UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Violence against intimates : toward a profile of the wife assaulter Browning, James Joseph 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A1 B76.pdf [ 9.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096395.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096395-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096395-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096395-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096395-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096395-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096395-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096395-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096395.ris

Full Text

V I O L E N C E A G A I N S T I N T I M A T E S : T O W A R D A P R O F I L E O F T H E W I F E A S S A U L T E R b y J A M E S J O S E P H B R O W N I N G B . A . ( H o n s ) Q u e e n s U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 5 M . A . U n i v e r s i t y O f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 9 7 8 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S ' F O R T H E D E G R E E O F D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y i n T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S D e p a r t m e n t O f P s y c h o l o g y We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRI T I S H COLUMBIA O c t o b e r 1983 © James J o s e p h B r o w n i n g , 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis fo r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publi c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of / >^ V/ otfoL. c ) 6 V The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date b&JL&M&ZiZ. ta; /?P-T-i i Abstract, Recent incidence s t a t i s t i c s have confirmed the impressions of c l i n i c i a n s , t r a n s i t i o n house workers and police that wife assault i s a widespread and serious s o c i a l problem. The last decade has witnessed a f l u r r y of theoretical papers, interview studies and broad survey research in the area. While these e f f o r t s have s i g n i f i c a n t l y advanced public awareness and knowledge about the problem, the majority of the research to date has suffered from methodological shortcomings such as lack of standardized measures,, lack of comparison groups, and inattention to the offender. Since some evidence suggests that many of these men are violent in more than one relationship , the lack of knowledge about assaulter c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s represents an important gap in the l i t e r a t u r e . This research project attempted to test a number of c l i n i c a l l y - d e r i v e d hypotheses about the wife assaulter and his relationship by d i r e c t l y examining a sample of eighteen assaultive husbands. The responses of these men were compared to those of eighteen verbally aggressive, nonviolent men and eighteen nonaggressive men matched for age and socioeconomic status. Paper and pencil measures were used to assess c o n f l i c t t a c t i c s , marital adjustment, childhood exposure to violence, general and spouse-specific assertive communication, emotional expressiveness, attitudes toward women, and need for power. The men's reactions to videotaped couple c o n f l i c t scenarios which varied power dynamics and attempted intimacy movement, were assessed via affect checklists and physiological measures ( i . e . skin conductance, heart rate, respiration and pulse t r a n s i t time). The men's reports of violence were corroborated by their wives. The results showed a remarkable s i m i l a r i t y among the three groups of men o v e r a l l . Some p o t e n t i a l l y interesting differences emerged in terms of the relevance of abandonment fear as an inst i g a t i o n to wife assault and in terms of differences in perceptions of violence between husband and wife. The overall results were compared with those of several well-designed studies on c h i l d abuse which indicate that many of the assumed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of abusive families' are also shared by demographically. similar nonabusive families. Suggestions for further substantive research are made based on the results of this project. F i n a l l y , a number of methodological recommendations are made including the need to develop a taxonomy of wife assaulters, the u t i l i t y of c o l l e c t i n g couple data, and the- necessity for a broad-based approach to theory and measurement in the area. Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables . v i I . THE PROBLEM 1 I I . THEORIES AND RESEARCH 9 A. SOCIOBIOLOGICAL THEORIES 9 B. TRADITIONAL CLINICAL THEORIES 10 C. THE MACROSYSTEM--SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 15 D. THE EXOSYSTEM 17 E. MICROSYSTEM AND ONTOGENIC FACTORS--THE ASSAULTER AND HIS MARITAL RELATIONSHIP 20 1. POWER AND CONTROL 2 0 2 . RESPONSE POVERTY 22 3.... INSTIGATION OF THE ASSAULT—RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS 2 6 4. • WOMEN AS THE TARGET OF VIOLENCE 35 I I I . METHOD 38 A. SUBJECTS 38 B. GENERAL PROCEDURE 4 3 C. PAPER AND PENCIL MEASURES 4 5 1. The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) Of NPower .45 2. A Demographic Data Form 48 3. The C o n f l i c t T a c t i c S cale (CTS) — Form N (Stra u s , 1979) 48 4. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale 50 5. V i o l e n c e In The- Family Of--- Ori-grn 51 6. The Rathus A s s e r t i v e n e s s Schedule .....51 7. S p o u s e - S p e c i f i c A s s e r t i v e n e s s Scale (SSAS) 52 8. The Test Of Emotional S t y l e 52 9. Burt's A t t i t u d e S c a l e s 53 10. The Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c ale ...54 D. THE VIDEOTAPE ANALOGUE STUDY 55 1 . Design 56 2. Videotaped Scenes 56 3. Dependent Measures: 59 a. S e l f - r e p o r t Measures 59 b. P h y s i o l o g i c a l Measures 61 4. Apparatus And Q u a n t i f i c a t i o n Of P h y s i o l o g i c a l Data 66 5. Procedure 68 IV. RESULTS 72 A. QUESTIONNAIRE DATA 72 B. VIDEOTAPE ANALOGUE DATA 7 5 1. C o n f l i c t , Realism, Dominance And Attempted Intimacy Movement Ratings , 7 6 2. Emotional Response To The Videotapes 88 3. Post-experimental Data 105 C. HUSBAND VERSUS WIFE RATINGS OF VIOLENCE 110 D. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION REGARDING VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR OF PA MEN 110 V. DISCUSSION 113 BIBLIOGRAPHY 137 APPENDIX A: LETTER TO MARITAL THERAPISTS AND CLIENT HAND-OUT 156 APPENDIX B: ADS IN THE VANCOUVER SUN 160 APPENDIX C: AD IN LAUNDROMATS 162 APPENDIX D: CONSENT FORM 164 APPENDIX E: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET 166' APPENDIX F: CONFLICT TACTICS SCALE .. .....168 APPENDIX G: CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES USED TO ASSESS CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE 170 APPENDIX H: RATHUS ASSERTIVENESS SCALE ...173 APPENDIX I: SPOUSE-SPECIFIC ASSERTI VENESS SCALE 175 APPENDIX J: TEST OF EMOTIONAL STYLE 178 APPENDIX K: BURT ATTITUDE SCALES AND MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE 184 APPENDIX L: DESIGN OF VIDEOTAPE STUDY '..188 APPENDIX M: COUNTERBALANCING PROCEDURE 190 APPENDIX N: INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS 192 APPENDIX O: SUMMARY OF PRETEST ANALYSIS 194 APPENDIX P: AFFECT ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST 197 APPENDIX Q: FORM FOR RATING DOMINANCE AND ATTEMPTED INTIMACY MOVEMENT 199 APPENDIX R: LIST OF QUESTIONS ASKED IN POST-EXPERIMENTAL INTERVIEW. . - 2 01' APPENDIX S: LIST OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE PA MEN'S VIOLENCE 203 APPENDIX T: DETAILED EXAMINATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES 205 v i L i s t of Tables 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Husband's C o n f l i c t Tactics as Rated by Husbands and Wifes* 0 ...40 2. Descriptive Information Means, Standard Deviations and Results 44 3. Pearson Interrater R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s for Physiological Measures 69 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Paper and Pencil Measures 73 5. Means and Standard Deviations for C o n f l i c t Ratings ...77 6. Analysis of Variance Results for Co n f l i c t Ratings ....78 7. Means and Standard Deviations for Realism Ratings ....80 8. Analysis of Variance Results for Realism Ratings 81 9. Means and Standard Deviations for Dominance Ratings ..82 10. Analysis of Variance Results for Dominance Ratings ...83 11. Test of Simple Main Effects for Dominance' Ratings .....85 12. Means and.Standard Deviations for Attempted Intimacy Movement Ratings ...86 13. Analysis of Variance Results for Attempted Intimacy Movement Ratings 87 14. Means and Standard Deviations for SCR, SCL, Heart Rate and Respiration Collapsed Over Thirds of Scenes 89 15. Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for SRC, SRL, Heart Rate and Respiration Rate - Baseline One and Basel ine Two. 92 16. Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for SCR, SCL, Heart Rate and Respiration 93 17. Means and Standard Deviations for Before Scene and End of Scene PTT Measurements* 95 18. Analysis of Covariance Results and Adjusted Means for PTT Data 96 19. Means and Standard Deviations for Anger Ratings 98 20. Means, and: Standard- Dev^atdons for Anxdeby• Ra-t-i-n-gs' ....99-21. Analysis of Variance Results for Pre-ratings of Anger and Anxiety 100 22. Multivariate Analysis of Variance'Results for Anger Ratings 101 23. Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for Anxiety Ratings 1 02. 24. Pearson Correlations Among Physiological Measures for Baseline One, Baseline Two (Collapsed Over Groups)* .106 25. Pearson Correlations Among Physiological and Self-Report Measures While Watching Videotapes (Collapsed Over Group and Scenes)* 107 26. Relevance of Intimacy Issues to the Men's Relationships 108 27. Means, Standard Deviations and Analysis of Results for Husband and Wife CTS - Physical Aggression Scores ...111 28. Means and Standard Deviations of Raw nPower Scores for the Five Individual Stimulus Pictures 208 29. Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Childhood v i i Violence Measures With and Without "Spanking" Item ..209 v i i i Ac knowledgement I would l i k e to thank my committee members - Ralph Hakstian, Bob Hare and B i l l Iacono - for their guidance and support throughout the project. I am grateful to Bob Hare for his generosity in allowing me to use his physiological recording equipment and research space. I am p a r t i c u a l r l y indebted to my research supervisor, Don Dutton, for providing the i n t e l l e c t u a l stimulation, advice, emotional support and f i n a n c i a l backing which enabled the project to be conceived of and completed. I am grateful to the therapists who referred men to the project - in p a r t i c u l a r Dale Trimble, J u l i e Brickman, Daryll Goldenberg, Sue Johnson and Jean Assimacus - and to Reid Spencer who typed this manuscript. F i n a l l y , my thanks is extended to the men and women who cared enough to participate in t h i s research. 1 I. THE PROBLEM Domestic violence has been v i r t u a l l y ignored as a research topic u n t i l r e l a t i v e l y recently, though the phenomenon is not a new one. O'Brien's (1971) finding that there were no references to violence in the index of the Journal of Marriage and the  Family from i t s inception in 1939 through 1970 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s selective inattention. However, recently improved data c o l l e c t i o n techniques (Straus, 1979) have provided information suggesting that wife assault 1 is a major s o c i a l problem. A recent national survey of 2,143 couples' in the U.S.. (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980) indicated that about 16% had experienced at least one incident of violence in the past year (ranging from throwing something/slapping to using a gun). A f u l l 28% had experienced at least one incident of t h i s sort at some time during their marriage. An index of "wife-beating" devised by the authors to represent more severe forms of violence (kicking, b i t i n g , h i t t i n g with a f i s t , or worse) revealed that 3.8% of the wives had experienced this degree of violence in the past year and 5.3% had experienced i t at some point in th e i r marriage. Given the reluctance of domestic The terms "wife assault" and "wife assaulter" were chosen after considerable deliberation and w i l l be used throughout. It was decided that the commonly-used terms "wife battering" and "batterer" were inaccurate in many cases where less severe violence was involved and that terms such as "spouse abuse" were overly vague and euphemistic. The term "assault" also has a legal d e f i n i t i o n which more or less covers the range of behaviours to which we refer. "Wife" and "husband" w i l l be used generically to refer to cohabiting women and men who are involved in an ongoing intimate relationship. 2 violence victims to report violence (Loving & Farmer, 1980; Schulman, 1979) and the exclusion of divorcees from this sample, one might safely double these figures and s t i l l f e e l comfortable about the accuracy of the estimate (Straus, 1977-78). The data from this survey also indicated that once violence is used i t is l i k e l y to be repeated. About one-half of those husbands who acknowledged an item on the "wife-beating" index were violent at least three times per year, while one-third were violent at least f i v e times per year. The median frequency for ov e r a l l violence was 2.4 times per year (Straus, 1977-78). Reports from t r a n s i t i o n houses document some cases where women are beaten weekly or even dai l y for extended periods of time (e.g., Pizzey, 1974). However, i t should be realized that even one act of violence by a physically powerful husband may create strong threat value that can function to control the wife thereafter (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Domestic violence does not always stop at assault. During the period 1961-1975, approximately 20% of homicides in Canada were committed by a spouse or common-law partner (Bell & Benjamin, 1976). The figures are similar in the U.S. (cf. Steinmetz, 1977-78). While husbands and wives appear to be equally l i k e l y to be the offender in these homicides (Steinmetz, 1977-78), extrapolations from older evidence (Wolfgang, 1957) suggest that wife-slayings involve more violence and account for a much greater proportion of a l l female homicides (41%) than do husband-slayings (which account for only 11% of a l l male 3 homicides). Moreover, i t has been suggested that many husband-slayings are motivated by self-defense following repeated violence by the victim (Bourdouris, 1971; Hilberman, 1980; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). The U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (1969) reported that among spouse murderers, wives were seven times more l i k e l y to k i l l in self-defense than were husbands.-Levinger (1966) in a study of divorce applicants provided data to dispel the myth that wife assault i s confined to working-class males. He found that 22% of middle-class applicants and 40% of working-class applicants gave violence as a reason for divorce. This finding suggests that, while violence is more prevalent among working-class males, i t spans socio-economic boundaries. It also lends support to reports from t r a n s i t i o n house workers that many of their residents are wives of prominent men in the community (Pizzey, 1974). Therefore, rather than positing a "subculture of violence," i t may be more f r u i t f u l to look for e t i o l o g i c a l factors that are linked to but not exclusive to social c l a s s . Incidence figures revealing wife assault as a pervasive and multi-class phenomenon take on added meaning when one considers the effects on the victim and other individuals. Hilberman and Munson (1977-78) studied 60 battered women and found a high incidence of "somatic complaints, conversion symptoms and psycho-physiologic reactions" with symptoms often connected to the s i t e of assault on the body. Depression, anxiety, insomnia, 4 suicide attempts, and chronic use of tr a n q u i l i z e r s or antidepressants were also reported to be common. Many of these women were characterized as being in a chronic state of stress from constant vigilance and would react to r e l a t i v e l y mild stimuli (e.g., a slamming door) with strong fear. In Gayford's sample of 100 battered women (Gayford, 1975), 71 had symptoms that were treated with t r a n q u i l i z e r s or antidepressants, 42 had attempted suicide, 46 had been referred to a ps y c h i a t r i s t at some point, and 21 had a diagnosis of depression. While the dire c t i o n of causality between violence and psychopathology in these women had not been c l e a r l y established, i t appears l i k e l y that in most cases the symptoms were a stress response to l i v i n g in a threatening environment. Lenore Walker (1979) has invoked the concept of learned helplessness to describe the psychological impact of repeated violence on her sample of wives. This might help to explain the high incidence of depression and the f a i l u r e of many women to break away from the assaultive r e l a t i o n s h i p . It has also been observed that the children of these couples suffer i l l - e f f e c t s . Gayford (1975) found that in over 50% of the cases assaultive husbands also beat their children. Hilberman and Munson (1977-78) i d e n t i f i e d c h i l d abuse in one-th i r d of their sample. Both of these studies also revealed high incidences of psychophysiological, behavioural and other psychological problems in the children. Hilberman (1980) noted a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of symptoms in older children, with boys exhibiting behavioural problems such as aggressiveness, and 5 g i r l s reacting with anxiety and so c i a l withdrawal. This apparent role modeling is a most troublesome side-effect of parental violence. Wife assault is not only deleterious to members of the assaulter's family; i t is also highly dangerous for the po l i c e . Domestic disputes account for about o n e - f i f t h of police f a t a l i t i e s in the U.S.' and about one-quarter of assaults against police o f f i c e r s (cf. Eisenberg & Micklow, 1977; Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980). Therefore, given the foregoing evidence, the problem may be accurately viewed as one of high incidence and high s o c i a l cost. Steinmetz (1977-78) has presented data indicating that husband assault occurs as frequently as wife assault, and consequently she argues that husband assault should also receive attention from researchers and treatment programs. In fact, i t is not d i f f i c u l t to j u s t i f y any aspect of domestic violence as worthy of study. However, Straus (1977-78) outlines a number of reasons why wife assault may be a more severe problem than husband assault and hence a p r i o r i t y for research. He c i t e s evidence that violence by husbands may be under-reported more than violence by wives and that at least some portion of the wife's violence i s a response to an i n i t i a l attack by the husband. Data from his national survey indicate that husbands engage in more serious forms of violence (beating up, using a knife or gun) and tend to repeat these acts more often than women. Greater physical strength of the man means that the woman 6 may suffer more damage when beaten up and more fear of anticipated violence. A large number of wife assaults occur during pregnancy, creating a risk to the unborn c h i l d (Gelles, 1975). F i n a l l y , because of a variety of s o c i a l and economic constraints, women may find i t more d i f f i c u l t to leave the marriage in order to escape violence. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of more accurate incidence s t a t i s t i c s , combined with the progress of feminism, has led to an increasing recognition of the problem. This has sparked a f l u r r y of research papers and theoretical a r t i c l e s on. wife assault. However, the bulk of this research has consisted of interview studies with the women usually in tr a n s i t i o n houses, psychiatric c l i n i c s , or emergency wards (e.g. Pizzey, 1974; Gayford, 1975; Martin, 1976; Roy, 1977; Rounsaville, 1978; Walker, 1979) and broad survey research. Only four studies were found that used assaultive husbands as subjects. These were: two interview studies of men in prison for seriously assaulting or k i l l i n g their wives (Scott, 1974; Faulk, 1974) and two recent studies, one by Rosenbaum and O'Leary (1981) and another by Subotnik (1983). The Subotnik study contrasted two types of assaulters using the D i f f e r e n t i a l Personality Questionnaire (Tellegen) and then compared assaulters' scores to normative data for the questionnaire. While d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g batterers i s useful, comparisons with normative data obtained from college students are d i f f i c u l t to interpret given obvious differences between the groups in terms of age, s o c i a l class and marital status. The Rosenbaum and O'Leary study represented a true methodological 7 advance in the area. They included a group of assaultive husbands who were receiving marital therapy and contrasted them to two matched samples of nonviolent married men using standardized measures. Unfortunately only a portion of the data relevant to the husband was obtained d i r e c t l y from the man himself. The wife was used as the informant for the remainder. Dutton and Painter (1980) also co l l e c t e d data d i r e c t l y from a sample of wife assaulters. Their sample was s o l i c i t e d from a group of men who were attending court-directed group therapy sessions as a result of their violence. Despite various methodological shortcomings acknowledged by the authors, such as small sample size and lack of comparison groups, th i s project served as an important f e a s i b i l i t y study for the present research. The paucity of dir e c t research on the wife assaulter represents a major obstacle to understanding the problem. The emphasis on the victim, rather than the assailant, in the research l i t e r a t u r e has been largely due to the reluctance of the wife assaulter to cooperate in treatment and research (Hilberman, 1980; Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981). Also, a pr e v a i l i n g policy emphasis on treatment of the victim through assistance in separation and reparative counseling rather than on prevention through treatment of the offender has not served to encourage research on the assaultive male. However, given Rounsavilie's (1978) finding that 39% of wife assaulters were involved in more than one assaultive relationship, i t is clear that merely to 8 help the victim while leaving the offender unchanged does a disservice to future victims. Therefore, more direct information is needed about the wife assaulter and about the dynamics of the assaultive relationship from his perspective in order to provide e f f e c t i v e treatment for the male. While the existing c l i n i c a l and research l i t e r a t u r e allows a number of testable hypotheses to be raised, the research conducted to date suffers from: (1) inattention to the wife assaulters as subjects, (2) lack of comparison groups, and (3) lack of standardized measurement techniques (cf. Rosenbaum and O'Leary, 1981). The primary purpose of the present research was to test a number of relevant hypotheses regarding the wife assaulter by d i r e c t l y examining an offending population, using standardized or well-defined measurement techniques and appropriate comparison groups. Since this project represented one of the few attempts so far to systematically assess a sample of wife assaulters, a secondary product was information regarding the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of certain methodological techniques-to an assaultive population. 9 II. THEORIES AND RESEARCH A. SOCIOBIOLOGICAL THEORIES Sociobiologists attempt to take Darwin's concept of evolution and expand i t to explain s o c i a l behaviour such as aggression (cf. Wilson, 1975). According to the theory, behavior is naturally selected over a long period of time to allow for optimal adaptation to the environment and maximization of the organism's contribution to the gene pool. However, these theories have d i f f i c u l t y explaining how uxoricide, which has occurred for centuries (Davidson, 1977), serves to maximize one's gene's pool (Dutton, 1981). Wilson (1975) hypothesizes that man reacts to external threat with s u f f i c i e n t h o s t i l i t y to overwhelm i t by a large margin of error. However, one would expect t h i s h o s t i l i t y to be directed toward the invading male (Lorenz, 1966), not against the wife as is the case with many jealous husbands (Whitehurst, 1971). Simeons (1962) argues that man is genetically predisposed to react to sexual threat with rage. However, as Dutton and Painter (1980) point out, what constitutes "threat" may be s o c i a l l y defined, the subsequent label attached to the physiological arousal ( rage, anxiety, fear, hurt) by the individual may vary with s o c i a l cues (cf. Schachter & Singer, 1962; Novaco, 1975) and the resulting behavior pattern depends to some extent on s o c i a l constraints (cf. Berkowitz, 1971; Geen & Quanty 1977). Even Wilson (1975) agrees that the genesis of aggressive behavior i s an interaction of : (1) a generic predisposition to aggress in some form, (2) 10 environmental requirements, and (3) h i s t o r i c a l trends in the culture. Therefore, s o c i o b i o l o g i c a l theories,, on their own, are at best able to predict that man w i l l respond with physiological arousal to what he perceives as sexual threat. B. TRADITIONAL'CLINICAL THEORIES C l i n i c i a n s have tended to posit individual psychopathology in the wife assaulter, the victim, or both, in order to explain spousal violence. The male has been labeled a s a d i s t i c , psycho-pathic personality (Pizzey, 1974), pathologically passive and dependent ( S n e l l , Rosenwald, & Robey, 1964; Faulk, 1974), and p o t e n t i a l l y brain-damaged ( E l l i o t , 1977). However, c l i n i c a l syndromes may be less pervasive in these men than o r i g i n a l l y thought. Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980) speculate that only 10% of wife assaulters have a c l i n i c a l syndrome severe enough to be labeled " mental i l l n e s s , " though they report no evidence to support their speculation. Scott ( 1974) argues on the basis of his c l i n i c a l experience that sadism-masochism relationships (wherein mutual enjoyment of violence takes.place) are rare among assaultive couples. In reference to the concept of psychopathy, many wife assaulters report intense feelings of g u i l t and remorse after a violent incident (Walker 1979), and a large portion (possibly a majority) of wife assaulters show no overt signs of a n t i s o c i a l behavior outside the home (Scott, 1974; Gayford, 1975; Rounsaville, 1978). In the absence of more thorough diagnostic evidence, these reports suggest caution in applying the label of "psychopath" (or a n t i s o c i a l personality) a p r i o r i to the wife assaulter. F i n a l l y , i t is estimated that only 11 about 3% of wife assaulters have brain damage severe enough to account for their aggression (cf. MacLeod, 1980), though detection i s problematic and well-designed studies have not been reported. Systematic psychological assessment on a large sample of wife assaulters would be required to make d e f i n i t i v e statements about the e t i o l o g i c a l significance of individual psychopathology. Likely, there i s a subsample of th i s loosely defined group in which severe -psychopathology i s present. However/ what information we do have suggests that while the psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the wife assaulter are important in combination with other factors, severe psychopathology is not present in most cases. The wives have often been conceptualized as "masochistic" by c l i n i c i a n s (e.g., Schultz, 1960; Snell, Rosenwald, & Robey, 1964). This i s l i k e l y due to Freud's influence on American c l i n i c a l work (cf. Freud, 1924) and to the observed tendency of battered women to stay in the relationship despite the violence (Walker, 1979). Strong arguments have been made in recent years against the masochism hypothesis (Waites, 1977-78; Rounsaville, 1978). F i r s t l y , women report that they don't l i k e the violence and are d e f i n i t e l y not sexually aroused by i t ( Gayford, 1975), as mythology in some c i r c l e s suggests (London, 1977-78). In fact, the assaulter often uses violence as an avenue to force sex on an unwilling and disgusted wife (Gelles, 1977). Secondly, most women have not had a previous violent relationship 1 2 (Rounsaville, 1978), contrary to popular c l i n i c a l mythology. F i n a l l y , more credible reasons (than enjoyment of suffering) have been suggested to explain why women might stay in a violent relationship. Lack of f i n a n c i a l resources, fear for her l i f e , fear for her children's safety, mistaken b e l i e f s that the husband w i l l change, self-blame due to uniqueness at t r i b u t i o n s and learned helplessness have a l l been suggested in this regard (cf. Waites, 1977-78; Dutton & Painter, 1980). Therefore, the tr a d i t i o n a l view of masochism as "enjoyment of suffering " may be discarded as an explanatory concept. Given i t s lack of empirical support, i t begins to look suspiciously l i k e another attempt to blame the victim. A broader kind of "masochism" in the sense of tolerance for unwanted physical injury due to distorted expectations and self-blame may be useful (Painter, 1981), though the concept would be freer of contamination without the masochism l a b e l . Alcoholism in the husband has been another e t i o l o g i c a l hypothesis commmonl.y invok-ed by mental health p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Alcohol i s proposed to function as a kind of "superego solvent," lessening internalized i n h i b i t i o n s against violence and in effect temporarily a l t e r i n g the personality structure (Gelles, 1972). This hypothesis has received some support from a consistently strong association between wife assault and drinking found in interview studies with battered women (Gelles, 1972; Gayford, 1975; Roy, 1977; Rounsaville, 1978; Hilberman & Munson, 1977-78), wives of alcoholics (Scott, 1974) and broader survey populations (Coleman and Straus, 1979). Laboratory 1 3 evidence demonstrating heightened aggession in male subjects following alcohol ingestion is also consistent with this hypothesis (Boyatzis, 1974). However, the role of alcohol use as a primary cause of wife assault may be questioned for a number of reasons. For example, i t has been reported that in cases where the husband is a frequent alcohol abuser, beatings may often occur when he i s sober (Roy, 1977). Morton Bard, in two studies, found alcohol to be present in only 35% of domestic disputes where police intervened (Zacker & Bard, 1977), and that there was an inverse rel a t i o n s h i p between signs of alcohol intoxication at the scene and the actual occurrence of an assault (Bard & Zacker, 1974). This l a t t e r finding may suggest that intoxication acts as a cue for the victim to take preventive measures against violence such as c a l l i n g the police. A treatment project in Kingston, Ontario (Couples in C r i s i s , 1979) provided anecdotal evidence that counseling may eliminate violence while drinking problems remain. This finding supports the suggestion that drinking may simply create a "time-out" period from r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for already planned violent action (Gelles, 1972; Coleman & Straus, 1979). In this sense, alcohol may allow the wife assaulter and his victim to j u s t i f y his actions afterwards and avoid the stigma of "wife-beater." Once the basic causes of violence are dealt with in therapy, drinking may continue without necessarily leading to continued violence. Interview data from Gelles (1972) also suggests that drinking may simply be a common source of c o n f l i c t between husband and wife (as when the drunken husband demands food and 1 4 sex at three o'clock in the morning) and that this drinking-related c o n f l i c t precipitates violence in the same manner as other c o n f l i c t s would. Another potential explanation for the rela t i o n s h i p between alcohol use and wife assault i s that both behaviors may represent attempts to achieve a desired goal such as a feeling of power (cf. McClelland, 1975). On the basis of current knowledge i t seems most prudent to conceptualize alcohol use as a potential f a c i l i t a t o r of wife assault whose mediating role i s not completely understood at present. It should not be viewed as a primary cause in most cases and should" not obscure the search for more basic causes. It is abundantly, clear from the l i t e r a t u r e on domestic violence that the phenomenon cannot be understood from a unidimensional perspective. A propos of t h i s observation, Belsky ( 1980) has proposed a four-level model for studying c h i l d abuse that appears appropriate for guiding research in the area of wife assault. The model combines Bronfenbrenner's three d i v i s i o n s of ecological space (the macrosystenv, the- exosystem, and the microsystem) with Tinbergin's concept of ontogenic development. The macrosystem involves the over-riding c u l t u r a l b e l i e f s and values, the exosystem deals with the s o c i a l subsystems in which the family i s embedded, the microsystem covers what takes place in the immediate household ( i . e . , the dynamics of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ) , and ontogenic development concerns the development of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in the i n d i v i d u a l . Belsky suggests that a good research study should examine at least two of these levels to enable statements about their 1 5 i n t e r r e l a t i o n . The focus of the proposed research w i l l be at the microsystem and ontogenic l e v e l s , though research bearing on a l l levels w i l l be reviewed in turn. C. THE MACROSYSTEM--SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES Most of the research and theorizing at this l e v e l has been produced by so c i o l o g i s t s and feminists. The basic tenet i s that there are i m p l i c i t c u l t u r a l norms that condone and encourage wife assault. A number of writers give h i s t o r i c a l accounts of how violence against wives has been supported by and entrenched in the legal system for. centuries (de Reincourt, 1974; Dobash & Dobash, 1977-78; Waites, 1977-78). Despite the l i b e r a l i z a t i o n of laws in thi s century, the beli e f that' violence against one's wife i s acceptable s t i l l appears to p e r s i s t . Stark and McEvoy (1970), in a nationwide survey of American adults, found that 25% of men and 16% of women approved of slapping a wife's face "under the appropriate circumstances". Suprisingly, male approval increased with college education and higher income. Shotland and Straw- (1976), in a inventive analogue study, found that 65% of their male and female subjects intervened i f they thought a staged assault was between a man and a woman who were strangers, but only 19% intervened i f they thought the assault was between man and wife. It appears, then, that in many men and women there remains a beli e f that violence in marriage is a private a f f a i r to be tolerated within l i m i t s that are wider than those governing the behaviour of unrelated c i t i z e n s . Compounding the problem i s a legal system whose implementation of laws emphasizes the sanctity of marriage over the individual rights 16 of marrried women (Jensen, 1977-78; Goldman, 1978). Talcott Parsons and Murray Straus have been two major theorists who have approached the problem from a so c i o l o g i c a l percepective. Parsons (1947) hypothesized that in i n d u s t r i a l i z e d s o c i e t i e s , where boys are separated from their fathers for much of the time, the mother becomes the primary role model. When, at a later age, the boy finds out that women are generally viewed as i n f e r i o r to men in many ways, he rejects the female model and adopts a behaviour pattern that Parsons labeled "protest masculinity" (ah excessive attempt to prove one's masculinity). This would include attempts to dominate women and perhaps to express violence toward them. Consistent with Parsons' theorizing i s Rounsaville's (1978) finding that 45% of the violent husbands in his study had lost a father through death or separation before the age of f i f t e e n , depriving them even further of a male role model. Straus (1976) hypothesizes that males develop the attitude that i t ' s a l r i g h t to use force i f resistence to the i r prevailing power position occurs. Acceptance of violence i s thought to be learned during childhood through modeling of violence in the family and in society at large. Empirical findings have related the degree of violence witnessed in childhood to marital violence in adulthood (cf. Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980) and to the approval of p o l i t i c a l violence in adulthood (Owens & Straus, 1975). Marriage i s viewed as a unique battleground for the power struggle between the sexes and has even been c a l l e d a 1 7 " h i t t i n g licence" by these theorists (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). If Straus's theory is accurate, one potential side- effect of the Women's Movement, at least in the short run, w i l l be an increase in wife assault as the challenge to the male power position increases (Whitehurst, 1971). In the long run, however, the removal of sex-role stereotypes that emphasize inequity should reduce violence (Straus, 1976). Straus and his colleagues (Straus, 1973; Gelles & Straus, 1979) have proposed a general systems approach to family violence in which s o c i a l i z a t i o n to violence in childhood, sex-role sterotyping and feedback loops in. the family combine to create and perpetuate violence. While th i s s o c i o l o g i c a l analysis has been instrumental in describing the general s o c i e t a l processes that nurture a high rate of violence in the family, the question of why some husbands assault their wives and others do not requires a more molecular analysis. D. THE EXOSYSTEM This l e v e l of analysis concerns the interplay- between- the family and the larger s o c i e t a l subsystems within which i t is entrenched. Two lines of research have been generated at this level with respect to violence in the family. These concern the subsystems at work and the neighbourhood and, in p a r t i c u l a r , the effects of unemployment and so c i a l i s o l a t i o n . Unemployment of the male has been consistently linked to c h i l d abuse ( G i l , 1970) and wife assault (Gelles, 1972; Gayford, 1975; Prescott & Letko, 1977; Rounsaville, 1978). Moreover, 18 Steinmetz and Straus (1974) found that an increase in wife assault p a r a l l e l e d an increase in unemployment over a six-month period. Several possible explanations have been suggested for this r e l a t i o n s h i p . One is that i t produces f i n a n c i a l stress in the family, which then promotes c o n f l i c t due to f r u s t r a t i o n . Consistent with this explanation is a report by Roy (1977) that "money issues" were the most frequent cause of marital c o n f l i c t in her sample of battered women. A second explanation is that employment may reduce the male's feeling of power which he may then attempt to restore through physical violence. This explanation i s promising, and w i l l be developed further in the next section. F i n a l l y , the increase in violence may simply be due to increased contact time between the unemployed husband and his wife. Consistent with this hypothesis i s the finding that wife assault i s more frequent on holidays when contact time is higher ( Levens & Dutton, 1977). It seems reasonable to assume that a l l three factors may mediate this relationship to some extent. The over-riding point is that s o c i e t a l problems such as unemployment may impinge on the family so as to f a c i l i t a t e violence. The relationship between the family and i t s neighbours is the second area that has received attention in the research l i t e r a t u r e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t has been noticed that r e l a t i v e to nonviolent families, child-abusing families (Belsky, 1980) and families where wife assault occurs ( Gelles, 1972) tend to be s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d . They report knowing fewer of their neighbours and having fewer s o c i a l contacts than nonviolent families 19 (Gelles, 1972). Again, there is a number of possible explanations for this relationship. One. is that isolated wives suffer more violence because they have no s o c i a l support in times of stress, and nowhere to escape when violence is imminent. A second explanation is that i s o l a t i o n enhances the couple's mutual dependence, thus exaggerating any perceived threat to the man's control over the woman. F i n a l l y , i t could be that s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n is i t s e l f a product of the violent relationship. A jealous husband may s t r i c t l y control outside contact,, both partners may lack the s k i l l s necessary to build s o c i a l contacts, and the woman's desire to hide the violence from others out of shame may contribute to their i s o l a t i o n . Longitudinal research would be required to sort out t h i s question of temporal causation, though l i k e l y there is a b i -d i r e c t i o n a l relationship. Research findings at the macrosystem and exosystem levels suggest that norms for. male dominance and tolerance of marital violence, combined with s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n and external stressors such as unemployment, provide a f e r t i l e environment for wife assault. However, these levels of analysis s t i l l do not explain thoroughly why some men become violent under these conditions and others do not. It is unclear in many cases how the association between more general s o c i e t a l variables and violence in the individual couple i s mediated. An analysis of the violent r e l a t i o n s h i p and the individual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the wife assaulter i s required in order to provide answers to these questions and to enable the planning of e f f e c t i v e treatment on a 20 couple or individual basis. Therefore, the remainder of this review and the focus of the proposed research w i l l emphasize the interaction of the relationship dynamics (microsystem) and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the wife assaulter (ontogenic development). These two lev e l s of analysis w i l l be integrated under one heading and hypotheses to be tested w i l l be included in the text. E. MICROSYSTEM AND ONTOGENIC FACTORS—THE ASSAULTER AND HIS  MARITAL RELATIONSHIP 1. POWER AND CONTROL' C l i n i c i a n s have reported observing a strong need to control or dominate others in their assaultive male c l i e n t s (Elbow, 1977; Ganley & Harris, 1978; Symonds, 1978; Weitzman & Dreen, 1982). However, there has been no reported attempt to systematically measure th i s "need" in an assaultive population.' Winter (1973), in his work on the power motive, has developed a TAT measure of the need for power ( nPower ) that appears to be well-suited to f i l l the gap in t h i s research area. He defines nPower generally as a concern about having impact on the behaviour or emotions of another person. Since the measure was developed, a number of behavioural correlates of high nPower have been uncovered that are relevant to wife assault. F i r s t l y , aggression has been found to correlate p o s i t i v e l y with nPower. In working-class men, high nPower is related to the frequency of arguments reported (McClelland, 1975) and with the frequency of y e l l i n g in t r a f f i c , destroying furniture or 21 glassware, and in s u l t i n g clerks in stores (Winter, 1973; Boyatzis, 1973). In middle-class men, the association between overt aggression and nPower disappears, but a relationship betweem nPower and "prestige-seeking behaviour" (number of credit cards) is observed for both middle- and working-class men (Winter, 1973). McClelland (1975) speculates that s o c i a l constraints and nonviolent learning history reduce overt expression of aggression and encourage more acceptable expressions of power in middle-class men. The difference in results between the classes could also r e f l e c t a reluctance in middle-class males to report overt agression. More relevant to the area of wife assault, i t may be that the middle-class male who i s high in nPower i s more l i k e l y to express violence when sheltered in the privacy of his home and r e l a t i v e l y free from so c i a l constraints (or "deindividuated"; c f . Zimbardo, 1969). Secondly, a number of findings suggest that high nPower may be associated with the exploitation of women. High nPower men in one study were more sexually precocious^ had- more1 sexual experience, and preferred wives who were more dependent (Winter, 1973). They were also more l i k e l y to disclose d e t a i l s of their sex l i f e (McClelland, 1975). Slavin (1972) found that high nPower men wrote more stories with "themes of feminine e v i l " (that i s , themes that portrayed women as harmful, ex p l o i t i v e , and rejecting toward men). Winter, McClelland, and Stewart (1977), in a fourteen-year longitudinal study, found that nPower in college freshmen predicted whether or not their wives would have a career and the actual career l e v e l of their wives 22 fourteen years later-. High nPower was also found to predict i n s t a b i l i t y and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n in dating,, relationships of college students (Stewart & Rubin, 1976) and in the marriages of working-class men (McClelland et a l . , 1972). F i n a l l y , extensive research by McClelland and his colleagues (McClelland, Davis, Kalin, & Wanner, 1972) has shown that high nPower males tend to have more extensive drinking h i s t o r i e s than low nPower men, and that drinking increases power imagery in men's fantasy reports. Given c l i n i c a l reports that describe wife assaulters as high in a need to control or be powerful and the observed rel a t i o n between nPower and such variables as aggression, prestige-seeking, exploitation of women, marital i n s t a b i l i t y , and alcohol use, i t is reasonable to generate the following hypothesis: Wife assaulters should score higher on Winter's measure of nPower than comparison samples of nonviolent men. 2. RESPONSE POVERTY One reason why wife assaulters might resort to physical violence in their interaction with their spouse i s that they lack other influence s k i l l s with which to assert control (Goode, 1971; O'Brien, 1971; Rimm, H i l l , Brown, & Stuart, 1974; Foy, E i s l e r , & Pinkston, 1975). In th i s respect, i t would seem that verbal persuasiveness and the a b i l i t y to recognize and express feelings should be c r u c i a l to the avoidance of violent strategies. Poor communication s k i l l s have been observed informally by c l i n i c i a n s to be a problem in males entering 23 marital therapy ( Mornell, 1979) and in assaultive husbands (Ganley & Harris, 1978). Ganley and Harris (1978) describe their c l i e n t s as having very poor communication s k i l l s , poor recognition of their emotional state, and as frequently confusing assertion and aggression. Komarovsky (1967) reported that 26% of the working-class wives (who are most frequently assaulted compared to wives from higher classes) she studied complained that their husbands were i n a r t i c u l a t e and kept their feelings to themselves. A . number of interview studies with battered women indicate that these wives have greater occupational and educational status than their husbands in the majority of cases, contrary to the prevailing "marriage gradient" (O'Brien, 1971; Gelles, 1972; Rounsaville, 1978). This may imply that they are also more competent and persuasive communicators. In fact, Rounsavi1le ' s subjects rated themselves as more "verbally s k i l l f u l " than their husbands in general. In a recent study, Rosenbaum and O'Leary (1981) measured- over-all a-ssert iveness and spouse-specific assertiveness in assaultive husbands, nonviolent maritally discordant men, and happily married males. They found the assaultive group to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y less assertive than the happily-married males on both measures, but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the nonviolent group. However, since these assaultive men were involved in conjoint marital therapy, they may have been less severely assaultive than t y p i c a l samples in the l i t e r a t u r e where data are usually c o l l e c t e d from women in tr a n s i t i o n houses about their husbands. One might expect even 24 poorer assertiveness s k i l l s in a more severe sample of assaulters. It would seem useful to replicate Rosenbaum and O'Leary's finding using a d i f f e r e n t sample of wife assaulters and also to expand the measurement procedure by including a measure of emotional expressiveness. Therefore, hypothesis  number two states that wife assaulters w i l l report less  assertive communication and a poverty of emotional expression  compared to non-assaultve males. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) predicts that a behavioural d e f i c i t such as poor verbal s k i l l s may lead to a dysfunctional response pattern and that the nature of t h i s response w i l l depend . on the individual's learning history as well as the perceived . rewards and costs of the behaviour pattern. Hence, s o c i a l learning theory predicts that prior exposure to physical violence as an e f f e c t i v e and allowable form of interpersonal influence should be instrumental i n . the subsequent choice of this behavioural a l t e r n a t i v e . Bandura and Walters (1963) have labeled t h i s process modeling-. Sociologists have also emphasized the link between prior exposure to violence and subsequent physical assault in their theorizing. Straus (1978) speculates that violent child-rearing practices (in the extreme, child-abuse) have a number of side-e f f e c t s . Physical punishment of a c h i l d creates an association between love and violence, i n s t i l l s an image of violence as morally righteous ("it trains good"), and j u s t i f i e s the use of violence when the matter is " r e a l l y important." In other words, 25 a normative l e g i t i m i z a t i o n of violence within the family context is established which may at later date under s t r e s s f u l conditions, allow the behaviour to be released more readily. A substantial l i t e r a t u r e base supports these convergent theoreti c a l predictions. Child-rearing practices in the family of o r i g i n are closely associated to the person's own c h i l d -rearing practices in adulthood (Steele & Pollock, 1968). The finding that child-abusers were themselves abused as children has been well documented (cf. Belsky, 1980). In the area of wife assault, interview studies with the victims have consistently revealed that a high proportion of their husbands were abused as children and/or witnessed violence between their parents (Gelles, 1972; Gayford, 1975; Roy, 1977; Prescott & Letko, 1977; Rounsaville, 1978; Ganley & Harris, 1978; Hilberman, 1980). These figures vary considerably, ranging from 30% to 82% of assaultive men with a "violent background." A smaller proportion of the wives (18-30%) described their own family background as violent (Gayford, 1975; Rounsaville, 1978). While these studies c l e a r l y indicate a link between wife assault and violence in the family of o r i g i n , they are subject to a number of methodological shortcomings, as follows: (1) measures of violence are generally open-ended and ambiguous, (2) separate s t a t i s t i c s are often not reported for c h i l d abuse and witnessing parent-parent violence and (3) no comparison groups are used to allow estimations of the deviance from nonviolent populations. 26 Rosenbaum and O'Leary (1981) overcame some of these problems by using comparison groups and by analyzing, c h i l d abuse and parent-parent violence separately. They found a greater incidence of witnessing parent-parent violence in the assaultive group than in the comparison groups, but no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in the incidence of c h i l d abuse (when they asked the men d i r e c t l y ) . This suggests that witnessing spousal violence in the family of o r i g i n may have greater e t i o l o g i c a l significance than experiencing abuse as a c h i l d . The present research attempted, to replicate t h i s finding of a link between wife assault and violence in the family of o r i g i n u t i l i z i n g appropriate comparison groups and a more refined measurement instrument. Hypothesis number three states that there should be  a greater reported incidence of parent-child violence and wife  assault in the family of o r i g i n for wife assaulters than for  non-assaultive comparison males. 3. INSTIGATION OF THE ASSAULT--RELATIONSHIP DYNAMICS Crucial to the understanding, of-marital violence is the -nature of the relationship dynamics involved and, in p a r t i c u l a r , the dynamics of the v i o l e n c e - e l i c i t i n g interaction. C l i n i c i a n s have tended to emphasize the concepts of power (Elbow, 1977; Faulk, 1977; Symonds, 1978) and intimacy (Mace, 1976; Elbow, 1977; Feldman, 1979; Weitzman & Dreen, 1982) in their analyses of marital c o n f l i c t and marital violence. 27 In terms of the power dimension, s o c i o l o g i s t s and f e m i n i s t s have i m p l i c a t e d s o c i e t a l norms f o r male dominance and the r e l a t e d h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e of the f a m i l y in the genesis of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e ( G e l l e s , 1972; M a r t i n , 1976; S t r a u s , 1976). O'Brien (1971) and Goode (1971) have p o s t u l a t e d a " s t a t u s i n c o n s i s t e n c y " hypothesis in which v i o l e n c e i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as a l a s t - d i t c h attempt by the male to r e s t o r e h i s a s c r i b e d dominant s t a t u s when i t i s threatened by h i s female p a r t n e r . V i o l e n c e i s p r e d i c t e d to occur when the male's per s o n a l resources (e.g., economic, e d u c a t i o n a l , i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n f l u e n c e ) are i n s u f f i c i e n t to enable him to l i v e up tp h i s " r i g h t f u l s t a t u s " as head of the household. T h i s hypothesis has r e c e i v e d s u b s t a n t i a l support in the l i t e r a t u r e on wife a s s a u l t . For example, R o u n s a v i l l e (1978) found 61% of h i s b a t t e r e d women to be s u p e r i o r to t h e i r husbands in job s k i l l s or e d u c a t i o n . G e l l e s (1972) found more m a r i t a l v i o l e n c e i n f a m i l i e s where the wives had s u p e r i o r education and o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . In G e l l e s ' study, a s s a u l t i v e husbands were a l s o i n f e r i o r o c c u p a t i o n a l l y i n 82% of the cases. O'Brien (1971) s t u d i e d s t a t u s i n c o n s i s t e n c y and v i o l e n c e i n 150 a p p l i c a n t s f o r d i v o r c e . He found that v i o l e n t husbands, when compared with n o n v i o l e n t husbands, had s t a r t e d , but f a i l e d to complete, high school or c o l l e g e more o f t e n , were e d u c a t i o n a l l y i n f e r i o r to t h e i r wives more o f t e n , were more l i k e l y to report income as a s e r i o u s m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t and tended to be i n f e r i o r o c c u p a t i o n a l l y to t h e i r f a t h e r s - i n -law. These data suggest t h a t , i n many cases, the v i o l e n t husband i s d e f i c i e n t i n achieved s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and i s not 28 l i v i n g up to s o c i e t a l demands that he be competent, well-educated, and a good provider. Evidence c i t e d previously indicated that violent men are also more l i k e l y to lack verbal s k i l l s . Consequently, these men seem to be l e f t with few resources with which to exert influence on the family. Studies of marital decision-making using Blood and Wolfe's (i960) index indicate that violence is most prevalent when the husband makes most of the decisions (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980) but has few interpersonal resources with which to legitimize this decision-making (Allen & Straus, 1980). Straus and his colleagues hypothesize that t h i s decision-making power is maintained through violence in many cases. Wife-dominant households also showed high rates of violence (though not as high as husband-dominated households), and the authors speculate that this sample represents the passive, incompetent husband who does not share in decision-making, but assaults his wife in order to restore lost status (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Interestingly, couples" who shared decisions equally were found to have the lowest rate of violence. One possible interpretation of these data is that when there are extreme imbalances in family power (decision-making) in either d i r e c t i o n , power i s more l i k e l y to be a v o l a t i l e issue, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the male lacks legitimate personal resources. One might speculate further that power w i l l gain even more importance as a c o n f l i c t issue i f the male has a p a r t i c u l a r l y high personal desire for power. 29 Gelles (1972) has noted that a violent incident often occurs when the husband's power i s d i r e c t l y challenged by the wife during a c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n . However, a group of wife assaulters has never been examined d i r e c t l y to see i f they are more reactive to a situation where male power is being success-f u l l y challenged by a woman. The proposed research w i l l attempt to address t h i s question using a videotape analogue format-. Hypothesis number four states that wife assaulters should  react with more anger to videotape scenes in which a man i s losing an argument to a woman (female dominant) than when they  witness scenes in which the man is winning (male- dominant).  Furthermore, the wife assaulters should show a greater anger  reaction to these scenes than comparison males on average. While the concept of power provides p o t e n t i a l l y useful insight into the process or structure of an assault e l i c i t i n g c o n f l i c t , i t does not speak to the issue of content. That i s , what content areas would be most l i k e l y to provoke an assault during a power struggle between a man and a woman? A number of c l i n i c i a n s who work with angry and violent couples report problems with intimacy as central in the generation of c o n f l i c t (Mace, 1976; Elbow, 1977; Weitzman & Dreen, 1982). Wife assaulters are described as being involved in intense, extremely dependent relationships in which they strongly fear losing the other person (Faulk, 1974; Ganley & Harris, 1978), while at the same time lacking the maturity and confidence necessary to achieve intimacy with their spouses 30 (Elbow, 1977). As a result, they are hypothesized to become extremely uncomfortable i f the woman attempts to get too close or, on the other hand, i f she attempts to become too independent. There has been considerable attention in the soc i a l psychological l i t e r a t u r e to the development of intimacy in relationships (cf. Altman &. Taylor, 1973; Rubin, 1973; Derlega & Chaikin, 1975; Wish, Deutsch & Kaplan, 1976; Huston & Levenger, 1978). However, most of the empirical research has been concerned with self disclosure between strangers, while r e l a t i v e l y less attention has been focused on fluctuations of intimacy within the marital dyad. The concept of intimacy, loosely defined in the l i t e r a t u r e , appears to be comprised of two inte r r e l a t e d dimensions: (1) the degree of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of personal material and (2) the uniqueness or e x c l u s i v i t y of the relationship. Therefore, one can speak of an increase in intimacy as involving a greater willingness to be openly s e l f -d i s c l o s i v e with- a. person while excluding others from this arrangement. Conversely, a decrease in intimacy would imply a reduced sharing of personal material or a transferring of some of th i s personal contact to other relationships. Wish et a l (1976) have used the term "socio-emotional distance" to represent t h i s movement toward and away from another person. Theor e t i c a l l y , the degree of intimacy between two individuals w i l l fluctuate roughly as a function of individual differences in comfort with intimacy, the reward/ cost structure of the relati o n s h i p at a given point in time and the stage in the l i f e 31 cycle of the relationship (Huston & Levenger 1978). Derlega and Chaikin (1975) point out the gender differences between men and women in their willingness to s e l f - d i s c l o s e intimate material. They suggest that such a difference might create a dynamic strain in a marital relationship wherein the woman attempts to push for more disclosure from her partner and/or seek other sources to f u l f i l l her needs for intimacy. Feldman (1979) has proposed that c o n f l i c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y violent c o n f l i c t , may function to reduce feared intimacy and hence serve as a regulator, when intimacy increases above a comfortable level.. In support of thi s model are a number of studies indicating that wife assault often occurs during periods when socio-emotional distance is l i k e l y decreasing, such as during the f i r s t year of marriage or during a f i r s t pregnancy (Gelles, 1972; Eisenberg & Micklow, 1977: Martin, 1976; Rounsaville, 1978). While stress and frustration associated with these periods could be contributing to violent behaviour, 1 i t seems l i k e l y that fea-r of increasing, intimacy- a-lso may- figure' causally. Walker (1979) has noticed a c y c l i c a l pattern in many assaultive relationships consisting of tension build-up, violence, and "calm, loving respite." This pattern is notably consistent with Feldman's intimacy regulation model. Marriages and pregnancies are often unwanted in violent relationships (Gayford, 1975). 32 In addition to evidence suggesting that violence functions to decrease intimacy, there exists substantial evidence that wife assaulters use violence to keep their wife in the relationship. A common feature of the assaultive relationship is intense jealousy on the part of the male. Ninety-five percent of the women interviewed by Hilberman and Munson (1977-78) reported "extreme jealousy" in their assaultive husbands. Studies by Rounsaville (1978) and Gayford (1979) yielded corresponding figures of 66% and 77% respectively. Ninety-four percent of Rounsavi l i e ' s (197.8) subjects 1 i sted" jealousy as a topic that "frequently i n c i t e d violence," while Roy's (1977) sample of 150 battered women reported jealousy to be second only to "money issues" as a c o n f l i c t area leading to assault. The husband's jealousy may frequently take on a delusional quality (cf. Ganley & Harris, 1978; Dutton, 1981) and may involve surveillance attempts, r e s t r i c t i o n s on the woman's behaviour, " t h i r d degree" verbal interrogation and acute sensi-t i v i t y to any movements' toward independent a c t i v i t y by the women (Gelles, 1972). Gayford (1975) provides evidence that sexual jealousy is unwarranted in most cases and that the husband is much more l i k e l y to have had extramarital l i a i s o n s . While sexual jealousy i s common in these men, evidence from Rounsaville (1978) and Gelles (1972) indicates that jealousy and attempts to control often extend to preventing their wives from contact with female friends and from p a r t i c i p a t i o n in other s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . The common element appears to be a fear of losing exclusive access to their women and hence a loss of intimacy. 3 3 The finding in one study (Yllo & Straus, 1981) that violence was more common in cohabitating couples than married couples i s more understandable when one considers that reduced " o f f i c i a l " b arriers to leaving a relationship may heighten fears of losing int imacy. Hypothesis number four derives from evidence which suggests that wife assault w i l l be l i k e l y to occur during a power struggle in which the man is losing via legitimate (verbal) channels of influence. The preceding evidence indicates that th i s power struggle may be most intensely f e l t by the male when the issue involves a change in socio-emotional distance away from an optimal status quo. In t h i s case, fear of engulfment (or loss of autonomy) or fear of abandonment w i l l i n t e n s i f y the man's arousal and subsequent attempts to control his wife (Feldman, 1979). Since the effects of these types of c o n f l i c t issues on an assaultive population have never been d i r e c t l y assessed, the proposed research w i l l attempt to do so via videotape analogue- format. Therefore, hypothesis number five states that wife  assaulters should react with more anger to a videotaped c o n f l i c t  scene involving an abandonment or an engulfment issue than to a  c o n f l i c t not involving a move in socio-emotional distance  (neutral scene). Furthermore, wife assaulters should react more  strongly than comparison males on average to engulfment or abandonment issues. 34 Hypothesis four and hypothesis five w i l l be crossed f a c t o r i a l l y in order to examine the potential interaction of. the. power and intimacy dimensions as represented in the videotaped scenes. These hypotheses are based on the assumption that certain marital interactions ( i . e . uncontrollable attempts by the woman to change the l e v e l of intimacy) may serve to instigate an assault by generating threat-based arousal in the man which may then be expressed as anger. Patterson's (1976) model of an "optimal zone" for interpersonal spacing predicts that v i o l a t i o n s of this zone may produce physiological arousal which would lead to a positive or negative response depending on how the response was la b e l l e d by the person. Feldman's (1979) model makes a similar prediction regarding intimacy in the marital r e l a t i o n s h i p after conceptualizing the process in terms of defensive anger masking unconscious anxiety. C l i n i c a l reports (Ganley, 1981; Novaco, 1976) suggest that wife assaulters may experience and express most forms of emotional arousal as anger in order to enhance subjective feelings of power and conform to a masculine image. Given that autonomic arousal is hypothesized to play an important role in generating threat-based anger and considering that s o c i a l psychological studies of emotion have been c r i t i c i z e d for not d i r e c t l y measuring arousal (cf. Leventhal, 1980), both autonomic arousal and self-report of aff e c t were assessed in response to the videotape scenes. 35 4. WOMEN AS THE TARGET OF VIOLENCE The l i t e r a t u r e does not present a clear and consistent pattern regarding the generality of the wife assaulter's violence. Reports of the ostensibly nonviolent judge or bank president who goes home and beats his wife abound in c l i n i c a l writings (e.g., Pizzey 1974) and interview studies (Gelles, 1972). Faulk (1972), in a more systematic study of twenty-three men who had been imprisoned for seriously assaulting their wives, found that only three had a previous record for violent offences outside the home. On the other hand, 33% of the women interviewed by . Gayford (1975) reported that their husbands had been to j a i l for violent offences, and 51% of Rounsaville' s (1978) sample claimed that their husbands had been violent outside the home. This variation across studies is l i k e l y due to differences in sampling and methodology. Faulk and Gayford also used a highly conservative measure of violence outside the home--imprisonment for violent offences--which would be l i k e l y to underestimate th i s type of violence. These shortcomings notwithstanding, there is enough anecdotal and interview evidence to suggest that the term "wife assaulter" may f a l l prey to a uniformity myth (Bergin, 1971) and may subsume (at least) a generally violent subgroup and a subgroup who r e s t r i c t violence to the home. 36 Given the fact that at least some proportion of wife assaulters d i r e c t violence exclusively at their wives, an obviously important question is why? One p o s s i b i l i t y i s that i t is the unique interaction between a s p e c i f i c husband and wife that i n c i t e s the violence. While l i k e l y true in some cases, data c o l l e c t e d by Rounsaville (1978) showed that a substantial percentage of- wife assaulters (39%) had been involved in a previous assaultive relationship. Therefore, one can assume that many of" these men either possess certain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that lead to violence in this s i t u a t i o n or select women who help pr e c i p i t a t e violence. A second possible explanation for spouse-s p e c i f i c assault is that there is something inherent in marriage that makes an assault more l i k e l y . Straus (1977-78) has suggested that high time at r i s k , high intensity of involvement, low chance of detection, and d i f f i c u l t y of escape may be factors that make the spouse a more l i k e l y target than a stranger. However, since these aspects are common to a l l marriages, i t is clear that they would have to act in concert with other variables to f a c i l i t a t e violence. A t h i r d explanation which is widely held by s o c i o l o g i s t s and feminist writers (Martin, 1976; Straus, 1976; Straus, 1977-78; Dobash & Dobash, 1977; Gelles, 1979) is that violence towards wives is largely due to an adherence to s o c i e t a l norms supporting t r a d i t i o n a l patriarchal attitudes toward women and, in p a r t i c u l a r , wives. L i t t l e empirical data had been gathered to support this assumption u n t i l Rosenbaum and O'Leary's (1981) study. These authors compared a sample of assaultive husbands and found the 37 assaultive sample to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more conservative on the Spence-Helmreich Attitudes Toward Women Scale. It should be noted that the data on the husband's attitudes were obtained from the wives in this study, so the results should be interpreted with some caution. Burt (1980), in her study of rape myths, has devised a number of short attitude scales that correlate strongly with acceptance of rape myths (which are, in turn, predictive of violent sexual assault). These scales assess a wider variety of relevant attitudes than represented in the Sperice-Helmreich Scale. They measure (1) sex-role stereotyping, (2) adversarial sexual b e l i e f s (mistrust of women),- and (3) acceptance of interpersonal violence (mostly against women). She suggests that the f i r s t two of these attitude clusters may serve to target assault against women, and the l a t t e r cluster may then act as a releaser. P a r t i c u l a r l y interesting here is the adversarial sexual b e l i e f s scale as the a i r of mistrust and guardedness toward women represented by this- sea-le p a r a l l e l s c l i n i c a l descriptions of wife assaulters (e.g., Boyd & K l i n g b e l l , 1979). Therefore, in order to strengthen and expand the empirical base bearing on the notion of t r a d i t i o n a l sex-role attitudes contributing to female-directed assaults, the present research compared wife assaulters and non-assaultive comparison males on Burt's three attitude scales. Hypothesis number six predicts that wife assaulters should score more highly than comparison  males on measures of sex-role sterotyping, adversarial sexual  b e l i e f s , and acceptance of interpersonal violence. 38 II I . METHOD A. SUBJECTS Three groups of men were compared in this study. They may be labeled for convenience as a physically aggressive group (PA), a verbally/symbolically aggressive group (VSA), and a non-aggressive group (NA). Each group contained eighteen men, for a t o t a l of f i f t y - f o u r participants in a l l . The inclusion of the VSA group in the study derives largely from the findings and recommendations of Rosenba'um and 0'Leary (1981 ) . They concluded that a c o n f l i c t e d , though nonviolent, comparison group should be included in studies of wife assault to allow statements about marital violence per se, unconfounded by verbal marital conf1ict. The PA group was comprised of men who were s o l i c i t e d from two therapy groups for violent men in Vancouver, B.C.: (1) The Assaultive Husband's Project 1 and the Redirecting Anger Group at Family Services of Greater- Vancouver. 2 The men were attending these groups on a voluntary basis with the exception of three men who had been referred by the courts following a conviction for common assault against their wife. The men were Funded j o i n t l y by the Solicitor-General of Canada and the B r i t i s h Columbia Ministry of the Attorney-General (Corrections Branch) 2 Two men who were o r i g i n a l l y intended to be in the VSA group were placed in the PA group when their questionnaires indicated that they had been violent with their wives during the past year. 39 s o l i c i t e d by the student investigator who attended some of the therapy sessions. Pa r t i c i p a t i o n was completely voluntary and the project was described as "a study on how men deal with c o n f l i c t in their marriage". The explanation -of the research in more general terms as a study of "dealing with c o n f l i c t " rather than a study of wife assault was suggested by David Winter (Winter, personal communication, September, 1981) as a way of mitigating potential differences in demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s across comparison groups. The men were promised personalized feedback based on their test responses and this appeared to be their major motivation for p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The minimum c r i t e r i o n for membership in the PA group was at least one incident of spousal violence in the last year as self-reported on the C o n f l i c t Tactics Scale physical aggression subscale (Straus, 1979). In fact, a l l the PA men had engaged in a least one act from Straus' "wife-beating" items on that subscale and most of the men reported considerably more violence. CTS scores for a l l three comparison groups as rated by the husband and wife appear in Table 1. One way ANOVAS followed by Newman-Keuls post hoc comparisons were performed on the data and the results appear in the table. The VSA group consisted of married males who scored at least ten points on the verbal aggression subscale of the CTS (approximately the eightieth percentile or above for U.S. men in a nationwide survey; Straus. 1979), but who reported l i t t l e or 40 Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Husband's C o n f l i c t Tactics as Rated by Husbands and Wifes*° Husband's Rat ings PA (N=18) VSA (N=18) NA (N=18) F P Reason ing 7 .89(3. 27) 1 2 9 .61(2. 45) 2 7 .00(3. 14) 1 3 . 58 .035 Verbal Agg. 20 .89(4. 34) 1 1 5 .67(4. 69) 2 3 .78(2. 05) 3 92 .28 .000 Physical Agg. 9 .72(7. 98) 1 0 .67(0. 91 ) 2 0 .22(0. 55) 2 23 .98 .000 Wife's Rat ings PA (N=17) VSA (N=18.) NA (N=17) F P Reason ing 7 .65(4. 40) 1 7 .72(3. 34) 1 7 .47(3. 08) 1 0 . 23 .977 Verbal Agg. 25 .35(5. 72) 1 1 3 .78(6. 00) 2 5 .71(4. 48) 3 55 .80 .000 Physical Agg. 1 6 .59(10 .45) 1 0 .94(1. 16) 2 0 .29(0. 59) . 2 40 .24 .000 * Since one PA wife and one NA wife refused to f i l l out CTS forms the n=17 for these two groups on the wives ratings and therefore husband/wife figures are not d i r e c t l y comparable. ° Since Means in a given row having d i s s i m i l a r l e t t e r s were found to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y using the Newman-Keuls procedure (p_<.0l with exception of Husband's ratings for Reasoning where g<.05). 41 no violence on the physical aggression subscale. 3 These men (as well as men from the other groups) were asked to. have their wives f i l l out the CTS to corroborate their s e l f - reported lack of physical aggression. The men were s o l i c i t e d through family and marital therapists in the Vancouver area (thirteen men; see Appendix A for l e t t e r to therapists) and via newspaper advertisements (five men). " Most of these men reported themselves as being d i s s a t i s f i e d in their marriage. The study was again described as "a study on how men deal with c o n f l i c t in their marriage". Men were promised feedback and $25.00 ($10.00 for session one and $15.00 for session two) in exchange for their p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The NA group consisted of married males who scored seven points or less on the verbal aggression subscale of the CTS (the s i x t y - f i f t h percentile or below for U.S. men in a nationwide survey; Straus, 1979), who also reported l i t t l e or no physical violence (applying the same c r i t e r i a for physical aggression as outlined for the- VSA group). In other words, the NA group consisted of men who reported r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e overt c o n f l i c t 3 While the i n i t i a l intent was to only accept men into the VSA group i f they reported no physical aggression, this proved unworkable due to the high correlation between verbal aggression and physical aggression (Straus, 1973). Therefore, minor incidents of violence were allowed (pushing, shoving & grabbing) as long as these were infrequent and the woman reported no injury or fear of the violence. ' The advertisements consisted of (1) the ad in Appendix B which was placed in the Vancouver Sun and (2) a plea for participants following a brief a r t i c l e in the Vancouver Province which described the project in general terms as a study of how men deal with c o n f l i c t in marriage. 