Homework answers / question archive / Which of the following is a government system for monitoring family violence? a

Which of the following is a government system for monitoring family violence? a

Writing

Share With

---

Which of the following is a government system for monitoring family violence?

a. Youth Risk Behavior System (YBRS)

b. Infant Homicide Analysis (IHA)

c. Adult Male Battering Survey (AMBS)

d. Women’s Alcohol Consumption Questionnaire.

ANSWER:

2. Which of the beliefs about families contributes to violence between family members?

a. Men are the primary breadwinners in most families.

b. Children’s rights are equivalent to parents’ rights.

c. Families have rights to privacy and autonomy.

d. Elders in the families have more rights than fathers.

ANSWER:

3. According to social constructionism, those who win a debate about a social issue?

a. Completely control the level of media attention a problem receives.

b. Get to define the nature of the problem.

c. Are able to prove the inherent correctness of their viewpoints.

d. No longer have to worry about opposing viewpoints.

ANSWER: B

4. Options for responding to child abuse do NOT include:

a. Placement in foster care.

b. Child-elder sponsored day care.

c. Providing treatment for victims.

d. Adoption into a suitable home.

ANSWER:

5. Which is FALSE about sociological approaches to family violence?

a. They developed after medical approaches.

b. Their approaches often rely on survey research.

c. They frequently postulate structural causation.

d. Feminist researchers often come from sociology.

ANSWER ______________

6. The aspect of social learning theory that most accurately explains family violence is?

a. Insight.

b. Biofeedback.

c. Active participation.

d. Observation of others.

ANSWER:

7. Which statement is TRUE about victimization surveys?

a. They capture information about crimes that do not come to the attention of the police.

b. They show that victims prefer reporting to the police rather than to confidential surveys.

c. The anonymity of the respondents completely eliminates falsification of reports

d. They are good at tracking the chronic nature of family violence crimes.

ANSWER: A

8. The “Duty to warn” is a guideline devised to?

a. Help policemen during an arrest.

b. Protect certain endangered people.

c. Protect undocumented workers from harassment.

d. Protect neighborhoods from convicted sex offenders.

ANSWER:

9. The most frequently reported type of child maltreatment is:

a. Physical abuse.

b. Father abductions.

c. Child neglect.

d. Sexual abuse.

ANSWER ______________

10. Which statement is TRUE?

a. No single definition of child neglect is universally accepted.

b. Using a broad definition of abuse helps guarantee that no perpetrator slips through the net.

c. Only a few researchers exclude situations such as poverty from definitions of neglect.

d. The most fruitful way to define neglect is through questionnaire data.

ANSWER _____________

11. Self-surveys show that the most frequently reported form of child neglect is:

a. Failing to change diapers as needed.

b. Letting a baby who is ill “cry it out.”

c. Alcohol-caused neglect.

d. Leaving a child alone.

ANSWER ________________

12. Which statement is TRUE?

a. Psychological abuse is pervasive and has serious cumulative effects.

b. Physical and sexual abuse rarely occurs in conjunction with psychological abuse.

c. Members of society have little tolerance for psychologically abusive parents.

d. Adults in the ACE study specified emotional abuse as the most frequently suffered.

ANSWER ______________

13. Which of the following is TRUE regarding the spanking, paddling, and slapping of children?

a. Most people find these behaviors acceptable.

b. Only the older generation accepts them as “normal.”

c. The younger generation categorizes them as “abusive.”

d. Shoving is the most frequent parent-to-child act.

ANSWER _________________

14. Which correlation has NOT been reported? A correlation between physical punishment and:

a. Assault of a sibling.

b. Sexual orientation.

c. Disobedience in school.

d. Self-reported delinquency.

ANSWER ______________

15. Which statement is TRUE about physically abused children?

a. The most common correlate of abuse was obesity.

b. Blood pressure level are unusually low.

c. Between 25% and 30% experienced chronic pain.

d. About 1% had allergies or bronchitis.

ANSWER _____________

16. Which statement is TRUE?

a. Attachment to one’s parents seems unrelated to bullying.

b. Masculine traits predict bullying, even among girls.

c. Bullying over time releases the bully’s pent-up anger.

d. Bullying by girls is equally detrimental to bullying by boys.

ANSWER _____________

17. One of the most important factors in defining CSA is:

a. The cultural context of the abuse.

b. Whether the act was enjoyable.

c. Whether the victim was seductive.

d. The victim-perpetrator gender difference.

ANSWER ______________

18. Which statement of CSA victims and their age is TRUE?

a. There are no reports of infant CSA.

b. The average age of victims is either 8-11 or 12-15.

c. The prepubescent age is the least vulnerable age.

d. Underreporting probably occurs more as the victim ages.

ANSWER _______________

19. Which statement is TRUE about relationships between CSA victims and perpetrators?

a. About 15% of the perpetrators are known to the child.

b. About 50% of the perpetrators are strangers.

c. Most perpetrators are persons familiar to the child.

d. The types of sexual abuse do not significantly differ by gender of perpetrator.

ANSWER _______________

20. Which are the two most commonly identified symptoms in sexually abused children?

a. Sexualized behavior and depression

b. Sexualized behavior and PTSD symptomatology

c. Sexualized behavior and high levels of empathy.

d. Sexualized behavior and eating disorders

ANSWER ______________

21. According to the NIS-4 estimates of adolescent abuse:

a. Girls are more abused than boys.

b. Boys are more abused than girls.

c. Boys and girls are abused equivalently.

d. Abuse increases between 12 and 17.

ANSWER _______________

22. Which of the following is thought to be an internalizing effect of adolescent maltreatment?

a. High levels of daily stress.

b. Risky sexual behavior.

c. Low academic achievement.

d. Violence toward siblings.

ANSWER ________________

23. Which statement is TRUE about teen pregnancies?

a. The financial costs for society are slowly decreasing.

b. The Circle of Care program in Georgia produced disappointing results.

c. Welfare support is more effective than case management.

d. They contribute to a transgenerational cycle of early pregnancies.

ANSWER ______________

24. Very prevalent reactions to sibling incest are:

a. Apathy and resignation.

b. Thought disorders.

c. Depression and anxiety.

d. Excessive sleeping.

ANSWER ____________

25. The most commonly used definitions of DV:

a. Are derived from clinical practice.

b. Depend upon social learning theory.

c. Are anchored in the CTS2.

d. Stem from feminist theorizing.

ANSWER _________________

26. In regard to learning and violence:

a. Direct childhood abuse but not witnessing abuse leads to DV.

b. Children learn to be compliant if harshly punished.

c. Men come to believe that their aggression will be rewarded.

d. The association between conduct disorders and DV is low.

ANSWER ______________

27. Advanced thinking about rapes committed when a woman is given date rape drugs is to:

a. Classify them as drug-incapacitated rapes.

b. Classify them as medically-induced rapes.

c. Stiffen the sentences of men convicted

d. Classify the drug seller as an accessory to rape.

ANSWER _______________

28. Aggressive and sexually coercive behavior among college students is correlated with:

a. Their low academic achievement and conservative values.

b. Their acceptance of racist values and homonegativity.

c. Their low level of religiosity and gender role differentiation.

d. Their acceptance of sexism and rape-supportive myths.

ANSWER _________________

29. A chief reason that society may hold battered women responsible for staying with an abusive man is that a battered woman:

a. Can obtain societal help to stop the beatings.

b. Is an “adult” who can “give consent” or leave.

c. Appears to enjoy masochistic relationships.

d. “Made her bed” and now she “has to lie in it.”

ANSWER ______________

30. In terms of intellectual impairment, Launius and Jensen (1987) found that battered women were:

a. Deficient in language skills.

b. Poor at general problem solving.

c. Limited in their breadth of knowledge.

d. Motivationally impaired.

ANSWER ______________

31. Of the following, which symptom is probably the most common among IPV victims:

a. Anxiety phobias

b. Depression

c. Mania

d. Suicide

ANSWER _______________

32. The National Domestic Violence Hotline showed that:

a. Male callers primarily called to inquire about laws covering IPV.

b. The second most pressing problem facing IPV victims is the combination of a large gap in legal resources and inadequate responses on the part of the criminal justice system.

c. Most of the callers reported being diagnosed with PTSD.

d. Minority callers felt the Hotline cared little about their plight.

ANSWER _________________

33. The second stage in Lenore Walker’s “Cycle of Violence” theory is called the:

a. Tension-building phase.

b. Honeymoon (loving respite) phase.

c. Acute (battering) phase.

d. Steady-state phase.

ANSWER ______________

34. In the debate over whether women commit as much IPV as men, the best solution may be to:

a. Focus 100% on male violence because it is so injurious.

b. Focus on both male and female violence to an equal degree.

c. Recognize that IPV is not gender symmetrical.

d. Ask the public to vote on which gender to help most.

ANSWER _______________

35. Some researchers have suggested that shame in adult batterers is linked with:

a. Strong affectivity and self-control.

b. Dissociative rage and emotional independence.

c. A head injury or neurological disorder.

d. Anxious attachment during childhood.

ANSWER ________________

36. Which verbal/communication problem was NOT mentioned in the text as typical of batterers?

a. Assertion deficits

b. Poor problem solving abilities

c. Inadequate vocabulary

d. Misperception of communication

ANSWER _______________

37. The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (2005):

a. Must be expanded to include Muslims.

b. Expanded to cover marginalized groups.

c. Should expand to include elder men.

d. Calls for voluntary attitude changes.

ANSWER _______________

38. The percentage of women physically assaulted by their husband in a 1999 study of 48 nations, ranged from 10% to:

a. 39%

b. 49%

c. 59%

d. 69%

ANSWER _______________

39. In the Middle East:

a. Fathers and mothers generally share custody of children after a divorce.

b. Parents protect daughters by not letting them marry until their twenties.

c. Restrictions on premarital sex are loosening every few years.

d. Poverty-stricken parents may sell very young girls as brides.

ANSWER _______________

40. In regard to race and ethnicity:

a. Race as a psychological variable is a fairly accurate predictor of behavior.

b. Race as a genetic variable is a fairly accurate predictor of behavior.

c. The blend of psychological and genetic race factors predicts the best.

d. Ethnicity is a better predictor of behavior than other race variables.

ANSWER ____________

41. Which of the following is likely to decrease the distress of battered women?

a. Advising a woman to stay with her abuser.

b. Giving mixed messages.

c. Providing a low level of social support.

d. Listening to the woman’s problems.

ANSWER _____________

42. A frequently overlooked element for improving community services is to:

a. Ask battered women to help guide policy.

b. Hire consultants from several disciplines.

c. Focus on changing the medical school curriculum.

d. Inaugurate a special tax to build more safe housing.

ANSWER ____________

43. Which of the following is a legal right that battered women have already achieved?

a. Better policies addressing stalking and threats.

b. Confidentiality about their whereabouts.

c. Rights to leave their jobs for safety.

d. Obtaining a new social security number.

ANSWER _______________

44. What has research shown about practices among immigrants and ethnic/racial groups’ victims of violence?

a. Cultural competence of service providers has finally been achieved.

b. Batterer groups rarely “fake good” on tests of personality.

c. Even culturally competent treatment for Latinas does not reduce depression.

d. Immigrants batterers are more likely to complete treatment programs than non-immigrants.

