Biased assimilation, belief
perseverance, group think and
the DV paradigm
Sacramento, CA. Feb 16, 2008
The human understanding when it has adopted an opinion
draws all things else to support and agree with it. And
though there may be a greater number and weight of
instances to be found on the other side, yet these it
either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction
sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and
pernicious predetermination the authority of its former
conclusion may remain inviolate.
----- Francis Bacon : The New Organon and Related Writings
(1620).
The Woozle Effect



Langley & Levy 1977, (Wife Beating: the Silent Crisis)
reported that half the women in the US were abused and
cited a Gelles & Straus study as the basis for their
inappropriately extrapolated statistic but the study had
been conducted in a shelter.
In 1980, Linda Macleod published a book called Wife
Battering in Canada: The Vicious Circle in which she
claimed (p.21), every year 1 in ten Canadian women in a
relationship are battered.
The first Canadian domestic violence incidence survey
was done in 2000. MacLeod’s figure was apparently
based on the proportion of women that a shelter in
Windsor, Ontario said they had to turn away.
Beyond Woozle


Arias et al. (2002), quoting Stets & Straus
(1992a) as a source, claimed “women were
seven to fourteen times more likely to report that
intimate partners had beaten them up, choked
them, threatened them with weapons, or
attempted to drown them”. (p. 157).
Of course, Stets & Straus say no such thing.
There is no action by action analysis reported
(such as choking or drowning) and they
conclude that male and female violence rates
are identical.
Beyond Woozle
Neil Jacobson on Oprah: there are 2 kinds
of male abusers: cobras and pitbulls
 (to sell his book, When Men Batter
Women, Jacobson and Gottman 1998)

The Current Climate
ABA Website – 85% of perpetrators are
male
 American Psychologist (Bornstein 2006)
“studies indicate that more than 95% of
abuse perpetrators are men” (p.595).

The Paradigm
all IPV (intimate partner violence) is male
perpetrated “95%”
 Also “normative “ (Dobash & Dobash) to
sustain male dominance
 Female IPV is self defense or preemptive
strikes -> still originates in male Hx of
abuse


Feminist Sociology: Power & Control

As Dobash and Dobash (1979) put it,
"Men who assault their wives are
actually living up to cultural
prescriptions that are cherished in
Western society--aggressiveness, male
dominance and female subordination-and they are using physical force as a
means to enforce that dominance" (p.
24).
Main Beliefs






All male battering is for “power and control” and
instrumental
All female violence is self defensive, therefore, couples
therapy is ruled out, too dangerous for women
Male violence escalates if unchecked, hence, males
need to be more “accountable”.
Male violence is “normal violence” therefore, therapy is
not warranted.
Focuses on confrontation of sexist beliefs which “cause
violence” and “male privilege”
Source: Pence & Paymar (1993) Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth
Model (Springer).
Main Beliefs 2
All “psychological causes” of IPV in males
are excuses
 All forms of couples interaction causes are
“blaming the victim”

Feminist Sociology: Power & Control
(Yllo & Straus 1990)




Focus on male violence (in general) towards
women
Patriarchy: Male violence as “normal” control
Emphasis on gender relations and power
Bograd (1988) “All feminist researchers, clinicians,
and activists address a primary question: “Why do
men beat their wives?”…why men in general use
physical force against their partners and what
functions this serves for a given society “
Impact on Court Mandated “Intervention” (not
Treatment )
“Using slavery, a colonial relationship, or
an oppressively structured workplace as
an example, the facilitator can draw a
picture of the consciousness of
domination”.
 – E. Pence and M. Paymar, Education
Groups for Men who Batter: The Duluth
Model, p.49. ( see RDV chapter 14)

Where did the “paradigm”
originate?


“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to
Marxism…the molding, direction, and
expression of sexuality organizes society into
two sexes: women and men. This division
underlies the totality of social relations. “
---- Catherine MacKinnon,
Toward a feminist theory of the state (p. 3)


MacKinnon CA. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard
University Press.: Cambridge , Massachusetts, 1989.
Corvo and Johnson (2003)

the bedrock view of feminist thought “that
battering (by males) is NEVER... provoked,
hereditary, out of control, accidental, an isolated
incident. It is not caused by disease, diminished
intellect, alcoholism/addiction, mental illness or
any external person or event. It is a means for
men to systematically dominate, disempower,
control and devalue women…. it is greater than
an individual act, it supports the larger goal of
oppression of women”
Normative?
Acceptance of wife assault is not
normative
 Only 2% of North American men agree
with “ its’ ok to hit your wife to keep her in
line” (Simon et al 2001, n = 5238+)
 Most marriages are not patriarchal – only
9.4 % of North American marriages are
“male dominant” ( Coleman and Straus
1986)

More buts
Violence rates in victim surveys using the
CTS show equivalent levels of violence
 This is true even when level of severity is
assessed (Stets and Straus 1989/92)
 In younger age samples, female violence
rates are higher than male rates
(Whittaker, Morse, Capaldi)

