CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
CTS44
Straus, Murray A. 2007. "Conflict Tactics Scales." Pp. 190 - 197 in Encyclopedia of
Domestic Violence, N. A. Jackson. New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.
CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
The Conllict Tactics Scales (CTS) are the most widely
used instrument for identifying domestic violence.
There are two main versions of tlie CTS: the CTS2
(Straus, Hamby. Boney-McCoy. and Sugarman
1996) is the version measuring violence against a
partner in a dating or marital relationship. The
CTS2 has scales to nieas~irevictiinizatioii and perpetration of thi-ee lactics that are onen used in conflicts
between par-tners: physical assault, psychological aggression; and negotiation; and scales to measure
injury and sexual coercion of and by a pal-tnei-.
The CTSPC is the version of the CTS (Stl-aus,
Hainby, Finkelhor. Moore. and Ruuyan 1998;
Straus and Hainhy 1997) for measuring malti-eatment of a child by parents. The CTSPC has scales
to measure physical assault (with subscales for corporal punishn~entand physical abuse). pspchological aggression, and use of nonviolent discipline
techniques. There are also suppleilientary questions
on neglect; sexual abuse. and discipline in the past
week. In this article. "CTS" will be used when tlie
sentence applies to all versions of the instrument.
and CTS2 and CTSPC will be used to refer to those
specific versions.
Both tlie CTS2 arid the CTSPC have versions for
child respondents and for adult recall of tactics
used between their parents (Straus website, 2006).
The CTS2 has been translated into many languages. Both versions of the CTS can be obtained
from Western Psychological Services.
Theoretical Basis of Conflict Tactics Scales
Conflict theorists such as Louis Coser and Ralph
Diihreiidord argue that conflict is an inevitable and
valuahle aspect of all human associatio~lbecause
conflict is part of the process by which inequities
and problems are corrected. What is lianufi~lis not
the co~iflictiiselr. but use of coercion. including
force and violence, as a tactic for resolving conflicts. In order to understand this perspective, it is
necessary to distinguish be~weeiitwo closely related
yet clearly different phenomena, both of which are
often called conflict: "conflict of interest'. and
"conflict management." When conflict theorists
talk about the ubiquity of conflict. they are referring t o conflict o l interest, that is. to the fact that
members oS a social group. no matter how small
and intimate, are each seeking to live out their lives
in accordance ~ v i t hpersonal agendas that inevitably dift'er. These differences range from the trivial,
such as which TV show to watch at eight. to major
life events such as whether to move to a new house.
On the other hand, conflict management, o r what
for purposes or tlie CTS is called "conflict tactics,'.
refers to ihe method used to resolve tlie conflict.
Two Families can have the same conflict but differ
vastly, and with profound consequences, i n how
they deal with these conflicts. One I'i~inily niighl
resolve the issue of which TV program to watch
by rotation. another by "first one there,'' and another by threat of force by the physically strongest.
Measurement Strategy of the Conflict
Tactics Scales
A Behuvior.al11/Ieasur.e
The CTS consists of a list of behaviors directed
to~varda partner or a child. It deliberately excludes
attitudes, emotions, and cognitive appraisal of the
behaviors. These are crucial for some research and
cliiiical purposes but must be measured separately.
CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
The value of a behavioral iiistr~irnentis illustrated
by a study \vIiich first asked about violent hehaviors expcrienced, rind the11 asked about cognitive
appraisal. It ioilnd that more than a third of
womeii who reported being victims ol' one or
more violent acts did not regard themselves as
having experienced "physical abuse." as a "victim
of violence." or as a "battered womail" (Hamby
and Gray-Little 2000). This discrepalicy between
the behavior and the cognitive appl-aisal of the
behavior is important for understanding Family
viole~iccand for designiug progralns of prevention
aiid treatme~it.However. it is possible to identify
the discrepancy only if there is an instrument such
as the CTS which obtains the beliavioral data.
The C I S 2 questions are presented in pairs. The
first question in the pair asks respondelits to iiidicate how oiten they carried out each itern in the
referent period. Tile second asks how often the
partner- carried out each behavior. The response
categories aslc for the number of times each action
occurred during the past year. ranging from
"Never" to "More than 20 times." The default
referent period is the past twelve months. but
other referent periods, sucli as "since starting in
this program," call be used. The Live CTS2 scales
aud cxaniplcs of a 1ili11orarid a severe questio~iin
each scale are:
Plij~.sicizl/i.ssuull: "I slapped my partner." "I
punched or hit my partner with solnetliing
that could h~irt."
I~zj~~jlli.~,:
"1 had a sprain. bruise, or small cut
because of 21 fight with my partner." "I needed
to see a doctor because o i a fight with my
partner, but I didn't."
P.s~chologicii1/Iggrrssioi~:"I sliouted or yelled at
my partner.'' "I stomped out of the room or
hoose or yard d ~ ~ r i i ai gdisagreement."
Sestlul C'oercioiz: "I insisted on sex when my
partner did not want to (but did not use
physical force)." "I used fol-ce (like hitting.
holding down, or using a weapon) to make my
partiier have sex."
N~goriiztiun: ''I said 1 cared about my partner
even though we disagreed.'. "I suggested a
comproinise to a disagreement.''
Sj,nmn~~fr.~~
of M~~a.s~~rr,nwnt
Tlie CTS measures the hehaviol- of both the
respondent aiid the respondent's partiier. This
does not assume symmetry in the behavior: it only
makes it possible to investigate the degree of symmetry o r asymmetry. Most research and clinical
uses of the CTS benefit from having data on the
behavior of both partners in a rclatio~iship.This
applies even when it might seem that only information on the behavior of one of the partners is
needed. such as when the CTS is used to 11ieasu1-e
progress in a treatment program for male batterers.
Research has shown that cessation of violeilce by
one partner is i~ifluenced by whether the other
partner also stops hitting (Feld and Straus 1989;
Gelles and Stuaus 1988). Thus, when monitoring a
treatment program. it is crucial to Itnow the extent
to which the partner has also ceased acts of physical and psychological aggression. In addition. for
reasons that are not yet understood. tlie sensitivity
of the CTS (as measured by disclosure rate) is lower
in studies, sucli as the Natioiial Violence against
Women Survey. that used only tlie victimimtion
queslio~is.