ANSWER _____________

45. Compared with abuse of children, abuse of elders is more difficult to detect because:

a. Society is more concerned with spouse abuse.

b. Elders’ misperceptions obscure the truth.

c. It is more hidden than abuse of children.

d. The injuries to elders are more superficial.

ANSWER _______________

46. Which is one very likely reason that an elder victim may be reluctant to report being abused?

a. He/she “learned to keep his/her mouth shut.”

b. He/she feared that his/her grandchildren will go to jail.

c. He/she does not recognize that a behavior is abusive.

d. He/she has phobic fears of ever leaving his/her house.

ANSWER ______________

47. In Two National Elder Mistreatment Studies, the percentage of elders who self-reported emotional abuse by family members was:

a. More than 60%.

b. About 30%.

c. About 10%.

d. About 1%.

ANSWER ________________

48. Which statement is TRUE of elder abuse perpetrators and their relationship to the victim?

a. The Boston survey showed that friends/neighbors constituted the largest group of abusers.

b. The Boston survey found that adult children were more frequent abusers than spouses.

c. The Los Angeles County study showed that spouses were twice as likely as adult offspring to abuse an elder.

d. Most surveys have found that most elder abusers were family members

ANSWER _________________

49. In the Rhode Island survey of abused elder women, it was found that ____ had been revictimized.

a. 20%

b. 30%

c. 40%

d. 50%

ANSWER ___________________

50. Elders can best protect themselves from some types of abuse by:

a. Financially reimbursing relatives for the elder’s care.

b. Discussing their wishes with friends and neighbors.

c. Completing documents such as a durable power of attorney.

d. Seeking information on aging from religious organizations.

ANSWER ______________

 

