Elaine Grandin, Eugen Lupri, Merlin B. Brinkerhoff: Couple Violence and Psychological Distress

Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, No. 1, p. 43-47 (Jan-Feb, 1998)

Couple Violence and Psychological Distress
Elaine Grandin, PhD^a, Eugen Lupri, PhD^b, Merlin B. Brinkerhoff, PhD^b
From the Department of Sociology, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
^a Adjunct Assistant Professor of Sociology and Sessional Instructor.
^b Professor of Sociology.

Although previous studies have shown that both men and women abuse their intimate partners(1-15), most investigations have neglected to examine the effects of spousal abuse on men. Recent examples are studies by Ratner(16) and Statistics Canada(17), which limit their respondents to female victims. This paper attempts to overcome that limitation by comparing [1] the mental health status of non-victims and victims of intimate violence, and [2] the effects of physical and psychological abuse on both female and male victims.

We hypothesized that both physical and psychological violence are positively associated with psychological distress. We therefore expected female and male victims to report higher rates of depression and anxiety than non-victims. Given that the literature suggests women are more likely than men to suffer negative psychological effects of intimate violence(18-24), we also hypothesized that female victims would report higher mean rates of psychological distress than male victims.

Our third hypothesis requires a brief preface. We asked both spouses whether they had committed any physically or psychologically violent acts against their intimate partners in the year preceding the survey. Unlike Dobash et al.(18), we identified two viable types of couple relationships: symmetrical and asymmetrical. In a symmetrical relationship the respondent is both perpetrator and victim or neither perpetrator nor victim. Conversely, in couples having an asymmetrical relationship, the respondent is either a perpetrator or a victim but not both, while his or her partner reports the opposite role. Table I presents a typology of relationships by symmetry or asymmetry of the interaction.

We hypothesized that victims (also perpetrators) in symmetrically violent relationships would report higher rates of psychological distress than victims (non-perpetrators) in asymmetrical relationships. Furthermore, in asymmetrical relationships, perpetrators (non-victims) would report greater psychological distress than perpetrators in symmetrically violent relationships.

TABLE I A Typology of Symmetry and Asymmetry in Intimate Couple Interactions
Type of Abuse	*Perpetrator/Victim Relationship Among Couples**
	Husband	Wife
Symmetrical
None	Neither perpetrator nor victim	Neither perpetrator nor victim
Bi-directional	Both perpetrator and victim	Both perpetrator and victim
Asymmetrical **
Husband-to-Wife	Perpetrator but non-victim	Victim but non-perpetrator
Wife-to-Husband	Victim but non-perpetrator	Perpetrator but non-victim
* This typology applies to relationships in which there is either physical or psychological-only violence, or no violence. ** In an asymmetrical relationship, neither member of the couple is both a perpetrator and a victim. If the respondent reports being a perpetrator, the partner reports being a victim; if the respondent reports being a victim, the partner reports being a perpetrator.

METHODS

A systematic random sample was drawn from a current reverse Calgary telephone directory by taking every nth residence, excluding businesses, after a random start. A letter describing the research, followed by an interviewer's visit, ascertained whether a heterosexual couple (common-law or married) resided there. Although interviews were required from both members of a couple, the refusal rate was only 18%. The random sample of 562 couples proved representative of the Calgary population with regard to family life-cycle profiles, age, employment characteristics, socioeconomic status, and level of education.

Couple data were collected by 30 trained interviewers (male and female). One member of the couple, selected at random, completed a structured interview while the other completed a self-administered questionnaire in a separate room. These roles were then reversed. This dual-faceted approach allowed questionnaires to deal more validly with potentially sensitive data such as marital power, personal distress, and couple violence, whereas personal interviews maintained rapport while gathering important background information.

Psychological distress was assessed by the anxiety and depression subscales of the SCL-90-R, a frequency of symptoms measure(25). Respondents indicated on a 5-point scale (from 0 = not at all, to 4 = extremely often) how often in the previous week they had been bothered by symptoms of anxiety and depression. Factor analysis(26) resulted in two distinct scales with factor loadings ranging from 0.54 to 0.79. The coefficient alpha for the abbreviated three-item depression scale and for the abbreviated seven-item anxiety scale were 0.68 and 0.86 respectively.

Physical violence and psychological abuse were assessed by two subscales of the widely used Conflict Tactics Scales(4,5), considered a reliable, valid measure of the incidence of intimate violence. Respondents indicated how often in the previous 12 months they had committed acts of physical violence and psychological abuse against their intimate partners. Respondents were operationally defined as physically violent if they had reportedly committed any of eight physically violent acts, and psychologically violent if they had not committed acts of physical violence but had reportedly committed any of six psychologically abusive acts six times or more during the previous year. Alphas for the eight-item physical violence and six item psychological-only violence subscales were 0.88 and 0.83, respectively, similar to those reported by Ratner(16) and Straus(2,4,5).

