FORWARD:

A 12-item scale, derived from the Conflict Tactics Scale, was administered to a representative sample of 1,978 heterosexual men and women in Great Britain in mid November 1994. Men and women were asked to identify conflict tactics sustained or inflicted in all past and present relationships and those sustained in current relationships. This paper reports results for physical victimization and also reports on two further questions asked to discern context and meaning ascribed to such sustained or inflicted victimization. Both sexes reported having experienced physical victimization with a higher percentage of men sustaining victimization, mainly as a result of minor acts of assault. Almost equal percentages of men and women reported inflicting victimization against partners. Additionally, incidence of physical victimization is presented according to relationship status, age, socioeconomic category and by regional distribution. Both sexes reported a range of reasons or contexts ascribed to their sustained or inflicted victimization.

INTRODUCTION:

In North America and Canada, aggression within intimate relationships has been investigated by researchers using a variety of methodologies [Straus, 1993]. One technique has been to administer the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) developed by Straus [1979], to samples including large national population samples [for reviews of such studies see Straus and Gelles, 1986; Straus 1993; Straus and Kantor, 1994]. By contrast, in Britain research on violence in relationships has focused almost exclusively on studies of battered women [Smith, 1989], community samples of women [Andrews and Brown, 1988], or on the nature of police or agency recognition and response to domestic violence [e.g., see Borowski et al., 1983; Edwards, 1988; Bourlet, 1990]. The only CTS studies known to the present authors in the United Kingdom are two small-scale studies of student dating relationships, one published [Archer and Ray, 1989] and one unpublished [see Kirsta, 1994] and a convenience sample of married couples [Russell and Hulson, 1992].

In the discussion of aggression within intimate relationships, the results from CTS studies have been controversial as, when sampling both men and women, they purport to show that aggression can be committed both male-to-female and vice versa to about the same extent. Thus, a sometimes heated and even confrontational debate between North American researchers or academics [e.g., see Straus, 1993; Kurz, 1993] has centred on the nature of physical conflict in heterosexual dyads and the context and meaning of results obtained in such studies. Critics of the CTS methodology [e.g., Bogarde, 1990; Kurz, 1993] argue that female-to-male assaults are in no way equivalent to male-to-female assaults and suggest a number of deficiencies of these studies. Central to these arguments have been assertions such as female-to-male violence is only committed in self-defense, in anticipation of an assault, or in retaliation against a previous male assault or that is is expressive, rather than instrumental, and less injurious.

This paper reports results of the first survey of conflict tactics in the United Kingdom for a national representative sample of heterosexual adults. Additionally, the survey conducted asked questions designed to be able to ascribe reason and context to reports of sustained or inflicted victimization.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey of heterosexual adults was conducted on a sample of 1,978 UK adults aged 15 and over within a regular commercial bimonthly survey ("Omnibus Survey", Market Opinion and Research International [MORI]) seeking to determine consumer and social attitudes. The total survey was conducted as face-to-face interviews in the respondent's home by trained interviewers (75% female) who conduct these surveys regularly. The section containing questions relating to conflict tactics (verbal reasoning, verbal or symbolic victimization, and physical victimization) in personal relationships was administered as a self-completion instrument. Sampling quotas were used to ensure that the sample was representative of sex, age, socioeconomic group, relationship status, and geographical region of the adult population of the United Kingdom. To achieve this, 150 sampling points were used and data obtained were weighted to reflect the known profile of the adult population of the United Kingdom as determined from the most recent national census data.

The questions administered in this section of the survey were derived from the CTS as devised by Straus [1979]. The exact items of the original CTS were not used in every case, although items were derived from it and based on the concept of progressive series of escalating levels of possible conflict as outlined by the CTS [Straus, 1979]. The items used were as follows and are given the letters indicating their position in the 12 items asked:

Items of Physical Victimization

E. Your partner has, with some force, pushed, grabbed, bitten, scratched, or shoved you (you have, with some force, pushed etc.).

C. Your partner has slapped you (you have slapped your partner).

D. Your partner has punched or kicked you (you have punched or kicked your partner).

H. Your partner has thrown a heavy object at you, smashed something over you or hit you with a heavy object (you have thrown ... etc).

J. Your partner has struck you with a sharp or pointed object (you have struck ... etc.). A total of three questions each using this scale were used to gain data on conflict tactics. Two questions were asked in the context of any past or present heterosexual relationship, where one question related to victimization sustained and one to victimization inflicted. The third question asked for victimization sustained solely within current relationships. Thus, respondents supplied data concerning victimization both sustained and inflicted in any of their heterosexual relationships and victimization sustained in their current relationship. In each case, the scale items were prefaced with an introduction that stated:

Thinking about any personal relationships you have ever had (with a member of the opposite sex) which, if any, of the actions below have you ever had done to you by a partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife when one or both of you has disagreed or quarrelled?