The rejoinder
CTS surveys take the violence “out of
context”
 Contextual patterns of domination are still
exclusively male
 However, when “context” ( control,
motives for IPV) is measured too, the
differences are not so black and white (
LaRoche 2005, Follingstad 2002)

Lesbian Violence





Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships
reported on past relationships with both men
and women.
Past relationships with women were more
abusive
Sample = 1099 in Phoenix
Violence rates higher than in heterosexual
relationships
Suggest intimacy is a factor (and psychological
problems that are triggered by intimacy)
Belief perseverance


Lord, Lepper and Ross (1979) : Stanford study
found that when presented with research
contradicting our beliefs (in this case on the
deterrence effect of capital punishment) , we are
more likely to disparage the methodology than
when it confirms our beliefs
Ss judged research methods less acceptable
when results contradicted their beliefs
(regardless of whether they were pro or anti
capital punishment)
Belief Perseverance 2
In IPV studies, this has taken the form of
criticizing the CTS as failing to assess
“context”
 “context” is taken to mean instrumental
use of violence, controlling violence, self
defense
 But the CTS is 16X as sensitive as “crime
victim” surveys and context has been
assessed (see below)

So how does the paradigm
survive?
1) don’t ask, don’t tell
 2) ecological fallacy
 3) cherry pick the data
 4) drop female violence from analyses
 5) the “crime data” problem
 6) “evidence “ by citation

How does the paradigm survive? 1
1) don’t ask, don’t tell
 - surveys of women’s victimization, and of
men’s perpetration
 Initially only government survey (VAWS)
was presented as a survey of criminal
victimization of women

Method 1
VAWS survey often cited as evidence for
“male violence” but
 Straus 1999 survey found VAWS only 1/16
as sensitive as CTS surveys
 CTS surveys generate equivalent rates of
violence by gender
 “context” issue – self defense,
instrumental violence equal by gender

Incidence of IPV
“victim surveys” (e.g. VAWS) generate low
baseline reports of victimization but show
a gender difference in victimization rate
 E.g. the VAWS (US) .03% (for males) and
1.1% (for females)
 Advocates like to cite “males are 3X as
violent as females” – its .03 vs 1.1 %
 Actually, these surveys have filters-> need
to define IPV as crime and self as victim

Hence
Men had filters on answering that they
were “crime victim” in a survey of crimes
against women
 Generated a low report rate from both
genders but especially men


Incidence data
Are typically seen and interpreted as
unilateral victimization
 E.g. if “repeat severe violence” is reported
by 8% of US women are they all “battered
women”?

Battering
Repeat, severe, male perpetrated
violence is what we typically call battering
 “wife battering” is this type of violence
perpetrated by the male
 What would “husband battering “ be?
 How about the use of severe violence
against a non-violent man
 What about bilateral violence of equal
severity?

Reality check 1
Stets and Straus
 Archer
 Whittaker
 LaRoche

Stets and Straus 1989/92
Examined 1985 US National survey data,
focusing on violence levels in married
couples vs. couples from other survey who
were cohabitating or dating
 Females more likely to use unilateral
violence than males n= 5005 married
couples, 526 dating couples, 237
cohabiting couples

Stets and Straus 1989/92




Data showed that when any violence was
reported on a CTS survey,
10% of those married couples reporting
(married) and 13% of cohabitating couples
reported females using severe violence when
male partner was non-violent (husband
battering)
Reverse pattern (wife battering) was 6% -7%
So husband battering was about double wife
battering
Stets and Straus 1992 Table 13.2 with violence levels
Archer Psychological Bulletin 2000
Most comprehensive study of IPV by
gender ever done
 Meta-analysis, combined all previous
studies into 1 combined analysis
 Overall sample size was 64000+
 Calculated a measure (d’) that estimates
the difference size in terms of a standard
deviation (d’ =1 is 1 sd difference)

Meta analytic study of sex differences in aggression
(Archer 2000)
N men


violence

N women
Effect Size
30,434
34, 053
- .05*
Injury
7,011
7,531
.15

Medical treatment
4,936
6,323
.08

* women slightly more likely to be violent
Archer Key Findings
Women are slightly more likely than men
to use intimate violence d’ = .05
 Women are slightly more likely than men
to be injured d’ = .15
 d’ = .15 is about 1/6 of a standard
deviation difference

CDC (Centers for Disease Control) 2007






Whittaker et al (2007) US national study
n = 11,370 age 18-28 National Longitudinal
Study on Adolescent Health (representative
cohort sample)
24% reported some IPV using the CTS 2
Of those, half were reciprocal (49.7%)
Of those unilateral, 70% of perpetrators were
female
Most female injury resulted from reciprocal IPV
Whittaker 2007

Regarding injury, men were more likely to
inflict injury than were women and
reciprocal intimate partner violence
was associated with greater injury than
was nonreciprocal intimate partner
violence regardless of the gender of the
perpetrator
Conclusion of incidence studies
Most common form of IPV is mutual
(Whittaker- 50%, Stets and Straus – 4852%)
 Second most common form is female
perpetrated (Whittaker 35%, S&S 28%)
 Third most common form is male
perpetrated (wife battering) (Whittaker –
15%, S&S 22%)

Not just Reporting

In surveys, using representative
community samples, the same results are
obtained regarding relative frequency of
male and female violence, regardless of
whether the respondent is male or female
(Stets & Straus 1992; Douglas & Straus
2003), hence, lack of agreement by
gender is a non-issue.
so


1989 (n=5,000+)
2007 (n=11,000)
Stets and Straus Whittaker et al.