third edition Family Violence across the lifespan third edition Family Violence across the lifespan AN INTRODUCTION Ola W.Barnet Cindy L.Miller-Perrin Robin D.Perrin Pepperdine University Copyright © 2011 by SAGE Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, California 91320 E-mail: order@sagepub.com SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 India SAGE Publications Ltd. 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. 33 Pekin Street #02-01 Far East Square Singapore 048763 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Barnett, Ola W. Family violence across the lifespan : an introduction / Ola Barnett, Cindy L. MillerPerrin, Robin D. Perrin.—3rd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4129-8178-1 (pbk.) 1. Family violence. I. Miller-Perrin, Cindy L. (Cindy Lou), 1962- II. Perrin, Robin D. III. Title. HV6626.B315 2011 362.82’92—dc22 2010032332 This book is printed on acid-free paper. 10 11 12 13 14 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Acquisitions Editor: Kassie Graves Associate Editor: Editorial Assistant: Production Editor: Copy Editor: Permissions Editor: Typesetter: Proofreaders: Indexer: Cover Designer: Leah Mori Courtney Munz Astrid Virding Terri Paulsen Adele Hutchinson C&M Digitals (P) Ltd. Scott Oney, Dennis Webb Molly Hall Bryan Fishman Brief Contents Case Histories Preface Acknowledgments About the Authors 1. History and Definitions of Family Violence 2. Research Methodology, Assessment, and Theories of Family Violence 3. Child Neglect and Psychological Maltreatment 4. Child Physical Abuse 5. Child Sexual Abuse 6. Abused and Abusive Adolescents 7. Dating Aggression, Sexual Assault, and Stalking: Primarily Unmarried, CollegeAge Individuals 8. Abused Heterosexual Partners: Primarily Women 9. Abusive Heterosexual Partners: Primarily Men 10. Abused and Abusive Partners in Understudied Populations: Cross-Cultural, Immigrant/Ethnic/Racial, Rural, Same-Sex, and Military Groups 11. Adult Intimate Partner Violence: Practice, Policy, and Prevention 12. Abuse of Elderly and Disabled Persons Abbreviations Glossary References Author Index Subject Index Detailed Contents Case Histories Preface Acknowledgments About the Authors 1. History and Definitions of Family Violence Violence in Families Intrafamilial Nonfatal Abuse Intrafamilial Fatal Abuse Why Are Families Violent? Discovering Family Violence: How Social Conditions Become Social Problems Discovering Child Maltreatment: The Historical Context Discovering Intimate Partner Violence: The Historical Context The Co-occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Marital Violence International and Understudied Groups in the Discovery of Family Violence Defining Family Violence: Understanding the Social Construction of Deviance Definitions Corporal Punishment Defining Rape Defining Family Defining Violence Defining Family Violence Legally Defining Family Violence Monetary and Other Costs of Family Violence Practice, Policy, and Prevention Issues Intervention Strategies Common Myths About Family Violence Goals of This Book Chapter Summary Discussion Questions 2. Research Methodology, Assessment, and Theories of Family Violence Studying Family Violence: A Multidisciplinary Effort Sociological Research Social Work Research Crimitoclogical Research Psychological and Psychiatric Research Public Health and Medical Research Neuroscience and Genetics Research Legal Research Cross-Cultural/Global Inquiry Biobehavioral Research: An Emerging Field Interdisciplinary Science Expansion of Federal Government Research Section Summary Theoretical Explanations for Family Violence Macrotheory: Explaining Patterns of Family Violence Microtheory: Explaining the Behaviors of Individual Violent Family Members Correlates and Single-Factor Variables Related to Family Violence Multidimensional Theories Section Summary Methodology: How Researchers Try to Answer Questions About Family Violence Sources of Data Assessment and Research Design Issues Family Violence Scales and Measurement Issues Statistical and Evaluation Matters Practice, Policy, and Prevention Issues Research Issues Practice Issues Advocacy Issues Policy Implications Section Summary Discussion Questions 3. Child Neglect and Psychological Maltreatment Scope of the Problem What Is Child Neglect? Definitions of Child Neglect Typologies of Neglect Cross-Cultural Abuse Section Summary Prevalence/Incidence of Child Neglect Official Estimates Self-Report Surveys Section Summary Effects of Child Neglect Early Neglect Unique Effects Expanded Research on the Effects of Neglect Attachment Difficulties Minnesota Longitudinal Study Cognitive and Academic Deficits Emotional and Behavioral Problems Physical Consequences Section Summary Characteristics of Neglected Children and Their Families Characteristics of Neglected Children. Disabled Children in Eastern Europe Characteristics of Neglectful Parents Parent-Child Interactions Section Summary Child Psychological Maltreatment Lack of Focus on Child Maltreatment Scope of the Problem Section Summary Children Exposed to Interparental Violence Co-occurrence of Child Abuse and Domestic Violence Defining Exposure to Interparental Violence Prevalence of Exposure to Marital Violence Effects of Children’s Exposure to Interparental Violence Section Summary Characteristics of Maltreated Children and Their Families Characteristics of Maltreated Children Resilient Children Characteristics of Maltreating Parents Section Summary Explaining Child Neglect and Child Psychological Maltreatment Parenting Problems in Neglectful and Psychologically Maltreating Families Section Summary Methodological Issues Pertaining to Effects Research Practice, Policy, and Prevention Issues Practice (Treatment) for Child Neglect and Psychological Maltreatment Section Summary Policy Issues Section Summary Discussion Question 4. Child Physical Abuse Scope of the Problem What Is Child Physical Abuse? Definitions of Child Physical Abuse Physical Punishment and Child Rearing Physical Discipline—The Debate Section Summary Prevalence/Incidence of Child Physical Abuse Official Estimates Injuries Child Death Review Teams Neonaticidal Mothers Self-Report Surveys Trends in Rates of Physical Abuse Section Summary Effects of Child Physical Abuse on Children Long-Term Effects Associated With Child Physical Abuse (CPA) Physical and Mental Health Criminal and Violent Behavior Substance Abuse Socioemotional Difficulties Mediators/Moderators of Abuse Effects Expanded Discussion of Individual Effects of Child Physical Abuse Medical and Neurobiological Problems Cognitive Problems Behavioral Problems Difficulties Related to Psychopathology Research Issues Section Summary Characteristics of Children Who Are Physically Abused Age Gender Related Variables Race Characteristics of Adults Who Physically Abuse Children Age Gender and Parental Type Race Relationship of Perpetrator to the Abused Child Nontraditional Parenting Psychological, Interpersonal, and Biological Characteristics of Adults Who Physically Abuse Children Expanded Discussion of Psychological, Interpersonal, and Biological Characteristics of Adults Who Physically Abuse Children Biological Factors Emotional and Behavioral Characteristics of Perpetrators Family and Interpersonal Difficulties of Perpetrators Section Summary Explaining Child Physical Abuse The Individual Psychopathology Model—Mentally Ill Parent The Difficult Child Model Parent-Child Interaction Model Social Learning Theory Situational and Societal Conditions Stress Cultural Acceptance of Corporal Punishment Risk Factors for Child Physical Abuse Polyvictimization/Overlapping Risk Factors Protective Factors That Reduce Likelihood of Abuse Contemporary Theories of Child Physical Abuse Section Summary Practice, Policy, and Prevention Issues Practice (Treatment) for CPA Policy Toward Physical Child Abuse Research Issues Prevention of Child Physical Abuse Grandparenting Section Summary Discussion Questions 5. Child Sexual Abuse Scope of the Problem What Is Child Sexual Abuse? Defining Sexual Abuse Normal Touching Prevalence of Child Sex Abuse Disclosure Variability Memory Issues, CSA, and Disclosure Estimates of Child Sexual Abuse Official Estimates Self-Report Surveys Trends in Reported Child Sexual Abuse Section Summary Searching for Patterns: Characteristics of Victims and Perpetrators Characteristics of Sexually Abused Child Victims Characteristics of Child Sexual Abuse Perpetrators Section Summary Dynamics and Consequences Associated With Child Sexual Abuse Dynamics of Child Sexual Abuse Child Portocgraphy Prostitution Effects of Child Sexual Abuse Initial Effects Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse Explaining the Variability in Effects of CSA Reactions to Disclosure Section Summary Explaining Child Sexual Abuse Focus on the Victim Focus on the Offender Focus on the Family Focus on Society and Culture Integrative Theories Section Summary Practice, Policy, and Prevention Issues Practice (Treatment) Issues Policy for Child Sexual Abuse Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse Section Summary Discussion Questions 6. Abused and Abusive Adolescents Parental Abuse of Adolescents Defining Adolescent Maltreatment Types of Maltreatment Timing of Maltreatment Prevalence of Parent-to-Adolescent Physical/Psychological Abuse Consequences of Adolescent Maltreatment Risk Factors for Parent-to-Adolescent Maltreatment Explaining Parent-to-Adolescent Maltreatment Sexual Abuse of Adolescents Definition of Caregiver-to-Adolescent Sexual Abuse Context and Relationship to Offender of Sexually Victimized Adolescents Prevalence of Sexual Abuse of Adolescents Practice, Policy, and Prevention of Adolescent Maltreatment Abuse of Parents by Adolescents and Parricide Nonfatal Abuse of Parents Adolescent-to-Parent Violence Versus Parricide Prevalence of Family Murders Matricide Analysis Explaining Adolescent-to-Caregiver (Parent) Abuse Sibling Abuse Definitions of Sibling Abuse Attitudes Toward Sibling Abuse Prevalence of Sibling Abuse Sibling Sexual Abuse Definitions of Sibling Sexual Abuse Prevalence of Sibling Sexual Abuse Consequences of Negative Psychological, Physical, and Sexual Sibling Interactions Characteristics of Sibling Abusers Explaining Sibling Psychological, Physical, and Sexual Abuse Practice, Policy, and Prevention for Abusive/Abused Siblings Practice With Sibling Abusers Policy for Sibling Abuse Section Summary Effects of Family Abuse on Adolescent Interpersonal Relationships Juvenile Delinquency Bullying Adolescent Dating Violence Definition of Dating Violence (DV) Prevalence of Dating Violence Risk Factors for Dating Violence Consequences of Dating Violence Adolescents’ Responses to Dating Violence Helpseeking Among Teen Dating Violence Victims Characteristics of Adolescents Who Are Violent in Intimate Relationships Explaining Dating Violence Legal Issues for Victims of Psychological/Physical Dating Violence Dating/Intimate Sexual Assault Prevalence Consequences of Dating Sexual Abuse Explaining Sexual Abuse From Peers Legal Issues Concerning Dating Sexual Abuse Same-Sex Assaults Among Adolescents Same-Sex Adolescent Development Prejudice/Victimization of GLBT Youth Medical Screening Practice, Policy, and Prevention for Dating Violence Practice Policy Prevention of Dating Violence and Sibling Abuse Section Summary Revictimization Discussion Questions 7. Dating Aggression, Sexual Assault, and Stalking: Primarily Unmarried, CollegeAge Individuals Factors in Prevalence Estimates of Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Dating Violence Defining Dating Violence Mutual/Reciprocal Dating Violence Prevalence Estimates of Dating Violence Consequences of Dating Violence Explaining Dating Violence Traits of Individuals Involved in Dating Violence Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Treatment of Dating Violence Policy–Dating Violence Prevention Section Summary Sexual Assault, Sexual Coercion, and Rape Defining Sexual Assault Prevalence Estimates of Sexual Assault Women’s Responses to Sexual Victimization Criminal Justice System Responses Attitudes Toward Sexual Assault Traits of Individuals Involved in Unwanted Sexual Behaviors Consequences of Sexual Assault Medical Responses to Sexual Assault Explaining Sexual Assault Treatment of Sexual Assault Policy—Sexual Aggression Prevention of Sexual Assault Section Summary Stalking Defining Stalking Prevalence Estimates of Stalking Miscellaneous Findings Consequences of Stalking Traits of Individuals Involved in Stalking Victims’ Responses to Stalking Explaining Stalking Practice, Policy, and Prevention of Stalking Section Summary Same-Sex Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Cross-Cultural Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Ethnic Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking NCVS Racial/Mitocrity Prevalence Rates of Nonlethal Assaults Asian/Latinas—Dating Violence Ethnic Comparisons—Dating Violence/Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Stalking Counseling Services Alcohol/Drug Consumption Associated With Dating Violence and Sexual Assault Resistance Strategies Alcohol-Related Treatment Discussion Questions Note 8. Abused Heterosexual Partners: Primarily Women Blaming Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Blaming by Partner Blaming by Society Blaming by Professionals Blaming Oneself Attitudes of Faith Community Leaders Section Summary Consequences of Violence and Victimization Fear Stress, Trauma, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Cumulative Stress Health Problems Coping With Violence The Hostage Syndrome, Traumatic Bonding, and Attachment Learned Helplessness Versus Survivor Theory Perceived Control Psychological/Brain Disorder Effects of Male-to-Female Intimate Partner Violence Section Summary Employment Male-to-Female IPV and Barriers to Employment Welfare Assistance Dilemmas Section Summary Criminal Justice System Responses to Intimate Partner Violence Legal Issues Arrest Policies Law Enforcement/Victim Interactions Criminal Justice System Processing Prosecution of MFIPV Perpetrators Judicial Behavior and Decision Making Section Summary Effects of MFIPV on Battered Women’s Lives and Their Leave/Stay Decisions Leave/Stay Decision-Making Process Do Battered Women Stay? Dangers of Leaving an Abusive Partner Ecotocmic Dependence and Its Diffuse Impact Society’s Inadequate Support for Battered Women Responses by Faith Communities Welfare Failures and Leave/Stay Decisions Shelters and Transitional Supportive Housing and Leaving Emotional Factors in Leave/Stay Decisions Section Summary Male Victims of Intimate Partner Violence (FMIPV): How Much of a Problem? Cluster Analysis of Male and Female IPV-Involved Individuals Discussion Questions Notes 9. Abusive Heterosexual Partners: Primarily Men Male-to-Female Intimate Partner Violence (MFIPV) Sociodemographic Characteristics of Batterers Definitions of Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Comprehensive Government-Crafted Definitions Defining MFIPV Through Factor Analysis Patterns of IPV Estimates of Intimate Partner Violence Homicides/Suicides/Familicides Sexual Assault Psychological/Emotional Abuse of Intimate Partners Nonlethal Assault Estimates Section Summary Attitudes and Classifications of Batterers Society’s Attitudes Toward Batterers Batterers’ Attributions for Male-to-Female Intimate Partner Violence Johnson’s Violent Couple Categories Individual Differences (Traits) Between Batterers and Others Denial and Minimization Anger, Hostility, and Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) Depression, Self-Esteem, Shame, Guilt, and Humiliation Lack of Awareness/Automaticity Empathy Attachment Difficulties and Emotional Dependence Jealousy Marital Dissatisfaction/Satisfaction Section Summary Becoming and Remaining a Batterer: Causes of MFIPV Socialization Verbal Skills/Communication Alcohol/Drug Abuse and Battering Stress, Emotions, Mood States, Trauma, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Biology and Genetics Personality Disorders Similarities and Differences Between Partner-Violent-Only Men and Other Violent Men Typologies of Male (MFIPV) Perpetrators Section Summary Female-to-Male Intimate Partner Abuse (FMIPV) Self-Defensive Female Violence (Violent Resistance, VR) Motives for FMIPV Correlates of Female-to-Male IPV Battered Women Who Kill Section Summary Discussion Questions 10. Abused and Abusive Partners in Understudied Populations: Cross-Cultural, Immigrant/Ethnic/Racial, Rural, Same-Sex, and Military Groups Cross-Cultural Intimate Partner Violence Africa Asia Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan Middle East Europe Russia Latin America North America Section Summary Immigrant and Ethnic/Racial Intimate Partner Violence Immigrants Ethnic/Racial Mitocrities Laws Affecting Immigrant Women Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Racial/Ethnic Groups Distinctive Features of Immigrants and Mitocrity Intimate Partner Violence Disclosure Patterns Trait Comparisons Immigrant and Ethnic Batterers Motives for Intimate Partner Violence Differences in Attitudes Toward the Criminal Justice System Consequences of Male-to-Female Intimate Partner Violence Social Support Differences in Leave/Stay Decisions Section Summary Rural Male-to-Female Intimate Partner Violence Law Enforcement Male-to-Female Intimate Partner Violence Sociodemographic Comparisons Help-Seeking and Services Available Section Summary Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence (SSIPV) Estimating the Prevalence/Incidence of Same-Sex IPV Partner Violence Individual Differences (Traits) of Homosexuals Consequences of Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence Section Summary The Military and Intimate Partner Violence Section Summary Discussion Questions 11. Adult Intimate Partner Violence: Practice, Policy, and Prevention Abused Partners: Practice, Policy, and Prevention—Primarily Women National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1–800–799-SAFE Agency Practices Social Support Psychotherapists’ Practices General Counseling Topics for Battered Women Policy Prevention Strategies Research Needs Section Summary Abusive Adult Partners: Practice, Policy, and Prevention Issues Practice General Targets of Batterer Counseling Policy Prevention Section Summary Treatment for Female-to-Male Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators Cross-Cultural Practice, Policy, and Prevention Practice Policy Practice, Policy, and Prevention Among Immigrant/Ethnic/Racial Groups Practice Policy Prevention Practice, Policy, and Prevention Among Rural Battered Women Practice Policy Prevention Practice, Policy, and Prevention for Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence Practice Policy Prevention Practice, Policy, and Prevention in the Military Practice Policy Prevention Discussion Questions 12. Abuse of Elderly and Disabled Persons Introduction Scope of the Problem Defining Elder Abuse Examples of Specific Abuses Attitudes Toward Abuse of Elderly Persons Prevalence of Elder/Adult Abuse Prevalence of Abuse in Rhode Island Prevalence of Elder Abuse in Two National Random Samples of Elders Prevalence of Elder Abuse Reported to State APSs: Abuse of Adults 60+ Years of Age Types of Injuries and Estimates Consequences of Elder Abuse Health Consequences Reactions of Professional Practitioners Section Summary Searching for Patterns: Who Is Abused and Who Are the Abusers? Characteristics of Abused Elders Characteristics of Elder Abusers Explaining Abuse of Elderly Persons Social Learning Theory Social Exchange Theory Stress and Dependency Theories Abuse by the severely mentally ill (SMI) Revictimization studies Section Summary Practice, Policy, and Prevention Issues Practice Issues for Treating Elder Abuse Social Services (APS) Responses to Elder Abuse Policy Issues for Combating Elder Abuse Community Involvement Prevention Social Support/Social Connectedness Section Summary Same-Sex Elder Abuse: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Elders Cross-Cultural Elder Abuse Prevalence of Cross-Cultural Elder Abuse Asian Countries Israel Spain United Kingdom Ethnic Elder Abuse African Americans American Indians Chinese Americans Korean Americans Cultural Competence Abuse of Disabled Persons Defining Disability Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Estimates of Abuse of Disabled Persons Sexual Assault of Disabled Persons Perpetrators of Abuse of Disabled Persons Criminal Justice System Responses Characteristics of Disabled Victims and Their Abusers Disclosure of Abuse and Help-Seeking Activities Practice, Policy, and Prevention Abuse in Nursing Homes (Long-Term Care Facilities) Discussion Questions Abbreviations Glossary References Author Index Subject Index Case Histories Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Ben and Lori—Making Up Is Not Hard to Do Not in My Backyard Juanita’s Broken Heart and Broken Body Will and Mark—Where Are the Parents? Brian and His “Stupid” Son, Mikie Emmanuelle—Young and Alone Kenny Fell Off of His Razor Juliet—A Neonaticidal Mother Andrea Yates: The Devil Spoke to Her Sashim’s Secret “I Love Her but Is She a Nymphomaniac”? Alberto—“I Knew What She Wanted” Dave—“Society Doesn’t Understand Children’s Sexuality” Dantrell and the Dirty Laundry Tough Love or Psychological Maltreatment? Country Singing Star Billy Currington Confronts the Past Revenge Is Sweet Claudia and Roberto’s Last Dance at the High School Prom “I Just Want to Be Me” Ivana and Bruce—Teaching Her a Lesson “I Was Raped; I WAS RAPED!” “Rape”—A Word That Dare Not Be Spoken Mary and Her Date at a Fraternity Bash Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Case History: Lisa—For Better or for Worse Hedda Nussbaum—When the Protector Needs Protection Sophia and Boris—Lockdown She Was Her Husband’s Pet Karen and Richard Graves Ari and Bernadette—When a Little Slap Is a Knockout Punch Kree Kirkman—Getting Even With the Woman You No Longer Love Kevin and Kim—“She Didn’t Clean the Lint Trap” Zaida and Kumar—“I Just Bopped Him One” Mark and Cheryl—Running for Our Lives “Let’s Rape Her ’Til She’s Normal” Awaiting the Birth of a First Baby is a Joyous Occasion Honor Killing in New York “Don’t Send Me Back” The Rain Man Wendy Calls a Hotline I Can’t Let Him Leave Me Terry and Her Disadvantaged Life Jenny and Jeff Jr.—Dwindling Assets, Dwindling Devotion Melvin and Charlie—The Voices Told Him to Do It “They Laughed at My Genitals” Preface Family violence is not a new phenomenon—it has probably existed in families since the beginning of time. Only in modern times, however, has society begun to recognize violence against family members as a social problem. The well-publicized findings of multiple fractures appearing in the X-rays of abused children by Dr. C. Henry Kempe of Colorado propelled the problem of child abuse into public view. The advent of the women’s movement in the 1970s helped spawn the battered women’s shelter movement. The vast number of reports of family violence made to the police and other officials also heightened concern about abuse of children, dating partners, spouses, and elders. Family violence research has expanded across the globe, illuminating the vastness of the problem of violence. Now, the World Health Organization expends considerable effort on reducing violence against women and children. Some of these atrocities have come to light through the media coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With worldwide attention focused on family violence, Human Rights Conventions (documents containing stipulations for government action) have incorporated authoritative language to protect women and children. Progress within the field of family violence has been rapid. Many grassroots organizations, mental health workers, researchers, lawmakers, legal and medical professionals, criminal justice authorities, book writers, and the media have mobilized their efforts to understand the phenomenon of family violence. In the past three decades, the general public has become familiar with family violence through news coverage of highly publicized cases, television programs, and movies. At the same time, researchers have made great strides in recognizing the scope of family violence and the context in which it occurs. Despite these advances, academicians have only examined the “tip of the iceberg” of this crisis. Family Violence Across the Lifespan, 3rd Edition has been written to continue the “discovery” of violence between intimates. There is a great need to go on with the work of bringing the topic into the mainstream of public knowledge. To achieve these goals, the book draws together a voluminous research literature that describes the magnitude, consequences, and causes of family violence. The amount of published research available since the first edition (1997) and the second edition (2005) of the text has tripled, if not quadrupled. The third edition includes a new chapter on abused and abusive adolescents and another on abused and abusive adult partners in understudied populations. The chapter on understudied populations incorporates scholarship on abused persons among marginalized groups. These populations include rural women, disabled individuals, same-sex couples, military adults, immigrant/ethnic groups within the United States, and cultures worldwide. Other topics cover the social and professional responses to family violence, including clinical treatments, educational efforts within schools,social service agency practices, governmental policies, criminal justice system procedures, and policy and prevention efforts. Because of the breadth of the topic and the enormous amount of available literature, the chapters present a broad overview and summary of research findings. Throughout the volume, the focus has been on providing responsible scholarship by presenting data relevant to both sides of a debatable issue. Along the way, graphic case histories have enlivened statistical accounts, and controversial topics frequently appear within boxed inserts. For readers who are interested in obtaining further details on specific topics, there are additional resources in appendixes and on the book’s website (www.sagepub.com/barnett3e). In particular, the glossary appendix aids readers in understanding unfamiliar phrases and statistical nomenclature. Its inclusion facilitates readers’ access to a broader coverage of the field. Another appendix contains abbreviations (acronyms) of the names of organizations and phrases used by researchers. These appendixes will simplify the reader’s task of understanding the research findings. We hope that we have presented the content in such a way that readers can find their own personal roles in the struggle to end family violence. We invite you, our readers, to contact us to express your impressions of the book, to send us your personal case histories, or to provide us with additional references and resources. Furthermore, we hope the book offers information to victims and perpetrators that will change their lives for the better. Finally, we hope this text in some measure decreases the isolation and suffering of victims and ultimately contributes to solutions to end family violence. Ola W. Barnett Cindy L. Miller-Perrin Robin D. Perrin Acknowledgments First, we wish to acknowledge Kassie Graves, senior acquisitions editor of Human Services at Sage Publications, and C. Terry Hendrix, consulting editor, for reviving the prospects of a third edition of the text. Their expertise in recognizing and shaping changes in the third edition expanded the scope of the content to include a more global approach. Without their proficiency and guidance, the book would not have become available to academia and the public in general. We are also grateful to the instructor-reviewers of the second edition for their analyses of the book’s content. Their extensive knowledge of the field and constructive comments provided new insights and directions for the third edition. Another person we wish to thank is Carol V. Harnish, who read and reread chapters from a “common man’s” (woman’s in this case) perspective, adding clarity to the scientific writing style. She also collected current case histories and up-to-date newspaper stories that helped bring the topic of family violence to life. Among her many contributions was the important idea of a glossary of unfamiliar terms as an appendix to the book. The original authors of the research discussed in this volume are among those who deserve recognition for helping to create the field of family violence. It is their knowledge and dedication that has laid the foundation for the text. They have not rested on their laurels but have soldiered onward always trying to prevent one more victimization, one more shattered life. Although sometimes disagreeing with each other’s methodologies or research interpretations, these professionals are totally united in their commitment to ending family violence. They serve as models to the generation of scholars to follow. In general, we wish to thank the survivors of family violence who provided data for family violence researchers, even when doing so was painful. These men, women, and children seldom receive the acknowledgment they deserve. We are grateful to the staff of Sage Publications for executing the many detailed tasks that accompany publication of a book this size. They are a noteworthy team of experts. Finally, we thank our families who supported us during the many long months of writing. The publisher and the authors thank the following who reviewed earlier drafts of this book: Dr. Kathryn A. Branch, University of Tampa J. Michael Cruz, Southern Methodist University Ronald Dolon, Ball State University George W. Holden, Southern Methodist University Jan Ricks, LISW, ACSW, University of Cincinnati Melanie Shepard, University of Minnesota–Duluth About the Authors Ola W. Barnett is a Distinguished Professor Emerita of Psychology at Pepperdine University, Malibu, California. She earned her undergraduate and doctoral degrees in psychology at the University of California Los Angeles, specializing in learning. Her initial research centered on batterers and her later work on battered women and dating violence. She has coauthored two editions of a best-selling Sage book (with A. D. LaViolette) on why battered women stay with abusive partners: It Could Happen to Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay. These books provide a scientific explanation grounded in learning theory for understanding the obstacles battered women face in trying to break free of their violent relationships. Cindy Miller-Perrin is Professor of Psychology and Blanche E. Seaver Professor of Social Science at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. She is also a clinical psychologist and has worked with developmentally delayed, maltreated, and other troubled children and their families. She has coauthored two other books, including Child Sexual Abuse: Sharing the Responsibility (with S. Wurtele, University of Nebraska Press, 1992) and Child Maltreatment: An Introduction (with R. Perrin, 1999, 2007). She is also the author or coauthor of numerous articles and book chapters on topics including child sexual abuse prevention, perceptions associated with child maltreatment, family violence, and psychology and religion. She enjoys teaching and researching with undergraduates and is the recipient of the 2008 Howard A. White Award for Teaching Excellence. She has also received honors for her research, including the 2008 Pro Humanitate for a paper published in Child Maltreatment. She recently served as the President of the Section on Child Maltreatment of APA and is currently serving as Member-At-Large for Division 37 Society for Child and Family Policy and Practice. She received her doctorate from Washington State University in 1991 and completed postdoctoral studies in child clinical psychology at the University of Washington. Robin D. Perrin is currently Professor of Sociology at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. His research interests and publications are in the areas of family violence, deviance theory, the social construction of social problems, and the sociology of religion. He is the coauthor of two other books: Social Deviance: Being, Behaving, and Branding (with D. Ward & T. Carter, 1991) and Child Maltreatment: An Introduction (with C. Miller-Perrin, Sage, 1999). He is also the author or coauthor of numerous articles on a variety of