1. * Dyadic Concordance In Psychological Aggression And Its Relation to Physical Assault Of Dating Partners By Male And Female University Students In 32.

1

 . 

* Dyadic Concordance In Psychological Aggression And Its Relation to Physical Assault

Of Dating Partners By Male And Female University Students In 32 Nations

Murray A. Straus & Yahayra Michel-Smith

Family Research Laboratory, University of New HampshireDurham, NH 03824  603-862-2594  [email protected]

Website: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2

• Presented at The European Society Of Criminology, Prague, 13 September 2014• Other publications on this and related issues can be downloaded from http//:www.pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2• Earlier phases of the work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant T32MH15161 and by the University of New Hampshire.

Your are welcome to download these slides fromhttp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/dt.htm

2

Questions AddressedPrevalence, Chronicity, And Dyadic Concordance in Psychological Aggression (PsyAgr)

• How prevalent and how chronic is PsyAgr of partners?• To what extent do men and women differ in perpetration of psychological aggression, and in chronic PsyAgr (60th percentile)?

• Dyadic Concordance Types:  When there is chronic PsyAgr, in what percent of cases is the male partner the only one high in PsyAgr, the female partner the only one, and what percent of couples were both high in PsyAgr?

Relation of PsyAgr to assault•  Does PsyAgr predict assault and does it do so for both men and women?•  How does the risk of assault differ for each of the three Dyadic Concordance Types 

(Male-Only, Female-Only, Both high in PsyAgr)?• Does the link between PsyAgr and assault apply across nation?

What are the Theoretical, Methodological, and Practice Implications?

3

Dyadic Concordance Types Examples: 

• Partner Violence of couples:   Male-Only, Female-Only, Both Assault• Corporal Punishment by parents: Father-Only, Mother-Only, Both use corporal punishment

DCTs identify characteristics of a relationship•Based on characteristics of each member,  but different•  Compare couples A and B

o In both the husband is helpful and supportiveo Couple A:  wife is also helpful and supportiveo Couple B:  wife is not helpful and supportedo A and B are likely to be very different relationships even though husband 

A and B are the sameo DCTs measure a characteristic of the relationship, which emerges from 

the characteristics of the partners, but is different t

4Straus, Murray A. (1974). Leveling, civility, and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36(February), 13-29, plus addendum 36 (August): 442-445.

Previous research on Link Between PsyAgr and AssaultMy 1973 study found that the more PsyAgr by either partner, the  more likely that partner was to also physically assault

 Cross sectional   Since Then longitudinal studies 

•Murphy,1989,• O’Leary,2009• Salis,2014  • Testa,2011•  Rhodes,2014   

 But None  at the couple level  or Cross-National 

This Study:• Couple-level• Multinational• Controls 

          By Husbands------- By WivesPhysical 

Assault

Psychological Aggressioni

5

DATA FROM THE INTERNATIONAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID.htm

14,252 Students At 68 Universities In 32 Nations All Major World Regions Convenience Samples

Questionnaire Completed In Class Analyses Control For And/Or Examine

Interactions With: * Gender and Age  * Score on Social Desirability  

Response set scale  * Other controls as needed

VALIDITY OF THE DATA• Concurrent validity:  correlated with 

recognized international statistics• Construct Validity:   Shown in many 

published papers

6

Region Nation N% Fe-male

MeanAge

All Nations 14,252 71.4 23.1

AfricaZAF S. Africa 109 93.6 24.1TZA Tanzania 175 49.1 26.3

Asia

CHN China 756 61.9 21.6HKG China-HK 551 69.9 24.6IND India 95 76.8 22.3JPN Japan 133 53.4 20.4SGP Singapor 216 69.0 25.0KOR S. Korea 190 59.5 24.8TWN Taiwan 162 75.9 20.2

Eur-ope

BEL Belgium 706 78.5 27.5DEU Germany 485 69.5 24.2GBR Grt . Brit. 418 85.9 21.0GRC Greece 231 76.2 21.1HUN Hungary 161 68.3 22.3LTU Lithuania 389 66.6 20.5MLT Malta 103 78.6 22.6

Region Nation N%Fe-male

Meanage

NLD Netherlands 385 87.5 23.5PRT Portugal 360 67.2 21.8ROU Romania 244 90.2 21.0RUS Russia 429 60.1 19.9SWE Sweden 674 75.8 28.7CHE Switzerland 317 77.0 33.9

Latin Amer.

BRA Brazil 245 68.2 21.1GTM Guatemala 176 48.3 19.7MEX Mexico 205 83.9 20.6VEN Venezuela 261 62.5 24.2

Middle East

IRN Iran 98 76.5 22.4ISR Israel 318 82.1 31.0

NorthAmer.