Severity L P I ~
All CTS scales measuring maltreatment have
subscales for less severe aiid more severe behaviors,
based on the pres~i~ned
greater harm resulting from
acts ill the severe subscale. The distinction between
minor and severe assaults is roughly parallel to the
legal disti~ictioiiin the United States between "simple assault" and "aggravated assault." That coiiceptually based classification has been supported
by factor analyses and by a growing recognition
tliat the etiology aiid treatment of occasional minor
violeiice may he quite different than the etiology of
repeated severe assaults (Gelles 1991; Hollzwortllhlunroe and Stuart 1994: Johnson and Ferraro
2000: Straus and Gelles 1990). Severity of violence
is also measured by the frequency of the acts and
by whether an injury results. A iiational survey of
Cailadians (Laroche 2005) demonstrated that tlie
CTS call be used lo identify what Johnson calls the
terroristic level of violelice (Johnson and Ferraro
2000).
Clinical Interpretution and Nornrs
The CTS is also used for clinical assesslilent
(Aldarondo and Straus 1994). Because even one
instance of physical assault is a behavior that calls
for remedial steps, a basic clinical assessment iiidicates whether there is a score of I or higher on the
physical assault scale. I11 addition, there is information for Inany clinical and general population samples ill the CTS Maiiual (Straus, tlaniby. and
Warren 2003), in the core papers on the CTS. and
in illally publicatioiis by others. These rates. mean
scores. and standard deviations can be used to
evalua~especific cases or categories of cases. In
addition to the scale scores. each CTS item should
be exalllined because of tlie dill'erent implications
CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
or. for example, slapping as compared with piinching; or insisting on sex compared wit11 physically
forcing sex.
Reliability and Factor Structure
Internal Consistency Relirrbility
Alpha coefficients of reliability for the CTS2.
reported in forty-one articles, are tabulated in Sti-aus
(2005). The coefficients ranged fro1ii.34 to .94, with
a mean of .77. A study of the CTS2 in se\-enteen
nations found similar results (Straus 2004). The occasio~iallow alpha coeflicient occurred when the
behavior measured by some of the items, such as
attacking a partner wit11 a knife or gun. was absent
or nearly absent in some samples.
There are less data on the internal consistency
reliability of the CTSPC because this instrunient is
less widely used. In the seven articles which
provided reliability data. the alpha cocflicients
ranged from .25 Lo .92. with a rnean of .h4. The
coefficients belou: the convenlio~iof .70 are for tlie
severe violence subscale and rellect the near zero
rate of extremely abusive acts in some samples.
Tenrporal Con.sistency
Temporal consistency. as measured by a testretest correlation or intraclass correlation. is argiiably the most important aspect of reliability because
IOW temporal consistency imposes all upper limit for
validity. However. it is rarely repor-ted. probably
because it requires testing the same subjects on two
closely spaced occasions. As a result. for the CTS?.
test-retest correlations have been located for only
two samples. The coeflicicnts for the various scales
ranged froni .49 to .90 wit11 a mean of .72. For the
CTSPC. no studies were located that provide data
on test-retest reli;~hility.Ilo\vever, three st~idiesprovide data 011the p a r e n t child version ofthe original
CTS. The coefficients range from .49 (McGuirc and
Earls 1993) to .70 and .79 (Johnston 1988) to .X0
(Amato 1991). Because the CTSPC is so similar to
the original CTS, those results probably apply to the
CTSPC as well.
Validity
Contrvtt V(11illity
The steps to achieving content validity included
developing the questions on the basis o r qualitative
interviews and suggestions and reviews hy experienced researchers and clinicians. Each question is
based around an example of the behavior being
measured. such as pi~~iching
a partner o r a child.
For punching to be invalid, it \vould he necessary
to conclude that it is not an act ~Sviolence.
Like most tests. the CTS includcs only a sample
of the universe of possible violent acts. This is
analogous to a spelling test that includes only a
sample of tlie total number of words that a child
in the seventh grade should kno\v how t o spcll.
Although the heliaviovs in the CTS may be valid.
the nlethod used to select behaviors to include in
the CTS did not guarantee that they are an adequate sample oS violent behaviors. One indication
that they are a n adequate sample comes Srom a
study by Dobasli and Dobash (1984). who are
among the ~iioststrident critics of the CTS. They
used qualilative methods to identify typical violc~lt
acts. Their list of violent acts is alinost identical to
the items in the CTS.
Sensitivity and Confbrmding vvitlz Social De,>irubility
Se/~.siiisirj. An instr~~mcnt's
sensitivity is its ability to detect the occurrence oSa phenomenon. Sensitivity is a critical aspect of validity. It is especially
i~iiportantfor self-report measures of socially undesirable behaviors siic11 as those measured by four
oS the five CTS2 scales. When the CTS is administered according to tlie standard instriictions. it
oht;~i~is
many times more disclosure oS violence
than the most widely used measures. such as the
National Crime Victimization Survey and rates of
cases reported to Child Protective Services.
C o f ? / ~ u f z i / i1vitl7
f ~ g Sociul D~siruhililj,. Many studies have found lo\\. correlations between the CTS
and "social desirability" scales (Sugarman and
Holaling 1996). These sczlles measure the degree to
u:liich respondents are reluctant to disclose socially
undesirable behavior. Thc Fact that there is little
correlation bet~veenscores on a social desirability
scale and the CTS2 \\,as confirmed by data fi-0111the
International Dating Violence Study data Sor stude~itsat thirty-one universities. This study found
tlml the mean correlation \vitli a social desirability
scale w a s . 17 for the physical ass;iult scale (range =
.03 t o . 2 3 ) and -.O9Sol-injury (range = .OO to 4 3 )
(Straus and international Dating Violence Research
Consortium 2004). These relatively low correlations
suggest that scores on the CTS reflect real differences in violence. rather than differences in willingness to disclose socially l~ndesirablebehavior.
Nevertheless. analysis of the CTS. like analysis of
all self-report data on socially undesirable behavior.
should include a control for score on a social desirability scale.
CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
Agreement brtt~venRespondents
Because the maill threat t o the validity oS the CTS
is failure to repol-t violent behaviors that actually
occurred. tile degree of agrcciiient between the
reports of different participants is an important
type o r validity ciata. A number of studies have
investigited the degree of agreement between partners in a relationship. and bet\?-eel1data provided by
pal-ents about violence Lo a child and data provided
by the child. A meta-analysis of agreement between
partners smnmarizing results Sroni nineteen samples
which obtained CTS data from both partners and
forty-three samples which obtained the daia on both
partners Srorn just one of the partners found coi-relations that averaged about .50 (Archer 1999).