topics, including the satanism scare, the growth of conservative churches, the relationship between religious commitment and honesty, and religion as deviant behavior. He teaches Introduction to Sociology, Introductory Statistics, Deviant Behavior and Social Control, and Sociology of Religion and is the recipient of the 2004 Howard A. White Award for Teaching Excellence. He received his doctorate in sociology from Washington State University in 1989. Following his doctoral studies he was assistant professor of sociology at Seattle Pacific University in Seattle, Washington. CHAPTER 1 History and Definitions of Family Violence May 14, 2009, Daily Press (Victorville, CA): On Mother’s Day, sheriff’s deputies discovered a 94-year-old woman living in a wooden shed with no running water or cooling. The deputies arrested her 59-year-old son Ronald Rego and his wife for elder abuse. They were living on the property in a travel trailer. Adult protective services placed the woman in the house of a neighbor who was willing to take her in (“Calif. Husband, Wife,” 2009). May 21, 2009, Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC): A woman told police that her husband tied her up with duct tape, assaulted her, and tried to kill her with a roach-killing gel. After other abuses, he asked her if she was “ready to meet her maker.” Police arrested her 24-year-old husband for intent to kill, criminal domestic violence, and kidnapping (“SC Husband Jailed,” 2009). June 6, 2009, Santa Fe New Mexican (Santa Fe, NM): A 22-year-old father-to-be, Marino Leyba, intentionally killed his unborn son by shooting his 17-year-old wife in the stomach and upper torso. He also shot the mother’s father after bursting into his father in-law’s apartment. Although the district attorney could prosecute Lebya for two murders, she could not lawfully prosecute him for killing the fetus. There was no law against killing a baby in the womb, she said (“Police: N.M. Suspect,” 2009). May 7, 2007, Houston Chronicle (TX): Two young women thought they could manage the persistent unwanted attention of their ex-boyfriends. They were wrong. Rachel Pendray, a 20-year-old Sam Houston University cheerleader, died when the man she rejected shot her and then killed himself. Tynesha Stewart, a 19-year-old Texas A&M freshman, disappeared during a spring break. Her ex-boyfriend later admitted to choking her to death, dismembering her body, and burning the remains in his apartment barbecue pit. Although both men were controlling, constantly e-mailing, and showing anger, no one recognized the warning signs (“Ignoring Warning,” 2007). Unless otherwise noted, all of the case histories presented in this volume come from our own personal knowledge of the cases described, which we have gathered through our experience as researchers and practitioners in the field of family violence. Also, unless otherwise noted, all of the names used in these case histories are pseudonyms. The newspaper articles cited above represent a sample of the diverse stories about family violence that recently appeared across the United States. Although news media accounts of family violence often represent the most sensational cases, there is no reason to believe that the particular stories above are in any way unique. Because of sensationalism in the media, readers hear little about the commonplace, routine violence that occurs within families. To comprehend the complexity of family violence, this text offers an examination of family violence that is both comprehensive and scientific. Even though this chapter serves as a preview, readers will be able to grasp a deeper understanding of many different issues associated with family violence. A list of some of these issues is as follows: (a) the estimates of the different types of assault, (b) the scientific research involved, (c) the various theories that try to explain family violence, (d) the definitions, (e) the various forms of abuse, (f) the physical and psychological consequences of family violence, (g) current treatments for both victims and perpetrators, and (h) various policy recommendations aimed at ending family violence. The first chapter begins by considering two important questions: “When (and how) did family violence come to be recognized as a social problem?” and “How is family violence defined?” The successive chapters in the text will round out the information presented here. VIOLENCE IN FAMILIES Society tends to think of the family as a relatively safe place, a safe harbor, a place of sustenance and care. It is a place where spouses love each other and their children. Regrettably, this view of families is idealized. Far too often, families are a source of maltreatment and violence. How common is child abuse, sibling abuse, abuse of parents, dating abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse? For a variety of reasons, this question is very difficult to answer. First of all, there is little agreement on exactly what constitutes family violence. Even when definitional consensus is achieved, however, the fact remains that most family violence occurs behind closed doors. It is often hidden, unnoticed, and ignored. As a result, it does not come to the attention of authorities and become part of official estimates. In addition, victims may not recall abuse, may not perceive the behavior as abusive, may not wish to disclose the abuse, or may not even be able to report the behavior. Given these numerous impediments, any statistics on family violence should be interpreted with a degree of caution; most are underestimates. In actuality, there is simply no way to know with certainty how much family violence exists in society. There are a number of data sources that provide a sense of the scope of the problem. Some, for example, monitor the number of criminal assaults, while others record the number of homicides. With the advent of computers, governmental organizations have inaugurated one or more electronic databases to better track family violence. A few of the standard and newer government systems are the following: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DATA PREVENTION (CDC) SYSTEM (NCANDS) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (NIJ) AND NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION CONTROL (NCIPC) YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR SYSTEM (YRBS) NATIONAL ELECTRONIC INJURY SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (NEISS) FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (DHHS) NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY (NCVS) MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REVIEW (MMWR) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) BEHAVIORAL RISK FACTOR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (BRFSS) NATIONAL COMORBIDITY SURVEY (NCS) ADOPTION & FOSTER CARE ANALYSIS & REPORTING SYSTEM (AFCARS) NATIONAL VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM (NVDRS NATIONAL SURVEY OF CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE (NATSCEV) NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM (NIBRS) In addition, there are a number of surveys conducted by university academics and by nongovernmental agencies. A few of these are the following: NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE SURVEYS (NFVS) SEVERITY OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SCALES (SVAWS) NATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SURVEY (NVAWS) NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS (NSFH) Intrafamilial Nonfatal Abuse The statistical summaries on family violence that follow document that women and children are more likely to be victimized in their own homes than they are on the streets of America’s most violent cities (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Hotaling, Straus, & Lincoln, 1990). Family violence has significant ramifications for a number of personal, societal, and health problems that affect people in the United States (e.g., A. S. Jones, 2000). Overall, family interactions comprise the single greatest determinant of an individual’s level of violence outside the home. Children who are abused, or who witness violence, are far more likely to engage in violence themselves, both as children and when they are adults. • Child maltreatment. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS; 2009) specified that for the year 2007, social service agencies across the United States received approximately 3.5 million reports of child maltreatment, a rate of 10.6 per 1,000 children. The 2007 rate of abuse is below the all-time high of 15.3 per 1,000, which was recorded in 1993. Parents were the perpetrators of the abuse in 80% of these cases. • The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000b) found that 52% of adult women and 66% of adult men in the survey sample reported being assaulted as children by adult caretakers. • The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS; Rand, 2009), based on telephone interview data, reported that 255,630 rapes occurred in 2006. Strangers perpetrated 39.1%, and intimates perpetrated 60.9%. Of those raped, 22.9% were 18 to 20 years old and 22.8% were 21 to 29 years old. • The NVAWS (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000b) found that rape by an intimate partner occurred against nearly 10% of women. • The NVAWS (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000a) presented data on intimate partner violence (IPV) showing that 22% of women and 7% of men reported experiencing IPV at some point in their lifetimes. Intrafamilial Fatal Abuse • The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2009b) estimated that in 2007 approximately 1,760 children in the United States died as a result of abuse and neglect. Of these children, 42.2% were under the age of 1 year and 75.7% were under the age of 4. One or both parents caused 70% of the fatalities. • The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP; U.S. Department of??Justice, 2006) reported that of juvenile murder victims with known offenders, 39% were killed by family members, 46% by acquaintances, and 15% by strangers. • Surveillance for Violent Deaths—The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS—within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]; Karch et al., 2009) tabulated 616 deaths of intimate partners with 16 states reporting. Of these, 370 (60.1%) were females and 246 (39.9%) were males. The largest number of victims and offenders were in the 35 to 44 age range. • Surveillance for Violent Deaths—The NVDRS (Karch et al., 2009) found that of homicide-suicide deaths, IPV problems preceded the crimes in 73.0% of the cases (see also Felthous et al., 2001; see Regoeczi, 2001, for Canadian IPV homicides). • The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007) summarized gender differences among homicide victims from 1976 to 2005. For females, intimates killed 30.0%, family members killed 11.7%, known acquaintances killed 21.8%, strangers killed 8.8%, and unknown assailants killed 27.7%. For males, intimates killed 5.3%, family members killed 6.7%, known acquaintances killed 35.6%, strangers killed 15.5%, and unknown assailants killed 37.8%. • The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (CDC, 2007) reported that in 2005, homicide was the fourth-leading cause of death for children ages 1 through 11. Combined homicide-suicide. In combined homicide-suicides, a perpetrator commits suicide after killing others, most often an intimate partner. The perpetrators may also kill their children, in-laws, romantic partners of the victim, and others. A related category of deaths are the collateral deaths of family and friends. In a claimsmaking move, scholars in the state of Washington asserted that family homicide rates ought to include these collateral deaths occurring with an IPV homicide/suicide (Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2000). Because of family violence researchers’ interest in these IPV-related deaths, statisticians are now beginning to tabulate the frequencies of these occurrences. WHY ARE FAMILIES VIOLENT? All families have tensions, and all families may occasionally resolve these tensions in inappropriate ways. Even the best parents and the most loving couples display inappropriate behaviors. They sometimes lose their tempers, say intentionally hurtful things to one another, raise their voices when arguing, and even lash out physically. In many respects, aggression is a normal (i.e., common and culturally approved) part of family life. Since these behaviors are so common and widespread, one has to ask “Why,” and “Why are women and children so often the ones who are victimized?” Structural factors. Many structural factors make families particularly prone to violence. One of these is the amount of time family members spend together, which increases the opportunity for violence. In addition, power differentials often exist among family members, and those who are less powerful run a greater risk for victimization. Children are subordinate to parents, wives often must be subordinate to husbands, and sometimes elderly parents are subordinate to their adult children. Further complicating matters is that children and women usually cannot fight back; nor can they always choose with whom they will or will not interact. Children are dependent on their parents, and wives are very frequently dependent on their husbands. Whereas many interpersonal conflicts can be resolved simply through the dissolution of relationships, most family relationships are protected by law and are not so easily severed. Even when child maltreatment comes to the attention of authorities, states are reluctant to break up families. Instead, authorities give dysfunctional families multiple opportunities to change. Finally, the privacy and autonomy traditionally granted to families make violence relatively easy to hide (Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988). Idealization of the family. Levesque (2001) asserts that the problem begins with an idealized notion of the family. This image of the family includes several beliefs: (a) parental rights supersede children’s rights; (b) parents can and should have control over the development of their children; (c) family members will act in the best interests of children and elderly parents who are incapable of caring for themselves; (d) families rooted in traditional cultures are strong families, even if some of their customs justify family violence; and (e) families have the right to privacy and autonomy, even if this right results in harm to vulnerable members. This perception of the family serves to “justify what otherwise could be construed as violent, abusive, and worthy of intervention” (p. 5). Family norms. There is little doubt that family norms, such as spanking, contribute to a certain amount of family aggression. Summarized by Bender et al. (2007), Phoenix Children’s Hospital reported the following rates of physical punishment by parents: (a) Nearly 66% of 1- and 2-year-olds, (b) 80% by the time children reach 5th grade, and (c) 85% by the time adolescents are in high school. Along the same lines, the National Opinion Research Center (1998) disclosed that 73% of surveyed Americans agreed or strongly agreed that it is “sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good hard spanking.” Social tolerance of violence. In addition, social scientists almost universally maintain that society’s acceptance, encouragement, and glorification of violence contributes to abuse in the family. Such tolerance may have a spillover effect, raising the likelihood of violence in the home (Tolan & Guerra, 1998). Depiction of women in advertising and in video games, for example, often characterizes women as sex objects and as victims (Stankiewicz & Rosselli, 2008). Objectification of males in the media appears to be problematic, as well (Johnson, McCreary, & Mills, 2007). As a case in point, a Japanese-produced video game, Rapelay, features players stalking and raping a mother and her two daughters. At least in this one situation, Amazon, eBay, and other sellers banned the sale of this “game” (“NYC Official: Ban,” 2009). Although a minority of social scientists may still contend that attributing