Carlson (1984) - Causes and Maintenance of Domestic Violence, An Ecological Analysis (Artículo)

Causes and Maintenance of
Domestic Violence: An
Ecological Analysis
Bonnie E. Carlson
State Universityof New Yorkat Albany
Domestic violence, or spouse battering, is analyzed using a four-part theoretical

framework based on the ecological model of human development. The analysis
focuses on variables that cause and/or maintain domestic violence at the individual,
family, social-structural, and sociocultural levels. Limitations of the model are con-
sidered, and a detailed case study of a family experiencing domestic violence is
presented and discussed to illustrate the potential utility of the framework. Suggestions
are offered for future research.
During the last decade, the problem of domestic violence, or spouse

battering, has been brought to the attention of the American public.
Although we are beginning to know more about this phenomenon-
its dimensions, causes, and intervention modalities-we lack a com-
prehensive understanding of this social problem. We know that domestic
violence is more serious and widespread in its incidence and ramifications
than originally believed. For example, there is reason to believe, on
the basis of a nationally representative study of 2,143 American families,
that violence, that is, behavior legally considered assault if it were to
occur between two unrelated adults, occurs each year between at least
one out of every six couples who live together, married or unmarried.'
Although the incidence of serious violence-that having a high prob-
ability of resulting in physical injury, for example, punching, kicking,
or stabbing with a knife-is lower, the Richard Gelles and Murray
Social Service Review (December 1984).
© 1984 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0037-7961/84/5804-0007$01.00
This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
570 Social Service Review
Straus national survey data lead us to the conclusion that about 1.8
million wives are physically abused by their husbands each year, ac-
cording to the above definition. And it appears that women have rates
of violence within the family that are similar to those of their male
partners.2
Although a burgeoning literature on domestic violence has been
developing, very little research has been undertaken with the explicit
intent of identifying its causes. While we cannot make definitive state-
ments about causal factors at this time, the current state of knowledge
strongly points toward causes at different levels of analysis, and suggests
that domestic violence has multiple determinants.
Our objective is to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework
that integrates what is currently known about the factors that cause
andmaintaindomesticviolence,andrealistically capturesthecomplexity
of thissocialproblem.Althoughtherearea numberof existingtheories
that purportto explaininterpersonalviolence,no one theorytakes
intoaccountthe multiplecausalfactorsthatoperateat differentlevels
of analysis.3Mosttheoristsfocusexclusivelyor primarilyon one level,
for example,societalor individual.However,it is futileto attemptto
demonstratethat one or two theoriesare "correct" whilethe others
are wrong,when there are factorsat manylevelsthat play a causal
role in domesticviolence.
In the attemptto developsucha framework, UrieBronfenbrenner's
ecological modelof human development has beenappliedtotheproblem
of domesticviolence.4A majorvalueof this modelis thatit allowsfor
manycausalandmaintaining factorson differentlevelsthatcanoperate
simultaneously, either independentlyor interactively. The modelcan
be usedto explainor understandindividualinstancesof spouseabuse,
aswellasdomesticviolenceasa socialproblemincontemporary America.
It is alsoveryusefulin helpingto explainthe cyclicalnatureof family
violencebothwithina particularfamilyandacrossgenerations.While
such an approachis not new in the analysisof normalgrowthand
development,and hasbeen successfullyappliedto the understanding
of childmaltreatment,it has not yet been appliedto the problemof
physicalviolencebetweenadultpartners.5
As explicatedby Bronfenbrenner, the modelconceptualizes ecological
space as consistingof differentlevels or systems,each of which is
nestedwithinthe next.Jay Belskyrevisedthe Bronfenbrenner frame-
work to incorporatean additionallevel6--the notion of individual
historyor background,a kindof internalenvironment.Finally,each
of the four levelsin the resultingecologicalmodel(individual,family,
andsociocultural)
social-structural, hasbeenrelabeledforthisdiscussion.
The framework is depicted schematically in figure 1. After describing
the important variables at each level in general terms, a more detailed
discussion follows using examples of specific factors that cause and

Domestic Violence 571
IV SOCIOCULTURAL
Cultural norms, values, and beliefs, e.g.,

sexism, acceptance of violence, rigid sex-
role stereotyping and norms about family

life.
Il. SOCIAL STRUCTURAL
Economic realities and trends,

neighborhood characteristics and norms,
world of work, law enforcement practices.
I. FAMILY
Dynamics, roles and interaction

patterns, quality of spousal
connectedness to kin.
relationship,
I. INDIVIDUAL
Family background,
personality, world view,
alcoholism.
FIG. 1.-Ecological framework for analysis of causes and maintenance of domestic

violence.
maintain domestic violence, culled from the research literature. To

illustrate the potential utility of the approach, in the final section the
framework is applied to a question of concern to both practitioners
and researchers: Why do battered women remain in abusive home
situations?
Ecological Framework
Individual level
Analysis at the individual level focuses on what each adult brings with
him or her to the couple relationship. In a general sense, this consists
of such things as attitudes, values, and beliefs learned in one's family
of origin; personal resources, skills, and abilities; subjective perceptions