As appropriate, this wording was changed to "thinking about your current relationship ... " to ascertain victimization sustained in current relationships and " ... have you ever done to a partner ...." to ascertain victimization inflicted against a partner in any relationship.

Eliciting data in terms of relationships, rather than a specified time period, was a similar approach to that adopted in a previous small-scale conflict tactics study conducted in the United Kingdom [Archer and Ray, 1989; Russell and Hulson, 1992]. This particular methodology was preferred as it obviates criticisms leveled when conflict tactics are only asked in context to a period of, for instance, the last year. It was not possible to ask the extent to which respondents had experienced or committed each form of assault on more that one occasion. Some evidence of multiple victimization (sustained or inflicted) has been derived by identifying the numbers of individuals reporting more than one category of assault.

In a further two questions, respondents were asked to ascribe possible context and meaning to the conflict tactics either sustained or inflicted in all past and present relationships. Items used in these two questions were formulated de novo and sought to offer respondents a series of alternatives which included such explanations as self-defense, instrumental or expressive reasons, or the involvement of alcohol. Respondents were allowed to identify any number of items, rather than given a forced choice, as where more than one assault was identified different contexts might be possible. The items used in these two questions are shown in detail below:

Items for Reason and Context

A. He/she thought it was the only way to get through to me / I thought it was the only way to get through to him/her.

B. He/she was getting back at me for something nasty I said or threatened to do to him/her I was getting back at him/her for something nasty he/she said or threatened to do to me.

C. He/she was getting back at me for some physical action I had used against him/her/I was getting back at him/her for some physical action he/she had used against me.

D. To stop me doing something/ to stop him/her doing something.

E. To make me do what he/she wanted / to make him/her do what I wanted

F. He/she thought I was about to use a physical action against him/her / I thought he/she was about to use a physical action against me.

G. He/she was "under the influence" of, for instance alcohol at the time / I was "under the influence" of, for instance, alcohol at the time. H. It is or was in his/her character, that's the way he/she is or was / It is my character, that's the way I am.

In addition, respondents could cite "other," "no particular reason," or "don't know" to these questions. Although the options offered are by no means extensive, they allow preliminary analysis of the context and reason respondents considered for the conflict tactics reported. All the data for survey forms were collated and computerized and tables of results were produced by MORI in the form of simple descriptive statistics. The levels of sample difference needed for statistical significance at the 5% level for this survey data were 3-4% when comparing samples of between 500 and 1,000 and 5-8% when comparing samples of 200-500, where between 10 and 30% ( or between 90 and 70%) of a sample respond positively.

3. RESULTS

Of the total number of adults (1,978) completing the questionnaire, 1,865 had been in a heterosexual relationship at sometime (894 men and 971 women) and 1,481 of these adults (707 men and 774 women) were in a heterosexual relationship at the time of the survey.

Overall Incidence of Victimization

The numbers and percentages of men and women who reported sustaining or inflicting any of the items of designated physical assault are shown in Table 1. These results show higher numbers of men reporting any victimization from female partners than women report having sustained from male partners in respect to all and current relationships. Fifty-one per cent of men and 27% of women identifying any item of victimization sustained for all relationships also identified victimization in their current relationship. Both sexes stated they inflicted physical victimization less than they have experienced being the victim, confirming other reports of disparity between admitted victimization and perpetration of assaults [Riggs et al., 1989]. However , men and women admitted inflicting assaults to about the same extent overall with any act admitted by 10% of men and 11% of women. Of 285 men and women reporting sustained victimization and 191 reporting inflicting victimization across all relationships, 127 reported having been both a victim and a perpetrator, although this does not necessarily mean that sustained and inflicted victimization occurred in the same relationship.