any youth violence to the media is empirically unjustified, most now disagree (C. A. Anderson et al., 2003). Watching media violence constitutes a form of social learning, a broadly accepted theory that explains learning through observation. CASE HISTORY Ben and Lori—Making Up Is Not Hard to Do At an after-theater party that Ben and Lori attended on their vacation, Ben struck up a conversation with Vanessa, a 20-yearold ingénue from the Dominican Republic. When Lori noted Ben’s interest in Vanessa, she began flirting with one of the theater company’s young male dancers, Danny. Lori made a show of kicking back with Danny, requesting slow music, rubbing up against him while dancing, and asking him to bring her several glasses of wine. The next thing she knew, Ben was out of sight and so was Vanessa. Lori stormed out of the party with Danny in hot pursuit. As Lori walked down Broadway at midnight, Ben came out of nowhere and pleaded with her to come back to the party. Lori slapped his face, screamed that he was a cheat, and marched on toward their hotel. Ben tried to stop her by pinning her to a wall. He accused her of being turned on by Danny, so Lori taunted Ben, saying things like “Young guys in tight pants look good to me!” When Ben couldn’t shut Lori up, he slapped her once and twisted her arm behind her back. When he let go, Lori ran crying to their hotel. Inside their room, Lori slammed things around and insisted that Ben no longer loved her. She threw Ben’s jacket to the floor and stomped all over it. Ben said that Lori ought to know that he loved her. Didn’t she know that he thought she was the “sexiest woman at the party, so blond, so cool, so beautiful”? Lori burst into tears and told Ben that she wanted only him. He grabbed her and began kissing her passionately. The real party lasted until 3 a.m. Lori and Ben had learned long ago that a few slaps here and there were just part of their relationship. After all, they weren’t really violent, because they loved each other and no one ever got hurt. This case history provides an example of how many couples view a certain amount of aggression as acceptable in their relationships. Social acceptance of violence. Scientific polls gauging the attitudes of large segments of the U.S. population toward IPV have identified an antiwoman bias, enhanced somewhat by the gender of the respondent. In a cynical vein, McMahon and Pence (2003) asserted that society would prefer that battered women be “perfect victims,” those who neither instigate abuse nor fight back. Although significant changes in attitudes toward drunk driving and littering were evident over the years 1982 to 1992, changes concerning IPV were more limited. Younger males, but not older males or any-age females, drawn from a random community sample said they would be worried about legal repercussions if they hurt someone else. Men also said they would be embarrassed if their friends and acquaintances found out that they hurt someone, but they did not report any substantial increases in feeling guilt or shame if others did find out (Grasmic, Blackwell, Bursik, & Mitchell, 1993). Another poll taken during 1992 uncovered some typical attitudes toward IPV. Americans ranked domestic violence as fifth on a list of public concerns, with only 34% of the total respondents agreeing that it is an extremely important topic. The general public failed to endorse arrest as the proper response to spouse abuse; that is, most IPV is not seen as a crime. At a minimum, many respondents said a man would have to hit a woman hard (53%) to deserve arrest, but if he punched her, 94% agreed that arrest was appropriate. One disturbing and persistent belief among 38% of respondents was that “Some women provoked men into abusing them” (E. Klein, Campbell, Soler, & Ghez, 1997). By 1995, domestic violence ranked first among social concerns, with 83% of respondents evaluating it as an extremely important social issue. At that time, the respondents also thought that public intervention was necessary (82%), especially if an injury occurred (96%). The principal reason they cited for the necessity of public intervention, however, was to protect children, not women (E. Klein et al., 1997; see also Nabi & Horner, 2001). Cultural factors. Cultural factors can also be useful in explaining male-to-female intimate partner violence (MFIPV). Some cultures accept violence; others condemn it. In some cultures, such as Brazil and the Arab world, a husband’s violence against an unfaithful wife presumably restores the husband’s honor (Kulwicki, 2002; Vandello & Cohen, 2003). Many authorities place partial blame for the widespread acceptance of violence in U.S. culture on the content of television programming as well as movies, sports, toys, and video games (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Others cite approval of violence within the home as a contributing factor. For some, the most crucial element is cultural acceptance of male dominance. Individual factors. In addition to powerful social forces that may foster family violence, there are a number of more individual factors that do so as well. One factor, of course, is some type of mental illness or mental disorder, such as schizophrenia. Another factor is individual differences, such as vulnerability to jealousy, or anger. One powerful precursor of family violence that may flow across the lifespan is level of attachment. Attachment refers to the affectional bond between a parent and a child or, later as an adult, the bond between romantic partners. Disruptions in attachment are related to numerous correlates of family violence, such as intense emotional dependence (D.G. Dutton & Painter, 1993a; Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993). DISCOVERING FAMILY VIOLENCE: HOW SOCIAL CONDITIONS BECOME SOCIAL PROBLEMS Although historians have characterized America as a violent nation, their focus has been on collective social violence. Consistently overlooked was the significant amount of interpersonal violence and even violence in wars. This oversight helps explain why Americans expressed surprise over the enormous amount of violence among family members (Leonard, 2003). Presumably, few knowledgeable people would now question the assertion that family violence is a serious social problem. In addition to increased coverage in the media, the academic community has covered the topic in textbooks on social problems and deviant behavior, and increasingly universities are offering specific courses on family violence. The amount of research on the topic has grown exponentially, leading to countless new publications related to family violence. Articles reporting on family violence research have also become increasingly common in mainstream journals in other fields: sociology, psychology, social work, law, criminal justice, epidemiology, cross-cultural issues, human rights, homosexuality, and health. In addition, numerous social movement organizations and federal agencies are increasingly dedicated to assisting victims and preventing family violence (see Adair & Vohra, 2003). Others point to the overall advances in the field (Kendall- Tackett, 2009). Despite all these encouraging signs, Pyles and Postmus (2004) complain that theorizing has not kept pace with the upsurge in research. Concern and outrage about family violence has also increased around the world, and several international treaties explicitly include human rights protection from violent family members. The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child proclaimed that all children should be protected from “physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child” (quoted in Levesque, 2001,p. 7). The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (1994) condemned any “act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life” (quoted in Levesque, 2001, p. 7). In these documents, the United Nations rejected cultural relativism, declaring that all U.N. member countries must eliminate any cultural practices or customs that permit the abuse of women or children. In the ensuing years, however, it is clear that progress in reducing violence against children and women has proceeded at a snail’s pace. Children’s human rights. The customary view of children’s rights is through the lens of family law, and to date, observers have justly concluded that “international law and the human rights jurisdiction can be surprisingly disappointing in allowing children’s rights” (Sawyer, 2006). Children need much more protection in terms of property rights and in custodial decisions. International law seems inoperative in compelling various countries to honor agreements, such as the Hague Convention. A custodial dispute concerning an 8year-old American boy and his biological father clarifies the problem. A Brazilian court awarded custody of the boy to his Brazilian stepfather following the death of his mother, even though she had abducted him illegally when he was only 3 years old (Simao, 2009). Women’s human rights. Improvement in the status of women across the globe has been painstakingly slow. An International News report on October 12, 2006, proclaimed that the U.N. found violence against women to be severe, pervasive, and worldwide. A 2006 BBC News report on October 11 stated that Ethiopian women were the most abused women in the world, with 60% reporting sexual violence and marital rape. In addition, 100 countries had no domestic violence laws whatsoever. Emblematic of the sheer needless cruelty toward women, Ghanaian communities punish widows in many of the following ways: “by seclusion, pouring pepper into the eyes and private parts of a widow and preventing her from eating as signs of mourning” (Amoakohene, 2004, p. 2375). Clearly, family violence is a universal problem, receiving recognition on the social agendas of the United States and many other nations. It is important to recognize, however, that concern about family violence is a fairly recent phenomenon. Social constructionism. When and how did family violence come to be seen as a social problem? According to many sociologists, social conditions become social problems through a process of social constructionism (Loseke, 2003; Spector & Kitsuse, 1977). From this perspective, societal reactions are central to the process through which a social condition is redefined as a social problem. Societal reactions to various situations, such as child abuse, can come from many sources: individual citizens, religious groups, social movement organizations, political interest groups, and the media, to name but a few. Through their reactions to particular social conditions, individuals and institutions play a crucial role in transforming public perceptions. Claims-making. Various interest groups change social conditions into social problems by actively engaging in the process of raising awareness about that condition. The term claims-making has been applied to the activities of such groups; it refers to the “activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances or claims with respect to some putative condition” (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977, p. 75). Generally speaking, the process begins when claims-makers express anger or distress about a particular condition that they see as highly objectionable. Claims-makers may have vested interests in the outcomes of their protests, or they may simply be moral entrepreneurs engaged in what they see as a purely moral crusade (Becker, 1963). As the cause of a particular claims-making group becomes acknowledged by society more generally, the social condition comes to be defined as a social problem. Social problems, then, are essentially discovered through this process of societal reactions and social definitions. From this perspective, social problems come and go as societal reactions to given conditions change. Among other things, the social constructionist perspective helps to explain cross-cultural variations in definitions of family violence. That is, what is condemned as abuse in one culture is not always condemned in another. The social constructionist perspective also helps to illustrate how research is used in ongoing debates about social problems. The findings from family violence research have not uniformly settled disagreements about family violence–related topics. Instead, the research has become one of the most contentious areas in the social sciences. Experts pose many significant and farreaching questions: Is family violence increasing or decreasing? Are men as likely as women to be the victims of intimate partner violence? Should parents be allowed to hit their children? And what constitutes rape? Although one might hope that research could settle such debates, the reality is that competing claims-makers interpret research data differently. Furthermore, those on both sides in any given debate typically arm themselves with their own sets of empirical findings, which they espouse as the truth. From a social constructionist perspective, the “winners” of these debates define the nature and the facts of social problems (Best, 2001). Discovering Child Maltreatment: The Historical Context This history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused. (deMause, 1974, p. 1) Contemporary conceptions of children and childhood in the United States—that childhood is a special phase of life and that children should be loved, nurtured, and protected from the cruel world— emerged only within the past few hundred years. As Empey, Stafford, and Hay (1999) noted, in previous times children were “regarded more as small or inadequate versions of their parents than as sacred beings in need of special protection” (pp. 6–7). One illustration of the previous indifference to children as a group with special status is the historical practice of infanticide. Some scholars maintain infanticide was the most frequent crime in all of Europe and remained a relatively common practice until about 1800 (Piers, 1978). Over the centuries, the value of children grew in developed societies, and by the 1900s in the United States, the government’s interest in the welfare of children resulted in child protection laws including child labor laws, the creation of a juvenile court system, and mandatory education requirements. Although these changes likely reflect an increase in the value U.S. society placed on children, they no doubt also came about because of the state’s interest in protecting itself from troubled children and the troubled adults these children often become (Pfohl, 1977). Discovering child physical abuse. In many ways, the indifference to childhood evidenced in previous centuries is not difficult to explain. The harshness of life, the high rates of disease, and the visibility of death all contributed to a general devaluation of life and of children’s lives in particular. In addition, most societies regarded children as the property of their parents, who were allowed to treat their property as they saw fit. In some cases, parents probably viewed their children as economic liabilities—as little more than more mouths to feed (Walker, Bonner, & Kaufman, 1988; Wolfe, 1991). Many scholars trace the actual discovery of child abuse in the United States to the house of refuge movement of the early 1800s. The medieval principle of parens patriae—that is, theright and responsibility of the state to protect those who cannot protect themselves—guided this movement (Pfohl, 1977). As a result of reforms brought about by the movement in the early to mid-1800s, authorities began to house children who were neglected, abused, or otherwise on the road to ruin in one of many state-supported institutions. The house of refuge movement represents the government’s first attempt to intervene in neglect and abuse cases (Empey, et al., 1999). First child abuse court case. Probably the most famous early court case involving child abuse was tried in 1874. Church social worker Etta Wheeler discovered that 8-year-old Mary Ellen Wilson was being beaten and starved by her stepmother. After unsuccessfully seeking help to remedy the situation, Wheeler took the case to Henry Bergh, founder of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Mary Ellen was, after all, a member of