of reality and views of the world; and personal weaknesses, problems,
and pathologies.
Numerous factors that contribute to the etiology of domestic violence
operate at the individual level of analysis. Alcohol abuse by the batterer
has frequently been identified as a major cause or contributing factor
in many instances of domestic violence.' Although the precise role of
alcohol in the causation of family violence has not yet been specified,
we know that, in general, alcohol acts as a disinhibitor, allowing the
actor to disavow norms and responsibility for negative acts.8 Alcohol
is seldom, if ever, the sole cause of domestic violence. Instead, an
alcohol problem tends to interact with other aspects of the person's
circumstances - stress at work, unemployment, or marital problems -
to contribute to the violent outcome.
Another factor at the individual level that can contribute to the
causation and maintenance of violence pertains to the self-esteem of
the assailant and/or the victim. Although it has not been empirically
documented that batterers and their victims have poorer self-concepts
than their nonviolent counterparts, it has been noted repeatedly in
anecdotal reports that both parties to domestic violence are typically
immature, inappropriately dependent, and insecure.' Such traits can
lead to unwarranted jealousy culminating in violent rage in the male
partner, and to a degree of dependency in the female partner that
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to leave a violent home situation.
This passivity can be carried to such an extreme that many battered
women are afflicted with what has been called "learned helplessness,"
a debilitating motivational deficit.'o Most battered women have re-
peatedly tried to stop the violence directed against them, without
success. Eventually many give up trying and appear withdrawn and
apathetic, resigned to the abuse."
The resources each partner brings to the relationship can also play
a role in causing and continuing violence between them. Such personal
resources include occupational status and income, education, and talents
such as verbal skills. Craig Allen and Murray Straus have developed
a variation of William Goode's intrafamily resource theory that they
call the "ultimate resource theory.""12 According to this formulation, in
order for a male to legitimate his position of dominance in the family,
he must demonstrate superior personal resources compared to his
female partner. If he does not possess such validating resources -for
example, if his wife has more education or earns a higher salary than
he-he may resort to the "ultimate resource,"namely, physical violence,
in order to maintain his position of dominance. This situation has
been called "status incompatibility" and can be particularly dangerous
to the wife in terms of life-threatening violence when she has a higher-
status occupation than her partner.'" It should be noted that in the
status-compatibility formulation, personal resources interact with an-

other factor at a higher level of analysis, that is, family role expectations.
Men are seen as having and deserving higher status and dominance
within the family, as elaborated below. The norms about power and
authority in family life in turn reflect larger sociocultural norms that
prescribe male dominance in society.
Stress experienced by one or both partners is another factor at the
individual level of analysis that may contribute to the tendency to use
violence. A stressor is defined as a threatening or disruptive stimulus
(not necessarily negative) that imposes a demand on the individual to
act in some way so as to alleviate the threat or disruption." What a
person considers to be stressful is a very subjective matter-a stimulus
that is threatening to one person may not be to the next. Individuals
differ not only in the stressors they experience, but also in their ability
to cope with those stressors.
Straus et al. asked their 2,143 respondents about eighteen stress-
inducing problems and examined the extent to which they were related
to domestic violence.'" They found that "the relationship between
problems reported by the individuals interviewed and the level of
violence between these individuals and their spouses was quite strong.
Each additional problem increased the chances that there would be
wife and husband abuse in a family."'6
Probably the most potent causal factor at the individual level in
regard to violence is one's family history. There are several different
ways in which one's childhood experiences can contribute to the tendency
to engage in family violence as an adult. Being the victim of child
abuse and/or neglect may predispose one to perpetrating violence or
becoming its victim. For example, Barbara Star reported that from 35
to 60 percent of the battered women she studied were victims of sexual
abuse as children."7 Gelles found that one of the predictors of a woman
remaining in an abusive marriage was having been abused as a child.'"
These findings suggest that childhood victim status may serve to per-
petuate violence in the family once it breaks out, as well as contributing
to it in the first place.
There are two other ways in which an adult's family history can
contribute to violence in the family of procreation, both of which can
be explained by social learning theory. The first relates to the individual's
experience with discipline as a child, particularly physical punishment.
It has been noted elsewhere that physical discipline of children is
almost universal in American society.'9 As a result, children learn at
a very early age that it is legitimate to use physical force to accomplish
your goals under at least some circumstances, and that those who love
you are also those who hurt you. Although parents are restricted in
their use of force against children, that is, they must stop short of
what is locally defined as abuse, there is broad societal support for
such a practice. Aside from philosophical or moral reservations about

the use of physical discipline, one can question its effectiveness in
accomplishing parents' goals, particularly when used to punish child
aggression, as it frequently is.20
Parents are powerful role models for their children, who typically
imitate the behaviors engaged in by those parents. This brings us to
the last way in which family experiences contribute to the tendency
to engage in family violence as an adult, namely, observational learning.
We have long known that a person does not need to perform an act
and be reinforced for it in order to learn a behavior." When a young
boy observes his father physically abuse his mother and experience
few negative consequences, he has learned a powerful lesson.22 It is
not uncommon for battered women temporarily residing in shelters
to report that their young sons threaten to hit them when they do not
get their way, "like Daddy does." Similarly, young daughters may learn
to model classic helpless-victim behavior after repeatedly observing
their mothers' inability to stop the violence directed against them by
their spouses. The relationship between childhood observation of vi-
olence between parents and engaging in such behavior as an adult
has been strongly documented in several studies, including the Straus
et al. study of 2,143 American families: "A clear pattern was evident.
Men who had seen parents physically attack each other were three
times as likely to have hit their own wives during the year of the study.
In fact, about one out of three had done so (35 percent) compared
with one out of ten (10.7 percent) of the sons of non-violent parents.
We found roughly the same statistics for women.... The sons of the
mostviolent parents have a rate of wife-beating1,000 timesgreater than that
of the sons of non-violent parents."23
Several factors that may contribute to the tendency to engage in
domestic violence as an adult have been identified at the individual
level of analysis, the most potent of which are related to one's family
background. It should also be noted that the factors identified in these
examples often interact with one another, or with factors discussed
below at the family, social-structural, and sociocultural levels, and may
serve to maintain as well as cause violence.
Family Level
This level of analysis focuses on the nature of family life and organization,
including family role structure and interactional dynamics. Given the
fact that most people tend to replicate in their families of procreation
what they have experienced in their families of origin, variablesoperating
at this level are frequently related to and interact with family background
factors at the individual level of analysis.
According to Carlson and Davis, there are a number of characteristics
of the family as a social unit that tend to predispose it to conflict and
tension as compared with other similar social groupings:

People spend a great deal of time interacting in the context of the family.
The range of activitiesand events occurringthere is quite broad, and family
members differ in terms of sex, age, ability, and access to resources. All of
these factors contribute to a high potential for disagreement and conflict.
Membershipin the familyis more involuntarythan membershipin most other
social groups and carries with it the implicit right to influence the behavior
of other members, even to the point of using physical force in the case of
children.The inherentlyunstableand ever-changingnatureof familystructure
also results in chronic, high levels of change and stress. In addition, beliefs
about the sanctity of family privacy tend to discourage many from taking
problems outside the family when they cannot be adequatelyresolved using
internal family resources.24
However, it should be noted that despite the characteristics identified

above that apply to most families in this society, not all families are
violent. Thus, these factors can only partially explain the existence of
family violence.
Until relatively recently, family division of labor has been quite rigid
and based primarily on a member's sex and, to a lesser extent, age.
That is, family roles have been largely gender based and tended not
to take into account such factors as ability or interest in determining
who would accomplish certain tasks. Changes are slowly beginning to
take place, due in large part to the tremendous influx of women into
the labor force, but such changes will reach blue-collar and low-income
families, where the incidence of domestic violence is highest, later
than they will reach the middle and upper middle classes.25
However, sex-role changes are beginning to have an impact on blue-
collar families as wives are forced to enter the labor force to supplement
their husbands' insufficient income or unemployment benefits, or even
in some cases to become the sole breadwinner. Regardless of their
reasons for assuming the breadwinner role, wives come to expect a
larger voice in family decision making, that is, more power. This ex-
pectation can generate conflict if the husband feels that power and
decision making in the family are solely male prerogatives. Thus,
pressures to change in a democratic direction can contribute to tension
and sometimes violence as partners' different expectations collide."2
Another causal factor operating at the family level of analysis is
conflict over children-especially those with special needs-as well as
sex, money, housekeeping, and social activities. Straus et al. state that
"sex and money are widely believed to be the issues which cause the
most trouble. But our data show that neither of these provokes the
most violence. Rather, it is conflictover childrenwhichis mostlikelyto lead
a couple to blows."27Conflict seems to operate in a cumulative manner:
the more marital conflict experienced by the couple, the more likely
they are to engage in violence. Couples who reported almost always
disagreeing in the five areas identified above were sixteen times as
likely to have had a violent episode as couples who almost never

disagreed.28 These findings are corroborated by other studies based

on less representative samples."29
The factors cited above primarily address the causes of domestic
violence, rather than its maintenance once it has occurred. Couple
dynamics following a violent incident can also make violence a more
likely future occurrence. For example, women often threaten to leave
their abusive spouses but fail to carry through on this threat, or actually
do leave repeatedly but return each time. In both cases their credibility
and power vis-a-vis the abusive partner are reduced. It is also typical
for the abusive partner to be contrite after an incident, often apologizing
the next morning for his behavior, making promises to change, stop
drinking, never hit her again, and behave like a model husband for
some period of time. The situation improves temporarily, and the wife
does not take further action. Then the relationship gradually begins
to deteriorate, conflict and tension build, and the cycle starts again.
A variant of this process has been described in detail by Lenore Walker,
who has called it the "cycle theory of violence.""30
The final factor to be discussed at the family level of analysis pertains
to social networks. It has been observed repeatedly that families in
which violence is a regular occurrence are socially isolated, that is, not
well connected to kin, neighbors, or friends-informal support systems
that provide feedback and serve as potential resources for change.3'
It is not clear yet whether this social isolation contributes to the violence,
or is a consequence of it; more likely, being unconnected to a social
network is both cause and effect.
Numerous factors that cause and/or maintain domestic violence have
been identified at the family level of analysis. These pertain to the
nature of family life and organization, as well as family roles and
interaction patterns. They are often related to or derived from factors
that operate at the social-structural level, discussed below.
The Social-Structural Level

The social-structural level of analysis addresses major institutions in
the society, both formal and informal. In the very broadest sense, it
refers to economic realities and trends, such as prosperity versus reces-
sion, high employment versus low employment, and the way goods
and services are distributed among groups in society. Other broad
areas of concern at the social-structural level of analysis include com-
munity and neighborhood characteristics,law enforcement and criminal
justice practices, and aspects of the world of work that "spill over" into
family life.
In regard to the role of economic factors in causing or maintaining
domestic violence, one influential theory has emerged called the struc-
tural theory of intrafamily violence.32 This approach recognizes that
societal resources are not equitably distributed across all social groups.

