Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological
explanations for its causation
Parveen Azam Ali a,⁎, Paul B. Naylor b
a
Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
b
Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major social and public health problem that affects populations around the
Received 14 March 2013 world regardless of their culture, religion, and other demographic characteristics. In the last 100 years, many
Received in revised form 29 June 2013 theories have been proposed to explain the phenomenon of IPV. Much research has been conducted using
Accepted 16 July 2013
these theories as a guiding or underlying framework. However, it is difficult to find a single account that provides
Available online 1 August 2013
a succinct and up-to-date overview of these theories. As a result, a considerable effort is required to identify and
Keywords:
retrieve relevant papers to understand the various theories, which attempt to explain IPV. This article attempts to
Intimate partner violence provide a succinct and up-to-date integrative review of the feminist, social learning, and ecological explanations
IPV of IPV. These perspectives have been critically evaluated in the light of the available literature and an effort has
Domestic violence been made to discuss the strengths and limitations of each perspective in shedding light on the causation of IPV.
Feminism © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Social learning theory
Ecological framework

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
2. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
3. Findings and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
3.1. The feminist perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
3.1.1. Cycle of violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
3.1.2. Learned helplessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
3.1.3. battered women syndrome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
3.1.4. Power and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
3.1.5. Patriarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
3.2. Sociological perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
3.2.1. Social learning theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
3.2.2. Resource theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
3.3. Nested ecological framework theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617

1. Introduction the world. IPV can be perpetuated by men as well as by women

(Anderson, 2002; Archer, 2000, 2002; Brown, 2004; Capaldi, Kim, &
The term intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to the use of sexually, Shortt, 2007; Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Hamberger & Potente, 1994;
psychologically, and physically coercive acts used against an intimate Straus & Gelles, 1986) with no restriction to marital, heterosexual,
partner (Toro-Alfonso & RodrIguez-Madera, 2004; WHO, 1997). IPV or homosexual relationship. Over the centuries, various terms to de-
is a major social and public health problem affecting people across scribe the phenomenon of violence among couples have evolved.
Until recently, it was thought that IPV is a form of violence against
⁎ Corresponding author. women (VAW) and is perpetuated by males against their female in-
E-mail addresses: [Link]@[Link] (P.A. Ali), [Link]@[Link] (P.B. Naylor). timate partners. The term ‘wife beating’ was initially “…used in the

1359-1789/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
[Link]
612 P.A. Ali, P.B. Naylor / Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619

1856 campaign for divorce reform in the UK, and its successor…” English in any journal during the period 1990–2011 were included to
(Heru, 2007, p. 376). The next term used was ‘domestic violence’ re- obtain only current and relevant literature. However, where needed
ferring to men as perpetrators of violence in heterosexual relation- classical work from previous years was also incorporated. Among 142
ships. Other terms, often used interchangeably, include domestic sources included in this study, 43 sources were published prior to 1990
violence, domestic abuse, intra-family violence, wife abuse, spousal (1960–1989). In addition, secondary sources, such as books, were also
abuse, wife battering, courtship violence, battering, violence against referred to and included in the review where needed. The review was
women, and intimate partner abuse (Gelles, 1993; Saltzman, Fanslow, conducted section-by-section. Each article and each book were closely
McMahon, & Shelley, 1999). read and the main points and findings, strengths, and limitations of
Over the last 100 years, many theories and frameworks have been each document were summarized.
proposed to explain IPV. Such theories and frameworks can be catego-
rized under various perspectives, which include biological, psychologi- 3. Findings and discussion
cal, feminist, social learning, and ecological accounts. However, it is
hard to find evidence related to each of these different perspectives in 3.1. The feminist perspective
one article. An integrative account of biological and psychological per-
spectives has already been presented in a recent paper (Ali & Naylor, Feminism is an ideology and the current feminist movement initiat-
2013). This paper is an attempt to present a brief integrative account ed in the early 1970s has produced one of the predominant theoretical
of feminist, social learning, and ecological perspectives proposed to ex- models for IPV. Initially, it was known as the “Women's Liberation
plain IPV. The perspectives presented in the present paper have been Movement” (Walker, 2006). This was basically a political movement
critically evaluated in the light of the available literature and the initiated to advocate and ensure gender equality and to empower
strengths and limitations of each perspective are discussed. women (Chesler, 2005; Walker, 2006). The Feminist perspective is not
only responsible for bringing the world's attention to the problem but
2. Methods also for establishing women's shelters, initiating various batterer
intervention and advocacy programs, and changes in the legal and
A search was undertaken in four databases: Medline, CINHAL, Google criminal justice system to make VAW a criminal offense (McPhail,
Scholar, and PsychInfo. To identify studies using a feminist perspective, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007). Feminists prefer to use terms like ‘wife as-
various search terms such as feminism, feminist, feminists, cycle of sault’, ‘wife battering’ and ‘battered women’ rather than ‘family violence’,
violence, violence cycle, battered women syndrome, battered women, ‘marital violence’ and ‘spouse abuse’ (Davis & Hagen, 1992; Yick, 2001).
patriarchy, patriarchal, male dominant, male dominancy, male power, They maintain that VAW is a male coercive act towards women and its
and male control were used. To retrieve studies mentioned under so- various types include sexual abuse of women, rape, marital rape, female
ciological perspective various search terms including learning, social infanticide, and female genital mutilation (Yick, 2001). They believe that
learning, intergenerational, learned behavior, socialization, socializa- IPV is not a private or family matter; rather, it is a deeply embedded so-
tion, generational transmission, resource theory, resources, resourceful, cial problem that has to be addressed by social change (Gondolf & Fisher,
economic, and economics were used. These terms were employed in 1988). They consider VAW to be a product of gender power disparity in
combination with the terms violence, domestic violence and alternative society (Bograd, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Schecter, 1982), a social
terms for IPV including intimate partner violence, intimate partner phenomenon, determined by the patriarchal structure of most societies
abuse, wife abuse, spousal abuse, women abuse, marital violence, and that forces women to remain in a submissive state through the use of
marital abuse. Table 1 presents examples of key words used, numbers physical, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse as control tactics
of articles retrieved and numbers of articles included in the review. and permits coercive practices such as prostitution and forced sex.
A search was also conducted using Google to identify studies not These theorists maintain that until women are seen as other than sub-
published in indexed journals. In addition, the reference list of each servient, compliant victims, little will change.
article was also reviewed to identify studies that may not be listed in Feminists believe that violence in heterosexual relations is always
databases. Through literature searching 200 sources (including primary perpetuated by men in an attempt to control their women partners,
and secondary sources) were retrieved, scanned, and reviewed and 142 and research findings of symmetry in the perpetuation of violence by
sources have been used in this study. Journal articles published in men and women are erroneous. They believe that women's use of
violence is almost always an act of self-defense (Barnett, Lee, & Thelen,
Table 1 1997; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Kellerman & Mercy, 1992). Feminists
Examples of keywords used to search literature related to IPV. also criticize measures such as the CTS for not asking information related
Terms Alternative terms Articles Articles to circumstance or context, motivating factors, meaning and outcomes of
identified used violence (Belknap, 2001; Belknap & Melton, 2005; Dasgupta, 2001; Kurz,
Intimate partner Intimate partner violence, IPV, intimate 1989). In addition, the CTS is criticized for a possible reporting bias by
violence partner abuse, domestic violence, DV, violent men and its inability to account for differences in male–female
domestic abuse, wife abuse, spousal self-reporting patterns (Kurz, 1989). Feminists advocate for making
abuse, women abuse, marital violence, changes in the policies of institutions, societies and countries to make
and marital abuse.
them more women friendly, to help women become economically inde-
Explanation of IPV pendent and to provide women with safe houses and shelters (Dobash
Feminist perspective Feminism, feminist, feminists, cycle of 60 50 & Dobash, 1979; Yodanis, 2004). From this perspective, feminist theo-
violence, violence cycle, battered women
syndrome, battered women,
rists have offered various explanations for IPV including the cycle of vi-
Patriarchy, patriarchal, male dominant, 30 22 olence, learned helplessness, the battered women syndrome, the power
mal dominancy, male power, male and control wheel, and patriarchy, which are considered below.
control,
Sociological Learning, social learning, 60 43
3.1.1. Cycle of violence
perspective intergenerational, learned behavior,
socialization, generational transmission The cycle of violence (Fig. 1) was proposed by Walker (1979) with
Resources theory, resources, resourceful, 30 23 the aim of elucidating how and why abused or battered women remain
economic, economics, in abusive relationships. The cycle of violence is often predictable and
Nested ecological Ecology, ecological framework, 20 12 consists of three phases: tension building; abuse or explosion; and hon-
framework theory ecological, nested ecological,
eymoon or remorse forgiveness. In the first phase, tension builds-up
 P.A. Ali, P.B. Naylor / Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619 613