CAN Canada 1135 72.9 21.8USA United St. 4162 69.1 21.7

Oce-ania

AUS Australia 233 82.0 23.7NZL New Zealand 130 78.5 21.7

Table 1. International Dating Violence Study Sample – Students In A Relationship

7

Psychological Aggression ScaleRevised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2)*

Minor• Insulted or swore at my partner• Shouted or yelled at my partner • Stomped out of the room or house or yard during disagreement• Said something to spite my partner

Severe• Called my partner a name like fat or ugly• Destroyed something belonging to my partner• Accused my partner of being a lousy lover• Threatened to hit or throw something at my partner

Alpha:   By participant  Males = .65, Females = .71, Total = .70  By partner – Males = .63 Females = .70, Total = .68

* Straus, Murray A., & Douglas, Emily M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for seventy and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520.

Straus, Murray A., Hamby, Sherry L., Boney-McCoy, Susan, & Sugarman, David B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001

*

8

Assault Scale of Revised Conflict Tactics Scales *Minor Physical Assault: 

• Threw something at partner that could hurt• Twisted my partner’s arm or hair • Pushed or shoved my partner• Grabbed my partner• Slapped my partner

Severe Physical Assault:• Punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt• Choked my partner• Slammed my partner against a wall• Beat up my partner• Burned or scalded my partner• Kicked my partner • Used a knife or gun on my partner                          

Alpha:   By participant  - Males = .77,  Females = .77,  Total = .78    By partner      - Males = .76,  Females = .80,  Total = .80

* See http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2

9

10

Data AnalysisPsychological Aggression

• Participant classified as at or above the 60th using reports of their own behavior

• Partner classified as at or above the 60th percentile using participant’s report of partner’s behavior 

• DCTs identified by cross-classifying respondent’s PsyAgr by that of partner.  • Resulting  4 cells are a couple-level measure of PsyAgr:

~ Male-Only, ~Female-Only, ~Both, ~Reference Category Neither

Analysis of covariance•  Independent variables:  DCTs for PsyAgr, Gender, Nation•  Interaction of each of the above with each•  Covariate controls:  Limited Disclosure scale score, age of participant, father’s education

11

Acts Of Psychological Aggression

Men Women Both Cumulative % Both

0 34% 25% 27% 27%

1 9% 8% 8% 35%2 7% 7% 7% 42%

3 3% 4% 4% 46%

4 7% 6% 6% 52%

5 3% 3% 3% 55%

6 3% 3% 3% 58%

7 2% 2% 2% 60%

8 4% 4% 4% 64%

9 1% 2% 2% 66%10-14 7% 8% 8% 74%

15-19 5% 5% 5% 79%20-24 7% 8% 7% 86%25-29 3% 5% 4% 90%30-39 3% 5% 5% 95%40+ 6% 10% 9% 104%

Table 2.  Frequency Of Psychological Aggression By Men and Women

Women perpetrated acts of PsyAgr somewhat more often than men

Median Men =  3 timesWomen = 4 timesMeanMen =  9.2 timesWomen = 13.2 times

What about differences within couples?

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10

20

71

Male-Only

According to Men

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9

17

74

According to Women

Figure 1. Dyadic Concordance In Chronic Psychological Aggression In The Relationships Of University Students in 32 Nations

Female-Only

Both Male-Only Female-Only

Both

When there was chronic PsyAgr, in 3/4th of the cases it was by both

When there was a sole-perpetrator, it was more likely to be the female partner

%

Dyadic Concordance Type

13

Male-Only Female-Only Both0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

14

4

27

5

16

32Men Women

Figure 2. Number of Acts Of Psychological Aggression By Male and Female Partners In Each Dyadic Concordance Type

Women in the Both chronic PsyAgr type do it somewhat more often than men in the Both type

Women in the Female-Only type tend to do it slightly more often than men in the Male-Only type

PsycAgrActs(MeanIn past

12 months)

Dyadic Concordance Type

14

Psychological Aggression Dyadic Type by Nation

Nation

Prevalence

Male Only

Female Only Both

All Nations 44%% 9% 18% 73%Australia 49 10 16 75Belgium 43 9 16 76Brazil 47 16 20 64Canada 45 8 14 78China 36 16 44 41Taiwan 40 15 31 54Germany 49 8 24 69Greece 49 15 15 70

Guatemala 44 5 27 68Hong Kong 45 9 34 57Hungary 42 13 15 72India 37 11 17 71Iran 49 13 13 75Israel 52 5 16 79Japan 38 16 18 66