TABLE 1. Overall Incidence Rates of Victimization for All Relationships and Current Relationships*

                       All Relationships            Current Relationships      

                Male(N=894)(%)  Female(N=971)(%)  M(N=707) (%)   Fem(N= 774)(%)  

Sustained          155 (18)         130 (13)         79 (11)         35 (5)      

Inflicted           85 (10)         106 (11)           --              --        

* Shown are numbers and percentages of the male and female populations who   
report experiencing any item of physical victimization or aggression in      
either all their past or current relationships. Details of aggression        
committed in  their current relationships were not elicited. A difference    
of 3-4% or more for these sample sizes indicates a statistical significant   
difference at the 5% level.                                                  

Item Victimization

In Table II, results for each of the five items of physical assault are presented for what respondents stated they had sustained or inflicted in all their heterosexual relationships and also what they had sustained in their current relationships. Not unexpectedly, level of victimization sustained on each item are higher across all relationships, rather than just in current relationships, and are also higher than levels of inflicted victimization admitted. It is evident in each of these categories that being slapped by a partner or slapping a partner was the most frequently quoted physical assault sustained or inflicted. In terms of individual assaultive acts it is apparent that, although women report being pushed or grabbed more than men and men admit they commit this assaultive act more than women, significantly more men (P <.05) than women report being slapped by a female partner. Also, more women report having slapped a male partner, but the difference for inflicted victimization on this or any other item between the sexes was not significant. On the remaining three items, which are also potentially more serious, men and women report almost equally being the victim of such an act. The numbers and percentages either sustaining or inflicting these acts are low, however, being 1% or below in number of cases.

TABLE II. Physical Victimization by Sex*

                        All Relationships               Current Relationships  

                 Sustained              Inflicted              Sustained        

             Female       Male       Female       Male       Female       Male     

Victimizat (N=971)(%)  (N=894)(%)  (N=971)(%)  (N=894)(%)  (N=774)(%)  (N=707)(%)  
ion                                                                                

E. Pushed    95 (10)     80 (9)      37 (4)      48 (5)      19 (2)      32 (5)    
Grabbed                                                                            
etc.                                                                               

C.           84 (9)     121 (14)     85 (9)      49 (6)      24 (3)      62 (9)    
Slapped                                                                            

D.           59 (6)      59 (7)      27 (3)      19 (2)      15 (2)      30 (4)    
Punched                                                                            
kicked                                                                             

H. Thrown    19 (2)      22 (2)      15 (2)       6 (1)       4 (1)       8 (1)    
or hit                                                                             
with                                                                               
object                                                                             

J. Struck    13 (1)      13 (1)      16 (1)        --         4 (1)       4 (1)    
with                                                                               
sharp                                                                              
object                                                                             

* Item victimization as reported by men and women given as both numbers and  
percentages of the male and female sample for all relationships and current  
relationship categories. Percentages rounded up below 0.5% of sample. A      
difference of 3-4% or more for these sample sizes indicates a statistical    
significant difference at the 5% level.                                      

Although respondents were not asked to give a measure of chronicity for each item, it is possible to present the numbers of men and women identifying they had sustained or inflicted one or more of the individual items of physical assault (see Table III). In terms of all relationships, this may not mean that there was chronicity of aggression in any particular relationship; the individual reporting could have sustained or inflicted separate assaults in more than one relationship. In current relationships, however, this analysis would be symptomatic of a chronicity of aggression within that relationship.

TABLE III. Incidence of Repeated Victimization*

                     Sustained Victimization                  Inflicted        
                                                            victimization      

             All relationships    Current relationships    All relationships    

             Men(%)     Women(%)     Men(%)     Women(%)     Men(%)     Women(%)   

Any act      155(18)    130 (13)     79 (11)     35 (5)      85 (10)    106 (11)   

One act      80 (9)      59 (6)      48 (7)      21 (3)      58 (6)      68 (7)    

Two acts     34 (4)      24 (2)      11 (2)        3`        21 (2)      22 (2)    

Three        26 (3)      30 (3)      17 (2)       9 (1)        4`        11 (1)    
acts                                                                               

Four acts     8 (1)      10 (1)         0          1`          2`          3`      

Five acts     7 (1)       7 (1)        3`          2`          1`          3`      

*Repeated victimization (sustained or inflicted) compounded as occurrence    
of one or more of each type of assaultive act for men and women in all or    
current relationships. Percentages quoted are the percentages of the total   
men or female sample. `Percentages are rounded up: ` indicates less than     
0.5% of sample

From Table III it can be derived that for all and current relationships, 73.5 and 74.5%, respectively, of victimized men experience only one or two types of assault. By contrast, 63.8 and 68.5%, respectively, of victimized women experience the same. Thus, approximately one third of assaulted women, as opposed to one fourth of assaulted men, reported experiencing three or more types of assault. A similar analysis for perpetration of assaults found that 91% of men and 84% of women aggressing admitted only one or two acts.

From cross tabulations of each item of physical victimization against the other four items, it was apparent that the greater the level of assaultive act, the greater the likelihood that those reporting experience of it would also identify they had experienced all lesser forms of assault. For instance, in the case of an assault with a sharp or pointed object, 90-100% of individuals so assaulted identified they had also been slapped or punched or kicked. A similar pattern also existed for inflicted victimization.