Construct Vnli~lity
Construct validity refers to tlie association between
the measure i i i question and other variables for which
priol- research or theory predicts a relationship. It
follo\vs tliat the construct validity of the CTS caii be
assessed by the degree to which the CTS produces
lindings that are co~isiste~il
with theoretical or enipiric;il pi-opositions about the variables tlie CTS purports to measure. There are literally 1iund1.eds of
studies providi~igsuch evidence. For parent-to-child
violence. see Straus and Mamby (1 997). For measures
of partner violence. a few examples Srom tlie National
Family Violence SUI-veysand tlie I~iternatio~lal
Dating Violence Study \?-illbe mentio~ied.
Many hypothesized "risk P'IL~OI-s"have been
found to be related to partner violence as measured
by the CTS (Gelles and Straus 1988: Strails and
Gelles 1990). including:
-
Inequality bet\?-ecn partners. and e.specially
~ n a l edoiiiina~icc
0 Poverty and unemplo)ment
* Stress and lack of community ties
* Youthf~~lness
* Heavy drinking
Experience oS corpor:~l puiiishment as children
and neglectful behavior by parents \?-ere both
found in a S ~ L I o~ lY~iiiversitystudents in seventeen
coullirics to be independently associated with an
increased probability of violence to a dating partner as measured by the CTS (Douglas and Straus
2006: Straus aiid Savage 2005).
Limitations of the Contlict Tactics Scales
The CTS is both the most widely used measure oS
fan~ilyviolence and also the most widely criticized.
Extensive critical examination is appropriate lor
;my widely used iiistrument because, i l tlie instrument is \?-song. then a great deal of research will
also be wrong. 111the case of tlie CTS. however. the
most frequent criticisms reflect ideological differences rather than empirical evidence. Specilically.
many feminist scholars reject the CTS because
studies using this instrument tiud that about the
sarnc percentage oS women as men assault their
partners. This co~itradictsthe feiiiinist theory that
partner violelice is almost exclusively com~iiittedby
men as a means to dominate women, and is thereSore taken as prima facie evidence that the CTS is
iiot valid. li-onically, the Sact that the CTS has
provided some of the best evidence coiifirming the
Link between male dominance and partner violence
and other key aspects of fe~iiiiiisttheory of partner
violence (Coleman and Sti-aus 1990: Straus 1994)
has not shaken the belief that the CTS is invalid.
Another iroiiy is that despite these denunciaiio~is,i ~ i a ~feiiiinist
iy
researchers use the CTS. However, having used the CTS. they reaSSirm their
Scmiiiist credentials by routinely inserting a paragraph repeating some of the erroneous criticisms.
These criticisms are then cited in other articles as
though tliere were empirical evidence. Anyone
reviewing these studies would have the impression
that tliere is a large body of empirical cvide~ice
showi~igthe illvalidity or tlie CTS. whereas there
is only eiidless repelition of the same u~ivalidated
opinions. Bcca~iseof space limitations. only a few
examples will be mentioned arid rebi~ttcd.Others
are documented elsewhere (Straus and Gelles 1990).
Erroneous Cr,iticisnz.s
73, C1-S !Cfeu.s~~i~e.s
O12l.1 (.'(~~!flici-Rrlritcd Vio1i.11ce. Althouqli
the
theoretical
basis of tlie CTS
is conflict theory, the ilitroductory cxpl;~natio~i
to
participants specilically includes expre~si\~e
and
malicious viole~ice.It asks respondents to answer
or~estio~-is
about tlie times when thev and their
~-~
partners "disagree. get aiinoyed with the other person, \?.ant different things Srom each other. o r just
have spats or fighls because they arc iii a bad
niooci, are tired or Sor some other reason." In the
past twenty-five years this criticism h;~sbeen repeated in over one hundi-ed pi~blications,giving
the appearance oS a well-established Iiniitation.
However. 110e~iipiricalevidence has bee11 pro\!idcd
showing tliat only conflict-related violence is
reported. In f:~ct; where there are both CTS data
and qualimtive data. as in Giles-Sims (1983). it
sho\vs that the CTS elicits iiialicious violelice as
\+,ellas conflict-related violence.
CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
Eqaiatev Aci.v Tliar DiJli.7 Grrurly iiz Sei.ioiisizesi.. As
shown previously in this entry. exactly the opposite is
a key characteristic of tlie CTS. The physical assauli
scale. like all tlie CTS maltreatment scales. differentiates betwee11 less severe acts of violence, such as
slapping and tiirowing things at a partlier, and more
severe acts sucli as piinchiiig, kicking. and choking,
and tlie CTS provides tlie opportunity to weight the
scores by the frequency of these behaviors.
C<~nte.si
nlid Conseyiieiice.~Are ~ I I U ~ I ' L I Tile idea
that the CTS physical assaillt scale is defective
because it does not take into account the context.
meaning. causes. and consequences of the violent
acts is a~ialogousto declaring a reading ability test
invalid because il does not provide data on why a
child reads poorly (such as limited exposure to
books at horne or lest anxiety), or foi- not measuring tlie harmful effects of reading difficulty (such as
low self-esteem or dropping out of school).
Context and consequences are extremely important, but they must be measured separately from
the behavior they presu~iiablycause to he able to
test theories about context effects. Tliis includes
information on whether the assault was in selfdefense or retaliation or was provoked by domineering behavior, verbal taunting, o r other psychological aggression. For example. because the CTS
has a separate measure of psychological aggression, Murphy and O'Leary (1989) were able to
test the theory that psychological aggression
against a partner is associated witli an increased
probability of physical violence.
Some Actual Lirrritations
Covei..s Oiily (I Liiiiiterl Set of C'ioleizt Acts. Tlie
brevity of tlie CTS makes its use possible in situations which preclude a lo~igerinstrument. However,
its brevity is also a limitation because it means that
the snbscales are limited to distingi~ishi~ig
minor
and severe levels ol'cach of the tactics. For example,
witli only eight items. the psychological aggression
scale cannot provide siibscales for separate dimensions such as rejecting. isolation, terrorizing. ignorilig. and corrupting.
Response C~~i<,gorie.s
A1.r CSireuli.srk.. Tlie CTS
asks respondents how liialiy times they and their
partners did each of the acts iii tlie past year (or
some other referent period). Tliis is satisfactory to
provide estiliiates of how rn;~ny times severe and
rarely o c c u ~ ~ i nevents
g
such as punching a partner
or a child have happened. However, for events that
can occur daily or several times a week, such as
spanking or slapping a cliiltl (Gilcs-Sims. Straus.
and S ~ i g a m ~ a1995),
n
parents cannot be expected to
accurately estimate how lrany times this behavior
occurred in tile past year. Nevertheless, thousa~lds
of responde~its arori~id the world have provided
these estimates. and these data have been successfully
used to identify cases which are low or high compared with other respondents. These response categories enabled Giles-Sims (1983) to estimate that
women in the shelter she studied had been assaulted
ari average of sixty-nine times in the preceding year.