NationPrevalence

Male Only

Male Only Both

South Korea 34% 16% 20% 64%Lithuania 43 7 22 71Malta 42 5 12 84Mexico 35 7 25 68

Netherlands 34 14 20 67New Zealand 47 16 12 72Portugal 29 11 24 65Romania 41 11 28 61Russia  36 10 23 68

Singapore 41 8 21 72South Africa 40 5 14 82Sweden 44 11 17 72

Switzerland 26 11 25 64U. Kingdom 55 6 12 82Tanzania 31 20 9 70

United States 51 8 12 80Venezuela 41 14 19 67

Table??Table 3. Prevalence and Dyadic Concordance Types For Psychological Aggression In Relationships Of University Students In 32 Nations

15

Table 4 Prevalence and Dyadic Concordance Types For Psychological AggressionIn the Relationships of University Students in 32 Nation, As Reported By Men and Women

Psychological Aggression Dyadic Types  Gender Prevalence Male-Only Female-Only Both

Africa Total 35% 13% 11% 76%  Male 29 18 18 64  Female 37 11 9 80Asia Total 39 13 33 55  Male 35 16 27 57  Female 41 11 35 54Australia-New Zealand Total 48 12 14 74  Male 41 10 31 59  Female 50 12 11 77Europe Total 41 10 19 71  Male 37 8 24 69  Female 43 10 18 72Latin America Total 39 11 22 67  Male 37 8 24 68  Female 40 12 21 66Middle East Total 51 7 16 78  Male 51 12 22 66  Female 51 5 14 81North America-Canada Total 45 8 14 78  Male 39 8 14 77  Female 47 8 14 78North America-USA Total 51 8 12 80  Male 46 9 13 78  Female 53 7 12 81

16

Figure 3. Percent Who Physically Assaulted Partner, By Dyadic Concordance Type of Chronic Psychological Aggression, As Reported By Men and Women

% Who Assaulted 

• The risk of violence is four times higher when both partners are at or above the 60th percentile in PsyAgg.  Among couples in the Both type, more than half assaulted 

• For both  men and women, chronic being high in PsyAgg is more strongly associated with both perpetration of physical assault and being a victim of assault by a partner

Dyadic Concordance Type For Psychological Aggression

Women

Men

17

Source Of Variance Type III Sum of Squares

df Mean Square F        Sig.

Corrected Model 7684442.928a 142 54115.795 34.961 .000Intercept 

980656.743 1 980656.743 633.538 .000

CTdtPA4gT 1570295.738 3 523431.913 338.155 .000a01 15033.845 1 15033.845 9.712 .002CONT1M5r3 

29927.155 2 14963.578 9.667 .000

CTdtPA4gT * a01 61914.670 3 20638.223 13.333 .000CTdtPA4gT * CONT1M5r3 71555.132 6 11925.855 7.705 .000CTdtPA4gT * WNations 

1011030.914 124 8153.475 5.267 .000

a04a 868.761 1 868.761 .561 .454LDT1M5 134837.489 1 134837.489 87.110 .000a03a5 

66674.924 1 66674.924 43.074 .000

Error 21839396.533 14109 1547.905    Total 41760000.000 14252      Corrected Total 29523839.461 14251      

Table 5. Analysis of Covariance For Relation of Dyadic Concordance Types Of Psychological Aggression To Physical Assault

18

Number of 

Assaults in past year

(Mean)

Figure 4. Chronicity of Assault By Men And Women In Each Dyadic Concordance Type of Psychological Aggression, As Reported By Men and Women

When there was physical violence, men and women assaulted about equally when they were the only partner high in PsyAgr

For couples with both partners high in PsyAgr, women assaulted somewhat more often than men  

Dyadic Concordance Type For Psychological Aggression

Women

Men

19

Source ofVariance

Type III Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Corrected Model 17.043a 18 .947 4.473 .000

Intercept221.171 1 221.171 1044.921 .000

CTdtPA4gT 6.106 3 2.035 9.617 .000a01 .246 1 .246 1.161 .281CONT1M5r3 1.738 2 .869 4.104 .017 CTdtPA4gT * a01 .330 3 .110 .520 .668

CTdtPA4gT * CONT1M5r3 .747 6 .124 .588 .740

 a04a .040 1 .040 .189 .664LDT1M5 1.826 1 1.826 8.627 .003a03a5 1.505 1 1.505 7.109 .008Error 444.280 2099 .212    

Total 6435.000 2118      Corrected Total 461.322 2117      

Table 6. Analysis of Covariance For Relation of Dyadic Concordance Types Of Psychological Aggression To Chronicity Of Assault

20

Figure 5. Percent of Women Who Hit First In Each Dyadic Concordance Type of Psychological Aggression, As Reported By Men and Women