3. MORE RESULTS

Relationship Status

Examination of data according to whether respondents were currently married or cohabiting with a heterosexual partner, as opposed to being single and dating, was possible. This showed that higher percentages of single dating women reported sustaining victimization across all relationships than married/cohabiting women, although rates of experience of sustained victimization from current partners were more equivalent. On three of the five items across all relationships, a higher percentage of single dating women than single dating men reported victimization.

Figure 1 shows that 10% of single women as opposed to 3% of married or cohabiting women, report ever having experienced being punched or kicked and 14% of single dating women, as opposed to 5% of married and cohabiting women, reported being slapped. These were significant differences (P< .05) which were not evident for reports in current relationships.

For men, no such difference was ascertained between the two relationship status groups, although percentages tended to be higher for single men. For example, 9% of single and dating men and 5% of married and cohabiting men reported ever having been punched or kicked. A significantly higher percentage of married and cohabiting men, than married and cohabiting women, reported sustaining any item of inflicted victimization both in all and current relationships (15% vs. 9%; 11% vs. 4%). Also there was a tendency for a higher percentage of married or cohabiting men to report two or more acts of victimization (e.g. current relationships 5% vs. 1%) whilst for single dating individuals, two or more items of assault were reported almost equally (e.g. current relationships 4% women vs. 3% men). An inference that may be drawn is that women who were married or cohabiting at the time of the survey reported less overall victimization on these items across all their relationships, than single women report, whereas relationship status has little effect on reported victimization for men whether married or cohabiting or single, but dating.

Socio-economic Categories, Age and Geographical Region

Data were also analyzed by grouping respondents into two broad socioeconomic categories (ABC1 and C2DE), by age in three categories (15-34, 35-54 and 55+), and according to three geographical regions (North, Midlands, South). Reported incidences for any of the five acts of physical victimization is shown in Table IV for these variables. Both for all relationships, and solely in current relationships, sustained victimization was higher for the C2DE category of socioeconomic class. Inflicted victimization admitted for any act was, however, more equivalent between the two socioeconomic categories, especially for women (ABC1 men 7%, women 10%; C2DE men 12%, women 12%). The reported incidence of either sustained or inflicted victimization was highest for the youngest age group and decreased with age. The percentages of men and women reporting victimization varied by geographical region, with the highest percentages of women reporting any act of victimization being women in the Midlands for all relationships and women in the North for current relationships. Men in the South were the most victimized men both for all and current relationships.

TABLE IV. Relationship Status, Social Class, Age and Region*

                        All relationships           Current relationships      

                      % Men          % Women          % Men          % Women     

Married/cohabiting      15             9               11               4        

  Single dating         22             21              11               6        

       ABC1             15             12               9               4        

       C2DE             20             14              13               5        

      15-34             25             21               16              6        

      35-54             18             12              12               5        

       55+               7             7                5               2        

      North             16             12               9               7        

     Midlands           18             17              12               5        

      South             19             13              13               2        

*The percentages of men and women identifying any act of victimization       
across all or current relationships broken down according to the categories  
of relationships status (married/cohabiting and single dating),              
socioeconomic category (ABC1, C2DE), age, (15-34, 35-54, 55+), and           
geographical region of the UK (North, Midlands, South). Figures are          
percentages of each individual subsample and sample sizes ranged between     
600 and 295 for all relationships and between 557 and 170 for current        
relationships. A difference of 5-8% or more for these sample sizes would     
indicate a statistically significant difference (5% level).

When the total sample was broken down into the categories of relationship status, socioeconomic category, age and geographical region, disparities in item victimization were seen in these subsamples as compared to the data for men and women as a whole. For instance, while overall significantly more men than women reported being slapped, women in the Midlands across all relationships reported being slapped almost equally to Midland men (11% vs. 12%). In current relationships, however more men in the Midlands reported this item of victimization (10% vs. 4%) in line with the overall male/female pattern. Another example of disparity is seen for the item "punched or kicked." Marginally more single dating women and women aged 15-34, than single dating men or men aged 15-34, reported this act of victimization across all relationships (10% vs. 9% in both cases).

Context and Reason

Table V shows the numbers and percentages of men and women who identified each of the "contexts or reasons" for both victimization sustained or inflicted in all relationships. These figures are derived from only those individuals who identified having sustained or inflicted an act of physical victimization.

