Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy

Abstract

A critical review is made of feminist analyses of wife assault postulating that patriarchy is a direct cause of wife assault. Data are reviewed from a variety of studies indicating that (a) lesbian battering is more frequent than heterosexual battering, (b) no direct relationship exists between power and violence within couples, and (c) no direct relationship exists between structural patriarchy and wife assault. It is concluded that patriarchy must interact with psychological variables in order to account for the great variation in power-violence data. It is suggested that some forms of psychopathology may lead to some men adopting patriarchal ideology to justify and rationalize their own pathology.

Full text

Violence
and
Victims,
Vol.
9,
No.
2,1994
©
1994 Springer Publishing Company
Patriarchy
and
Wife
Assault:
The
Ecological Fallacy
Donald
G.
Button
Department
of
Psychology
University
of
British
Columbia
A
critical
review
is
made
of
feminist
analyses
of
wife
assault
postulating
that
patriarchy
is a
direct
cause
of
wife
assault.
Data
are
reviewed
from
a
variety
of
studies
indicating
that
(a)
lesbian
battering
is
more
frequent
than
heterosexual
battering,
(b) no
direct rela-
tionship
exists
between
power
and
violence
within
couples,
and (c) no
direct
relation-
ship
exists
between
structural
patriarchy
and
wife
assault
It is
concluded
that
patriarchy
must
interact
with
psychological
variables
in
order
to
account
for the
great
variation
in
power-violence
data.
It is
suggested
that
some
forms
of
psychopathology
may
lead
to
some
men
adopting
patriarchal
ideology
to
justify
and
rationalize
their
own
pathology.
During
the
late
1970s
a
number
of
single-factor
explanations
for
male
assaultiveness
toward
women were proffered. These included
sociobiology
(Daly, Wilson,
&
Weghorst,
1982),
psychiatric disorders
(Faulk,
1974),
and
patriarchy (Dobash
&
Dobash,
1979;
Yllo,
1988).
Sociobiological
explanations were based
on the
premise that
the
primary motive
of men is
to
maximize their contribution
to the
gene
pool (Daly
&
Wilson,
1988).
By
extension, male
rage over sexual threat
was
viewed
by
sociobiologists
as
having "survival value" (Wilson,
1975).
Dutton (1988) argued that socially learned notions
of
anger
and
violence added
explanatory power
to the
individual variation
in
behavioral responses
to
sexual threat
and
that
the
source
of
rage
in
intimate relationships
was not
kinship
per se, but ego
identity fac-
tors naturally confounded
with
kinship.
In
elaborating
the
ontogeny
of
rage behaviors, Dutton
(1994)
was
able
to
account
for
individual variation among males
in
response
to a
common
stimulus, which sociobiology could
not do.
Dutton
(1988)
also argued that psychiatric "explanations" were
not
actually explana-
tory,
since they
did no
more
than
link assaultiveness
to
existing diagnostic categories with-
out
etiological
explication (see also
Pantony
&
Caplan,
1991).
They also
frequently
over-
looked
important contextual factors that contributed
to
assault causation.
Dutton
(1988)
argued that
no
single-factor explanation
for
wife
assault
sufficiently
elu-
cidated
the
available data
and
proposed instead
a
nested ecological theory examining inter-
active
effects
of the
broader culture
(macrosystem),
the
subculture (exosystem),
the
family
167

168
D.
G.
Dutton
(microsystem),
and
individually learned characteristics (ontogeny). Attempts
to
explain indi-
vidual
behavior solely through aggregate
social
categories have been termed
the
ecological
fallacy
by
Dooley
and
Catalano
(1984).
By
this they mean that more
within-category
indi-
vidual
variation exists
than
the
categorical
view
acknowledges. Below
I
shall examine sev-
eral data sources that demonstrate,
in my
opinion,
the
ecological fallacy
in
feminist views
of
wife
assault.
In
general,
the
purpose
of
this article
is to
examine several
new
data sources
in
the
area
of
wife
assault that
are
problematic
from
a
feminist perspective.
The
argument
is
made that feminism needs
to
give greater weight
to
male individual
difference
variables
and
how
these variables might interact
with
socialization.
FEMINIST VIEWS
OF
WOMAN
ASSAULT
According
to
Bograd
(1988),
there
are
some
defining
features that
are
central
to
most
feminist
analyses
of the
phenomenon
of
woman assault.
All
feminist
researchers, clini-
cians
and
activists address
a
primary question: "Why
do men
beat their
wives?"
This ques-
tion
"directs
attention
to the
physical violence occurring
in
heterosexual
relationships"
(p.
13)
and
distinguishes feminists
from
others
who
ask, "What
psychopathology
leads
to
violence?"
or
"Why
are
people involved
in
violent interactions
in
families?" Since
the
phrasing
of a
question always directs attention toward something
and
away
from
some-
thing
else,
the
causes
of
"beating
of
wives" must perforce reside
in
"men."
As
Bograd goes
on
to
write: "Feminists seek
to
understand
why men in
general
use
physical force against
their partners
and
what functions this serves
for a
society
in a
given historical
context"
(p.
13). When
an
ideological focus decides
to
question
the use of
violence
by
"men
in
general,"
it
will necessarily emphasize broader
social
forces that differentiate
men
from
women
and
will
deemphasize
differences among men. This orientation
has
manifested
itself
in a
feminist focus
on
patriarchy, male concern
for
power (Walker,
1989),
and
macrosystem
factors, rather than
on
ontogenetic
factors that might
differentiate
one
male
from
another.1
Bograd
describes
several dimensions
of
analysis that
are
common
to
feminist perspec-
tives on
wife
abuse. These include
the
explanatory utility
of the
constructs
of
gender
and
power
and the
analysis
of the
family
as a
historically situated
social
institution.
From
the
first
of
these analytic dimensions,
wife
assault
is
seen
to be a
systematic
form
of
domination
and
social
control
of
women
by
men.
All men can
potentially
use
violence
as
a
powerful means
of
subordinating women.
Men as a
class benefit
from
how
women's
lives
are
restricted because
of
their
fear
of
violence.
Wife
abuse reinforces women's dependence
and
enables
all men to
exert authority
and
control.
The
reality
of
domination
at the
societal
level
is the
most crucial factor contributing
to, and
maintaining,
wife
abuse
at the
individ-
ual
level.
In
other words,
the
maintenance
of
patriarchy
and
patriarchal institutions
is the
main contributor
to
wife
assault.
Wife
assault
is
mainly
"normal"
violence committed,
not
by
madmen
who are
unlike other men,
but
by men who
believe that patriarchy
is
their
right,
that
marriage gives them unrestricted control over their
wife,
and
that violence
is an
accept-
able means
of
establishing this control
(Dobash
&
Dobash,
1979,
p.
57).2
The
claim
from a
feminist
analytical perspective, therefore,
is
twofold: that society
is
patriarchal
and
that
the
use of
violence
to
maintain male domination
is
accepted.
As
Dobash
and
Dobash
(1979)
put
it,
"Men
who
assault their wives
are
actually
living
up to
cultural prescriptions that
are
cher-
ished
in
Western
society—aggressiveness,
male dominance
and
female
subordination—and
they
are
using physical
force
as a
means
to
enforce that dominance"
(p.
24).