researchers have tried to use the theory to explain the behavior of

abused women (Ball & Wyman, 1978; Waites, 1978; Walker, 1977/
1978, 1979). Walker (1979) applied this theory to study the behavior
of battered women and concluded that continuous and repeated
TENSION abuse, like electrical shocks, results in minimizing the abused
HONEYMOON BUILDING woman's motivation to respond and enforces passiveness. Walker
(1979) suggested that IPV negatively affects a woman's cognitive
ability to perceive success, and it enforces the belief that her action
cannot generate a positive outcome. Consequently, she never tries
to leave the abusive relationship. In addition, a feeling of loss of con-
trol and helplessness developed in childhood makes individuals, es-
pecially women, more vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse in
adult life (Walker & Browne, 1985). Several research studies have
EXPLOSION supported this theory and have suggested that learned helplessness re-
sults in poor problem solving abilities and passivity (Launius & Lindquist,
1988; Renner & Slack, 2006; Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981). The majority of
Fig. 1. The cycle of violence.
Source: Walker (1979). The battered woman. New York: the abused women in WHO's multi-country study (García-Moreno,
Harper & Row. Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2005) justified beating under various
conditions such as not completing housework effectively, refusing sex,
disobeying a husband, or being unfaithful. This may support the theory
within the couple and the abuser starts getting frustrated and takes it of learned helplessness as these women might have accepted and justi-
out on his wife. This tension and frustration builds up to the extent fied violence in such circumstances (Wahed & Bhuiya, 2007).
that a man cannot control it and consequently reverts to violent action Opponents believe that this theory fails to acknowledge other fac-
towards his wife. Violence could take a variety of forms including tors contributing to a woman's decision to stay in an abusive relation-
physical, psychological, emotional, or sexual abuse that may last from ship. For instance, social, economic, and cultural reasons, such as a fear
seconds to days. The abuser now feels relieved and calm, may start of retaliation by the husband/partner, inability to financially support
resenting his violent attitude towards his wife, and may start apologiz- herself and children, and a fear of rejection by the family, community
ing. The couple then enjoys a honeymoon period when the abused per- and society (Naved, Azim, Bhuiya, & Persson, 2006). It also does not
son thinks the abuser will change and will never become violent again take into account a woman's conscious efforts to minimize violence
(Fig. 1). In some cases, only the intensity of violence is decreased or is and to protect herself and her children. It is also suggested that such
stopped for some time and the cycle continues (Walker, 2006). Constant women leave the relationship for some period and then return, thereby
exposure to a cycle of violence results in the development of a feeling of reacting to abuse and communicating their dissatisfaction with the rela-
helplessness, diminished decision making ability and development of tionship. Women who are abused in such a relationship after a long
fear (Walker, 1979). The victim starts blaming herself for the abuse time often plan their escape consciously and make arrangements slowly
and tries to refrain from the situations that could precipitate violence. to prepare themselves to leave the relationship in the future. Further-
This theory did not maintain its popularity for long, as women's more, characteristics that are considered manifestations (e.g., low self-
experiences were not consistent with the theory. Opponents argue that, esteem, perceived loss of control, and withdrawal) of a learned helpless
if violence was a result of tension and frustration, why does the abuser behavior could actually be the effects of abuse.
only vents his frustration on his wife and not on his work colleagues or
other people? 3.1.3. battered women syndrome
Walker (1979) used the theories of the cycle of violence and learned
3.1.2. Learned helplessness helplessness to explain the concept or condition of “Battered Women
In conjunction with the cycle of violence, another theory that has Syndrome”, which offers an explanation for a woman's retaliating be-
been applied to explain IPV is the theory of learned helplessness. This havior. It is basically a sub-type of a condition called PTSD (Walker,
phenomenon was first described in the 1960s by Martin Seligman, a 2006). A woman could be classified as battered if she has experienced
renowned psychologist (Seligman & Maier, 1967). Seligman and his at least two cycles of violence. The concept has been successfully used
colleagues conducted a series of controlled experiments to understand in various professional contexts such as clinical interventions, family,
this phenomenon better by placing dogs in two types of cages. In the and custody problems, and as grounds for policy and legal reforms
first cage, in conjunction with a conditioned stimulus (a bell), an electric (Craven, 2003). The concept has been used in some court cases to defend
shock was given. The second cage, however, had an area where no shock women who have killed their abusive husbands after spending a lot of
could be administered. Dogs in the first cage learned to accept the shock time in abusive relationship (Dutton, 1996; Scholz, 2000). However,
and gave up trying to escape, whereas, dogs in the second cage learned the concept itself does not suggest or justify such action, rather it just ex-
to run to the shockproof place. The researchers then placed the dogs plains an abused “… woman's possible psychological state after or during
from the first cage (shocking cage) to the second cage (with a shock being traumatized by domestic violence” (Scholz, 2000).
proof place). Interestingly, dogs from the shocking cage did not react
or look for an escape route. Seligman and colleagues concluded their 3.1.4. Power and control
observation by asserting that dogs' experiences of repeated, non- Another perspective, based on the feminist paradigm, concerns the
contingent, and inescapable shock in the first cage resulted in the issue of power and control. Scholars believed that the husband/intimate
development of a feeling of helplessness and inability to control their un- partner uses violence as a means of controlling their wife. The two per-
pleasant situation (Overmier & Seligman, 1967; Seligman & Maier, 1967). spectives that believe power imbalance as a cause of relationship imbal-
These findings and the theory of learned helplessness have been ex- ance are the feminist perspective and resource theory. As mentioned,
tended to explain an individual's perception and responses to uncon- feminists believe that VAW generally, and IPV specifically, results
trollable situations and circumstances (Seligman, 1975). This account from men's desire to attain and retain power over women (Dobash
states that repeated exposure to such situations results in the develop- & Dobash, 1979; Steinmetz, 1987; Yllo & Straus, 1990). The resource
ment of negative perceptions and beliefs about one's abilities to deal perspective maintains “that the relative resources of husbands and
with such circumstances (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993). Other wives rather than social roles or expectations determine the balance
614 P.A. Ali, P.B. Naylor / Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619