42 in their marriage or who dealt with c o n f l i c t largely through rational discussion. These men were also required to have their wives corroborate their reports of l i t t l e or no physical aggression. NA men were s o l i c i t e d via advertisements placed in the Vancouver Sun and in Vancouver laundromats (see -Appendix C). The men were offered $25.00 ($10.00 for session one and $15.00 for session two) and feedback in exchange for their p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The VSA and NA groups were roughly balanced with the PA group for. age and .socioeconomic status using the index of s o c i a l status developed by Myers and Bean (1968). Given that men- in the PA group were generally young and of lower socioeconomic status, balancing was acheived by an i n i t i a l telephone screening whereby only the youngest and lowest socioeconomic status men were chosen as candidates for the VSA and NA groups. This resulted in f i f t y - seven men who were interested in the project not being selected for p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Men were also not selected for the NA group- i f they reported having had- mari-tal counselling in the past. Five men were rejected from the VSA group following the i n i t i a l testing session (two were violent, three scored below ten on the verbal aggression scale) and eight men were rejected from the NA group (two men were violent and six men scored above seven on the verbal aggression s c a l e ) . The modal educational l e v e l of the men in the project was high school; occupationally the mode.was s k i l l e d labourer. The average age was about t h i r t y years old. The VSA men were not 43 only verbally. aggressive but were on average maritally distressed, while the NA men were happily married by their own report. Table 2 summarizes some demographic and descriptive data regarding the three groups of men including their scores on Spanier's Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). One-way ANOVAS were performed on these variables to determine i f there were any s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the means. Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons followed s i g n i f i c a n t ANOVAS to examine pairwise differences among the groups. B. GENERAL PROCEDURE The participants were required to attend two individual testing sessions, each l a s t i n g approximately two hours. Both sessions took place under the supervision of the student investigator. The men had the option of having session one at the university or in their own home. Session two was held in a psychophysiological laboratory at the university. The f i r s t testing session involved a very short description of the study to the subject followed by the signing of the consent form (see Appendix D). The man was told that i t was important for him to be as honest and accurate as possible in completing the questionnaires as thi s would aff e c t the quality of the information obtained in the study and hence the quality of the feedback he would receive. The men then completed a battery of paper and pencil tests containing selection c r i t e r i a information, descriptive information and questions bearing on some of the experimental hypotheses. The investigator remained 44 Table 2 Descriptive Information Means, Standard Deviations and Results PA VSA NA F P Age 31 . 61 ( 5. 38) 32 .83(6. 13) 31 .94(7.73) . 171 .844 Educat ion 4. 33( 1 . 03) 4 .06(1. 1 1 ) 3 .72(0.58) 1 .93 . 1 56 Occupat ion 4. 94( 1 . 06) 4 .44(1. 42) 4 .89(0.90) 1 .03 .366 Socioec. Status 51 . 83( 9. 55) 48 .00'( 12 '.•50.)' 48 .61(8.40) 0.7 2 .492 Years married 6. 19( 3. 89) 8 .56(4. 34) 9 .11(6.82) 1.61 .2.1 0 N Of Children . 1 . 50( 1 . 30) 1 .50(0. 79) -—1. .39(1.24) . 0.06 .944 N of Drinks/Week 12. 61(14. 02) 5 .39(5. 52) 5 .67(8. 17) 3.08 .055 Marital Adjustment* 90. 17(23. 77) 89 .78 ( 1 3 . 51i ) 1 20 .56(10.88) 1 9.45 .001 *Scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) completed by the men. Spanier (1976) provides means and standard deviations of 114.8(17.8) for married couples and 70.7(23.8) for divorced couples on this scale. Newman-Keuls pairwise comparisons (df=2,51) indicated that the PA and VSA group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the NA group (p<.0l) while they did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each other. 4 5 p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h e t e s t i n g t o a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e t e s t s a n d t h e t e s t s w e r e g i v e n i n t h e s ame o r d e r t o a l l t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . W h i l e t h e p a r t i c i p a n t w a s c o m p l e t i n g t h e t e s t s , t h e C T S ( a d m i n i s t e r e d e a r l y i n t h e b a t t e r y ) w a s s c o r e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e man h a d m e t t h e s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a f o r h i s g r o u p . I f t h e c r i t e r i a w e r e m e t , a n a p p o i n t m e n t w a s a r r a n g e d f o r t h e s e c o n d s e s s i o n . O t h e r w i s e , t h e man w a s p a i d $ 1 0 . 0 0 a n d i n f o r m e d h e w o u l d o n l y b e p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n o n e s e s s i o n . T h i s w a s g e n e r a l l y n o t p r o b l e m a t i c a s a l l men w e r e i n f o r m e d u p o n i n i t i a l c o n t a c t t h a t t h e y m i g h t p a r t i c i p a t e i n e i t h e r o n e o r t w o s e s s i o n s d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e d e m a n d s o f t h e r e s e a r c h . A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s , w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e i n v o l v e d i n b o t h s e s s i o n s o r o n l y o n e s e s s i o n , w e r e c o n t a c t e d b y t e l e p h o n e w i t h i n f o u r w e e k s a n d g i v e n f e e d b a c k b a s e d o n t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s . M o s t o f t h e men r e p o r t e d t h i s t o b e q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g a n d i n d e e d , t h e f e e d b a c k a p p e a r e d t o b e t h e p r i m e m o t i v a t i o n f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a l l t h r e e g r o u p s . T h e s e c o n d t e s t i n g s e s s i o n i n v o l v e d t h e v i d e o t a p e a n a l o g u e c o m p o n e n t o f t h e r e s e a r c h . T h e p r o c e d u r e f o r t h i s c o m p o n e n t i s d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n D . C . P A P E R AND P E N C I L M E A S U R E S 1 . T h e T h e m a t i c A p p e r c e p t i o n T e s t ( T A T ) o f n P o w e r ( s c o r i n g s y s t e m , W i n t e r , 1 9 7 3 ) p r o v i d e d a t e s t o f h y p o t h e s i s n u m b e r o n e . T h e T A T h a s b e e n w i d e l y u s e d b y W i n t e r a n d h i s c o l l e a g u e s t o m e a s u r e p o w e r m o t i v a t i o n i n b o t h u n i v e r s i t y a n d n o n - u n i v e r s i t y 46 male populations (cf. Winter, 1973; McClelland, 1975; Stewart & Rubin, 1976; Winter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1977; Winter & Stewart, 1978; McClelland, 1979). This research has provided a substantial degree of construct validation for Winter's power measure (see Winter & Stewart, 1978, for a discussion of the construct). The measure has also been shown to have higher test -retest r e l i a b i l i t y than that t y p i c a l l y found for TAT motives (Winter & Stewart, 1977). Winter defines the power motive generally as a concern for "having impact on the behaviour or emotions of another person" Winter, 1973).. The nPower measure was derived empirically from several experiments designed to arouse the power motive in subjects. This approach closely followed the McClelland-Atkinson research strategy used- to develop the nAchievement scoring system (Winter, 1973). Because the scoring system is based on several d i f f e r e n t kinds of power manipulations (as opposed to a single manipulation), i t represents an improvement over older scoring systems'. B r i e f l y , -the scoring system allows- power imagery to be scored from a TAT story that includes references to (1) strong assertive action, (2) actions that induce strong emotions in others, and/or (3) a concern about the reputation of an actor. If power imagery i s scored for a story, ten subcategories of power imagery may also be scored, so that a maximum score of eleven per story may be achieved (yielding a t o t a l score between zero and f i f t y - f i v e for a given p a r t i c i p a n t ) . Winter's scoring manual i s written in great d e t a i l and provides practice stories with expert scoring and 47 explanation of scoring decisions. Winter (1973) maintains that the scoring procedure may be learned with about. 15 hours of practice in order to obtain interscorer r e l i a b i l i t y of .85. Participants were required to write stories in response to five pictures. In order of presentation, they are (l) a ship's captain talking to a man, (2) a couple drinking at a bar with a g u i t a r i s t in the background, (3) two women s c i e n t i s t s in a laboratory, (4) a boxer, and (5) a woman looking askance at a man who i s standing in the background. The stimulus pictures were selected on the basis of their demonstrated a b i l i t y to e l i c i t power imagery. Moreover, based upon a suggestion by David Winter (Winter, personal communication, September 1981), the pictures were selected to present a variety of gender rela t i o n s i p s ( i . e . , male-male, male-female, f emal.e-f emale ) . The TAT was presented before any other tests to reduce the potential effects of other testing on TAT interpretations. The men were told , "This i s a test of imaginative picture interpretation. Please look at each; picture- in- turn^ and use- your imagination to make up a dramatic story about the characters in the picture. There are fi v e pictures in a l l and you w i l l have five minutes per picture. You may use the questions on the sheet provided to guide your story." Subsequently, the pictures were presented on cards to the man one at a time for ten minutes and he was given a sheet on which to write his story. The sheet contained the following questions spaced over i t s length: (1) What is happening? Who are the people? (2) What has led up to this situation? That i s , what has happened in the past? (3) What is 4 8 being thought? What is wanted? By whom? (4) What w i l l happen? What w i l l be done?" (Winter, 1973). The stories were scored for power 'imagery by a research assistant blind to group membership of the participant who had been trained on materials precoded by experts (cf. Winter, 1973). The research assistant demonstrated an agreement with expert scoring of rho= .87 on a series of sixty test stories with category agreement on power imagery=.93. A second judge who had also demonstrated scoring proficiency on sixty precoded test stories (rho= .85;. Catergory Agreement on power imagery= .95) scored a randomly selected sample of t h i r t y stories in order to establish interrater agreement on stories written by the men in this study. These two raters showed an agreement of rho= .86, with Category Agreement on power imagery= .93. 5 2. A demographic data form was administered next (Appendix E). It contained questions about the participant's age, education, income, marital status and history, and drug use. 3. The C o n f l i c t Tactic Scale (CTS) -- Form N (Straus,  1979) was used to obtain information about the various c o n f l i c t resolution strategies in the participant's marriage during the past year. This information was used to assign men to the comparison groups. The CTS consists of eighteen items describing 5 Pearson product-moment cor r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s also calculated for rater one, rater two and interrater agreement yielded results similar to the Spearman c o e f f i c i e n t s presented above (r=.88; r=.84; r=.83 respectively). 49 various ways of handling interpersonal c o n f l i c t (see Appendix F). The items range in order of. presentation from those involving reasoning (items a, b, and c) through to verbal and symbolic aggression (items e , f , g , i , j and k) and f i n a l l y to various forms of physical aggression (items 1 to s ) . 6 Raw scores representing frequency ranges vary from 0 ("never") to 6 ("more than 20 times") for each item. Total scores for each subscale (reasoning, verbal/symbolic aggression, physical aggression) are derived by summing the raw scores for the items in that subscale. The CTS may be used to assess c o n f l i c t t a c t i c s between any two- family members by simply a l t e r i n g the instructions s l i g h t l y . Straus (1979) provided data from a nationwide survey of 2,143 U.S. households bearing on the psychometric properties of the test. Factor analysis performed on the data yielded factors that coincided roughly with the theoretic a l grouping of the items into three subscales. Internal consistency was found to be good for the verbal/symbolic aggression (alpha coefficient=.80) and the physical aggression subscales (alpha coefficient=.83), but somewhat poorer for the reasoning subscale because of i t s smaller number of items (alpha coefficient=.50) 6 Item h ("cried") does not belong to any of the scales, but was added by Straus (1979) because respondents commonly wish to report this response. Item d, which belongs to an older form of the CTS was added, but not used in the present analyses. Item e was s l i g h t l y altered by adding the term "ye l l e d " . 50 Some v a l i d i t y data are available on the CTS. Straus (1974) found moderate to high correlations (.33 to .64) between students' CTS reports of verbal, and physical aggression between their parents and direct CTS reports from the parents about this aggression. This is impressive in l i g h t of the fact that correlations between d i f f e r e n t family members' reports of aggression are generally f a i r l y low (Bulcroft & Straus, 1975). Further v a l i d i t y is evidenced by a consistency between violence rates derived from CTS administation and those produced by i n -depth interview studies (Gelles, 19'7 2) . In addition, CTS data have been repeatedly consistent with t h e o r e t i c a l predictions about family violence (cf. Straus, 1979). The largest problem in assessing c o n f l i c t t a c t i c s in the family is l i k e l y the under-reporting of aggressive t a c t i c s due to s o c i a l embarrassment. Straus has attempted to mitigate this problem in the design of the CTS by (1) presenting the instrument to the repondent in the context of family disagreements "which a l l families experience" and by (2) ordering the items so that the respondent has an opportunity to present f i r s t the "correct" t a c t i c s he or she has used to resolve c o n f l i c t before having to acknowledge more coercive t a c t i c s . At present, the CTS is the only well-standardized method of measuring c o n f l i c t t a c t i c s in the family. 4. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier, 1976) is a 32-item scale designed to assess marital adjustment. The DAS may be broken down into four separate subscales: consensus, s a t i s f a c t i o n , cohesion, and a f f e c t i o n a l expression. Data presented by Spanier (1976) indicate high lev e l s of r e l i a b i l i t y 51 and v a l i d i t y for the instrument as a whole and for i t s subscales. The purpose of the DAS in the proposed research is to provide a standardized estimate of marital adjustment for descriptive purposes. 5. Violence in the Family of Origin. Information bearing on hypothesis three was obtained from two versions of the C o n f l i c t Tactics Scale-Form N (Straus, 1979, see Appendix G). The physical aggression subscales were used to obtain an estimate from the participant of the degree of parent-parent and parent- respondent violence occurring in a t y p i c a l year of the man's childhood. Violence emmanating from both parents was taken into account when estimating t o t a l exposure to violence. The item "spanked" was added because of i t s common usage and because some theorists beleive that this form of h i t t i n g may contribute to later violence (Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980). The participant was also asked i f he f e l t he had been "physically abused" by his parents as a c h i l d . 6. The Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) (Rathus, 1973) was used to obtain self-reports of assertive behaviour in the three groups of men bearing on hypothesis number two. The RAS i s a thirty-item inventory covering a wide range of assertive behaviour (see Appendix H). Rathus (1973) has demonstrated that the RAS has moderate to high r e l i a b i l i t y and validates well against peer reports of actual behaviour and other self-reported behaviour. 52 7. Spouse-Specific Assertiveness Scale (SSAS). Rosenbaum and O'Leary (1981) modified items from A l b e r t i and Emmons to assess assertiveness s p e c i f i c to interactions with the marital partner since no instrument existed of the purpose at the time. However, since the authors were somewhat d i s s a t i s f i e d with this approach (Rosenbaum, personal communication , September, 1981), Curley and O'Leary (1980) constructed a new scale to measure spouse-specific assertiveness. The scale consists of twenty-nine items, eighteen of which comprise an assertiveness subscale and nine of which comprise an aggression subscale (see Appendix I ) . The authors provide data indicating that the subscales have good internal consistency and were able to demonstrate predicted differences between abused and nonabused wives in terms of assertiveness. This •assertiveness subscale w i l l provide information relevant to hypothesis two. 8. The Test of Emotional Style (TES) developed by Allen and Hamsher (1974) was also used to test hypothesis number two (that wife-assaulters w i l l report less emotional expressivenss). The TES contains 75 force-choice items d i s t r i b u t e d among three subscales: reponsiveness (20 items), orientation (30 items), and expressivenss (25 items). Responsivensss items assess covert experience of emotion, orientation items refect attitudes (positive or negative) toward emotional expression, and expressiveness items assess the frequency and intensity of actual overt emotional expression (see Appendix J ) . The expressivenss subscale was used to test hypothesis two. The scale contains reference to four basic emotions: anger, fear, 53 sadness, and joy. Allen and Hamsher (1974) present data indicating that a l l three subscales have high internal consistency. They also attempted to validate the TES against self-reports of emotional responding in an experimental interview situation and peer ratings of emotional st y l e s . The expressiveness and responsivenss subscales showed s i g n i f i c a n t correlations with experimental emotional responding and peer reports of expressiveness, while the orientation subscale was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with these ratings nor with peer ratings of orientation. Overall, the expressiveness subscale appears to be strongest subscale psychometrically. A l l forced-choice items were selected and matched so as to minimize the effects of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Allen and Hamsher (1974) demonstrate that the subscales are in fact unrelated to scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale. The TES appears to be the only multi-dimensional self-report measure of emotionality available at present. 9. Burt's Attitude Scales (Burt, 1980) were used to test hypothesis number six. The scales measure sex-role stereotyping (9 items), adversarial sexual b e l i e f s (10 items), and acceptance of interpersonal violence toward women (6 items). The f i r s t two scales show high internal consistency, while the acceptance of violence scale is less adequate in th i s respect (Burt, 1980). Burt (1980) presents data from a large survey indicating strong relationships between these scales and rape myth acceptance in 54 males, and argues for their role in targeting and releasing violent assault. The scales w i l l be scored on. a six point scale ranging from strongly agree (score five) to strongly disagree (score zero) and w i l l be embedded in the 33-item Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). 10. The Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (SDS) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) is a 33-item scale designed to assess the need to respond in a c u l t u r a l l y sanctioned manner. The SDS consists of s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e statements that are c u l t u r a l l y sanctioned but improbable. The scale has good r e l i a b i l i t y and correlates well with other measures of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y (Crowne & Marlowe, i960). The purpose of the SDS in the present research was to provide a background in which to embed Burt's attitude scales while at the same time obtaining an estimate of the participant's concern with impression management. While some research has suggested that aggressive individuals are lower on "need for approval" (as measured by the SDS) than nonaggressive individuals (cf. Novaeo-, 1*975-)-, i t wa'S'-al-so'likely that the- PA group might have attempted to "image manage" during testing. If so, i t is possible that the result of these oppositional influences could have affected responses to the self-report measures. The SDS score enabled comparison across subject groups on this dimension that served as a backgound for data interpre-t a t i o n . While the SDS was o r i g i n a l l y designed as a true-false scale, i t was modified to a six-point Lickert scale in order to match Burt's scales. The items of the two scales were randomly mixed together. Scores on the SDS range from zero to 165. The K \ 55 instrument is balanced for reduction of response sets. Appendix K contains the SDS and Burt scales. D. THE VIDEOTAPE ANALOGUE STUDY This component of the project provided a test of hypotheses four and f i v e , which constitute predictions regarding the emotional impact on wife-assaulters of power and intimacy factors in c o n f l i c t s i t u a t i o n s . The general strategy was to present the participant with a series of videotaped scenes depicting verbal c o n f l i c t between a man and a woman, encourage him to imagine himself actually being in;the man's shoes, and obtain measures of physiological arousal and reported' a f f e c t . This analogue format was derived to some extent from our observations in therapy groups for wife assaulters that these men often reported experiencing anger during "guided fantasies" of c o n f l i c t situations with their wife. The use of videotape was appealing in that the image could be presented v i v i d l y , while providing a r e l a t i v e l y standard c o n f l i c t scenario across pa r t i c i p a n t s . It also a l lowed' •- t-he- roles 1-of both- pa-rt res in the c o n f l i c t to be manipulated, whereas such an aim would have been d i f f i c u l t or impossible using a role-play technique. Notwithstanding the advantage of the videotape format, i t has rarely been u t i l i z e d to study reactions to c o n f l i c t . Therefore, this represented an opportunity to try out a novel methodological approach in this area. -56 1. Design. The videotape component employed a 3x2x3 f a c t o r i a l design (see Appendix L) with three levels of subjects (PA, VSA, NA), two levels of power (male-dominant, female-dominant), and three levels of attempted intimacy change (abandonment, engulfment, neutral). Power and intimacy change were manipulated by varying the videotaped scene. Therefore, there were six d i f f e r e n t videotaped scenes, one for each power x intimacy combination. The power variable was varied between subjects, while the intimacy variable was a within-subjects variable. 7 S p e c i f i c a l l y , the participants i n . each group (PA, VSA, NA) were randomly assigned to viewing either male dominant scenes or female dominant scenes. Each participant then viewed three videotapes, each depicting a di f f e r e n t intimacy condition. The order of presentation was counterbalanced (see Appendix M). 2. Videotaped Scenes The scenes were between 5.5 and 7.5 minutes in duration. They a l l involved the same man and woman arguing heatedly over an issue. The subjects were to l d that the man and woman were-' a couple who had been involved- in- an " i n -depth" study of marriage.at the university and who had allowed a camera crew access to their home over a period of several months (see Appendix N for in s t r u c t i o n s ) . In fact, the couple were professional actors. 8 7 The power variable was chosen as a between-subjects variable because i t would appear less r e a l i s t i c i f the actors were to switch from dominant to submissive for a given viewer than to be merely arguing over d i f f e r e n t issues for a given viewer. In addition, since there are only two power conditions, this approach allows for a more e f f i c i e n t use of participants. 57 R e l a t i v e power was manipulated by having e i t h e r the man or the woman in the scene dominate the argument v e r b a l l y . Family i n t e r a c t i o n r e s e a r c h e r s ( c f . M i s h l e r & Waxier, 1968; Jacob, 1975) have s p e c i f i e d a number of d i s c r e t e behaviours that seem to c o n s t i t u t e v e r b a l dominance. These were employed here to manipulate r e l a t i v e power. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the powerful person was i n s t r u c t e d to have a g r e a t e r t o t a l t a l k i n g time, i n t e r r u p t h i s or her partner ( s u c c e s s f u l l y ) more o f t e n and to get t h e i r way i n the end. In the male dominant scenes, the man d i s p l a y e d t h i s v e r b a l prowess while the woman appeared cowed and submissive.',In the female dominant scenes, t h e i r r o l e s were r e v e r s e d . Attempted intimacy movement was manipulated by v a r y i n g the issue d i s c u s s e d d u r i n g the c o n f l i c t . There were three i s s u e s , one f o r abandonment (woman attempting to move away from the man), engulfment (women attempting to move c l o s e r to the man), and the n e u t r a l (no attempted movement) c o n d i t i o n . I t was decided to have the woman i n s t i g a t e t h i s movement in the tapes (rat h e r than the man) because- the dynamic of i n t e r e s t here was the man's attempt to c o n t r o l the woman's behaviour, not the other way around. The s p e c i f i c s of the abandonment and engulfment i s s u e s were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of c l i n i c a l experience as w e l l as d e s c r i p t i o n s i n the l i t e r a t u r e of a c t i o n s by b a t t e r e d women that appear to anger t h e i r husbands. A study by Dutton (1979) i n d i c a t e d that greater p h y s i o l o g i c a l a r o u s a l o c c u r r e d i n response to a videotaped scene i f the viewer b e l i e v e d the scene was r e a l than i f he b e l i e v e d they were a c t i n g . 58 S p e c i f i c a l l y , the abandonment issue involved the woman stating that she wished to become more independent, spend more time with her friends ( i . e . go away for a weekend with them), and join a women's -group. The engulfment issue involved an argument in which the woman complained that the man didn't spend enough time communicating his thoughts and feelings to her. F i n a l l y , the neutral scene involved an issue that is common to most couples, but did not a p r i o r i involve a change in intimacy. The couple argued over whether they would spend their vacation camping (the man) or in San Francisco (the woman). A l l the tapes were constructed so that the severity of c o n f l i c t increased over the f i r s t part of the tape, peaking around the middle and t a i l i n g off towards the end f i n a l l y resulting in acquiesence by the"non-dominant person". The c o n f l i c t was purely verbal; there was no physical contact between the man and woman in the scenes. The videotapes were pre-tested on twelve men in their late twenties who were currently involved in an intimate relationship with a woman. The pre-test was•conducted' in-order to "fine tune" the physiological measurement procedure and to obtain some preliminary ratings on the tapes in terms of the manipulations. Six men viewed the female dominant tapes and six viewed the male dominant tapes. Pre-test data i s summarized in Appendix 0. E s s e n t i a l l y , the pre-test indicated that the tapes were seen as highly r e a l i s t i c and highly c o n f l i c t u a l and produced a moderate degree of anger and anxiety as reported by the twelve men. The men's ratings on the power and intimacy dimensions indicated that the tapes were perceived as expected on these dimensions. 59 One exception to this was that the abandonment tapes ( p a r t i c u l a r l y male dominant-abandonment tape) were seen as closer to neutral than anticipated and in fact were.not seen as s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the neutral tapes. However, i t was reasoned that assaultive men who had been seen in c l i n i c a l settings to be "hypersensitive" to abandonment cues, would perceive a greater reduction of intimacy in these tapes. Since no assaultive men were available for pre-testing, i t was decided to proceed with the experiment proper using the six pretested tapes. 3. Dependent measures: a) Self-report measures of perceived a f f e c t were obtained immediately after each videotape scene. While a number of standardized measures of a f f e c t i v e state are available (e.g. Zuckerman, Lubin, Vogel & Valerius, 1974; Izard, 1974), these instruments were considered too lengthy or too broad-based for the present purposes. Therefore, two scales used by Russell and Mehrabian (1974) to measure anger and anxiety were used1,- Each scale consisted' of three- adjectives which tap feelings of anger (anger, h o s t i l e , aggressive) and anxiety (tense, nervous, anxious). The scales had the advantage of being short, while providing some breadth in the coverage of the two emotional state. The anger scale provided the primary test of hypotheses four and f i v e . However, ratings on the anxiety scale were also analysed to see whether the men d i f f e r e d on t h i s alternate subjective emotional state. A l i s t of fourteen other adjectives describing a f f e c t i v e state were selected from an extensive l i s t compiled by Russell and Mehrabian (1979) and 60 included in the form given to the men following each scene (see Appendix P for the f u l l l i s t ) . These items were included primarily as a background on which to place the anger and anxiety items and w i l l not be discussed in the d i s s e r t a t i o n . The adjective l i s t was presented to the men using a nine-point semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l format with the adjective at one pole and i t s negation at the other. About half the items were inverted so as to reduce the influence of response set. Each man completed the checklist twice after each scene. The f i r s t administration requested a rating of his feelings while "while watching" scene and the second administration requested an estimate of his feelings "had he actually been in the si t u a t i o n in real l i f e " . Scores on the f i r s t administration l i k e l y r e f l e c t some combination of the relevance of the scene's stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for the man plus his a b i l i t y to "get into" the scene and experience emotion. The second administration represents a more cognitive report of his t y p i c a l emotional response in a s i t u a t i o n of that kind. Both are of inte r e s t in the present research. In addition to their ratings of a f f e c t , the men also rated each scene on a nine-point scale for realism and severity of c o n f l i c t and on a seven-point scale for dominance and attempted intimacy movement (see Appendix Q). The l a t t e r two ratings provided manipulation checks for the power and intimacy factors. 61 b) Physiological measures. Lang's (1971) analysis of emotional reactions as three interdependent, but d i s t i n c t response modes (verbal, v i s c e r a l , motor) suggests that the monitoring of autonomic arousal during exposure to emotional stimuli i s a c r u c i a l adjunct to verbal ratings in the assessment of emotional responding. The conception of a "fight or f l i g h t " response characterized by general arousal of the sympathetic nervous system (Cannon, 1927) has been embraced by researchers studying emotional reactions (Hasset, 1978) and is central to some i n f l u e n t i a l theories of emotion (e.g. Schachter & Singer, 1962). However, a number of studies conducted over' the last t h i r t y years have successfully demonstrated d i f f e r e n t i a l patterns of autonomic arousal for such emotions as fear and anger (Ax, 1953; Funkenstein, King & Drolette, 1954; Schachter, 1957; Weerts & Roberts, 1976; Schwartz, Weinberger & Singer, 1981) which presumably, r e f l e c t adaptive preparatory responses for d i f f e r e n t i a l action (Obrist, 1976; Schwartz et a l , 1981). While the results of these studies suggest that under certain circumstances i t i s possible to d i f f e r e n t i a t e "fight and f l i g h t " emotions ph y s i o l o g i c a l l y , i t should be clear that many physiological s i m i l a r i t i e s exist among these d i f f e r e n t emotional responses which r e f l e c t a c t i v a t i o n of the sympathetic nervous system in response to threat. Furthermore, there i s currently no r e l i a b l e , unobtrusive method for measuring one key d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g variable, d i a s t o l i c blood pressure. Therefore, the approach taken here was to select measures of autonomic a c t i v i t y which had been shown in past research to be responsive 62 to emotional stimuli and that could be measured unobtrusively. Five measures were selected on t h i s basis: (1) rate of skin conductance responding, (2) mean tonic skin conductance l e v e l , (3) heart rate, (4) pulse t r a n s i t time (an estimate of s y s t o l i c blood pressure) and (5) r e s p i r a t i o n . A detailed rationale and description of measurement for each variable is presented next. The term electrodermal a c t i v i t y (EDA) stands for a general class of physiological measures that have been used extensively in psychological research to measure sympathetic arousal in response to emotion-eliciting stimuli (Venables and C h r i s t i e , 1980). Electrodermal measures r e f l e c t the a c t i v i t y of the eccrine. sweat glands which are innervated exclusively by sympathetic, cholinergic f i b r e s . Consequently, EDA has been frequently interpreted as a measure of emotional arousal by behavioural s c i e n t i s t s . Studies have demonstrated increases in phasic EDA (for example, number of skin conductance responses or galvanic skin reponses) following shock-threat manipulations (Szpiler & Epstein, 1976; Bundy & Mangan, 1979), perceived psychological threat (Katkin, 1965; K i l p a t r i c k , 1972), s t r e s s f u l films (Geen & Rakosky, 1976; Goleman & Schwartz, 1976) and anger provocations (Ax, 1933; Schachter, 1957). In addition, Novaco (1975) was able to produce a decrease in the rate of galvanic skin responses in provoked anger c l i e n t s using a modified stress inocculation treatment program. Similar results have been found-for tonic EDA or skin conductance l e v e l (Taylor & Epstein, 1967; Szpiler & 63 Epstein, 1976; Bundy.& Mangan, 1979; Frodi & Lamb, 1980). While some investigators believe that phasic EDA may be a more sensitive indicator of emotional arousal ( K i l p a t r i c k , 1972), other reviewers have concluded that phasic and tonic measures tend to covary f a i r l y closely (Venables & C h r i s t i e , 1980) and that some of the measured va r i a t i o n may be the result of d i f f e r e n t i a l effects of skin hydration on the two types of measure (Bundy & Managan, 1979). Given evidence that both phasic and tonic measures of EDA respond to : ' vemotional arousal manipulations along with indications that these measures are not interchangeable, both measures were used in the present research. Since skin conductance measures appear to be more amenable to parametic s t a t i s t i c a l procedures than measures of skin resistance (Hassett, 1978; Venables & C h r i s t i e , 1980), two measures of skin conductance were u t i l i z e d : rate of skin conductance responding (SCR) and mean skin conductance l e v e l (SCL). The t h i r d measure, heart rate, i s a complex response which is affected sympathetically via adrenergic fibres originating in the spinal cord and parasympathetically via cholinergic fibres originating in the vagus nerve (Siddle and Turpin, 1980). While heart rate has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been viewed as a general measure of arousal (Schwartz e t . a l . , 1981), i t i s now clear that under some circumstances there may be " d i r e c t i o n a l f r a c t i o n a t i o n " of physiological reponses in which reductions in heart rate may occur following stimulation (Lacey, 1967; Lacey & Lacey, 1980). 