RESULTS

If intimate violence, physical as well as psychological, is positively associated with psychological distress, we expect victims to report higher rates of depression and anxiety than non-victims. The means in Table II show that the lowest rates of psychological distress were reported by non-victims. Psychological distress scores were higher for victims of psychological-only abuse and highest among victims of physical violence. F-ratios associated with both depression and anxiety indicate statistically significant (p < 0.005) differences of means between victims and non-victims of physical violence. Although not all differences between victims and non-victims were statistically significant, they were in the predicted direction, regardless of both gender and type of violence — that is, both male and female victims of either psychological-only or physical violence were likely to report higher levels of psychological distress than were non-victims. The means also suggest that physical violence was more distressing than psychological-only abuse.

TABLE II The Relationship Between Couple Violence and Psychological Distress by Gender of Victim: Means, Standard Deviations, and F-Ratios from ANOVA
Psychological Distress Þ	Gender
	Females			Males
	Mean	S.D.	N ß	Mean	S.D.	N
Depression Scale
1. Non-violent (non-victim)	5.83	2.32	230	5.33	1.86	183
2. Psychological-only (victim)	6.04	1.98	169	5.81	2.13	208
3. Physical Violence (victim)	6.68	2.53	131	6.08	2.19	150
	F-ratio ¶ =5.85*** (1,2)(1,3)(2,3) §			F-ratio = 5.72*** (1,2)(1,3)
Anxiety Scale
1. Non-violent (non-victim)	12.42	4.27	225	11.26	3.88	171
2. Psychological-only (victim)	12.58	3.41	162	11.42	3.51	198
3. Physical Violence (victim)	14.16	3.79	130	13.23	4.23	145
	F-ratio = 9.08**** (1,3)(2,3)			F-ratio = 12.22**** (1,3)(2,3)
Þ Both variables are multiple-item scales with the parameters discussed in the text. ß N's vary due to non-response on selected items. ¶ All F-ratios are statistically significant at < 0.005. § The numbers in parentheses indicate the groups which have a statistically significant (p<0.05) difference of means.

To test the feminist claim that women's psychological well-being is affected more severely by intimate violence than men's(22-24,27,28), we compared the average rates of depression and anxiety by gender for both non-victims and victims of both types of violence. The data in Table III show that for non-victims, there was a statistically significant difference in mean depression scores by gender with females reporting higher rates than males. Similarly, for victims of physical violence, the mean score on the depression scale was statistically higher for female than male victims. This finding supports the view that physically victimized women are more likely than physically victimized men to experience depression. Although the expected gender difference in depression scores between female and male victims experiencing psychological-only violence was not statistically significant, it was in the predicted direction.

The data in the lower half of Table III (anxiety scale) indicate that non-victimized women reported significantly (p < 0.005) higher levels of anxiety than did nonvictimized men, as we had expected. Note, however, that both types of violence were associated with increased psychological distress for both women and men, as shown in Table II.

TABLE III Gender Differences on the Relationships Between Couple Violence and Psychological Distress: Difference of Means
Type of Distress Þ	Type of Relationship
	Non-victims			Victims
	Non-violent			Psychological-only			Physical violence
	Mean	S.D.	N	Mean	S.D.	N	Mean	S.D.	N
Depression Scale
1. Female	5.83	2.32	230	6.04	1.98	169	6.68	2.53	131
2. Male	5.33	1.86	183	5.81	2.13	208	6.08	2.19	150
	t-valueß = 2.38*			t-value = 1.09			t-value = 2.13*
Anxiety Scale
1. Female	12.42	4.27	225	12.58	3.41	162	14.16	3.79	130
2. Male	11.26	3.88	171	11.42	3.51	198	13.23	4.23	145
	t-value = 2.78***			t-value = 3.02***			t-value = 1.93*
Þ Both variables are multiple-item scales with the parameters discussed in the text. ß t-values are statistically significant at: * < 0.05; < 0.01; * < 0.005.

Information about the same variables was obtained from both spouses, permitting a dyadic approach to data analysis. As indicated in Table IV, of the 213 couples (80 bidirectional, 58 and 75 asymmetrical) who committed and/or experienced physical violence, in 38% symmetry prevailed: both partners were perpetrators as well as victims. In 62% of the couples asymmetry prevailed: there was either husband-to-wife or wife-to-husband physical violence, but not both. The wife-to-husband rates were slightly higher.

Of the 256 couples who committed and/or experienced psychological-only violence, half were symmetrical and half were asymmetrical. Of the latter, 64% reportedly committed wife-to-husband and 36% husband-to-wife psychological-only violence.