of power in marriage and influence the risk of partner violence” characterized by a value and belief system that justifies male dominance
(Gage & Hutchinson, 2006, p. 13). Based on the feminist ideology and rejects egalitarian structures in the public and private spheres of
and resulting from discussions with battered women, researchers life. In the public spheres, power is shared by men and in private spheres
presented the model called ‘the power and control wheel’ (Fig. 2). the senior man exercises power over everyone else in the family includ-
The model was developed in 1980–81 and was a result of a Domestic ing younger men and boys (Haj-Yahia & Schiff, 2007). Therefore, in pa-
Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) conducted in Duluth in the U.S. The triarchal societies and cultures, the husband is considered and expected
model offers explanation of the tactics used by violence or abusive to be the head of the family who should be approached and consulted
men to keep women in submissive positions and to maintain male on all important issues and decisions in the family. According to
power and control. The model assumes that no tactic or behavior is an this ideology, the use of IPV is an acceptable way of maintaining and
isolated incident; rather it is a part of the major motive to keep the exhibiting male dominance. Evidence suggests that the more people be-
women under control and exert male power. The model maintains lieve in patriarchal ideology, the more they approve of the use of VAW
that the responsibility for abuse and control lies with the abuser not by husband or intimate partners. Believers in patriarchal ideology tend
the abused. The overall aim of the intervention should be victim's safety to view wife beating not only as acceptable but also as beneficial and
and the abusers should be held accountable for their act and appropri- consider women responsible for the violence against them (Dobash &
ately dealt with by the law and judicial system. Another wheel to offer Dobash, 1979; Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira, & Aguiar de Souza, 2002;
and explain how nonviolent attitudes can be promoted is also devel- Haj-Yahia & Schiff, 2007; WHO, 2005).
oped and used in barterers' interventions programs (see Fig. 3). The feminist perspective has been criticized by various groups such
Various studies have supported the relationship between a need for as academics, clinical practitioners, and sociologists for several reasons.
power in power-motivated men and violence in intimate relationships Mills (2003) states that “the assumption underpinning mainstream
(Dutton & Strachan, 1987; Mason & Blankenship, 1987). Studies also sug- feminist advocacy efforts is that all intimate abuse is heterosexual, that vi-
gest a link between male dominance and IPV (Anderson, 1997; Sugihara olence is a one-way street (male to female), that all violence warrants a
& Warner, 2002). An inverse relationship between husband's lack of state response, and that women want to leave rather than stay in their
resources, such as socioeconomic status, occupational status, income or abusive relationships” (pp. 6–7). The assertion of some feminists that
even educational level, has also been suggested (Hornung, McCullough, women can only be the recipients of violence and cannot perpetuate
& Sugimoto, 1981; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986). violence has not only been criticized, but also dismissed by various
researchers (George, 1994, 2007; Oglivie, 1996). Several studies
3.1.5. Patriarchy have also been published which show that women can be equally as or
According to feminists, the ideology of patriarchy positively relates more violent than men (Anderson, 2002; Archer, 2000, 2002; Brown,
to the perpetuation and acceptance of the abuse of women (Smith, 2004; Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Capaldi et al., 2007; Hamberger &
1990; Yllo & Straus, 1990). Patriarchy is “an ‘umbrella’ term for describ- Potente, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1986). Similar findings were identified
ing men's systemic dominance of women” (Pease, 2000, p. 20). It is by Fiebert (2008) in a review of 219 papers including 170 empirical

Fig. 2. The power and control wheel: Duluth model.