Both
50%
50%

Female only 28%
35%

Male only
22%
15%
Limitations of Feminist Position
Female intimate violence more frequent than
male (Archer 2001)
2. Female violence against non-violent males
(Stets & Straus 1990) is not “self defense”
3. Lesbian abuse/violence greater than
heterosexual male violence (Lie et al. 1991)
4. “Male dominance” in only 9.4% of American
Families (Coleman & Straus 1985) based on
“final say” measures.
1.
Reaction
Reaction to the CTS surveys criticized the
the reporting of conflict tactics out of
context
 i.e. that women were exposed to more
instrumental forms of violence (patriarchal
terrorism: M. Johnson, 1995)
 Also argued that male violence was
“qualitatively different” (e.g. instrumental
vs. defensive)

Canadian General Social Survey




Canadian General Social Survey of
25, 876 respondents, equally split by gender.
In this survey (Laroche, 2005) the “crime victim”
filter was dropped and the focus was on
“perceptions of crime”.
654,000 (8% of all Canadian women) women
and 546,000 (7%) men reported being physically
abused at least once in last 5 years
LaRoche
intimate terrorism described by
Johnson (1995) : repeat, severe,
instrumental violence by partner
 was measured by questionnaire in
this survey
 Reported by 2.6% of men and 4.2%
of women
 In Canadian GSS Survey of 2004.

In other words





The intimate partners of 95.8% of men and
97.4% of women say they do not use
instrumental intimate violence
So, why then is gender given the weight that it
is?
There may be some stereotypical cases of IPV
that are gender non-reversible
But are they a small minority of cases?
Are our policies “drift net” approaches to these
cases?
Motives for IPV

Instrumental use of IPV by females
contradicts the feminist view that all
female IPV is for self-defense
Is female violence self defense?
DeKeseredy & Schwartz (1998) in a
survey of young adults found that
 62.3% of women said their violence
perpetration was never in self defence
 6.9% said it was always in self defence.
 The authors concluded that female
violence was “self- defensive” !!!!!

When “mistakes” occur

When “mistakes” occur repeatedly in the
framing of research questions, the
selection of which research findings are
important or the actual interpretation of the
data, it raises the question of whether
these are just “mistakes”
Self Defense
Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, and Sebastian
(1991) asked undergraduate subjects in
South Carolina about assault experiences
 of the total sample of 495
 115 respondents reported they had been
victimized by a partner using physical
force
 their perceptions of their assaulters’ and
their own motivations were assessed.

Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, and Sebastian (1991)


Women reported being victimized and
perpetrating physical aggression twice as often
as men.
Furthermore, a greater percentage of women
than men reported using aggression to feel
more powerful (3.4% vs. 0), to get control
over the other person (22.0% vs. 8.3%), or to
punish the person for wrong behavior (16.9%
vs. 12.5%).
Douglas and Straus (2006)
Was the Follingstad et al data atypical?
 Douglas and Straus Examined partner
violence in a college student sample in 19
countries (n = 9549)
 On average female partner violence was
21% higher incidence than male partner
violence

NIJ Study of Coercive Control

Development and Validation of a Coercive
Control Measure for Intimate Partner Violence:
Final Technical Report

N= 757 - found equal coercive control by
gender

Author(s): Mary Ann Dutton ; Lisa Goodman ; R. James
Schmidt (2006)
Dutton (M.A.), Goodman & Schmidt
A valid measure of nonviolent coercive
control was developed
 The validity of the coercive control
measure was assessed in a sample that
included both males (n=302) and females
(n=448)
 Victimization was equal by gender

Who struck first?




Fiebert & Gonzalez(1997)- 29% of sample of
968 college age women in California reported
initiating assaults on male partner.
Bland and Orn (1986) telephone survey
conducted in Canada: Of the women who
reported using violence against their husbands,
73.4% said they used violence first.
Stets & Straus (1992a) reported that females
said they struck first 52.7% of the time
Gondolf (2006) – 40% of female partners of men
in court mandated therapy said they (the female)
had struck first
Who fights back?