Patriarchy
and
Wife
Assault
169
This feminist view implicates patriarchy
as the
major
cause
of
wife
assault rather than
an
inducement that interacts
with
other causes.
Bograd
(1988)
claims that "the reality
of
domination
at the
social
level
is the
most crucial factor contributing
to and
maintaining
wife
abuse
at the
personal
level"
(p.
14).
As
Smith
(1990)
puts
it,
"any theoretical work that
claims
to be
feminist probably must sooner
or
later seriously address
the
concept
of
patri-
archy"
(p.
257). Domination
of
women
is
viewed,
from the
feminist perspective,
as a
cul-
tural
prescription,
and
violence against women
as a
means
to
that end. This emphasis
on
the
cultural
is
reflected
in the
feminist
distrust
of
psychological causes
of
male violence
(Goldner,
Penn,
Sheinberg,
&
Walker, 1990)
as
potentially
"exonerative"
of
male violence
and
by the
lack
of
empirical studies
of
putative interactive causes conducted within
a
fem-
inist
perspective.
Indeed, much feminist analysis
(Bograd,
1988) argues that
an
emphasis
on
psychopathology
in
explaining
wife
assault
is
misguided because
wife
assault results
from
"normal
psychological
and
behavioral patterns
of
most men"
(p. 17) and
that
"trait
theories tend
to
excuse
the
abusive
man
through reference
to
alcohol abuse
or
poor child-
hood
histories"
(p.
17).3
The
result
of the
feminist
analysis
of
wife
assault
has
been
the
acknowledgment
of the
powerful
and
complex role
of
social factors
in
creating
the
context
in
which violence occurs.
As
Walker
(1989)
points out,
feminist
analysis puts research
findings
back into
the
context
from
which they were deracinated
by
scientific abstraction.
For
example,
as
Rosewater
(1987)
has
shown, Minnesota
Multiphasic
Personality Inventory
scores
on
battered women
were
typically read
out of
context
and
misdiagnosed.
Post
hoc
scores
that indicated anger,
anxiety,
and
confusion
in
response
to
battering were misinterpreted
as
indicating
a
preex-
isting "personality
problem"
such
as
paranoia.
Similarly, Dutton
and
Painter
(1981)
and
Dutton
(1983)
demonstrated
how
contextual
features
of
battering
formed
paradoxical attach-
ments that made leaving
a
battering relationship
difficult
and led to
erroneous interpreta-
tions
of
battered women
as
masochistic. Further, Browne
and
Williams
(1989)
demonstrated
how
female-perpetrated homicide decreased when criminal justice system resources became
more available
to
women
in
abusive relationships,
a
pattern that
was
distinct
from
male
homicide.
Browne
(1992)
also showed conclusively
that
the
Conflict Tactics Scale
(CTS)
(Straus,
1979) could
not be
used
to
compare male
and
female violence. Every
assessed
act on the
CTS is
different
when performed
by a
man.
The
reasons have
to do
with
the
greater force
of
the
action,
the
relative strength
of
perpetrator
and
target,
the
point
of
impact
of the
action,
and
the
target's ability
to
resist
or
escape. Browne's argument shows
the
dangers
of
remov-
ing
context
from
the
measurement process
and
leads
to a
reassessment
of
using
the CTS to
compare male
with
female violence
out of
context.
As the
above examples demonstrate,
feminist
focus
on the
context
of
violence
has led to
some valuable
reassessments
of
research findings.
Despite
these impressive accomplishments, however,
it is
difficult
to
reconcile
other
key
research
findings
with
the
feminist approach. Indeed,
close
reading
of
feminist theory
and
research
on the
problem
of
wife
assault reveals what
Kuhn
(1965)
referred
to as a
par-
adigm. Paradigms direct research
but
also serve
to
deflect critical analysis
of the
paradigms'
own
central tenets through diverting attention
from
contradictory data.
A
worldview
devel-
ops
(Janis,
1982),
whereby attention
is
redirected
from
potential contradictory information.
The
predominant,
almost exclusive,
focus
of
feminist
research
on
cultural determinants
has
left
psychopathology
unexamined
and not
systematically connected
to
cultural markers.
The
result
has
been
an
analysis characterized
by
broad statements about male privilege
and
male dominance
in the
face
of
clear evidence
for
heterogeneous male behaviors
in
intimate

170
D.
G.
Button
relationships.
Hence, feminist researchers draw conclusions about
"men's
violent reactions
to
challenges
to
their authority, honor
and
self-esteem" based
on
studies
of
male criminals
(Dobash,
Dobash,
Wilson,
&
Daly, 1992,
p. 75) or
talk
of the
"androcentric
need
for
power"
(Walker 1989,
p.
696) while simultaneously rejecting
equally
simplistic
stereotyp-
ing
of
women.
DIRECT TESTS
OF
PATRIARCHY
Some direct empirical tests
of
patriarchal norms
on
assaultiveness
have been reported
in
the
literature.
Yllo
and
Straus (1990) attempted
a
quantitative analysis
of the
relationship
between patriarchy
and
wife
assault
by
assessing
the
latter
with
the
CTS,
and the
former
with
(U.S.)
state-by-state
economic, educational, political,
and
legal indicators
of the
struc-
tural
inequality
of
women.
A
composite Status
of
Women
Index
resulted,
with
Alaska hav-
ing
the
highest status (70)
and
Louisiana
and
Alabama
the
lowest (28).
An
ideological com-
ponent
of
patriarchy
was
also
assessed:
the
degree
to
which state residents believed that
husbands should
be
dominant
in
family
decision-making (patriarchal norms).
A
curvilinear (U-shaped) relationship
was
found
between structural indicators
and
wife
assault rates, with
the
lowest
and
highest status
of
women states having
the
highest rates
of
severe
wife
assault. Structural indicators
and
patriarchal norms
had a
correlation
of
near
zero. Patriarchal norms were related
to
wife
assault
in
that states
with
the
most male-
dominant norms
had
double
the
wife
assault rate
of
states
with
more egalitarian norms.
Yllo
and
Straus
explain their data
by
arguing that high violence rates
in
states where
the
status
of
women
is
highest
are
caused
by a
breakdown
of
patriarchal norms
and
males resort-
ing
to
violence
to
bolster threatened masculinity. This explanation assumes that
the
struc-
tural changes came initially
and
that
family
patriarchal norms lagged behind, thus gener-
ating
conflict
However,
no
independent evidence
to
support this temporal relationship
is
presented.
Since
low
status states also have high rates
of
wife
assault,
the
authors explain this
as
due to
"greater
force being necessary
to
keep women
in
their place
and
because women
in
these states have
fewer
alternatives
to
violent marriage"
(p.
394).
It
is
not
clear
why
"greater
force"
in
such states
is
necessary because alternatives
to
marriage
are
few.
The
implication
of
this study
is
that
in low
status states, women
are
more likely
to be
trapped
in
abusive marriages, whereas
hi
high status states, women
feel
freer
to
leave,
but
males
are
more threatened. However, trapping women
in
marriage through
lessened
oppor-
tunity
should produce higher violence
frequency
scores within violent couples,
but not
necessarily higher incidence
scores.
That
is, it
accounts
for why
women could
not
leave
an
abusive marriage,
but
still does
not
supply
a
motive
for
male violence.
A
final
problem
is
that structural inequality
and
patriarchal norms were
not
associated
in
this study.
In
fact,
the
reported correlation
was
"near
zero" (op. cit.
p.
395). This result
is
problematic
for
feminist analysis because patriarchal structure
is
frequently
implicated
as a
cause
of
assaultiveness,
yet
still
must
operate
through
the
ideology
of
individual men.
The
"slippage"
between structural patriarchy
and
individual male ideology
is an
example
of
the
ecological
fallacy
(Dooley
&
Catalano,
1984) described above. Broad
macrosystem
features
cannot strongly predict
the
thoughts
or
actions
of
individuals
"nested"
under
the
system. Moderating variables
from
the
exosystem,
from
the
microsystem,
and
from
the
indi-
viduals'own
developmental history
are
necessary
to
complete
the
predictive picture.
With
the
Yllo
and
Straus
(1990)
study,
a
safer conclusion
is
that societal power imbalances
are