This is more than ten times greater than the six times
in the previous twelve months experienced by women
in the National Fa~iiilyViole~iceSurvey who had
been assaulted that year (Strans and Gelles 1990).
L~~iri~,rre/~cirii~zg.
Although the CTS has repeatedly
bee11 fo~indto uncover higher rates of partner violence than other instruments, these rates al-e nolietheless lower-bound estimates hecaiisc of
underrcporting. ln addilion. a meta-analysis (Archer 1999) found that although both men and
women u~iderreport,the extent of underreporting
is greater for m e ~ iPerliaps
.
the most serious type of
underreporting is by pal-tners or victims of partners
who engage in repeated severe assaults [hat often
produce injuries. Although such extreme violence is
only a tiny percentage of partner violence, the perpetrators and the victims of such acts are the ones
in most urgent need of intervention. This problem
is a iimitatioii of survey research on partner violence rather than a unique problem of the CTS.
Ohtoi~7.s1ZIi1lirei1tiiir+rtDuiu ,/i~rOtilj. tlie C I I ~ ~ P I I I
Partner or C,.~ii.egivrr. Tlie CTS2 asks for iiiformation ahoui relationships \villi the current or most
recent partner, and the CTSPC about tlie current
caregiver of the child. Thus, the CTS does not
provide infor~i~ation
about the history of victimization or perpetration.
fr[ill'.ier h'ut Dii.ectly Litilced to A,s,snttlts. The injury scale does not provide information on which
assault caused each of the injuries in the scale.
Research to understand tlie processes resulting in
injury could obtain this information by expanding
the CTS to ask each of the illjury items for each
assaultive behavior reported
Administration, Testing Time, and Scoring
Arlministration
Experience x:ith the CTS indicates low refusal
rates, even iii mass surveys sucli as the 1985
CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
National Family Violence Survey. which had an 84
percent conipletion rate (Gelles and Straus 1988).
Tlie CTS can be admi~iisteredin maliy ways, including in-person intervic\v, telephone interview.
self-administered questionnaire, and compuleradministered questionnaire. Studies that compared
in-person with telephone interviews of the CTS
have found equivalent results. A study comparing
paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaires
~r:itll compi~ter-administered questionnaires also
ibuiid general equivalelicc (Hamby, Sugarman.
and Boney-McCoy. 2005). There is a picture-card
version of tlie CTSPC for use with young childre11
(Straus website. 2006).
Testing Time
The testing time ibr the full CTS2 is tc\-elve to
lifteel1 minutes. A sliortcr alter~iativeis to adniinistcl- only the tIil.ee corc scales (physical assault. psychological aggression. and negotiation). This
produces an instru~ncntthat has the same coverage
a ~ i dtakes about tlie same time as tlie o r i g i ~ ~CTS
al
(seven to tell miniites). It is not advisable to shot-ten
the scale by including only the victimization or only
the perpetration questions. This ohlains only half
of the infor~iiationneeded l o ~mdersta~id
partner
violence. and even for that hall: it reduces the
disclosure rate. A second alternative is to use the
CTS2 short form (Straus and Douglas 2004), for
\vliich testing lime is approximately three minutes.
Both ol' these alternatives have imporlant limitations. Tlie first alternative means iio data on injury
and sexual coercion. The second alternative obtains
inl'ormation oil all five scales. but at the cost of
detecting only about half as many cases as when
the full-lengtli scales are used.
Scoring
Tliel-e are many Israys to score the CTS. Each is
suited to different circunistalices. They arc described in a paper on scoring (Stixus \vebsite.
2006) and in the corc p~lblications on tlie CTS
(Straus et al. 1996: Straus el al. 1998; Slraus and
Douglas 2004). Because of space limitation. o~ily
four will he nientioned.
Previileizcr. For the scales with highly skewed distributions. and for which i l is important to identify
even a single occurrence of the behavior, such as
tlie physical assault. injury. and sexual coercion
scales, the "prevalence" score o r rate is the most
usual choice. This is simply an indication ol'whet11er ally one or more ol'thc acts in tlie scale have been
committed. In tlie aggregate. this results in the
percenlagc who were violent. i~ijureda partner, or
coerced sex.
I
. Tliis is the nuliiber ol'tirnes the behavior occurred in the past year. A liliiitutio~iof this
score is that. Ibr general popl~lationsamples. the
distribution is so skewed that the meall is not an
appropriate measure of central tendency. In addition, unless a normalizing tralisformation is used.
the frequency score does not meet tlie assumptions
of parametric statistical tests. On the other hand. a
sa~iipleof known offeiidei-s or victiins will not li;~ve
85 or 95 percent with a score of zero, and the
freqilency score call be very useful for measuring
the chronicity of maltreatment.
Sereritj- Level irr~dMzctuiilitj Tjprs. The severity
level classifies each case into three categories: iiotze,
iiiiiior orzlj,. o r severe. Tlie mutuality types classify
each case as re.sl~n~~ilent
o~ib,.
purtner oizlj., or hotli.
The mutuality types may be particularly useful in
conples therapy because over a hundred studies
ha\'e lb~rndthat \\;hen there is violence. 50 pel-cent
o r more of the time it is by both partners (Archer
2000: Straus and Ramirez ill press).
Contributions of the Conflict Tactics Scales to
Understanding Family Violence
The twentieth anniversary cornnicmorati\~eissue of
the J ~ u u i i ~i~f'fii~erp~~r.su~zu/
I
Vioke17ccinclizded an article entitled "Top 10 Greatest 'Hits'" (LanghinrichsenRohling 2005). The list of hits begins, "Greatest
Hit Number I: He Gavc Us a Tool to Look Behinci
Closed Doors." It goes on to say, "In 1979. Strails
created a measure. the C:onflict Tactics Scale (CTS).
which lit a fire to the domestic violence field. The
CTS was revolutionary because it allowed reseal-cliers to quailtitati\,ely study evelits that had often
been ignored culturally and typically took place in
private." Tlie CTS made possible natioiial surveys
on the prevale~iceof f ~ ~ m iviolence
ly
in the Uliited
States and oilier countries, such as the two National
Family Violence Surveys (Straus and Gellcs 19901,
the National Violeiice against Wo~nenSurvey. and
the National Survey ot'Cliild and Adolescent WellBeing. Between tlie first study using the CTS (Straus
1973) and 2005, about 600 research papers ;~ndat
least ten books reporting results based on the CTS
were published. Betweell 1995 and 2005. foul- to six
;~rticlesreporting results obtained using the CTS
\?rere published every ~iionth.