Stets and Straus
if assaulted by their partner:
25% of women
15% of men hit back
Method 2: Ecological Fallacy


Draw Ss male S populations from courtmandated treatment groups of female
populations from transition houses -> then
generalize to the entire population without
mentioning the selection factors that make these
distinct populations
Example Jaffe, Lemon & Poisson (2003) and
Bancroft (2002) draw conclusions based on
these populations for custody assessors
How does the paradigm survive? 2
citing self selected samples and then
generalizing to society as a whole

- JCC papers: Jaffe , Bancroft


Domestic Violence and Child
Custody





Books intended for custody assessors by Jaffe
and Bancroft cite data drawn from shelter
houses (Jaffe) and BIP’s (Bancroft)
And then generalize to the entire population
Both use “he” =“batterer”
And “she” – victim
What Kahneman and Tversky (1982) call a
“representative heuristic” is developed; batterers
have the attributes of maleness, and they alone
pose a risk to the child.
Even worse
Both suggest that if the woman is battered,
the children will be too
 Cite 40% overlap of wife/child abuse
 No mention of the possibility of female
spouse/child abuse is made in either book
 Jaffe dismissed violence toward men in 1
paragraph as “qualitatively different”

Even worse
Warn the assessor to expect the batterer
to be in denial and lie -> blueprint for a
witchhunt (batterer will be male and will lie
– guilt by gender)
 This material is given to judges who must
make these decisions:
 State Justice Institute. Navigating Custody
and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with
Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide

Judges Guide

The Family Violence Department of the
National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges (NCJFCJ)

Cites Peter G. Jaffe et al., Common Misconceptions in
Addressing Domestic Violence in Child Custody
Disputes, 54 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 57 (2003).
Promotes view that male is sole perpetrator, if wife
abuse then child abuse, etc.

Reality Check
The actual overlap of physical wife/child
abuse is 6%
 actual rate is 6%: in “community samples”
(Appel & Holden 1998: occurs mainly for
least violent items (e.g. slapped))

Real Risks to Children

Statistically what are the real risk sources
for children?
McDonald, Jouriles et al (2006)
Sampled 1615 dual parent households
 Main focus was on exposure to violence
by children but reported violence by
severity and gender of perpetrator.
 Used multi- stage probability sample
 Response rate of 85%

McDonald et al (2006)



















Table 1
Prevalence of Partner-Violent Acts Committed During the Past Year Within Couples
and Separately for Men and Women
Violent act
Couple
Male-to-female
Female-to-male
1. Threw something
12.9
4.9
11.6
2. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved 15.6
11.2
12.2
3. Slapped
6.8
2.5
5.6
4. Kicked, bit, or hit
4.9
1.8
4.3
5. Hit or tried to hit with something 6.4
2.0
5.6
6. Beat up
0.8
0.5
0.3
7. Choked
0.9
0.7
0.3
8. Burned or scalded
0.5
0.3
0.1
9. Forced sex
1.0
0.7
0.6
10. Threatened with a knife or gun 1.1
0.4
0.9
11. Used a knife or gun
0.4
0.3
0.1
Any violence
21.45
13.66
18.20
Severe violence
8.64
3.63
7.52
Note. Any violence one or more of items 1–11 reported; severe violence one or more of items
4–11 reported.
2 conclusions from study





1 having children was a risk factor for IPV
(presence of children upped the rate amongst
couples reporting violence to 59% from 41%)
2 children were more exposed to violence from
mothers
4.3% exposed to severe male to female
violence
11.4% exposed to severe female to male
violence
Health Canada Survey

study of 135, 573 child maltreatment
investigations conducted by Health
Canada and Published by the National
Clearing House on Family Violence
(Trocme and al. 2001)

The data tell a very different picture than
that presented by the paradigmatic studies
by Jaffe and Bancroft.
Data on Risk to Children: Health Canada 2001
This is a study of 135, 573 child
maltreatment investigations conducted by
Health Canada and Published by the
National Clearing House on Family
Violence (Trocme and al. 2001).
 The study designates the abuse type as
physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect,
emotional maltreatment and “multiple
categories”.

Data on Risk to Children: Health Canada 2001
Biological mothers (as compared to
biological fathers) are the more likely
substantiated perpetrator of
 physical abuse (47 vs. 42%),
 neglect (86% vs. 33%),
 emotional maltreatment (61% vs. 55%)
 and multiple categories (66% vs. 36%).
 The biological father is the most likely
perpetrator of sexual abuse (15% vs. 5%).

US National Survey on Child Maltreatment : Health
and Human Services Report 2004

Children's Bureau Statistics and Research Report

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.html
Sample size 718,948
 For 2004, 57.8 percent of the perpetrators
were women and 42.2 percent were men.

Types of Maltreatment

During 2004, 62.4 percent of victims experienced
neglect, 17.5 percent were physically abused, 9.7
percent were sexually abused, 7.0 percent were
psychologically maltreated, and 2.1 percent were
medically neglected.5
In addition, 14.5 percent of victims experienced such
"other" types of maltreatment as "abandonment,"
"threats of harm to the child," or "congenital drug
addiction."
Source: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.html

Health and Human Services


Health and Humans Services Report
HHS
Of all children under age 5 murdered from
1976-2004 - 31% were killed by fathers
 30% were killed by mothers
 23% were killed by male acquaintances
 7% were killed by other relatives
 3% were killed by strangers

Custody assessments are forensic assessments



the American Psychological Association
Guidelines for forensic evaluation summarised in
Weissman and DeBow (2003).
The forensic evaluation must begin with a
“cognitive set and evaluative attitude” of the
assessor that is “neutral, objective and
detached” (p. 39).
The gender paradigm (Jaffe et al, Bancroft et al,
etc) make adherence to this principle
impossible.
Method 3 Cherry picked Data

Morse
US National Youth Survey Morse 1995



Barbara Morse (1995) reported data from the
U.S. National Youth Survey (NYS), a longitudinal
study of self reported problem behavior involving
a national probability sample of 1,725
respondents.
Violence was measured using the eight-item
subscale from the CTS, injury was also
assessed.
For the years 1983, 1986, 1989, and 1992,
female to male violence and severe violence
was about double the rate of male to female
violence and severe violence.
Morse

To demonstrate, in 1992 female to male severe
violence was reported by 13.8% of respondents,
male to female by 5.7% (Morse, 1995, Table 1,
p. 255).

There was little or no change in the ratio of
female to male vs. male to female violence over
the years, with slightly over twice as much
female initiated as male initiated violence.
Morse (1995)
Frequency of “severe violence” by women
is double that of men (table 3)
 “used knife or gun” 4 X as frequent for
women (4.3% vs. .1%)

Morse 1995

e Morse concludes “men were more
likely than women to beat up their
partner during the course of a year”
Actual data: men: 2% did it 3.3. times

women: .9% did it 1.3 times
 Why pick 1 action?
 Why generalize to “men” from 2%

Method 4: Drop female violence
from equation
Wolfe and Reitzel-Jaffe, Gondolf,
Jacobson et al (UW) – study male
predictors of “dating violence” and
“treatment outcome” without assessing
whether female in couple is violent
 BUT Douglas & Straus (2006) – females
at UWO ( Jaffe’s sample) used 171% as
much IPV as males

Dropping Female Violence
Gondolf- 40% of female partners of men in
court mandated treatment said they (the
women) initiated IPV
 Jacobson et al (1994) 40% of the partners
of violent men used severe violence
tactics on the CTS but were not the focus
of the research.

Gondolf
Performed a multi-site study of predictors
of recidivism after BIP (psychoeducational)
 Focused only on individual aspects of men


(Gondolf, 1996, 1999, 2000a,b; Gondolf &
Jones, 2001; Jones & Gondolf, 2002)
Gondolf 2


As is typical with the gender paradigm, his research questions focus
on male violence, and whether or nor the men in these programs
have violent female partners is de-emphasized.
However, even through this filter the following data emerged:

“66% of the women reported being physically aggressive toward
their partners prior to the initial arrest” and 15% were also arrested
when the man was, 25% were heavy drinkers, 40% had hit the man
first (Gondolf, 1996, p. 39–40).

www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/gondolf/batchar.html

The missing other half
Gender paradigm studies routinely ignore
and discount female violence.
 Was female violence included then in the
Gondolf's structural model used to predict
recidivism (Jones & Gondolf, 2002)?
 No,although 40% of the men had wives
who “hit them first” and the overall
recidivism rates was 40%.

Method 4: Jacobson et al
Jacobson et al reported “cobras and pit
bulls” (male batterers types on Oprah
Winfrey)
 But “according to the wives themselves,
almost half (28 / 57) would have
qualified for the DV group if wife
violence had been the criterion”
(Jacobson et al., 1994, p. 983).

Jacobson et al




No measures were taken of the wives' use of
violence and all independent variables focused
on male violence as though it were being
produced unilaterally in all relationships (even
though it clearly was not).
In fact females in sample used more aversive
acts in interaction than did males ( Cordova et al
1993)
But study had been reported and publicized
(Oprah)as example of “male violence”
Book is called When Men Batter Women
(Jacobson and Gottman)
Risk prediction: why include females?
Longitudinal studies (Serbin, Capaldi)
found “assortative mating” – aggressive
women (assessed in Grade 1) and again
in teens, more likely to
 1) aggress against male partner in late
teens, early twenties
 2) choose violent male partner
 3) have children who make more
emergency visits for injuries

Why include females?
The inclusion of females in risk prediction
has been categorically ruled out as “victim
blaming”
 This overlooks the data that say female
violence may contribute to overall risk of
continuing violence in couple
 Also “risk prediction” based solely on male
characteristics is not very accurate

Method 5: The “crime data “
problem
Crime Data





Police reports skew gender differences because
males do not call as frequently for IPV
males call only 1/3 to 1/10 as often as do
females
Stets and Straus (1992) females called 10X as
frequently
LaRoche : for Canada Laroche found males
6%, females 16%
but even when called , police are less likely to
arrest a female ( Brown 2004)
Males Calling Police
Males call less (Stets and Straus 1989 1%) because they are unlikely to be taken
seriously by police (Brown, Buzawa)
 Brown (2004) found that even injured
males were unlikely to have their female
perpetrator-partner arrested

Brown 2004





traced outcome of 2044 cases of domestic
violence to Edmonton police
When male injured, female charged 60% of time
When female injured, male charged 90% of time
When male calls but not injured, female charged
13.2% of time
When female calls but not injured, male charged
52.5% of time.
Hence
All statistics based on criminal justice
system data re self-selected for male
violence
 They inflate ratios of male to female
perpetrators

Method 5a: data inflation
Certain items inflate rates of “violence”
against women
 Gilbert (2005) mary Koss included
“attempted unwanted sex” in survey of
campus rape
 Rape rates project to 3000 per year at
Berkeley
 But 40-80 per year seel guidance from
rape counseling center, 2 report to police

Method 5a
When Koss’ victims were asked directly,
 73% who had had attempted unwanted
sex did not believe they had been aped
 42% had sex later with the man who
“raped “ them
 The latest CDC report (Feb 2008) included
this item as part of a measure of IPV
 “threatened, attempted or completed
physical violence or unwanted sex”

Method 5a
Rates of IPV to women now exceeded
those to men
 in contrast to Whittaker’s study that did not
use this measure
 ABA website uses “reports to police” as
true measure of incidence of DV, even in
custody cases

Dutton :RDV
47/47 studies made methodological errors
in the direction of favoring the paradigm
 0/47 made errors in the opposite direction

Violence Distributions According
to the Paradigm
Violence Distributions According
to the Data
Method 6 “Evidence” by Citation
Dekeseredy cites Jaffe, Dobash, Gondolf
who all mutually cite each other
 Worse still the ABA Website cites the APA
Website cites the National Judicial training
Institute on the issue of abusive men
seeking and getting sole custody


The problem: there are no data/empirical
studies on this issue
Main “spins” put on dv data





1) sample questions biased (VAWS)
2) ecological fallacy: selected sample (transition
house females, BIP males) generalized to entire
population (e.g. Jaffe et al, Bancroft, Dobash
&Dobash 2004, others)
3) data “cherry picked” (e.g. Morse)
4) data mis reported (e.g. Dekeseredy)
5) female violence not measured, included in
“prediction” (e.g. Gondolf)
Main “spins” put on dv data

6) citation circles – author a cites b cites c
cites a as “evidence”

Usually Dekeseredy-> Jaffe -> Dobash->
Gondolf-> Dekersedy (repeat) -> Kimmel

Paradigm journals now exist: i.e. Violence
Against Women
The gender bias

Studies of police, psychologists
(Follingstad et al 2004) and the general
public (Sorensen et al 2005) all show that
the same action is more likely to be seen
as abusive if it is performed by a man
rather than a woman e.g. asking a partner
where he (or she) has been
Hence

1) Police (arrest stats) and what follows
from arrest (e.g. court-mandated
treatment groups) severely underestimate
female aggression
2) if a male in a court-mandated
“psychoeducational” group mentions that
his partner is violent- he is accused of
“victim blaming”
Paradigm perseverance
Research that still finds males more
violent than females is always based on
either court-mandated treatment or
transition house samples
 It routinely overlooks the fact that the
criminal justice system disproportionately
is called more by female victims, responds
more aggressively with female victims,
arrests males more frequently

One Size Fits All



Police arrest, victim services, court policies and
psycho-educational intervention are all based on
the 5.7% of married males and 7.3% of
cohabiting males who use severe violence
against their wives -> this has become a
stereotype for all forms on IPV
But that is 5.7-7.3 % of everyone who reported
IPV- what about the other patterns?
Female severe assault against a non-violent
male partner (husband battering) is 2X as
frequent as the reverse (wife battering)
A New reality Check
Longitudinal Studies
What’s coming next
 Female IPV in younger samples is
increasing (eg Whittaker 2007) national
sample of 18-28 year olds
 Female IPV is predictable from their
developmental trajectory, starting at Grade
1 (Serbin 2006)

Higher Incidence of female violence in younger populations
is consistently found
Ehrensaft- New York sample
 Capaldi- Oregon youth survey
 Douglas & Straus (2003) dating violence
survey in 37 countries
 Moffitt, Magdol – Dunedin, New Zealand
study


All studies find that personality disturbance
is more important predictor than gender
Personality Disorders
Now found to be the main predictor of IPV
 Ehrensaft, Moffitt (NEM)
 Longitudinal studies (Capaldi, Serbin)

Concordia Longitudinal project




Started in 1976, followed children into adulthood
Aggressive children of both sexes had lower IQ’s
and academic achievement than comparison
controls (n = 4109).
Both were more physically aggressive during
play.
Girls aggression was associated with a
preference for male partners who were also
aggressive.
Concordia Study




As they approached adolescence, the
aggressive girls had
1) elevated rates of smoking, alcohol and illicit
drug use and
2) “continue(d) to seek out behaviorally
compatible peer groups, probably comprised of
boys and girls with similar aggressive or
“predelinquent” behavioral styles” (p. 268).
3)The aggressive group had elevated levels of
depression and anxiety disorder by late teens.
Concordia Longitudinal project




4) When they married their children had higher
health risks (p. 272) and
5) the Aggressive girls had become Aggressive
mothers, exhibiting maternal childhood
aggression and having children who had more
visits to the ER, specifically for treatment of
injuries.
indicates that these women will be select
aggressive men and contribute to the intracouple aggression.
Called “assortative mating”
Was the Concordia study an
anomaly?
Capaldi (Oregon)
 Moffitt, Magdol ( Dunedin: New Zealand)
 Ehrensaft ( New York State)
 Morse ( US National Sample)
 All found longitudinal peer cohort data
where female IPV exceeded male IPV
 Female adult IPV was predictable from
earlier factors ( violence, personality
disorder)

The conclusions
Females commit more IPV than males,
especially in younger populations (Archer,
Douglas & Straus)
 Females are hurt more often but are not
the exclusive victims ( Archer, others)
 Males are not more controlling ( Felson &
Outlaw)
 DV does not escalate if left unchecked
(Feld & Straus 1992)

The conclusions 2



IPV has many patterns (bilateral, female
perpetrated)
paradigm of male domination is a stereotype
that does not represent the majority of IPV cases
( Stets and Straus found that 5.7% of IPV was
male severe- female none used once, about 2/3
of all 1 time IPV is repeated, therefore about
3.8% fits the stereotype)
The Canadian Social Survey found 4.2% were
male perpetrated and instrumental (over 5
years)
Personality Disorders 2
Males convicted of spouse assault have
high incidences of personality disorder
 Typically antisocial or borderline


Females convicted of spouse assault have
same personality disorder peaks (Moffitt,
Magdol, Henning)
Borderline PD in Males
Dutton (1994-2006) Borderline PD,
insecure attachment, trauma exposure
lead to IPV in large subsample of males in
treatment for spouse assault
 Mauricio et al confirmed this finding

Borderline PD in Females
Henning , Jones and Holford (2003):
 Women in IPV treatment 5 times as likely
as males to have BPD
 Hughes et al (2007) in sample of 103 court
mandated women, borderline features
were associated with IPV perpetration

NEM (Moffitt et al 2001)
Longitudinal study of peer cohort in new
Zealand (the Dunedin sample)
 Similarities in anti social behavior for girls
and boys outweighed the differences


Source: Sex Differences in Anti-social Behavior

T. Moffitt, A. Caspi, M.Rutter, P.Silva. Cambridge U Press
NEM (Negative Emotionality)

Moffitt et al found that “Negative Emotionality”
predicted abusiveness in both genders.

Negative Emotionality was measured by 49 true false
items from the Multidimensional Personality
Questionairre (Tellengen & Waller 2001).
These in turn measured:
1) reactions to stress “I often get irritated at little
annoyances”.
2) experience of emotion “ Sometimes I feel strong
emotions like anxiety or anger without knowing why”
3) expectations of others “ Most people stay friendly
only so long as it is to their advantage”
4) attitudes towards using aggression “When someone
hurts me, I try to get even”





NEM

Negative emotionality measured in women
at age 15 predicted their use of violence
towards an intimate other at age 21
regardless of whether that person fought
back or not.
ASPD in Mothers
ASPD in mothers is correlated with
children’s being maltreated
 Julia Kim-Cohen at Yale has published
data on this relationship
 Lisa Serbin in the Concordia longitudinal
study has found these high risk mothers
are predictable from early adolescence
 CD girls become mothers whose children
have more emergency room visits

Personality Disorders
Now found to be the main predictor of IPV
 Ehrensaft, Moffitt
 Longitudinal studies (Capaldi, Serbin)
 Also relevant in custody – some
developing research showing PD (NPD,
Borderline PD, ASPD) in either parent
related to externalizing and internalizing
behaviors in children

Our Current View of IPV

Based on groupthink, group polarization
along gender group lines

Males are the “outgroup” -> violent,
controlling, warlike

Females are the ingroup -> gentle, nonviolent
Group Polarization: Attitudes Shift to extreme in “like minded” groups




1) interaction produces generation of new ideas
supportive of group norm -> in groups where ideas are
received passively, polarization is less
2) people attempt to present themselves favorably to
others, generate persuasive arguments in socially
desirable direction
3) Group schema: a complex of ideas, information shifts
to the extreme, becomes dogma, ideology-> this then
becomes the new social reality -> informational influence
is provided from within this framework
4) groupthink – when group must develop position under
perceived threat
Groupthink (Janis 1972)

“ a mode of thinking that people engage in
when they are deeply involved in a cohesive ingroup, when members strivings for unanimity
override their motivation to realistically appraise
alternative courses of action”
 (Wrightsman & Deaux, p. 463)

