior of males exerting dominance over females- why women come back/or stay with abusive partners.
*this invalidates the autonomy of the victim
Behavioral Questionnaires? A relationship science perspective
(A) one measures violence: psychological forms of violence are the strongest predictors of physical forms of violence we know about.
(B) one measures relationship behaviors: behaviors which routinely occur in family, friendship and romantic relationships (wow these are common but the strongest predictors we have-the key point is that it is really hard to know if you are a victim of violence).
Victims x Situations:
(A) Negativity overlaps
psychological violence
- inevitable and diagnostic
(B) Victims/Recipients of
Negativity
- forgiveness
- escalation
(A)Negativity overlaps
psychological violence
Negativity and conflict are inevitable in relationships because it serves a function (note: this is not saying negative behaviors are acceptable, justifiable or okay).
Sometimes when negative behaviors happen it is beneficial for relationships in the long term if its specific and signals a serious and fixable issue.
e.g. you suck. I’m really angry you stole my umbrella from me.
In the moment this fight sucks, but in the long run since it was about a specific, serious and fixable issue it benefits the relationship in the long run because this behavior is unlikely to come up again because it has been signaled as an unacceptable behavior.
e.g. You suck. You’re terrible and whiney. Is not specific maybe serious but is not fixable because it is a stable personality trait.
In summary, if the negative behavior such as a fight is diagnostic and signals a serious, specific and fixable issue then it can benefit the relationship in the long term at a short-term cost.
(B) Victims/Recipients of Negativity:
Forgiving someone is good in general within society- reducing motivations to retaliate and remain committed but forgiveness is not always the best choice.
Escalation/retaliating negativity is (very) destructive (escalation cycle)
However, a lot of the time people forgive negativity and aggression.
Why? Do victims of violence forgive their perpetrator (often people blame the victim)
LOVE- we love them, so we downplay their aggression
Downplaying Aggression:
> Reinterpreting aggression as if they were just joking around and it got out of hand. > Justifying it because it only happens in certain circumstances. > And ultimately shifting standards of the relationship and viewing violence as acceptable.
Moderation factor: Downplaying Aggression is more prevalent when the relationship is committed (good things about the relationship)
> Having lots of satisfying moments > Daily routines > Extended history Joint friends, memories, plans etc. Which would be lost if the relationship ends which make it hard to leave the relationship.
Ultimately leads to negative personal outcomes:
> Chronic unhappiness
Anxiety and depression
Lowered self-esteem
*good behavior and a good circumstance in a relationship generally leading to a negative outcome for the victim.
Asking victims why they forgive their abuser? Forgiving aggression
Duluth model
Because the partner said sorry or that they loved them and wanted to stay committed to their partner.
The most stereotypical attribution people make is that victims stay out of fear but in this study it once one of the least common attributions made by victims for why they stayed.
The cycle of violence is actually characterized by periods of intense violence and periods of intense loving as the perpetrator tries to make amends. This makes sense when we think back to a strong predictor of violence being due to insecurities, why violence is intermittent and followed by lots of affection.
Duluth Model: their claim that victims only stay because they internalize societal norms legitimizing male’s violence towards women. This underplays the fact that women often stay because they love the abuser, they’re not violent all the time, they say sorry and are really loving (sometimes).
Relationship Science-How do we Design an Intervention?
Ellen Pence apologized for their model and reported that they interviewed male offenders that none of them articulated a desire to exert power or dominance over the victim - they had a confirmation bias, believed that males were motivated by this and just denying it. BAFFLING that it is still the most prevalent model, but the author openly admits that its wrong!
(A) couples therapy (creating healthy relationships program)
Building communication, emotion regulation and co-emotional regulation skills to reduce SITUATIONAL IPV.
It is currently the most effective method we have so far in reducing IPV recidivism.
Most people deny that this is a good idea because they fear that the wife participating will lead to retribution violence.
Caveat: could lead to victims feeling like they are partially to blame victims for the violence. Puts researchers in a difficult position where you leave them with no intervention and potential for harm or help and risk retribution violence.
Need individual session for males to take accountability first and then couples therapy to work or emotion regulation skills and communication.
Target those who are going to go back to their abuser and at least provide them with some skills to better cope with their emotional expression, communication and emotional regulation.
*a fine line on deciding at what point does a negative behavior a problem: forensic and relationship researchers argue about.
Summary Violence:
We need to recognize that IPV occurs in committed romantic relationships
To be able to address destructive patterns in relationships, we need to understand love, jealousy, emotional expression, communication and forgiveness.
Break Up Rates
(A)
(B) Break up rates in USA by marriage length
(C) Modal Marriage Length
(A)
60%-75% of serious relationships dissolve within a year.
35% of people first marriages end in divorce in NZ (1/3).
Increases to 50% of all marriages in NZ end in divorce.
Break ups in the USA: tracking the liklihood of you breaking up given time together and whether or not you’re married.
(B)
Blank sqaure in bottom left reflects big gap between being married and unmarried, the level of paperwork required to break up with someone.
If you have been together for a year and are not married, you are 70% likely to break up (slightly higher for same sex unmarried couples).
At 10 years whether you are married the chance of breaking up s 10-15%.
There are still people, albeit a small number of people at 30 years who still get divorced.
*there is not a length in years together with couples that there is a 0% chance of divroce!!
(C)The most common marriage length found, at the study level, is 4 on average in the world.
The average marriage length in NZ is technically 8 years but is really 6 years when you file for divorce but there is still a 2 year wait before it’s finalized.
The Decline of Marriage in NZ (and the world it is less common)
There is a steady decline in the number of people getting married overtime (10,000 per 100,000 people)
The divorce rate has been stable over the last 30 years.
*people misinterpret that the divorce rate has increased but they fail to consider that there are less people getting married.