Every rneas~iri~iginstrurneiit has limitations
and problems. and the CTS is no exception. These
CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
will? Spankitig.'. Fo,iii[i. R<~/<ifio,i.i
44. no. 2 (1995):
1711 .,,,.
176
Hamby. Sherry L.. ;nid David Finkclhor. <'iioo.shig m?r,
L.siiig ('/ii/i/ Mcri,iii;utio,1 Qu<,.siioiii2oircs. W,ishington,
DC: Onice oS.luvciiile Justice and Deiinijuency Prevention. 2001
Harnbg. Sherry L.. a ~ i dHer~ladetteGray-Little. .'Labeling
Parlncr Violciicc: Wheii Do Victims 11iffcrcilLi;ilc among
Acts'?.. I;ni/<,ilce & Victir,is 15. no. 2 (2000): 173 186.
Holtzivorth-Manroe. Amy. and Grcgory I.. Stuiirt. "Typologies of Male Ba1tzrc1-s:Tlhrcc Subtypes and the Diflbrencrs among Them..' P,syclio/o~icii/Ru/l<,iiii 116. ilo. 3
(1994): 476 197.
.Solinson. Miciiacl P.. and Kalhleeii J. Fcii-arm "Research
Scr al\o Anal?ring Incidents of Domestic Violence:
on Donicstic Violencc in tlic 1990s: Making Oistincliolls." JOLO.IILI/
(!/ ;\f'll.i.i'i~~iiiiil I/!<' Foiiiiiilj 62. no. 4
The Wational Incident-Based Reporting S?dem;
(2000): 948963.
Measuring Domestic Violence
Sohiiston. blililred E. "Correlates of Earl) Violence Esperelice amone Men Who Arc Abiisivc toward Female
h.lates.'~ In Foi,liO. dbusr oiid Its C,,,i.seyiioicc.s: !'Ve~r
References and Further Reading
Dii.ecrio,iz,\ iii Rm.jeoi-cli, edited by G. 1'. Hot;~ling. D.
Ald;~roniio.Etiony, and Murray A. Slraus. "Screening for
Finkelhor. J. T. Kirkpatrick ;~ndbl. A. Str;ius. Ncabury
Physical Violence in Couple Thcl-apy: Methodological.
Park, CA: S:lgc. 1988.
Practi~kl.and Etlhi~tlConsiderations." )ii,iii/v Pi.oce.ss
I.anghinrichsen-Rolilin~, .Iciinifer. "Top 10 Greatcst 'I-lits':
33 (1994): 425 439.
Iniporiani Findings and Future Direclions for Iiiliinate
A~uato.Paul R. "Psychological 0ist1-essand !he Recall of
Partner Violciicc Research." .Iriiiri~ii/of Iiirri.pi.r.soiio/
Cliildhood F;lmily Characteristics.' J~~o.~~(~Iqt'i/(il.i.ii!ce I
2 I . I (2005): 108 118.
tt,i'/ 11w Fowi/y 53 (1991): 101 1-1019,
L;~roche.Dcnis. "Aspects oftlie Content ;lild Conseij~icnccs
Archer. Johli. "Assessment of lhc Rcliabilitv o l t h e Conllici
ol. Uorncstic Violence--Situ;~tio~ialCoriple Violence anif
. ,I I-L.~ I C.S sc.l
'i cs: A Mela-Analytic Reviciv." ./~iurtai/o/
ltitiniate Terl-orism in Canada in 1999" Governnien! OF
Itilcrpn-,so,ia/ Vi,ii,/<~iic<~ 14. no. 12 (1999): 1263 1289.
Quebec. 2001.
"Sex Differeiices in Aggression betivean Hetcrosc\McGuil-c. Jacqueline. and Felton Earls. "Exploriiig the
~ i a lPc~rlners:A MeV,,-An:liytic Re~iew."P.s!~~~ho/ogiciil
Reliahiliiy of Measures of Family Rci~lLoos. Parental
R~i//l:riii126. no. 5 (2000): 611 680.
Auitudes. and Parent-Child Relations in ;I Dis;id\;inColeman. Diane I-I.. and Murray I\. Straits. "Marit:il Power.
taged Minority Popul,rdon.'- .lo~ii.iiiiio/'Woi.i.i<!qeorld ilir,
Conilict. and Violence in a Natioiially Repi.e::cntatiw Samfiii~lih.55 (199.3): 1042-1046.
ple oF Amel-icim Couples." l i i P/~y,sir.o/Ciii/<vce in A,rin-iMurphy. Christopher M.. and K. Daniel 0'1ea1-y.'Psychoro,iF~,,iii/i<~.s.
Edited by M . A. S1rar1s;lnd R. J. Gelles. Nm.
1ogic;iI Aggression Predicts Pliysiciil i\ggressioii i i i Early
Bronsivick. N.1: Transaction I'uhlications. 1990.
Marriage." Joiri-no/ of (:~~isu/inig
u,id C/itrii.~~/
P,s~~.ho/oIkililhcrg. I.ind;i L.. Susan H. Tozil. and Chrisropher tl.
pi.
. . 57. no. 5 11989): 579 582.
Behrens .Ilct,.siii.iirg lio/<,,~c~,-Rr/iiicd
;lffiiriO<~.s,
Bc/iq/.s,
1l;~thus.Jill H.. :ind Eva L. Feindlci-. -I.ssc.ce~ii.,ri~ i f P ~ l . l i > ( v
oiid B<4iiii.ioi.soriioiig Y O L ~ I /.A~ S(b,irp(,iii/iit,ii
:
q/ .~SSC.SSVio/cricr. W;isIiiii.~ton.TIC: American Psvcliolonical
- Asi i i o i i Tuo/,s. Atlanta: Ilivision of Violcncc PI-evention.
socialion. 1004.
National Center for In.iury Pre\ention ; ~ n dControl.
Sli-;~us. Murl-;iy A. "A General Sysicms Theory ApCciilci-s Ibl- Uiseesc Conirol and Preveiilioii, 1998.
proach to :i Tlicory of Violcnce betil.ecii 1;;irniIy
Dobash. Eiirerson R.. a ~ i dRussell P. Dob;ish. "The Nature
Members." SoriiiI .S<.iivice i,!fiil.iiiaiio,i 12. no. 3 (1973):
and Anie~~edeots
of Violent E~ciits."Bi.iiii/i .loui.,ai/ of
I 0 5 125.
('riiiii,ro/o~,~
24. no. 3 (1984): 269 288.