64 Increases in heart rate following exposure to emotional stimuli may indicate defensive reactions to the material (Lacey, 1967) or may simply be r e f l e c t i v e of metabolic demands a r i s i n g in the experimental sit u a t i o n (Obrist, Langer, Grignolo, Light, •& McCubbin, 1980). Notwithstanding the apparent complexity of cardiovascular reponding, a number of studies have demonstrated increased heart rate in subjects following exposure to emction-indueing s t i m u l i . Heart rate has been found to increase following stressful, or anger-provoking deceptions (Ax, 1953; Funkenstein et a l , 1954; Schachter, 1957), relevant fear-indueing s l i d e s (Hare, 1973, Klorman, Wiesenfeld & Austin, 1975), s e l f - i n i t i a t e d emotional imagery (Schwartz, 1971; Schwartz e t . a l . , 1981) and emotional imagery stimulated by i n d i v i d u a l i z e d audiotapes (Weerts and Roberts, 1976). More recently, Frodi and Lamb (1980) found greater increases in the heart rate of abusive mothers r e l a t i v e to nonabusive mothers while they watched videotapes of a baby crying. In addition to- i t ' s demonstrated responsiveness- to emotional s t i m u l i , tonic heart rate is r e l a t i v e l y easy to measure in a continuous and unobtrusive fashion. Systolic blood pressure i s a commonly used measure of emotional arousal. It has been shown to be responsive to anger and anxiety reactions induced by provocation and stress manipulations (Ax, 1953; Funkenstein et a l , 1954), frustration manipulations (Hokanson, 1961; Hokanson & Shelter, 1961) and imagery techniques (Weerts & Roberts, 1976; Schwartz e t . a l . , 65 1981). Novaco (1975) has also demonstrated decreases in s y s t o l i c blood pressure in his anger c l i e n t s following treatments. In recent years, Steptoe and his colleagues (Gribbin, Steptoe & Sleight, 1976; Steptoe, 1980) have introduced pulse t r a n s i t time (PTT) as a nonintusive, indirect measure of blood pressure. PTT was o r i g i n a l l y defined as the time i t took for a pulse wave to travel between brachial and r a d i a l locations on the artery and was shown to correlate highly with mean a r t e r i a l pressure (Gribbin et a l , 1976). Due to measurement d i f f i c u l t i e s with this procedure (such as movement a r t i f a c t ) , PTT' has more recently been measured as the time between the r-wave of the EKG and a peripheral pulse wave. Measured in t h i s fashion, changes in PTT have been found to correlate most highly with changes in s y s t o l i c blood pressure (Obrist, Light, McCribbin, Hutcheson & Hoffer, 1979; Alle n , Schneider, Davidson, Winchester & Taylor, 1981; Newlin 1981; Lane, Greenstadt, Shapiro, & Rubinstein, 1983; Pollack & Obrist, 1983). Allen e t . a l . (1981) have shown that the use of combined PTT scores based upon ten consecutive beats improves correlations even further. PTT is not an obsolute measure of blood pressure; however, i t is useful for assessing changes in blood pressure over time (Steptoe, 1980). Since the breathing pattern of the subject may have a powerful effect on other measures of autonomic arousal (Stern, Ray & Davis, 1980), respiration was also recorded. Respiration rate was calculated and analyzed primarily to provide information about potential a r t i f a c t u a l increases in other measures, but also because there exists some evidence that 66 respiration rate may increase under highly emotional conditions (Ax, 1953). 4. Apparatus and Quantification of Physiological Data. Physiological measurements were recorded using a Beckman Type R Dynagraph. Paper speed was 5 mm/sec. except during periods where pulse t r a n s i t time was being assessed in which case the paper speed was increased to 100 mm/sec. Skin conductance values were obtained via two s i l v e r / s i l v e r chloride electrodes placed on the second phalanx of the index and second finger of the non-dominant hand. The surface area of the electrode contact with the skin was .78 cm2. The electrode paste used was a mixture of one part physiological saline and two parts unibase (see Fowles, C h r i s t i e , Edelberg, Grings, & Lykken, 1981). A Beckman Skin Conductance Coupler enabled both SCR and SCL to be recorded on one polygraph channel. Pen s e n s i t i v i t y was held constant at .1 MV/mm. Rate of responding (SCR) was calculated by counting deflections greater than .05 micromhos and dividing by the number of minutes in the sample unit. Mean SCL was de-termined by taking measurements at 15 second intervals during testing and averaging the obtained values for the sample unit. Room temperature was maintained r e l a t i v e l y constant at 24-27°C throughout the testing. EKG was recorded from two s i l v e r / s i l v e r chloride electrodes placed on the right collarbone and l e f t ribcage. Redux electrode paste was used to abrade the skin under the placement s i t e and also served as the transmission medium. The EKG impulses were 67 fed through a Beckman Voltage/Pulse/Pressure Coupler and output on one channel of the polygraph. Heart, rate was. established by counting the r-wave spikes for each measurement period and dividing by the number of minutes to y i e l d beats per minute (bpm). PTT was estimated by scoring the distance in millimeters between the peak of the EKG r-wave and the peak of the pulse wave detected by a photocell plethysmograph with a l i g h t emitting diode placed on the thumb of the non-dominant hand. The photocell was held in place by a piece of padded Velcro which also served to shield i t from external l i g h t sources. Vasomotor signals were then channeled through a Beckman Photocell Coupler and were output on the polygraph channel adjacent to the EKG output. Each.PTT score was the average of the ten consecutive beats closest to the end of the measurement period. Measurements were taken just before the start of each scene and during the la s t 15 seconds of each scene res u l t i n g in a before and after score for each scene. Respiration data were obtained via a s t r a i n gauge transducer fastened around the mid-section of the man. A Beckman Voltage/Pulse/Pressure Coupler was used in the measurement. Respiration rate was calculated by counting the number of inhalations and dividing by time to y i e l d an estimate of rate in cycles per minute. 68 Each scene was divided into three equal segments to y i e l d three SCR,SCL, heart rate and respiration scores for each scene. A l l polygraph records were then scored by a research assistant who-was bli n d to experimental conditions. The research assistant was trained in scoring the fiv e measures using photocopied excerpts from the polygraph data. One scene and one baseline (selected randomly) from ten randomly chosen records were scored by a second rater in order to es t a b l i s h interrater r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the five measures. The Pearson r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were uniformly high ( a l l exceeding .98) and appear in Table 3. . Irregular or unusual responses on the respiration channel (perhaps representing coughing) were not used to adjust .or eliminate coinciding phasic responses on other channels as i t was reasoned that both responses could p o t e n t i a l l y r e f l e c t an emotional reaction and useful information might be l o s t . Rather, respiration was analyzed along with other more primary measures and the o v e r a l l pattern of breathing used to help interpret the re s u l t s . 5. Procedure. The participant was met by the investigator and taken to the testing room. He was asked to wash his hands with soap and water before beginning in an attempt to standardize t h i s factor across participants (as recommended by Fowles et a l , 1981). The physiological recording equipment was b r i e f l y explained to the man to help a l l a y any anxiety about the procedure. Subsequently, the man was seated in a shielded room containing the videotape viewer and electrodes for physiological 69 Table 3 Pearson I n t e r r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r P h y s i o l o g i c a l Measures Scene B a s e l i n e O v e r a l l Skin Conductance Responding .99 .99 .99 Skin Conductance L e v e l .99 .99 .99 Heart Rate .99 .99 .99 R e s p i r a t i o n .99 .98 .99 Before End O v e r a l l Pulse T r a n s i t Time .99 .99 .99 70 recording. While the electrodes were being attached, the man was told that he would be viewing several videotaped scenes of a couple involved in verbal c o n f l i c t and that-.he would be given more detailed instructions in the answer booklet. Once the man was hooked up to the recording equipment he was asked to complete the l i s t of twenty aff e c t adjectives with instructions to rate "how you are feeling right now". This served as an indication of feelings the man was bringing into the session and/or feelings that . were being aroused by the testing s i t u a t i o n . He was also given the answer booklet and asked to read the instructions." (see Appendix N) . The instructions described what was about to happen, encouraged the man to imagine himself in the male's position and included some statements about what the man might experience while watching the tape. The l a t t e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l component involved an attempt to improve responsivity to the scenes by providing some indication that certain physiological responses might be expected to occur. This follows the general p r i n c i p l e underlying the work of Lang and his colleagues (Lang, 1979; Kozak, 1977) that t r a i n i n g people to pay attention to response aspects of an image increases the reported vividness of the image as well as subsequent physiological r e a c t i v i t y . C a l i b r a t i o n of the physiological recording equipment , was performed while the participant completed the chec k l i s t and read the instructions. Following c a l i b r a t i o n , the participant was asked to relax for five minutes in the dimly l i t room while physiological baseline measures were taken. Immediately 71 f o l l o w i n g t h e b a s e l i n e t h e f i r s t s c e n e w a s p r e s e n t e d , f o l l o w e d b y q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o m p l e t i o n , a t w o m i n u t e r e . s t p e r i o d , , t h e n e x t s c e n e , a n d s o o n . A f t e r t h e m a n h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r t h e t h i r d s c e n e , h e w a s a s k e d t o r e l a x o n c e a g a i n f o r f i v e m i n u t e s w i t h t h e r o o m d i m l y l i t i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n a s e c o n d p h y s i o l o g i c a l b a s e l i n e r e a d i n g . A l l s c e n e s w e r e p r e s e n t e d o n a t w e n t y - i n c h R C A c o l o r t e l e v i s i o n . T h e m a n v i e w e d t h e s c e n e s i n a d a r k e n e d r o o m a t a d i s t a n c e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e f e e t f r o m t h e s c r e e n . T h e v o l u m e o f t h e t e l e v i s i o n w a s p r e s e t i n o r d e r t o r o u g h l y e q u a t e t h e v o l u m e o f . s o u n d a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . F o l l o w i n g t h e f i n a l b a s e l i n e , t h e m a n w a s d e t a c h e d f r o m t h e r e c o r d i n g e q u i p m e n t a n d a b r i e f p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l i n t e r v i e w w a s c o n d u c t e d t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e m a n ' s i m p r e s s i o n s o f t h e t a p e a n d h i s a w a r e n e s s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l h y p o t h e s e s ( s e e A p p e n d i x R f o r a l i s t o f q u e s t i o n s a s k e d ) . M e n i n t h e P A g r o u p w e r e a l s o a s k e d s o m e q u e s t i o n s a b o u t v i o l e n c e i n p a s t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , v i o l e n c e o u t s i d e t h e h o m e , a s s a u l t c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s o o n ( s e e - A p p e n d i x S ) . A l l m e n - w e r e g i v e n - a c o p y o f - t h e * C o n f l i c t T a c t i c s S c a l e w i t h a s t a m p e d , r e t u r n e n v e l o p e t o g i v e t o t h e i r w i v e s t o f i l l o u t " i n d e p e n d e n t l y " . F i f t y - t w o o u t o f f i f t y - f o u r w i v e s r e t u r n e d t h e f o r m c o m p l e t e d ( f o l l o w i n g r e p e a t e d r e q u e s t s i n s e v e r a l c a s e s ) . V S A a n d N A m e n w e r e p a i d a n d a l l m e n w e r e t o l d t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e c o n t a c t e d w i t h i n f o u r w e e k s t o r e c e i v e t h e i r f e e d b a c k . 72 IV. RESULTS The results obtained from the paper and pencil measures (bearing on hypotheses one, two, three and six) w i l l be discussed f i r s t followed by results from the videotape analogue study (bearing on hypotheses four and five) and f i n a l l y by other results of interest. Given the large number of variables examined in the study and a consequent concern for holding Type I error rate down, the general approach to data analysis was to employ multivariate techniques on groups of variables (Gabriel and Hopkins, 1974).. If s i g n i f i c a n t , these analyses were, followed up by univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) using the Bonferonni method of correcting alpha for experiment-wise error (cf. Harris, 1975) in order to assess more s p e c i f i c a l l y how the groups d i f f e r e d . Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons were performed on pairs of means as a follow-up procedure to s i g n i f i c a n t ANOVAs (cf. Kirk, 1968). A. QUESTIONNAIRE DATA Means and standard deviations for the nine variables derived from the questionnaires given in session one are presented in Table 4 ( i e . nPower, 1 two childhood violence nPower scores are the sum of a participant's scores for the fiv e s t o r i e s . Since, a s i g n i f i c a n t positive correlation ( r= . 28 ;p_<. 02) was found between nPower and story length, the scores were length-corrected using a procedure outlined by Winter (1980) which yie l d s scores that are unrelated to protocol length (through the use of part c o r r e l a t i o n ) . These are the scores which appear in Table 4 and w i l l be used in subsequent analyses. The scores have been standardized, multiplied by 10, and 50 has been added to eliminate negative numbers. 73 Table 4 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Paper and P e n c i l Measures PA VSA NA nPower 1 (0-55) 8 .17( 4.87) 7.27( 6.00) 8.27( 4.30) L e n g t h - c o r r e c t e d nPower 50.78( 8.78) 48.93(11.99) 50.29( 9.43) Emotional Expresiveness (0-25) 11.89( 7.20) 1 1 .20( 6.60) 10.44( 5.93) Parent-Parent V i o l e n c e (0-108) 2 ,6. 72 ( 1 4.43) 5. 44( 1 2 . 37) 2 .50 ( 5. 21 ) Parent-Respondent V i o l e n c e (0-108) 2 12.72(13.26) 11 . 78( 6.19) 7.83( 6.54) Rathus A s s e r t i v e n e s s Schedule ( 1 0- 1 90 ) 3 99.06(29.80) 1 10. 1.7(28.09) 1 1 5 . 00 ( 22 . 78 ) S p o u s e - s p e c i f i c A s s e r t -iveness (46-181) 3 106.44(14.00) 1 08 . 61(21.93) 119.39(12.17) Sex-role s t e r e o t y p i n g (0-45) 18.22( 7.74) 16.10( 7.00) 17.56( 7.07) A d v e r s a r i a l Sexual b e l i e f s ( 0 - 4 5 ) 17.61(8.05) 12.60( 8.30) 14.11( 7.12) Acceptance of V i o l e n c e (0-30) 8.72( 4-. 61) 5.83( 4.19) 6-.72( 3.8-1) Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c ale (0-165) 78.83(22.40) 80.94(19.30) 91.50(15.55) l u m b e r s i n bracke t s represent range of scores p o s s i b l e ; 2Sum of v i o l e n c e r a t i n g s f o r f a t h e r and mother , 3A constant of 100 was added to i n d i v i d u a l a s s e r t i v e n e s s scores i n order to remove negative numbers. 74 scores, Test of Emotional Styles-expressiveness score, two assertiveness scores and scores on Burt's three attitude scales). While each of these variables was of interest t h e o r e t i c a l l y , i t was decided to reduce these variables to a smaller number of molar variables through a process of l o g i c a l combination in order to increase the power of the multivariate test v i s - a - v i s the available sample size (cf. Overall & K l e t t , 1972). Therefore, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on the following five variables: length-corrected nPower, emotional expressiveness, combined' assertiveness (Rathus Assertiveness Scale score plus spouse-s p e c i f i c assertiveness score), combined childhood violence (parent-parent CTS scores plus parent-respondent CTS score) and combined attitudes toward women (sum of three Burt sc a l e s ) . Combinations were made by standardizing the scores for the component variables and summing them for each man. The MANOVA performed on these data indicated that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the three groups on this linear combination of variables (Wilks Lambda(10,92)=.757; p=.191) This analysis advises against proceeding to individual univariate ANOVAs and hence, more molecular analysis of the variables w i l l not be reported here. However, the reader may be wondering whether the process of molar analysis might have obscured some t h e o r e t i c a l l y interesting differences on some of the nine individual measures or perhaps even components of these measures (e.g. father's violence vs. mother's violence). Hence, the reader i s referred to Appendix T for more detailed information regarding the 75 questionnaire data. It should be made clear that though the means are in the predicted di r e c t i o n in many cases, even when very l i b e r a l s t a t i s t i c a l procedures are applied to these data ( i . e . univariate ANOVAs on a large number of molecular variables) the general finding is that the groups do not d i f f e r signi fcantly. Also presented in Table 4 are means and standard deviations for the men's scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (SDS). While the NA group appeared to score s l i g h t l y higher than the other two groups ( i . e . greater s o c i a l l y desirable responding), a one-way ANOVA did not reveal any s i g n i f i c a n t differences on this measure. The PA group scored lowest on s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , contrary to the hypothesis that they may have been attempting to "image manage". B. VIDEOTAPE ANALOGUE DATA The approach to analyzing the dependent measures in t h i s portion of the research closely followed that outlined above. Repeated measures MANOVAs were performed on l o g i c a l l y combined groups of variables, followed by Bonferroni-adjusted univariate ANOVAs and Newman-Keuls post-hoc comparisons (given s t a t i s t i c a l significance in the preceding analyses). Since these analyses a l l involved at least one repeated measures factor, a sphericity test was performed for each repeated measures factor of the univariate ANOVAs to test the assumption of symmetry ( i . e . that the orthogonal polynomials for any within factor were independent and had equal variance (cf. Anderson, 1958; Dixon, 7 6 Brown, Engleman, Frane, H i l l , F e n n r i c h and Joporek, 1981). If the s p h e r i c i t y t e s t was s i g n i f i c a n t , adjustments were made to the w i t h i n - f a c t o r degrees of freedom v i a a procedure o u t l i n e d by Greenhouse and G e i s s e r (1959). One p h y s i o l o g i c a l measure (Pulse T r a n s i t Time) was analyzed s e p a r a t e l y using an a n a l y s i s of covari a n c e because the measurement procedure d i f f e r e d from that used with the other p h y s i o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s . F i n a l l y , the four measures that provided d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n ( r e a l i s m , c o n f l i c t ) and manipulation checks (dominance, intimacy) on the tapes were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y using B o n f e r r o n i - a d j u s t e d u n i v a r i a t e ANOVAs rather than an o v e r a l l MANOVA because there were d i f f e r i n g t h e o r e t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s about group d i f f e r e n c e s for the v a r i o u s measures. These data w i l l be presented f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by measures of emotional a r o u s a l and f i n a l l y other r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n regarding the videotape study. C o n f l i c t , r e a l i s m , dominance and attempted intimacy  movement, r a t i n g s . Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the men's r a t i n g s on degree of c o n f l i c t i n the tapes- are presented in Table 5. ANOVA r e s u l t s f o r these two r a t i n g s are found i n Table 6. An alpha l e v e l of .05 was set f o r the f a m i l y of r a t i n g s ( c o n f l i c t , r e a l i s m , dominance, and i n t i m a c y ) , thereby making the alpha l e v e l f o r any one v a r i a b l e .05/4=.0125 ( c f . K i r k , 1968). The i n f o r m a t i o n i n Table 5 and Table 6 i n d i c a t e s that o v e r a l l , the p a r t i c i p a n t s found the tapes to c o n t a i n a moderate to high degree of c o n f l i c t with no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n a c r o s s the three groups of men. While male-dominant tapes tended to be viewed as somewhat more c o n f l i c t u a l , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e f e l l 77 Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations for C o n f l i c t Ratings Group Dominance Intimacy Condition A E N PA Male Dominance 7 .78(1 .09) 5. 67(2. 18) 6 .67(1 .94) Female Dominance 7 .00(2 .00) 6. 22(2. 59) 5 .33(1 .80) VSA Male Dominance 7 .67(1 . 73) 6. 78(2. 65) 6 .67(1 .50) Female. Dominance 5 .67(1 .09) 4. 67(2. 06) 5 .22(2 .11) NA Male Dominance 6 .44(1 .67) 6. 00(1. 62) 6 .22(2 .17) Female Dominance 7 .11(1 .50) 4. 78(2. 49) 6 .22(2 .17) Scale range = 1-9. 78 Table 6 Analysis of Variance Results for C o n f l i c t Ratings Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F P GGP1 Squares Freedom Square Mean 6284. 45 1 6284 .45 988 .91 .0000 Group 3. 79 2 1 .90 0 .30 .7435 Dominance 29. 39 1 29 .39 4 .62 .0366 Group x Dominance " 21 . 00 2 . 10 . 50 1 .65 .2023 Error 305. 04 48 6 .35 Int imacy 45. 23 2 22 .62 8 .79 .0003 .0008 Intimacy x Group • 5. 25 4 1 .31 0 .51 .7286 .6919 Intimacy x Dominance 0. 44 2 0 .22 0 .09 .9173 .881 3 Intimacy x Group x Dominance 17. 44 4 4 .36 1 .70 . 1 574 . 1707 Error 246. 96 96 2 .57 Sphericity test p=.0024 Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon factor=.8l57 1 GGP=Greenhouse Geisser Probability 79 short of significance at the adjusted alpha l e v e l . F i n a l l y , a rather' large difference was found for intimacy conditions in terms of perceived c o n f l i c t which remained following Greenhouse-Geisser adjustment. Newman-Keuls comparisons indicated that the combined abandonment scenes were rated as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c o n f l i c t u a l than the neutral (p_<.05) and engulfment scenes (p<.0l) which did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r from one another. Means and standard deviations and ANOVA results for realism ratings are presented in Tables 7 and 8. Overall, the men tended to see the tapes as moderately to highly r e a l i s t i c . No s i g n i f i c a n t group differences were found on th i s rating, though mean ratings descended from the PA to the VSA to the NA group. The only s i g n i f i c a n t difference on th i s rating was a main effect for intimacy condition. Post-hoc comparisons revealed that (overall) the engulfment scene was viewed as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e a l i s t i c than the other two scenes (g<.01) which did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from one another. Means and standard deviations for the men's ratings of dominance are presented in Table 9 and corresponding ANOVA results appear in Table 10. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l differences among the three groups in their ratings of dominance in the tapes. There was a large main effect for the dominance condition which corresponded to predictions ( i . e . the male-dominant tapes were rated as more male dominant that the female dominant tapes). The c e l l means a l l departed appreciably from the "equal dominance" rating of four with the exception of one Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations for Realism Ratings Group Dominance Intimacy Condition A E N PA Male Dominance 7.56(0.89) 7.44(1.67) 6 . 8 9 ( 1 . 5 4 ) Female Dominance 5.22(3.46) 7.44(2.51 ) 6.56(2.51) VSA Male Dominance 5.67(2.96) 7.44(2.51) 5.11(1.96) .Female Dominance 6.89(1.13) 7.56(1.42) 6.33(2.06) NA Male Dominance 4.78(2.91) 5.22(2.35) 4.11(2.85) Female Dominance 6.33(2.17) 7.11(1.54) 5.33(2.45) Scale range = 1-9. 81 Table 8 Analysis of Variance Results for Realism Ratings Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F P Mean 6384.50 1 6384.50 642. 91 .0000 Group 54.70 2 27.35 2. 75 . 0737 Domi nance 10.38 1 1 0. 38 1 . 04 .3118 Group x Dominance 42.75 .2* 21 .38 2. 1 5 . 1 273 Error 476.67 48 9.93 Intimacy 50.04 2 25. 02 9. 25 .0002 Intimacy x Group 9.15 4 2.29 0. 85 .5000 Intimacy x Dominance 2.60 2 1 .30 0. 48 .6194 Intimacy x Group x Dominance 16.43 4 4.11 1 . 52 .2030 Error 259.78 96 2.71 Sphericity test p=.1458 82 Table 9 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r Dominance Ratings Group Dominance Intimacy C o n d i t i o n A E N PA Male Dominance 6. 11(1 .05) 5. 11(1 .36) 5. 78(1 .30) Female Dominance 1 . 22(0 .44) 1 . 89(1 .05) 2. 67( 1 .12) VSA Male Dominance 6. 11(1 .36) 4. 33(1 .58) 5. 56 ( 1 .67) Female Dominance 2. 00 ( 1 .58) 2. 67(1 .•44) 2. 33(1 .41) NA Male Dominance 6. 00(0 .50) 5. 22( 1 .09) 6. 00(0 .87) Female Dominance 2. 56(1 .81 ) 2. 89(1 .45) 2. 67( 1 .22) Scale range = 1-9. 83 Table 10 Analysis of Variance Results for Dominance Ratings Source Mean Group Domi nance Group x Dominance Error Sum of Degrees of Mean F Squares Freedom Square GGP 2528.40 6.01 430.22 4.70 162.67 1 2528.40 746.08 .0000 2 3.01 0.89 .4185 1 430.22 126.95 .0000 2 2.35 0.69 .5045 48 3.39 Intimacy 6.46 Intimacy x Group 2.58 Intimacy x Dominance 20.48 Intimacy x Group x Dominance 5.59 Error 76.89 2 4 2 4 96 3.23 4.03 .0208 .0264 0.65 0.81 .5247 .5098 10.24 12,79 .0000 .0000 1.40 1.75 .1463 .1562 0.80 Sphericity test p=.0l94 Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon factor=.8662 1 GGP=Greenhouse-Geisser Probability 84 mean (VSA group/male dominant/engulfment tape). A s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between the intimacy and dominance factors held following Greenhouse-Geisser adjustment. Tests of simple main effects (cf. Kirk, 1968) were subsequently carried out and the results are presented in Table 11. Alpha l e v e l was set on a "per family" basis at .0125, resulting i n - c r i t e r i o n alpha levels of .0125/3=.004 for tests on dominance at each l e v e l of intimacy and .0125/2=.006 for intimacy at each l e v e l of dominance. Results indicated that the two dominance conditions were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in the expected direction for each l e v e l of the intimacy condition, thereby valid a t i n g the manipulation more s p e c i f i c a l l y . A s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l effect across intimacy conditions for male dominant tapes was followed up with Newman-Keul's post-hoc comparisons. These comparisons indicated that the engulfment tape was seen as s i g n i f i c a n t l y less male-dominant than the other two tapes (p_<.0l) which did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r from one another. In summary, the dominance manipulation generally worked as anticipated with male dominant tapes d i f f e r i n g from female-dominant tapes over combined intimacy conditions and also at each individual level of the intimacy factor. The man appeared less dominant in the male-dominant, engulfment tape than in other male dominant tapes. Means and standard deviations for ratings of attempted intimacy movement in the tapes are presented in Table 12 with corresponding ANOVA results in Table 13. There were no si g n i f i c a n t main effects for the group or dominance factors and no s i g n i f i c a n t interaction e f f e c t s . There was a large 85 Table 11 Test of Simple Main Effects for Dominance Ratings Source Dominance at Abandonment Sum of Degrees of Mean Squares Freedom Square 232.30 1 232.30 139.9** Dominance at Engulfment 78.2'4 1 78.24 47.1 ** Dominance at Neutral 140.17 1 140.17 84.4** Error 239.56 1 44 1 .66 Intimacy at Male Dominant 20.54 2 10.27 12.82** Intimacy at Female Dominant Error 6.40 76.89 96 3.20 3.99* 0.80 **P<.001 *NS. 86 Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations for Attempted Intimacy Movement Rat ings Group Dominance Intimacy Condition A E N PA Male Dominance 4.33(1 .12) 1 .67(0.87) 4.33(1.00) Female Dominance 5.11(1.05) 2.33(1.50) 4.33(1.12) VSA Male Dominance 4.00(1.22) 1 .89(0.33) 3.78(0.67) Female Dominance 4.44(1.51) 2.11(0.78) 3.89(1 .05) NA Male Dominance 4.56(0.73) 2. 11(0.60) 4.44(1.01) Female Dominance 4.89(1 .05) 2.00(0.71) 4.44(1.33) Scale range = 1-7 (4=no intimacy movement) 87 Table 13 Analysis of Variance Results for Attempted Intimacy Movement Rat ings Source Sum of Squares Mean 2090.89 Group 4.78 Dominance 2.99 Group x Dominance 1.12 Error 81.56 Intimacy 204.04 Intimacy x Group 2.07 Intimacy x Dominance 1.57 Intimacy x Group x Dominance 0.77 Error 70.22 Sphericity test p=.2470 grees of Mean F P Freedom Square 1 2090.89 1230.60 .0000 2 2.39 1.41 .2550 1 2.99 1.76 .1911 2 0.56 0.33 .7201 48 1.70 2 102.02 139.47 .0000 4 0.52 0.71 .5878 2 0.78 1.07 .3465 4 0.19 0.26 .9019 96 0.73 8 8 main e f f e c t f o r i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n a s a n t i c i p a t e d . Newman-Keuls p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s 2 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e e n g u l f m e n t scenes, were r a t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more "moving t o w a r d s " t h a n t h e o t h e r two s c e n e s (p_<.0i) and t h a t t h e abandonment s c e n e s were r a t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more "moving away" t h a n t h e n e u t r a l s c e n e s (p_<..05) as e x p e c t e d . However, o b s e r v a t i o n of t h e means s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e combined abandonment s c e n e s were r a t e d more c l o s e l y t o n e u t r a l ( o r no a t t e m p t e d movement) t h a n was a n t i c i p a t e d . - T h i s was p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e f o r t h e m a l e - d o m i n a n t , "abandonment s c e n e . Though t h e PA g r o u p had the. h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g o f "moving away"' i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e f e m a l e - d o m i n a n t abandonment t a p e , no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s , among t h e g r o u p s of men were f o u n d on t h e s e r a t i n g s . In summary, t h e r a t i n g s of a t t e m p t e d i n t i m a c y movement c o n f i r m t h a t t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n was g e n e r a l l y s u c c e s s f u l . However, t h e abandonment t a p e s were p e r c e i v e d as c l o s e r t o n e u t r a l t h a n e x p e c t e d and t h i s a p p e a r e d t o be t r u e f o r a l l g r o u p s o f men. E m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e t o t h e v i d e o t a p e s . T a b l e 14 contai-ns t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r f o u r p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures (SCR, SCL, h e a r t r a t e and r e s p i r a t i o n ) c o l l a p s e d o v e r t h i r d s of s c e n e s f o r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . The two b a s e l i n e r e a d i n g s a r e a l s o p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t a b l e . A two-way MANOVA was p e r f o r m e d on e a c h 2 Though a p r i o r i h y p o t h e s e s r e g a r d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e means were p o s t u l a t e d f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e , p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s were d e s i r e d . S i n c e Newman-Keul's p o s t - h o c c o m p a r i s o n s t e n d t o be more p o w e r f u l t h a n Dunn's p r o c e d u r e when th e number of means i s s m a l l and t h e number o f c o m p a r i s o n s l a r g e , t h i s p r o c e d u r e was u s e d ( K i r k , 1 9 6 8 ) . 89 Table 14 Means and Standard Deviations for SCR, SCL, Heart Rate and Respiration Collapsed Over Thirds of Scenes SCR Group Domin. Baselines 1 2 A Intimacy Condition E N PA Male 2 .44.(2. 21 ) 2.53(2 .80) 2. 28(2 .18) 2.42(2 .31 ) 2.63(2. 99) Female 3 .96(2. 33) 2.87(2 .48) 4. 48(2 .75) 3.26(1 .85) 3.34(2. 24) VSA Male 1 .29(0. 82) 1.62(1 .83) 1 . 33(0 .93) 1 .20(0 .68) 1 .92(1 . 32) Female 3 .67(2. 14) 1.96(1 .29) 3. 42(2 .33) 3.59(2 .16) 2.90(1. 86) NA Male 2 .73(1. 96) 2.89(1 .80) 3. 29(1 .36) 3.14(1 .78) 2.39(1 . 17) Female 2 .22(2. 07) 2.29(2 .24) 2. 30(2 .25) 2.49(2 .53) 1.86(2. 70) SCL Group Domin. Baselines 1 2 A Intimacy Condition E N PA Male 3 . 7 2 ( 1 . 43) 3. 74(1 .71 ) 3-. 62 (1 .52) 3.61(1 .6V) J 3.66(1 . 59) Female 4 .80(2. 92) 4.89(3 .19) 4. 92(2 .84) 4.72(2 .92) 4.64(2. 81 ) VSA Male 3 .48(1. 42) 3.36(1 .09) 3. 33(1 .21 ) 3.10(0 .97) 3.45(1. 16) Female 3 .77(0. 99) 3.72(0 .88) 3. 85(0 .89) 3.97(1 .03) 3.87(1 . 00) NA Male 3 .85(0. 53) 3.95(0 .51 ) 3. 89(0 .52) 4.08(0 .76) 3.85(0. 53) Female 3 .71(1. 70) 4.21(2 .59) 3. 94(2 .11) 4.39(2 .70) 3.90(2. 23) 90 Table 14 (cont'd) Heart Rate Group Domin PA NA Male VSA Male Male Baselines 1 2 Intimacy Condition A E N 79.1(11.9) 75.5(10.3) 77.1(11.8) 74.8( 6.4) 76.0(10.7) Female 81.6(11.5) 79.4(12.4) 79.2(12.5) 81.2(12.7) 79.0(11.9) 76.7(12.1) 75.6(13.6) 75.9(12.0) 76.8(12.7) 76.9(11.9) Female 70.9(10.5) 70.4(10.5) 71.6(11.7) 69.7( 9.7) 71.3(10.7) 84.1(12.5). 83.7(12.9) 82.4(12.8) 80.8(12.6) 81.0(13.4) Female 71.6( 9.0) 71.2(10.0) 72. 1 ( 9.7) 71.9(10.2) 70.3( 9.3) Group Domin PA VSA Male Female Male NA Male Respi rat ion Baselines 1 2 Intimacy Condition A E N 16.7(3.0) 15.7(3.5) 18.3(2.9) 15.3(4.2) 14.4(3.9) 18.3(4.5) 13.7(4.7) 13.6(4.3) 17.6(3.9) Female 16.4(2.9) 15.5(3.3) 19.3(3.1) 14.7(7.6) 13.8(3.1) 17.9(3.2) Female 15.2(3.7) 15.6(2.7) 19.5(1.2) 8.0(3.0) 18.1(2.6) 8.7(4.4) l7-.,9(3.7) 8 . 1 ( 3 . 3 ) 1 8 . 0 ( 3 . 9 ) 9.4(3.0) 19.5(3.0) 8.3(3.4) 18.3(3.2) 9.4(2.0) 19.6(1.2) 91 set of baseline measures (baseline one and baseline two) to test for any differences in physiological responding prior to and following exposure to the videotape. These results are l i s t e d in Table 15. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects or interactions in these analyses. However, in the analysis of baseline one, the dominance factor approached significance, l i k e l y r e f l e c t i n g the somewhat lower rate of skin conductance responding and higher heart rate in men who watched the male-dominant tapes. Interestingly, there was no ove r a l l s i g n i f i c a n t difference among the three groups of men in'-'terms of their rest ing arousal l e v e l as represented by this linear combination of physiological measures. Turning to the analysis of physiological arousal data during exposure to the videotapes, Table 16 l i s t s the results of the four-way MANOVA with repeated measures on two factors (intimacy and time) used to analyze the data. 3 The only s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were a main effect for the time factor (that i s , thirds of: each' scene1) and an interaction- between^ time- and-dominance conditions. Univariate ANOVAs were ca r r i e d out to examine these signifcant MANOVA effects more c l o s e l y . A main effe c t for the time factor was found for SCR (Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon factor=.8l5; F ( 1 . 6 , 78 ) = 35 . 45 ; p_<.000l) and SCL (Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon factor=.595; F (1 . 2 , 57)=55.66; 3 A more fine-grained analysis of the men's peak responding was also undertaken separately for SCR, SCL and heart rate by selecting the t h i r d of each scene which produced the highest responding in a given man. Since t h i s approach did not a l t e r the pattern of resu l t s , only the major analysis i s reported here. 92 Table 15 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for SRC, SRL, Heart Rate and Respiration Rate - Baseline One and Baseline Two Baseline One Source Wilks Lambda Approx F Hypothesis Degrees of Freedom Error Degrees Freedom of Group .89973 Dominance .82575 Group x Dominance .77494 Source Wilks Lambda .61 8 2.37 4 ; 1 .53' 8 Baseline Two 90 45 90 Approx Hypothesis Error F Degrees of Degrees of Freedom Freedom .767 .066 . 1 58 Group .92822 .43 Dominance .88479 1.46 Group x Dominance .84425 .99 8 4 8 90 45 90 .902 .229 . 446 93 Table 16 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for SCR, SCL, Heart Rate and Respiration Source Wilks Approx Hypothesis Error P Lambda F Degrees of Degrees of Freedom Freedom Group .93134 .41 8 90 .914 Dominance .85504 1 .91 4 45 . 1 26 Group x Dominance .79909 1 .34 8 90 .237 Int imacy .8281 1 1 .06 8 41 .407 Intimacy x Group .65010 ; 1 .23 16 .263 Int imacy x Dominance .81586 1.16 8 ' 41 .348 Intimacy x Group x Dominance .69957 1.00 1 6 82 .463 Time .31607 1 1 .09 8 41 .000 Time x Group .66050 1.18 1 6 82 .301 Time x Dominance .69680 2.23 8 4.1 .045 Time x Group x x Dominance .72927 0.87 1 6 82 .598 Time x Intimacy .63885 1.17 1 6 33 .342 Time x Intimacy x Group .49841 0.86 32 66 .676 Time x Intimacy x Dominance .65590 1 .08 1 6 33 .408 Time x Intimacy- x Group x Dominance .45240 1 .00 32 66 .481 94 p< .0001 ) . Newman-Keuls pairwise comparisons demonstrated that for both measures a l l pairs of means d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p_<.0l) indicating a linear decrease in skin conductance responding and skin conductance l e v e l over the course of the scenes. The time x dominance interaction was signficant for heart rate only (Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon factor=.892; F (1 . 8 , 86) =5 . 34; p_<.009). Analysis of simple main effects for this interaction term yielded one s i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o , for time across the female-dominant tapes (F(2,96)=6.51 ; p_< .01). Newman-Keuls comparisons revealed one s i g n i f i c a n t pairwise comparison, between the f i r s t and middle t h i r d of the female-dominant tapes (p<.05). While this finding implies that o v e r a l l , heart rates tended to increase from the f i r s t to the second portion of the female-dominant tapes, the mean increase was only about one beat per minute and therefore i s of l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l interest. The Pulse Transit Time (PTT) variable was analyzed separately because the measurement procedure allowed for only one value per scene-. Of interest' was the' relative' change in PTT over the course of the various scenes. However, since analysis of change scores has been shown to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y problematic (cf. Cronbach and Furby, 1970), an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) procedure was employed using the PTT measurement at the end of the scene as the dependent measure and the PTT measurement preceding the scene as the covariate. The means and standard deviations for the variate and covariate PTT measures are presented in Table 17. The ANCOVA results and adjusted means appear in Table 18. Tests of regression slope pa r a l l e l i s m were 95 Table 17 Means and Standard Deviations for Before Scene and End of Scene PTT Measurements* Group Dominance Intimacy Condition A E N Male Dominance Before End 29. 29. 64(2 33(2 .71 ) .32) 28. 28. 72(2. 61 (2. 44) 77) 29. 29. 22(2 10(2 .65) .35) Female Dominance Before End 28. 28. 43(1 52. ( 1 .70) .82) 28. 28. 22(1. 20(1, 71 ) 91 ) 28. 28. 26(1 14(1 .90) .71 ) Male Dominance Before End 28. 28. 78(0 35(1 .72) .50) 28 . 28. 47(1. 04(1. 26) 42) 28. 28. 56(1 63(1 .53) .67) Female Dominance Before End 30. 30. 88(2 00(1 .78) .73) 30. 30. 67(2. 50(1. 15) 95) 30. 30. 54( 1 57(1 .90) .76) Male Dominance Before End 28. 28. 26(3 26(1 .08) .98) 28. 28. 16(3. 00(2. 35) 72) 28. 28. 72(2 36(2 .69) .99) Female Dominance Before End 30. 29. 01(2 34(1 .34) .97) 29. 29. 47(1. 10(2. 98) 23) 29. 29. 47(1 20(1 .59) .66) *Measurements are in millimeters between peak of EKG r-wave and peak of pulse wave on polygraph paper which was moving at a rate of I00mm/sec during measurement. Therefore, 30 millimeters=30 0milliseconds. 