TABLE V. Attributions for "Reason and Context"*

        Victimization sustained  Victimization inflicted                        

        Women (%)     Men (%)     Women(%)     Men(%)                              

        130(13)       155(18)     106(11)      85(10)    Total                     
                                                         experiencing/committing   

A       37(32)        66(43)      57(53)       54(64)    "Get through to...."      

B       37(32)        68(44)      55(52)       45(53)     "Something said or       
                                                         threatened..."            

C        16(12)       13(8)       22(21)       23(27)    "Some physical            
                                                         action..."                

D       38(29)        57(37)      35(33)       39(43)    "Stop doing               
                                                         something..."             

E       66(51)        66(43)      28(26)       22(26)    "Make do something..."    

F       13(10)        10(7)       18(17)       18(21)    "About to use physical    
                                                         action..."                

G       58(45)        48(31)      14(13)       30(35)    "Influence of alcohol     
                                                         etc..."                   

H       57(44)        49(31)      17(16)       23(27)    "In Character..."         

Other   15(11)        9(6)        13(12)       6(7)                                

*Attributions for "reason and context" for partner's actions by those men     
and women who sustained any physical assault (victimization sustained) or     
inflicted any physical assault against a partner (victimization inflicted)    
in all relationships. A-H represent "context or reasons" asked and are        
detailed in Materials and Methods. "Other" represents abrogated total for     
"other", "no particular reason", and "don't know" responses. Numbers of men   
and  women (and percentage of male/female subsample) are given, along with    
figures for total numbers expressed as a percentage of whole male or female   
populations.

Table V shows that male and female respondents choose somewhat different contexts most frequently for their partners' victimization of them as against for their victimization of their partners. Women victims choose "making me do something he wanted" most frequently, but also reason that it was either as a result of their partner being "under the influence of alcohol" or it is "in his character". Men also chose "being made to do something their partner wanted" frequently, but almost equally identify their partner responding to "something said or threatened" or their partner needing to "get through to them". For inflicted victimization, both men and women choose these latter two reasons most prevalently, although men also admit slightly more than women aggressing "to stop their partner doing something". They also choose more frequently to context their aggression to the influence of alcohol, mirroring what women victims say about aggressing males' use or abuse of alcohol.

Two specific item options (C,F) available to respondents under these "context and reasons" for victimization or perpetration were formulated to present "self-defense or retaliation" options to respondents without directly signaling this intent in the wording. Both sexes attributed more of these contexts and reasons that could include "self defense or retaliation" to their own actions rather than for partners' actions, although acts by partners in "self-defense or retaliation" were acknowledged by both sexes. Men attributed such reasons slightly less to their partners and slightly more to their own actions than women attributed likewise. For women respondents, of 106 who identified any item of inflicted victimization against a partner, 22(21%) and 18 (17%), respectively, identified these two "context and reasons" for their aggression. Thus a lower percentage of aggressing women reported these two reasons than any other reason, except for ascribing that their aggression was either the result of the influence of alcohol (G 13%) or inherent in their character (H, 16%) or giving other non-specified reasons. Variable percentages of respondents, when identifying the particular items of physical assault, identified these two reasons for their actions. Notably, however, even at the potentially most serious level of assault only one woman in three identified these reasons as the "context or reason" to their aggression.

4. DISCUSSION

Large-scale conflict tactics surveys undertaken in the United States between 1975 and 1992 indicate that approximately 10% of husband or wives commit minor assaults, and approximately 6% or below severe assaults, against their spouse during a 1-year time period [Straus et al., 1980; Straus and Gelles, 1986; Straus and Kantor, 1994]. This study of a representative sample of UK adults has found that 13 and 18% of women and men, respectively, experience any assault by a heterosexual partner across all their relationships or that 5 and 11% of women and men experience assault by their current partner. In reports of the first nationally based US study [see Straus et al., 1980], figures for the incidence of any assaultive act at any time during a marriage were given by 27.8% of wives. This is a more directly comparable comparison between these studies. It shows, in contrast to the previous assertion for the UK population based on a small convenience married sample [Russell and Hulson, 1992], that, if anything, UK heterosexual relationships seem to be less physically abusive than their American counterparts. This is in accord with the disparity in general levels of violent assault between the United Kingdom and the United States [Archer and Lloyd, 1985].

Incidences higher or lower than either these US or UK national samples are reported, using CTS methodology or other methodology, for different samples and smaller sample sizes, which are neither necessarily random nor representative samples [Straus and Gelles, 1986;Andrews and Brown, 1988; Straus, 1993; Straus and Kantor, 1994]. Clearly the heterogeneous nature of assault data, when broken down by both sex and other variables such as relationship status, social category, age or region supports concern that inference and projection to the general population from other smaller or selected samples may be spurious or unsound [Andrews and Brown, 1988; Straus, 1993].

In itself, some caution must also be exercised in the interpretation of this study. The exact CTS physical aggression scale [Straus, 1979] was not used and more severe assaults may have been underestimated. However, in as far as the results attempt to provide incidence, they may not be grossly inaccurate as this, and other studies [Straus et al., 1980] have shown that where serious assaults occur, lesser forms of assault almost always occur as well. Although a measure of chronicity has been provided (see the Results section), no information on chronicity of any one assaultive act was collected and so inference as to severity of assaults, as in a chronic battering relationship, is speculative especially as no attempt was made to collect data on the injurious consequences of assaults. It has been consistently pointed out that because of size and strength differences, more women are likely to incur injury from male domestic assault [Straus and Gelles, 1986] and that even more minor non-injurious assault may be fear invoking for women [Straus, 1993]. However, some male victims of domestic assault are found to have sustained serious injury [Smith et al., 1992; Buzawa and Austin, 1993; Stitt and Macklin, 1995]. A female to male ratio of between 6-8 to 1 is evident from analysis of available US data [Straus, 1993], which may be supported by the UK observations of Smith et al. [1992] who found wives and husbands seeking emergency hospital treatment in approximately this ratio.

Despite such reservations, however, the study has provided preliminary data for a representative sample of the UK population for the first time and generates the impetus for future more expansive and exacting UK study of this type. A clear inference drawn from these results is that victimization of women by male partners is more likely for women who are single and young, while for men being married or cohabiting and living in the southern part of the United Kingdom is most associated with assault by a female partner. It can also be suggested that there is some evidence to suggest that assaults between partner in the United Kingdom is increasing, given the higher percentage incidence recorded in the youngest age group.

The finding of a higher overall incidence of claimed male victimization is in line with other findings which have reported a higher incidence of men assaulted either by married or dating female partners [e.g., Nisonoff and Bitman, 1979; Cate et al,. 1982; Plass and Gessner, 1983; Brutz and Ingoldsby, 1984; Deal and Whampler, 1986; Arias et al., 1987; Brinkerhoff and Lupri, 1988; Archer and Ray, 1989; Stetts, 1990; Russell and Hulson, 1992]. Other studies have found women reporting aggression against a male partner at or even above male levels [Plass and Gessner, 1983; Archer and Ray, 1989; White and Koss, 1991; Russell and Hulson, 1992, Straus and Kantor, 1994]. This study has found a negligible difference between the incidence of men and women who reported inflicting assault on a partner overall, although with some variation from this in subsamples of the total population with either higher male or female rates of admitted assault.

It is suggested that it is reasonable to argue that the excess of male victimization found seems, at least in part, to result from the greater frequency at which "slapping a partner" occurs female to male. Female-to-male acts of assault are perceived less negatively than male-to-female assaults [O'Leary, 1993; Harris and Cook, 1994] and it has been suggested that in a "slap the cad" scenario, they are rationalized to a justified acceptance [Straus, 1993]. Further, it has been suggested that minor assaults by women on men equate with female verbal aggression, as opposed to a distinction between verbal and a move to physical aggression for men [Stets, 1990].

The previous small-scale CTS studies performed in the United Kingdom have both found that the female sample had committed more severe violence than male partners [Archer and Ray, 1989; Russell and Hulson, 1992]. The former study also reported more female minor assaults as well, with both minor and severe assaults as reported by either the male or female partner. The initial national US study reported an incidence of female reported assaults made on male partners, who were not themselves reported as being assaultive, as well as reciprocal and unidirectional male-to-female assaults [Straus et al., 1980]. Interpreting their UK findings Archer and Ray [1989] noted that previous suggestions [Arias and Johnson, 1989] that men may be more cognizant of the potential to cause serious injury and to do damage to the relationship, which effectively causes them to restrain their aggression. This might have been operating within married and cohabiting relationships, given the fact that married or cohabiting women were the least likely to report sustained victimization. The disparity in incidence of victimization between married/cohabiting or single dating women across all relationships, but not current relationships, may indicate that the women surveyed have tended to form more committed and enduring relationships with men who do not tend to assault them or to dissolve relationships in which they are assaulted.

It could also be suggested that higher levels of male victimization/female aggression in CTS studies might reflect that some heterosexual males may give tacit observance to "Macho" images in public, but privately their lived experience and this stereotype have nothing in common. It is also possible that their female partners also obey female stereotypes of lesser aggression in public, but less so in private. This, apart from other considerations, could account for some of the discrepancy between CTS studies where rough equality of assaultiveness male-to-female and female-to-male is found, as opposed to common perceptions of the greater aggressiveness or assaultiveness of males. Social unacceptability of males being victims of domestic assault [George, 1994; Harris and Cook, 1994] may also be part of the explanation for the higher percentages of victimization of married or cohabiting men remaining within current relationships.

Further, an analysis which allows for female assaultiveness [White and Humphrey, 1994] finds some support from the relatively low levels of gender difference in aggression found in meta-analysis of psychological studies [Eagly and Steffen, 1986]. It also seems to be supported in marriage guidance literature, where leading exponents in the field in the United Kingdom have noted the frequency with which they experience married couples where the female is dominant and the male experiences loss of libido or impotence [Crowe and Ridley, 1990]. Thus psychological or emotional distress of males can be identified in female-dominated relationships and also in response to physical assault [Marshall, 1992]. Also, male or female-dominated relationships occur to about the same extent and show more relationship assaultiveness than more egalitarian couples [Coleman and Straus, 1986]. Thus, the finding in respect of male, as opposed to female, victimization reported in this study may not be as contentious as is often assumed, especially given that aggression by females can also occur frequently in lesbian relationships [Renzetti, 1992].

In allowing respondents to ascribe reasons or context to victimization, this study has attempted to go beyond many other studies utilizing the CTS approach. Clearly the interpretations given by both male and female respondents are varied, although with some tendency for explanations to divide by gender and a division of "reasons" operates between attributions to partners as opposed to self-attribution. This would tend to confirm the operation of social desirability, whereby it has previously been reported that victimization is more reliable than reported aggression [Jourilles and O'Leary, 1985; Arias et al., 1987; Riggs et al., 1989]. This may also explain the lower response levels for inflicted victimization found. Interestingly, however, the previous UK couple studies have noted that this aspect was less of a problem than anticipated, with little difference in the reliability of either male or female responses [Archer and Ray, 1989; Russell and Hulson, 1992].

In so far that reasons or contexts tested have attempted to assesss a "self-defensive" motive, the results seem to support a Canadian study that the majority of women did not report their aggression against male partners in this context [Sommer, 1994]. It has also been suggested that within marital conflict, men more often withdraw from confrontation leading to an escalation from their female partners than vice versa [Christensen and Heavey, 1990; Noller et al., 1994]. This might be applicable, especially given that women identified a need to "get through to their partner," more than men, as a reason for their aggression. These findings on "self-defense" are contradictory, however, to the assertions of UK couple studies [Archer and Ray, 1989; Russell and Hulson, 1992] where either factor analysis of psychometric and other variables [Russell and Hulson, 1992] or correlation coefficients (Archer and Ray, 1989) suggested that female assaults were retaliatory or self-defence.

Finally, it would seem that both men and women recognized a greater involvement of male alcohol abuse within interpartner conflict, which tends to confirm previous analysis for a difference in the link between alcohol and aggressive behaviour for males and females [Sommers et al., 1992; Straus and Kantor, 1994].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge Mr. Paul Woolich and the British Broadcasting Corporation for funding the survey undertaken and Mr. R. Duffy of MORI for organizing additional analysis of data. Additionally, Dr. Reena Sommer is thanked for reading a draft manuscript and making helpful comments.