Bih/io:ri~j~/z~
o,id Tcih~r/<ti.
S!oiiiiioi.y ~/'Piih/icorio,u
Donplas. Emily M.. and Murray .A. Stlaus. "Ass;~iiil itnd
on lire Rei,i,s<,d Cii,i/licf I
. S<.ii/l:.s ICTS2 oild
Injury of Dating Partners by University Students in I9
C T S P C J . Durham. NH: Family Research Lahouatory.
Nations and its Relatioti io Corporiil I'~i~iishmentEnpeUniversity of New Hsmpsliire. 2005.
rienced as a Child.' Z~or,/,eoii ./l~lii'ilii/,;/'Ci.i,iii,io/o~j3.
. ivcbsitc. lit!~:;'~,uhoa~es.~~nli.cdu.-mas2
lacccsscd
. , . no. 3 (2006): 293-318.
August 15. 2006).
Fcld. Scott 1..atid Mui-ray A. Sli.ai~s. -'Escalation and
Straus. bl'liirray 4.. and Emily M . Doiiglas. "A Short Form
Desislaiice of Wife Assa~iltin Marriuee:' ('riiiiiiio/~i~s
of the Revised Conilict Tactics Scalcs. arid Typologies
,,.
27. no. 1 (1989): 141-~161.
for Sexerity il~ndM~ii~itlity..'I,'io/.ilce i i i i i / Vicriiir.~19.
Gclles. Richard J. "Physical Vioiencc. Chili? Abuse. ;tiid
no. 5 (2004): 50: 520.
Chiid Homicide: A Contiiiu~irnof Vioicncc, or Distinct
S t ~ i u s h.lurl-;iy
.
i\.. and Riciiard J. Gelles. Phj..sicii/ IV?<,/e,ii.iicr,
tlclia~iors?" fl~aiirni;\'<ifiii-e2. no. I (1991): 59-72.
in liiici-icuii F~iiiiiIi<,.s:Ri.s/< FOCIO~.S
uiid Adc~~~iiiiioii.~
10
Gelles. Richard J.. and Murra\. A. Straits. lirriiiiiir<.li,ii,l-io/<~,i.iii.e
iu 8.145 i;ii,iri/ics. Nclv Brunsaick. NJ: Trans/~iil.e.Ncx? Yoi-k: Siiiion 6: Schusler. 1958.
action Publications, 1990.
Giles-Sims. Jeail. lt'ifi, BIIII?I.III~:
I,. Sysro,rs Tlrrors
Slrsus. MLII-rayA.. ~iiidSheri-y L. tiamby. 'Measuring
4p/roric/r. New York: Guilfoi-d Press. 1983.
Phlsical and Psychological R.laltrraioisnt of Cliiiiireii
Giles-Sims. Jean. Mitrl-~iyA. Straus. and David B. Sugirmaii.
with the Conllicl Tactics Scales." 111 Otii qiihe D~ii~I~ireis:
"Chiid. Ilatcrnsi and Family Cli;rracteristics Associated
('ii~iii~~iiporai).
R<,.s<,o,*.hPci-ii,ccriac,soil F~,,,ii/j Violeiicr,
limitations need to bc considered !?;hen interpreting
r c s ~ ~ lSrorn
t s thc CTS. or when choosing an instrument to measure hiiiily violence. Fortunately.
there are comprehensive c o m p e ~ ~ dwhich
ia
describe
over 100 measures of diffel-ent aspects of violencc
(Dahlbel-g, Toal, and Behrens 1998: Halnby and
Finkelhor 2001; Rathtis and Feindler 2004). They
racilitate cxainini~lgalter~~atives
to the CTS or
choosing additional instruments to measure aspects
of violence that arc not covered by it.
MIJRR.AY
A. STRAGS
CONTROL BALANCE THEORY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
edited h > G .Kui~finanKuiitoc-and J. Jxsinski. Thotisand
Oaks. CI\: Sage. 1997.
Straus, Murriiy A , Sherry L. Hamhg. SLISIII BoncyMcCoy. and David 8. Sugarman. "Tlic Revised Conllici
Ti~cticsSfales (CTSZ): Develouincni and Preliminarv
Psychonictric Data." .I,,rii-~ia!qfFri,~iiljissiie.s 17. no. 3
(1996): 283 316.
Straus. Mmray A,. Sherry I-. Hamby. David Finkclhor.
Dayid W. Moore, and Desmond Rungan. "lde11tific;ition of C:liilil bl;~llreatme~~t
with ilic Parent Child Coilllict Tactics Scalcs: Development and Psychometric
Ilaia for a N;ltional Sample of American Parents.'.
Ciiilii Ahiisc o,id h'<ygI~i.r22 (19'8): 249 270.
Straus. Murray A,. Sherry L. H a i i ~ b >and
, %'. Loaise W;urein "Statc-to-Stale DiKcrcnccs in Social Inciluality and
Social Bonds in Rclalion to Asi:~ults 011 Wives in lhe
United States." Jo~ir.,~oI
01' C;~i,~~,oi-utii,e
Eirniili Studie.i
25. no. 1 (1994): 7 24.
- .
T / I PConllicr 7bctics Srol<,.s Ilcrrziihook. Los Anecles:
Wcstcrn Psychologifal Services. 2003.
-~
- "Cross-Cultural Reliiibility and Validity of the Revised Conilia TLlctics Scalcs: A Study of University
Srudcnt D;iting Cuiiples iii 17 N;itions." (~ro.s.s-('~~Itur.~d
R~scorclz38. no. 4 (2005): 407432.
Str;ius, Mu1:ray A , . and I~~tcrnaiioilal
Dating Violence Rcsearch Consorti~mm. "Prevalence of Violcrlce Xgainst
Dating Partners hv Male acid Female Uni~ersiii.StudenlsiVorld\vide." IVi<io!e,icr ogiihisr CIIOITIEII 10..no. 7
(2004): 790 4 1 1.
Stelus. Murray A.. and Isnacio 1,uis Ramirez. "Gender Svmmctry in Prcv~ilencc,Severity. and Chronicity o l Pliysicd
Aggression agaiilw Dating Partners by Uiiiinsily Slodcnis in Mexico ~ l o dUSA." A,yxit.,~,sii.eB<,/iiii.ioi.,in prccs.
Straus. Murray A,. and Silrah A. Savage. "Ncgiectful Bchtivior by I'al-slits in rlic Life History of University Stodents in 17 C'ounlUes and Its Rclaiion to Violei>ce
a ~ a i n s t1)atine Partilcrs." Ciiil~i;I(aiti~~~iiri,ir,~t
10. no. 2
(20053: 124 135.