TABLE IV Type of Physical and Psychological Abuse and Perpetrator/Victim Relationshipin a Sample of 562 Calgary Couples
Type of Abuse	Physical Violence Þ		Psychological-only Violence ß
	%	N	%	N
Symmetrical¶
None	62.2	349	26.6	93
Bi-directional	14.3	80	36.7	128
Asymmetrical§
Husband-to-Wife	10.3	58	13.2	46
Wife-to-Husband	13.2	75	23.5	82
Total
	100.0	562	100.0	349
Þ Respondents who reportedly committed and/or experienced any of the CTS's eight physically violent acts in their intimate relationships. ß Respondents who reportedly committed and/or experienced any of the CTS's six psychologically violent acts in their intimate relationships. ¶ Symmetrical means both partners were either violent or non-violent. § Among non-victims, asymmetrical means subjects were perpetrators but not victims; among victims asymmetrical means subjects were victims but not perpetrators.

Can we assume that wives and husbands of symmetrically violent couples are more likely to report problems of mental health than their asymmetrical counterparts? Table V addresses this question.

For female non-victims, the means associated with both the depression (7.40) and anxiety (15.52) scales suggested that women who were perpetrators but not victims of physical violence (asymmetrical) suffered more depression than those who were in a non-violent, symmetrical situation (mean = 5.40 for depression and 11.49 for anxiety). Both differences were statistically significant at p < 0.001.

For psychological-only violence, both depression and anxiety levels were higher (p < 0.001) among female victims in symmetrical compared with asymmetrical situations. These data suggest that wives of symmetrically violent couples were more likely to report problems of mental distress than their asymmetrical counterparts. In short, experiencing psychological-only violence as both perpetrator and victim simultaneously was more personally distressing for the female partner than were situations in which she was the sole victim.

Among those experiencing physical violence, the same pattern held. When both partners were physically abusive (symmetrical), depression and anxiety scores for these women were higher than for women who were the sole victims of physical violence (asymmetrical). However, only the mean difference in depression scores between these two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.005). Nevertheless, both the magnitude and direction of the psychological distress subscales were as expected.

The same basic patterns were found for male partners. As with female non-victims, being a perpetrator of either type of violence was associated with increased depression and anxiety scores (p < 0.005). Among male victims, being in a symmetrical situation increased psychological distress over that reported in asymmetrical situations. The statistically significant differences found in anxiety levels were not found in depression levels.

In summary, Table V shows that when both partners were psychologically or physically abusive, both female and male victims reported more psychological distress than did their counterparts in asymmetrical relationships. Regardless of gender, perpetrators in asymmetrical relationships reported significantly higher levels of psychological distress than did individuals in symmetrically non-violent relationships.

TABLE V Relationship Between Couple Violence and Psychological Distress byGender and Symmetry of Relationship: Means, Standard Deviations,and F-Ratios from ANOVA
	Females
	Symmetrical Þ			Asymetrical ß
	Mean	S.D.	N ¶	Mean	S.D.	N ¶	F-Ratio §
Non-victim
Depression Scale	5.40	2.11	180	7.40	2.40	50	-5.75****
Anxiety Scale	11.49	3.75	173	15.52	4.46	52	-6.50****
Psychological-only (victim)
Depression Scale	6.37	1.95	126	5.09	1.77	43	3.77****
Anxiety Scale	13.09	3.36	122	11.03	3.09	40	3.59****
Physical violence (victim)
Depression Scale	7.23	2.57	75	5.95	2.31	56	2.95***
Anxiety Scale	14.61	3.74	77	13.51	3.81	53	1.63
	Males
	Symmetrical Þ			Asymetrical ß
	Mean	S.D.	N ¶	Mean	S.D.	N ¶	F-Ratio §
Non-victim
Depression Scale	5.10	1.78	142	6.15	1.91	41	-3.27***
Anxiety Scale	10.38	3.38	130	14.05	4.09	41	-5.21****
Psychological-only (victim)
Depression Scale	6.02	2.12	128	5.47	2.12	80	1.86
Anxiety Scale	12.45	3.55	124	9.84	2.77	74	5.77****
Physical violence (victim)
Depression Scale	6.22	2.37	78	5.93	1.97	72	0.81
Anxiety Scale	13.92	4.38	76	12.46	3.95	69	2.11*
Þ Symmetrical means both partners were either violent or non-violent. ß Among non-victims, asymmetrical means subjects were perpetrators but not victims; among victims, asymmetrical means subjects were victims but not perpetrators. ¶ Numbers vary due to non-response on selected items. § F-ratios are statistically significant at: * < 0.05; < 0.01; * < 0.005; **** < 0.001.