That is, there are structuralinequitiesthat cause deprivationand stress
to be differentiallydistributedacrossfamilies,with those at the bottom
of the socioeconomic ladder leading more stressful, deprived lives.
The role of economicfactors,especiallyunemployment,in contributing
to marital conflict has been noted, and we know as well that poor
families are more likely to be violent than more affluent families."3
But since not all poor families resort to violence, povertyundoubtedly
does not cause spouse abuse in any straightforward,deterministic
manner. Rather, it appears to contribute to family violence through
the stress and tension created by insufficient material resources.
The role of unemployment as a contributor to all types of family
violence is beginning to be documented. Belsky, for example, has
addressedthe issue of unemploymentas a factorrelatedto childabuse."
The positiverelationshipbetweenunemploymentandfamilyviolence
has also been noted for spouse abuse by Straus et al., who found that
"... households where the husband was unemployed or employed
only part time . . . had the highest ratesof violence between spouses."35
Rates of husband abuse in these households were equally affected.
The exact role joblessness plays in regard to domestic violence has
not been identified, but is probablymediated by such factorsas degree
of frustration and resentment experienced, amount of personal re-
sponsibility assumed, spouse's response to the unemployment, and
amount of financial difficulty experienced by the family.
Communities can play a contributing or maintaining role in domestic
violence in two ways: (1) through their laws, norms, and informal
rules; and (2) by the ways in which they choose to ignore or respond
to the existence of this problem. Some communities respond by denying
that any problem exists, and are reluctant or outright unwilling to
assume any responsibility for addressing the problem of domestic
violence. In most communities today, few, if any, services exist to help
those experiencing spouse abuse, and those services that do exist are
often poorly integrated and difficult to access. Local laws and informal
practices can play an insidious role in contributing to family violence.
Typically, police departments and social service and mental health
agencies have discretion in how they may respond to domestic violence
cases. Under these circumstances, the attitudes and beliefs of potential
service providers can influence the formal or informal policies and
practices adopted in relation to victims of domestic violence."1 Un-
fortunately, service providers often perform a "gatekeeping" function
and have been found to blame victims for their abuse, often discouraging
them from seeking outside assistance in resolving their family diffi-
culties.37
In summary, several major factors operating at the social-structural
level of analysis have been identified. Etiological factors discussed
included economic factors in general and unemployment in particular,

andvariationsin communityattitudesandorganization, especiallyon
the part of potentialsourcesof assistance.These factorsare often
closelylinkedwiththosethatoperateat thebroadestlevelof analysis-
the sociocultural-discussednext.
SocioculturalLevel
This level of analysisfocuseson societalnorms,culturalvalues,and
beliefsystemsthataffectvirtuallyall of us to at leastsomeextentand
differentiatethis society (or significantsubcultureswithin it) from
others.Fourfactorsat the sociocultural levelwillbe discussedin terms
of theircontributionsto the causationand maintenanceof domestic
violence:sexism,sex-rolestereotyping,generalacceptanceof violence,
and normsaboutthe familyin general.
The continuedexistenceof sexismin contemporary Americansociety
is a powerfulforce that cannotbe disputed.Its rootsare deep, and,
accordingto Straus,"toa considerableextent,the culturalnormsand
valuespermittingandsometimesencouraging husband-to-wife violence
reflectthe hierarchicalandmale-dominant of
type society which char-
acterizesthe Westernworld."38 Sexismcontributesto familyviolence
in both obviousand subtleways.It is manifestedin the mannerin
whichwe socializeour children-boys for independenceand aggres-
siveness,andgirlsfordependency andpassivity.Sexismisalsomanifested
in the responseof the criminaljusticesystemto the dangersto which
womenare dailysubjectedand by its refusalto takewomenseriously.
And it is manifestedin the labormarket,whereit is moredifficultfor
womento obtainjobs, hold them, and recoverfrom their loss, and
wherewomenstillare not assuredof equalpay for equalwork.
Sex-rolestereotypingis relatedto sexismandrefersto widelyaccepted
and narrowlydefinedrolesand modesof behaviorconsideredappro-
priatefor one genderor the other.Whilehistoricallysuch rigiddif-
ferentiationmayhavemadesenseon the basisof physicaldifferences
betweenthe sexes,it no longerdoes.As societymovesin the direction
of more flexiblesex roles, conflictis inevitablein the shortrun and
maybe mostlikelyto be manifestedin the familysetting.
It is neitherprofoundnor controversialto observethatwe live in
a violentsociety.Weapprove,orat leasttolerate,a tremendousamount
of violence,both real and fictionalized,in our media,in our public
schools,in our sports,and so forth. There is little doubt that such
broadacceptanceof violencein generalestablishesa contextfor the
tolerationand acceptanceof violencein intimatesituations.
The finalfactorto be discussedat the sociocultural levelof analysis
concernsnormsaboutthe familyandis closelyrelatedto otheraspects
of family life (level 2) discussed previously. One of the fundamental
norms of family life that contributes to the etiology and maintenance
of family violence has its roots in ancient times, and views women and