96 Table 18 Analysis of Covariance Results and Adjusted Means for PTT Data Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F P Squares Freedom Square Group 0.78 2 0.39 0 .21 .8117 Dominance 0.10 1 0.10 0 .05 .81 57 Group x Dominance 0.54 2 0.27 0 . 1 5 .8648 Covar iate 479.29 1 479.29 256 .82 .0000 Error 87.71 47 1 .87 Intimacy ' • 1.51 2 0.76 • "1 .45 ,2405 Intimacy x Group .2.71 4 0.68 . '1 .29 .2782 Intimacy x Dominance 1.32 2 0.66 1 .26 .2878 Intimacy x Group x Dominance 0.71 4 0.18 0 .34 .8518 Covariate 1 .75 1 1 .75 3 .35 . 0703 Error 49.72 95 0.52 Sphericity test p=.2998 Group Dominance Intimacy Condition A E N PA Male Dominance 29.01 28.88 29.05 Female Dominance 28.97 28.79 28.71 VSA Male Dominance 28.59 28.58 29.01 Female Dominance 28.88 29.52 29.67 NA Male Dominance 28.82 28.63 28.62 Female Dominance 28.78 28.89 28.99 97 performed on each l e v e l of the within subjects factor and were found to be nonsignifcant. While homogeniety of regression slopes was not tested across levels of the within-subjects factor, a review by Glass, Peckham and Sanders (1972) suggests that v i o l a t i o n of the assumption is not l i k e l y to increase the probability of a Type I error. The ANCOVA yielded no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects in the adjusted means suggesting that no d i f f e r e n t i a l changes in blood pressure occurred across groups or videotape conditions. Self-report measures of anger ("while watching the scene" and "had you actually been in the situation in real l i f e " ) and anxiety ("while watching the scene" and "had you actually been in the situation in real l i f e " ) in response to the tapes were analyzed using two separate MANOVAs. Means and standard deviations for these measures and pre-rating scores are presented in Table 19 (anger) and Table 20 (anxiety). Two-way ANOVAs were performed on the two pre-rating scores (see Table 21 for results) . MANOVA- results- for- anger ratings- are presented in-Table 22 and Table 23 respectively. Analyses of pre-ratings revealed that men who were assigned to see the male-dominant tapes rated themselves as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more angry and anxious prior to testing than did the men who were assigned to see female-dominant tapes. There were no group differences or interaction effects on pre-rated anger or anxiety. Since the men were randomly assigned to dominance conditions, these differences for the dominance condition appear to r e f l e c t chance differences in random assignment which should be taken into 98 Table 19 Means and Standard Deviations for Anger Ratings Anger - While Watching Scenes Group Dominance Prerat ing Intimacy Condition A E N PA Ma 1 e 6.00(4.53) 1 3 .00(6 .58) 10.33(6.98) 13. 44(6. 71 ) Female 5.22(2.95) 1 5 .22(8 .35) 11.00(6.19) 12. 67(8. 08) VSA Male 8.22(4.02) 1 5 .78(7 .00) 13.11(6.97) .14. 78(7. 48) Female. 5.11(2.37) 1 4 .78(7 .14) 1'2.67(7.75) 1 1 . 78(8. 59) NA Male 5.78(2.49) 1 2 .22(6 .55) 11.11(1.83) 10. 67(5. 03) Female 3.78(1.20) 8 .33(4 .33) 6. 1 1 (3.22) 6. 67(3. 97) Anger - Had You Been In the Situation Group Dominance Intimacy Condition A E N PA Male 21 .00(5. 12) 16. 22(7 . 50) 21 . 11(5. 30) Female 21 .00(5. 03) 16. 44(7. 55) 18. 33(4. 85) VSA Male 1 7 .11(7. 24) 18. 44(4. 75) 19. 56(3. 97) Female V4 .44(8. 25) 14.. 33(6. 93) 16. 1 1(6. 4-5) NA Male 1 2 .33(7. 25) 17. 22(5. 31 ) 18. 67(6. 31 ) Female 1 0 .89(8. 36) 10. 22(7. 23) 12. 89(7. 59) I 99 Table 20 Means and Standard Deviations for Anxiety Ratings Anxiety - While Watching Scenes Group Dominance Prerat ing A Intimacy Condition E N PA Male Female 14.67(6.89) 11 .88(5.11) 1 3 18 .89(7. .89(8. 03) 51 ) 1 1 .78(5.21) 1 3.56(5.13) 16. 15. 22(6. 33(8. 51 ) 80) VSA Male Female 1 2. 44(6.. 71 ) 10.44(4.39) 1 7 1 5 .22(6. .22(6. 34) 7 0) 16.78(7.14) 14.78(5.31) 17. 15. 78'(6. 1 .1 (7. 53) 15) NA Male Female 14.11 (4.70.) 7.11(3.41) 1 3 1 3 .22(6. .67(5. 69) 10) 13.89(5.58) 9.89(6.25) 14. 8. 67(6. 44(5. 25) 36) Anxiety - Had You Been In the Situation Group Dominance A Intimacy Condition E N PA Male Female 22 21 .11(3. .56(6. 55) 71 ) 18.11(5.80) 19.56(6.21) 22. 19. 33(2. 67(6. 74) 60) VSA Male Fema.l e 20 1 6-.22(5. '.78-06. 70) 69) 21.78(1.92) 17.56.(6.. 27) 20. 18% 56(2. 11(6-. 40) 15) NA Male Female 1 4 1 4 .22(7. .89(7. 53) 03) 20.22(5.24) 14.89(6.17) 19. 15. 89(6. 78(6. 1 1 ) 59) 100 Table 21 Analysis of Variance Results for Pre-ratings of Anger and Anxiety Anger Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F P Mean 1745.35 1 1 745.35 178.59 .000 Group 32.26 2 16.13 1 .6'5'" .203 Dominance 52.02 .1 . 52.02 5.32 .025 Group x Dominance 12.26 2 6.13 0.63 .538 Error 469.11 48 9.77 Anxiety Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F P Mean 7490.67 1 7490.67 261.85 .000 Group 67.00 2 33.50 1.17 .319 Dominance 208.07 1 208.07 7 .27 .010 Group x Dominance 65. 1 5 2 32.57 1.14 .329 Error 1 373 . 11 48 28.01 101 Table 22 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for Anger Ratings Source Group Dominance Group x Dominance Wilks Lambda .76952 .91026 .95506 Approx Hypothesis Error P F Degrees of Degrees of Freedom Freedom 3.29 2.32 .55 4 2 4 94 47 94 .014 .110 .702 Intimacy .66494 5.67 4 Intimacy x Group .81429 1.22 ' 8 Intimacy x Dominance .93654 .76 4 Intimacy x Group x Group .93323 .40 8 45 90 45 90 .001 .298 . 555 .920 1 02 Table 23 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for Anxiety Ratings Source Wilks Lambda Group .82824 Dominance ..93346 Group x Dominance .94704 Int imacy .86186 Intimacy x Group .80898 Intimacy x Dominance .86605 Intimacy x Group x Dominance .85672 Approx Hypothesis Error P F Degrees of Degrees of Freedom Freedom 2.32 4 94 .062 1.68 2 47 .198 .65 4 94 .630 1 .80 4 45 .145 1.26 8 90 .276 1.74 4 45 .158 0.90 8 90 .517 1 03 account when interpreting any subsequent difference on the dominance factor. MANOVAs on anger ratings in response to the scenes revealed a main effect for groups and a main effect for intimacy condition. Univariate ANOVAs conducted on the two anger measures yielded d i f f e r e n t s i g n i f i c a n t e f f ects (alpha level=.05/2=.025) for the two measures. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference for the intimacy factor in reported anger while watching the tapes (F( 2 , 96) =5 . 45; p_<.006). * Newman-Keuls comparisons indicated that the abandonment scenes produced considerably greater reported anger than did the neutral or engulfment scenes (p_<.05) which did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from one another. The group factor f a i l e d to reach significance on t h i s measure at the adjusted alpha l e v e l (F(2,48)=3.25; 2<.05). However, a main effect among groups was found for anger the men anticipated feeling "had they been in the s i t u a t i o n " (F(2,48)=4.94; p<.02). Anticipated anger was highest in the PA group (X=19.02), second highest in the VSA group (X=16.67) and lowest in the NA group (X=13.70). Newman-Keuls comparisons revealed that only the two extreme groups ( i . e . PA and NA) d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p_<.0l). The intimacy factor was not s i g n i f i c a n t on th i s anger measure. MANOVA results for anxiety ratings showed no s i g n i f i c a n t main effects or interaction e f f e c t s . Therefore, no further analysis was undertaken. " Sphericity test £=.1286 104 To summarize the men's self-reports of emotion in response to the videotapes, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences in reports of anxiety, but there were some differences in their anger ratings. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the PA group tended to rate the most anticipated anger ("had they been in the situation") though they only d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the NA group in this respect. In addition, the abandonment scenes aroused s i g n i f i c a n t l y more self-reported anger in the men while they watched the tapes than did the other two scenes. This finding was not exclusive to any p a r t i c u l a r group of men or dominance condition. Two additonal questions relevant to the foregoing videotape study deserve some attention. They are. 1) what evidence is there that the men were able to experience some emotion in response to the videotapes and 2) to what extent were measures of emotion interrelated? With respect to the f i r s t question examination of the self-report data in Table 19 and Table 20 suggests that on the average there was a. s l i g h t increase in reported anxiety and a substantial increase in reported anger from baseline period to the videotape-viewing periods. The men appeared to be moderately anxious prior to viewing the videotapes l i k e l y due to apprehension about the upcoming experiment. Examination of the physiological data in Table 14 suggests on the surface that there was l i t t l e or no difference in arousal lev e l s between baseline periods and viewing periods. However, the men tended to move around and breath more e r r a t i c a l l y during baseline periods (despite instructions to relax), whereas they tended to s i t 1 05 s t i l l and breath regularly while watching the videotape scenes. These differences in movement and respiration may have produced di f f e r e n t levels of "somatically-1inked" skin conductance and heart rate responses in the baseline and viewing periods, thereby masking potential increases due to emotional r e a c t i v i t y . Given the available data, the most accurate conclusion would seem to be that on the average there was a moderate increase in self-reported anger and at best a mild increase in physiological arousal in reponse to the tapes. The variation between the physiological and self-report modalities in responsiveness' to emotion-eliciting stimuli has been well-documented (cf. Lang, 1971; Hodgson & Rachman, 1974; Borkovec, Weerts & Bernstein, 1977; Lang, 1977; Rachman, 1978) and relates to the second question of interest, here. Table 24 and Table 25 contain c o r r e l a t i o n matrices for physiological and self-report measurements. The only two strong correlations among measures are between the two measures of skin conductance and between self-reports of anger and anxiety. There were weak positive correlations among heart rate, respiration and the skin conductance measures, but low or in some cases negative correlations across the physiological and self-report modalities. Post-experimental data. The only e a s i l y quantifiable information obtained in the post-experimental interview relevant to the videotapes had to do with the relevance of the scenes to the man's own relationship. Table 26 contains a table of proportions derived from the men's responses regarding which ( i f 106 Table 24 Pearson Correlations Among Physiological Measures for Baseline One, Baseline Two (Collapsed Over Groups)* SCR1 SCL 1 HR 1 Respi SCR2 SCL2 HR2 Resp2 SCR 1 SCL1 .541 HR1 .18 . 1 3 Respi . 10 .05 .14 SCR2 .591 .. .41 1 .10 .15 SCL2 .401 .87 1 . 1 3 .10 .541 • HR2 .21 .21 .91 1 . 1 4 . 15 .232 Resp2 -.09 -.06 . 1 7 • 67 1 .00 .02 .09 1. p_<.001 2. p_<.05 * n = 54 107 Table 25 Pearson Correlations Among Physiological and Self-Report Measures While Watching Videotapes (Collapsed Over Group and Scenes)* SCR SCL HR Resp Anger Anxiety SCR SCL .. 6 1 1 HR .22 .15 Resp .09 . 1 5 .21 Anger -.09 -.19 .04 -.05 Anx i ety -.05 -.13 .06 -.04 .731 1. p<.01 * n = 54 Table 26 Relevance of Intimacy Issues to the Men's Relationships Abandonment Engulfment Neutral PA 1-3 (72%) 10 (56%) 8 (44%) VSA 7 (39%) 1 3 (72%) 10 (56%) NA 4 (29%) 10 (56%) 0 (0%) 24 33 18 109 any) of the intimacy scenes represented a problem issue in their own relationship. An overall chi-square test was performed, on the 3x3 contingency table (cf. McNemar, 1969) and was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t (x 2 (4) =36. 1 3; p_<.00l). Subsequently, three analyses of variance of proportions were conducted - one for each intimacy condition - following a procedure outlined by Marascuilo (1966). This procedure allows for post-hoc comparisons to examine differences between pairs of proportions following a s i g n i f i c a n t o v e r a l l t e s t . Two of the three overa l l chi-square analyses were s i g n i f i c a n t , one for abandonment (X 2 ( 2 ) = 1 2 . 28 ; £<. 003 ) .. and one for the neutral issue (X 2(2)=14.00; £<.001). Post-hoc comparisons for the abandonment issue indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the PA and NA groups ( x 2 = 12.05; p_<.002), but not between the other pairs of groups. Comparisons for the neutral issue indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the PA and NA groups ( x 2 = 14.40; p_<.00l) and between the VSA and NA groups (x 2=22.50; £<.001). The raw figures for the abandonment issue are of pa r t i c u l a r interest as they appear to come the closest to being able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the PA group from the other two groups. Two other pieces of information are relevant to the videotape procedure. F i r s t l y , 74% of the men were convinced that the couple on the videotape were a real couple, 26% had "some doubt" and 100% reported they were able to "get involved" in the films regardless of whether they f e l t they were a real couple or not. Secondly, none of the men were able to generate accurate guesses about the experimental manipulation when asked to do so 1 10 following the testing. C. HUSBAND VERSUS WIFE RATINGS OF VIOLENCE One interesting side effect of obtaining violence ratings from the husband and wife was an opportunity to compare these ratings for the PA group. The data and related analyses presented in Table 27 were obtained b y eliminating the scores for the one PA man whose wife refused to complete the CTS, so that the means for husbands and wives would be d i r e c t l y comparable. The means in Table 27 suggest a tendency for assaultive men to report less violence for themselves than their wives report for them and a similar tendency for the women to report less violence for themselves than their husbands report. Neither difference in means reached s t a t i s t i c a l s ignificance, though ratings on husband's violence approached si g n i f i c a n c e . D. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION REGARDING VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR OF PA  MEN A b r i e f interview with the PA men following testing in session two y i e l d e d - t h e f o l l o w T n g > - d e s c r i p t i v e information. A l l of the men b u t one r e p o r t e d having b e e n violent at least one other t i m e i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e s i d e the i n c i d e n t that l e d them into t h e r a p y . The f i r s t assault occurred before the couple were married or l i v i n g together in 39% of t h e cases and during the f i r s t year of marriage or cohabitation in another 33%. Therefore, 72% of the men had been violent within the f i r s t year of marriage or cohabitation. A f u l l 61% of the men had been violent in a previous relationship, while 72% ' of the men a c c e p t e d a l l or part of the b l a m e for their violence, 22% f e l t 111 Table 27 Means, Standard Deviations and Analysis of Results for Husband and Wife CTS - Physical Aggression Scores Husband's Rating Wife's Rating t P (n=l7) (n=17) Husband's violence 10.18(7.99) 16.59(10.45) 2.01 .053 Wife's violence 5.94(5.51) 3.29(3.67) 1.62 .114 1 1 2 their wives were equally to blame and one man blamed his wife more than himself. In terms of violence outside the home, 22% percent reported at least one f i s t fight in the past year, 67% percent reported fighting at least once since high school. About 22% had been charged with assualt by a person other than their wife and 17% had been charged by their wife. 1 1 3 V. DISCUSSION This section comprises two areas of discussion. The f i r s t concerns the interpretation of the results just presented and s p e c i f i c suggestions for further study. The second part is a more general discussion of methodology and research di r e c t i o n in the area of wife assault based upon experience gained from this i n i t i a l c ontrolled investigation. Specific discussion can and w i l l be put forth bearing upon each hypothesis examined in the project. However, the most s t r i k i n g feature of these data when taken c o l l e c t i v e l y is the remarkable s i m i l a r i t y in responding between wife assaulters and the two comparison groups. This is p a r t i c u l a r l y surprising given that measures were selected to r e f l e c t the most t h e o r e t i c a l l y -compelling factors deduced from current c l i n i c a l knowledge and uncontrolled research. While this apparent s i m i l a r i t y between assaultive and unassaultive husbands i s surprising given strong c l i n i c a l b e l i e f to the contrary, the finding is consistent with recent controlled research in the c h i l d abuse area. Since research in t h i s area is several years ahead of that on wife assault, there have already been a number of well-controlled studies. The general finding from th i s work has been that when comparison groups are c a r e f u l l y matched ( p a r t i c u l a r l y for socioeconomic status), few of the expected differences emerge between abusive and nonabusive parents (e.g. Gaines, Sandgrund, Green & Power, 1978; Kinard & Klerman, 1980; Starr, 1982) and between abused and nonabused children (e.g. Elmer, 1977; Burgess 1 1 4 & Conger, 1978; Starr, 1982; Wolfe & Mosk, 1983). A s t r i k i n g example of t h i s phenomenon was an extensive study conducted by Starr (1982) in which ninety-two child-abusing families and ninety-seven nonabusing families matched for socioeconomic status and some c h i l d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were compared on a multitude of t h e o r e t i c a l l y relevant psychometric, observational and archival measures. After f a i l i n g to reduce the resultant 249 variables successfully through factor analysis, he performed univariate analyses which yielded only twenty-six p_ values in excess of .05. He concluded that the s i m i l a r i t i e s - between his groups far outweighed the differences.' Other reviewers in the f i e l d have reached similar conclusions (e.g. Toro, 1982; Wolfe, 1983). These data obtained from the c h i l d abuse f i e l d along with the present findings suggest a number of important points. F i r s t l y , i t is essential to be cautious in drawing general conclusions about the causes of wife assault based solely upon c l i n c i c a l observations- a-s- information- so; o'btained may ber-mo re-i n d i c a t i v e of demographic membership than violence l i k l i h o o d per se. This does not preclude inferences about individual c l i e n t s based on an intensive and integrated analysis of the person by an experienced c l i n i c i a n . It does preclude the generalization of these inferences to other c l i e n t s . A related point involves the need to include adequate comparison groups in research on wife assault. A bare minimum must be one nonviolent comparison group matched for socioeconomic status and age. Comparing the questionnaire responses of assaultive populations with normative 1 1 5 data obtained from unmatched populations (e.g. Subotnik, . 1983) creates serious interpretation problems and could p o t e n t i a l l y lead to f a l l a c i o u s and misleading conclusions. F i n a l l y , the absence of observed differences among matched groups may r e f l e c t the i n s e n s i t i v i t y of measurement techniques to more subtle differences that do e x i s t . Thus, the need to progress from global hypothesis-testing to more refined analysis and measurement - a usual d i r e c t i o n of movement for any new research area - is reinforced by the current hiatus between c l i n i c a l theory and controlled research. Some suggestions for refinement are contained in the s p e c i f i c analysis of the results covered below. Among the questionnaire measures administered to the men, the assertiveness scales appeared to show the largest differences between the groups. The assaulters were the lowest in o v e r a l l assertiveness (though not s i g n i f i c a n t l y so). In terms of spouse-specific assertiveness the assaulters and VSA men were about equal i.n being less assert ive>- than' NA men (aga-in, the-differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y ) . The fact that spouse-specific assertiveness scores approached significance suggests the u t i l i t y of choosing measures which tap responses s p e c i f i c to the relevant context. Further, the confusion between aggressiveness and assertiveness found in general assertiveness scales (including the Rathus to some extent) was less evident on O'Leary's spouse-specific scale, possibly improving precision in measuring the construct. While Rosenbaum & O'Leary (1981) found s i g n i f i c a n t differences in assertiveness between assaulters and 1 16 nonassaulters and the present study did not, the mean differences found here are to some extent consistent with their o v e r a l l findings of reduced assertiveness in assaultive males. The large variances in assertiveness within the three groups indicate that both violent and nonviolent men may be highly assertive or highly nonassertive, implying more complex mediation of the assertiveness-violence l i n k . Examining the man's assertiveness r e l a t i v e to his wife's assertiveness or focusing on "blind spots" in his verbal a b i l i t i e s (e.g. expression of s p e c i f i c emotions or dealing-, with key issues) may help explain t h i s relationship. For example, a man may be highly verbal and' able . to stand up for his rights, but feel helpless when his wife refuses to stay in the "rational mode" during an argument. The measure of emotional expressiveness yielded more unequivocal r e s u l t s . There were no differences among the groups on this measure (even when anger items were removed) indicating that, on the whole, assaulters do' not i n h i b i t emotional expression more than nonassaulters according to their own ratings. Important va l i d a t i n g evidence for this finding would be ratings of the men's emotional responsiveness by s i g n i f i c a n t others (e.g. their wives). It may be that some men believe they express emotions freely and are unaware of actual emotional c o n s t r i c t i o n . It i s also possible that the c r u c i a l factor may be a general difference in emotional expressiveness between husbands and wives. Interview data (e.g. Komarovsky, 1967) and some controlled research (e.g. Allen & Haccoun, 1976) support 1 1 7 the notion of gender differences in emotional expression. If men in general have d i f f i c u l t y expressing sex role inappropriate emotions such as fear, sadness and hurt, this may produce tension in the relationship (as the woman feels cut off from the man's true feelings) which might then be dealt with d i f f e r e n t i a l l y in assaultive and nonassaultive relationships. In sum, hypothesis two which predicted poorer verbal s k i l l s among assaulters was not conclusively supported by the data. Mean differences in the right direction and approaching s t a t i s t i c a l significance provide tentative support for' the importance of assertive communication s p e c i f i c to the spousal relationship. However, large within-group variance suggests that high assertiveness i s not necessarily contraindicative of violent responding. No evidence was found for "poverty of emotional expression" in assaulters r e l a t i v e to comparison men. The men's reports of violence in the family of o r i g i n did not support the hypothesis that assaulters witness more spouse abuse or are abused- more themselves as children than are-nonviolent men. While mean CTS ratings of spouse abuse and c h i l d abuse were higher for the assaultive group (especially compared to the NA group), the variance in ratings was large. Only three assaulters admitted to having been abused as children when asked d i r e c t l y . Two men in each of the other groups acknowledged abuse. Using the CTS ratings as a guide, estimates of c h i l d abuse varied from twenty to seventy-eight percent depending on the c r i t e r i o n used to define abuse. However, the percentages did not vary appreciably across the groups. S i m i l a r i l y , about 1 18 twenty-eight percent of the men in each group witnessed spouse abuse (as defined by reporting a slap or worse in a t y p i c a l year in their childhood). The major features of these data are that (1) there were no substantial differences among the groups in terms of reported exposure to childhood violence, (2) that i t is possible to be assaultive without having experienced extreme violence in the family of or i g i n and (3) i t is possible to remain nonassaultive despite exposure to extreme violence in the family of o r i g i n . These results have . important implications for how early exposure to violence is assessed" and for theorizing about the link between prior learning and wife, assault. The f i r s t implication has to do primarily with the man's a b i l i t y to r e c a l l traumatic violent incidents in his childhood. There i s reason to believe that men may.not only minimize and deny their own violence, but may also minimize the abuse they have witnessed as children (cf. Ganley, 1981). Gully, Pepping & Dengerink (1982) using the CTS found that college males recalled less marital violence between their parents than did college females. 1 Rosenbaum & O'Leary (1981) found s i g n i f i c a n t differences in reported c h i l d abuse between assaulters and nonassaulters when the wife was the informant, but not when the husband was the informant. These studies indicate that some information about the assaulter's prior exposure to violence may be missed i f he i s the sole informant and highlight the u t i l i t y Recollection of parent-parent violence did not relate s i g n i f i c a n t l y to current violence outside the home in this study. 119 of secondary informants (such as the wife) in c o l l e c t i n g this information. The heterogeneity in exposure to violent childhood models has serious implications for how we conceptualize a learning-based model of wife assault. It is clear that the "violence begets violence" hypothesis needs to be refined beyond the current generalization that wife assaulters come from highly abusive backgrounds. It may not be the degree of violence in the family of o r i g i n per se that is the most powerful determinant, of future violence as much as the degree of reinforcement or the degree of inappropriate ( i . e . noncontingent) punishment received for violent behaviour as a•child (cf. Patterson, 1982) and the manner in which the c h i l d interprets the violence he experiences. While most children are reinforce.d for violent behaviour through the mass media, dir e c t reinforcement can have very powerful effects on aggressive behaviour (cf. Bandura, 1977). Recent c l i n i c a l experience (Ganley, 1981) suggests that there is a subgroup of a«s>sa<ulterS' w>ho have1 come- from- e s s e n t i a l l y nonviolent homes, but who have experienced highly reinforcing consequences following violence against peers or s i b l i n g s . Consistent with this notion is a finding by Gully, Dengerink, Pepping & Bergstrom (1981) that violence towards s i b l i n g s as a c h i l d was the strongest predictor of later violence outside the home in college students. If the reinforcement for violence e n t a i l s enhancement of the c h i l d ' s self-esteem and no alternative method is developed to maintain esteem in adulthood, then perceived challenges to self-esteem (e.g. status 1 20 inconsistency) may be potent instigators-to aggression. As Meehl (1977) has pointed out, the acquisition of an aberrant behaviour pattern may involve only one s o l i t a r y , but very powerful event in an individual's childhood, thereby making frequency counts less sensitive to this aspect of the learning process. The fact that extreme family violence produces both violent and nonviolent men implies a d i f f e r e n t i a l reaction to the experience of family violence. Herzberger, D i l l o n and Potts (1981) who interviewed boys abused by one or both parents concluded that certain a t t r i b u t i o n s about parental abuse might be more harmful.in the long run than others (e.g. i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the abuse as parental rejection, seeing the abuse as legitimate). Unfortunately, there have been no reported attempts to compare the attr i b u t i o n s of violent and nonviolent men who were abused or witnessed abuse as children. This type of research would l i k e l y provide important information about the transmission of violence in families. In addition to research examining c r i t i c a l violence-reinforcing experiences in assaulters and at t r i b u t i o n s about past exposure to violence, there is also a need to develop a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system for assaultive husbands that might include prior exposure to violence as a c r u c i a l variable. Snyder & Fruchtman (1981) attempted to develop a crude taxonomy of wife assault based primarily on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the woman and the pattern of violence. Their analysis indicated that prior abuse of the woman as a c h i l d may be related to the pattern of 121 violence and l i k e l i h o o d of repeated assaultive relationships. S i m i l a r i l y , i t could be that severe patterns of violence are related to an extensive abuse history in the man. Consequently, the wives of these men may be more l i k e l y to seek refuge at women's shelters, where most information on the assaulter has been gathered. The development of a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system for assaultive relationships might help to c l a r i f y differences in findings across studies. Hypothesis six predicted higher scores in the assaultive group on Burt's three attitude scales. While the assaulters' scores were s l i g h t l y higher on a l l three scales, they were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t and therefore hypothesis six was not supported. The u t i l i t y of attitude scales of t h i s type in predicting assaultive behaviour i s questioned by these results and others. While Burt (1980) has demonstrated relationships among clusters of attitudes, she has yet to demonstrate a relationship between attitudes and violent behaviour. In studies of assaulters- using' related attitude scales results have also been inconclusive. Rosenbaum & O'Leary (1981) had two groups of abused wives estimate their husbands' attitudes toward sex role issues. 2 They found that wives seen i n d i v i d u a l l y for counselling estimated more conservative attitudes than comparison wives, but that wives who were being seen conjointly with their husbands did not d i f f e r from comparison wives in 2 They completed the Spence-Helmreich Attitudes Towards Women Scale. 1 22 their estimations. Subotnik (1983) unexpectedly found that a group of assaultive men espoused more profeminist attitudes that did a college student norm sample on Tellegen's D i f f e r e n t i a l Personality Questionnaire. Dibble & Straus (1980) found that attitudes about violence were only weakly related to reports of minor domestic violence and that the consistency between violent attitudes and violent behaviour depended upon s i t u a t i o n a l forces which might allow j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the violence. This pattern of the results suggests several conclusions about the role, of attitudes toward women in a f f e c t i n g wife assault. F i r s t l y , i f these attitudes contribute causally to assaultive behaviour they l i k e l y do so via a complex interaction with other attitude clusters and s i t u a t i o n a l forces. Secondly , nonsignificant or reversed findings may r e f l e c t an attempt by the assaulter (conscious or otherwise) to present himself in a positive l i g h t on f a i r l y transparent questions about male-female relations and violence. F i n a l l y , i t is important to consider the p o s s i b i l i t y that the n u l l hypothesis might stand under further scrutiny, implying that the key differences between assaulters and nonassaulters are not a t t i t u d i n a l . The hypothesis that assaultive husbands should exhibit greater preoccupaton with power or control themes than comparison men found no support in the nPower data collected here. Average power imagery scores were almost i d e n t i c a l for the three groups of men when combined responses to the five stimulus pictures were examined. Further, when pictures dealing s p e c i f i c a l l y with male-female relations were analyzed 1 23 separately, the groups s t i l l did not d i f f e r . There are two possible explanations for these results.. F i r s t l y , since the TAT tends to be sensitive to s i t u a t i o n a l variables (cf. Winter, 1973), variance in s i t u a t i o n a l demand across the groups may have suppressed real differences in power imagery. For example, i t is possible that embarrassment about their behaviour may have caused the assaultive men to f e e l more inhibited in their story-writing, thereby reducing power scores. However, there is good reason to believe that the effect of s i t u a t i o n a l demand was minimal.. The testing procedure and instructions were held constant across groups and marital c o n f l i c t rather than marital' violence was. described as the focus of the study in order to minimize demand. In addition, the assaulters did not demonstrate a greater tendency for s o c i a l l y desirable responding on the Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale. The alternative conclusion is that assaulters (at least this sample of assaulters) are not more "cognitively preoccupied" with general power themes-than are- nonviolent men of similar age and s o c i a l c l a s s . If t h i s i s the case i t does not necessarily imply that power issues are not salient for these men, nor does i t imply that the concept of power i s irrelevant for understanding wife assault. It does imply that power concerns may be limited to s p e c i f i c issues in the relationship, or that the c r u c i a l difference may centre around perceptions of powerlessness on the man's part and the method chosen to reduce powerlessness. Power or mastery over one's environment i s generally ascribed a high value for males in our society (cf. 1 24 Fasteau, 1974; Lips, 1981). Assaulters may share with other men this masculine concern about exerting control, but f e e l powerless, to a t t a i n t h i s goal in their relationship because of negative expectations about their a b i l i t y to influence their spouse. These expectations may be generalized and inaccurate (cf. generalized external locus of control) or s p e c i f i c to the relationship. Low r e l a t i v e status in the relationship combined with poor verbal s k i l l s would provide the man with no "legitimate" methods for claiming power, increasing the probability'of violence as a control t a c t i c . Future- research should examine perceived powerlessness as an i n s t i g a t i o n to male violence in marital relationships, perhaps u t i l i z i n g available locus of control scales (e.g. Rotter, 1966). The videotape component of this project enabled a further investigation of power factors as instigators of angry reactions in wife assaulters. The power dynamic ( i . e . r e l a t i v e dominance of the husband and wife) was the focus in this part, as was the interaction between- dominance and s p e c i f i c relationship issues. The men's physiological reactions and self-reports of anger in response to the c o n f l i c t scenes did not indicate greater emotional reactions to verbal dominance by the female. Overall, there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the dominance conditions nor interaction effects that would indicate d i f f e r e n t i a l responding by the assaultive group to the two dominance conditions. The physiological and self-report ratings taken during viewing time appeared to p a r a l l e l differences in these ratings prior to viewing. Ratings of anticipated anger 1 25 (had the men been in the situation) appeared to follow a similar pattern with no substantial differences between dominance conditions. The absence of s i g n i f i c a n t interaction effects for the dominance, intimacy and group factors suggests that power dynamics were not more salient in producing anger for one intimacy issue over another. These results are surprising in view of c l i n i c a l observations suggesting- that domination by the wife ( p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to key issues) often precedes the husband's aggression - which is presumably generated as a response to perceived threat. However, discussions with the men following testing suggested that their emotional responses may have been complex in o r i g i n , possibly mitigating against u n i d i r e c t i o n a l e f f e c t s . For- example, several assaulters who viewed the male-dominant tapes commented on how verbally aggressive the woman seemed (though they f e l t the man was more dominant o v e r a l l ) . These comments suggest that the woman may have seemed dominant in both conditions' relative- to- the- man's own wife. Some men could have been responding to female dominance cues in the male dominance condition thereby d i l u t i n g response differences between the conditions. It is also possible that viewing a male-dominant model may have f a c i l i t a t e d anger expression in the men in that condition, perhaps more so for the assaultive men who are already more prone to express anger in response to male-female c o n f l i c t . In future tests of dominance hypotheses i t w i l l be important to separate the pot e n t i a l l y confounding effects of model-facilitated anger responses and 126 threat-based anger responses. This might be accomplished in videotape format by employing a "calm" male model who would dominate the argument verbally, or in a role play paradigm by having the participant actually argue with a woman who is trained to win or lose despite the man's verbal a b i l i t i e s . It may also be useful to systematically assess the s i m i l a r i t y between the female used in the stimulus material and the participant's wife in terms of verbal a b i l i t y and s t y l e . In summary, the two methods of investigating power as an explanatory concept in wife assault did not provide supportive evidence for the hypothesis that assaulters have a greater overal l concern for being powerful or that assaulters are more angered by female domination. However, future research is encouraged in this area using a variety of assessment procedures. In p a r t i c u l a r , an assessment of perceived powerlessness in response to male-female c o n f l i c t might be f r u i t f u l . The intimacy dimension of the videotape component showed mixed r e s u l t s . Despite c l i n i c a l descriptions of assaultive husbands as dependent, possessive and c o n t r o l l i n g in their relationships (e.g. Ganley & Harris, 1978), these men did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from comparison men in their s e n s i t i v i t y to abandonment cues as re f l e c t e d in their ratings of intimacy movement in the abandonment tapes. Perhaps s o c i a l pressure to appear "reasonable and f a i r " may have inhibited reports of perceived abandonment in the tapes. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the 1 27 suspiciousness which characterizes many of these men may be applied exclusively to their own wife. The three intimacy .conditions produced no d i f f e r e n t i a l physiological responding. However, ov e r a l l the men reported more anger while watching the abandonment scenes than the neutral or engulfment scenes. The men also reported the abandonment scenes to be more c o n f l i c t u a l , r a i s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y that men in general view attempts to reduce intimacy as more serious c o n f l i c t ( i . e . as questioning the in t e g r i t y of the relationship).'While the men's ratings of anger while watching the tapes did not demonstrate d i f f e r e n t i a l reactions for assaulters in response to the abandonment tapes, there i s other suggestive evidence supporting the salience of the abandonment issue for assaulters. When the men rated anger anticipated had they been in the si t u a t i o n , the largest difference between the ratings of the assaulters and comparison men occurred in the abandonment condition. 3 In addition, when men were asked which scenes were relevant - to' the-ir own' re?la-t-ronsh-rp- problems-, the-abandonment scene was rated as relevant by almost twice as many assaulters as VSA men and more than three times as many assaulters as NA men. These data seem to be suggesting that i t is this type of issue that is p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic for the assaultive group in their relationship, but that perhaps i t manifests i t s e l f in a d i f f e r e n t manner than was depicted in the 3 Though the interaction term did not meet the Bonferroni-adjusted l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e . 128 videotape for a given man. The issue of perceived abandonment should receive attention in future investigations using a range, of abandonment s t i m u l i . Since jealousy appears common in assaultive husbands (Roy, 1977; Ganley & Harris, 1978), i t may be useful to examine to what degree sexual jealousy overlaps with perceptions of abandonment and related anger. The engulfment scenes did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the neutral scenes in terms of the men's anger ratings. In fact, contrary to theoretical predictions, the engulfment scenes produced the lowest anger ratings for the assaultive group. Post-experimental data showed that the engulfment scene was perceived as being about equally relevant for the three groups of men, suggesting that this may be a r e l a t i v e l y common c o n f l i c t issue in male-female r e l a t i o n s . These results suggest a number of important points. F i r s t l y , there seems to be a fine l i n e between romance - which generally has a positive valence - and a feeling of engulfment which should have a negative emotional valence. Since- anger is consi-dereds to- be- a dissonant"response'-to' romantic behaviour, i t may be the interpretation of the woman's motives for increasing intimacy that is of c r u c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Patterson (1976) has hypothesized that attempts to increase intimacy w i l l be met with rejection i f the interpretation of the behaviour by the recipient i s negative, but with acceptance i f the interpretation i s p o s i t i v e . Hence, the interesting question becomes: i s a negative a t t r i b u t i o n (e.g. "She's trying to trap me.") the key to explaining why anger reactions occur in response to cues that increased intimacy is desired. Further, 129 must this a t t r i b u t i o n have personal relevance to occur ( i . e . involve the man's own partner with whom he has a history)? If personal relevance is necessary for an engulfment interpretation, that would explain the reduced anger lev e l s in response to the videotapes. The a t t r i b u t i o n a l component of the engulfment process might be a f r u i t f u l area for future research. A second point raised by the engulfment findings has to do with the model used to explain the connection between intimacy issues and violence. Do assaultive men have a narrow "comfort zone" for intimacy, v i o l a t i o n s of which (in either direction) produce panic-based anger orj a l t e r n a t i v e l y , are individual men sensitive to abandonment o_r engulfment fears but not both. The results of thi s project suggest that there may be some idiosyncracy in terms of s e n s i t i v i t y , with abandonment issues being more often relevant for assaulters. Several other pieces of information not pertaining d i r e c t l y to the hypotheses deserve discussion. The assaulters reported over twice as much alcohol consumption than comparison males consistent with previous research (e.g. Coleman and Straus, 1979; Rosenbaum and O'Leary, 1981). The large v a r i a b i l i t y in consumption within the assaultive group supports the notion that alcohol is not necessary for violence to occur (cf. Eberle, 1982), but that in some men i t may f a c i l i t a t e violence. The impact of alcohol consumption on other relevant variables (e.g. power concerns; c f . McClelland et a l , 1972) might be a useful area for further investigation. 130 Low scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for the assaultive group r e f l e c t the high degree of c o n f l i c t present and the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of these men with their relationship consistent with Rosenbaum and O'Leary (1981). The finding that seventy-two percent of the men had been violent within the f i r s t year of marriage also validates Rosenbaum and O'Leary's results and implies that violence generally begins before or shortly after marriage, a period when d i f f i c u l t personal adjustments are required and stress is high. The finding that a majority of the assaultive husbands had been vio l e n t in previous relationships r and had been involved in fights outside the home reinforces the argument that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the husband play a primary role in producing the violence and caution against e t i o l o g i c a l models that blame the victim. The fact that only seventeen percent 5 of the wives had ever charged their husbands with assault despite repeated violence, whereas thirty-three percent of the husbands who assaulted outsiders were charged r e f l e c t s justice system barriers to legal remedy for assaulted wives and the r e l a t i v e unwillingness of these victims to lay charges (cf. Barnsley, 1980; Dutton, 1981). The discrepancy between the violence ratings of husbands and wives on the CTS is interesting both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and methodologically. Theoretically, i t is consistent with the 4 This is p a r t i c u l a r l y interesting where one considers that the average age of the husbands was only t h i r t y . 5 This figure i s l i k e l y i n f l a t e d by the selection procedure which included c o u r t - r e f e r r a l s . 131 concept of minimization invoked by c l i n i c i a n s to described assaultive husbands (cf. Ganley & Harris, 1978) and suggests the u t i l i t y of further systematic investigation into t h i s process. Methodologically, these results, along with recent investigations elsewhere (Szinovacz, 1983) strongly support the inclusion of wife reports in future research on assaultive husbands in order to validate violence estimates. While t h i s research project tested a number of hypotheses about wife assault, i t also represented one of the f i r s t attempts to apply psychological research methods to the study of assaultive husbands. As such, the project has h e u r i s t i c value insofar as suggestions for workable methodology and general research d i r e c t i o n follow from current experience. The usefulness of obtaining couples data in studies on wife assault is strongly supported by the results of t h i s project. As previously mentioned, differences between husband and wife in reporting the husband's violence imply that the wife's reports may improve the assessment of the violence by providing a rough estimate of the husband's minimization. S i m i l a r l y , Rosenbaum and O'Leary's (1981) data suggest that wife reports may provide information about childhood violence which may also be minimized by the husband. F i n a l l y , the use of self-report inventories to measure attitudes, behaviour patterns and personality styles presupposes a degree of self-awareness which may not be present in the assaultive husband. The assessment of a s i g n i f i c a n t other (such as the wife) may provide more depth to these se l f - r e p o r t s . 1 32 Apart from providing useful v a l i d a t i o n a l information, couples reports would provide data which might be t h e o r e t i c a l l y interesting in i t s own right. There already exist evidence both for violent (Szinovacz, 1983) and nonviolent (Jacobson and Moore, 1 9 8 1 ) couples, that husband and wife ratings are often discrepant even when s p e c i f i c behavioural events are the focus. Relatively l i t t l e is known about the psychology of d i f f e r e n t i a l reporting in the marital dyad or the conditions which affect i t . In p a r t i c u l a r , l i t t l e is known about how the husband and wife reconstruct a given assault or construe the history of violence in their relationship. Increased understanding of these phenomena would be of obvious c l i n i c a l interest. However, th i s knowledge would also be c r u c i a l from a research standpoint given the p o s s i b i l i t y that two divergent l i t e r a t u r e s on wife assault could emerge - one from studies using husband reports and one from studies using wife reports. Knowledge about d i f f e r e n t i a l perception and reporting of events in the marriage would help to reduce potential confusion in the l i t e r a t u r e . Since there is reason to believe that couples data can provide us with information of this nature not obtainable from aggregate husband and wife data (Szinovacz, 1 9 8 3 ) , the recruitment of the marital partner into research projects on wife assault i s strongly advised. A second methodological suggestion stems from evidence in this research that there can be considerable heterogeneity among men who are l a b e l l e d "wife assaulter". I n i t i a l expectations of a group who share such a salient behaviour pattern as wife assault 1 33 is that there should be more s i m i l a r i t i e s that differences among i t s members. However, high within-group v a r i a b i l i t y on many of the measures in t h i s project combined with high cross-study variance in estimates of assaulter c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in the l i t e r a t u r e strongly imply that the label "wife assaulter" comprises a number of subgroups. In order to make sense out of variable data, i t may be necessary to develop a rough taxonomy of wife assaulters or at least specify a number of relevant dimensions along which assaulters may vary and then use this information to provide a context for data interpretation. Such an approach demands large sample sizes indicating the need for r e l a t i v e l y long term projects that can accumulate data over time. Snyder and Fruchtman's (1981) study represents an i n i t i a l step in this d i r e c t i o n . Further attempts of this nature should be made with an increased emphasis on husband c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as these may have more predictive value (Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981). Some po t e n t i a l l y useful dimensions to include might be overcontrolled versus undercontrolled emotional style (cf. Megargee, 1966; Subotnik, 1983), generality of violence, frequency and severity of violence and alcohol use. The use of standardized personality inventories such as the MMPI might also provide information that i s capable of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g types of assaulters. The issue of individual variation can be addressed on another l e v e l by considering the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between nomothetic ' and idiographic approaches to explaining behaviour . Gelles (1982) views the former as the backbone of s c i e n t i f i c 1 34 research, the l a t t e r being the purview of c l i n i c a l practice. Despite apparent incompatibilities between the two perspectives, i t may well be that a more indiv i d u a l i z e d approach to research could f a c i l i t a t e the demonstration of lawful relationships in the wife assault area. The results of the videotape component of this project provide a case in point. Videotape scenes attempting to embody general- themes ( i . e . power, abandonment, engulfment) in standardized scenarios generated only mild to moderate emotional responses in the men. By contrast, other researchers (e.g. Weerts and Roberts, 197'6"; Schwartz et a l , 1981) have been able to generate strong emotional responses •using, more individualized material. Though these researchers were not so much interested in the content of the imagery as in the physiological response patterns themselves, i t does seem possible to design research that focuses on both imagery content and responsivity. The process of refi n i n g several personalized anger-provoking scenarios for each man, valid a t i n g their arousal producing properties (for that man) p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y using guided imagery or audiotape presentation, and then having the scenarios rated for thematic content by independent raters would appear to be a promising procedure. The result might be valuable information about the r e l a t i v e salience of power and s p e c i f i c intimacy themes for these men. A s p e c i f i c recommendation for future studies employing psychophysiological measurement techniques is that within-subjects designs be employed exclusively where possible. Participants in this project brought large individual 1 35 differences in responsivity to the laboratory, p a r t i c u l a r l y on measures of skin conductance. Differences of th i s magnitude are. not always "evened out" through random assignment unless very large sample sizes are obtainable. Law of i n i t i a l value problems may be more readily overcome by using each participant as his own control and employing a reasonable counterbalancing procedure. The results of this project and those of other studies (e.g. Dutton and Painter, 1980; Rosenbaum and O'Leary, 1981) highlight the. need for proper comparison groups in research on wife assault. The need to balance comparison groups has been discussed e a r l i e r . However, the clustering of .the PA and VSA groups on several dependent measures (e.g. spouse-specific assertiveness,. childhood violence, anger reports) supports Rosenbaum and O'Leary's (1981) contention that some sort of nonviolent, maritally-distressed comparison group be employed in order to d i f f e r e n t i a t e factors associated with violence from factors associated, with mari'tal' di-scord'.-The d i f f i c u l t y in finding straightforward differences between matched groups of abusive and nonabusive families found in this study and elsewhere (e.g. Gaines et a l , 1978; Starr, 1982) demonstrates the need to employ broad-based theoret i c a l models and broad-based data c o l l e c t i o n techniques. Ecological models (cf. Belsky, 1980; Starr, 1982; Dutton, 1983) which consider contextual factors as well as individual and relationship factors appear p a r t i c u l a r l y well-suited for this 1 36 task. While Belsky (1980) has suggested that the inclusion of two or more levels of his four-level model constitutes s u f f i c i e n t coverage for a given study, the present findings suggest that broader coverage within individual studies may lead to a more integrated knowledge base. The need for controlled research on wife assault is almost universally recognized, but has been rarely attempted to date. The i n t r a c t a b i l i t y of assaultive husbands combined with problems in finding standardized measures which adequately r e f l e c t complex c l i n i c a l concepts have mitigated against research in the area. The major benefits derived from this i n i t i a l research project are an increased awareness of potential substantive myths regarding assaultive husbands and the completion of considerable methodological groundwork which w i l l f a c i l i t a t e continued work in the area. 1 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, C. and Straus, M. Resources, power, and husband-wife violence in Murray A. Straus and Gerald T. Hotaling (Eds.) The Social Causes of Husband and Wife Violence. University of Minnesota Press, 1980. Allen, J.G. and Haccoun, D.M. Sex differences in emotionality: A multidimensional approach. Human Relations, 1976, 29, 711-722. Allen, J.G. and Hamsher, J.H. The development and v a l i d a t i o n of a test of emotional s t y l e s . Journal of Consulting and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, 42(5), 663-668. Allen., R., Schneider, J. Davidson, D.M., Winchester, M.A. & Taylor, C.B. The covariation of blood pressure and pulse t r a n s i t time in hypertensive patients Psychophysiology, 1981, 18, 301-306. Altman, I. and Taylor, D.A. Social penetration: The development  of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1973. Anderson, T.W. An introduction to multivariate s t a t i s t i c a l  analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. Ax, A.F. The physiological di f f e-re-n t i a t ion between'" f ear and" anger in humans Psychosomatic Medicine, 1953, V5, 433-442. Bandura, A. Aggression: a s o c i a l learning analysis. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Bandura, A. The s o c i a l learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In H. Toch (Ed.) Psychology of crime and  criminal j u s t i c e . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1979. Bandura, A. and Walters, R.H. Social learning and personality  development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Bard, M. & Zacker, F. The Prevention of family violence: dilemmas of community intervention. Journal of Marriage & 1 38 the Family, 1971, 3_3, 677-682. Barnsley, J. Battered and blamed: A report on wife assault from  the perspective of battered women. Vancouver Transition House and Women's Research Centre, Vancouver, B.C., November, 1980. B e l l , N.W. and Benjamin, M. Domestic murders in Canada (1961- 1974). Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto, 1976. Belsky, J. Child Maltreatment: an ecological integration. American Psychologist, 1980, 35(4), 320-335. Bergin, A.E. The evaluation of therapeutic outcome. In A.E. Bergen and S.L. Garfield' (Eds.) Handbook of psychotherapy  and behaviour change. New York: Wiley, 1971. Berkowitz, L. The "weapons e f f e c t " , deviant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and the myth of the compliant subject. Journal of Personality  and Social Psychology, 971, 20, 332-38. Blood, R.O. and Wolfe, D.M. Husbands and wives. Glencae, IU: Free Press, 1960. Borkovec, T.D., Weerts, T.C, and Bernstein. D.A. Assessment of anxiety. In A. Ciminero, K. Calhoun, & H. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of Behavioural Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1977. Boudouris, J. Homicide and the Family. Journal of Marriage & the  Family, 1971, 3_3, 667-676. Boyatzis, R.E. Drinking as a manifestation of power concerns. Paper presented at the Ninth International Congress on Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Boston: McBer and Co., 1973. Boyatzis, R.E. The effect of alcohol consumption on the aggressive behaviour of men. Quarterly Journal of Studies on  Alcohol, 1974, 35, 959-972. Boyd, V.D. and K l i n g b e i l , K.S. Behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  domestic violence. Seattle, Washington, 1979. 139 Bulcroft, R.A. and Straus, M.A. V a l i d i t y of husband, wife and c h i l d reports of conjugal violence and power. Mimeographed  paper, Family Violence Research Program, University of New Hampshire, October, 1975. Bundy, R.B. and Mangan, S.M. Electrodermal indices of stress and cognition: possible hydration a r t i f a c t s . Psychophysiology,, 1979, 16, 30-33. Burgess, R.L. and Conger, R. Family interactions in abusive, neglectful, and normal families. Child Development,, 1978, 49, 1163-1173. Burt, M.R. Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38(2), 217-230. Cannon, W.B. The James-Lange theory of emotions: a c r i t i c a l examination and an a l t e r n a t i v e . American Journal of  Psychology,, 1927, 39, 106-124. Coleman, D.H. & Straus, M. Alcohol abuse & family violence. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Boston, August, 1979. Couples in C r i s i s : A report on the Frontenac Family Referral Service, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 1979. Cronbach, L.J. and Furby, L. How we should measure "change"-- or should we? Psy-cholog!ca-l Bullet 1 n?, 1 97 0 , 74 , 68-80 . Crowne, D.P. and Marlowe, D.A. A new scale of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y independent of psychopathology. Journal of  Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 349-354. Curley, A.D. and O'Leary, K.D. Psychological correlates of spouse abuse. Paper presented at the American Association for Behaviour Therapy, New York, New York, November 21, 1980. Davidson, T. Wifebeating: a recurrent phenomenon throughout history. In M. Roy (Ed.) Battered women: A psychosociological study of domestic violence. New York: Van Nostrand, 1977. 1 40 de Reincourt, A. Sex and power in history. New York: Delta, 1974. Derlega, V.J. and Chaikin, A.L. Sharing intimacy: What we reveal 'to others and why. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice-H a l l , 1 975. Dibble, 0. and Straus, M.A. Some so c i a l structure determinants of inconsistency between attitudes and behaviour: the case of family violence. Journal of Marriage & the Family,, 1980, 42(1), 71-80. Dixon, W.J., Brown, M.B. Engelman, L., Frane, J.W., H i l l , M.A., Jennrich, R.I. & Joporek, J.D. BMPD s t a t i s t i c a l software. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1981. Dobash, R.E. & Dobash, R.P. Wives: The 'appropriate' victims of marital violence. Victimology: An International Journal,, 1977-78, 2(3,4), 426-442. Dutton, D.G. The arousal a t t r a c t i o n link in the absence of negative reinforcement. A paper.presented at the Canadian Psychological Association, Quebec City, June, 1979. Dutton, D.G. An e c o l o g i c a l l y nested theory of male domestic violence toward intimates. A paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, June 3, 1 981 . Dutton, D.G. The criminal j u s t i c e system response to wife  assaultResearch D i v i s i o n : S o l i c i t o r General of Canada: Ottawa, 1981. Dutton, D.G. A nested ecological theory of male violence towards intimates. In P. Caplan (Ed.) Feminist psychology in  t r a n s i t i o n . Montreal: Eden Press, 1983. Dutton, D.G and Painter, G. Male domestic violence and i t s effects on the victim. A report to the Health Promotion Directorate, Health and Welfare Canada, 1980. Eberle, P.A. Alcohol abusers and nonusers: a discriminant analysis of differences between two subgroups of batterers. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 1 982, 23(3) , 260-141 271 . Eisenberg, S.E. & Micklow, P.L. The assaulted wife: "Catch 2 2 " r e v i s i t e d . Women's Law Reporter,, 1 9 7 7 , 3 ( 3 - 4 ) , 1 3 8 - 1 6 1 . Elbow, M. Theoretical considerations of violent marriages. Social Casework, 1 9 7 7 , 5 8 , 5 1 5 - 5 2 6 . Elmer, E. A follow-up study of traumatized children. Pediatrics, 1 9 7 7 , 5 9 , 2 7 3 - 2 7 9 . E l l i o t , F. The neurology of explosive rage: the episodic dyscontral syndrome. In M. Roy (Ed.) Battered women: A  psychosociological study of domestic violence. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977. Fasteau, M.F. The male machine. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1 9 7 4 . Funkenstein, D.H., King, S.H. and Drolette, M. The dir e c t i o n of anger during a laboratory stress-inducing s i t u a t i o n . Psychosomatic Medicine, 1 9 5 4 , J _ 6 , 4 0 4 - 4 1 3 . Faulk, M. Men who assault their wives. Medicine, Science and the  Law, 1 9 7 4 , _1_4, 1 8 0 - 1 8 3 . Faulk, M. Sexual factors in marital violence. Medical Aspects of  Human Sexuality, 1 9 7 7 , n _ , 3 0 - 4 0 . Feldman, L.B. Marital c o n f l i c t and marital intimacy: an integrative psychodynamic-behavioural-systemic model. Family  Process, 1 9 7 9 , J _ 8 , 6 9 - 7 8 . Fowles, D.C, C h r i s t i e , M.J., Edelberg, R., Grings, W., Lykken, D., and Venables, P.H. Publication recomendations for electodermal measurements. Psychophsioloqy, 1 9 8 1 , 1 8 ( 3 ) , 2 3 2 - 2 3 9 . Foy, D.W., E i s l e r , R.M. and Pinkston, S. Modeled assertion in a case of explosive rage. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and  Experimental Psychiatry, 1 9 7 5 , 6 , 1 3 5 - 1 3 7 . Freud, S. The economic problem in masochism. In the Standard 1 42 Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Siqmund  Freud, James Strachy (Ed.). London: Hogarth Press, 1924. Frodi, A.M. and Lamb, M.E. Child abusers' responses to infant smiles and c r i e s . Child Development, 1980, 51, 238-241. Gabriel, R.M. and Hopkins, K.D. Relative merits of MANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, and univariate ANOVAs for research u t i l i z i n g multiple c r i t e r i o n measures. The Journal of  Special Education, 1974, 8(4) , 377-389. Gaines, R., Sandgrund, A., Green, A. and Power, E. E t i o l o g i c a l factors in c h i l d maltreatment: A multivariate study of abusing, neglecting and normal mothers. Journal of Abnormal  Psychology, 1978, 87, .'531-540. Ganley, A. Court-mandated therapy for wife assaulters. Washington, D.C. Centre for Women Policy Studies, 1981. Ganley, A.L. and Harris, L. Domestic violence: issues in designing and implementing programs for male batterers. Paper presented at American Psychological Association Conference, Toronto, August, 1978. Gayford, J.J. Wife battering: a preliminary survey of 100 cases. B r i t i s h Medical Journal, 1975, 30(1), 194-197. Geen, R.G. & Quanty, M.B. The catharthis of aggression: An e v a l u a t i o n of a- hypothe'S-is;. In- L. Ber'ko'w-i'tZ""(Ed-.'). The  advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology, Vol. 9, 1977. Geen, R.G. & Rakosky, J.J. Interpretations of observed aggression and their effect on GSR. Journal of Experimental  Research in Personality, 1973, 6, 280-292. Gelles, R.J. The violent home: A study of physical aggression  between husbands and wives. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications, 1972 Gelles, R.J. Violence and pregnancy: a note on the extent of the problem and needed services. The Family Coordinator, 1975, 24, 81-86. 1 43 Gelles, R. Power, sex, and violence: the case of marital rape. The Family Coordinator, 1977, 26, 339-347. Gelles, R.J. Applying research on family violence to c l i n i c a l p r actice. Journal of Marriage and the family, 1982, 45, 9-20. Gelles, R.J. & Straus, M.A. Determinants of violence in the family: Toward a theoretical integration. In W. Burr, R. H i l l , I. Nye and I. Reiss (Eds.) Contemporary Theories About  the Family. New York: The Free Press, 1979. G i l , D.G. Violence against children. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970. Glass, G.V., Peckham, P.D. and Sanders, J.R. Consequences of failure' to meet assumptions underlying the fixed e ffects analysis of variance and covariance. Review of Educational  Research, 1972, 42_, 237-288. Goldman, P. Violence against women in the family, Institute of Law, McGill University, unpublished Master of Laws thesis, 1978 Goleman, D. and Schwartz, G.E. Meditation as an intervention in stress r e a c t i v i t y . Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  psychology, 1976, 44, 456-463. Goode, W.J. Force & violence in the family. Journal of Marriage" and the Family, 1971, 33, 624-636. Greenhouse, S.W. & Geisser, G. On methods in the analysis of p r o f i l e data. Psychometrika, 1959, 24, 95-112. Gribbin, G., Steptoe, A. & Sleight, P. Pulse wave vel o c i t y as a measure of blood pressure. Psychophysioloqy, 1976, j_3, 86-90. Gully, R., Dengerink, H., Pepping, M., & Bergstrom, D. Research note: S i b l i n g contribution to violent behaviour. Journal of  Marriage and the Family, 1981, 43(2), 333^337. Gully, R., Pepping, M. & Dengerink, H. Gender differences in 1 44 third-party reports of violence. Journal of Marriage and the  Family, 1982, 44(2), 497-498. Hare, R.D. Orienting and defensive responses to visual s t i m u l i . Psychophysiology, 1973, _H3 , 453-464. Harris, R.J. A Primer of multivariate s t a t i s t i c s . New York: Academic Press, 1975. Hassett, J. A primer of psychophysiology. San Fransisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1978. Herzberger, S., Potts, D. and D i l l o n , M. Abusive and nonabusive parental treatment from the c h i l d ' s perspective. Journal of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, .1981 , 4_9_, 81-90. Hilberman, E. Overvi ew: The "wife—beater's wife" reconsidered. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1980, 137(11), 1336-1347. Hilberman, E. & Munson, K. Sixty battered women. Victimology, 1977-78, 2 (3,4), 460-470. Hodgson, R. and Rachman, S.J. Desyncrony in measures of fear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1974, V2, 319-326. Hokanson, J.E. and Shelter, S. The effect of overt aggression on physiological arousal l e v e l . Journal of Abnormal and Social  Psychology, 1961, 63(2), 446-448. Huston, T.L. and Levinger, G. Interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 1978, 29, 115-1 56. Izard, C.E., Dougherty, F.E., Bloxom, B.M. and Kotsch, W.E. The  D i f f e r e n t i a l Emotions Scale: A method of measuring the  subjective experience of discrete emotions. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University, 1974. Jacob, J. Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and substantive review Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1954, 82, 33-65. 1 45 Jacobson, N.S. and Moore, D. Spouses as observers of the events in their relationship. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1981, 49, 269-277. Jenson, R.H. Battered women and the law. Victimology, 1977-78, 2(3,4), 585-590. Katkin, E.S. Relationship between manifest anxiety and two indices of autonomic response to stress. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 324-333. K i l p a t r i c k , D.G. D i f f e r e n t i a l responsiveness of two electrodermal indices to psychological stress and performance of a complex cognitive task. Psychophysiology, 1972, 9, 218-226. . Kinard, E.M. and Klerman, L.V. Teenage parenting and c h i l d abuse.: Are they related? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1980, 50, 481-488. Kirk, R.E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioural  sciences. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1968. Klorman, R., Wiesenfeld, R.P., and Austin, M.L. Autonomic responses to a f f e c t i v e v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Psychophysiology, 1975, 12, 553-560. Komarovsky, M. Blue - co.l 1 a r. mar v<i age, New York: Random-House , Inc., 1962. Kozak, N.J. The psychophysiology of emotional imagery: a structural analysis of image processing: Unpublished masters  thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1977. Lacey, J.I. Somatic response patterning and stress: some revisions of activation theory. In M. Appley and R. Turnbull (Eds.). Psychological stress: issues in research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Lacey, B.C. and Lacey, J.I. Sensorimotor behaviour and cardiac a c t i v i t y . In J. Martin & P.H. Venables (Eds.), Techniques in  psychophysiology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980. 1 46 Lane, J.D., Greenstadt, L., Shapiro, D. & Rubenstein, F. Pulse t r a n s i t time and blood pressure: An intensive analysis. Psychophysiology, 1983, 20, 45-49. Lang, P. The application of psychophysiological methods to' the study of psychotherapy and behaviour. In A.E. Bergin and S.L. G a r f i e l d (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and  behaviour change. New York: Wiley, 1971 Lang, P.J. Imagery in therapy: An information processing analysis of fear. Behaviour Therapy, 1977, £3, 862-886. Lang, P. Language, image and emotion. In P. Plin e r , K.R. Blankstein and S.M. Spigel (Eds.) Advances in the study of  communication and af f e c t , Vol. 5: Perception of emotion in self and others. New York: Plenum Press, 197 9' Levens, B.R. and Dutton, D.G. The so c i a l service role of the  poli c e : Domestic c r i s i s intervention. S o l i c i t o r General of Canada: Ottawa, 1977 Leventhal, H. Towards a comprehensive theory of emotion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental s o c i a l psychology, Vol 13. New York: Academic Press, 1980. Levinger, G. Source of Marital d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n among applicants for divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1966, 36, 803-807. Lips, H.N. Women, men and the psychology of power. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice H a l l , 1981. London, J. Images of violence against women. Victimology, 1977-78, 2(3,4), 510-524. Lorenz, K. On aggression, New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1966 Loving, N. and Farmer, M. Police handling of spouse abuse and wife beating cases: A guide for police managers. Police  Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C, 1980 Mace, D. Marital intimacy and the deadly love-anger cycle. 147 Journal of Marriage and Family Counselling, 1976, 2, 131-137. MacLeod, L. Wife battering in Canada: The vicious c i r c l e . The Canadaian Advisory Council on the Status of Women: Canadian Government Publishing Centre, 1980 Marasuilo, L.A. Large sample multiple comparisons. Psychological  B u l l e t i n , 1966, 65, 280-290. Martin, D. Battered wives. New York: Kangaroo Paperbacks, 1977. McClelland, D.C, Davis, W.N., Kalih, R. , and Wanner, E. The  drinking man. New York: Free Press, 1972. McClelland, D.C. Power: The inner experience, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ine, 1975 -McClelland, D.C. Inhibited power motivation and high blood pressure in men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979, 88(21), 182-190. McNemar, Q. Psychological s t a t i s t i c s (Fourth E d i t i o n ) . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969. Meehl, P.E. Why I do not attend case conferences, in P. Meehl, Psychodiagnosis. New York: Norton and Co, 1977. Megargee, E.I. Undercontrolled and overcontrolled peronality types in extreme a n t i s o c i a l aggression. Psychological  Monographs: General and Applied, 1966, 80(3), Whole No. 611. Mishler, E.G. & Waxier, N.E. Ineraction in families: an experimental study family processes amd schizophrenia. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968. Mornell, P. Passive men, wild women. New York: Ballantine Books, 1 979. Myers, J.K. and Bean, L.L. A decade l a t e r : a follow-up of so c i a l  class and mental i l l n e s s . New York: Wiley, 1968. 1 48 National Commission on the.Causes and Prevention of Violence: Staff Report. Washington, D.C, US Government Printing O f f i c e , 1969. Newlin, D.B. Relationship of pulse transmission times to pre-ejection period and blood pressure. Psychophysiology, 18, 316-321 Novaco, R.W. Anger control. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1975. Novaco, R.W. The functions and regulation of the arousal of anger. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1976, 133, 1124-1128. O'Brien, L.E. Violence in divorce prone families. Journal of  Marriage & Family, 1971, 33, 692-698. Obrist, P.A. The cardiovascular interaction - as i t appears today. Psychophysiology, 1976, J_3, 95-107. Obrist, P.A., Langer, A.W., Gringolo, A., Light, K.C & McCubbin, J.A. The cardio-behavioural interaction. In J. Martin and P.H. Venables (Eds.) Techniques in  psychophysiology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980. Obrist, P.A., Light, K.C, McCubbin, J.A., Hutcheson, J.S. and Hoffer, J.L. Pulse t r a n s i t time: Relationship to blood pressure and myocardial performance Psychophysiology, 1979, ,_1_6, 292-301 . Overall, J.E. & K l e t t , C J . Applied multivariate analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. Owens, D.J. and Straus, M. The s o c i a l structure of violence in childhood and approval of violence as an adult. Aggressive  Behaviour, 1975, j_, 193-211. Painter, S. Patterns of emotion - bonding in battered women: traumatic bonding. Interspousal violence: Theoretical and applied consideration. A Symposium at the Canadian Psychological Association Conference, Toronto, June, 1981. Parsons, T. Certain primary sources, and patterns of aggression 1 49 in the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e of the western world. Essays i n  S o c i o l o g i c a l Theory. New York: Free Press, 1947. pp. 298-322. P a t t e r s o n , G.R. Coe r c i v e f a m i l y p r o c e s s . Eugene, Oregon. C a s t a l i a P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1982 Pat t e r s o n , M.L. An a r o u s a l model of i n t e r p e r s o n a l intimacy. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1976, 83_, 235-245. Piz z e y , E. Scream q u i e t l y or the neighbours w i l l hear. London: Penguin Books, 1974. P o l l a c k , N.H. & O b r i s t , P.A. A o r t i c - r a d i a l pulse t r a n s i t time and ECG Q-wave to r a d i a l pulse wave i n t e r v a l as i n d i c e s of beat-by-beat blood pressure change. Psychophysiology, 1983, 20, 21-28. P r e s c o t t , S. and Letko, C. B a t t e r e d women: a s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e i n M.Roy (Ed.) B a t t e r d women: A  p s y c h o s o c i o l o g i c a l study of domestic v i o l e n c e . New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, 1977. Rachman, S.J. Fear and courage. San F r a n s i s c o : Freeman and Co., 1 978. Rathus, S.A. A 30-item schedule f o r a s s e s s i n g a s s e r t i v e behaviour Behaviour Therapy, 1973, 4, 398-406. Rimm D., H i l l , G., Brown, N., S t u a r t , J . Gr o u p - a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g i n treatment of exp r e s s i o n of i n a p p r o p r i a t e anger. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1974, 34, 791-798. Rosenbaum, A. Personal communication, September, 1981. Rosenbaum, A. & O'Leary, K.D. M a r i t a l v i o l e n c e : c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of abusive c o u p l e s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g & C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1981,49,63-76. Ro t t e r , J.B. G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r i n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of reinforcement. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1966, 80, (Whole No. 609). 1 50 Rounsaville, B.J. Theories in marital violence: Evidence from a study of battered women. Victimology: An International  Journal, 1978, 3 (1-2.) , 11-3.1. Roy, M. A current survey of 150 cases. In M. Roy (Ed.) Battered  women: A psychosociological study of domestic violence. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977. Rubin, Z. Liking and loving. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973 . Russell, J. & Mehrabian, A. Distinguishing anger and anxiety in terms of emotional response factors. Journal of Consulting &  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, Vol.42, 79-83. Russell, J. and Mehrabian, A. Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of Reserach in Personality, 1977, 11, 273-294. Schachter, J. Pain, fear, and anger in hypertensives and. normotensives. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1957, 19, 17-29. Schachter, S. and Singer, J. Cognitive, s o c i a l and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 379-399. Schulman, N. A survey of spousal violence against women in Kentucky, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration., 1979. Schultz, L.G. The wife assaulter. The Journal of Social Therapy, 1960, 6, 103-111. Schwartz, G.E. Cardiac responses to self-induced thoughts. Psychophsiology, 1971, 8, 462-467. Schwartz, G.E., Weinberger, D.A. & Singer, J.A. Cardiovascular d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of happiness, sadness, anger and fear following imagery and exercise. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1981, 43, 343-364. -Scott, P.D. Battered wives. B r i t i s h Journal of Psychiatry, 1974, 125, 433-441. 151 Shotland, R.L. and Straw, N.K. Bystander responses to an assault: When a man attacks a woman. Journal of Personality  & Social Psychology, 1976, 34(5), 990-999. Siddle, D.A. and Turpin, G. Measurement, quantification and analysis of cardiac a c t i v i t y . In S. Martin and P.M. Venables (Eds.), Techniques in psychophysiology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980. Simeons, W. Man's presumptious brain. New York: Dutton, 1962. Slavin, N. The theme of feminine e v i l : The image of women in male fantasy and i t s effects on attitudes and behaviour. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard, 1973. Snel l , J.E., Rosenwald, R.J. and Robey, A. The wifebeater's wife. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1964, _M_, 107-113. Snyder, D.K. and Fruchtman. L.A. D i f f e r e n t i a l patterns of wife abuse: A data-based typology. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1981, 49, 878-885. Spanier, G. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal  of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 38, 15-28. Stark,R. & McEvoy, J. Middle-class violence. Psychology Today, 1970, 4(6), 52-54. Starr, R.H. A research-based approach to the prediction of c h i l d abuse. In R.H. Starr (Ed.) Child abuse prediction: policy  implications. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger, 1982. Steinmetz, S.K. The battered husband syndrome. Victimology: An  International Journal, 1977-78, 2(3,4), 499-509. Steinmetz, S.K. and Straus, M. (Eds.) Violence in the family. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Steptoe, A. Blood pressure. In I. Martin and P.H. Venables (Eds.) Techiniques in psychophysiology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980. 1 52 Stern, R.M., Ray, W.L. & Davis, CM. Psychophysiological  recording. New York, Oxford University Press, 1980. Stewart, A.J. and Rubin, Z. The power motive in the dating couple. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34(2) , 305-309. Straus, M. A general systems theory approach to a theory of violence between family members. Social Science Information, 1973, 12(3), 105-125. Straus, M. Levelling, c i v i l i t y , and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 1974, 36(1), 13-29. Straus, M. Sexual inequality, c u l t u r a l norms, and wife-beating. - Victimology, 1976, j_, 54-76. Straus, M. Wife beating: How common and why? Victimology: An  International Journal, 1977-78, 2(3-4), 443-458. Straus, M. Stress and assault in a national sample of American families. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Stress & Crime, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice - MITRE Corporation, Washington, D.C, December 3, 1978. Straus, M. Measuring intrafamily c o n f l i c t and violence: The C o n f l i c t Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 1979, 41, 7 5-88. Straus, M. A reevaluation of the C o n f l i c t Tactics Scale violence measures and some new measures. Paper presented at the National Conference on Family Violence Research, University of New Hampshire, July 21-25, 1981. Straus, M., Gelles, R. and Steinmetz, S. Behind closed doors:  violence in the American family. Garden Cit y : Anchor Books, 1 980. Subotnik, L.S. Overcontrolled and undercontrolled types of men who batter women. Paper presented at the North American meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression. V i c t o r i a , B.C., July 1, 1983. 1 53 Symonds, M. The psyche-dynamics of violence prone managers. The  American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1978, 38_, 21 3-223 . Szinovacz, M.E. Using couple data as a methodological t o o l : the case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1983, 46, 633-644. Szpile r , J.A. and Epstein, S. A v a i l a b i l i t y of an avoidance response as related to autonomic arousal. Journal of  Abnormal Psychology. 1976, 85, 73-82. Taylor, S.P. & Epstein, S. The Measurement of autonomic arousal. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1967, 29, 514-525. Toro, P.A. Developmental effects of c h i l d abuse: A review. Chi Id Abuse and Neglect, 1982, 6, 423-431. Venables, P.H. and C h r i s t i e , M.J. Electodermal a c t i v i t y . In D.J. Martin and P.H. Venables (Eds.), Techniques in  Psychophysiology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980. Waites, E. Female masochism and the enforced r e s t r i c t i o n of choice. Victimology: An International Journal, 1977-78, 2(3-£]_, 535-544. Waites, L. A feminist perspective on domestic violence. Paper presented at the Eleventh Banff International Conference on Behaviour Modification, March, 1979. Weerts, T.C. and Roberts, R. The physiological effects of imaging anger-provoking and fear-provoking scenes (abstr); Psychophysiology, 1976, j_3, 174. Weitzman, J. and Dreen, K. Wife beating: a view of the marital dyad. Social Casework, 1982, 63(5), 259-265. Whitehurst, R.N. Violence potential in extramarital sexual responses. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 1 971, 73_, 683-691 . Wilson, E.O. Sociobiology. Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. 1 54 Winter, D. The power motive. Toronto: Free Press, 1973. Winter, D.C. Correcting projective test scores for the effect of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with length of protocol. Technical note, McBer and Co., 1980. Winter, D.C. Personal communication, September, 1981. Winter, D.G., McClelland, D.C. and Stewart, A.J. Husband's motives and wife's career l e v e l . Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 1977, 35(3) , 159-166. Winter, D. & Stewart, A. Power motive r e l i a b i l i t y as a function of retest instructions. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l . Psychology, 1977, 45(3), 436-440. Winter, D.G. & Stewart, A.J. The Power motive. In N. London & J.E. Exner (Eds.) Dimensions of personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S.J. Perceived dimensions of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 1976, 3_3, 409-420. Wolfe, D.A. Parental competence and c h i l d abuse prevention. In McMahon, R.J. and Peters, R.D. Childhood disorders:  behavioural developmental approaches. New York: Brunner/Mazel, in press. Wolfe, D.A. and Mosk, M.D. Behavioural comparisons of children from abusive and distressed familes. Unpublished manuscript, 1983. Wolfgang, M.E. Victim-precipitated criminal homicide. Journal of  Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1957, 48, 1-11. Y l l o , K. & Straus, M. Interpersonal violence among married and cohabiting couples. Family Relations, 1980, 3_0, 339-347. Zacker,J. & Bard, M. Further findings on assaultiveness and alcohol use in interpersonal disputes. American Journal of  Community Psychology, 1977, 5(4), 373-383. 1 55 Zimbardo, P. The human choice: Individuation, reason and order vs. deindividuation, impulse and chaos. Nebraska Symposium  on Motivation, University of Nebraska Press, 1969. Zuckermah, M., Lubin, B., Vogel, L. and Valerius, E. Measurement of experimentally induced a f f e c t s . Journal of Consulting  Psychology, 1964, 28, 5, 418-425. APPENDIX A LETTER TO MARITAL THERAPISTS AND CLIENT HAND-OUT 1 57 I am a d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t i n C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . My d i s s e r t a t i o n r e s e a r c h i n v o l v e s a n i n t e n s i v e e x a m i n a t i o n o f men who a s s a u l t t h e i r w i v e s o r c o m m o n - l a w p a r t n e r s . T h e o v e r a l l p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y i s t o t e s t some c l i n i c a l l y - d e r i v e d h y p o t h e s e s r e g a r d i n g t h e c a u s e s o f w i f e a s s a u l t . I h a v e a c c e s s t o a s a m p l e o f c o n v i c t e d w i f e a s s a u l t e r s a n d w i l l b e o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e m r e l a t i n g t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t a c t i c s t h e y u s e t o d e a l w i t h c o n f l i c t i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , p o w e r c o n c e r n s , a s s e r t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s , e m o t i o n a l s t y l e , a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d women a n d f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d . T h e men w i l l b e a s k e d t o f i l l o u t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a n d w i l l v i e w v i d e o t a p e s o f m a l e - f e m a l e c o n f l i c t s c e n a r i o s w h i l e h a v i n g t h e i r p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e s p o n s e s m o n i t o r e d . I a l s o w i s h t o t e s t t w o o t h e r g r o u p s o f men f o r c o m p a r i s o n p u r p o s e s . One g r o u p w i l l b e c o m p r i s e d o f men who r e p o r t n o p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n a n d l i t t l e v e r b a l c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e i r p a r t n e r s . T h e s e c o n d g r o u p w i l l b e c o m -p r i s e d o f men who a r e e x p e r i e n c i n g m a r i t a l p r o b l e m s i n t h e f o r m o f f r e q u e n t v e r b a l c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e i r p a r t n e r , b u t who r e p o r t n o p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e . T h i s s e c o n d g r o u p i s i m p o r t a n t f o r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r e a s o n s a n d s h o u l d p r o v i d e i n t e r e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n b e a r i n g o n t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h p h y s i c a l l y a g g r e s s i v e h u s b a n d s , d i f f e r f r o m " h u s b a n d s who l i m i t t h e i r a g g r e s s i o n t o t h e v e r b a l m o d e . I ^ o u l d l i k e t o a s k f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n i n r e f e r r i n g m a r i t a l l y - d i s t r e s s e d , b u t n o n v i o l e n t m e n t o t h i s p r o j e c t . T h e y s h o u l d b e c u r r e n t l y i n t h e r a p y f o r m a r i t a l p r o b l e m s , r e p o r t f r e q u e n t v e r b a l c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e i r p a r t n e r a n d r e p o r t n o p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e a ! g a i n s t t h e i r p a r t n e r i n t h e l a s t y e a r . B o t h m a r r i e d men a n d men i n v o l v e d i n c o m m o n - l a w r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e w e l c o m e . S h o u l d a c l i e n t o r p a t i e n t o f y o u r s a g r e e t o p a r t i c i p a t e , h e w i l l b e a s k e d t o b e i n v o l v e d i n t w o t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s e a c h l a s t i n g a b o u t t w o h o u r s . T h e f i r s t s e s s i o n w h i c h c o u l d t a k e p l a c e e i t h e r i n h i s home o r a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y , w o u l d c o n s i s t o f p ^ p e r a n d p e n c i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o v e r i n g d e m o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a -t i o n , a n a s s e s s m e n t o f h i s m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a n d t h e t a c t i c s h e u s e s t o d e a l w i t h m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t , h i s d e g r e e o f c o n c e r n w i t h p o w e r , a s s e r t i v e c o m -m u n i c a t i o n , e m o t i o n a l s t y l e , a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d women a n d f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d . T h e s e c o n d s e s s i o n w o u l d t a k e p l a c e a t UBC a n d w o u l d c o n s i s t o f t h e man v i e w -i n g a s e r i e s o f s h o r t v i d e o t a p e d c o n f l i c t s c e n e s w h i l e s i m p l e p h y s i o l o g i c a l m e a s u r e s a r e t a k e n . S i n c e t h e r e a r e some s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a b u i l t i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , a g i v e n man may o r may n o t b e a s k e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e v i d e o t a p e c o m p o n e n t o f t h e s t u d y ( b u t m o s t l i k e l y h e w i l l b e ) . T h e men who p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e s t u d y w i l l r e c e i v e a p a y m e n t o f $ 1 0 . 0 0 f o r t h e f i r s t s e s s i o n a n d $ 1 5 . 0 0 f o r t h e s e c o n d s e s s i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y w i l l b e c o n t a c t e d b y t e l e p h o n e a f t e r t h e i r m a t e r i a l i s s c o r e d a n d g i v e n f e e d r b a c k b a s e d o n t h e i r r e s p o n s e s , s h o u l d t h e y d e s i r e i t . A s u m m a r y o f t h e i n -f o r m a t i o n may a l s o b e f o r w j r d e d t o t h e i r t h e r a p i s t , g i v e n t h e ram's c o n s e n t . F i n a l l y , a w r i t t e n s u m m a r y o f t h e s t u d y ' s f i n d i n g s w i l l b e s e n t t o t h e men a n d t h e i r t h e r a p i s t s a t t h e e n d o f t h e p r o j e c t . S i n c e i t i s my p r e f e r e n c e t h a t s u b j e c t s n o t b e a w a r e I am s t u d y i n g w i f e a s s a u l t p e r s e u n t i l a f t e r t h e y h a v e b e e n t e s t e d , I am m e r e l y i n f o r m i n g s u b -j e c t s t h a t i t i s a p r o j e c t o n how d i f f e r e n t men d e a l w i t h c o n f l i c t i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s w i t h women a n d I w o u l d r e q u e s t t h a t y o u i n t r o d u c e t h e p r o j e c t t o t h e m i n t h i s m a n n e r . .12 APPENDIX B ADS IN THE VANCOUVER SUN A P P E N D I X C A D I N L A U N D R O M A T S A P P E N D I X D C O N S E N T F O R M A P P E N D I X E D E M O G R A P H I C I N F O R M A T I O N S H E E T 167 A . D e m o g r a p h i c I n f o r m a t i o n 1 . A g e 2 . D a t e o f b i r t h m o n t h d a y y e a r 3 . O c c u p a t i o n 4 . I n c o m e ( a p p r o x . ) : Y o u r I n c o m e Y o u r w i f e ' s o r p a r t n e r ' s i n c o m e : 5 . E d u c a t i o n ( l a s t y e a r c o m p l e t e d i n s c h o o l ) 6 . M a r r i e d S i n g l e D i v o r c e d Common l aw 7 . Y e a r s m a r r i e d Y e a r s l i v i n g t o g e t h e r 8. C h i l d r e n ( p l e a s e l i s t a g e a n d s e x o f e a c h ) 9 . W i f e ' s ( o r p a r t n e r ' s ) o c c u p a t i o n : 1 0 . W i f e ' s e d u c a t i o n ( l a s t y e a r c o m p l e t e d i n s c h o o l ) 1 1 . ' H a v e y o u b e e n m a r r i e d b e f o r e ? Y e s No ._ 1 2 . I f Y e s , p l e a s e l i s t d u r a t i o n o f p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e ( s ) : 1 3 . How many d r i n k s ( b e e r s + g l a s s e s o f w i n e + d r i n k s o f h a r d l i q u o r ) do y o u c o n s u m e d u r i n g a n a v e r a g e w e e k ? d r i n k s p e r w e e k . 1 4 . Do y o u f e e l t h a t y o u r d r i n k i n g i s a p r o b l e m ? Y e s No H a s i t e v e r b e e n ? Y e s No 1 5 . P l e a s e l i s t a n y p r e s c r i p t i o n o r n o n p r e s c r i p t i o n d r u g s u s e d a n d f r e q u e n c y : 1 6 . Do y o u s o m e t i m e s h a v e t r o u b l e k e e p i n g y o u r w e i g h t down? Y e s No 1 7 . Do y o u d i e t o n a r e g u l a r b a s i s ? Y e s No 1 8 . Do y o u e n g a g e i n a n y o t h e r s e l f - i m p r o v e m e n t a c t i v i t i e s o n a r e g u l a r b a s i s ( f o r e x a m p l e ; e x e r c i s e , b o d y - b u i l d i n g , y o g a , e t c . ) ? Y e s No Wha t a r e t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s ( i f a n y ) ? . 1 9 . Do y o u p a r t i c i p a t e i n a n y s p o r t s o r games o n a r e g u l a r b a s i s ? Y e s No P l e a s e l i s t t h e m : A P P E N D I X F C O N F L I C T T A C T I C S S C A L E 169 M a r i t a l R e l a t i o n s h i p 1 . No m a t t e r how w e l l a c o u p l e g e t s a l o n g , t h e r e a r e t i m e s w h e n t h e y d i s a g r e e o n m a j o r d e c i s i o n s , g e t a n n o y e d a b o u t s o m e t h i n g t h e o t h e r p e r s o n d o e s , o r j u s t h a v e s p a t s o r f i g h t s b e c a u s e t h e y ' r e i n a b a d mood o r t i r e d o r f o r some o t h e r r e a s o n s . T h e y a l s o u s e d i f f e r e n t w a y s o f t r y i n g t o s e t t l e t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s . B e l o w a r e l i s t e d a n u m b e r o f b e h a v i o r s t h a t p e o p l e u s e t o s e t t l e d i f f e r e n c e s . P l e a s e r e a d e a c h o n e a n d c i r c l e t h e n u m b e r t h a t b e s t r e p r e s e n t s how o f t e n i n t h e p a s t y e a r t h a t y o u a n d y o u r p a r t n e r h a v e u s e d t h e s e b e h a v i o r s w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h e a c h o t h e r . Y o u - I n p a s t y e a r CO P a r t n e r - I n p a s t y e a r O Cd NEVER ONCE TWICE 3-5 TIMES 6-10 TIMES 11-20 TIME: MORE THAN 20 TIMES EVER HAPPE! NEVER ONCE TOICE 3-5 TIMES 6-10 TIMES 11-20 TIME: MORE THAN 20 TIMES EVER HAPPE! a . D i s c u s s e d t h e i s s u e c a l m l y 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X b . G o t i n f o r m a t i o n t o "back, u p ( y o u r / h i s ) s i d e o f t h i n g s 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X c . B r o u g h t i n o r t r i e d t o b r i n g i n s o m e o n e t o h e l p s e t t l e t h i n g s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X d . A r g u e d h e a t e d l y b u t s h o r t o f y e l l i n g . 0 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 X e . I n s u l t e d , y e l l e d o r s w o r e a t t h e o t h e r o n e . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X f . S u l k e d a n d / o r r e f u s e d t o t a l k a b o u t i t . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X g . S t o m p e d o u t o f t h e r o o m o r h o u s e ( o r y a r d ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X h . C r i e d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X i . D i d o r s a i d s o m e t h i n g t o s p i t e t h e o t h e r o n e . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X j . T h r e a t e n e d t o h i t o r t h r o w s o m e t h i n g a t t h e o t h e r o n e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X k . T h r e w o r s m a s h e d o r h i t o r k i c k e d s o m e t h i n g 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 1 . T h r e w s o m e t h i n g a t t h e o t h e r o n e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X m. P u s h e d , g r a b b e d , o r s h o v e d t h e o t h e r o n e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X n . S l a p p e d t h e o t h e r o n e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X o . K i c k e d , b i t , o r h i t w i t h a f i s t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X p . H i t o r t r i e d t o h i t w i t h s o m e t h i n g 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X q . B e a t up t h e o t h e r o n e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X r . T h r e a t e n e d w i t h a k n i f e o r g u n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X s . U s e d a k n i f e o r g u n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X t . O t h e r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 X A P P E N D I X G C O N F L I C T T A C T I C S S C A L E S U S E D T O A S S E S S C H I L D H O O D E X P O S U R E T O V I O L E N C E 171 1 0 . A l l f a m i l i e s e x p e r i e n c e c o n f l i c t o r d i s a g r e e m e n t s a t t i m e s . We w o u l d l i k e t o some i n f o r n a c i o n a b o u t how t h e membe r s o f y o u r f a m i l y d e a l t w i t h c o n f l i c t w h e n y o u w e r e g r o w i n g u p . P l e a s e t r y t o r emembe r a s b e s t y o u c a n a n d a n s w e r t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s a b o u t y o u r f a m i l y a s t h e y w e r e when y o u w e r e g r o w i n g u p . B e l o w a r e a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t w a y s p e o p l e u s e t o r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t . P l e a s e r e a d e a c h i t e m a n d c i r c l e t h e n u m b e r t h a t r e p r e s e n t s t h e a p p r o x i m a t e n u m b e r o f t i m e s p e r y e a r ( " N e v e r " t o " m o r e t h a n 2 0 " ) t h a t y o u s aw y o u r f a t h e r a n d m o t h e r u s e t h e s e b e h a v i o u r s i n d e a l i n g w i t h e a c h o t h e r . YOUR FATHER YOUR MOTHER (When d e a l i n g w i t h y o u r (When d e a l i n g w i t h y o u r m o t h e r ) f a t h e r )  NEVER ONCE TWICE 3-5 TIMES 6-10 TIMES g-11-20 TIMES » MORE THAN % 20 TIMES ^ EVER HAPPEN? % T i m e s p e r y e a r f— cn z cn a tn W cn w X Z W fd X, M < H P-i i-( H 33 M < M H H H 33 OS W H O W W O • O CN ' W O OS > CJ M U ~ l r-( | OS CN W W Z 2 1 1 i H o .. > . •' a . D i s c u s s e d t h e i s s u e c a l m l y 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b . G o t i n f o r m a t i o n t o b a c k up h i s / h e r s i d e o f t h i n g s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c . B r o u g h t i n o r t r i e d t o b r i n g i n s o m e o n e t o h e l p s e t t l e t h i n g s . 0 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 d . A r g u e d h e a t e d l y , b u t s h o r t o f y e l l i n g 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e . I n s u l t e d , y e l l e d o r s w o r e a t t h e o t h e r o n e . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 £ . S u l k e d a n d / o r r e f u s e d t o t a l k a b o u t i t . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g . S t o m p e d o u t o f t h e r o o m o r h o u s e ( o r y a r d ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h . C r i e d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 i . D i d o r s a i d s o m e t h i n g t o s p i t e t h e o t h e r o n e . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 j . T h r e a t e n e d t o h i t o r t h r o w s o m e t h i n g a t t h e o t h e r o n e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 k . T h r e w o r s m a s h e d o r h i t o r k i c k e d s o m e t h i n g 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 . T h r e w s o m e t h i n g a t t h e o t h e r o n e . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 m. P u s h e d , g r a b b e d , o r s h o v e d t h e o t h e r o n e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 n . S l a p p e d t h e o t h e r o n e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o . Kicked, b i t , o r h i t with a f i s t . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 p . H i t or t r i e d to h i t w i t h s o m e t h i n g 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 q. Beat up the other one. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 r . T h r e a t e n e d with a kn i f e or gun 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s. Used a knife or gun 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t. Other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 72 1 1 . I n t h e same m a n n e r a s a b o v e , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e a b o u t how many t i m e s p e r y e a r y o u r f a t h e r a n d y o u r m o t h e r u s e d e a c h o f t h e s e b e h a v i o u r s w h e n d e a l i n g w i t h y o u w h i l e y o u w e r e g r o w i n g u p . YOUR FATHER ( I n d e a l i n g w i t h y o u ) YOUR MOTHER ( I n d e a l i n g w i t h y o u ) NEVER ONCE TWICE 3-5 TIMES 6-10 TIMES 11-20 TIMES MORE THAN 20 TIMES EVER HAPPEN? NEVER ONCE TWICE 3-5 TIMES 6-10 TIMES 11-20 TIMES MORE THAN 20 TIMES EVER HAPPEN? a . D i s c u s s e d t h e i s s u e c a l m l y 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b . G o t i n f o r m a t i o n t o b a c k up ( h i s / h e r ) s i d e o f t h i n g s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c . B r o u g h t i n o r t r i e d ^ t o b r i n g i n s o m e o n e t o h e l p s e t t l e t h i n g s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d . A r g u e d h e a t e d l y , b u t s h o r t o f y e l l i n g . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e . I n s u l t e d , y e l l e d o r s w o r e a t y o u . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 . 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f . S u l k e d a n d / o r r e f u s e d t o t a l k a b o u t i t . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g . S t o m p e d o u t o f t h e r o o m o r h o u s e ( o r y a r d ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h . C r i e d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 i . D i d o r s a i d s o m e t h i n g t o s p i t e y o u . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 j . T h r e a t e n e d t o h i t o r t h r o w s o m e t h i n g a t y o u . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 k . T h r e w o r s m a s h e d o r h i t o r k i c k e d s o m e t h i n g . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 . T h r e w s o m e t h i n g a t y o u . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 m. P u s h e d , g r a b b e d , o r s h o v e d y o u . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 n . S p a n k e d y o u . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o . S l a p p e d y o u . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . p . K i c k e d , b i t , o r h i t w i t h a f i s t . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 q . H i t o r t r i e d t o h i t w i t h s o m e t h i n g . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 r . B e a t y o u u p . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s . T h r e a t e n e d w i t h a k n i f e / ^ u n O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t . U s e d a k n i f e o r g u n . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 u . O t h e r ( P r o b e ) : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 APPENDIX H RATHUS ASSERTIVENESS SCALE 1 74 P e r s o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I n d i c a t e how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o r d e s c r i p t i v e e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s i s o f y o u b y u s i n g t h e s c a l e g i v e n b e l o w . +3 v e r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f me , e x t r e m e l y d e s c r i p t i v e +2 r a t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f me , q u i t e d e s c r i p t i v e +1 s o m e w h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f me , s l i g h t l y d e s c r i p t i v e • - 1 s omewha t u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f me> s l i g h t l y n o n d e s c r i p t i v e - 2 r a t h e r u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f me , q u i t e n o n d e s c r i p t i v e - 3 v e r y u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f me , e x t r e m e l y n o n d e s c r i p t i v e 1 . M o s t p e o p l e s e em t o b e m o r e a g g r e s s i v e a n d a s s e r t i v e t h a n I am . 2 . I h a v e h e s i t a t e d t o make o r a c c e p t d a t e s b e c a u s e o f " s h y n e s s " . 3 . When t h e f o o d s e r v e d a t a r e s t a u r a n t i s n o t d o n e t o my s a t i s f a c t i o n , I c o m p l a i n a b o u t i t t o t h e w a i t e r o r w a i t r e s s . 4 . I am c a r e f u l to a v o i d h u r t i n g o t h e r p e o p l e ' s f e e l i n g s , e v e n w h e n I f e e l I h a v e b e e n i n j u r e d . 5 . I f a s a l e s m a n h a s g o n e t o c o n s i d e r a b l e t r o u b l e t o s how me m e r c h a n d i s e w h i c h i s n o t q u i t e s u i t a b l e , I h a v e a d i f f i c u l t t i m e s a y i n g " N o " . 6 . When I am a s k e d t o do s o m e t h i n g , I i n s i s t o n k n o w i n g w h y . 7 . T h e r e a r e t i m e s w h e n I l o o k f o r a g o o d , v i g o r o u s a r g u m e n t . 8 . I s t r i v e t o g e t a h e a d a s w e l l a s m o s t p e o p l e i n my p o s i t i o n . 9 . To b e h o n e s t , p e o p l e o f t e n t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f me . 1 0 . I e n j o y s t a r t i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h new a c q u a i n t a n c e s a n d s t r a n g e r s . 1 1 . I o f t e n d o n ' t k n o w w h a t t o s a y t o a t t r a c t i v e p e r s o n s o f t h e o p p o s i t e e e x . 1 2 . I w i l l h e s i t a t e t o make p h o n e c a l l s t o b u s i n e s s e s t a b l i s h m e n t s a n d i n -s t i t u t i o n s . 1 3 . I w o u l d r a t h e r a p p l y f o r a j o b o r f o r a d m i s s i o n t o c o l l e g e b y w r i t i n g l e t t e r s t h a n b y g o i n g t h r o u g h w i t h p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s . 1 4 . I f i n d i t e m b a r r a s s i n g t o r e t u r n m e r c h a n d i s e . 1 5 . I f a c l o s e a n d r e s p e c t e d r e l a t i v e w e r e a n n o y i n g me , I w o u l d s m o t h e r my f e e l i n g s r a t h e r t h a n e x p r e s s my a n n o y a n c e . 1 6 . I h a v e a v o i d e d a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s f o r f e a r o f s o u n d i n g s t u p i d . 1 7 . D u r i n g a n a r g u m e n t I am s o m e t i m e s a f r a i d t h a t I w i l l g e t s o u p s e t t h a t I w i l l s h a k e a l l o v e r . 1 8 . I f a f a m e d a n d r e s p e c t e d l e c t u r e r m a k e s a s t a t e m e n t w h i c h I t h i n k i s i n -c o r r e c t , I w i l l h a v e t h e a u d i e n c e h e a r my p o i n t o f v i e w a s w e l l . 1 9 . I a v o i d a r g u i n g o v e r p r i c e s w i t h c l e r k s a n d s a l e s m e n . 2 0 . When I h a v e d o n e s o m e t h i n g i m p o r t a n t o r w o r t h w h i l e , I manage t o l e t o t h e r s k now a b o u t i t . 2 1 . I am o p e n a n d f r a n k a b o u t my f e e l i n g s . 2 2 . I f s o m e o n e h a s b e e n s p r e a d i n g f a l s e a n d b a d s t o r i e s a b o u t me , 1 s e e h i m ( h e r a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e t o " h a v e a t a l k " a b o u t i t . 2 3 . I o f t e n h a v e a h a r d t i m e s a y i n g " N o " . 2 4 . I t e n d t o b o t t l e up my e m o f t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n make a s e i n e . 2 5 . I c o m p l a i n a b o u t p o o r s e r v i c e i n a r e s t a u r a n t a n d e l s a w h e r e . 2 6 . When I am g i v e n a c o m p l i m e n t , I s o m e t i m e s j u s t d o n ' t k now w h a t t o s a y . 2 7 . I f a c o u p l e n e a r me i n a t h e a t r e o r a t a l e c t u r e w e r e c o n v e r s i n g r a t h e r l o u d l y , I w o u l d a s k t h em t o be. q u i e t o r t o t a k e t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n c . l s e w h c r 2 8 . A n y o n e a t t e m p t i n g t o p u s h a h e a d o f rno i n a l i n e i s i n f o r a g o o d b a t t l e . 2 9 . I am q u i c k t o e x p r e s s an o p i n i o n . 3 0 . T h e r e a r e t i m e s when I j u s t c a n ' t s a y a n y t h i n g . APPENDIX I SPOUSE-SPECIFIC ASSERTIVENESS SCALE 176 D i r e c t i o n s : P l e a s a u s e t h e s c a l e d e s c r i b e d b e l c y t o i n d i c a t e hew. c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o r d e s c r i p t i v e e a c h , o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s i s o f y c u . . A " t s r r e a d i n g e a c h s t a t e m e n t , c h o o s e a . n u m b e r f r o m t h e s c a l e a n d p l a c e i t i n t h e s p a c e p r o v i d e d . i* .«... .. • • ............». ....... 2 E X A M P L E : " I o f t e n y e l l b a c k when my m a t e y e l l s - a r m e . " £ % +3 e x t r e m e l y d e s c r i p t i v e , v e r y much l i k e me S •+2 q u i t e d e s c r i p t i v e , r a t h e r l i k e me z CODE: +1 s l i g h t l y d e s c r i p t i v e , s o m e w h a t l i k e me S -1 s l i g h t l y n o n d e s c r i p t i v e , s omewha t u n l i k e me £ % -2 q u i t e n o n d e s c r i p t i v e , r a t h e r u n l i k e a e 5 5 • -3 e x t r e m e l y n o n d e s c r i p t i v e , n o t a t a l l l i k e me £ I • I z I f y o u f e e l t h a t . y o u f r e o u e n t l y y e l l b a c k a t y o u r m a t e when h e / s h e 5 5 y e l l s a t y c u , t h e n t h i s s t a t e m e n t d e s c r i b e s y o u w e l l . R a t e i t 5 z a s a.+3, " v e r y much l i k e m e " . £ 5 I f y c u f e e 1 t h a t y c u n e v e r s a y a w o r d when y o u r mate ' y e l l s a t y c u , 5 5 t h e n t h i s / s t a t e m e n t d o e s n ' t d e s c r i b e y o u v e r y w e l l . R a t e i t a s £ 5 a -3, , l a o t a t a l l l i k e m e " . 5 1 | . z * • P l e a s e n o t e t h a t t h e r e a r e a l s o o t h e r p o s s i b l e r e s p o n s e s ( t h a t i s , z z +2, +1, -1, -2) t h a t y o u c a n u s e t o i n d i c a t e a l e s s e r d e g r e e o f 5 z s i m i l a r i t y o r d i s s i m i l a r i t y t o y o u r s e l f . •* £ 1. C o n f r o n t i n g my m a t e w i t h p r o b l e m s a s t h e y come up i s s e l d o m a p r o b l e m f o r • me . • 2. I o f t e n y e l l b a c k when my m a t e y e l l s a t me . 3. When my m a t e t r i e s t o b o a s me a r o u n d , I f r e q u e n t l y do t h e o p p o s i t e o f w h a t h e / s h e a s k s . T e l l i n g my m a t s t h a t h e / s h e t a k e s a d v a n t a g e o f me i s d i f f i c u l t f o r me t o d o . 5. I am s e l d o m a b l e t o t e l l my m a t e t h a t I d o n ' t w a n t t o e n g a g e i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e when h e / s h e d e s i r e s t o . 6 . I f my m a t e i s a n n o y i n g m e , I o f t e n f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o e x p r e s s my a n n o y a n c e t o h i m / h e r . 7. I o f t e n t a k e my t i m e " j u s t t o s h e w " my m a t e , when h e / s h e t r i e s t o b o s s me a r o u n d . 8 . S a y i n g " N O " t o my m a t e when I w o u l d l i k e , t o s a y " N O " i s d i f f i c u l t f o r me t o d o . 9. I f r e q u e n t l y f i n d t h a t I am a b l e t o a s k my m a t e t o d c me f a v o r s w i t h o u t a n y d i f f i c u l t y . 10. I o f t e n h a v e d i f f i c u l t y t e l l i n g - ' m v ma t e my t r u e f e e l i n g s . 1 77 + 1 s l i g h t l y d e s c r i p t i v e , sor .ewhac. l i k e me - L s l i g h t l y n o n d e s c r i p t i v e , s omewha t u n l i k e me - 2 q u i t s n o n d e s c r i p t i v e , r a t h e r u n l i k e me - 3 e x t r s m e l y n o n d e s c r i p t i v e , n o t a t a l l l i k e me C h a l l e n g i n g my m a t e ' s b e l i e f s i s s o m e t h i n g I c a n d o w i t h l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y . . I a g e n e r a l , I ' m n o t v e r y d i r e c t i n e x p r e s s i n g my a n g e r t o my m a t e . . I n g e n e r a l , a s s e r t i n g n r / s e l f w i t h n y m a t s i s s o m e t h i n g I s e l d o m d o , e v e n t h o u g h . I d o n ' t t h i n k h e / s h e w o u l d s a y o r d o a n y t h i n g n e g a t i v e t o me . I o f t e n h a v e t r o u b l e s a y i n g s o m e t h i n g t h a t m i g h t h u r t my m a t e ' s f e e l i n g s , e v e n when I f e e l , h e h a s i n j u r e d me . I o f t e n c a k e t h r e a t s t o my ma t e t h a t I r e a l l y d o n ' t i n t e n d t o c a r r y o u t . E x p r e s s i n g c r i t i c i s m t o my m a t e i s o f t e n a p r o b l e m f o r me . I c a n e x p r e s s a d i f f e r i n g p o i n t - o f - v i e w t o ' a y m a t e w i t h o u t much d i f f i c u l t y . When I ' m f e e l i n g i n s e c u r e a n d . j e a l o u s , I ' l l o f t e n p i c k a f i g h t w i t h my m a t s r a t h e r t h a n t e l l h i m / h e r d i r e c t l y w h a t ' s o n my m i n d . S t a r t i n g a r g u m e n t s w i t h my ma t e when h e / s h e d i s a g r e e s w i t h me i s s o m e t h i n g I o f t e n d o . A s k i n g my m a t e t o do o n e o f my c h o r e s , e v e n when I d o n ' t f a e l w e l l , i s s o m e t h i n g I h a v e d i f f i c u l t y d o i n g . I o f t e n s a y n a s t y t h i n g s t o my m a t s , e s p e c i a l l y when I ' m a n g r i l y d i s c u s s i n g s o m e t h i n g w i t h h i m / h e r . S l a m m i n g d o o r s i s s o m e t h i n g I o f t e n do when I g e t mad a t my c a t s . I ' l l o f t e n d a s o m e t h i n g c n p u r p o s e t o a n n o y my m a t e , a n d t h e n a p o l o g i z e e x c e s s i v e l y when h e / s h e - a c c u s e s me c f i t . I o f t e n l e t my c a t s know when I d i s a c p r o v e o f h i s / h e r b e h a v i o r . I w i l l o f t e n b r e a k a " r u l e " my c a t s h a s made j u s t t o s p i t s h i m / h e r : ' When my m a t s m a k e s me do s o m e t h i n g t h a t I d o n ' t l i k e , I o f t e n make a p o i n t o f g e t t i n g e v e n l a t e r . I n g e n e r a l , I s e l d o m a s s e r t m y s e l f w i t h my m a t s b e c a u s e I am a f r a i d t o . I o f t e n w o n ' t do w h a t my m a t e a s k s me t o do i f h e / s h e a s k s i n a n a s t y w a y . I ' L L o f t e n g i v e my m a t e t h e " s i l e n t t r e a t m e n t " when I am mad a t h i m / h e r . APPENDIX J TEST OF EMOTIONAL STYLE 1 79 I N S T R U C T I O N S : T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t s o f a n u m b e r o f s t a t e m e n t s t h a t p e o p l e h a v e u s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r own e m o t i o n a l s t y l e . T h a s t a t e m e n t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n p a i r s ; r e a d e a c h p a i r a n d c i r c l e t h e l e t t e r ( a o r b ) o f t h e s t a t e m e n t w h i c h i s m o r e t r u e o f y o u , o r w h i c h b e t t e r r e p r e s e n t s y o u r own a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d e m o t i o n . Y o u w i l l n o t i c e t h a t some s t a t e m e n t s a p p e a r mo r e t h a n o n c e , b u t a r e p a i r e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t s t a t e m e n t s . T h u s , e a c h t i m e y o u r e a d a s t a t e m e n t , y o u m u s t e v a l u a t e i t a l o n g w i t h t h e o t h e r s t a t e m e n t i n t h e p a i r . B e c a u s e t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r p a i r a r e o f t e n n o t o p p o s i t e s o f e a c h o t h e r , i t may h a p p e n t h a t b o t h s t a t e m e n t s a r e t r u e ( o r f a l s e ) f o r y o u . I n t h a t c a s e , c i r c l e t h e o n e w h i c h i s m o r e t r u e ( o r l e s s f a l s e ) f o r y o u . I n t h i s " f o r c e d - c h o i c e " f o r m a t , many i t e m s . m a y b e d i f f i c u l t f o r y o u t o a n s w e r . T h u s p e o p l e o f t e n p r e f e r t h e o p e n - e n d e d s e n t e n c e c o m p l e t i o n f o r m a t w h e r e t h e y a r e f r e e t o w r i t e o u t t h e i r own s t a t e m e n t . H o w e v e t , t h e s e n t e n c e c o m p l e t i o n f o r m a t i s t i m e c o n s u m i n g t o f i l l o u t , a n d i s d i f f i c u l t t o s c o r e o b j e c t i v e l y , s o we h a v e d e v e l o p e d a l t e r n a t i v e f o r m a t s . T h e s t a t e m e n t s h e r e h a v e b e e n c h o s e n t o r e f l e c t a w i d e r a n g e o f a t t i t u d e s a n d e m o t i o n a l s t y l e s . We w o u l d l i k e y o u t o u s e t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o d e s c r i b e y o u r own e m o t i o n s a n d a t t i t u d e s a s a c c u r a t e l y a s y o u c a n . 