Source: Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. Retrieved March 1, 2013 from [Link]
[Link].
 P.A. Ali, P.B. Naylor / Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619 615

Fig. 3. Equality wheel. Duluth model.

Source: Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. Retrieved March 1, 2013 from [Link]
pdf/[Link].

investigations. However, it is important to note here that the majority of feminists, mainly from the developing countries (Third World femi-
these studies have used the CTS critiqued above. Dutton (1994) has ne- nism) (Narayan, 1997), criticized Western feminism as being ethno-
gated the relationship between power and violence between couples, centric and ignorant of the distinctive experience of women from Third
on the one hand, and structural patriarchy and wife assault on the World countries (Mohanty, 1991). Apart from these types of feminism,
other hand. He further concluded that battering is more common in les- there are many other variants or types of the perspective based on geo-
bian than it is in heterosexual relationships. He explains that patriarchy graphical location, cultural and religious beliefs, and point of views.
“provides the value and attitudes that personality disordered men can In summary, a major stance of the feminist perspective is reflected
exploit to justify their abuse of women” (Dutton, 1994, p. 134). Oppo- by the statement that “women subjected to domestic abuse need to be
nents also accuse feminists of endorsing anti-male societal attitudes portrayed realistically as oppressed and victimised” (Knight & Hatty,
(Dasgupta, 2001). Feminists are also criticized for their over-reliance 1987, p. 460). The statement makes it clear that from a feminist per-
on the criminal justice system or their crime-centered approach spective, IPV is a “one way street”, always perpetuated by men against
(Coker, 2000, 2001; Maguigan, 2003; McPhail et al., 2007). Evidence women. The perspective remains controversial and questionable as
suggests that measures, such as mandatory arrests and mandatory already mentioned in this section. In the next section, various theories
domestic violence policies (especially in the U. S.), have negative conse- proposed under sociological perspective are reviewed.
quences such as increased surveillance for battered women, subjecting
them to legal proceedings, replacing husband control with state control 3.2. Sociological perspectives
over women's lives and decision-making. These measures result in in-
creasing women's powerlessness and inability to meet their own and The sociological perspective of IPV focuses on the social context and
their children's needs (Stark, 2004). situations in which men and women live and where violence takes
Another major limitation of the feminist perspective is that feminist place. The perspective examines factors such as societal norms and
perspective itself is divided into various forms and types of feminism people's attitudes towards violence (Erchak & Rosenfield, 1994).
and sometime some feminists criticize another feminist perspective. Various theories offered under this perspective include social learn-
For instance, black feminists maintain that oppression experienced by ing theory, resource theory, exchange theory (Homans, 1974), conflict
black women is more severe and different from that of white women theory (Quinney, 1970; Turk, 1977), and stress theory (Farrington,
and the voices of white feminists do not speak for the oppression based 1986; Jasinski, 2001). In this section, an overview of these theories is
on racism and classicism that mainly affects black women (Walker, presented.
1993). Another form of feminism, called post-colonial feminism, criticizes
the projection and perception of women from the developing world 3.2.1. Social learning theory
(non-Western women) as an oppressed, submissive, and voiceless Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) which is also called “learned
group as opposed to the Western women's projection of being mod- behavior theory” is one of the most popular and widely used theories
ern, educated, assertive, and powerful (Mills, 1998). A group of under this perspective. This theory is based on the principle that both
616 P.A. Ali, P.B. Naylor / Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619