children as the property of their husbands. In nineteenth-century
England, chastisement of one's wife was considered a male privilege
and as such was regulated-a man could assert his authority with his
wife using a rod no thicker than his own thumb. Thus, wife beating
was not only legal, but recommended."9 As a result of these cultural
norms legitimizing physical violence between married partners, the
marriage license has become, in Straus's40words, "a hitting license" in
the eyes of the outside world-not just for the man on the street, but
often for police officers and the courts as well.
Another family norm that contributes to the existence of family
violence, albeit indirectly, pertains to child rearing and sex-role
stereotyping. Traditionally, child bearing and rearing were seen as
the almost exclusive responsibility of women, with certain limited aspects
delegated to men, for example, discipline and recreation. This situation,
while understandable in light of the history of the nuclear family, and
possibly quite functional in past times, has now become problematic
for many families. Aside from the impact on women themselves in
terms of their own interests and self-fulfillment, and the unequal
burdens they must bear in terms of family work, children need actively
involved fathers. Likewise, the sex-role stereotyping that prescribes
men's primary role in the family as that of breadwinner deprives men
of the joys and satisfactions, agonies and strains, of child care. Ironically,
these satisfactions might substitute quite well for those not obtained
on the job, especially for blue-collar men.
In summary, four factors have been discussed at the broadest level
of analysis, the sociocultural level: sexism, and one of its corollaries,
sex-role stereotyping, tolerance of violence in general, and norms
about the family as a social institution. While the case can be made
that these factors rarely, if ever, operate in a direct way to cause
domestic violence, it can also be argued that they are the most influential
and pervasive factors contributing to domestic violence, as well as the
least amenable to change.
Limitations of the Model

The ecological model presented to explain domestic violence has many
strengths, including (1) the recognition of the multiple causation of
domestic violence by factors operating at different levels of analysis,
(2) provision for interaction between the different factors within and
across levels, (3) the ability to analyze violence as it occurs over time
or at a given point in time, and (4) the ability to differentiate between
factors that initially cause violence and those that may later serve to
perpetuate or maintain it. These attributes provide us with a picture
that is more comprehensive, rich, and multidimensional-that is, more
realistic-as compared with previous conceptualizations.

But the framework presented also has some noteworthy limitations
that reduce its ultimate utility in helping us to understand the problem
of domestic violence. These limitations stem, in part, from our limited
knowledge of the problem at this time. For example, whereas the
model allows for a broad spectrum of causal factors, it does not specifically
and exhaustively identify every possible factor at each level that might
contribute to domestic violence. Although it allows for the possibility
of indirect as well as direct causation, it does not specify contributing
factors that are more likely to be indirect, or circumstances under
which certain factors will operate in a more indirect fashion. Its most
serious limitation may be the fact that the model only hints at the
problem of how the various factors, once identified, should be weighted.
While it is reasonable to assume that various contributing factors are
not equally weighted, it may not be the case that a particular factor
that is very influential for family A will have the same impact on family
B. It is hoped that the framework presented will stimulate the research
that is needed before such questions can be answered, and before a
more definitive causal model can be developed.
The following representative case study is presented and analyzed
to illustrate the utility of the ecological framework presented above.
It concerns the question of why a battered woman remains in a violent
home situation.
Case Study
Doug and Brenda,thirtyand thirty-two,respectively,have been marriedtwelve

yearsand have three children:Tommy, twelve;Pamela,nine; and Mark,four.
They live in a semiruralsetting in Ohio. The only vehicle the family owns is
a second-hand pickup truck Doug uses to get to his job as a nonunion con-
structionworker.Brendawould like to return to workwhen Markis in school,
but Doug is dead set against it, feeling that it is the husband'sresponsibility
to support the family.
Doug's childhood was difficult. His parents were killed in a car accident,
and the children were split up and sent to different foster homes. He never
adjusted to these placements. He also did poorly in school, so he dropped
out when he was sixteen. Then he had a series of low-paying,part-timejobs
until he met and marriedBrendaat age eighteen. She becamepregnantalmost
immediately,and Doug promised her he would make a serious effort to get
more steady work. Since then his income has variedwith the weatherand the
plight of the constructionindustry.Recently,Doug had been informallylaid
off. Since he was not eligible for unemployment insurance, no work meant
no paycheck--of which Brenda reminded him every time she saw a help
wanted ad.
The circumstancesleading to the latestviolentincidentbeganone afternoon
when the children were all away. Doug was at home drinkingbeer (no work

that day) and Brenda mentioned as casuallyas possible that she thought she
might be pregnant. Doug became enraged at her "stupidity."Although she
tried to discuss it with him, the timing was bad and he stormed out of the
house.
Laterat dinner Doug startedcomplainingbecause his meat was not cooked
enough. Brenda tried to explain and offered to cook the meat some more,
but he yelled that he didn't want to wait, and began throwing things around.
The children were frozen in terror. As Brenda started to get up to cook the
meat some more Doug hit her across the face, knockingher to the floor. The
children began to cry hysterically.Doug continued to yell about how inept
Brenda had always been in the kitchen. By then, Brenda was crying too,
although she was also very angry. She sent the children to their rooms and
when Doug turned his back, she grabbedTommy's hockey stick and started
to hit him. He became even more angry and startedto come after her again.
Eventuallyhe grabbed the car keys and drove off.
He returned late the next afternoon with flowersfor Brenda and had good
news-he'd been calledbackto work-with no mention of lastnight'sincident.
Brenda was angry, but also relieved. At least there would be a paycheckfor
a while and Doug wouldn'tbe around all day, getting depressedand drinking.
After dinner Brenda began to think about what would happen next. Doug
would apologize and say he didn't really mean to hurt her. Then he would
promise never to hit her again, and she, of course, was supposed to forgive
him. Thinking backon their marriageBrenda realizedthat violence had been
intermittentrather than a constant force in their relationship.In between the
blow-ups things weren't wonderful, but they weren't awful either. Her own
situationwas better than that of many women she knew,includingher mother
and sisters. But at least they were all together in Tennessee, while she was
alone in Ohio.
Once she left with the kids to go to her sister'safter Doug got very drunk
and beat her badly. But it didn't work out; the children missed Doug, and
after four days they all came back to Ohio.
Case Analysis
Why doesn't Brenda Reynolds do something about her situation? Does
she even perceive it as a problem? Does she enjoy or need to be beaten?
The ecological framework previously presented will be used to analyze
the Reynolds case in an attempt to understand why Brenda continues
to live in a situation in which she repeatedly is hurt and her children
are frightened. Factors that serve to maintain violence in families will
be highlighted in this discussion, which begins at the individual level
of analysis.
Individual level of analysis.-Based on Doug's family background, it
seems fairly clear that he has no real conception of healthy marital
interaction or family life. In addition, he must deal with the continuing
stress of a tenuous employment situation that deprives the family of
adequate material resources. The frustration and resentment caused
by his low wages and intermittent work situation undoubtedly have a
negative impact on his self-esteem. He does not appear to be coping
very effectively with this stress, as evidenced by his excessive drinking
and the displacement of his frustration onto other family members.