Patriarchy
and
Wife
Assault
171
associated
with
more violence against women.
The
mechanism whereby that violence
is
generated
is
unknown.
Smith
(1990)
also conducted
a
test
of
patriarchy
by
asking
604
Toronto women
to
guess
their male partner's response
to a
series
of
questions about "patriarchal beliefs"
and
then
correlating these responses
with
socioeconomic
factors and,
finally,
with
that woman's
responses
to the CTS
measure
of
wife
assault. Through this method, Smith argued that
he was
assessing "patriarchal ideology"
and
that this measure,
in
combination
with
sociode-
mographic factors, could predict
wife
assault. However,
the
responses that these women
supplied
for
their male partners described
a
very
nonpatriarchal
group
of
males,
with
the
majority
disagreeing
with
the
patriarchal statements
of the
measure
in all
cases
except
one, that "sometimes it's important
for a man to
show
his
partner that he's
the
head
of the
house."
One
conclusion that could
be
drawn
from
these
attitudinal
data
(as
with
Yllo
&
Straus's data)
is
that
the
patriarchal structure
of
North American society
has a
weak
effect
on
the
"patriarchal
ideology"
of
most men. Smith does
not
draw this conclusion.
As
Smith puts
it,
"When
all the
socioeconomic
risk
markers
and
indexes
of
patriarchal ide-
ology were combined
in a
single model assessing
the
extent
to
which these variables pre-
dicted wife beating,
the
combination
of
husband's educational
attainment,
patriarchal
beliefs
and
patriarchal attitudes parsimoniously explained
20% of the
variance
in
wife
beating"
(p.
268).
It
seems
to me
that
such
a
conclusion clearly accentuates
the
paradigmatic aspect
of
cur-
rent
family
violence research.
A
predictive study
using
women's
CTS
self-reports
on
hus-
band violence
by
Dutton,
Saunders,
Starzomski,
and
Bartholomew
(1994)
found
that
a
brief
(16-item)
assessment
of the
husbands' anger
and
identity problems also explained
20% of
wife
assault (and
50% of
domination) reported
by one
sample
of
battered wives.
In
other
words, some brief measures
of
psychological factors have
as
much
or
greater predictive
weight
than
the
attitudinal
and
sociodemographic
assessments
of
"patriarchal ideology"
reported
by
Smith
(1990).
CROSS-CULTURAL
STUDIES
If
feminist analysis
is
correct,
we
should expect greater violence directed toward women
in
more patriarchal cultures. However, this prediction
is not
supported. Sorenson
and
Telles
(1991),
for
example,
found
that
a
Mexican-born Hispanic sample
(n =
705) reported
wife
assault rates that were about half
the
rate reported
by a
sample
(n =
1,149)
of
non-
Hispanic whites, despite Hispanic cultures being generally more patriarchal
than
American
culture
(Davis,
1992).
Campbell (1992) reports that "there
is not a
simple linear correlation between female
status
and
rates
of
wife
assault"
(p.
19). Female status
is not a
single variable.
Levinson
(1989)
found
family-related female status (economic, decision-making,
and
divorce restric-
tions) to be
more predictive
of
wife
beating than societal level variables (control
of
pre-
marital sexual behavior, place
of
residence, property inheritance).
The
exception
to
this
finding
was
female economic work groups, whose presence correlated negatively
with
wife
assault incidence.
Campbell
(1985,1992)
also points
out
that
feminist
notions that male sexual jealousy
is
an
expression
of a
cultural norm that women
are
male property
are
not
supported
by
cross-
cultural
studies
of
jealousy
and
wife
assault
Except
in
extreme
cases,
jealousy varies widely
between cultures
and
appears unrelated
to
variations
in
wife
assault incidence.

772
D.
G.
Dutton
ACCEPTANCE
OF
VIOLENCE
A
survey
by
Stark
and
McEvoy
(1970)
found
that
24% of men and 17% of
women
approved
of a man
slapping
his
wife
"under appropriate circumstances." Hence, only
a
minority
of men and
women approved
of
a
man
slapping
his
wife
under
any
circumstances.
Viewed
from
another perspective,
the
survey result tells
us
that
the
majority
believe
slap-
ping
is
never appropriate. Second,
the
wording
of the
question
was
ambiguous.
The
phrase
"appropriate
circumstances"
loads
the
question;
we do not
know what egregious trans-
gressions
may be
conjured
up
by
respondents
as
necessary before
a
slap
is
appropriate. Also,
the
question tells
us
nothing about
the
degree
of
violence that
is
acceptable. Although
25%
of
men may
approve
of
slapping
a
wife,
fewer
may
approve
of
punching
or
kicking
a
wife
and
still
fewer
may
approve
of
beating
or
battering
a
wife.
Also, many
men who
have been convicted
of
wife
assault
do not
generally believe that
what
they
did was
acceptable (Dutton, 1986; Dutton
&
Hemphill,
1992).
Instead they feel
guilty,
deny
and
minimize
the
violence,
and try to
exculpate themselves
in the
manner
of
one
whose actions
are
unacceptable
to
oneself.
The
feminist
view would lead
us to
expect
the
opposite: that
no
guilt
and
evasion would
follow
from
violence used
in the
course
of
justifiable
control
and
domination.
As
Bugenthal,
Kahn,
Andrews,
and
Head (1972) demon-
strated
in a
survey
study,
violence
is
considered acceptable when
it is in the
service
of an
accepted
social
objective.
SURVEY
FINDINGS
If
patriarchy
is the
main factor contributing
to
wife
assault,
then
a
large percentage,
if
not
the
majority,
of men
raised
in a
patriarchal system should exhibit
assaultiveness.
If the
num-
ber of men who are
assaultive diminishes, then
noncultural
factors
figure
more promi-
nently
in
assault causation.
In
five
major
surveys
of
incidence
of
wife
assault implemented
to
date,
the
vast
majority
of men are
nonassaultive
for the
duration
of
their marriage (Kennedy
&
Dutton, 1989;
Schulman,
1979; Straus
&
Gelles,
1985; Straus,
Gelles,
&
Steinmetz,
1980;
Straus
&
Kantor,
1994).
In
surveys conducted
by
female interviewers
of
female respondents using strategies
to
maximize disclosure, only
one of
eight couples reported acts
from
the
Severe Violence
subscale
of the
CTS
occurring
at any
time
in
their marriage,
and
only 27.8% reported
any
kind
of
violence (including pushes
and
slaps) occurring
at any
time
in
their marriage (Straus
et
al.,
1980,
p.
43). Furthermore, this
finding
does
not
seem
to be
related
to a
desire
on the
female
respondents' part
to
image manage through underreporting. Dutton
and
Hemphill
(1992)
found
that women's reports
of
violence committed against them were unrelated
to
social
desirability factors (unlike male perpetrators).
This result
is
hard
to
explain
if one
considers patriarchy
as the
main cause
of
wife
assault.
If
social
license determines violent behavior,
we
would expect
a
majority
of men to be
vio-
lent,
but
only
a
minority actually are. Also,
as the
violence becomes more extreme,
the
size
of
this minority group
of
perpetrators shrinks.
The
type
of
actions that might
be
called
"wife
beating"
occur
in
only about
11%
of
marriages
at any
time during
the
marriage.
A
clearer picture
of the
incidence
of
violence
in
marriage
is
that serious assaults
do not
occur
in
90% of
marriages,
they
occur once
in
another
7%, and
they
occur repeatedly
in
about
3%
(Kennedy
&
Dutton, 1989; Straus
et
al.,
1980; Straus
&
Gelles,
1985).
What kind
of
causal weight does patriarchy have
if 90% of the men
raised under
it are
nonassaultive?
Do