perpetration and acceptance of physical and psychological abuse is a Briefly, social learning theory is one of the important theories that
conditioned and learned behavior. Bandura (1977) believed that the contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon of violence in
social situation is most important in determining the frequency, form, intimate relationships. However, there is still a need to investigate
and circumstances where the aggression occurs and the target of the relative effect of witnessing violence or experiencing violence
aggressive actions. This theorist argued that men perpetrate violence in one's family of origin (Delsol & Margolin, 2004).
because they have seen their fathers being violent towards their
mothers and that women accept violence because they have seen 3.2.2. Resource theory
their mother being abused by their father. This suggests that families Blood and Wolfe (1960) proposed that in a marital or intimate rela-
play a very important role in not only exposing individuals to the use tionship, the person who is more resourceful in terms of income, occu-
of violence, but also inculcates an acceptance and approval of the use pational status, and education may have more say and power in the
of violence in relationships (Gelles, 1972). This account has been sup- marital relationship. This notion is known as resource theory which
ported by some research (Cappell & Heiner, 1990; Coid et al., 2001; has been the basis of many research studies and many other theories
Desai, Arias, Thompson, & Basile, 2002; Ernst, Weiss, & Enright-Smith, in the field of IPV. Many studies have confirmed this theory by showing
2006; Glasser et al., 2001; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997; Parillo, Freeman, & that violent intimate or husbands were deficient in resources such as in-
Young, 2003; Rich, Gidycz, Warkentin, Loh, & Weiland, 2005; Shook, come, education, and occupational status (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Lang,
Gerrity, Jurich, & Segrist, 2000). Social learning theory has been used 2005; DeMaris, Benson, Fox, Hill, & Wyk, 2003; Hoffman, Demo, &
to study the “intergenerational cycle of violence” that proposes that Edwards, 1994; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997; Hotaling & Sugarman,
children who witness violence or who have been victims of violence 1986; Kantor & Straus, 1987; MacEwen & Barling, 1988; O'Leary &
themselves as children are at risk of becoming perpetrators of violence Curley, 1986). However, in a meta-analysis, Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward,
or victims of violence as adults (Black, Sussman, & Unger, 2010; and Tritt (2004) identified unemployment (r = −0.10), lower incomes
Cannon, Bonomi, Anderson, & Rivara, 2009; Ehrensaft et al., 2003; (r = −0.08), and lower education (r = −0.13) as weak predictors of
Fehringer & Hindin, 2009; Gelles, 1972; Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, male physical violence. In addition, the similar factors (employment:
& Bates, 1997; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Lavoie et al., 2002; Milner r = 0.01; income: r = −0.04; education: r = −0.05) were reported
et al., 2010; Renner & Slack, 2006; Straus & Kaufman-Kantor, 1994; to have negligible effect sizes, and were, thus, not useful in predicting
Swinford, DeMaris, Cernkovich, & Giordano, 2000). It is also suggested female victimization.
that children who are exposed to violence as a form of disciplining meth- Another variant of resource theory is the relevant resource theory
od in childhood learn to consider physical violence as an acceptable which maintains that “it is not so much men's lack of resources that pre-
method to treat unacceptable behavior (Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; dicts wife abuse but lack of resources relative to their wives” (Atkinson
Simons, Burt, & Simons, 2008; Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998). In addition, et al., 2005, p. 1138). Thus, men who do not enjoy superior status com-
such children do not learn any other conflict resolution skills (Straus & pared with their wives, show aggressive and violent behavior towards
Yodanis, 1996). Social learning theory has also been applied to study them. Various studies support this theory by revealing that employed
the effect of media in perpetuating and acceptance of violence in relation- women whose husbands are not employed are more likely to be abused
ships. Some studies support an association between watching violent (Macmillan & Gartner, 1999). Women who earn higher incomes than
television programs or games and aggressive and violent behavior gener- their husbands are also more at risk of being abused by their husbands
ally (Eron, Gentry, & Schlegel, 1994; Huesmann & Taylor, 2006) and VAW (Anderson, 1997; Fox, Benson, DeMaris, & Wyk, 2002; McCloskey,
specifically (Russo & Pirlott, 2006). However, some researchers have 1996; Melzer, 2002). Moreover, women with higher educational level
negated any relationship between exposure to violence in the media (O'Brian, 1971) or better occupational status (Atkinson et al., 2005;
and real life violence (Freedman, 1984, 1986; Olson, 2004). DeMaris et al., 2003; Gelles, 1974; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; Yllö
Like other perspectives, social learning theory has also been criti- & Bograd, 1988) are more at risk of experiencing violence at hands
cized. A major problem with such studies is the variation of the defini- of their husbands or intimate partners.
tion of terms, such as what constitutes witnessing violence as a child Resource theory contradicts other theories which suggest that
and how victimization and exposure to abuse in childhood are defined? empowering women through education and better employment oppor-
Does this include minor forms of corporal punishment such as mild tunities is a major strategy to tackle the problem of VAW. Another point
spanking or does it mean severe punishment (Baumrind, Lazerle, & raised against resource and relative resource theory is that these theo-
Cowan, 2002; Delsol & Margolin, 2004; Gershoff, 2002). The majority ries do not account for the gender ideologies and culture and presume
of these studies are based on participants' retrospective accounts over that all men want to be the breadwinner for their family (Atkinson
many years and are probably subject to recall and response bias. In et al., 2005). The application of this theory in societies and cultures
addition, the available studies do not test the theory and majority of that are less patriarchal in nature is also questionable. Next, in the patri-
the researchers have simply investigated the relationship between archal societies, men are more resourceful than women as they are the
violence in the family of origin and violence in marital or intimate rela- breadwinners of the family; therefore, they are considered superiors.
tionships later on in life (Delsol & Margolin, 2004; Holtzworth-Munroe Violence in these societies still exists, questioning or negating the
et al., 1997; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986). Besides, findings of studies abovementioned theories. In short, theories from the sociological per-
conducted in this regard are inconsistent, as some researchers have spective do provide an important contribution towards understanding
identified victimization as the stronger predictor of marital violence of IPV; however, the perspective still does not explain the phenomenon
than witnessing interpersonal violence (Corvo & Carpenter, 2000; completely.
Mihalic & Elliott, 1997) and others suggest that witnessing interper-
sonal violence is the strongest predictor (Aldarondo & Sugarman, 3.3. Nested ecological framework theory
1996; Carter, Stacey, & Shupe, 1988; Doumas, Margolin, & John,
1994; Kalmuss, 1984; MacEwen & Barling, 1988; McNeal & Amato, The nested ecological framework theory is one of the most
1998). There is a paucity of research investigating the role of these widely used accounts of IPV (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979, 1986)
variables in relation to the female perpetration of violence. It is also and Bronfenbrenner is one of its most widely read and cited authors
important to note that not all men who were abused as children or (Dasgupta, 2001). This framework has been used in relation to child
who witnessed interpersonal violence as children display violent or abuse and neglect (Belsky, 1980) and DV (Carlson, 1984; Dutton,
aggressive behavior in their marital relationships (Langhinrichsen- 1994; Edleson & Tolman, 1992; Flake, 2005; Heise, 1998). As the frame-
Rohling, Neidig, & Thorn, 1995). Likewise, not all violent and aggressive work offers a comprehensive view of the issue of IPV by looking at dif-
men have a history of experiencing or witnessing abuse in childhood. ferent factors at various levels, it has been used by the WHO (2002) in
 P.A. Ali, P.B. Naylor / Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619 617

Fig. 4. Ecological model of factors associated with partner abuse.

Source: Heise (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4 (Bhandari
et al., 2008), 262–290.