the animal kingdom. A courtroom full of concerned New Yorkers, many of them upperclass women, heard the shocking details of Mary Ellen’s life. The stepmother had beaten her almost daily and did not allow her to play with other children or even to leave the house. Mary Ellen had an unhealed gash on the left side of her face, where her stepmother had struck her with a pair of scissors. The jury took only 20 minutes to find the stepmother guilty of assault and battery (Pleck, 1987). Child-saving movement. Because of the resulting public outcry, concerned citizens eventually founded the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in 1874 (Pagelow, 1984). This organization, and the larger child-saving movement of which it was a part, advocated for dramatic changes in society’s treatment of children. Increasingly, child protection advocates argued that children need to be loved and nurtured, and if parents fail to protect their children, the state should intervene. They argued, in effect, that parents should not have complete authority over their children (Finkelhor, 1996). Largely as a result of the claims-making of child advocacy groups, many state legislatures passed child protective statutes in the early 1900s, criminalizing parents’ abusive and neglectful behavior and specifying procedures for meeting the needs of abused and neglected children (Pleck, 1987). Although there was considerable movement toward child protection during this time, sociolegal reactions to the problem of child abuse remained somewhat sporadic. For example, no laws existed to make the reporting of suspected child abuse mandatory for certain professionals. The battered child syndrome. The full recognition of child abuse as a social problem in the United States was not complete until the 1960s, when Dr. C. Henry Kempe and his colleagues first described the battered child syndrome. They further suggested that physicians should report any observed cases of abuse (Kempe, Silverman, Steele, Droegemueller, & Silver, 1962). Kempe et al. defined child abuse as a clinical condition with diagnosable medical and physical symptoms resulting from deliberate physical assault. This declaration was important because it marked the addition of the considerable clout of the medical community to claims-making about the child abuse problem. When medical doctors combined forces with other professionals and child protection advocacy groups, the movement rapidly gained momentum. Before the end of the 1960s, every U.S. state had created laws mandating that professionals report suspected cases of abuse, and in 1974, Congress enacted the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which provided federal funding to help states fight child abuse. Discovering child sexual abuse. Throughout history, and particularly in certain cultures, sexual interactions involving children have been commonplace. Some cultures have regarded these interactions as appropriate, even healthy for children. As one illustration, the ancient Greeks sexually exploited children, especially boys (deMause, 1974). Despite dramatic changes over the centuries, condemnation of sexual contact between adults and children is still not universal. One extreme minority perspective is that of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This organization, founded in 1978, supports “the rights of all people to engage in consensual relations, and opposes laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the basis of the age of the participants” (NAMBLA, 2002). Robert Rhodes, a NAMBLA spokesman, made the following comments when asked whether the group views itself as an advocacy group for children: Yes. Considering the legitimacy of sexual relationships with children, there are two main theories that you can work from. One was the classical Greek theory—that is to say that the older partner in a sexual relationship served as initiator and tutor of the younger partner. You can also take a children’s liberationist viewpoint—that is to say that children insofar as is possible— and it’s far more possible than the current structure allows—should be given liberty to run their own lives as they choose, including the ability to determine how and with whom they should have sex. (quoted in Hechler, 1988, pp. 193–194) Fortunately, mainstream America totally rejects the philosophy of NAMBLA. Even though freedom of speech allows NAMBLA members the right to express their beliefs, laws forbid any sexual contact between adults and children. Legislatures and attorneys continue their struggle to update legislation to protect children more effectively. Discovering child neglect and psychological maltreatment. Child neglect is probably the most forgotten form of maltreatment (Daro, 1988). Such limited interest in neglect is surprising, however, given that it is much more common than physical or sexual child abuse. Psychological maltreatment is also pervasive and overlooked, even though it is a central component in all child maltreatment. The most obvious reason for these oversights is that physical and sexual abuse are far more likely to result in observable harm, and the definition of child physical abuse tends to be defined only in terms of harm. By contrast, the many negative effects of neglect and psychological maltreatment may not result in observable harm. Although child neglect is a very old phenomenon, society did not come to acknowledge and define it as a social problem until the 20th century (Wolock & Horowitz, 1984). Psychological maltreatment of children has received even less recognition. Professionals have tended to look at psychological abuse as a side effect of other forms of abuse, rather than as a unique form of maltreatment. Only since the early 1990s have experts established psychological maltreatment as a discrete form of child maltreatment (see Hart & Brassard, 1993; Loring, 1994; Wiehe, 1990). Now, surveys suggest that Americans have finally come to consider psychological maltreatment a serious problem. Of those surveyed, 75% indicated that exposure to “repeated yelling and swearing” is harmful to a child’s well-being (Daro & Gelles, 1992). Discovering Intimate Historical Context Partner Violence: The WOMAN’S RIGHTS CONVENTION. A Convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of women, will be held in the Wesleyan Chapel, at Seneca Falls, N.Y., on Wednesday and Thursday, the 19th and 20th of July, current; commencing at 10 o’clock am. (Seneca Falls Convention, 1848) Social conditions in the United States were not conducive to the recognition of wife abuse until the women’s movement of the mid1800s called attention to the subordination of women. This movement, which was followed by the suffragist movement of the early 1900s and the feminist movement of the mid- to late 1900s, was an important precursor to the discovery of marital violence. The Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 planted the seed for a women’s rights movement in a Wesleyan Methodist church in Seneca Falls, New York. Lucretia Mott, wife of an antislavery reformer and Quaker preacher, and women’s rights advocate Elizabeth Stanton organized the Seneca Falls Convention. In the days prior to the convention, Stanton wrote the convention’s Declaration of Sentiments, a document modeled after the Declaration of Independence. The declaration begins with the following pronouncement: We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (Seneca Falls Convention, 1848) In strong language, the document asserts that throughout history men have injured and controlled women in hopes of establishing absolute tyranny over them. It concludes: “In view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country … we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.” Through the early 1900s, the struggle for women’s rights in the United States focused mainly on securing the right to vote. Presumably, the right to vote would give women the necessary power to challenge many injustices, including violence in the family (Ashcraft, 2000). The efforts of the suffragist movement culminated with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920. Another advance for women occurred during World War II when women’s joining the labor force changed some opinions about the adage, “women’s place is in the home.” During the 1960s, interest in women’s rights revived as a new feminist movement gained momentum. The 1965 Supreme Court decision giving women access to birth control in every state freed women to limit the size of their families, to undertake alternative roles, and to pursue their autonomy. Now, the movement’s major concerns turned to the subordination and victimization of women within the family. Discovering battered women. Many historians have noted that early marriage laws actually gave men the legal right to hit their wives (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Thus, the marriage license became “a hitting license” (Straus, 1983). English common law held that women were inferior to men, and a married woman had no legal existence apart from her husband. The husband, in effect, owned and controlled her, and he also was accountable for her actions. Because social norms expected husbands to govern their wives, the law allowed them a great deal of latitude in using force to do so (Sigler, 1989). Early British rape laws also reflected the status of women as property, stating that when a woman was raped, restitution should be paid to her husband (or, if she was unmarried, to her father) (Sigler, 1989). Recognizing the vulnerability of women within the family, Elizabeth Stanton argued that the rights of women should be acknowledged in all spheres of life. In doing so, she listed a number of facts, several of which related specifically to the family: He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty and to administer chastisement. He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women—the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands. (Seneca Falls Convention, 1848) Despite the efforts of Stanton and other influential reformers, the problem of wife abuse attracted little attention in the first half of the 20th century. As Pleck (1987) has noted, the campaign was, “compared to the child abuse movement of roughly the same time period, an abysmal failure” (p. 109). The modern feminist movement that arose in the 1960s renewed public interest in the problem of the subordination of women, in general, and in marital relationships in particular. Initially, however, leaders of the movement, including the National Organization for Women (NOW), tended to ignore wife abuse. Instead, NOW focused on passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, elimination of discrimination against women in the workplace, public funding for child care, and abortion rights. To the degree that feminists did advocate for battered women, the public, suspicious of their claims, often dismissed the movement as too radical and antifamily (Pleck, 1987). The battered women’s movement gained momentum when Chiswick Women’s Aid, the first shelter for battered women to gain widespread public attention, opened in England in 1971. Chiswick’s founder, Erin Pizzey, published the influential book Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear in 1974. The publicity that surrounded the book, and the subsequent radio and television exposure it generated, helped spread the battered women’s movement in Europe. American activists, influenced by visiting Chiswick in the early 1970s, were eager to open similar shelters in the United States. A flood of media attention in the mid-1970s further increased public awareness of the domestic violence problem (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1978, 1979; Pleck, 1987). In 1976, NOW decided to make wife battering a priority issue. As advocates founded organizations such as the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, they effectively brought attention to battered women’s issues at the national level. Their work led to improvements in social services for battered wives and changes in legal statutes that failed to protect women (Studer, 1984). Several other organizations, such as the National Organization for Victim Assistance and the National Council on Child Abuse and Family Violence, actively fought for the rights of women. Although these organizations had somewhat dissimilar social and political agendas, their combined efforts raised awareness of the significance of violence against women as a social problem. Public health scholars recently pronounced violence against women to be a serious national health problem, because of the countless negative physical and mental health consequences of IPV (Chrisler & Ferguson, 2006). To some extent, the battered women’s movement is a victim of its own success. Broad-based organizations, such as health care and government entities, have become so embedded in the movement that it is now mainstream, no longer in need of specialized advocates (Allen, Lehner, Marrison, Miles, & Russel, 2007). Discovering marital rape. The women’s movement has been influential in the relatively recent discovery of another form of domestic violence: marital rape. Historically, rape laws have pertained only to sexual assault outside of marriage. In the 1700s, Sir Matthew Hale, a chief justice of the Court of Kings Bench in England, originated the marital exemption law. The exemption held that by mutual matrimonial consent and contract, a wife had given her consent to sexual intercourse with her husband and could not retract it. Countering this longstanding assumption, early reformers viewed a woman’s right to control her own body as key to eliminating her subordination, and they waged a vigorous campaign against a man’s right to force sex in marriage. Their attempts to change marital exemption laws, however, were unsuccessful, and in the 19th century, the status quo continued. There were no criminal charges against any husband for raping his wife (Pleck, 1987). Not until the modern feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s did the topic of marital rape materialize once again. Contemporary defenders of the marital exemption law have challenged feminist claims-making during the past 40 years, arguing that the state has no business intervening in the private affairs of married couples. Defenders claimed that once the state intervenes, the love, trust, and closeness in a marriage will disintegrate, unlikely ever to be recovered (Hasday, 2000). Another defense of the marital exemption is that a husband may need protection from a vindictive wife who might falsely accuse him of marital rape as leverage in a divorce case. Diana Russell, however, illustrated the problem of uninformed legislators and others in the 1990 revision of her book Rape in Marriage, in which she quotes a telltale statement made by California state senator Bob Wilson: “But if you can’t rape your wife, who can you rape?” (p. 18). Fortunately, feminists have made substantial legal inroads in their attempts to prevent married men from forcing their wives to have sex. Laws against marital rape, while still imperfect, made rape a crime in all 50 states in July 1993. Although marital rape laws now exist, changes in feelings of entitlement among male partners have not always kept pace. In a 1996 inquiry, Raquel Bergen relayed a statement reiterated frequently by a husband to his wife: “That’s my body—my ass, my tits, my body. You gave that to me when you married me and that belongs to me” (p. 20). Discovering dating violence. In 1981, James Makepeace published the results of a seminal study on dating violence. The apparent similarity between the victimization of women in dating relationships and in marital relationships led advocates and academicians to view dating violence as a form of violence against women (R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Given this renewed interest and availability of university students for research participation, surveys of dating violence became as prevalent as surveys of wife abuse. As the unresolved issues surrounding female-to-male dating violence resurfaced, advocates were successful in their claims-making, and today many high school and college campuses offer programs educating students about dating violence (Levy, 1991). Discovering sexual assault among dating couples. In recent years, society has also come to recognize date rape as a serious social problem. Surprisingly, researchers determined that sexual assault by an acquaintance was far more likely than a violent sexual assault by a stranger. Date rape came more fully into view in the late 1980s when Ms. magazine published the results of a study called Campus Project on Sexual Assault (Koss, 1992, 1993). The study, which was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, found that 27% of the college women surveyed had been victims of a completed rape (15%) or attempted rape (12%). Journalists in the popular press publicized the findings widely, and the study was the subject of a 1991 U.S. Senate hearing on sexual assault. Of late, experts have begun to abandon the term date rape in favor of sexual assault because the term sexual assault goes far beyond forceful intercourse and includes many forms of unwanted sexual touching (Clay-Warner & Burt, 2005). Discovering stalking. Another form of abuse that is loosely related to dating violence (and wife battering) is stalking, which Tjaden and Thoennes (2000b) define as “visual or physical proximity; nonconsensual communication; verbal, written, or implied threats; or a combination thereof that would cause fear in a reasonable person” (p. 5). To provide an empirical definition of stalking, researchers queried battered women via a 13-item inventory. The women responded once for themselves and once for their stalker. See Table 1.1 for percentages of perpetrations and victimizations (items collapsed into subscale scores) reported by battered women (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2006). These data round out the meaning (operationalization) of stalking and demonstrate the gendered nature of the behavior. Although stalking has always existed, criminal codes largely ignored it until the 1990s. Women’s advocates and other groups were successful in attracting considerable media and scholarly attention to this behavior in the last few years, and today it is a criminal offense in all 50 states (Rosenfeld, 2000). Ongoing research has recognized stalking as a more serious crime, capable of causing traumatic reactions in its victims (Logan & Cole, 2007). With access to computers, cyberstalking has also become a frequent tool of stalking perpetrators (Moriarty & Freiberger, 2008). TABLE 1.1 Stalking Perpetration and Victimization Perpetration Victimization Begging—29.3% Begging—87.9% Unwanted pursuit—41.3% Unwanted pursuit—87.0.3% Stalking—25.0% Stalking—74.4% Threatening–25.3% Threatening—78.8% Discovering elder abuse. Elder abuse has been one of the last forms of family violence to receive societal attention, following the discovery of child abuse in the 1960s and marital violence in the early 1970s (Wolf & Pillemer, 1989). The first research on elder abuse did not appear in the Social Science Index until 1981–1982 (Baumann, 1989). It was not until 1989 that a scholarly journal dedicated solely to the topic began publishing. The earliest federal government involvement in addressing elder abuse came in 1962, when Congress authorized payments to states to provide protective services for “persons with physical and/or mental limitations, who are unable to manage their own affairs … or who are neglected or exploited” (U.S. DHHS, as quoted in Wolf, 2000, p. 6). In 1974, Congress mandated adult protective services (APS) programs for all states. For some observers, the image of the stressed and burdened adult daughter abusing an elderly parent linked elder abuse to child abuse and resulted in considerable media attention. Following the child abuse model, claims-makers successfully advocated for laws that make the reporting of suspected elder abuse mandatory for certain professionals (Wilber & McNeilly, 2001). Legal progress in the area continues with ongoing attempts to pass the Elder Justice Act and related bills. It has become increasingly clear that it is necessary to help protect seniors from financial fraud, phony marketers, and social security misuse. Efforts have resulted in improved emergency law enforcement and rape prevention (Stiegel & Klem, 2007). Most of the legal amendments have centered on advancing guardianship rules and court oversight (Cook-Daniels, 2008a). The Elder Justice Coalition originated in early 2003 and included five founding organizations, such as the National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse (NCPEA). Finally, advocates inaugurated an Elder Abuse Awareness Day on June 15, 2006. Discovering battered (?) men. One vigorous debate in the field of family violence centers on the issue of female-to-male intimate partner violence (IPV). The debate can in many respects be traced to survey data from the 1970s and 1980s that suggest that wives are violent toward their spouses as frequently as husbands are violent toward their spouses (Gelles & Straus, 1988; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Most of these data emanated from research using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), a self-report instrument that measures the frequency of various kinds of violent interpersonal interactions between couples (see the discussion of the CTS in Chapter 2). Findings from the National Family Violence Resurvey indicated that 12% of the women and 11% of the men surveyed engaged in at least one act of interpersonal violence (usually minor violence) in the previous year. The assertion that women are as violent as men troubles and angers many battered women’s advocates who perceive the “real” marital violence problem to be wife battering. Critics charge that the CTS fails to measure the degree to which women who report committing violent acts may be acting in self-defense or out of fear (Kurz, 1989). As the debate progressed, Saunders (2002) reviewed the available IPV literature and found no consensus among experts that female-to-male partner violence is even a social problem, let alone a behavioral equivalent to male-to-female violence. While strenuously defending gender equivalence of IPV, Straus and his colleagues (1980) stated that it would be unfortunate if the data on wife-to-husband violence “distracted us from giving first attention to wives as victims as the focus of social policy” (p. 43). Arguably, however, the data derived from their research showing extensive female-to-male violence via the CTS have fed a backlash against the battered women’s movement (George, 2003). Whatever the case may be, it is reassuring to note that the issue of male victimization has attracted more academic attention in the last decade. As researchers found evidence of some female-to-male IPV, the debate evolved into a comparison of gender similarities and differences in IPV (Miller & Meloy, 2006). As an illustration, coercive control of one’s partner is not only a feature of male-to-female IPV, but also of female-to-male IPV, although to a much lesser extent (Swan & Snow, 2006). Competing claims-makers continue to negotiate the scope and nature of domestic violence. For the time being, the issue of women’s violence against men remains in the background to some extent, as the real problem of IPV has emerged as woman battering. The Co-occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Marital Violence It may come as no surprise that child maltreatment and marital violence very frequently occur within the same family. Co-occurrence refers to situations in which one or both adult partners are abusive not only toward the other but also toward a child within the same family (Knickerbocker, Heyman, Slep, Jouriles, & McDonald, 2007). The exact amount of abusive behaviors that overlap is unknown but seems to extend between 30% and 60% (Appel & Holden, 1998). According to M. A. Dutton (as cited in Dingfelder, 2006b), child maltreatment and partner abuse are linked to such an extent that scholars must address them jointly. Funding sources and advocate organizations are beginning to note this linkage and are altering their approaches accordingly. Scholars have commented on the vastly different mandates of the agencies involved. Child Protective Services (CPS) primarily focus on protecting children with much less concern toward mothers. Battered women’s advocates focus primarily on the safety of both mothers and children and on the rights of the mother. These different goals came to a head in an adversarial manner when CPS charged a battered mother with child neglect because she allowed her children to see her husband beat her. Incredibly, a New York court in 1999 sided with CPS and found the mother guilty. Although higher courts later soundly reversed the decision, the case made it clear that cooccurring violence urgently requires professional attention (Clarke, 2006). For now, representatives from both factions are attempting to resolve their different approaches through collaborative exchanges. International and Understudied Groups in the Discovery of Family Violence Most Americans probably did not know much about Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, or the views of radical Islamic fundamentalists prior to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. These attacks not only awakened Americans to the threat of terrorism, but also served to raise awareness about another shocking reality: the oppression of women and children around the world. Many of these practices constitute human rights violations. Only after the attacks did the mistreatment of women in Afghanistan make headlines in major U.S. newspapers and magazines. Such mistreatment, however, is not unique to radical Islamic fundamentalism. Other conservative extremist groups across the globe cling to similar cruel customs. Women and children (especially girls) around the world have been and continue to be victimized by a vast array of cultural practices, including genital mutilation, foot binding, dowry death, child abandonment and infanticide, selective abortion of female fetuses, sexual exploitation, forced prostitution, and violent pornography (Holloway, 1994; Levesque, 2001). Many of these practices continue today essentially as customary laws—that is, customs that predate international legal reforms and are still widely observed (Levesque, 2001). These customs are deeply rooted in some cultures and continue to influence contemporary practices. In China, for example, the state’s one-child policy (which penalizes married couples for having more than the prescribed number of children) appears to have increased infanticide. Demographers estimate that approximately 12% of Chinese girl infants go missing each year (Riley, 1996). Another example of a cultural practice that indirectly contributes to abuse is India’s dowry system. Wives whose families cannot pay dowries (payments to a groom) are often abused and sometimes killed by their husbands or their husbands’ families (Levesque, 2001). Levesque (2001) cites estimates made by the United Nations that between 17% and 38% of the world’s women are victims of intimate violence, with rates as high as 60% in developing countries. McWhirter (1999) reported that in Chile, private violence probably affects 25% of wives and 60% of families. The country’s cultural history of machismo, alcohol use, and acceptance of violence, in general, has hindered reform efforts. Illustrative of the seriousness of male violence against women are the criminal penalties for wife abuse. In Chile, legal sanctions apply only if the abuse resulted in at least 14 days of hospitalization for the victim or her loss of work (Levesque, 2001). Cross-cultural family abuse. For the most part, American academicians have failed to blend into their definitions of IPV nuanced interpretations of family violence derived from other cultures. One indication of cultural variation comes from battered Japanese women who emphasize unprotected sex as a particularly onerous type of male-to-female intimate partner violence (MFIPV; Yoshihama, 2002). Chinese people living in Hong Kong are especially sensitive to the selection of terms, such as violence versus abuse, when responding to questionnaires about IPV (Tang, Cheung, Chen, & Sun, 2002). For a comprehensive discussion of definitions across cultures, see Malley-Morrison and Hines (2004). Immigrant family violence. As American culture has become more diverse, the need to study, understand, and respond to cultural variations in family violence has received priority consideration from organizations, such as the American Psychological Association (APA 2003). Scholars in every field have forcefully called for enhanced cultural competence among practitioners and researchers. There is a great need to translate assessment tools, recognize some of the subtleties of cultures that influence behaviors, and expand programs aimed at minorities (e.g., Calvete, Corral, & Estévez, 2007; Keller, Gonzales, & Fleuriet, 2005). Immigrant women are especially vulnerable to IPV because they may be socially isolated and economically dependent on their spouses. Husbands can easily threaten their spouses with deportation (LaViolette & Barnett, 2000). Latino immigrants in the United States are more likely than Anglo families to live in poverty and to experience the stresses associated with recent immigration— factors that are likely to contribute to violence in the family. Latino parents tend to be relatively authoritarian and are more likely than Anglo-American parents to punish their children physically. As Fontes (2002) notes, the vast majority of these families are not dysfunctional or abusive, and they do not need the strong arm of the state. What these parents need are culturally competent counselors who can apply their knowledge in several ways: (a) to explain the dangers of punishing children physically, (b) to teach nonviolent parenting skills, and (c) to help families to cope with the isolation and other stressors they may be experiencing. Violence among ethnic and racial minorities. Findings about ethnic and racial differences in IPV are mixed. Although several studies have uncovered higher rates of IPV among several minority groups, others have found few, if any, differences (McFarlane, Groff, O’Brien, & Watson, 2005; Smith & Chiricos, 2003). Caution in interpreting these findings is warranted because of other factors: (a) Police bias accounts for some racial disparity in felony arrest rates for black women (Bourg & Stock, 1994); (b) Demographic and socioeconomic factors help explain some racial disparities (Lauritsen & White, 2001); (c) Combining data from several diverse ethnic groups (e.g., Native American Indians and Asian Americans) distorts the findings (Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005); (d) Providing research respondents with inventories labeled as crime surveys versus personal safety surveys alters the results (McFarlane et al., 2005); and (e) Lack of knowledge of the impact of current and historical parameters of racism have influenced responses. Finally, there is no empirical evidence suggesting that racial differences in family violence are rooted in biology. Violence between gay and lesbian partners. One form of interpartner violence that has only lately attracted academic research is IPV between gay and lesbian partners. One of the first influential books covering same-sex IPV (Renzetti, 1992) appeared in the early 1990s. The amount of contemporary research on the topic, however, has eclipsed expectations and is having a strong impact on the field of family violence. For one reason, findings about same-sex IPV have challenged the attribution of partner violence to the patriarchy (D. G. Dutton, 1994). Research continues to suggest that while the rates of some forms of violence within homosexual relationships are similar to those found within heterosexual relationships, the forms of abuse vary considerably. Same-sex assaults produce substantially more injuries, and same-sex homicides tend to be much more brutal than heterosexual homicides (Bartholomew, Regan, White, & Oram, 2008; Mize & Shackelford, 2008). Abuse of disabled intimates. A 2000 definition of disability from the National Center for Injury Pre...