This poor coping ability may well be related to lack of sufficient nurturing
and permanence and unmet dependency needs arising out of his
childhood.
Brenda, too, has a family history that leads her to expect violence
and abuse as a regular, though intermittent, feature of family life. In
fact, all the female members of her family of origin seem to be coping
with family violence as part of their adult lives. Despite the fact that
her background has taught her to expect such violence, she has made
at least a few attempts to terminate it in her own life, namely, calling
the police a few times and leaving with the children for her sister's
home in Tennessee. However, these attempts to end the violence have
been unsuccessful. Thus, she has come to the point of resignation or
passive acceptance of her plight-she has learned that her efforts
have little if any positive effect on the violence (learned helplessness).
Family level of analysis.-There are several aspects of the Reynolds's
family life that have led to and maintained the violence that has occurred,
and which interact with factors at the other levels of analysis. Doug's
expectation of dominance in the home (sociocultural level) interacts
with his feelings about work (individual and social structural levels).
However, his inadequate performance as the breadwinner has caused
his legitimacy to erode because he no longer has the personal resources
to support his expected superiority in the home. Consequently, he
refuses to "allow"Brenda to work outside the home, even though they
badly need the money. And he repeatedly resorts to physical force,
knowing that this is an arena where he can still demonstrate superiority.
In addition, Brenda and Doug do not communicate very effectively.
His verbal skills are quite limited, and he often leaves the scene during
an argument or resorts to violence rather than using other means to
resolve the issue. Brenda, who did finish high school and has been
employed in the past, feeds into Doug's insecurity and low self-esteem
by badgering him to let her get a job, further reminding him of his
inadequacy as a provider and lending support to the status-incom-
patibility hypothesis discussed earlier.
Finally, the family is somewhat isolated; neither spouse has any
immediate family close by to provide support or feedback, and neighbors
are not close enough to be helpful. The family has never interacted
much with friends or neighbors, and the current financial strains have
made socializing virtually impossible.
Social-structurallevel of analysis.-There are two major factors at this
level of analysis that contribute to the Reynolds's tendency to engage
in domestic violence: (1) Doug's tenuous employment situation, and
(2) characteristics of the community, especially the response of the
criminaljustice system. Even in prosperous times when jobs are available,
men like Doug have difficulty achieving a stable, much less rewarding,
employment situation. His lack of a high school diploma and limited
skills render him, and others like him, increasingly obsolete in today's
job market. Similarly, even if he were to allow her to work, the likelihood
that Brenda could find employment is very low, given her lack of skills
and absence from the labor market for twelve years. And since there
is almost no safe outlet for the frustration and resentment that inevitably
develop, they tend to get displaced onto members who are not powerful
enough to effectively resist.
In regard to the community, we know that rural communities, the
community mental health movement notwithstanding, are less likely
to have adequate social services as compared to other types of com-
munities. The inadequacy of the police response to the Reynolds's
problem also serves to maintain it. Finally, in addition to the attitudinal
factors that can facilitate or discourage services for families experiencing
violence, there are other small-community problems, such as trans-
portation and confidentiality.
Socioculturallevel of analysis.-All four of the factors identified at the
sociocultural level play some role in the problems of the Reynolds
family. By virtue of the fact that the family is part of mainstream
America, we can assume that they live in a cultural milieu where
violence is accepted and expected; we know that Brenda grew up in
a family where that was certainly true. The roles played by sexism,
norms about family life in general, and sex-role stereotyping are highly
interrelated. As a result of norms about family life and sex-role ster-
eotyping, Doug feels that he must be head of the family, and must
be its sole breadwinner, despite the fact that this is not very functional
in his situation. Although his personal resources do not legitimize his
position of dominance in the family, he persists in an almost pathetic
way in asserting his power by demonstrating his physical superiority
over his wife. She has so little power that she resorts to nagging and
assaults on his self-esteem in the attempt to get "permission" to work
outside the home. And yet, even if he were to grant permission, she
would encounter sexism in the marketplace that would greatly restrict
her access to employment. One of the consequences of this is the fact
that she is not really free to leave her husband, because in all likelihood
she would be unable to financially support her children on what she
alone might earn. And with her husband's erratic work history, it is
unlikely that he could ever support two households on what little he
earns. Consequently, their options are very limited.
Future Directions
Developing a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of the complex,