its “world report on violence and health”. The model suggests that be- as the explanatory factors. Finally, the nested ecological framework
havior is shaped through interaction between individuals and their so- looks at various factors at various levels in the family, community,
cial surroundings. Development of behavior results from the interaction and society to explain the phenomenon of violence in marital or intimate
at various levels of social organization (Dasgupta, 2001). It helps in un- relationships.
derstanding factors which influence the behavior of individuals and It is probable that no single theory or factor can fully explain the
which could increase the probability of perpetuating or accepting vio- phenomenon of IPV. As Carlson (1984) maintains: “it is futile to attempt
lence. The framework has four levels: individual; relationships; com- to demonstrate that one or two theories are correct, whereas others are
munity; and societal (Fig. 4). The individual level covers the biological wrong, when there are factors at many levels that play a causal role in
and personal factors which influence individual behavior. Such factors domestic violence” (p. 571). It is evident that every perspective contrib-
include age, gender, education, income, psychological problems, per- utes to the explanation of violence in intimate relationships. Each per-
sonality disorders, aggressive tendencies, and substance abuse. The spective has been supported as well as challenged by researchers and
next level known as relations encompasses the family including inti- each perspective provides an important insight into the issue of IPV.
mate partner, friends, and workplace situations. It explains the role of
these relationships in contributing to the risk of perpetuating or
accepting violence. The next level investigates the role of community References
where the person lives, develops relationships and interacts with
Aldarondo, E., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and persis-
friends, school mates and work colleagues. It looks at the factors that tence of wife assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 1010–1019.
could increase a person's vulnerability to commit or sustain violent Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the
biological and psychological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent
acts. The final level of the framework is the societal level. It relates to
Behavior. [Link] (0).
the structures and systems of the society and culture where the person Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist
lives. It also looks at the factors including parental role and responsibil- and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 655–669.
ities, societal norms, larger economic, social, and health structures af- Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner
violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64(4), 851–863.
fecting people's lives. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-
The overlapping rings in the model denote the interrelationship and analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.
interdependence of the factors to one another. The model also suggests Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual
partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(4), 313–351.
that, to deal with the issue of IPV, various factors at various levels need Atkinson, M. P., Greenstein, T. N., & Lang, M. M. (2005). For women, breadwinning can be
to be considered and dealt with simultaneously. It is the interaction of dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and the
all these factors that needs to be understood for planning preventive Family, 67, 1137–1148.
Ball, P., & Wyman, E. (1978). Battered wives and powerlessness: What can counselors do?
strategies to combat the problem of IPV and VAW. Victimology, 2, 545–557.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
4. Summary Barnett, O. W., Lee, C. Y., & Thelen, R. E. (1997). Gender differences in attributions of self-
defense and control in interpartner aggression. Violence Against Women, 3, 462–481.
Baumrind, D., Lazerle, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it
An examination of the different literature on the dynamics of IPV harmful? Comment on Gershoff. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580–589.
reveals that factors like the ideology of patriarchy, culture and society, Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (2nd ed.)Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.
religion, media, and individual characteristics come together to explain
Belknap, J., & Melton, H. (2005). Are heterosexual men also victims of intimate part-
IPV. The feminist perspective blames men, patriarchal structure of the ner abuse? Retrieved Jan 22, 2010, from [Link]/category/Documents.
societies, power and control issues, and learned helplessness. The socio- php?docid=370&category_id=695
logical perspective assumes violence in the family of origin, differences Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist,
35(4), 320–335.
in the possession of tangible and intangible resources of men and Bhandari, M., Sprague, S., Tornetta, P., III, D'Aurora, V., Schemitsch, E., Shearer, H., et al.
women in the marital relationship, conflict in the family and stress (2008). (Mis)perceptions about intimate partner violence in women presenting for
618 P.A. Ali, P.B. Naylor / Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619

orthopaedic care: A survey of Canadian Orthopaedic surgeons. Journal of Bone and Fiebert, M. S. (2008). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male
Joint Surgery (American), 90(7), 1590–1597. partners: An annotated bibliography. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from [Link]/
Black, D. S., Sussman, S., & Unger, J. B. (2010). A further look at the intergenerational ~mfiebert/[Link]
transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. Flake, D. F. (2005). Individual, family, and community risk markers for domestic violence
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(6), 1022–1042. in Peru. Violence Against Women, 11(3), 353–373.
Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D.M. (1960). Husbands and wives. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Fox, G. L., Benson, M. L., DeMaris, A. A., & Wyk, J. V. (2002). Economic distress and intimate
Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In K. Yllö, & M. violence: Testing family stress and resources theories. Journal of Marriage and the
Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 11–26). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Family, 64(3), 793–807.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Freedman, J. L. (1984). Effect of television violence on aggressiveness. Psychological
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. Bulletin, 96(2), 227–246.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and Freedman, J. L. (1986). Television violence and aggression: A rejoinder. Psychological
design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bulletin, 100(3), 372–378.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Gage, A. J., & Hutchinson, P. L. (2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 11–24.
Brown, G. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement system to García-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. (2005). WHO
violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture, 8, 3–139. multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence against women: Initial
Cannon, E. A., Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M. L., & Rivara, F. P. (2009). The intergenerational results onprevalence, health outcomes and women's responses. Geneva: World Health
transmission of witnessing intimate partner violence. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Organization.
Medicine, 163(8), 706–708. Gelles, R. (1972). The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and
Capaldi, D., Kim, H., & Shortt, J. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical wives. Newbuiy Park, CA: Sage.
aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101–111. Gelles, R. J. (1974). The violent home. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Capaldi, D., & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk Gelles, R. J. (1993). Through a sociological lens social structure and family violence. In
young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of R. J. G. D. R. Loseke (Ed.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 31–46).
Family Psychology, 15, 425–440. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Cappell, C., & Heiner, R. B. (1990). The intergenerational transmission of family aggres- George, M. J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable victims of
sion. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 135–152. marital violence. The Journal of Men's Studies, 3, 137–159.
Carlson, B. (1984). Causes and maintenance of domestic violence: An ecological analysis. George, M. (2007). The “Great Taboo” and the role of patriarchy in husband and wife
Social Service Review, 58, 569–587. abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1), 7–21.
Carter, J., Stacey, W. A., & Shupe, A. W. (1988). Male violence against women: Assessment Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors
of the generational transfer hypothesis. Deviant Behavior, 9(3), 259–273. and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,
Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender 128(4), 539–579.
and severity of violence differences. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 265–293. Glasser, M., Kolvin, I., Campbell, D., Glasser, A., Leitch, I., & Farrelly, S. (2001). Cycle of child
Chesler, P. (2005). The death of feminism: What's next in the struggle for women's freedom. sexual abuse: links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator. The British
New York: Palgrave Macmillian. Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 482–494 (discussion 495–487).
Coid, J., Petruckevitch, A., Feder, G., Chung, W., Richardson, J., & Moorey, S. (2001). Rela- Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & Aguiar de Souza, M. (2002). Ambivalent
tion between childhood sexual and physical abuse and risk of revictimisation in sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women
women: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 358(9280), 450–454. Quarterly, 26(4), 292–297.
Coker, D. (2000). Shifting power for battered women: Law, material resources, and poor Gondolf, E. W., & Fisher, E. R. (1988). Battered women as survivors: An alternative to
women of color. University of California, Davis, Law Review, 33, 1009–1055. treating learned helplessness. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Coker, D. (2001). Crime control and feminist law reform in domestic violence law: A Gover, A.R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the
critical review. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4, 801–860. family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal
Corvo, K., & Carpenter, E. H. (2000). Effects of parental substance abuse on current levels Violence, 23(12), 1667–1693.
of domestic violence: A possible elaboration of intergenerational transmission pro- Haj-Yahia, M. M., & Schiff, M. (2007). Definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse among
cesses. Journal of Family Violence, 15(2), 123–135. undergraduate students of social work. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Craven, Z. (2003). Battered woman syndrome. Australian domestic and family violence Comparative Criminology, 51(2), 170–190.
clearinghouse (Retrieved March 10, 2010, from [Link] Hamberger, L. K., & Potente, T. (1994). Counseling heterosexual women arrested for
[Link]/PDF%20files/battered%20_woman_syndrome.pdf). domestic violence: Implications for theory and practice. Violence and Victims, 9,
Dasgupta, S. (2001). Towards an understanding of women's use of non-lethal violence in 125–137.
intimate heterosexual relationships. Retrieved Jan 12, 2010, from [Link]/ Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence
category/[Link]?docid=410&category_id=695 Against Women, 4(3), 262–290.
Davis, L. V., & Hagen, J. (1992). The problem of wife abuse: The interrelationship of social Heru, A.M. (2007). Intimate partner violence: Treating abuser and abused. Advances in
policy and social work practice. Social Work, 37, 15–20. Psychiatric Treatment, 13(5), 376–383.
Delsol, C., & Margolin, G. (2004). The role of family-of-origin violence in men's marital Hoffman, K. L., Demo, D. H., & Edwards, J. N. (1994). Physical wife abuse in a non-western
violence perpetration. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(1), 99–122. society: An integrated theoretical approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(1),
DeMaris, A., Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., Hill, T., & Wyk, J. V. (2003). Distal and proximal 131–146.
factors in domestic violence: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Marriage and Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Bates, L. (1997). A brief review of the research on
the Family, 65, 652–667. husband violence part III: sociodemographic factors, relationship factors, and differing
Desai, S., Arias, I., Thompson, M. P., & Basile, K. C. (2002). Childhood victimization and consequences of husband and wife violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(3),
subsequent adult revictimization assessed in a nationally representative sample of 285–307.
women and men. Violence and Victims, 17(6), 639–653. Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior; its elementary forms (Revised ed.)New York:
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Doumas, D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1994). The intergenerational transmission of Hornung, C., McCullough, B. C., & Sugimoto, T. (1981). Status relations in marriage: Risk
aggression across three generations. Journal of Family Violence, 9(2), 157–175. factors in spouse abuse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 3, 675–692.
Dutton, D. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and Victims, Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife
9, 167–182. violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101–124.
Dutton, M. (1996). Critique of the “battered woman” syndrome model. Retrieved March Huesmann, L. R., & Taylor, L. D. (2006). The role of media violence in violent behavior.
15, 2010, from [Link]/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=375 Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 393–415.
Dutton, D.G., & Strachan, C. E. (1987). Motivational needs for power and spouse-specific Jasinski, J. L. (2001). Theoretical explanations for violence against women. In C. M.
assertiveness in assaultive and non-assaultive men. Violence and Victims, 2, 145–156. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), The sourcebook on violence against women
Edleson, J. L., & Tolman, R. L. (1992). Intervention for men who batter: An ecological approach. (pp. 5–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 11–19.
Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Kantor, K. G., & Straus, M.A. (1987). The drunken bum theory of wife beating. Social
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741–753. Problems, 34, 213–230.
Erchak, G., & Rosenfield, R. (1994). Societal isolation, violent norms, and gender relations: Kellerman, A. L., & Mercy, J. A. (1992). Men, women, and murder: Gender-specific differ-
A reexamination of Levinson's model of wife beating. Cross-Cultural Research, 28, ences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. Journal of Trauma, 33, 1–5.
111–113. Knight, R. A., & Hatty, S. (1987). Theoretical and methodological perspectives on domestic
Ernst, A. A., Weiss, S. J., & Enright-Smith, S. (2006). Child witnesses and victims in homes violence: Implications for social actions. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 22,
with adult intimate partner violence. Academic Emergency Medicine, 13(6), 696–699. 452–464.
Eron, L. D., Gentry, J. H., & Schlegel, P. (1994). Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on Kurz, D. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future
violence and youth. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. directions. Violence Against Women, 3, 489–505.
Farrington, K. (1986). The application of stress theory to the study of family violence: Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Neidig, P., & Thorn, G. (1995). Violent marriages: Gender
Principles, problems and prospects. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 131–149. differences in levels of current violence and past abuse. Journal of Family Violence,
Fehringer, J. A., & Hindin, M. J. (2009). Like parent, like child: Intergenerational transmis- 10(2), 159–176.
sion of partner violence in Cebu, the Philippines. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(4), Launius, M. H., & Lindquist, C. U. (1988). Learned helplessness, external locus of control,
363–371. and passivity in battered women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(3), 307–318.
 P.A. Ali, P.B. Naylor / Aggression and Violent Behavior 18 (2013) 611–619 619

Lavoie, F., Hébert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Vézina, L., & McDuff, P. (2002). History of Scholz, S. J. (2000). Moral implications of the battered woman syndrome. Retrieved
family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitu- March 15, 2010, from [Link]/wcp/Papers/Soci/[Link]
dinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(5), 375–383. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco:
MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1988). Multiple stressors, violence in the family of origin, and Freeman.
marital aggression: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Family Violence, 3(1), 73–87. Seligman, M. E., & Maier, S. F. (1967). Failure to escape traumatic shock. Journal of
Macmillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1999). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force partic- Experimental Psychology, 74, 1–9.
ipation and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Shook, N. J., Gerrity, D. A., Jurich, J., & Segrist, A. E. (2000). Courtship violence among
Family, 61(4), 947–958. college students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal
Maguigan, H. (2003). Wading into Professor Schneider's “murky middle ground” between of Family Violence, 15(1), 1–22.
acceptance and rejection of criminal justice responses to domestic violence. American Simons, L. G., Burt, C. H., & Simons, R. L. (2008). A test of explanations for the effect of
University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, 11, 427–445. harsh parenting on the perpetration of dating violence and sexual coercion among
Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation, stress, and abuse in college males. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 66–82.
intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 41–46. Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the family of origin and
McCloskey, L. A. (1996). Socioeconomic and coercive power within the family. Gender and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60,
Society, 10(4), 449–463. 467–478.
McNeal, C., & Amato, P. R. (1998). Parents' marital violence. Journal of Family Issues, 19(2), Smith, M. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of feminist hypothesis.
123–139. Violence and Victims, 5, 257–273.
McPhail, B.A., Busch, N.B., Kulkarni, S., & Rice, S. (2007). An integrative feminist model: The Stark, E. (2004). Insults, injury, and injustice: Rethinking state intervention in domestic
evolving feminist perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, violence cases. Violence Against Women, 10, 1302–1330.
13, 817–841. Steinmetz, S. K. (1987). Family violence: Past, present, and future. In M. B. Sussman (Ed.),
Melzer, S. A. (2002). Gender, work, and intimate violence: Men's occupational violence Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 725–765). New York: Plenum Press.
spillover and compensatory violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64(4), Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical
820–832. abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression
Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98.
Journal of Family Violence, 12(1), 21–47. Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from
Mills, S. (1998). Postcolonial feminist theory. In S. Jackson, & J. Jones (Eds.), Contemporary 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
feminist theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 48(3), 465–479.
Mills, L. G. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Straus, M.A., & Kaufman-Kantor, G. K. (1994). Corporal punishment by parents: A risk
Princeton University Press. factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and
Milner, J. S., Thomsen, C. J., Crouch, J. L., Rabenhorst, M. M., Martens, P.M., Dyslin, C. W., wife beating. Adolescence, 29, 543–561.
et al. (2010). Do trauma symptoms mediate the relationship between childhood Straus, M.A., & Yodanis, C. L. (1996). Corporal punishment in adolescence and physical
physical abuse and adult child abuse risk? Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(5), 332–344. assaults on spouses in later life: What accounts. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Introduction. In C. T. Mohanty, A. Russo, & L. Torres (Eds.), In Third 58, 825–843.
World women and the politics of feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Sugihara, Y., & Warner, J. A. (2002). Dominance and domestic abuse among Mexican
Narayan, U. (1997). Dislocating cultures: Identities, traditions, and Third-World feminism. Americans: Gender differences in the etiology of violence in intimate relationships.
New York: Routledge. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 315–340.
Naved, R., Azim, S., Bhuiya, A., & Persson, L. (2006). Physical violence by husbands: Swinford, S. P., DeMaris, A., Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2000). Harsh physical dis-
Magnitude, disclosure and help seeking behaviour of women in Bangladesh. Social cipline in childhood and violence in later romantic involvements: The mediating role
Sciences and Medicine, 62, 2917–2929. of problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(2), 508–519.
Oglivie, E. (1996). Masculine obsessions: An examination of criminology, criminality and Toro-Alfonso, J., & RodrIguez-Madera, S. (2004). Domestic violence in Puerto Rican gay
gender. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29, 205–226. male couples: Perceived prevalence, intergenerational violence, addictive behaviors,
O’Brian, J. E. (1971). Violence in divorce prone families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, and conflict resolution skills. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(6), 639–654.
692–698. Turk, A. (1977). Class, conflict, and criminalization. Sociological Focus, 10, 209–220.
O'Leary, K. D., & Curley, A.D. (1986). Assertion and family violence: Correlates of spouse Wahed, T., & Bhuiya, A. (2007). Battered bodies & shattered minds: Violence against
abuse. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12(3), 281–289. women in Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 126, 341–354.
Olson, C. K. (2004). Media Violence research and youth violence data: Why do they con- Waites, E. A. (1978). Female masochism and the enforced restriction of choice. Victimology,
flict? Academic Psychiatry, 28(2), 144–150. 2, 535–544.
Overmier, J. B., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1967). Effects of inescapable shock upon subsequent Walker, L. (1977/1978). Battered women and learned helplessness. Victimology, 2, 525–534.
escape and avoidance responding. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
63, 28–33. Walker, A. (1993). In search of our mothers' gardens: Womanist prose. San Diego: Harcourt
Parillo, K. M., Freeman, R. C., & Young, P. (2003). Association between child sexual abuse Brace Jovanovich.
and sexual revictimization in adulthood among women sex partners of injection drug Walker, L. A. (2006). Battered woman syndrome: Empirical findings. Annals of New York
users. Violence and Victims, 18(4), 473–484. Academy of Science, 1087, 142–157.
Pease, B. (2000). Recreating men: Post modern masculinity politics. London: Sage. Walker, L., & Browne, A. (1985). Gender and victimization by intimates. Journal of Personality,
Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the 53, 179–195.
age of personal control. New York: Oxford University Press. WHO (1997). Violence against women. A health priority issue (no. FRH/WHD/97.8). Geneva:
Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. Boston: Little Brown. World Health Organisation.
Renner, L. M., & Slack, K. S. (2006). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: Un- WHO (2002). World report on violence and health: Summary. Geneva: WHO.: World Health
derstanding intra- and intergenerational connections. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(6), Organization.
599–617. WHO (2005). Summary Report: WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic
Rich, C. L., Gidycz, C. A., Warkentin, J. B., Loh, C., & Weiland, P. (2005). Child and adolescent violence against women: Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes, and women's
abuse and subsequent victimization: A prospective study. Child Abuse & Neglect, responses. Geneva: WHO.
29(12), 1373–1394. Yick, A. G. (2001). Feminist theory and status inconsistency theory: Application to
Rosenbaum, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1981). Marital violence: Characteristics of abusive cou- domestic violence in Chinese immigrant families. Violence Against Women, 7,
ples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 63–71. 545–562.
Russo, N. F., & Pirlott, A. (2006). Gender-based violence: Concepts, methods, and findings. Yllö, K., & Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1087, 178–205. Yllo, K., & Straus, M. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural
Saltzman, L. E., Fanslow, J. L., McMahon, P.M., & Shelley, G. A. (1999). Intimate partner and normative factors. In M. Straus, & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American
violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
(GA) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-
and Prevention. national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal
Schecter, S. (1982). Women and male violence. Boston: South End Press. Violence, 19, 655–675.