Patriarchy
and
Wife
Assault
173
these
men all
dominate their wives using nonviolent means?
To
answer this question
we
must
examine
the
literature
on
dyadic
family
power
and
violence.
POWER
AND
VIOLENCE
Sociopolitical
power
is not
positively related
to
wife
assault
in
males. Working-class males
have higher
wife
assault rates than middle-class males (Straus
et
al.,
1980)
and
black males
have higher
wife
assault rates than white males (Julian
&
McKenry,
1993).
Dyadic
family
power
is
nonlinearly
related
to
use
of
violence.
Coleman
and
Straus
(1985)
found
that there
was no
main
effect
of
power
on
violence.
The
highest rates
of
"minor"
vio-
lence (male
to
female, female
to
male) were
found
in
female-dominant
couples,
followed
by
male-dominant,
and
violence
was
mitigated
by
attitudes toward power sharing. Hence,
couples
who
agreed
to a
gender-dominant arrangement were
less
violent than those
who
disagreed.
In
that study,
a
decision-making "final say" measure
was
made
of
power.
By
this
measure, male-dominant couples
made
up
only 9.4%
of the
total
and
female-dominant made
up
7.5%.
The
more typical power arrangements were "divided
power"
(54%)
and
"egali-
tarian"
(29%).
The
main contributor
to
marital conflict
and
violence
was
lack
of
consen-
sus
about power sharing. Where
the
couple agreed, both conflict
and
violence were
low
regardless
of
marital power arrangement.
To a
feminist
perspective,
the
notion
of a
male-
dominant
marriage where both parties agree
to
that power-sharing arrangement
is
unac-
ceptable. However,
it is not a
sufficient
cause
of
violence. When
we
compare
the
survey
results
in the
preceding section
with
the
Coleman
and
Straus results above,
we see
that
90%
of
men are
nonassaultive
and
91%
are
nondominant.
In
other words,
the
large majority
of
men
raised
under patriarchal norms
are
both nonassaultive
and
nondominant. This per-
spective
is
lost when
we ask why men in
general beat their wives.
It is
these data that indi-
cate
the
ecological
fallacy
of
feminist
approaches
to
wife
assault: that patriarchal structure
and
male socialization
are
sufficient
to
produce dominance
and
assaultiveness.
CONTROL
AND
VIOLENCE
Another tenet
of
feminist thought
is
that male violence
is
part
of a
wider
repertoire
of
con-
trol
tactics
men use to
dominate women.
In the
literature
on
"feminist therapy" (Adams,
1988),
emphasis
is
placed
on
"male
control
and
domination."
However,
in one of the few
studies
to
examine controlling behaviors
and
psychological abuse,
Kasian
and
Painter
(1992)
found
that females were more jealous, more verbally abusive,
and
more controlling
than
males
in a
sample
of
1,625 dating
undergraduates.4
Use of
controlling behaviors
and
ver-
bal
abuse appears
to be
bi-directional
in
intimate relationships.
If
controlling behaviors
are
bi-directional
and
feminist therapy seeks
to
reduce control tactics
in men who
already feel
powerless
in
intimate relationships,
a
positive therapeutic outcome
is
contraindicated.
Feminist definitions
of
power
and
status
can be an
impediment
to
understanding male
assaultiveness because these definitions
are
based upon
and
often
restricted
to the
sociopo-
litical.
Feminist analysts
are
acutely aware
of the
sociopolitical
powerlessness
of
women
and
have taken important steps
to
initiate
a
remedy. However, what defines powerlessness
for
a
politicized
woman
and
what
defines
it for a
nonpoliticized
man are not the
same.
For
a
man,
sociopolitical
comparisons
with
women
or
with
a
woman
are
irrelevant. What
is
experienced,
especially
in
intimate relationships,
is the
power advantage women appear

174
D.
G.
Dutton
to
have
in
their ability
to
introspect,
analyze,
and
describe
feelings
and
process.
Transference
from
early relationships
in
which
a
female (mother)
had
apparently unlimited power still
affects
male assessments
of
power
in
adult relationships (Dutton
&
Ryan,
1992).
Hence,
assaultive males report feeling powerless
in
respect
to
their intimate partners (Dutton
&
Strachan,
1987).
One is
reminded
of
Eric
Fromm's
definition
of
sadism
as the
conversion
of
feelings
of
impotence
to
feelings
of
omnipotence. Although
batterers
may
appear pow-
erful
in
terms
of
their physical
or
sociopolitical
resources,
they
are
distinctly impotent
in
terms
of
their psychic
and
emotional resources, even
to the
point
of
depending
on
their
female
partner
to
maintain their sense
of
identity (Dutton,
1994).51
do not
suggest
by
this
that
we
should excuse
or
exonerate batterers. However,
to
view men's violence simply
as
a
defense
of
sociopolitical
power
is
erroneous. Only
a
minority
of
batterers
are
mis-
ogynisitic
(Dutton
&
Browning,
1986),
and
few
are
violent
to
nonintimate
women;
a
much
larger group experiences extreme anger about intimacy.
If
there
is a
politic
at
work,
it
exists
primarily
in the
microsystem
of the
dyad.
HOMOSEXUAL
RELATIONSHIPS
The
prevalence
of
violence
in
homosexual relationships, which also appear
to go
through
abuse cycles,
is
hard
to
explain
in
terms
of men
dominating women
(Bologna,
Waterman,
&
Dawson,
1987; Island
&
Letellier,
1991;
Lie &
Gentlewarrior,
1991;
Renzetti,
1992).
Bologna
and
colleagues (1987) surveyed
70
homosexual
male
and
female
college
students
about incidence
of
violence
in the
most recent relationship. Lesbian relationships were
significantly
more violent than
gay
relationships (56%
vs.
25%).
Lie and
Gentlewarrior
(1991)
surveyed 1,099 lesbians,
finding
that
52% had
been
a
victim
of
violence
by
their
female
partner,
52%
said they
had
used violence against their female partner,
and 30%
said they
had
used violence against
a
nonviolent female partner. Finally, Lie,
Schilit,
Bush,
Montague,
and
Reyes
(1991)
documented,
in a
survey
of 350
lesbians (who
had
had
prior lesbian
and
heterosexual relationships), that reported rates
of
verbal, physical,
and
sexual abuse were
all
significantly
higher
in
their prior lesbian relationships
than
in
their
prior heterosexual relationships: 56.8%
had
been sexually victimized
by a
female,
45%
had
experienced physical aggression,
and
64.5% experienced
physical/emotional
aggres-
sion.
Of
this sample
of
women, 78.2%
had
been
in a
prior relationship
with
a
man. Reports
of
violence
victimization
by men
were
all
lower
than
reports
of
violence victimization
in
prior relationships
with
women (sexual victimization, 41.9% [vs. 56.8%
with
women];
physical
victimization 32.4% [vs.
45%];
and
emotional victimization 55.1% [vs.
64.5%]).
These
are two findings
that
are
difficult
to
accommodate
from
a
feminist perspective:
why
violence rates
are so
high
in
lesbian relationships
and why
they
are
higher
for
past
relationships
with
women than
for
past relationships
with
men. Walker
(1986)
has
tried
to
explain higher rates
of
violence
in
lesbian relationships
as
being
due to
equality
of
size
and
weight,
fewer
normative restraints
on fighting
back,
and
tacit permission
to
talk about
fighting
back. However,
Coleman
and
Straus (1986)
found
that
power equalization pro-
duced
less
violence.
The
focus
on fighting
back overlooks
the
fact
that
a
woman initiated
the
violence
in
these lesbian couples.
It
might also
be
argued that lesbians adopt
the
val-
ues of the
dominant patriarchal culture
and
that
a
dominance-submissiveness
relationship
may
exist
in a
lesbian relationship,
whereby
the
"functional
male"
(i.e.,
the
dominant mem-
ber)
is the
abuser.
The
problem
with
this argument
is
that even
in
heterosexual relation-
ships,
as
Coleman
and
Straus showed,
a
variety
of
power relations exist.
The
"functional