Sugarman. Das'id B.. and Gerald T. H o l i ~ l i o ~
"Intimate
.
Violc~iceand Social Ilcsirability: A Meta-Analytic Rcvic\t'.-' J~,~,rno/<!/'I,!ter{><,r,?o~~o!
l,'i<i/e~!cc12, 110.2 (19963:
275 290.
b
-
-
-
-
CONTROL BALANCE THEORY
AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
introduction
Domestic violence, or intimate partner viole~lce
(IPV). is a conteniporary social problcrn that has
evolved from a husband's legal right to discipline
his wife through physical nieans (Lutze and Syn~ons
2003: 321). Historically; thejudicial system protected
the right oS the husband; however, as the ~vomcn's
movement gained i~ifluence,the courts began to
trcat IPV as tlic sei-ious and pervasive problem that
it is (Lutze and Symo~is2003: 321.324). While st~idics sho\%:that there arc specilic g o u p s who arc victimized with greater frecluency tban others-[or
example. women who arc n ~ e ~ n b e rof
s minority
g r o ~ p s .or those who live in urban arcas (U.S.
Department of Justice 1998: 13-15). IPV is not exclusive. that is. it can affect anyone, regardless of
age, sex, culture. socioeconomic status, or race.
Therefore. society must continue to develop efkctive
means to address violence between partners.
Before solutions can be Sound. the etiology of
the probleni innst be understood. In the case of this
critical issue. criminological thcories should bc
applied
t o better understand IPV and how best to
..
control it. This article applies Charles Tittle's control balance theory to occurrences of dornestic violence; in doing so. it sccks io expiain nor only
inslances of IPV, bnt also victirns' responses to
thc violence that thcy are experiencing and suggests
possible means oS addressing IPV.
Statement of Problem
On March 28. 2003. in a case that garnered widespread media altcntion in Austin. Texas. Ortralla
Mosley was stabbed to death on her high school
campus, and her ex-boyfriend Marcus McTear was
accused oS the crinle (Gilbert 2003). H e was later
sentenccd to a forty-year determinate sentencc
(Smith 2003). In a 2003 r l ~ , s t i ~AI?!CI.~CQIZ
!
St~/e.s~iii~~!
arliclc discussing IPV (Gilbert 2003). Veranda
Escobar mas profiled. She survivcd her riolent rclationship. but not before it left her confined to a
\\:lieelchair. In 2002. Michael Edward Hill was
slabbed to death by his girlfriend in what appeared
to be a n attcmpt by the isoman to defend hersclf
CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
i i m i t a t i o ~ l s~ i c c dt o be coiisidercd w h e n i n t e r p r e t i n g
results from t h e C T S , or w h e n c h o o s i n g an instrum e n t t o m e a s u r e family violence. F o r t u n a t e l y .
t h e r e are coliipreliensive c o t n p e n d i a wliicli describe
o v e r 100 measul-es oT different a s p e c t s o S violeiice
( D a h l b e r g , Toal. a n d B e h r e n s 1998; H a i n b y and
F i n k e l l ~ o r2001: R a t l i u s a n d Peindiei- 2004). T h e y
f,n c '~.h t a t e cxamiiiing alternatives t o t h e CTS or
c h o o s i ~ i ga d d i t i o ~ i a instrtkinents
l
t o measure aspects
of v i o l e ~ i c ct h a t arc n o t covered b y it.
MVKIIAY
A . STR.\I!S
See ai\o Analj~ingIncidents of Domestic Violence:
The National Incident-Bayed Reporting S)stem;
Measuring Domestic 17iolence
References and Further Reading
Aldal-oiido. Etiony, 2nd Mi1r1-ayA. Stlitus. "Screeiiing ibr
Physical Violence in Couple Therapy: Methodological.
PI-acrical. and Ethical Consideratioils." / i i n i i / i Pi.occ.s.s
33 (1994): 425 439.
Arnato. Paul R. "Psvcholo.~ic;~l
llistrcss and the Rcc~tllof
.
Cl~ildiioodFamily CIi:iraclcristics:' .li~ui',iiiiqfJlwi-ioxe
i
F i r 5 ( I I I: 0 I 1019.
Archer. J o h ~ i"Assessmcilt
.
oi'the lteli;ibilit\- o i l b e Conllict
,iitics
. ' , .5..i'i I,..
t\. A Meta-Analytic Revieiv." J~,ri,rii-,iiilof
l ~ ~ i ~ ~ r / ~ ~ ~Viol<,!ic',
r , ~ , i t z14,
i i / no. I2 (1999): 126.3 ~1289.
-. "Sex Differences iii Agpressioii between Heterosesu;rl Partners: A Meta-Analytic Rcvien,.'. P\.i~c/ro/o,yini/
B u / / c ~ i i126.
i ~ no. 5 (2000): 651~~680.
Colcmaii. Dialie 1-1.. and Murmy A. Straus. marital Poiver.
Conllict. and Violence in a Nation;illy Rcpl-eszntativc Sanipie o l Amzrican Coitples." In P i ~ ~ . s i rlio/<,,ice
ul
in .-lnirr-icuii lis?zi/i<~.s,
Editcd by M. A. Stvaus and It. J. Gelles. New
Bn~nswick.NJ: Transaction Publications, 1990.
Dahlbcrg. Linda L.. Susan B. Toiil. ;riid Christopher 13.
Hclircns. .M<raiii-hi,y V i . i o / ~ ~ i ~ r - R cAiriiiiil~~.s.
/ ~ , r ~ ~ ~ Bc/ic/.\.
/
=,
oiid Bclitiviol.; oitioiix youth.^: .4 <h,,iix~ir</iroizi!/'.l.rsrs.rtitriil Toii/.s. Atlcinta: I>ivirion of Violeiicc Prc~cntion.
Nitional Center fol- Injury Preveiilioil and Coiltroi.
Centers lor Discasc Control and I'revciition. 1998.
Dohasli. Emerson R.. and Russell P. Doh;~ili.'Tlie Nature
riiid Anteceilents of Violent Events." Bi-iii.sll .lo~ii.,iii/(if
Ci.i~i~i,iii/ii,yj,
24. no. 3 (1984): 269-288.
Douglas. Emily M., and Murray A. Slraus. ~'.\ssaiiIl anil
li~.ii~ry
ol.Dating Partners by Llni~crsityStudents i n I9
Nations and Its Relation to Corporal Puiiisl~mei~l
Espericnced as a Child." Eni-oiicoii Jo~ii7iii/U/ Ci.ii~iiz010gj..3.
no. 3 (2006): 293-3 18.