-> studied failed/successful US foreign policy decisions
( e.g. bay of Pigs, Cuban missile Crisis)
Groupthink













Occurs when:
1)highly cohesive group (selected for unanimity)
2)insulated from independent judgments
3)perceived threat (or injustice)
Symptoms:
1)illusion of invulnerability -> leads to excessive optimism/risk taking
2)collective rationalizing of warnings that might temper position
3)unquestioned belief in groups moral superiority
4) negative stereotype of outgroup making negotiation unfeasible
(see Corvo 2002).
5) Direct pressure on dissenters from group ideology
6) Self-censorship of deviation from apparent consensus
7) Shared illusion of unanimity
8) Emergence of self-appointed “mindguards” to protect group from
adverse information.
Groupthink




When an activist group with a predetermined
direction confers in isolation from dissenting
views,
1) status is gained from taking more extreme
positions (in the pre-determined direction)
2) people with strong needs for dominance will
advance more extreme positions in order to gain
status, power and control of the group
3) these traits will then be projected onto the
outgroup ( “battering is all about power and
control”)
In Domestic Violence




Activist group formed the Paradigm explanation
for DV
Then through legal (lawsuits against police
forces who failed to arrest violent men)
And political influence (sold dv as a woman’s
right issue at a time when no one was against
women’s rights)
Took over county dv councils, set agenda for
court intervention, judges training, APA/ABA
view of dv
The perception of Male Action

The perception of male action is
fundamentally different- it is seen as more
dangerous and abusive even when the act
is identical
Sorenson & Taylor (2005)
Sorenson & Taylor implemented a random
digit dialed survey in four languages of
3,769 adults in the Los Angeles area.
 They were presented with five vignettes in
which characteristics of the victim,
assailant and incident were experimentally
manipulated.
.

Sorenson and Taylor 2

The vignette variables (assailants motive,
type or intensity of abuse and whether
alcohol was involved, presence of
weapons, presence of children, frequency
of abuse) and respondent characteristics
were examined using a multivariate log
regression.
Sorenson & Taylor (2005) 3



Judgments about women’s violence against
male intimates (vs. the opposite) were less
harsh and took contextual factors into account.
This was true for both male and female
respondents.
Across vignettes male violence was seen as
more likely to be illegal, that the police should be
called, that the assailant should be arrested,
should serve jail or prison time, that a restraining
order should be issued
Sorenson & Taylor (2005) 4



It is important to note that while some of the
abuse types were physical, others were
psychological describing control or humiliation.
Physical abuse (slap, force sex) were more likely
to be perceived as illegal by women when the
assailant was a man.
To test the hypothesis that social norms about
female abuse are less clear, Sorenson & Taylor
examined the standard deviation of the residuals
(a measure of response variability); it was 36%
greater when the assailant was a woman.
Perception of crime by gender


Not only the general public but professional
psychologists rate aggression as less serious
when it is performed by females and even when
it is psychological aggression, according to a
study by Follingstad and her colleagues (2004).
Two scenarios describing the context and
psychologically abusive behaviors with the
genders reversed were given to 449 clinicians
(56% male), median age 52.
Follingstad et al



Psychologists rated male perpetrated behavior
as more abusive and severe than the wife’s use
of the same actions.
Contextual factors (frequency/ intent/perception
of recipient) did not affect this tendency.
As Follingstad et al concluded, ‘the
stereotypical association between physical
aggression and males appears to extend to
an association of psychological abuse and
males” (p. 447).
Ferguson & Nagy (2004)
When gender is manipulated in a dv
scenario (X comes home late is accused
by Y of infidelity) Y punches X who has
facial bruise next day
 Perceived as more criminal when Y
(perpetrator) is a male
 Effect occurred across EuropeanAmerican, African-American and Hispanic
groups
 Effect occurred for both male and female
respondents (university students)

Do we not bleed?
Pimlott-Kubiak and Cortina (2003)
 Used data from the VAWS
 Found that amount of exposure to trauma
determined long term negative effects
 Gender did not predict amount of negative
effects.


Source: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2003,
71, 3, 528 -539.
Female Dangerousness
Coontz, Lidz & Mulvey (1994) found that
clinical predictions of dangerousness
made in psychiatric emergency rooms
consistently underestimated female
dangerousness.
 Predictions that a male would not be
violent were correct 70% of the time, but
for females, they were correct only 55% of
the time.

Reform
1) drop gender as a central organizing
worldview (the demographic du jour)
 2) focus on best available evidence for risk
to adults and children from intimate others
 3) ensure professionals do not have
erroneous mindsets influencing decision
making (e.g. arrest, custody)
 4) develop awareness of groupthink for all
policy makers

References

Dutton, D.G. (2006) Rethinking domestic violence. UBC Press: Vancouver,
BC.

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms
of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.

MacKinnon CA. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University
Press.: Cambridge , Massachusetts, 1989.