Women

Men

Percent of 

women who hit first

If neither high in PsyAgr, & there is violence, 65-70% of the time the woman was first to hit If Male-Only high in PsyAgr, about 40% of the time the woman hit first If Female-Only high in PsyAgr, the woman hit first about 80% of the  time If Both high  in PsyAgr,  the woman hit first about 70% of the time, according to both men 

and women

21

Summary Of Results Psychological aggression occurred in the relationships of at least ¾ of couples

world wide If 7 or more instances indicates “chronic” PsyAgr, it occurred in 40% of the

relationships When there was chronic PsyAgr, in 3/4th of the cases it was both

• When there was a sole-perpetrator, it was more likely to be the female partner

The more PsyAgr, the greater the probability of physical assault

Theoretical Implications Further evidence of limitations of single cause-patriarchy theory of partner 

violence•Escalation of PsyAgr to assault is just one example of the 16 empirically demonstrated risk factors for partner violence listed by the World Health organization and the 32 listed by the US Centers for Disease Contol.

•  Both organizations focus on patriarchy and  ignore the multi-cause evidence Partner violence should be conceptualized primarily as a crime, not as “gender 

violence.”  Gender is involved because most couples are heterosexual, but partner violence is as or more prevalent among same-sex couples 

The same escalation process that result in bar-room assaults explain domestic assaults

22

Methodological Implications Make Identification of Dyadic Concordance Types a default part of research on 

family violence• Provides unique data on a crucial aspect of violent relationships• Practical to implement because DCTs are easy to identify and analyze

Easy to Measure• Even one question, if repeated for both, will do, such as: 

In the past year, how often did you hit your partner?In the past year, how often did your partner hit you

• Or can use more in-depth instruments such as the Conflict Tactics Scales

Easy To Analyze• No statistics needed - qualitative research or clinical analysis• For statistical analysis,  almost any method can be used 

~Cross-tabs,  ANOVA,  regression  etc.` ~Methods designed for dyadic data such as the

Actor-Partner Interdependence Model  (APIM)

23

Practice ImplicationsBecause Psychological Aggression is so prevalent, it is probably one of the most prevalent risk factor for physical assault of a partner.   In addition, when it is present in about ¾ of the cases, it is by both partners.  Therefore: Treatment of PV should include an initial assessment to identify the Dyadic

Concordance Type of PsyAgr and of physical assault Prevention of partner violence needs to emphasize learning relationship skills 

such as negotiation and compromise• Applies to secondary as well, i.e. to offender treatment

Current treatment programs focus too exclusively on male-dominance, and male-maladaptive behaviors

• Part of the explanation for the failure of current programs* • Need to treat the relationship, not just the presenting partner• Identifying the Dyadic Concordance Type at intake can help accomplish that

* National Institute of Justice. (2011). Batterer Intervention Programs Often Do Not Change Offender Behavior.  

Washington D.C.: Department of Justice.

24

Downloadable Papers On Dyadic Concordance Types Link is http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/  or Google Murray Straus

 Michel-Smith, Yahayra, & Straus, Murray (2014). Dyadic Patterns of Perpetration of Physical Assault and Injury of Dating Partners By Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Paper presented at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden.

Straus, Murray A, & Michel-Smith, Yahayra (2012). Straus, M. A., & Michel-Smith, Y. (2014). Mutuality, Severity, And Chronicity Of Violence By Father-only, Mother-only, And Mutually Violent Parents As Reported By University Students In 15 Nations. Child Abuse Negl, 38(4), 664-676. Doi: 10.1016/J.Chiabu.2013.10.004

Straus. M.A. (in press) Dyadic Concordance In Family Violence: A Powerful and Practical Approach to Research and Practice on Perpetration and Victimization.  Aggression and Violent Behavior

Straus, Murray A. (2013, November). Relation of Corporal Punishment By Father-Only, Mother-Only, And Both Parents To Crime by University Students In 15 Nations. Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology, Atlanta.

Straus, Murray A, & Michel-Smith, Yahayra (2012). Relation Of Violence Between Parents Of University Students In 15 Nations To Student Criminogenic Beliefs And Crime:  A comparison of father-only, mother-only, and mutual parental violence  Paper presented at the American Society Of Criminology annual meeting, Chicago, 15 November, 2012. 

Straus, M. A., & Winstok, Z.. (2013). Relation of Dyadic Concordance-Discordance Types of Partner Violence to Depression of Male and Female University Students in 15 Nations. Paper presented at the Society for the Study of Social Problems, New York.

Winstok, Z.  & Straus, M. A. (2014). Gender Differences in the Link between Intimate Partner Physical Violence and Depression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 91-101. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.01.003