interrelated factors that contribute to spouse abuse is an important
step toward the more long-term goal of reducing domestic violence.
The merit of the ecological framework presented here is that it is
relatively simple to comprehend, it allows for elaboration through the
addition of variables and identification of possible interrelationships,
and it can serve as the basis for empirical work that will hopefully
bring us closer to a comprehensive theory of family violence. The
framework lends itself for use with some of the powerful new mul-
tivariate analytic techniques that allow inferences about causality. These
techniques also permit greater specification of the interrelationships
between variables within or across different levels of the model. This
second feature is critical because domestic violence appears to be a
very complex, multidetermined social problem.
Some of the questions that researchers might ask about the ecological
framework include the following: Do factors contained at one level of
the model account for more of the variance in violent outcomes than
factors at the other levels? How do we identify interrelationships between
variables, either within or across levels, when the range of possible
interactional effects is almost infinite? Are main effects more potent
than interaction effects? Or are there, in fact, no true main effects?
While developing a more complete understanding of domestic violence
is a necessary goal in the short run, this knowledge is critical to achieving
long-term goals such as amelioration of effects and prevention. In
addition to its utility as a means of analyzing domestic violence, the
ecological framework can also be useful in thinking about appropriate
interventions. To fully develop domestic violence intervention strategies
based on the framework would require a separate paper. But to dem-
onstrate the potential usefulness of the ecological approach, some
representative examples of intervention strategies at each of the four
levels are offered in relation to the case illustration presented.
At the individual level, there are several types of counseling that
could be of assistance to Brenda and Doug Reynolds. Both have low
self-esteem, the improvement of which would be a long-term counseling
goal. In addition, as mentioned previously, Brenda appears to be
suffering from learned helplessness and could use some help in be-
coming a more assertive, effective person who feels in control of her
life, regardless of whether she chooses to continue or terminate her
relationship with Doug. Doug may be able to benefit from one of the
newly emerging groups for batterers-if he is able to accept some of
the responsibility for the violence.41 Finally, he could use some em-
ployment counseling, as well as job training for a new, more marketable
skill.
At the family level of intervention, couple counseling focused on
improved communication and problem solving and the exploration
of more flexible sex roles in the family could be useful for Brenda
and Doug. In addition, they need help in redefining the marital re-
lationship so that it is not viewed primarily in terms of power, dominance,
and submission, and where the use of physical force is ruled out as

inappropriate. Finally, in light of the family's social isolation from kin,

friends, and neighbors, attention should be devoted to linking the
Reynolds to others, that is, developing a social network to obtain emo-
tional support and show that not all families use violence.
Intervention strategies at the social-structural level are focused on
the community and its social service structure, and on economic forces
that extend beyond the local community. At the community level, two
things need to occur. First, a wide range of service providers need to
be educated about domestic violence. Second, the social service network
needs to be analyzed in relation to domestic violence to identify gaps
in services, and to improve and better coordinate existing services. In
the economic realm, a realistic objective would be advocacy for improved
employment services. Policymakers, legislators, public officials, and
the general public need to become more aware of the importance of
employment above and beyond economic support of individuals and
families, as well as the tremendous hidden costs of unemployment.
Intervention strategies at the sociocultural level are even more indirect
than those at the social-structural level and have potential benefits for
all families, not only those experiencing violence.42 People need to be
made aware of the pervasiveness and impact of interpersonal force in
American society, whether it is physical punishment in the home and
schools, or use of violence in sports and the media. Passage of the
Equal Rights Amendment, despite its present uncertain status, would
still be the most effective way of reducing sex discrimination in the
workplace, a factor that fosters economic dependency and traps women
in abusive relationships. Finally, the cultural norms pertaining to mar-
riage and the family need to be redefined so that physical force is
proscribed as a way of solving problems or asserting dominance.
Several of the intervention strategies mentioned, especially those at
the social-structural and sociocultural levels, will be controversial, as
well as complicated and difficult to achieve. Experts in the field, however,
are increasingly concluding that the only way to meaningfully reduce
the violence that pervades so many families is through fundamental
changes in people's attitudes, and in the political and economic or-
ganization of our society. Developing a more complete understanding
of the causes, complexities, and impact of that violence is an important
step toward that change.
Notes
1. Richard J. Gelles and Murray A. Straus, "Determinants of Violence in the Family:

Toward a Theoretical Integration," in ContemporaryTheoriesabout the Family, ed. W. R.
Burr et al. (New York: Free Press, 1979), pp. 549-79.

2. Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz, Behind ClosedDoors:
Violencein the AmericanFamily (New York: Anchor/Doubleday, 1980).
3. Gelles and Straus.
4. Urie Bronfenbrenner, "Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development,"
AmericanPsychologist32 (1977): 513-31, and TheEcologyof Human Development(Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979).
5. Jay Belsky, "Child Maltreatment: An Ecological Analysis," AmericanPsychologist35
(1980): 320-35.
6. Ibid.
7. Bonnie E. Carlson and Liane V. Davis, "Prevention of Domestic Violence," in
Prevention in Mental Health, ed. Richard H. Price et al. (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage
Publications, 1977), pp. 41-62; Natalie Shainess, "PsychologicalAspects of Wifebattering,"
in Battered Women:A PsychosociologicalStudy of Domestic Violence, ed. Maria Roy (New
York: Van Nostrand Co., 1977), pp. 111-19; Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Woman
(New York: Harper/Colophon, 1979).
8. Gelles and Straus.
9. Roger Langley and Richard C. Levy, Wife Beating: The Silent Crisis (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1977); Maria Roy, "A Current Survey of 150 Cases," in Battered
Women:A PsychosociologicalStudy of Domestic Violence, ed. Maria Roy (New York: Van
Nostrand Co., 1977), pp. 25-44; Shainess; Walker.
10. Martin Seligman, Helplessness(San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1975).
11. Elaine Hilberman, "Overview: The 'Wife-Beater's Wife' Reconsidered," American
Journal of Psychiatry 137 (1980): 1336-47; Walker.
12. Craig Allen and Murray A. Straus, "Resources, Power, and Husband-Wife Violence,"
in The Social CausesofHusband-WifeViolence,ed. Murray A. Straus and Gerald T. Hotaling
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980), pp. 188-208; William A. Goode,
"Force and Violence in the Family,"Journal of Marriage and the Family 33 (1974): 624-
36.
13. Carlton A. Hornung, B. Claire McCullough, and Taichi Sugimoto, "Status Re-
lationships in Marriage: Risk Factors in Spouse Abuse,"Journal of Marriage and the Family
43 (1981): 675-92.
14. Keith M. Farrington, "Stress and Family Violence," in The Social Causesof Husband-
Wife Violence, ed. Murray A. Straus and Gerald T. Hotaling (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1980), pp. 94-114.
15. Straus et al. (n. 2 above).
16. Ibid., p. 184.
17. Barbara Star, "The Impact of Violence on Families," ConciliationCourtsReview 19
(1981): 33-40.
18. Richard J. Gelles, "Abused Wives: Why Do They Stay?"Journal of Marriage and
the Family 38 (1976): 659-68.
20. Ross D. Parke, "Some Effects of Punishment on Children's Behavior-Revisited,"
in ContemporaryReadings in Child Psychology,ed. E. Mavis Hetherington and Ross D.
Parke (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1977), pp. 208-20.
21. Albert Bandura, Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973).
22. Margaret Varma, "Battered Women; Battered Children," in Battered Women:A
PsychosociologicalStudy of Domestic Violence, ed. Maria Roy (New York: Van Nostrand
Co., 1977), pp. 263-77.
23. Straus et al. (n. 2 above), pp. 100-101.
24. Carlson and Davis (n. 7 above), pp. 43-44.
26. John E. O'Brien, "Violence in Divorce-prone Families,"Journal of Marriage and
the Family 33 (1971): 692-98.
27. Straus et al. (n. 2 above), p. 171.
28. Ibid.
29. Bonnie E. Carlson, "Battered Women and Their Assailants," Social Work22 (1977):
455-60; Roy (n. 7 above).
30. Walker (n. 7 above).

31. Belsky (n. 5 above).
32. Gelles and Straus (n. 1 above).
33. Straus et al. (n. 2 above); Suzanne Prescott and Carolyn Letko, "Battered Women:
A Social Psychological Perspective," in Roy, ed. (n. 7 above), pp. 72-96.
34. Belsky (n. 5 above).
35. Straus et al. (n. 2 above), p. 150.
36. Specific examples of informal police policies that discourage women from stopping
family violence include so-called "stitch rules" that specify that a victim's injuries must
be serious enough to require a certain number of stitches before a complaint can be
filed, and the "cooling-off period," that is, a number of days that must transpire before
a victim can file a complaint leading to a warrant for her spouse's arrest.
37. Liane V. Davis and Bonnie E. Carlson, "Attitudes of Service Providers toward
Domestic Violence," Social WorkResearchand Abstracts18 (1982): 34-49.
38. Murray A. Straus, "A Sociological Perspective in the Prevention and Treatment
of Wifebeating," in Roy, ed. (n. 7 above), pp. 194-239.
39. Terry Davidson, "Wifebeating: A Recurring Phenomenon throughout History,"
in Roy, ed. (n. 7 above), pp. 2-23.
40. Straus (n. 38 above) cites the following old English maxim to illustrate his point:
"A woman, a horse, and hickory tree / The more you beat 'em the better they be."
41. Albert R. Roberts, "Intervention with the Abusive gartner," in BatteredWomenand
Their Families, ed. Albert R. Roberts (New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1984), pp.
84-115.
42. A more extensive discussion of some of these ideas can be found in Straus (n. 38
above).


Carlson (1984) - Causes and Maintenance of Domestic Violence, An Ecological Analysis (Artículo)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Carlson (1984) - Causes and Maintenance of Domestic Violence, An Ecological Analysis (Artículo)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Causes and Maintenance of

Domestic violence, or spouse battering, is analyzed using a four-part theoretical

During the last decade, the problem of domestic violence, or spouse

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

Cultural norms, values, and beliefs, e.g.,

role stereotyping and norms about family

Il. SOCIAL STRUCTURAL

Economic realities and trends,

Dynamics, roles and interaction

FIG. 1.-Ecological framework for analysis of causes and maintenance of domestic

maintain domestic violence, culled from the research literature. To

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

However, it should be noted that despite the characteristics identified

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

disagreed.28 These findings are corroborated by other studies based

The Social-Structural Level

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

Limitations of the Model

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

Doug and Brenda,thirtyand thirty-two,respectively,have been marriedtwelve

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

Developing a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of the complex,

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

inappropriate. Finally, in light of the family's social isolation from kin,

1. Richard J. Gelles and Murray A. Straus, "Determinants of Violence in the Family:

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

This content downloaded from 128.252.067.066 on September 22, 2016 08:06:11 AM

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi