Please read Chapter 20 OR Ch 8 in the handbook. This is your choice based on your interests.
Summarize the chapter and in your writeup incorporate answers to the following questions:
What most interested you in the chapter? What was most surprising to you? How does the chapter you read relate to spousal violence (be specific). Are there elements of the chapter that relate to your area of expertise? If so, what are they and how do they further develop your understanding of your topic?
I read chapter 20 and I found it extremely interesting. The chapter opened up with a very interesting insight, “Targets of partner aggression who are committed to their relationship are left to make sense of a paradox: The presumed source of love and intimacy is also the source of pain.” When stating this confliction of emotions in this way, we can begin to see why it is so difficult for victims of partner aggression to get up and leave. This statement contains two polar opposite emotions: love and pain. These emotions seem so far away from one another, but to victims of partner aggression, they combine into one relationship filled with confusion. The authors stated that these relationships are based around one subjective component…commitment. To the extent the victim is committed to the aggressive partner, affects their perceptions of their partner’s behavior and of the relationship. I thought the author’s discussion of theory was very interesting in attempting to describe this behavior based on theory. Heider’s balance theory was used to describe the victims’ perceptions’ of their partner’s aggressive behavior. I actually ran across the balance theory while studying for the GRE’s and learned how to draw these balance diagrams. I thought this was helpful as I was reading this part of the chapter to visualize the theories main components of shifting perspectives to create balanced relations. If the victim feels positive relation with the aggressive partner and the aggressive partner feels positively about the violent acts, in order to have balance, the victim must create a positive relation to the aggressive act as well. (I drew a nice triangle diagram in Word while typing this but it will not transfer to the blog!)
They also discuss the Interdependence Theory which states the victim will shift their point of reference for expected behavior based on their own experiences. This theory is very prevalent when talking about spousal or relational violence. The theory contends the more aggression the individual experiences, the more they begin to feel the behavior is normal rather than negative.
While discussing partner aggression, the authors of the chapter present the concept of physical and psychological aggression. I found the research they cited extremely interesting. To give a brief summary of the research, they found individuals view physical violence is less tolerant than psychological violence which exemplifies how we conceptualize the two different forms of violence. There is a view that psychological violence is not as serious as a problem as physical violence. The authors are adamant that this is a dangerous misconception regarding partner violence.
Other interesting research the authors cited was about the victims’ perceptions of the future. Do victims of violent partners anticipate less or more happiness than healthy relationships after a break-up? The authors stated that if you use commonsense, the victims should be relieved or happier than a non-victim after the break-up. The research showed the exact opposite. Victims predicted the same unhappiness as non-victims but were less happy after the actual break-up than non-victims. This research is important in considering why victims of partner violence do not get out of the unhealthy relationship.
This chapter did not directly relate to my expert topic; however, it did provide some good insight on the topic of how personality characteristics affect violence. The authors’ main conclusions seem to be that the level of commitment of the victim greatly affects the decision to stay in the relationship. Also the chapter explains how the victim shifts their views and their perspectives based on their experiences and in order to make the relationship work. All of these aspects are important to understand when thinking about how personality affects violence, because personality may also play an important role in the victim’s willingness to be committed or to shift their perspectives.
Chapter 20 discusses the many issues that can stem from, and lead to, domestic violence. I think it’s really important to recognize that the perceptions of domestic violence are changing, as the text points out. While awareness and acceptance has definitely been on the rise, there are still a lot of issues that are country needs to tackle in order to reduce and prevent our domestic violence rates. The chapter discusses how our perceptions towards violence have changed in two ways. The first way is that domestic violence is no longer seen as acceptable or normal as it was in past decades. The second way that it has changed is that it now includes less obvious forms of abuse, such as emotional abuse. While times are changing in the right direction, we still have a ways to go as a society.
The chapter discusses how our society’s general notion of domestic violence does not include verbal insults or emotional abuse (Arriaga & Capezza, 370). I think that this is a really sad reality that our population is facing; as many times emotional abuse can do just as much harm as physical abuse . I think it goes unrecognized because the effects are not as directly obvious as those who suffer from physical abuse. Emotional abuse does not leave visible bruises and scars, but rather eats away slowly at the victim’s self-worth. I also think that it’s not only society’s perceptions that are skewed; but the victim’s also. I think that many times those who are in abusive relationships are blinded by their fear or their own sense of guilt or shame. I have heard many stories about people in abusive relationships who are in denial or don’t want to admit that their relationship is unhealthy. This relates to the interdependence theory that is discussed in the chapter (Arriaga & Capezza, 372). This is really linked to abusive relationships because when faced with a difficult issue or situation (such as aggression or abuse), the victim will likely blame themselves or look to do whatever they can to stay in the relationship, regardless of any danger or risk.
This issue is also discussed in relation to ending the relationship. Interdependence can play apart in how well the couple deals with a break up (Arriaga & Capezza, 377). When a couple is strongly dependent on each other, it’s likely that there will be a lot of emotional tension if ever faced with a break up, which can lead to further abuse. It is important to recognize this research finding, as it can help in prevention techniques when assisting those who need to escape abusive relationships. I also thought that the section on revictimization was really interesting, as I have done some research on this topic for another class. Many times victims of abuse will “down play” their past or present abusers as to ease themselves into a sense of security (Arriaga & Capezza, 373). Many times those who survive an abusive relationship tend to get into new relationships, often which are also abusive. It seems to be a never ending cycle of low self-esteem and issues with recognizing abuse. As one of my professors described, they look at this new relationship with a sense of “this one is going to be better.” Because of this hope, they tend to be blinded by the reality that abuse is occurring again. In other cases, they may reflect on past relationships and compare them to their present one, realizing “well, at least he doesn’t hit me,” even though there may be other forms of abuse happening in the relationship.
I think that this topic can definitely be related to my expert topic, which looks at differences in cultural violence and how it affects children. In cultures where domestic abuse is accepted (such as many different Eastern cultures), these issues can be passed on for many generations and is seen as the norm. If domestic violence is present in the home, those values and actions are instilled in the children as they are growing, possibly causing them to be more violent themselves. In cultures that are very violent, such as Iran, the string of violence is not likely to end anytime soon. Because they expose their children, and their general population, to such extreme forms of violence and domestic abuse, it is likely that those ways of living will be instilled upon the children, continuing this way of life. In addition to the physical forms of violence, many of the religious backgrounds that are prominent in Eastern cultures forbid women to own anything, as well as making sure that the women have no control over any of the money in the family. By many of the definitions we have seen in the websites from the blog and from our text, this is a form of domestic abuse. Degrading women to be less than men is a normal way of life for many religions, as the wife is supposed to please the man and work for him rather than with him. However, we must raise the question of whether or not it can be seen as abuse if the victim is unwilling to recognize the abuse. Because of religion or culturally based norms, can we call economically depriving a spouse a form of abuse? It’s difficult to pinpoint whether or not the actions that many Eastern cultures participate in against their spouse is abuse because of the difference in cultural norms. Here is an article describing some of the violence in the households of those in Iran: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VH7-51P9TFD-1-1&_cdi=6059&_user=724663&_pii=S1359178910000728&_origin=search&_coverDate=12%2F13%2F2010&_sk=999999999&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkzS&md5=96d1651232e62af9fb731f3723065457&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Because of my past abusive relationship, I felt compelled to read Chapter 20. I must admit, it was very difficult for me to maintain my focus while reading the chapter without my mind wandering off onto the events that I experienced during that time. It wasn't so much as reliving the experiences but more like trying to determine whether this chapter fit into what I felt like during that time (in other words, did the authors get it right).