Feld. Scott I... and Murray A. Straus. "Escalatioii and
Desistance or Wife Assault in Marriapc..'
Ci.ii,iXio/oci.
"
.,.
27. no. 1 (1989): 141-161.
Gellcs. Richird J. "Phi.sica1 Violence. Child Abuse. and
Child Homicide: ,2 ~ o n t i n u i i mof Violmce. or Distinct
Beha\-iors?" ffiiiiiiiii ~ V t i i ~2.o .110.
~ i (19911: 59 72.
Gclles. Richiird J.. and Murfiiy ,I. Stiaus. Iiithiiutc Vi<>/i.i~c.r.
Ncii- York: Simon & S~.liusrer. 19x8.
Gilcs-Sims. Jean. Wife Boiici-iiig .A S~.sie,.i,i.s Tiieoi).
Ap,~rooch. New Sorl<:Guilli~i-dPress. 1983.
Giics-Sinis. Jcan, bturruy A . Straus. and David B. Sugarmaii.
-'Child. Mateniai iind Fxniiy Cliar;rcterislius Associlitcd
with Spanl~in::'
Fc,irii/j Rc1~riioii.s 44. no. 2 11995):
i 70 176
Hiirnby. Sherry L.. tilid David Finkclhor. (,'/~oo.si,ig iiilii
C,:shig C'iriid T~'icti,iikiiii~iiiQric,siionniiii.<,.s.Washingloi~,
DC: Oflice ol~.luvcnilcJustice and Dclinqucncy I'revention. 2001
Hamby. Sherry L.. and Bernadette Gray-Little. "Labeling
I'ariner Vioicilcc: Wlrrii D o Victims Difiereniiatc among
Acts?" Violiizc(, cY l'irti,~i.s 15. nil. 2 (2000): 173-1 86.
Holtru.orth-Munroe. Aiiiy. :ind GI-egory L. Stuart. "Typologics of Male Battereis: Three Subtypes and the Differ-.
ences among Them." P ~ ~ i . / i o / o , q i iBu//eiiii
~u/
116. no. 3
(1994): 476 497.
Johnson. Michael P.. and Kathlccil J. Fcrraro. 'Reseal-c11
oil Llomcsric Violence i n rhc 1990s: Making Dislinctioils." .IOlli.ilii/ O/ Iri(ii.i.i(rg(, iiiid tire F'ii~ii/y 62. no. 4
(20001: 948- Yh3.
Johnston. Mildred E. "Correlates of E:irly I'iolence Expercncc arnonf Mcn Wlio Arc Abusive toa.al-d Fernale
Mares." In Fu,i?ih. l h i i ~ euni/ Its C~iii.s?i/iieiir.<i:Xwt.
I1irri.iioir.s i ~ iRr,seoi-d~,edited by G . T. Hoialing. D.
Finkclhor. J. T. Kirkniltrick and M.i\. Slraris. Newbun.
Cry: Sage. 1988.
Laneliiiiricliscii-Rol~li~~e.
Jennifer. .'Toi> I0 Gre:ttest 'Hits':
"
Important Findings and Futuis Dircciioris for lnlimate
Pi~rtrier Violence Research." Jo~rr.tio/"f liiirrpei..so,io/
t"io/nicc 20. no. 1 (2005): 108 118.
I,ai-oche. Denis. "Aspects o l t h c Contest and Conscilucnces
o f Domestic Violellee--Sililatio~i;~lCouple Violeiice anil
Illtimate Terrorism in C,iriada in 1999." Government of
Quebec. 2005.
McGuir. Jacilueiine. iind Felton Earls. "Exploring liie
Reliahilily o l Mcasures o i F:~mily Rcltitons. I'arental
Atlitudcs, and Parent-Child Relations in a Disadv.rilcaged Minority Popul;~tion.".Iniii.iirrii~/'.Wiii.i~i~igc
mid !lie
Fri,iii/)' 55 (1993): 1042l016.
Murph). Christopher M.. ii~idK. Daniel O'Leary. "Psychologiml Agpression Predicts Physical 4ggrcssion i n Early
Marriage." Ji>~ii.,zo/of <:oiii~tiihigoticl C/inicu/ P l i . c / i o / ~ c j , 5:. no. 5 (1989): 579 5 8 1
l < ~ t t l ~ Jill
i ~ s ,H., and Evil I-. Feintllcr. A,~,s~~.s,s~~i~~rii
ofPuri,ier
Violiiici~.W~~sliington.
13C: A~liel-icanPsychological 4 s sockation. 2004.
S t s r
A. "A Geocfiil Systems Theory Approasli to a rhcory of Violence betu.eeil Family
Members." Social S<.ioiccIii/,,niiiiiioii 12. inn, 3 (1973):
-
., .-...
Il>i~-l?i
,
B i / ~ / i ~ ~ ~ uric/
r c ! [TUIIL~/U,.
~ i i ~ S r t , ~ , m , ~of
j l't~/~ii~~~lio~~.
ihr R<,i,isni Coiiflici 7iicii<:i Scu/~~.sICTS? iind
CT.YP(,'j. Durham. NH: Family Rese;ircIi Lc~boratory.
oii
Uilivtrsily of New H~~mpsliire.
2005.
wehsitc. Iirrp:~.1~iih~,agc~.~nh.cduI-niits2
(acccsscd
August 15. 2006).
Strnus. Murray A.. and Emily M. Ilougias. ' A Sliol-t Form
ol' the Rcviscd Conllict Tactics Sc.iles. and T ~ n o l "o ~ i e s
for Se\'eriry 2nd Muruality.' I,'io/~.iiceii,ri/ lVitiii~i.s 19.
110. 5 (2004): 507 520.
Stiaus. Murray A . :ind Kicli:~rdJ. Gelles. P/ij~.sicoil"io/i,izc~
iii i,iiwicnii F i i ~ ~ i i / i <Ri,s/i
~ s : Fncior.~uiid ,zl~/~ij,iiiiioii.s
lo
i,'iolei1cr in 8.145 F c ~ ~ ~ i i /N
i ~c~n. sBrunsivick.
.
N.1: Tra~isacrio:~Publications. I99O.
Straus, Mi~rfily A . and Sherry L. Hamby. "Measuriiig
Physical and Psychologiciil M;~llreatment oS Childre~i
with the Colillict T:idics Scales." In Oui i,/'ihr Doi-hn~.r.s:
< ' ~ ~ ~ i r ~ ~ ~Rcreorch
i i ~ x ~ i . uP~~i-,sjircrii~~.s
r,~
o,, l-iiiijili. Vio/<,iicr,