Patriarchy
and
Wife
Assault
175
male"
theory maps
a
stereotype onto lesbian relationships that
has no
data
support
What
is
important about
the
data
of Lie and her
colleagues
is
that they
assess
abuse
for
past les-
bian
and
heterosexual relationships reported
by
these women. Hence, each subject
becomes,
in
effect,
her own
control,
and
sample selection issues (for comparisons
with
other groups)
are
minimized.
Browne
(1993)
cites
Saakvitne
and
Pearlman
(1993)
as
arguing that lesbians
may
inter-
nalize misogyny
and
homophobia,
which they then project onto their female partners.
Lesbian battering
is
consistent with another view
on
intimate violence: that intimacy gen-
erates dependency, jealousy,
and
anger, which
is
sometimes expressed violently
(Dutton,1988;
Button
&
Browning, 1986;
Dutton
et
al.,
1994).
In
fact,
Renzetti
(1992)
found
the
main
contributors
to
lesbian battering
in her
study
to be
dependency
and
jealousy,
two
psycho-
logical
factors related
to
intimacy. These
two
factors
also
show
up as
predictors
in
hetero-
sexual
wife
assault studies (Dutton, 1994; Dutton
&
Painter,
1993).
This explanation
has
the
advantage
of
being parsimonious;
it
applies
to
both heterosexual
and
lesbian battering
without
needing recourse
to
separate models
of
explanation. Separate explanatory models
for
two
types
of
battering have
an
added danger when developed
from
a
feminist para-
digm: Female violence
is
"explained away" using psychological notions such
as
projected
misogyny (Saakvitne
&
Pearlman,
1993),
while male violence
is
refused psychological
examination
on the
grounds
of it
being potentially exonerative
(Goldner
et
al.,
1990).
A
double standard
for
explanation results.
FEMALE VIOLENCE
The
question
of why men
beat women precludes
any
notion
of
female violence,
and as
Browne
(1992)
has
pointed
out,
gender comparisons using
the
CTS can be
misleading.
The
focus
of a
feminist paradigm
is on
males
as
transgressors,
and
feminists have avoided,
with
good
reason,
victim-blaming explanations that locate
in
women victims
the
causes
of
vio-
lence performed
by
males. Given their advantages
in
strength
and
power, most males,
it is
believed,
can
avoid physical conflict
with
women under
all but the
most extenuating cir-
cumstances. Nevertheless, research shows that only minor
differences
exist between male
and
female aggression
(Frodi,
Macaulay,
&
Thome, 1977; Hyde,
1984).
In an
extensive
review
of the
literature
on
aggression, Hyde
(1984)
concluded
via
a
meta-analysis
that
gen-
der
accounts
for
only
1%
of the
variance
in
aggression
in
college students (and only
7% in
children under
6).*
Walker
(1989) claims that "women usually
use
violence
as a
reaction
to
men's violence
against them"
(p.
696). However,
in
Bland
and
Orn's
(1986)
study, 73.4%
of a
sample
of
616
women said they were
the
first
to use
physical violence.
An
argument
is
also made that
female
violence
is a
"preemptive
strike"
designed
to
terminate
an
escalating abuse cycle.
However,
Stets
and
Straus (1990) compared couples where
the
violence pattern
was
male-
severe/female-minor, with those where this pattern
was
reversed. They
found
the
female-
severe/male-minor pattern
to be
significantly (three
to six
times) more prevalent than
the
male-severe/female-minor
pattern regardless
of
whether
the
couple
was
dating, cohabit-
ing,
or
married.
With
these data,
the use of
severe violence
by
females
was not in
reaction
to
male vio-
lence
or as a
preemptive strike, since
the
female partner
in
each couple reported only minor
violence
from
her
male partner despite using severe violence herself. Similarly, couples
where
only
the
female
was
violent were
significantly
more common (39.4%
of
dating cou-

776
D. G.
Button
pies,
26.9%
of
cohabiting couples, 28.6%
of
married couples)
than
couples where only
the
male
was
violent (10.5%
of
dating couples, 20.7%
of
cohabiting couples, 23.2%
of
mar-
ried
couples). Although
men may use
more multiple aggressive acts during
a
single inci-
dent (Browne, 1993),
the
data above suggest
that
in
some couples, female violence
may be
serious
and may not be in
response
to
male violence.
PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
Questions
of
psychopathology
are
deemphasized
by
feminist analysis because such ques-
tions might "maintain that violent acts
and
violent relationships have
a
psychology"
and
"once
again
let
batterers
off
the
hook"
(Goldner
et
al.,
1990,
p.
345)
and
also because psy-
chopathological
analyses imply that only some
men who are
atypical generate violence
against women
(Bograd,
1988). Nevertheless, there
is
strong evidence that
the
majority
of
men who are
either court-referred
or
self-referred
for
wife
assault
do
have diagnosable psy-
chological pathology.
In
studies
of
assaultive males, about 80%-90%
of
both court-referred
and
self-referred
men
exhibited diagnosable psychopathology, typically personality disor-
ders
(Dutton,
1994;
Dutton
&
Starzomski,
1994;
Hamberger
&
Hastings,
1986,1989;
Hart,
Dutton,
&
Newlove, 1993; Hastings
&
Hamberger, 1988; Saunders, 1992). Estimates
of
personality disorder
in the
general population would
be
more
in the
15%-20% range
(Kemberg,
1977; Zimmerman
&
Coryell,
1989).
As
violence becomes more severe
and
chronic,
the
likelihood
of
psychopathology
in
these
men
approaches 100% (Dutton, 1994; Dutton
&
Hart,
1992a,
1992b; Hastings
&
Hamberger, 1988), typically
with
extreme scores
on
bor-
derline personality organization, narcissism, antisocial behavior,
and
aggressive-sadistic
personality.
To
say
that violent batterers
are
psychopathological
neither
"lets
them
off
the
hook"
nor
exculpates
social
forces
in
shaping their rage. Dutton
(1994)
has
argued
that
men
with
severe
identity
problems
and
intense dependency
on
women
may
seek
out
aspects
of the
culture
to
direct
and
justify
abuse.
For
example,
the
primitive defenses
of
borderline personality
organization
in
males, which involve splitting "good objects"
from
"bad objects" (Mahler,
1971),
are
reinforced
by
cultural judgments about female sexuality. Cultures that divide
women
into "madonnas
and
whores" provide
a
sanctioned reinforcement
of the
object split
in
the
assaultive borderline male. Cultures that
socialize
men and
women
to
expect
the
woman
to
be
responsible
for
relationship outcome provide
a
rationale
for the
borderline per-
sonality's
expectation that
his
intimate partner should maintain both
his ego
integrity
and
euphoric
affect.
Any
dysphoric
stalemates that occur
are
then
viewed
as her
fault.
Hence,
attachment-derived anger
is
projected toward
the
individual woman partner. Through this
view,
the
personality pattern contains emotional demands, which
it
directs
and
justifies
through
drawing
on the
ambient culture.
Hence, patriarchy does
not
elicit violence against women
in any
direct fashion. Rather,
it may
provide
the
values
and
attitudes that
personality-disordered
men can
exploit
to
jus-
tify
then-
abuse
of
women. This distinction
is an
important one:
It
explains
why the
major-
ity
of men
remain nonviolent
and how
they
differ
in at
least
one
essential
and
nontauto-
logical
aspect
from
violent men.
Walker
(1989)
describes
a
"socialized
androcentric need
for
power." However,
a
need
for
power,
in
itself, does
not
predict violence
or
even dominance
in
social relationships.
Winter
(1973)
and
McClelland (1975) have demonstrated
how
power motivation varies
from
one man to the
next
and how it
translates into
a
variety
of
behavioral
forms,
includ-

Patriarchy
and
Wife
Assault
177
ing
stamp collecting
and
running
for
public
office.
It is
only when power needs
are
com-
bined with identity
diffusion,
so
that
the
intimate other becomes necessary
for
one's
iden-
tity
integrity,
that these needs begin
to
focus exclusively
on
that person.
In a
culture that
isolates
men
emotionally
and
alienates them
from
their ability
to
sense
and
know their
own
feelings,
dependency
on a
female
who is
perceived
as a
conduit
to
one's
inner self will
remain problematic.
THERAPY
AND
POLICY
IMPLICATIONS
Feminist therapists criticize anger-management approaches
for
focusing
on
stress reduc-
tion,
anger
management,
and
coping skills, while
not
paying enough attention
to
gender
politics
(Adams,
1988).
At the
same time,
they
criticize insight therapy
for
focusing
on
iden-
tity
deficits
to
offer
labels instead
of
explanations
and for not
emphasizing male responsi-
bility
for
violence
and
control.
I
have argued above that patriarchy
is
another
label
that
does
not
explain violence.
If
patriarchy
"causes"
violence,
how can we
hold
men
individ-
ually
responsible
for
their violence?
Feminist therapists want
to
focus
on
power
and
control issues
and on
misogynistic
atti-
tudes toward women
in
what
they
call
resocialization
models (Adams, 1988;
Gondolf
&
Russell,
1986).
The
problem with these models
is
that
the
relationship between attitudes
and
violence
is
weak (Browning, 1983;
Dutton,
1988;
Neidig
&
Friedman,
1984).
Furthermore,
there
is a
problem
in
delivering these models
to
court-directed
men
who
may
resent female
power,
who
exist
in a
subculture that
does
not
share feminist values,
and who
resist
attempts
to
decrease their
use of
control tactics when
they
already feel
a
sense
of
dimin-
ished control. Such approaches
may
develop backlash
in
clients
if
they
do not
address
the
felt
powerlessness
that drives control tactics,
and
seek
to
develop remedial negotiation
skills.
My
view
is
that anger
and
anxiety provide
the
psychological substratum
for
control.
Males
try to
control
the
things they
fear,
and
intimate relationships
are a
source
of
great
fear
(Pollack
&
Gilligan,
1982). Hence,
a
complete understanding
of
anger
does
not
only
reflect
on
outbursts
of
anger
but
also
on
chronic resentments
and
control
of
another.
It
also
renders
the
"case"
against "anger control" treatment
for
assaultive males artificial.
It is not
an
issue
of
"anger versus control"
as
Gondolf
and
Russell
(1986)
put it;
anger
and
control
stem
from
the
same origin: terror
of
intimacy.
When
feminists
ask
"Why
do
men
beat their
wives?"
their answer will necessarily exag-
gerate
differences
between males
and
females
and
minimize
differences
among males.
The
categories
of
study
are
framed
by the
question. However, what
is
required
for a
more com-
plete analysis
is to
answer
why
some
but not all men
beat their wives.
A
complete expla-
nation
for
wife
assault must also distinguish
men who
habitually
and
severely assault their
wives
from
men who do so
sporadically,
as
response
to
extreme
stressors,
and
from
men
(the majority)
who
remain nonviolent throughout their marriages. This
leads
necessarily
to
psychological explanations
in
order
to
differentiate
these men.
Put
in
nested
ecological
terms (Dutton,
1988),
distal
macrosystem
influences such
as
patriarchal structure seem
to
have little
effect
on
rates
of
individual
wife
assault;
they
are
poorly related both
to
individual male patriarchal beliefs
and to
violence. Exosystem fac-
tors, especially
subcultural
norms
for
assaultiveness,
have
a
somewhat stronger
effect,
whereas microsystem
and
ontogenetic
factors seem strongest
of
all. Powerlessness rather
than
power seems
to be
implicated
in
male
use of
intimate violence,
and
intimacy itself
rather than gender
politics
seems
to be the
most crucial
factor
in
such violence.
If we
wish

178
D. G.
Dutton
to
both understand
and
diminish violence
in
society,
we
must resist
the
temptation
to
eas-
ily
classify perpetrators
in
broad
social
terms.
Our
response
to
violence
can be
improved
by
focusing clearly
on
those
psychopathological
features that interact with culture
hi
order
to
ultimately reduce
the risk of
violence
for
women.
NOTES
'To
this
extent,
feminist analysis
of
wife
assault
has
been almost exclusively
sociological
and not
psychological.
Exceptions
exist,
to be
sure. These would include
Lenore
Walker's
(1984)
profile
of
battering husbands, based
on
descriptions
of
women
in
shelters,
and
Anne
Ganley's
(1989)
attempt
to
reconcile
feminism
and
social
learning theory. Also,
Pantony
and
Caplan
(1991)
proposed
a
"delu-
sional dominating personality
disorder"
as a
response
to
what Caplan
saw as
sexism
in the
proposed
DSM-HIR
category "self-defeating personality
disorder,"
and
which could theoretically distinguish
men who
were generally abusive
in
intimate relationships
from
other
men
(although
the
authors
saw
this personality disorder
as a
response
to
"rigid masculine
socialization").
Despite these exceptions,
the
focus
of
feminist analysis
has
been,
as
Bograd
put
it,
on the
question
of
"why
men in
general beat
their
wives."
Hence, there
is a
necessary deemphasis
on the
possibility
of
individual
differences
among
men.
^t
could
be
argued that
from
a
feminist
perspective,
violence will
not
necessarily
be
normal
but
will only occur when other
forms
of
male control
of
women have failed. This premise should lead
to
the
prediction that when
men
have large socially conferred power advantages, they need
not be
vio-
lent. This prediction
is not
supported
by
empirical examination (Campbell, 1992;
Coleman
&
Straus,
1985).
Feminism ends
up
arguing both that violence occurs
as a
"last
resort" for
domination (when
men are
otherwise powerless)
and
when domination
is
ensured
by the
social structure (when
men are
otherwise powerful).
In the
latter case,
the
violence
is
said
to
occur because there
are no
sanctions
against
it,
but
this "explanation" does
not
supply
a
motive
for
violence.
3To
be
fair
to
Bograd,
she
does also
say
that
"wife
abuse
may be
linked
to
psychopathology
in
either partner"
and
that feminism seeks
to
"connect
our
psychological analyses with understandings
of
the
patriarchal social context" (op.
cit p.
17).
My
point,
however,
is
that feminism
has
offered
no
"psychological
analysis" because
its
focus
has
been
on the
question
of
why
"men
in
general
use
phys-
ical force against their partners." Bograd
has
not,
to my
mind, seen
the
implications
of her own
ques-
tion. For
this reason,
her
statement about psychopathology
reads
like
an
afterthought.
4The
criticisms
that Browne made
of the CTS do not
apply
in
this study because reports
for
each
gender were
for
verbal,
not
physical, abuse. Although physical
"hits"
are
different
when performed
by
a man
against
a
smaller woman, there
is no
evidence that verbal abuse
has
less serious conse-
quences
as a
function
of
gender.
'It
is a
paradox
of
power
in
dyads that each member
can
feel powerless
vis-a-vis
the
other.
Women,
for
example, report feeling
disempowered
by
male physical strength, violence potential,
and
sociopolitical
power (French,
1985),
whereas
men report
being disempowered
by
female emotional
access,
verbal
skills,
sexuality,
and
self-containment
as
well
as by
intense unresolved transference
issues (Dutton, 1994; Dutton
&
Strachan,
1987; Goldberg, 1987).
No
consensus
has
yet
been
reached
on
dyadic power,
and
"final
say" measures such
as
that used
by
Coleman
and
Straus (1985)
are
lim-
ited
in
that
one
member
may
allow
the
other
to
make decisions
in
specific areas, generating
an
appearance
of
equality (Huston, 1983).
It
is
curious
why so
little interest
has
developed
in
reconciling
the
consistent
finding
of lab and
field
studies
of
aggression that little
difference
exists
that
is
attributable
to
gender
with
the
larger gen-
der
difference
in
homicide statistics (e.g., Browne, 1993,
and
Browne
&
Williams, 1989,
found
that
of
spousal homicide victims,
61%
were women
and 39%
were men).
One
possibility
is
that males
use
extreme violence more when experiencing intimacy-rage (Dutton
et
al.,
1994),
which transfers

Patriarchy
and
Wife
Assault
179
more
readily
for
males
during
intimacy
dissolutions.
As
Browne
and
Williams
have
pointed
out,
female-perpetrated
homicides
are
more
likely
to
have
been
responses
to
prior
abuse
by
their
partner.
REFERENCES
Adams,
D.
(1988).
Treatment models
of men who
batter:
Aprofeminist
analysis.
In K.
Yllo
&
M.
Bograd
(Eds.),
Feminist
perspectives
on
wife
abuse
(pp.
176-199).
Beverly
Hills:
Sage.
Bland,
R., & On, H.
(1986,
March). Family violence
and
psychiatric disorder. Canadian
Journal
of
Psychiatry,
31,129-137.
Bograd,
M.
(1988).
Feminist
perspectives
on
wife
abuse:
An
introduction.
In
M.
Bograd
&
K.
Yllo
(Eds.),
Feminist
perspectives
on
wife
abuse
(pp.
11-26).
Beverly
Hills:
Sage.
Bologna,
M. J.,
Waterman,
C.
K.,
&
Dawson,
L. J.
(1987).
Violence
in gay
male
and
les-
bian
relationships:
Implications
for
practitioners
and
policy makers. Paper presented
at
the
Third National Conference
of
Family Violence Researchers, Durham,
NH.
Browne,
A.
(1992).
Are
women
as
violent
as
men? Unpublished
manuscript,
University
of
Massachusetts, Worcester,
MA.
Browne,
A.
(1993).
Violence against women
by
male partners: Prevalence, outcomes
and
policy
implications.
American
Psychologist,
48,
1077-1090.
Browne,
A.,
&
Williams,
K.
(1989).
Exploring
the
effect
of
resource availability
and the
likelihood
of
female perpetrated homicides.
Law and
Society
Review,
23,
75-94.
Browning,
J. J.
(1983).
Violence
against intimates:
Toward
a
profile
of
the
wife
assaulter.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department
of
Psychology, University
of
British
Columbia, Vancouver.
Bugenthal,
M.
D.,
Kahn,
R.
L.,
Andrews,
F., &
Head,
K. B.
(1972).
Justify
violence:
Attitudes
of
American
men.
Ann
Arbor,
MI:
ISR.
Campbell,
J.
(1985).
The
beating
of
wives:
A
cross-cultural perspective.
Victimology,
10,
174-180.
Campbell,
J.
(1992).
Prevention
of
wife
battering: Insights
from
cultural analysis.
Response,
80,14,
18-24.
Coleman,
D.
H.,
&
Straus,
M. A.
(1986).
Marital power,
conflict,.and
violence.
Violence
and
Victims,
1(2),
141-157.
Daly,
M.,
&
Wilson,
M.
(1988).
Homicide.
New
York:
Aldine
De
Gruyter.
Daly,
M.,
Wilson,
M.,
&
Weghorst,
S. J.
(1982).
Male sexual jealousy. Ethology
and
Sociobiology,
3,
11-27.
Davis,
L. V.
(1992).
Attitudes toward
wife
abuse
in a
cross-cultural
context
A
comparison
of
Colombian
and
American Human Service students.
In E.
Viano
(Ed.),
Intimate vio-
lence:
Interdisciplinary
perspectives (pp. 229-243). Washington,
DC:
Hemisphere
Publishing.
Dobash,
R.
E.,
&
Dobash,
R. P.
(1979).
Violence
against wives:
A
case against
the
patri-
archy.
New
York:
Free
Press.
Dobash,
R.
E.,
Dobash,
R. P.,
Wilson,
M.,
&
Daly,
M.
(1992).
The
myth
of
sexual symme-
try
in
marital violence. Social Problems,
39,
71-91.
Dooley,
D. G., &
Catalano,
R.
(1984).
The
epidemiology
of
economic stress. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
12,
387-409.
Dutton,
D. G.
(1983).
Masochism
as an
"explanation"
for
traumatic
bonding:
An
exam-
ple
of
the
"fundamental
attribution
error."
Boston:
American
Orthopsychiatric
Association.

180
D. G.
Dutton
Dutton,
D. G.
(1986).
Wife
assaulters'
explanations
for
assault:
The
neutralization
of
self-
punishment.
Canadian
Journal
of
Behavioural
Science,
18,
381-390.
Dutton,
D. G.
(1988).
The
domestic
assault
of
women:
Psychological
and
criminal
justice
perspectives.
Boston:
Allyn
&
Bacon.
Dutton,
D. G.
(1994):
Behavioral
and
affective correlates
of
borderline personality organi-
zation
in
wife
assaulters.
International
Journal
of
Law and
Psychiatry,
17(3),
265-
279.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Browning,
J. J.
(1986).
Power struggles
and
intimacy anxiety
as
causative
factors
in
wife
assault
In G.
Russell
(Ed.),
Violence
in
intimate
relationships.
Great
Neck,
NY: PMA
Publishing.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Hart,
S. G.
(1992a).
Risk markers
for
family
violence
in a
federally incar-
cerated
population.
International
Journal
of
Law and
Psychiatry,
15,101-112.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Hart,
S. G.
(1992b).
Evidence
for
long-term, specific
effects
of
childhood
abuse
and
neglect
on
criminal behavior
in
men. International Journal
of
Offender
Therapy
and
Comparative
Criminology,
36(2),
129-138.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Hemphill,
K. J.
(1992).
Patterns
of
socially
desirable
responding among
perpetrators
and
victims
of
wife
assault
Violence
and
Victims,
7,
29-40.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Painter,
S. L.
(1981).
Traumatic bonding:
The
development
of
emotional
attachments
in
battered women
and
other relationships
of
intermittent
abuse.
Victimology:
An
International
Journal,
6,139-155.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Painter,
S. L.
(1993).
Emotional attachments
in
abusive relationships:
A
test
of
traumatic bonding theory.
Violence
and
Victims,
8(2)
105-120.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Ryan,
L.
(1992).
Antecedents
of
borderline
personality organization
in
wife
assaulters. Unpublished manuscript.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
Saunders,
K.,
Starzomski,
A.,
&
Bartholomew,
K.
(1994).
Intimacy-anger
and
insecure attachment
as
precursors
of
abuse
in
intimate relationships. Journal
of
Applied
Social
Psychology,
24(15),
1367-1386.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Starzomski,
A.
(1994).
Psychological
differences between court-referred
and
self-referred
wife
assaulters.
Criminal
Justice
and
Behavior,
21(2)
203-222.
Dutton,
D.
G.,
&
Strachan,
C. E.
(1987).
Motivational needs
for
power
and
dominance
as
differentiating
variables
of
assaultive
and
non-assaultive male populations.
Violence
and
Victims,
2,
145-156.
Faulk,
M.
(1974).
Men who
assault their wives.
Medicine,
Science
and
Law,
14,
180-183.
French,
M.
(1985).
Beyond
power.
New
York:
Ballantine.
Frodi,
A.,
Macaulay,
J.,
&
Thome,
P.
(1977).
Are
women always less aggressive than men?
Psychological
Bulletin,
84,
634-660.
Ganley,
A.
(1989).
Integrating feminist
and
social
learning analyses
of
aggression.
In P. L.
Caesar
& L. K.
Hamberger
(Eds.),
Treating
men who
batter (pp.
196-235).
New
York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Goldberg,
H.
(1987).
The
inner male: Overcoming roadblocks
to
intimacy.
New
York:
New
American Library.
Goldner,
V.,
Penn,
P.,
Sheinberg,
M.,
&
Walker,
G.
(1990).
Love
and
violence: Gender
paradoxes
in
volatile attachments.
Family
Process,
29,
343-364.
Gondolf,
E.,
&
Russell,
D.
(1986).
The
case against anger control treatment
for
batterers.
Response,
9,
2-5.
Hamberger,
L.
K.,
&
Hastings,
J. E.
(1986).
Characteristics
of
male
spouse
abusers:
Ispsy-
chopathology
part
of
the
picture
?
Paper presented
at
American Society
of
Criminology,
Atlanta,
GA.

Patriarchy
and
Wife
Assault
181
Hamberger,
L. K., &
Hastings,
J.
E.
(1989). Counseling male spouse abusers: Characteristics
of
treatment
completers
and
dropouts.
Violence
and
Victims,
4,
275-286.
Hart,
S. D.,
Dutton,
D. G., &
Newlove,
T.
(1993).
The
prevalence
of
personality disorder
among
wife
assaulters.
Journal
of
Personality
Disorders,
7(4), 1721-1740.
Hastings,
J.
E.,
&
Hamberger,
L. K.
(1988). Personality characteristics
of
spouse abusers:
A
controlled comparison.
Violence
and
Victims,
3,
31-48.
Huston,
T. L.
(1983). Power.
In H. H.
Kelley
(Ed.),
Close
relationships
(pp. 169-219).
New
York:
Freeman.
Hyde,
J. S.
(1984).
How
large
are
gender
differences
in
aggression?
A
developmental
meta-
analysis.
Developmental
Psychology,
20,
722-736.
Island,
D.,
&
LeteUier,
P.
(1991).
Men who
beat
the men who
love
them
New
York:
Harrington
Park
Press.
Janis,
I.
(1982).
Victims
of
groupthink.
Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Julian,
T. W., &
McKenry,
P. C.
(1993). Mediators
of
male violence toward female inti-
mates.
Journal
of
Family
Violence,
8,
39-56.
Kasian,
M., &
Painter,
S.
(1992). Frequency
and
severity
of
psychological abuse
in a
dat-
ing
population.
Journal
of
Interpersonal
Violence,
7,
350-364.
Kennedy,
L.
W.,
&
Dutton,
D. G.
(1989).
The
incidence
of
wife
assault
in
Alberta.
Canadian
Journal
of
Behavioural
Science,
21,40-54.
Kernberg,
O.
(1977).
The
structural diagnosis
of
borderline personality organization.
In P.
Hartocollis
(Ed.),
Borderline
personality
disorders:
The
concept,
the
syndrome,
the
patient
(pp. 87-121).
New
York:
International
Universities Press.
Kuhn,
T. S.
(1965).
Structure
of
scientific
revolutions.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago Press.
Levinson,
D.
(1989).
Family
violence
in a
cross-cultural
perspective.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage
Publications.
Lie,
G.,
&
Gentlewarrior,
S.
(1991). Intimate violence
in
lesbian relationships: Discussion
of
survey
findings
and
practice implications.
Journal
of
Social
Service
Research,
15,
41-59.
Lie,
G.,
Schilit,
R.,
Bush,
J.,
Montague,
M.,
&
Reyes,
L.
(1991).
Lesbians
in
currently
aggressive relationships:
How
frequently
do
they
report aggressive past
relationships?
Violence
and
Victims,
6,121-135.
Mahler,
M.
(1971).
A
study
of the
separation-individuation
process
and its
possible
appli-
cation
to
borderline phenomena
in the
psychoanalytic situation.
Psychoanalytic
Study
of
the
Child,
26,
403-424.
McClelland,
D. C.
(1975). Power:
The
inner
experience.
New
York:
John Wiley
&
Sons.
Neidig,
P.
H.,
&
Friedman,
D. H.
(1984).
Spouse
abuse:
A
treatment
program
for
couples.
Champaign,
IL:
Research Press.
Pantony,
K.
L.,
&
Caplan,
P.
(1991).
Delusional dominating personality disorder.
Canadian
Psychology,
32,120-135.
Pollack,
S.,
&
Gilligan,
C.
(1982). Images
of
violence
in
thematic apperception test stories.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
42,159-167.
Renzetti,
C. M.
(1992).
Violent
betrayal:
Partner
abuse
in
lesbian
relationships.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Rosewater,
L. B.
(1987).
The
clinical
and
courtroom application
of
battered women's per-
sonality assessments.
In D. J.
Sonkin
(Ed.),
Domestic
violence
on
trial:
Psychological
and
legal
dimensions
of
family
violence
(pp. 86-94).
New
York: Springer Publishing
Company.

182
D. G.
Dutton
Saakvitne,
K.
WM
&
Pearlman,
L. A.
(1993).
The
impact
of
internalized misogyny
and
vio-
lence against women
on
feminine identity.
In E. P.
Cook
(Ed.),
Women,
relationships
and
power (pp.
247-274).
Alexandria,
VA:
American Counselling Association.
Saunders,
D.
(1992).
A
typology
of
men
who
batter: Three types derived
from
cluster analy-
sis. American
Journal
ofOrthopsychiatry,
62,
264-275.
Schulman,
M.
(1979).
A
survey
of
spousal
violence
against
women
in
Kentucky.
Washington,
DC:
U.S. Department
of
Justice,
Law
Enforcement.
Smith,
M.
(1990).
Patriarchal ideology
and
wife
beating:
A
test
of
feminist hypothesis.
Violence
and
Victims,
5,
257-273.
Sorenson,
S. B., &
Telles,
C. A.
(1991).
Self-reports
of
spousal violence
in a
Mexican-
American
and
non-Hispanic white population.
Violence
and
Victims,
6,
3-16.
Stark,
R., &
McEvoy,
J.
(1970). Middle class violence.
Psychology
Today,
4,107-112.
Stets,
J.,
&
Straus,
M.
(1990).
Gender
differences
in
reporting marital violence
and its
med-
ical
and
psychological consequences.
In M.
Straus
& R.
Gelles
(Eds.),
Physical
vio-
lence
in
American
families
(pp.
151-166).
New
Brunswick,
NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Straus,
M. A.
(1979). Measuring
family
conflict
and
violence:
The
Conflict Tactics Scale.
Journal
of
Marriage
and the
Family,
41,
75-88.
Straus,
M.
A.,
&
Gelles,
R. J.
(1985, November).
Is
family
violence
increasing?
A
com-
parison
of
1975
and
1985
national
survey
rates.
Paper presented
at
the
American
Society
of
Criminology,
San
Diego,
CA.
Straus,
M.
A.,
Gelles,
R.
J.,
&
Steinmetz,
S.
(1980).
Behind
closed
doors:
Violence
in the
American
family.
Garden City,
NY:
Anchor
Press/Doubleday.
Straus,
M.
A.,
&
Kantor,
G. K.
(1994). Change
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.
Turner,
C.,
Fenn,
M.,
&
Cole,
A.
(1981).
A
social psychological analysis
of
violent behav-
ior.
In R. B.
Stuart
(Ed.),
Violent
behavior:
Social
learning
approaches.
New
York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Walker,
L.
(1984).
The
batteredwoman
syndrome.
New
York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Walker,
L.
(1986).
Battered women's shelters
and
work
with
battered lesbians.
In L.
Kobel
(Ed.),
Naming
the
violence:
Speaking
out
about
lesbian
battering.
Seattle: Seal Press.
Walker,
L.
(1989).
Psychology
and
violence against women. American
Psychologist,
44,
695-702.
Wilson,
E. O.
(1975).
Sociobiology.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Winter,
D. G.
(1973).
The
power
motive.
New
York:
The
Free Press.
Yllo,
K.
(1988).
Political
and
methodological debates
in
wife
abuse research.
In K.
Yllo
&
M.
Bograd
(Eds.),
Feminist
perspectives
on
wife
abuse. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Yllo,
K.,
&
Straus,
M.
(1990).
Patriarchy
and
violence against wives:
The
impact
of
struc-
tural
and
normative factors.
In M.
Straus
& R.
Gelles
(Eds.),
Physical violence
in
American
families.
New
Brunswick,
NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Zimmerman,
M.,
&
Coryell,
W.
(1989).
DSM-III
personality disorder diagnoses
in a
non-
patient sample. Archives
of
General
Psychiatry,
46,
682-689.
Offprints.
Requests
for
offprints
should
be
directed
to Dr. D. G.
Dutton,
Dept
of
Psychology, University
of
British
Columbia,
Vancouver,
BC.
V6T187
Canada.