180 1 . a G e t t i n g u p s e t c l e a r s t h e a i r . b G e t t i n g u p s e t u s u a l l y d o e s n ' t h e l p t h e s i t u a t i o n . 2 . a G e t t i n g a n g r y i s a g o o d r e l e a s e . b F e e l i n g a f f e c t i o n c a n l e a d t o d i s a p p o i n t m e n t s . 3 . a E m o t i o n s s h o u l d b e g o v e r n e d b y r e a s o n . b F o r me t o c r y w h i l e w i t h s o m e o n e c a n b e v e r y b e a u t i f u l . 4 . a When I f e e l u n h a p p y I u s u a l l y d o n ' t t r y t o h i d e i t . b When I f e e l u n h a p p y I t r y n o t t o s how i t . 5. a F o r me t o c r y w h i l e w i t h s o m e o n e i s u n l i k e l y , b C r y i n g a t a m o v i e i s s o m e t h i n g I do a l o t . 6 . a F o r me t o c r y w h i l e w i t h s o m e o n e m a k e s me f e e l c l o s e r t o t h e m , b G e t t i n g u p s e t u s u a l l y d o e s n ' t h e l p t h e s i t u a t i o n . 7 . a F o r me t o f e e l d e p r e s s e d i s r a r e . b L e t t i n g go e m o t i o n a l l y I do e a s i l y . 8 . a E x p r e s s i n g e m o t i o n s s h o u l d b e d o n e w i t h d i s c r e t i o n . b L e t t i n g s o m e o n e e l s e k n o w my e m o t i o n s m a k e s me f e e l g o o d . 9 . a P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s s h o u l d b e c a r e f u l o f t h e m , b P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s s h o u l d e x p r e s s t h e m s e l v e s . 1 0 . a M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e m i n i m a l , b M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e i n t e n s e . 1 1 . a F o r me , s h o w i n g a n g e r i s a s i g n t h a t I h a v e l o s t c o n t r o l o f m y s e l f . b F o r me, s h o w i n g a n g e r i s a g o o d w a y t o b e g i n t o make a s i t u a t i o n b e t t e r . 1 2 . a G e t t i n g a n g r y f e e l s g o o d . b G e t t i n g a n g r y i s a w e a k n e s s . 1 3 . a M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e n o t a l l t h a t d e e p , b F o r me t o f e e l d e p r e s s e d i s c ommon . 1 4 . a When I f e e l r e a l l y h a p p y I l e t e v e r y o n e k n o w i t . b M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s do n o t s h o w . 1 5 . a P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s s h o u l d t r y t o b e c a r e f u l o f t h e m , b L e t t i n g go e m o t i o n a l l y c a n b e g r e a t . 1 6 . a When a c l o s e f r i e n d r e s p o n d s e m o t i o n a l l y I a l s o f e e l t h e e m o t i o n . b When I am w i t h s o m e o n e who g e t s e m o t i o n a l I am u s u a l l y c a l m a n d c o l l e c t e d . 1 7 . a When I am d i s g u s t e d b y s o m e o n e I s how i t . b When I am d i s g u s t e d b y s o m e o n e I u s u a l l y k e e p i t t o m y s e l f . 1 8 . a G e t t i n g a n g r y u p s e t s me ; I d o n ' t l i k e t o . b When I f e e l u n h a p p y i t ' s o k a y b e c a u s e I u s e t h a t t i m e t o go o f f b y m y s e l f a n d t h i n k . 181 1 9 . a L e t t i n g go e m o t i o n a l l y i s s o m e t h i n g I t r y n o t t o d o . b P e o p l e who e x p r e s s t h e i r e m o t i o n s f r e e l y a r e h o n e s t a n d c a n b e r e l i e d o n . 2 0 . a B e c o m i n g a n x i o u s i s a w a s t e o f t i m e a n d e n e r g y , b G e t t i n g a n g r y i s a g o o d r e l e a s e . 2 1 . a C r y i n g a t a m o v i e i s s o m e t h i n g I do a l o t . b My e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o m o v i e s i s p r i v a t e ; I d o n ' t s h o w i t . 2 2 . a When I f e e l r e s e n t m e n t t o w a r d s o m e o n e I u s u a l l y s h o w i t . b When I f e e l r e s e n t m e n t t o w a r d s o m e o n e I u s u a l l y k e e p i t i n s i d e . 2 3 . a When I am d i s g u s t e d b y s omeone I t e l l t h e m , b F o r me , s h o w i n g a n g e r i s h a r d t o d o . 2 4 . a P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s a r e my k i n d o f p e o p l e . b P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s s h o u l d t r y t o c o n t r o l t h e m . 2 5 . a G e t t i n g a n g r y f e e l s , g o o d . b G e t t i n g u p s e t i s a w a s t e o f t i m e . " - • 2 6 . a M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e l e t o u t f r e e l y . b M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e c o n t r o l l e d b y m i n d . 2 7 . a When I b e c o m e a n x i o u s I s w e a t . b My e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o m o v i e s i s m i n i m a l . 2 3 . a When I f e e l g u i l t y I s h o w i t . b When I b e c o m e a n x i o u s no o n e b u t me i s l i k e l y t o k n o w . 2 9 . a When I am f r u s t r a t e d I am q u i c k t o a n g e r . b My e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o b o o k s i s n o t t h a t g r e a t . 3 0 . a E m o t i o n s s h o u l d b e g o v e r n e d b y r e a s o n . b R e s p o n d i n g t o t h i n g s w i t h d e e p e m o t i o n i s n o r m a l . 3 1 . a E m o t i o n s s h o u l d b e c o n t r o l l e d . b L e t t i n g s o m e o n e e l s e k n o w my e m o t i o n s i s a g o o d r e l e a s e . 3 2 . a When I am u n h a p p y i t i s v e r y i n t e n s e . b M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e l o w k e y . 3 3 . a F o r me , s h o w i n g a n g e r i s d i f f i c u l t . b F o r me , s h o w i n g a n g e r i s no p r o b l e m ; i t ' s h i d i n g i t t h a t ' s h a r d . 3 4 . a B e c o m i n g a n x i o u s i s n o t o n e o f my p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . b When I f e e l g u i l t y I h a v e a g o o d d e a l o f t r o u b l e f a l l i n g a s l e e p . 3 5 . a C r y i n g a t a m o v i e i s n a t u r a l a n d h e a l t h y . b E x p r e s s i n g e m o t i o n s h o u l d b e d o n e w i t h d i s c r e t i o n . 3 6 . a When I f e e l u n h a p p y I t r y n o t t o s h o w i t . b When I f e e l u n h a p p y i t s h o w s . 3 7 . a T h e n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t e m o t i o n s I ' f e e l m a k e s me m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g , b E x p r e s s i n g e m o t i o n s h o u l d b e d o n e w i t h d i s c r e t i o n . 182 3 8 . a When I f e e l u n h a p p y i t i s n o t v e r y d e e p o r l o n g l a s t i n g , b My e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o m o v i e s i s h i g h . 3 9 . a G e t t i n g u p s e t i s s e l f - d e f e a t i n g , b G e t t i n g u p s e t i s h e a l t h y . 4 0 . a E m o t i o n s s h o u l d b e c o n t r o l l e d . b L e t t i n g go e m o t i o n a l l > makes me f e e l g o o d . 4 1 . a P e o p l e who h a v e many d i f f e r e n t e m o t i o n s a r e l i k e rae a n d I l o v e ' e m . b P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s s h o u l d b e c a r e f u l o f t h e m . 4 2 . a G e t t i n g a n g r y i s n o t a p r o b l e m f o r n e . b G e t t i n g a n g r y u p s e t s me; I d o n ' t l i k e t o . 4 3 . a L e t t i n g go e m o t i o n a l l y i s j u s t n o t me . b When I am w i t h s o m e o n e who g e t s e m o t i o n a l I g e t e m o t i o n a l . 4 4 . a When I f e e l g u i l t y i t i s u s u a l l y n o t l o n g l a s t i n g , b F o r me t o l o v e c omes e a s i l y . 4 5 . a When I am w i t h s o m e o n e who g e t s e m o t i o n a l I f e e l f o r t h e p e r s o n , b When I am w i t h s o m e o n e who g e t s e m o t i o n a l I t r y t o r e m a i n c a l m . 4 6 . a P e o p l e who b u b b l e w i t h e n t h u s i a s m a n d g o o d h u m o r s o m e t i m e s a n n o y me . b P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s a r e s t r o n g p e o p l e . 4 7 . a G e t t i n g a n g r y i s a g o o d r e l e a s e , b G e t t i n g a n g r y i s a w a s t e o f t i m e . 4 8 . a E m o t i o n s s h o u l d b e c o n t r o l l e d . b L e t t i n g go e m o t i o n a l l y c a n b e g r e a t . 4 9 . a L e t t i n g go e m o t i o n a l l y I do e a s i l y . b G e t t i n g u p s e t i s n o t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f me. 5 0 . a When I f e e l g u i l t y I b e c o m e a n x i o u s a n d c o n f u s e d , b F e e l i n g g u i l t y d o e s n ' t r e a l l y b o t h e r me . 5 1 . a R e s p o n d i n g t o t h i n g s w i t h d e e p e m o t i o n s i s g o o d . b P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s s h o u l d t r y t o c o n t r o l t h e m . 5 2 . a When I am d i s g u s t e d b y s o m e o n e I l e t h i m k n o w i t . b F o r me , s h o w i n g a n g e r i s r a r e . 53. a When I f e e l r e a l l y h a p p y I t e n d t o c o m m u n i c a t e i t o n l y t o p e o p l e I f e e l c l o s e t o . b When 1 f e e l r e a l l y h a p p y I l e t e v e r y o n e k now i t . 5 4 . a M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e l o w k e y . b F e e l i n g g u i l t y i s h a r d t o o v e r c o m e . 5 5 . a M J s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e h i d d e n . b When I h a v e a n e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n i t ' s o b v i o u s t o a n y o n e who k n o w s me . 56. a C r y i n g a t a m o v i e i s c u s t o m a r y f o r me . b C r y i n g a t a m o v i e i s v e r y r a r e f o r me. 1 83 5 7 . a When I h a v e a n e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n I go o f f b y m y s e l f . b When I h a v e a n e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n i t i s o b v i o u s t o a n y o n e who k n o w s me . 5 8 . a C r y i n g a t a m o v i e i s e m b a r r a s s i n g , b G e t t i n g a n g r y f e e l s g o o d . 5 9 . a P e o p l e who h a v e s t r o n g e m o t i o n s s h o u l d t r y t o c o n t r o l t h e m , b R e s p o n d i n g t o t h i n g s w i t h d e e p e m o t i o n s i s n o r m a l . 6 0 . a F o r me t o f e e l d e p r e s s e d i s g o o d b e c a u s e s o m e t i m e s a f t e r w a r d s y o u f e e l b F o r me t o f e e l d e p r e s s e d i s a w f u l . 6 1 . a G e t t i n g a n g r y i s a g o o d r e l e a s e , b G e t t i n g a n g r y i s u n f o r t u n a t e . 6 2 . a E x p r e s s i n g e m o t i o n s i s how I r e l a t e t o o t h e r s . b M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e c o n t r o l l e d b y m i n d . 6 3 . a My e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o b o o k s i s u s u a l l y v e r y g r e a t , b G e t t i n g me a n g r y r e q u i r e s much p r o v o c a t i o n . 6 4 . a S h o w i n g a f f e c t i o n i s a l m o s t t o o e a s y f o r . m e . b When I f e e l r e a l l y h a p p y I t e n d t o c o m m u n i c a t e i t o n l y t o p e o p l e I f e e l c l o s e t o . 6 5 . a G e t t i n g a n g r y i s t y p i c a l o f me . b M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e n o t t h a t d e e p . 6 6 . a L e t t i n g go e m o t i o n a l l y i s s o m e t h i n g I s e l d o m d o . b When I am w i t h s o m e o n e who g e t s e m o t i o n a l I s t a y e m o t i o n a l . 6 7 . a When I f e e l u n h a p p y I t r y n o t t o s h o w i t . b When I h a v e a n e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n I s h o w i t . 6 8 . a When I b e c o m e a n x i o u s I c o n c e a l i t w e l l , b When I b e c o m e a n x i o u s i t i s a p p a r e n t . 6 9 . a M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e i n t e n s e . b G e t t i n g u p s e t r a r e l y h a p p e n s t o me t o a n y g r e a t d e g r e e . 7 0 . a M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e n o t r e a d i l y n o t i c e a b l e , b M o s t o f t h e t i m e my e m o t i o n s a r e v i s i b l e . 7 1 . a When I b e c o m e a n x i o u s I c o n c e a l i t w e l l . b S h o w i n g a f f e c t i o n i s a l m o s t t o o e a s y f o r me. 7 2 . a L e t t i n g s o m e o n e e l s e k n o w my e m o t i o n s i s rare a n d t h e s o m e o n e h a s t o b e . t . i n c s p e c i a l . b L e t t x n g s o m e o n e e l s e k n o v my e m o t i o n s i s f r e q u e n t r o r me . 7 3 . a When I am f r u s t r a t e d i t i s s h o r t - l i v e d , b F o r me t o l o v e c o m e s e a s i l y . 7^. a When I h a v e a n e m o t i o n a l r e a c t i o n I go off by myself, b E x p r e s s i n g e m o t i o n s i s s o m e t h i n g I do a l l the t i m e . 7 5 . a L e t t i n g s o m e o n e e l s e k n o w my e m o t i o n s i s n a t u r a l for me . b L e t t i n g s o m e o n e e l s e k n o w my e m o t i o n s i s rare and t h a t s o m e o n e h a s to b e A P P E N D I X K B U R T A T T I T U D E S C A L E S A N D M A R L O W E - C R O W N E S O C I A L D E S I R A B I L I T Y S C A L E 185 L i s t e d below are a number of statements concerning personal a t t i t u d e s and t r a i t s . Read each item and decide whether you agree or disagree with i t . In-dicate your response by making a check mark i n the appropriate box. STRONGLY DISAGREE MODERATELY DISAGREE SLIGHTLY DISAGREEE SLIGHTLY AGREE MODERATELY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE 1. Before voting I thoroughly inv e s t i g a t e the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of a l l the candidates. 2. I never h e s i t a t e to go out of my way to help someone i n trouble. 3. A man should f i g h t when the woman he's with i s i n s u l t e d by another man. 4. A woman w i l l only respect a man who w i l l lay down the law to her. 5. People today should not use "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as a rule f o r l i v i n g . 6. It i s sometimes hard for me to go on with my work i f I am not encouraged. 7. It i s acceptable for the woman to pay for the date. 8. I have never intensely d i s l i k e d anyone. 9. On occasion I have had doubts about my a b i l i t y to succeed i n l i f e . 10. Many women are so demanding sexually that a man j u s t can't s a t i s f y them. l 1 . Heinp. roup^ed UP I S P P ^ W I I V stimulating to many women. 12. 1 sometimes f e e l r e s e n t f u l when 1 don't get my way. 13. A woman should be a v i r g i n when she marries. 14. A man's got to show the woman who's boss right from the st a r t or h e ' l l end up henpecked. 15. 1 am always c a r e f u l about my manner of dress. 16. Many times a woman w i l l pretend she doesn't want to have intercourse because she doesn't want to seem loose, but re a l l y she's honing the man w i l l force her. 1 8 6 STRONGLY DISAGREE MODERATELY DISAGREE SLIGHTLY DISAGREE SLIGHTLY AGREE MODERATELY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE 1 7 . My t a b l e m a n n e r s a t home a r e a s g o o d a s w h e n I e a t i n a r e s t a u r a n t . 1 8 . I f I c o u l d g e t i n t o a m o v i e w i t h o u t p a y i n g a n d b e s u r e I w a s n o t s e e n , I w o u l d p r o b a b l y do i t . 1 9 . T h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g w r o n g w i t h a woman who d o e s n ' t w a n t t o m a r r y a n d r a i s e a f a m i l y . 2 0 . On a f e w o c c a s i o n s , I h a v e g i v e n up d o i n g s o m e t h i n g b e c a u s e I t h o u g h t t o o l i t t l e o f my a b i l i t y . 2 1 . Women a r e u s u a l l y s w e e t u n t i l t h e y ' v e c a u g h t a m a n , b u t t h e n t h e y l e t t h e i r t r u e s e l f s h o w . 2 2 . A w i f e s h o u l d move o u t o f t h e h o u s e i f h e r h u s b a n d h i t s he r , 2 3 . I l i k e t o g o s s i p a t t i m e s . 2 4 . T h e r e h a v e b e e n t i m e s w h e n I f e l t l i k e r e b e l l i n g a g a i n s t p e o p l e i n a u t h o r i t y e v e n t h o u g h I k n e w t h e y w e r e r i g h t . 2 5 . A w i f e s h o u l d n e v e r c o n t r a d i c t h e r h u s b a n d i n p u b l i c . 2 6 . A l o t o f men t a l k b i g , b u t w h e n i t c omes down t o i t t h e y c a n ' t p e r f o r m s e x u a l l y . 2 7 . S o m e t i m e s t h e o n l y way a man c a n g e t a c o l d woman t o t u r n o n i s t o u s e f o r c e . 2 8 . No m a t t e r who I ' m t a l k i n g t o , I ' m a l w a y s a g o o d l i s t e n e r . 2 9 . I c a n r e m e m b e r " p l a y i n g s i c k " t o g e t o u t o f s o m e t h i n g . 3 0 . I t i s b e t t e r f o r a woman t o u s e h e r f e m i n i n e c h a r m t o g e t w h a t s h e w a n t s t h a n t o a s k f o r i t o u t r i g h t . 3 1 . T h e r e h a v e b e e n o c c a s i o n s w h e n I t o o k a d v a n t a g e o f s o m e o n e . 3 2 . I ' m a l w a y s w i l l i n g t o a d m i t i t w h e n I makoi a m i s t a k e . 3 3 . I a l w a y s t r y t o p r a c t i c e w h a t I p r e a c h . 34. I n a d a t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p a woman i s l a r g e l y o u t t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f a m a n . 35. I d o n ' t f i n d i t p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t t o g e t a l o n g w i t h l o u d m o u t h e d , o b n o x i o u s p e o p l e . 3 6 . I s o m e t i m e s t r y t o g e t e v e n r a t h e r t h a n f o r g i v e a n d f o r g e t . ! j 187 37. 38. A man i s n e v e r j u s t i f i e d i n h i t t i n g h i s w i f e . u w a : O < to w H w o Q td W OS O < to H X o M to - 1 CO w a o <: w H S j i —i I t i s a c c e p t a b l e f o r a woman t o h a v e a c a r e e r , b u t m a r r i a g e a n d f a m i l y s h o u l d come f i r s t . 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. When I d o n ' t k n o w s o m e t h i n g I d o n ' t a t a l l m i n d a d m i t t i n g i t . Men a r e o u t f o r o n l y o n e t h i n g . I am a l w a y s c o u r t e o u s , e v e n t o . p e o p l e who a r e d i s a g r e e a b l e . A t t i m e s I h a v e r e a l l y i n s i s t e d o n h a v i n g t h i n g s my own w a y . T h e r e h a v e b e e n o c c a s i o n s w h e n I f e l t l i k e s m a s h i n g t h i n g s . I t l o o k s w o r s e f o r a woman t o b e d r u n k t h a n f o r a man t o b e d r u n k . 45. I w o u l d n e v e r t h i n k o f l e t t i n g s o m e o n e e l s e b e p u n i s h e d f o r my w r o n g d o i n g s . 46. 47. I n e v e r r e s e n t b e i n g a s k e d t o r e t u r n a f a v o u r . M o s t women a r e s l y a n d m a n i p u l a t i n g w h e n t h e y a r e o u t t o a t t r a c t a m a n . 48. I h a v e n e v e r b e e n i r k e d w h e n p e o p l e e x p r e s s e d i d e a s v e r y d i f f e r e n t f r o m my o w n . 49. 50. 51. T h e r e i s n o t h i n g w r o n g w i t h a woman g o i n g t o a b a r a l o n e . I n e v e r make a l o n g t r i p w i t h o u t c h e c k i n g t h e s a f e t y o f my c a i T h e r e h a v e b e e n t i m e s w h e n I w a s q u i t e j e a l o u s o f t h e g o o d f o r t u n e o f o t h e r s . 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. I h a v e a l m o s t n e v e r f e l t t h e u r g e t o t e l l s o m e o n e o f f . A l o t o f women s e e m t o g e t p l e a s u r e i n p u t t i n g men d o w n . I am s o m e t i m e s j r r i t a t e d b y p e o p l e who a s k f a v o u r s o f me. I h a v e n e v e r f e l t t h a t I w a s p u n i s h e d w i t h o u t c a u s e . I s o m e t i m e s t h i n k w h e n p e o p l e h a v e a m i s f o r t u n e t h e y o n l y g o t w h a t t h e y d e s e r v e d . 57i I h a v e n e v e r d e l i b e r a t e l y s a i d s o m e t h i n g t h a t h u r t s o m e o n e ' s \ f e e l i n g s . A P P E N D I X L D E S I G N O F V I D E O T A P E S T U D Y MALE DOMINANT F E M A L E DOMINANT T A P E S T A P E S P H Y S I C A L L Y A E N A E N A G G R E S S I V E (N=9) (N=9) (N=18 ) V E R B A L L Y / S Y M B O L I C A L L Y A E N A E N A G G R E S S I V E (N=9) (N=9) (N=18 ) N O N - . A E N A E N A G G R E S S I V E (N=9) (N=9) ( N = 1 8 ) w h e r e A = A b a n d o n m e n t E = E n g u l f m e n t N = N e u t r a l A P P E N D I X M C O U N T E R B A L A N C I N G P R O C E D U R E 191 While the available sample size of nine subjects per c e l l did not allow for perfect counterbalancing, the following alternative strategy was employed to balance the groups for order e f f e c t s . Within each c e l l the following orders were used: where A = abandonment tape E = engulfment tape N = neutral tape This strategy had two important positive features: 1) The f i r s t six subjects were perfectly counterbalanced and 2) Every videotape was viewed f i r s t , second and last an equa "number of times over the nine men in each c e l l . ANE AEN ANE EAN ENA EAN NEA NAE NEA A P P E N D I X N I N S T R U C T I O N S T O P A R T I C I P A N T S 1 93 You are going to see three short scenes of a married couple interacting in their home. Their names are Jim and Barbara. As part of our in-depth study of marriage Jim and Barbara allowed our f i l m crew to v i r t u a l l y l i v e in their home for several months. After Jim and Barbara got used to the cameras, we were able to get some shots of them behaving pretty much as they usually do. We got their permission to use three short excerpts from the filming for research purposes and this is what you w i l l see in a moment. We would l i k e you to watch each excerpt very c a r e f u l l y and while you are watching to imagine that you are in Jim's position. Try to r e a l l y get into the scene and imagine how you would fe e l i f you were the man in t h i s s i t u a t i o n . While you are watching the scene you may become aware of certain feelings that you are experiencing. You may also notice some physical sensations as you imagine yourself in these sit u a t i o n s . For example, your heart may begin to beat faster, you may notice yourself perspiring or breathing more quickly, your muscles may tense up and so on. After each videotaped scene you w i l l be asked to f i l l out brief c hecklists contained in the booklet in front of you. Please leave the booklet closed u n t i l the f i r s t scene has ended. Then open the booklet and read the instructions c a r e f u l l y before answering. If you have any questions, ask the researcher who w i l l be just outside the videotape room. When you have completed the questionnaires there w i l l be a two minute delay before the next scene w i l l begin. Just put the booklet aside and relax during this time period. Do you have any questions before we begin? APPENDIX 0 SUMMARY OF PRETEST ANALYSIS 195 I n i t i a l pre-testing of the videotape scenes was conducted using twelve men in their late twenties as subjects. The pur-pose was to check the physiological recording procedure and to obtain some i n i t i a l data on men's perceptions of the tapes. The twelve men were divided randomly into two groups of six men. One group viewed a l l male dominant tapes counterbalanced for order of presentation and the other group viewed a l l female-dominant tapes. The men rated the tapes for severity of c o n f l i c t , realism, dominance, intimacy and also rated their own feelings of anger and anxiety. The means and standard deviations for these ratings appear l a t e r in this Appendix. Generally, the men viewed the tapes as being highly r e a l i s t i c and highly c o n f l i c t u a l . They reported feeling a moderate amount of anger in response to the tapes and a somewhat higher amount of anxiety. Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs carri e d out on these variables indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on any of the variables. The scores for the dominance and intimacy ratings were generally as expected. For the dominance rating mean scores were uniformly higher (and above a neutral score of 4) for the male dominant tapes, while the reverse was true for the female dominant tapes (though the female dominant/engulfment tape was closer to a neutral rating of 4 than expected). A two-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for the dominance factor as expected (F (1 , 1 0 ) =47 . 6 1 ;p_< . 000 1 ) and no differences on the intimacy or interaction factors. The ratings for attempted intimacy movement conformed to expectations with the exception of the male dominant/abandonment tape in which the ratings were neutral v i s - a - v i s intimacy movement. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated an o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n t difference for the intimacy factor (F(2,20)=17.03;p<.0001), but no s i g n i f i c a n t differences for the dominance or interaction factors as expected. Newman-Keuls comparisons were calculated to assess which means were'-di'f-ferent; and'- it'' was-' fo.und that the -engulfment scenes d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from both the neutral and abandonment scenes (p_<.0l). However, the l a t t e r two conditions did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . In sum, the tapes as rated by these twelve men appeared to be r e a l i s t i c , involving, able to generate self-reports of moderate emotion and generally represented the dominance and intimacy manipulations desired. The one d i f f i c u l t y was that the abandonment tapes ( p a r t i c u l a r l y the male dominant tape) were not perceived as strongly in the abandonment di r e c t i o n as expected. However, considering the assaulter's "hypersensitivity" to abandonment cues i t was f e l t that an attempted to reduce intimacy would be perceived by the c l i n i c a l population and therefore the tapes were retained. 1 96 Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-test Data: Videotape Scenes Variable Domin Condition Abandonment Engulfment Neutral C o n f l i c t * Male Dom. (N= 6) 7. 67(1. 03) 7 .00(1 .26) 7. 67(1. 21 ) Female Dom(N= 6) 7. 00(1. 55) 6 .00(1 .79) 6. 50(1. 22) Reali sm* Male Dom. (N= 6) . 7. 33(1. 03) 7 .67(0 .82) 6. 00(1. 26) Female Dom(N= 6) 6. 00(2. 45) 7 .17(1 .17) 7. 00(1. 41 ) Dominance* Male Dom. (N= 6) 4. 83(0. 98) 5 .83(1 .47) 6. 00(1. 55) Female Dom(N= 6) 2. 16(0. 41 ) 3 .83(1 .47) 2. 00(0. 89) Intimacy* Male Dom. (N= 6) 4. 00(0. 89) 2 .33(1 .37) 4. 00(0. 63) Female Dom(N= 6) 5. 00(1. 26) 2 .00(0 .63) 4. 33(1. 03) Anger** Male Dom. (N= 6) 1 1 . 3 3(7. 34) 9 .83(4 .36) 1 1 . 50(6. 60) Female Dom(N= 6) 1 5'. 67(4. 32) 14 . 83 ( 6 .68) 13. 50(5". 43) Anxiety** Male Dom. (N= 6) 16. 83(5. 67) 1 6 .00(5 .06) 16. 50 (6. 25) Female Dom(N= 6) 17. 50(6. 09) 1 6 .17(6 .88) 13. 50(6. 02) * Range of scores possible: 1-9 **Range of scores possible: 3-27 A P P E N D I X P A F F E C T A D J E C T I V E C H E C K L I S T 198 P l e a s e i n d i c a t e how y o u f e l t w h i l e y o u w e r e w a t c h i n g t h e l a s t s c e n e b y m a k i n g a c h e c k s o m e w h e r e o n t h e l i n e b e t w e e n e a c h p a i r o f w o r d s (make y o u r c h e c k m a r k i n o n e o f t h e s p a c e s , n o t o n t h e d o t s ) . t e n s e a n g r y e l a t e d n o t a g g r e s s i v e n o t a n x i o u s i n t e r e s t e d h o s t i l e n o t a r o u s e d n e r v o u s s e x u a l l y e x c i t e d s u s p i c i o u s n o t f r u s t r a t e d h u m i l i a t e d n o t f e a r f u l h e l p l e s s n o t s a d n o t o v e r w h e l m e d e x c i t e d n o t i r r i t a t e d a n n o y e d n o t t e n s e n o t a n g r y n o t e l a t e d a g g r e s s i v e a n x i o u s n o t i n t e r e s t e d n o t h o s t i l e a r o u s e d n o t n e r v o u s n o t s e x u a l l y e x c i t e d n o t s u s p i c i o u s f r u s t r a t e d n o t h u m i l i a t e d f e a r f u l n o t h e l p l e s s s a d o v e r w h e l m e d n o t e x c i t e d i r r i t a t e d n o t a n n o y e d How v i v i d o r r e a l d i d t h i s s c e n e f e e l t o y o u ? v i v i d : : : : r : : n o t v i v i d How s e v e r e d i d y o u f e e l t h e c o n f l i c t w a s i n t h i s s c e n e ? m i n i m a l : : : : : : : : : : s e v e r e (TUP.I1 TO NEXT P A C E ) 199 A P P E N D I X Q F O R M F O R R A T I N G D O M I N A N C E A N D A T T E M P T E D I N T I M A C Y M O V E M E N T 200 1. T h i n k b a c k t o t h e l a s t s c e n e t h a t y o u s a w . W h i c h p e r s o n do y o u t h i n k was m o r e p o w e r f u l o r d o m i n a n t i n t h a t s c e n e , t h e h u s b a n d o r t h e w i f e ? P l e a s e i n d i c a t e o n t h e s c a l e b e l o w b y c i r c l i n g a n u m b e r . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W i f e W i f e W i f e W i f e ' H u s b a n d H u s b a n d H u s b a n d v e r y much a b i t & a b i t much v e r y much mo r e m o r e H u s b a n d m o r e m o r e much m o r e a b o u t m o r e e q u a l I n t e r m s o f t h e e m o t i o n a l l i f e o f t h e s e two p e o p l e , do y o u f e e l t h a t , i n t h e l a s t s c e n e , t h e w i f e was t r y i n g t o move c l o s e r , p u l l a w a y , o r m a i n t a i n a b o u t t h e same l e v e l o f c l o s e n e s s w i t h h e r h u s b a n d ( t r y t o d i s r e g a r d w h e t h e r o r n o t s h e w a s s u c c e s s f u l ) ? P l e a s e i n d i c a t e o n t h e s c a l e b e l o w b y c i r c l i n g a n u m b e r . W i f e t r y i n g t o g e t v e r y much c l o s e r W i f e t r y i n g t o g e t much c l o s e r W i f e t r y i n g t o g e t a b i t c l o s e r n o t . t r y i n g t o move c l o s e r o r f a r t h e r away W i f e t r y i n g t o p u l l a b i t f a r t h e r away W i f e t r y i n g t o p u l l mu ch f a r t h e r away W i f e t r y i n g t o p u l l v e r y much f a r t h e r away APPENDIX R LIST OF QUESTIONS ASKED IN POST-EXPERIMENTAL INTERVIEW 202 1) What were your general impressions of the tapes? 2) What d i d you think of the man? 3) What d i d you think of the woman? 4 ) When-you thin k about the three scenes you have j u s t viewed, were there any scenes which brought up is s u e s that you c o u l d i d e n t i f y as problem i s s u e s i n your own r e l a t i o n s h i p ? ! f so, which ones? 5) Sometimes p a r t i c i p a n t s in s t u d i e s have s p e c i f i c ideas or guesses about what the re s e a r c h was l o o k i n g at or about the re s e a r c h e r ' s hypotheses. Do you have any ideas about what I may have been l o o k i n g at with these tapes or about what my hypotheses might have been? 6) Did Barbara or Jim seem l i k e r e a l people to you? 7) Did you ever think that they might be a c t o r s ? 8) Do .you have any questions? APPENDIX S LIST OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE PA MEN'S VIOLENCE 204 1) Was there a previous incidence of h i t t i n g your partner before the incident which resulted in you r e f e r r a l to the therapy group? 2) When did the f i r s t h i t t i n g incident occur? 3) Were you married at the time? 4) Have you been physically violent in any previous relationships with women? If so, describe. 5) Who do you feel is generally to blame when you are physically violent with your partner? What percentage of the blame would you give to youself; what percentage would you give to your partner? Explain. 6) Have you been in a physical fight with anyone or h i t anyone outside your home within the last year? If yes, how many times? Describe. 7) Have you ever been in a fight or h i t someone outside your home? When did this happen? Describe. 8) Have you ever been charged with-assault or any similar charge?. If yes, please describe. APPENDIX T DETAILED EXAMINATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES 206 When the nine variables whose means and standard deviations appear in Table 4 were examined i n d i v i d u a l l y using univariate ANOVAs none of the resulting F ratios exceeded the required magnitude for significance at alpha=.05. One of the nine variables - spouse-specific assertiveness - approached, but did not quite reach significance (F(2,51)= 3.145; p= .052). In terms of the nPower measure, i t could be reasoned that some of the stimulus pictures might have aroused more power imagery in the assaultive group than others (e.g. those pictures involving male-female interaction) and that by using a combined nPower score these potential differences may have been obscured. The means and standard deviations of raw nPower scores for the five individual stimulus pictures are shown in Table 28 of this Appendix. Picture two and five showed a man and woman together, while picture three involved two female s c i e n t i s t s in a laboratory. Although the means for picture five indicate s l i g h t l y more power imagery in the assaultive group, univariate ANOVAs performed . on the five s t o r i e s were a l l nonsignificant ( c r i t e r i o n alpha level= .05), Therefore, i t appears that, more detailed analysis . of the men's responses to s p e c i f i c stimulus material does not enable successful d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the •groups. The parent-parent and parent-child violence scores were composite scores derived by summing over a number of equally-weighted behaviors that actually d i f f e r in severity and potential impact on a c h i l d (e.g. pushing versus beating up) and also by summing over mother and father scores. In addition, the item "spanked" was added, perhaps having the e f f e c t of masking real differences among the groups in terms of abusive violence. Straus(1981)--in response to c r i t i c i s m of the CTS--suggested a severity weighting system for the physical aggression items. While no r e l i a b i l i t y or v a l i d i t y data has been reported as yet using this system, i t was applied to the parent-parent and parent-child violence scores-to examine'" i t s ef fe'cts'-on: the?-daiban In addition, scores were recalculated by removing the "spanked" item from the analyses. Table 29 in this Appendix l i s t s the means and standard deviations for these measures. It is clear from observation of these data that using the weighted system accentuates mean differences between the groups. However, variances are also considerably i n f l a t e d and, in fact, univariate ANOVAs performed on these data were uniformly n o n s i g n i f i c a n t ( c r i t e r i o n alpha level= .05) for mother and father data separately and for combined parental violence. Therefore, i t appears that childhood violence as reported by the men i s highly variable within groups, but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t across the three groups. By comparing the means for t o t a l parent-respondent violence (see Table 4) and the same means with the "spanked" item removed (Table 29, last l i n e ) , i t was found that the d i f f e r e n t groups reported almost exactly the same degree of spanking on average, implying that any differences that do exist among the groups are accounted for by "non-spanking" physical aggression. 207 F i n a l l y , in reference to the Test of Emotional Styles Expressiveness score, since this measure is a composite of several emotions (including anger), i t could be argued that assaulters might express anger much more frequently, but not other emotions (cf. Ganley and Harris, 1978) and i n f l a t e their score by reporting high anger scores. In order to investigate this assumption, the four items that s p e c i f i c a l l y tapped anger expression were removed y i e l d i n g the following means and standard deviations (PA= 8.00(6.28); VSA= 9.00(5.75); NA= 8.33(5.40)). This procedure resulted in a s l i g h t l y greater drop in o v e r a l l scores for the assaultive group compared to the other two groups. However, the change in scores was not s u f f i c i e n t to generate a s i g n i f i c a n t group difference and the men end up looking very similar in terms of self-reported emotional expressiveness. The o v e r a l l conclusion from th i s more detailed examination is that i t supports the notion that these groups of men are remarkably similar with respect to these measures. 208 Table 28 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of Raw nPower Scores f o r the F i v e I n d i v i d u a l Stimulus P i c t u r e s PA VSA NA P i c t u r e one (Ship's Captain & Passenger) 1 .94(1 .60) 1 .77(1 .91 ) 2 .44( 1 .70) P i c t u r e two (Couple Out to Dinner 1 .27(1 .60) 1 .22(2 .20) 1 .72(1 .74) P i c t u r e Three (Two Women S c i e n t i s t s ) 0 .78(1 .62) 0 .72(1 .45) 1 .06(1 .60) P i c t u r e Four (Boxers and Shadow) -1 .44(1 .91 ) 1 .11(1 .70) 1 .06( 1 .89) P i c t u r e F i v e (Couple Standing) 2 .72(1 .88) 2 .11(1 .79) 1 .83(1 .85) 209 Table 29 Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Childhood Violence Measures With and Without "Spanking" Item Weighted for Severity PA VSA NA Father-mother Violence 8.44(20.32) 6.56(23.18) 3.22( 9.01) Mother-father Violence 4 .39( 9 .95) 5 .28(11 . 33) 0 .61( 1. 46) Total parent-parent violence 1 2 .83(29 . 51 ) 1 1 .83(31. 24) 3 .83( 8. 98) Father-respondent violence 11 .33(17 .67) 1 1 .39(15. 2'2) 7 .28(13. 19) Mother-respondent violence 8 .67(17 .17) 6 .44( 5. 43) 3 . 50( 3. 37) Total parent-respondent vio. 20 .00(24 .26) 1 7 .83(16. 59) 10 .78(13. 88) Weiqhted for Severity/ Spanking Item Removed Father-respondent violence 9 .22(16 .36) 8 .9 4(15. 34) 5 .44(12. 72) Mother-respondent violence 6 .78(15 .95) 4 .44( 5. 17) 1 .83( 2. 53) Total parent-respondent vio. 1 6 .00(22 . 65) 1 3 .39(17. 09) 7 .28(13. 08) Unweighted for Severity/ Spanking Item Removed Father-respondent violence 4 .89( 8 .35) 4 .44( 6. 07) 3 .11( 6. 00) Mother-respondent violence 3 .67( 7 .59) 2 •94( 3. 23) 1 .33( 1. 94) Total parent-respondent vio. 8 .56(11 .50) 7 .39( 7. 01 ) . 4 .44( 5. 96) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096395/manifest

Comment

Related Items