While I recognize the fact that my individual situation would be considered nothing more than a case study, I'm not sure that I entirely agree with everything that was written in the chapter. It's been nearly 7 years since I've been that relationship and during this time, I've done a lot of analyzing and self-reflection over what happened, why it happened, and how the heck I ever found myself in that situation to begin with.
The first issue that I had with this chapter is the idea of the victim the act of violence as less severe than it actual is. Perhaps I am one of those exceptions to the theories the authors use in this chapter, but I really don't think the victim downplays the physical violence in their own perceptions. I was always totally aware of how wrong it was for my ex to be doing the things he did to me (even the emotional abuse). Yet, when speaking to others, I would downplay it (and not because I believed it to be any less severe than it really was). My motivation for doing so was out of the embarrassment of having to explain the full nature of what was going on. Even now, some of the details are extremely humiliating for me to tell others because I am afraid of the perception that others will have of me for putting up with it. Thus, I feel that it is more plausible that victims report their perceptions of the violence as being less severe not because they believe them to be so but because of their fear of the negative perceptions others may have on them. If this in fact were the case, the studies conducted would not be accurately measuring victims' perceptions of partner violence. Although the authors did not explain in great detail the methodology they used to collect the data (other than some were pencil and paper tests and others were online surveys), I suspect that even though they may have explained to their participants that their answer would be confidential, the participants may not of truly felt the trust in reporting their true perceptions (after all, partner violence destroys a person's trust in other people). Perhaps they were experiencing something similar to the spotlight effect while filling out the surveys. We can not be too sure.
When it came to the difference between physical and psychological partner violence. I did agree with them entirely. As a society, we too tend to view psychological violence as being less severe than physical violence. I know that when I would explain to others what I went through that I would always say "well he only got physical with me a few times but he was mainly just emotionally abusive to me."
I also fully agree that psychological violence is more damaging than physical violence. Even today, I still tell people that I rather have a man hit me than to call me names and degrade me. The reasoning is quite simple. With physical violence, you have the potential to deflect the blow whether it be moving out of the way or blocking it with another object or your arms or legs. With psychological violence, there is no magical shield to deflect the words from penetrating your thoughts or how you perceive yourself so with each proverbial blow, the effects are delivered with full force to your psychological well-being. When you put this into the context of partner aggression, the damage from the psychological violence is intensified. This is because the person unleashing the emotional abuse is somebody who you view as some one that cares about you. To further explain, when you take psychological violence out of the context of an intimate relationship and apply it social interactions outside of close relationships (such as between roommates, strangers, acquaintances, etc), you are able to deflect some of the emotional pain by using the attribution theory (example: "oh she said that about me because she's just a *itch"). However, when the psychological violence comes from a person who you feel extremely close to and that you know very well, you can't fall back on the attribution theory. Therefore, you internalize the comments more. I would even argue that the internalization is even more severe when it comes from the person whom you are most intimate with (such as your spouse or common-law partner).
Because I do not agree with the authors' original theory (that the victim perceives the violence as less severe), I had a hard time agreeing with any of the theories listed as to why they may have that perception. While reading about the interdependence theory, I did feel that the authors started to touch on how victims cope with the violence in the relationship. The interdependence theory discusses how a victim may react when faced with partner violence based on their goals toward the relationship. As the chapter explains, when faced with a highly negative interaction that highly committed individuals will either be motivated to respond in ways that salvage the relationship or reduce their motivation to save the relationship by becoming less committed and dependent. I do believe that the level of commitment plays a key role into why a person will stay with a partner that is violent. To cope with the violence, the victim looks for ways to justify the act. This is not downplaying the severeness of the act, this is more of a coping strategy to figure out how it is possible for the person that supposedly cares about you to treat you this way. For me, I justified the acts by blaming it on my ex's alcoholism. It was easier for me to stay within the relationship by telling myself that his drinking caused him to act that way towards me. Thus, I felt I identified the source of his rage and could develop ways of helping him to "get better." This then became my main focus in salvaging my relationship so that I could restore him to the man I thought he was before he started acting this way towards me. Again, I stress, this was not at all a way to view the acts of violence being less severe than what they were. Rather, it was my way of justifying to stay in the relationship because I "knew he needed my help." I feel that my situation fits right in with the interdependence theory in the way I explained above. This is because when I came to the realization that my ex's violence towards me could not be explained by him being drunk, it left me devastated and with no choice but to leave him permanently.
When it came to the section of the chapter which explored the level of commitment and the idea of reinterpreting the violence, I was extremely displeased with the methodology the Arriaga study used conclude that victims "reinterpret" partner violence. The study I am referring to is the one in which Arriaga found that participants who reported more conflict violence also reported more joking violence thus concluded that the findings suggested that they reinterpreted their partner's aggression in ways that would make it easier to accept while continuing the relationship. I feel this study had a major internal validity problem with the instrumentation they used to conclude these findings. My justification for this is that there may be an alternative explanation for the findings. Perhaps the partners of those who reported more conflict violence engage in playful aggression (such as play fighting without the intent to hurt the other person) more as a way a mutual way to have fun with their partner. I know it sounds a little ludicrous because I can't find the words right now to express exactly what I mean. An example I can use is with my previous relationship. Before I was even the relationship, I would rough house around with my friends (remember, I was raised in a family that was very big into wrestling and I have 3 older brothers that I would rough house with all the time). It was fun to both me and my friends because we were not intending to hurt each other. While in my former relationship, my ex and I would sometimes engage in the same type of behavior (I even still engage in that type of behavior with my current husband). The point is, the aggressiveness was in fact joking around. There was no reinterpretation. I definitely knew the difference between him joking around with me and him abusing me. So returning to the study, I feel that the instrumentation they used to measure this so-called "reinterpretation" was actually measuring real "joking violence." Perhaps the correlation they found between the two can be explained by the fact that the partners of those who reported more violence tend to engage in more aggression in general (both playful and harmful).
When it came to a victim's perception of how unhappy they might feel if their relationship ended, I honestly was not surprised by the results. Like I said before, I was devastated when I realized I had to end my former relationship. Keep in mind, things were a little more complicated because I had just given birth to my son a few months prior. While a victim may realize that the relationship is not a healthy one, there is still a horrible feeling associated with potentially ending the relationship. This is because of the attachment that has developed over the course of the relationship. Not to mention additional factors which may complicate the situation even more (such as having children together, marriage, lack of financial means to support yourself, etc). Bottom line is, even though the relationship was less than desirable, you still are loosing a person whom you've allowed yourself to become close to and cared about. Not to mention, there is a fear of the unknown (will I ever find somebody else? How will I take care of myself or my children? Where will I live?).
I feel that my area of expertise can apply to this topic as part of a prevention and intervention strategy. Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS) is a program which helps to teach culturally-accepted behavioral expectations to students. The way the program is set up is in a three-tier format: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. The Primary tier focuses on teach the behavioral expectations the general population. However, if a student does not respond to the Primary tier program format, they move up into the Secondary and Tertiary tiers. The Secondary tier tends to focus on the "at risk" students as a group and uses tactics like increased adult feedback, more active supervision, etc to try to help guide the students back on track. The Tertiary tier is focused on individual students who do not respond to either the Primary or Secondary tier interventions. At this level, assessments are made about the individual student (including an assessment that identifies the function behind the behavior such as attention-getting). It is at this level where I see the most potential for this program to help as it relates to this topic. I feel it can help in one of two ways: identifying students who have a high risk of engaging or have engaged in this type of behavior, or identifying students whose parents engage in this type of behavior. By identifying the students who may or have engaged in partner violence, there is an opportunity for preventative or early intervention methods to be used to help the student to develop better anger-coping strategies, more effective communication skills, and the like to prevent future relationship problems down the road. By identifying a student's parents who engage in partner violence, there is an opportunity to get the family some additional help (such as provide information on battered woman's shelters, family counseling, etc) or even having law enforcement and/or DHS intervene in the situation.
What most interested you in the chapter? What was most surprising to you? How does the chapter you read relate to spousal violence (be specific). Are there elements of the chapter that relate to your area of expertise? If so, what are they and how do they further develop your understanding of your topic?
For this blog I chose to read chapter 20 because I am interested in partner relationships and aggression. It’s a topic that interests me because personally I have not been in a physically or psychologically abusive relationship, so it’s something I cannot directly relate to or completely understand, so I like learning about it. I think it was interesting to see how the study panned out; I was surprised to see that people were not as worried about and did not think psychological abuse was as serious as physical abuse. Maybe it’s the psychology lover in me, but I think psychological abuse is just as disruptive and harmful to a person’s wellbeing as physical abuse. Yes, physical abuse can leave mark and scars, but if someone is emotional scarred that can leave marks on their ability to live their lives effectively for the rest of their lives. I think both types of abuse can be very damaging to a person. So in my opinion it was interesting to see even college girls saying that psychological abuse is not nearly as bas as physical abuse.
The most surprising thing to me in the book was the theories that were used to explain why people stay with their abusive partners. I already knew that people usually down play their abuse and stay with their partner for resource purposes, but I was surprised to see that people stay with their partner just because of commitment. Like I said, it’s something I have not experienced first had, but I’ve known many people in abusive relationships and always have asked them the classic “why did you stay with them” and generally the answer I got back was “I just loved them that much.” And I can understand the “love makes you do crazy things” but I just cannot imagine letting someone break me down so far that I thought being physically violated was ok. Also it was surprising to see people in the survey say that physical abuse was grounds for breaking up with a boyfriend, however in that situation it seems like people don’t break up with their significant other. So it’s one of those things in life where people say “I would never let that happen to me, or put up with that” but in real situations, you never know how you would react to it.
I think this chapter can EASILY be related to spousal violence, it practically is about spousal abuse. It was really clear why people that are married to their abuser stay with them over time. It is obvious that people that are married are already committed to one another, so it’s easy to use the theory of commitment and long term relationships to explain why married women/men stay with their abuse because they are committed and invested in their relationship with the person they are married to. If you have been married to someone for ten years and after 5 years of marriage that person is emotional abusive and you’ve dealt with that for 3 years, I can understand how after so many years you begin to downplay the physical abuse that begins to occur during that 10-year period. You have so much invested with that person, like children, money, time, feelings, etc. It would be very difficult to walk away from someone that you have built your life with, even if they are abusing you.
This topic isn’t really related to my topic, but my topic is didactic, so that is pretty much the only thing that they have in common. My topic is focused on date rape among adolescents so that does not usually lead up to reoccurring abuse, but it’s typically a one-time offending occurrence.
I read Ch. 20 - The paradox of partner aggression: Being committed to an aggressive partner. The chapter began identifying statistics related to the importance of understanding and identifying partner aggression. The statistics are alarming and probably are lower than the actual cases of partner aggression. The chapter distinguishes between physical and psychological aggression which I believe is very important to identify. Psychological aggression can include humiliating, degrading and threatening behaviors and attempts to control the other person and are found to be more damaging to the victim than physical aggression. Despite this knowledge it is very concerning that the US society fails to condemn psychological aggression despite the fact that the long term well-being of victims is more damaging. The book indicates that in studies completed there is a more negative view towards physical aggression and views on psychological aggression are not uniformly negative. The chapter then continues by identifying some key theories to understanding partner aggression. The first theory that I believe to be very important to understand is the consistency theory. This theory can provide individuals working with victim’s better insight into the behaviors following aggressive incidents. I feel that it is important for people working with the victims to have an understanding of this theory because I feel that you can best incorporate services based on this understanding. It provides you with guided insight as to where your client may be emotionally and can determine their motivation for or against change. The second theory that I feel is important and can be applied in practice is the Interdependence theory. Again this theory has significant indications regarding the victim’s ability to make change. By understanding these theories you can apply the best interventions for the victim. The chapter then provides several studies to support a greater understanding of the causality of partner aggression and the implications for continuing aggressive relationships. The end of the chapter then advises on appropriate interventions for working with victims, which I found to be very helpful for my professional career. The chapter indicates the importance of tailoring interventions depending on the specific circumstances of the victim. When doing this, having a greater understanding of the theories is very essential. The chapter then encourages individuals working with victims to focus on changing perceptions of partner aggression. I feel this is very helpful information regarding your work with a victim because it encourages you to work on changing and refocusing perception instead of focusing primarily on just removing the individual from the situation. I believe that if you do not change the perception of the victim the chance for re-victimization would be greater.
I read Chapter 20 regarding partner aggression. I was pleased to see that the chapter was named The Paradox of Partner Aggression, because it often seems that people do not see the paradox that lies within these kinds of relationships. The chapter went into detail about the difficult dynamics that are involved in an aggressive relationship. For example, the source you are to receive love from is also the source you receive pain from, the minimizing of the aggression due to other factors, and the multiple reasons for dependency on the victim’s side of things.
This chapter broke down the issue between two theoretical frameworks: consistency theories and interdependence theories. Consistency theory suggests that based on the commitment level of the victim in turn effects their perception of their partners aggressive behavior. The higher the commitment level, the more minimization of the aggression. Interdependence theory suggests that the victim’s goals of the relationship or interaction with the aggressor effects their dependency on the relationship. Therefore, the more dependent on the aggressor, the more they are able to minimize the aggression.
A widely accepted perception of domestic violence is often shown by looking at the victim. The victim should just leave, the victim should divorce, the victim should DO something to change their situation. That is why I am glad we talked in class today about the dynamic that the focus is rarely on the aggressor. We live in a society where we try to teach people to be responsible for their actions, but it is rarely the case in these situations. To speak in general terms, men have the ability to stop this epidemic. It does not mean that everyone should not be involved in the process, but there needs to be a safe space for men to speak and advocate for the issue as well.
A related topic to this (which I should have brought up in class) is the recent debate over the commercial bringing awareness for this issue and advocating for parents to teach their sons how to treat people. The commercial starts with a voice describing a “he who is powerful, tough and aggressive and who has just raped his girlfriend”. Then a little baby boy appears, and the voice continues with, “But he wasn’t always this way”. Obviously the point of the commercial is to raise awareness that all abusers start out as we all did, children who learned behavior. The point is to teach your children appropriate behaviors and how to treat people. The debate over the commercial has been huge, with critics feeling it is inappropriate to depict a baby as a rapist. Well, that’s not what the commercial is saying at all…but what do you think a rapist was at one point in their life? The president of the Riverview Center in Dubuque, Iowa (the agency the commercial is advertising) has received death threats regarding the commercial.
I guess my view is that we begin to learn about violence from a young age. Therefore, parents, teachers, mentors, etc. have the responsibility to teach children what the appropriate way to treat others is. Programs initiated with the intent to educate men, as well as everyone are beneficial. I think that the more awareness and focus put on how men can stop this epidemic will allow for a society where it will happen less often. As the commercial states, “Redefine what it means to be a man.”
You can watch the commercial at:
http://www.examiner.com/commercials-in-national/riverview-center-anti-rape-commercial-video
I read chapter 20 because it is something I am really interested in. It was my original expert topic. I agree with most of the things that Ashley said in her post. I too have been in a relationship with violence. I was not physically abused in my relationship; however, the psychological/verbal abuse was severe. This is one reason I chose to read this chapter. In the chapter they discuss the difference between physical aggression and psychological aggression and how and why people remain in these relationships with such horrible things. It really wasn’t news to me at all, seeing as I have experienced the feelings they discuss. One of the things that stood out to me was the interdependency theory. I think that the authors really hit it on the head with this one. This theory talks about how the level of commitment and type/severity of aggression couple with the expected outcome of the relationship and the expectations of the partner to explain why people stay in such aggressive, abusive relationships. The authors concluded that people who are more committed will perceive the aggression as less severe or downplay it. I think this is one part I do have a problem with this theory on. As Ashley said, I do not think that victims of this abuse perceive it as less severe, per say, rather than simply downplaying it because of the fear of negative perceptions by others. I know that I had gotten to the point where I would not even tell my friends or family what was wrong in my relationship because I didn’t want them to start saying they told me or that he was such a horrible person, etc. I didn’t want them to think I was this person who would put up with things like this and it seems like if you tell people how badly you really are treated, they don’t help you through it, they just judge you. Eventually, you just get tired of hearing the same things and hearing them put down the guy and the relationship. They weren’t there and they do not know how the dynamics in the relationship are. I think you tend to tell people the bad things and focus on those instead of the good things, so when you do tell them how you are treated, they don’t see that it isn’t a thing that occurs all the time. I knew exactly how bad I was being treated. I knew what it was doing to me, and I also knew how to stop it and what I had to do. That is not the difficult part. The part I think is difficult is ending something that has been going on for a long time, because you are really committed to that person and you keep having the hope that they’ll change. Like Ashley said, there are the thoughts in your head about, “Will I find someone else” or “What if…” I have never once thought, oh it wasn’t THAT bad. I downplayed it so I wouldn’t be judged and looked at differently. This also relates to the other part of the interdependency theory, the notion of goals of the relationship holding you in. I used to be engaged in my relationship, so I naturally had an expectation that we would be together always. This would change how I would react to the psychological abuse. I would look past even the worst because I did want to marry this man. I knew that he could be an amazing man and he had some of his own problems from when he was younger and he had a short fuse. I figured that we could get help and continue on the goal that I had. I wasn’t alone in that thought either. If I didn’t see the relationship going that far, I probably wouldn’t keep trying to make it work, despite those bad, bad times.
One other part of the chapter that I thought was very true was the perception of the difference between physical and non-physical aggression. I have always told my boyfriend that psychological abuse is more damaging than physical abuse. It affects you much longer than physical (unless of course you die). It not only affects how you think about them, but it affects how you think about yourself. It damages your self-worth and self-image. It makes you think that you are nothing anymore. I would rather be hit than yelled at any day. I can deal with a bruise, but those words stay there for good. They are very hard to forget; especially if those words are ones that damage your trust. They will damage your trust with everyone else. It is sad how society doesn’t view psychological aggression as severe as physical. It is really hard for someone to see exactly what you are saying or mean when you say their yelling hurt you so bad. They look at you like well you don’t have bruises, so you must not be hurt. Society needs to take a step towards awareness for the damaging effects of psychological aggression. I think if they did, and people would understand it more, victims would not feel so much like they have to downplay the situation. I think a huge problem is the fact that cops will not arrest or remove a man/woman if the victim does not have physical marks showing abuse. This is not just a problem for psychological abuse. If the perpetrator pushes you and you hit your head on the wall or other obstacle but no mark is left, the police act like nothing happened. I was in that situation once and my boyfriend called 911. The cops wouldn’t do a thing about the situation because I didn’t have a handprint on me. This goes to show how society has not progressed as much as we have thought regarding aggression, especially spousal abuse. There is no doubt that psychological and physical aggression between couples is spousal abuse. Technically you are not married, but you are in a committed relationship. There are many of the same factors that hold you in it, and I don’t think that we still, as a society, have moved toward a better view on spousal abuse. I know of many people who still think that a man has a “right” to do what he wants to his wife, or even a guy and girl in a relationship. The point, though, is that abuse is abuse, no matter how physical or severe.
I think that this can relate to my expert topic. My topic is the addiction of lying and the effects it can have on relationships. For the past assignment, I discussed how people create a false-self to protect themselves and avoid pain/emotion/etc. I also discussed how if someone challenges that false-self (a habitual lie), the person most often gets aggressive. As I explained before, my boyfriend has exhibited this. Many times a person acts out with psychological aggression if they are confronted about lying. Many people do not see this as a form of violence, especially relationship violence, but I wholeheartedly believe it is. The person who continuously lies wants to protect themselves so bad that they go after the person who is accessible, the person they often feel will not leave. Most of the time, this is their loved one/spouse. I think the interdependency theory can explain why the person will take it out on their loved one and why the victim doesn’t leave. First of all is the hope or belief that the person will stop lying or stop acting out, second is the commitment you have to the other person that you don’t want to leave. You need them and they need you. I think that if the victim feels this way and doesn’t do something or leave after the perpetrator (liar) acts aggressively it reinforces the perpetrator’s view that this is the person they can take things out on. It is a vicious cycle. I can’t seem to word what I am thinking in the way that I want, so I hope this makes sense. They become dependent on each other and neither one feels like they can/want to get out, even if they are not happy. This also makes sense with the part of the chapter that discusses that victims view breaking up just as badly as non-victims. When you become so engrossed in the other person and they are your best friend or the person you lean on for everything, I think that you view breaking up as bad as or even worse than those who are non-victims. I guess you can think of it as if the couple thinks, “We have been through all of this, who else could I go through this with and still have?” That is at least how I have thought of it before. It kind of seems like the relationship is stronger because of the past problems you have had, thus you are so dependent on them that breaking up would be devastating. I’ve had a harder time breaking up with a boyfriend who has psychologically abused me over and over than a boyfriend who never did.
I think overall this chapter explains why people stay in abusive relationships well. Like I mentioned, there are a few things I disagree about. I think this chapter can really help people understand the effects of aggression on a relationship and maybe change how some people view others in this situation. It might help some have more compassion for those they know are victims and might help them understand why it is so hard for them to get out of the situation. I feel, though, that you can never truly see how difficult it is to leave unless you experience it yourself, something I would never wish on anyone else.
I read Chapter 20 (like everyone else!) about the paradox of partner aggression. The chapter really focuses on Interdependence Theory, while still incorporating two different Consistency Theories: Balance Theory and Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Interdependence Theory basically says that a person who has something negative happen to them (in a relationship) will either find some way to make the “something” less negative to try to salvage the relationship or will use the “something” as evidence that the relationship needs to end. Most people in abusive relationships seem to make the incidents less negative for at least awhile, though as Ashley points out, they may not be making the incidents less negative so much as finding other reasons to stay. The Balance Theory says that people try to balance things that are not balanced (such as 2 positives and 1 negative). The Cognitive Dissonance Theory says that if there is a difference between someone’s beliefs and actions, it is uncomfortable, and they will either change the belief or the action to restore harmony. The authors then summarize some research that they have done themselves about happiness and how it relates to leaving a relationship. They find that people predict more unhappiness than they actually have when leaving a relationship, regardless of whether it’s abusive or not. They also do another study that finds the more committed people in relationships are more likely to have “joking” violence.
The thing that interested me most in this chapter was their discussion on psychological violence. I completely agree with their idea that psychological violence is at least, if not more, harmful than physical violence. Perhaps this is from my experience with it. I know that the physical pain (the rare times my dad’s ex-wife would strike me) would go away and doesn’t seem as bad in retrospect. However, her constant nagging and yelling and pointing out all my flaws and making me feel worthless took a huge toll on my self-esteem, so much so that I still struggle sometimes to see myself for what I really am, instead of what I was taught to see myself as. I found it very interesting and sad that most people (including women) think that psychological violence is not as bad. This reflects the fact that we teach physical abuse is really bad but rarely do our children hear that emotional and psychological abuse is also very bad, from either schools or parents. I do believe this is changing, which makes me very happy, but we still have a way to go.
The thing that surprised me most was that women who left abusive relationships thought that they would be unhappy (which correlated with women who ended a nonabusive relationship). I guess I figured that if someone was leaving a relationship where they wouldn’t be getting hurt anymore, they would be happy. I know that I was happy when I didn’t have to deal with my dad’s ex-wife anymore (even if it wasn’t a spousal relationship, it was still an abusive relationship). After reading Ashley’s post, I can understand why that “common-sense” view really isn’t accurate, especially if you pair it with the data that people in the most committed relationships tend to stay longer, experience more violence, and “downplay” the violence more often (at least in public even if not necessarily to themselves).
This chapter deals almost exclusively with spousal abuse. The whole chapter talks about partner aggression, why people stay in the relationships, and how people feel about abusive relationships. All of it relates to spousal abuse, since spousal abuse, is, after all, a form of partner aggression.
I’m not quite sure this relates well to my topic, which is serial rapists. Most rapists only have one-time contact with their victim. Also, while there are some rapists that are married, most of them don’t abuse their spouse. I’m quite sure there are exceptions to this rule, but as a whole, I really don’t think spousal abuse has a lot to do with serial rapists. I may be able to use some of the theories for the victims of a rape, if that were my topic.
I decided to read Chapter 20: The Paradox of Partner Aggression: Being Committed to an Aggressive Partner. The chapter starts off by providing some overall statistics on domestic violence before presenting their paradox: The presumed source of love and intimacy (partner in a relationship) is also the source of pain (p. 367). The authors also give us a brief overview of how partner aggression should be defined in addition to how partner aggression is perceived in the United States. One of the things I found most interesting is the fact that psychological aggression is far more accepted than physical aggression. In one study (Carlson & Worden, 2005) close to 99% of respondents reported that a husband punching his wife is a form of domestic violence. On the other hand, only 53.8% considered a husband verbally insulting his wife (e.g. “calling her ‘a stupid slob’”) as domestic violence. I think that one possible reason as to why psychological aggression is more accepted in our society is because it is more wide spread. From a statistical standpoint we know that men are usually the aggressor (at least physically) in an abusive relationship. But would the ratio of men/women doing the abuse even out so to speak if we were to look at psychological aggression? It’d be interesting to see if this is the case.
The chapter goes on to present two theories as to why a victim’s perception of partner abuse differs from others’ perceptions. As we discussed in class today, this chapter (along with a warehouse of research and literature on this topic) focuses on the victim. Why does a victim stay in abusive relationship? How can the victim move forward, etc. The authors described Consistency Theories and Interdependence Theories. The main ideas behind Consistency theories are that level of commitment and the nature of the aggressive behavior affect partner aggression. High levels of commitment cause a victim to minimize and become more accepting of aggressive behavior from their partner. Serious aggressive acts such as physical abuse are a little more difficult to reinterpret as harmless acts while psychological aggression is easier to dismiss and/or accept. Interdependence theory as described by the authors, “provides an analysis of thoughts and actions based on a person’s interaction situation (e.g., a partner interaction) and the person’s broad goals toward the relationship” (p.372). So for instance, if your main goal is to make the relationship work, save the relationship, or help the person change (or a combination of all of these), then a victim is more likely to respond in very benign and unaggressive ways during contentious interpersonal situations (i.e., such as an argument). Furthermore, interdependence theory also suggests that individuals eventually create “comparison levels” of behavior during such events. Eventually, victims in abusive relationships come to expect abusive behavior in current and future relationships. It becomes the norm so to speak. And as the authors point out, the more abuse a victim experience, the more they are likely to perceive it as “normal” behavior.
Another interesting section in the chapter deals with research looking at whether or not victims downplay their partner’s past aggression. The authors were most interested in difference between past and current victims. They hypothesized that current and past victims would not differ in their perceptions of partner aggression because they have similar experiences and expectations. It turned out that their hypothesis was false. Current victims were more accepting of partner aggression than past victims (which to me was a little surprising), but both were more accepting of psychological aggression. The authors theorized that the more committed a victim is, the more they are motivated to tolerate abuse in their relationship.
The chapter ends on sort of a high note. Research on individual affect post-break-up is encouraging. Victims who managed to leave an abusive relationship were far more happy in the long run than what they had expected. The standard implications for intervention and prevention were also discussed.
I think it is pretty self explanatory how this chapter relates to spousal abuse. We are given two frameworks (i.e. Consistency Theories, Interdependence Theory) that help explain the etiology and possible solutions to partner abuse. One aspect I would have like to see covered is marital rape. I’m not sure what the current statistics are, but last I checked, only 30-something or 40-something states have laws that protect individuals against marital rape.
I also read Chapter 20: The paradox of partner aggression: Being committed to an aggressive partner. The ‘paradox’ the chapter is referring to is the following: “The presumed source of love and intimacy is also the source of pain”. I think it’s very important for people to hear or read that because I feel like it paints a clearer picture into the world of partner aggression. The chapter beings with discussing statistics surround partner aggression. I found these particular statistics extremely startling even though I think there’s a lot more cases of partner aggression out there that don’t necessarily get reported for whatever reason. The chapter then goes into perceptions of partner aggression and how they can differ between people whether it is the general population or victims. I think most people will agree with me when I say partner aggression is something that goes against people’s expectations of what a loving, caring, close, healthy relationship should be like. One thing that didn’t surprise me was the fact that most people in society don’t perceive psychological aggression to be as bad as or worse than physical aggression. I personally think that they are both horrible things people have to deal with. Going along with that notion, the authors make a good point about people in general or even victims may be less likely to counter psychological aggression than physical aggression. One reason may be that signs of physical aggression such as bruising and broken limbs are visible things outsiders can see whereas it’s hard to really ‘see’ into someone to look for signs of verbal/psychological abuse. Also, most people consider a relationship between acts of physical violence and with the unlawful act of domestic violence….not so much with psychological violence.
The chapter also discusses two main theories that could explain why victims’ perceptions differ from others’ perceptions when it comes to partner aggression. The consistency theory basically states that victims who feel committed to their partners would be likely to perceive their partners’ aggressive acts as being less negative than victims who are less committed to their partners. The chapter also discusses the interdependence theory which again deals with commitment levels of victims toward their aggressive partners. I was surprised to read about how level of commitment is a reason some victims tend to stay with their abusive partner. I guess I always thought staying with an abusive partner was just a way to continue having resources to survive because without that other person maybe the victim wouldn’t be able to afford childcare, buy food, etc and is therefore completely dependent on that person. This goes right along with spousal violence in that the victim is financially and emotionally dependent on their spouse that leaving him or her seems like a far-fetched option. After living with someone or being married to someone for many years, there’s a certain level of time, effort, and commitment each person put into the relationship and I’m sure it’s devastating to victims when the leave all that behind. I can’t say I have been or that I’ve known a lot of people who have been in abusive relationships so I’m willing to accept that my views on this topic could definitely be a little incorrect.
As for relating this material to my area of expertise which is girl gangs, I’m not really sure if the two topics are related. At this point I can’t say whether girls who are involved in gangs are likely to be in abusive relationships; however, I’m sure that in some cases they may be.
I read chapter 20 about perceptions of domestic violence and abuse in relationships. I was most interested about how victims perceive their partner's acts as non-negative, and continue to justify or downplay their partner's abusive acts. I was also really surprised to learn that many people do not see psychological violence as being very negative or serious. I was especially interested in how they studied college-aged couples who were not married and had no legal binds to the abusive relationship.
With spousal violence, one reason the abuse continues may be that the couple is married and legally bound to their relationship. Divorces are complicated, expensive, and often very messy. It sometimes may seem easier to just stay married to the person. However, there may be other causes for the continuance of the abuse. The cognitive dissonance theory states that the victim will often change one belief to match another. For example, an abused wife may change the negative belief about her husband's actions to a more positive one in order to match the rest of her positive beliefs. In addition, the victim may change the context of the abusive situation into a joking one. The chapter also discusses that victims may often downplay their abuser's actions to themselves or others. It is also very important to make the distinction between physical and psychological violence, and to understand that psychological violence has a bigger effect on overall well-being.
My area of expertise is self harm. Spousal violence may relate to it when the victims of both situations are unable to understand or do not want to understand how serious and severe the harm truly is. Some people who self harm do not see a problem with it, and see it as a good way to deal with emotional pain. Some victims of spousal violence (especially psychological violence) may still see their spouse as a loving and caring person, and think that the abuse is not a big deal. Being able to make these connections helps me better understand how self harm may continue, much like spousal violence.
I read chapter 20 on being committed to an aggressive partner. One theme of the chapter is the paradox of the relationship. The person who is supposed to give you love and support is the same person that tears you down and hurts you psychologically and physically. It makes it hard for the person being abused to make sense of the relationship.
There are two theories in this chapter that attempt to explain why victims have different perceptions from people outside of the situation. One theory is consistency theory. This theory has to do with commitment level in the relationship. If commitment level is higher in a relationship then the aggressive acts of the partner will be viewed as less negative. For example, if a woman with high commitment to her partner is hit she will view it less negatively than a woman with low commitment to her partner who is hit in the same way. This is because the higher level of commitment provides motivation to stay in the relationship.
Interdependence theory says that the victim is highly dependent on the abusive partner. These victims try and diffuse the situation instead of leaving because they feel like they need their partner. Also, this theory says that repeated abuse creates an expectation for the aggressive acts. This expectation makes the victim see the abuse as normal as opposed to an outsider who would recognize the abuse as highly negative and not normal or healthy. Both theories focus on the level of commitment in the relationship in which a higher level of commitment in an abusive relationship creating the feeling of entrapment and fear of leaving.
Something that is really interesting to me in this chapter is the statistics about psychological abuse compared to physical abuse. Continued psychological abuse can be as damaging or more damaging to the victim as physical abuse. With a self-report measure, or 70% of women say the psychological abuse was worse (more damaging, hurtful) than the physical abuse. Psychological abuse has also been linked with health issues like chronic back and neck pain, migraines, gastrointestinal issues and other problems.
Something I found very surprising about the chapter is how short the intervention section is compared to the other sections. I know that understanding why a person stays in an abusive relationship is important to understanding how to get them out of it but I just expected to see more information about intervention. Also surprising is that this chapter is focused completely on the victim and there is no focus on the abuser. It is also important to know why the aggressor is being violent towards someone they are supposedly in an intimate relationship.
Spousal abuse relates to this chapter and I think an important component to focus on is commitment. Marriage is a very high level of commitment. This may make it very difficult for the victim to get out of the relationship. They may feel extremely more dependent on and committed to the abuser and more trapped than a couple who is not married. Something interesting a classmate told me today is that unmarried couples are more likely to include abuse than married couples. I don’t know why that is but it may be important to examine for this topic.
My area of expertise is on familial influence on a person. This relates to chapter 20 because of the statistics about abusers and victims who were abused or have grown up seeing abuse. Men who grew up seeing a man be aggressive towards a woman are more likely to be an aggressor in the future. Children who grew up around abusive relationships are also more likely to be a victim of an abusive relationship also. One more factor is that childhood abuse makes a person more likely to enter into an abusive relationship whether they are the abuser or the victim. I don’t know a ton about my topic yet but I will further look into partner aggression and abusive relationships.
For this particular assignment, I read chapter 8 of our handbook, which covers the topic of genetic and environmental influences on aggression. The chapter opens by talking about how parental influence has a huge impact on the social or antisocial behavior of their children. Negative behaviors especially, such as physical abuse and coercive behavior as the book cites as examples, are particularly influential on antisocial behavior. The chapter also shows a meta-analysis to support their claim and give evidence to support the idea that genetics plays a huge role in a person's behavior.
The aspect of this chapter that I found to be most interesting was when the author makes the case for genetics playing a huge role in aggression. Environment isn't mentioned as much. Looking at aggression from a genetic point of view really puts a new spin on how we look at violent acts. If we agree that aggression is mainly caused predominantly by genes and not so much by environment, this could open up a whole new realm of questions that we could answer with science. For example, if aggression is caused by genes, scientists could research and try and locate and isolate the genes. If we can do that, would it be possible to shut the aggression genes off? We could potentailly be looking at new ways to prevent violent acts from happening. Of course, this is just something to think about.
I think we can use this to apply to spousal violence, like we did today in class. Although we cannot control a person's genetics, we can at least make a profile of people that are at risk for becoming more aggressive and acting in a violent manner. If we can pinpoint more warning signs, we can implement stronger and more effetive prevention techniques to help people. We talked in class about how it is difficult to spot warning signs of a person in an abusive relationship. And, of course, if the person feels a strong commitment or dependence to their spouse, it will be more difficult for them to leave. But, again, establishing a profile that factors in genetics in determining how likely a person is to become violent can help us prevent spousal violence before people have to be victims of such horrible situations.
Since my expert topic is on school bullying, I feel that this chapter can really relate to what I want to talk about (at least to a certain extent). The ideas that this chapter wants to get to, which is that genetics has a fairly large influence on aggressive behavior, can explain why some kids feel the need to bully other kids. We could also look at the type of parents that tend to produce children that bully. If we can create a certain profile of what we should look for to determine if a kid will become a bully, we could potentially stop bullying before it starts. This will make schools a more safe place.
More importantly, we can also potentailly adapt school programs around the fact that genetics and parental socialization play a huge role in bullying. If we implement new strategies that could get at the root of the problem, perhaps school programs could be more successful.
For example, since we already know parents and genetics play a huge role in child development, perhaps we could implement school programs that include the parents as well as their children. If we have parents right next to the children to help model what behavior is appropriate for school, the chances of the message actually getting through to the children could be greatly increased. Even though we cannot control a child's genetic make-up (as I already pointed out in regards to spousal violence), every small step we can take to aviod violent acts (especially in schools) is useful.
This chapter helped inspire me with my expert topic. Instead of simply researching bullying, I would also like to research how big a role parents play in bullying behaviors in school. Are parents active or do they tend to sit to the side and let the school deal with violent acts? What about parents of kids that bully? Are they just as violent as their kids as genetic influence would suggest? These and more are all things I would like to consider when researching my expert topic.
What most interested you in the chapter? What was most surprising to you? How does the chapter you read relate to spousal violence (be specific). Are there elements of the chapter that relate to your area of expertise? If so, what are they and how do they further develop your understanding of your topic?
For this blog I chose to read chapter 20 because I am interested in partner relationships and aggression. It’s a topic that interests me because personally I have not been in a physically or psychologically abusive relationship, so it’s something I cannot directly relate to or completely understand, so I like learning about it. I think it was interesting to see how the study panned out; I was surprised to see that people were not as worried about and did not think psychological abuse was as serious as physical abuse. Maybe it’s the psychology lover in me, but I think psychological abuse is just as disruptive and harmful to a person’s wellbeing as physical abuse. Yes, physical abuse can leave mark and scars, but if someone is emotional scarred that can leave marks on their ability to live their lives effectively for the rest of their lives. I think both types of abuse can be very damaging to a person. So in my opinion it was interesting to see even college girls saying that psychological abuse is not nearly as bas as physical abuse.
The most surprising thing to me in the book was the theories that were used to explain why people stay with their abusive partners. I already knew that people usually down play their abuse and stay with their partner for resource purposes, but I was surprised to see that people stay with their partner just because of commitment. Like I said, it’s something I have not experienced first had, but I’ve known many people in abusive relationships and always have asked them the classic “why did you stay with them” and generally the answer I got back was “I just loved them that much.” And I can understand the “love makes you do crazy things” but I just cannot imagine letting someone break me down so far that I thought being physically violated was ok. Also it was surprising to see people in the survey say that physical abuse was grounds for breaking up with a boyfriend, however in that situation it seems like people don’t break up with their significant other. So it’s one of those things in life where people say “I would never let that happen to me, or put up with that” but in real situations, you never know how you would react to it.
I think this chapter can EASILY be related to spousal violence, it practically is about spousal abuse. It was really clear why people that are married to their abuser stay with them over time. It is obvious that people that are married are already committed to one another, so it’s easy to use the theory of commitment and long term relationships to explain why married women/men stay with their abuse because they are committed and invested in their relationship with the person they are married to. If you have been married to someone for ten years and after 5 years of marriage that person is emotional abusive and you’ve dealt with that for 3 years, I can understand how after so many years you begin to downplay the physical abuse that begins to occur during that 10-year period. You have so much invested with that person, like children, money, time, feelings, etc. It would be very difficult to walk away from someone that you have built your life with, even if they are abusing you.
This topic isn’t really related to my topic, but my topic is didactic, so that is pretty much the only thing that they have in common. My topic is focused on date rape among adolescents so that does not usually lead up to reoccurring abuse, but it’s typically a one-time offending occurrence.
Chapter 20 discusses very thoroughly the idea of partner aggression and what a victim goes through psychologically and physically. Also discussed throughout the chapter was the actual meaning of partner aggression and some of the general statistics behind physical/verbal abuse and more.
There were two theories mentioned, consistency theory and interdependence theory. Consistency theory often has a more committed person perceiving aggressive acts less negatively than when compared with someone who is less committed. Interdependence Theory is similar in some aspects, but it focuses more on the dependence of the individual to the aggressor. The person loses their sense of self and become engulfed in an (often) unhealthy relationship with another person.
I believe the chapter overall helps those reading to better understand the mind of the victim while at the same time trying to find solutions to help said victim(s).
While reading this chapter, what most interested me were the parts discussing the victims downplaying their partner’s aggression. This is something that people do in normal relationships too, which is why I found it worth mentioning. For example, if one’s significant other has a bad habit of always forgetting things, it might be less stress on a relationship to just ignore the problem. However, in this situation, harm is not meant and no assertion of power is being made. It seems the aggressor has warped the victim’s idea of how a healthy relationship should work.
What I found most surprising when reading this chapter were the writings over the differences found between verbal and physical abuse and how others perceived said abuse. Only half the people polled considered a verbal insult as abuse, which I found somewhat disturbing, seeing as how psychological abuse can be just as damaging as physical abuse. Also, verbal abuse can affect men just as easily as women (especially when compared to physical abuse), which narrows the gap for gender differences.
Another issue that could be affecting the statistics of what is considered verbal abuse, are the statements suggested as verbal abuse. The statement used in the book was the husband calling his wife “a stupid slob,” which does not sound at all nice in any way, but for many it might not be considered abuse either. Many times people have said things they did not mean, which I think the questionnaires should be more specific about (along with how often one would say cruel words to his/her significant other).
I thought this chapter obviously related to spousal violence in many areas. Aggression, whether physical or psychological can be very detrimental to one’s well-being and ultimately harm the victim. The concept of victims was mentioned, which is a key factor in any spousal abuse area. Also mentioned was a study from the World Health Organization which revealed some thoughts behind male aggression and whether it is considered normal or justified.
Due to my expert topic being over couple’s violence in married and unmarried couples, I would say it does have some important topics that could be incorporated into my area of expertise. Some ideas such as the two theories (especially interdependence theory) and how they are used in one’s perceptions of their partner’s aggression, the psychological versus physical aggression is an interesting topic to pursue, and more. These could help to further develop my understanding in developing more from the victim’s and possibly the aggressor’s views and thoughts further down the line.
I chose to read chapter 20. This chapter takes a look at partner aggression with the question of why the victim would remain in a volitile relationship. There is a discussion of what sorts of physical and psychological aggression is accepted by cultural norms, and what consensus says violates these norms. While physical agression seems to have a relatively clear cut definition of what is and is not acceptable, psychological agression between partners is not so clear. Studies were conducted to rate perceptions of what is and is not considered to be agression by college age students. This included physical violence and things such as name calling and deragatory comments. There are two main theories discussed; consistancy theory and interdependance theory. Consistancy theory says that when in an agressive relationship if the victim is in a highly committed relationship (such as being married with children) they are more likely to downplay the severity of the aggression than those in a less committed relationship (such as in the first stages of dating). This would imply that those who are highly committed would tolerate higher levels of aggression in order to salvage the relationship, and those who are not as committed would not tolerate the same degree of agression and be willing to part with rrelationship sooner. Interdependance theory states that when a victim is highly dependant on the agressive partner they will downplay the severity of the agression. Just as with the higher levels of commitment, those with high levels of dependance are more likely to tolerate greater amounts of agression. this is alos seen in how victims view past agression, those with high levels of commitment or dependance will downplay the past agressions from their partner. There was alos research done looking at the feelings of hapiness after the negative relationship ended, which found that those who are in a negative relationship were still likely to overestimate how unhappy they would be after the relationship ended. This was one of the most interesting parts for me. It would make more sense that the victims would feel like they would be happier without the abuser in their lives.
I have to admit, this chapter was not fun for me. I was previously married to an abusive man. I can literally tell you I want to list off all the reasons it's not his fault... but I know it's my way of still downplaying what happened. even when I was married to him I never thought of myself as an abused wife, I wasn't in "one of those" marriages. I fit the cookie cutter picture of the highly dependant highly committed woman. And here we are seven years after I left and I'm still willing to downplay the violence. I have to wonder how many other women were like me and never reported, never complained, and just quietly walked away. I guess for me it's easier now to process through everything than it was then, and I'm glad to see the research... it helps me feel less crazy :)
2/15
I read Chp 20 which focused on the reasons someone might stay in or try to get out of a violent relationship. The chapter highlights the difference in how society views physical aggression versus psychological aggression in a romantic relationship.
The physical evidence is much more easy to spot and recognize from a third party view. Bruises, scratches, injuries are most likely going to become visible to others and especially draw attention if they begin to occur much more often. The psychological abuse can be a little more subtle, consisting of verbal derogatory statements, downplaying any achievements, breaking down their self-esteem, and controlling of everyday activities. These may be more difficult to notice, and may continue for a long time before someone steps in.
I remember seeing one of ABC’s “What Would You Do?” shows where they staged a very public confrontation between a couple and watched with cameras to see if bystanders would step in. They conducted their study with different scenarios; sometimes the man was verbally abusive, sometimes it escalated and he threatened violence, other times they mixed it up and the female was the violent one. It was interesting to see who would speak up and tell the man to back off and leave her alone versus those who just pretended not to see and kept walking. I think that says a lot about how we view the violence regarding what is acceptable or not. Some people may think “Well it’s their business, not mine. It’d be rude to interfere and tell them how to run their lives” while others are so compelled to step in that they got all up in his face defending this total stranger (the girlfriend) “Who do you think you are treating her like that? She’s a person! Don’t you dare be talking to her like that!”
Another interesting point when looking at the gender difference is that basically no one said anything when it was the woman yelling at her boyfriend or even slapping him “You’re so lazy and worthless! You don’t do anything around the house. Why am I even with you?” It is much more culturally acceptable for the woman, presumably smaller, to smack her larger partner and exert control over him, but not the other way around. If a large man hits or threatens to hit a woman, people instantly want to prevent him from hurting her. But we seem totally okay with letting her show him who’s boss. It’s that double standard that makes domestic violence a tricky thing to analyze. When it’s the woman as the aggressor, we tend to think nothing of it; she’s a strong woman standing up for herself and trying to run the home in a better fashion than her man would. But once a man raises his voice at a woman, then he’s abusive and a horrible person.
My roommate and her boyfriend have an interesting relationship to observe. There are times that I wonder if his behavior toward her pushes the boundary of playful or overly aggressive. He was a wrestler in high school so he likes to mess around and grab her into some hold. She will play along, but there are moments when she seems to really not want such physical play. He is strong, but sometimes I wonder if he realizes how strong. His level of wrestling around with the guys needs to be different than when he’s with his girlfriend. When I hear her say, “Ok Danny, stop now…ow…OW…seriously knock it off!” and then she gets mad. He is three years younger than us, which we view as his immaturity showing through. He thinks it’s funny to push her buttons until she gets pissed off. But I’m worried that he maybe squeezes too hard or holds too tight and bruises her when he doesn’t realize it. By all means, I don’t necessarily think they are a violent couple. They love each other and never hit each other out of anger. It’s moreso that playful aspect that he takes a little too far. I can’t really say if I think there’s any underlying aggressive behavior there, but I don’t want to just assume things are good and then someday he snaps and uses his force for the wrong reason.
Chapter 20 explains the two theories about why someone might stay in a bad relationship. The two theories are the consistency theory and interdependence theory. Consistency theory says that the partner being abused is so deeply committed to their other half that they do not want to leave. The deeper they are committed, the harder it is for them to leave. The interdependence theory focuses on how dependent they are on their partner. If someone, assumedly female, is super dependent on her boyfriend for every detail of life, it is much less likely that she will have the strength to leave him if he is abusive toward her.
This information does relate to my topic about immigrants in that one of the possible reasons for attempting to come to America is fleeing an abusive partner back home. I personally worked with a Guatemalan woman who escaped her alcoholic husband and made her way to the US. Luckily, she was able to get her children here as well. They all had suffered molestation and beatings from their father and uncle back in Guatemala. The drive to get away took her as far as Iowa; to me that shows how desperate she was to get them to safety. Her only way out was to literally run away from her home and country, everything that she and the children knew, and go to a brand new place. The language barrier has been rough on them as well, requiring them to start over in more ways than one. Life has been much better here for her and her children since they first arrived, however they do often fear that their father will find out where they are and show up here.
The stat the surprised me the most, but after reading and thinking about it ended up not really surprising me at all, is that only 53.8% of respondents to a study considered verbal insults as domestic abuse. But then again we have to take into consideration the cultural view on violence. When the word "violence" is mentioned in America, the FIRST thought that comes to the majority of our minds is "physical" violence, but violence is much deeper than that.
I also found it interesting that 5% of women who are abused every year suffer serious injuries, I actually thought it was higher than that, but at the same time it's still TOO high! It also stated that each year 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by a romantic partner. With this including "mild" forms of aggression (pushing or slapping), I also would have thought this number would be higher. I would be interested in seeing a study though on how the two data relate. Meaning how many of the males assaulted was an act of retaliation from their partner, and vice versa?
This chapter relates to spousal violence because the topic IS spousal violence/aggression. But to be specific starting with the topic of "aggression", minor acts of aggression can escalate to more serious acts of violence including self-defense.