References

• Andrews B, Brown GW (1988): Marital violence in the community: A biographical approach. British Journal of Psychiatry 153:305-312
• Archer J, Lloyd BB (1985): "Sex and Gender" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Archer J, Ray N (1989): Dating violence in the United Kingdom: A preliminary study. Aggressive Behaviour 15: 337-343
• Arias I, Johnson P (1989): Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 4: 298-307
• Arias I, Samios M, O'Leary KD (1987) Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2:82-90
• Bogarde M (1990): Why we need gender to understand human violence. Journal of
• Interpersonal Violence 5:132-134
• Borowski M, Murch M, Walker V (1983): "Domestic Violence: The Community Response." London: Tavistock
• Boulet A (1990): "Police Intervention in Marital Violence." Milton Keynes: Open University Press
• Brinkerhoff M, Lupri E (1988): Interspousal violence. Canadian Journal of Sociology3:407-434
• Brutz J, Ingoldsby BB (1984): Conflict resolution in Quaker families. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46:21-26
• Buzawa ES, Austin T (1993): Determining police response to domestic violence victims. American Behavioural Scientist 36:610-623
• Cate RM, Henton JM, Christopher FS, Lloyd S (1982): Premarital abuse: A social psychological perspective. Journal of Family Issues 3:79-90
• Christensen A, Heavey CL (1990): Gender and social structure in demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:73-81
• Coleman DH, Straus MA (1986): Marital power, conflict and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. Violence and Victims 1:141-157
• Crowe M, Ridley J (1990): "Therapy with Couples. A Behavioural-Systems Approach to Marital and Sexual Problems." Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, p 317
• Deal JE, Whampler KS (1986): Dating violence: The primacy of previous experience. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships 3:457-471
• Eagly AH, Steffen VJ (1986): Gender and Aggressive Behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the social psychology literature. Psychology Bulletin 100:309-330
• Edwards SM (1988): "Policing Domestic Violence: Women, the Law and the State." London: Sage
• George MJ (1994): Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable victims of marital violence. Journal of Men's Studies 3:137-159
• Harris RJ, Cook CA (1994): Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterer and victims are. Sex Roles 30:553-565
• Jouriles EN, O'Leary KD (1985): Interpersonal reliability of reports of marital violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53:419-421
• Kirsta D (1994): "Deadlier than the Male." London: Harper Collins
• Kurz D (1993):Physical assaults by husbands: A major social problem. In Gelles RJ, Loseke D (eds): "Current Controversies in Family Violence." London: Sage, pp 88-103
• Marshall LL (1992): The severity of violence against men scales. Journal of Family Violence 7:189-203
• Nisonoff L, Bitman I (1979): Spouse abuse: Incidence and relationship to selected demographic variables. Victimology 4: 131-140
• Noller P, Feeney JA, Bonnell D, Dallan VJ (1994): A longitudinal study of conflict in early marriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11:233-252
• O'Leary KD (1993): Through a psychological lens, Personality traits, personality disorders and levels of violence. In Gelles RJ, Loseke DR (eds): "Current Controversies on Family Violence." London: Sage, pp 7-30
• Plass MS, Gessner JC (1983): Violence in courtship relationships. Free Enquiry in Creative Sociology 11:198-202
• Renzetti CM (1992): "Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships." Newbury Park, CA Sage
• Riggs DS, Murphy CM, O'Leary KD (1989): Intentional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 4:220-232
• Russell RJH, Hulson B (1992): Physical and psychological abuse of heterosexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences 34:457-473
• Smith LFJ (1989): "Domestic Violence: An Overview of the Literature." Home Office Research Study No 107. London HMSO
• Smith S, Baker D, Buchan A, Bodiwali G (1992): Adult domestic violence. Health Trends 24:97-99
• Sommer R (1994): Male and female perpetrated partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba
• Sommer R, Barnes GE, Murray RP (1992): Alcohol consumption, alcohol abuse, personality and female perpetrated spouse abuse. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences 13:1315-1323
• Stetts JA (1990): Verbal and physical aggression in marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family 52:501-514
• Stitt S, Macklin A (1995): "Battered Husbands: The Hidden Victims of Domestic Violence. A Research Monograph." Liverpool UK: JMU Consumer Research
• Straus MA (1979): Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family 41:75-88
• Straus MA(1993): Husband abuse and the women offender are important problems. In Gelles RJ, Loseke D (eds): "Current Controversies in Family Violence." London, Sage, pp 67-87
• Straus MA, Gelles RJ (1986): Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family 48: 465-479
• Straus MA, Kantor GK (1994): Changes in spouse assault rates from 1975 to 1992: A comparison of three national surveys in the U.S.. Paper presented at the 13th World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany. July 19th
• Straus MA, Gelles RJ, Steinmetz SK (1980): "Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family." Garden City, NY: NY Press/Doubleday
• White JW, Humphrey JA (1994): Women's aggression in heterosexual conflicts. Aggressive Behaviour 20:195-202
• White JW, Koss MP (1991): Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims 6:247-257

Our thanks to Dr. Malcolm George for providing this study.

Weiterführende Fundstellen:

• Gewalt in Familien - http://www.pappa.com/familie/gewaltf.htm
• Familie im 21. Jahrhundert - Thema "Häusliche Gewalt" - http://home.t-online.de/home/Joachim.Mueller-1/

Wenn Sie unsere Informationen nützlich finden, freuen wir uns auch über Ihre Unterstützung durch eine Spende an paPPa.com e.V. (Konto 337 02 00, BLZ 100 205 00 - Bank für Sozialwirtschaft). Sie ist steuerlich absetzbar und wir sind darauf angewiesen ... Ab 30 DM senden wir unaufgefordert eine Spendenquittung. Bitte informieren Sie sich auch über die Möglichkeit, ein paPPa.com-Förderer zu werden.