DISCUSSION

This research obtained self-reports on couple violence and psychological distress from both partners. Although studies reveal that men tend to underreport sensitive issues in terms of both frequency and severity of violence, our incidence rates of physical and psychological abuse are consistent with other studies. (2,4,5,7,10,14,15)

Compared with wife abuse and its consequences for women's mental health, less research has been done on husband abuse and its relationship to men's psychological distress. Furthermore, previous research has focused almost exclusively on physical abuse, ignoring psychological abuse and its relationship to mental health. Although we acknowledge the evidence that victimized women are much more likely than victimized men to suffer from physical injury requiring medical attention (21,23,24,28), we cannot ignore the potential long-term negative consequences of verbal attacks and other psychologically and mentally degrading acts of abuse. Our results support the notion that the experience of physical and psychological couple violence is strongly associated with psychological distress for women and men. Both genders are reportedly victimized by their respective partners and, compared with non-victims, both women's and men's psychological well-being suffers from abuse, a finding contrary to a widely adopted view held by the public and experts alike. These findings point to limitations in extant views of the relationship between men's abuse and their mental health.

Another striking finding, which supports the feminist thesis, is that across the board female victims of both types of violence exhibit greater psychological distress than their male counterparts (Table III). This also holds for non-victims. It may be argued that unlike men, women's sense of self is tied more closely to expressive, experiential, and socio-emotional spheres. Thus, their self-worth appears to be more vulnerable in close relationships. While men's identities are apt to revolve around achievement and activities in the outside world, women's identities are more generally defined in relation to their intimatespartners, children, relatives, friends. (29,30)

Interestingly, this study shows that it is not necessary to be a victim of intimate violence to suffer increased levels of psychological distress: being a sole male or female perpetrator is sufficient cause for higher rates of both depression and anxiety. In symmetrical relationships, both partners' mental health is significantly affected by this bi-directional abuse. The related effect of gender symmetry and asymmetry in violence merits exploration in future studies because, unlike perpetrators and victims of violence in the streets, perpetrators and victims of couple violence are intimate partners. Over time, they are drawn into coercive processes of escalation, intensity, and reciprocity of violence. The etiology and effect of such partner abuse are grounded in intimacy: both the forming and breaking of emotional bonds are part of the ongoing dialectic of couple interaction because domination, control, and intimacy exist side by side and often become entangled.

These cross-sectional data, while consistent with findings from clinical studies that focused on female victims(21,30,32), do not prove intimate violence causes psychological distress. To establish causality requires more stringent research methodologies, such as experimental designs, longitudinal studies, etc. Therefore, these conclusions are only suggestive and must be interpreted with caution.

With respect to therapeutic efforts in prevention, the findings also appear to argue for the importance of including both partners and of addressing the deployment of non-violent conflict-resolution strategies. It appears that a significant amount of education is needed to dispel the myth that males cannot be seriously abused by females. Work on this myth would help couples more effectively deal with the destructive patterns in their relationship, help prevent violence in the first place, and reduce the tendency of helping professionals to deny this problem. Moral consistency, in this case a willingness to confront couple violence with its negative psychological consequences, would seem to speak most powerfully to the needs of both female and male victims(33).

REFERENCES

2. Straus MA, Gelles RJ. Physical Violence in American Families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1992.

4. Straus MA, Gelles RJ, Steinmetz SK. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New York: Anchor/Doubleday, 1980.

5. Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales (CT). J Marriage 1979;41:75-88.

6. Bland R, Orne H. Family violence and psychiatric disorder. Can J Psychiatry 1988;31:129-37.

7. Brinkerhoff MB, Grandin E, Lupri E. Religious involvement and spousal abuse: The Canadian case. J Scien S Rel 1992;31:15-31.

10. Lupri E. Harmonie und Aggression: Über die Dialektik ehelicher Gewalt. Kölner Z SS 1990;42:474-501.

11. Sommer R. Male and Female Perpetrated Partner Abuse: Testing a Diathesis-Stress Model. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg: Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.

12. Straus MA, Gelles RJ. Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. J Marriage 1986;48:465-79.

13. Johnson M. Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. J Marriage 1995;57:283-94.

14. Sommer R, Barnes GE, Murray RP. Alcohol consumption, alcohol abuse, personality and female perpetrated spouse abuse. Person Indiv Diff 1992;13:1315-23.

15. Kennedy LW, Dutton DJ. The incidence of wife assault in Alberta. CJ Behavioural Science 1989;21(1):40-54. (The data regarding assault on husbands were not reported in this publication but are available from the Population Research Laboratory, University of Alberta, Edmonton.)

16. Ratner PA. The incidence of wife abuse and mental health status in abused wives in Edmonton, Alberta. Can J Public Health 1993;84:246-49.

17. Statistics Canada. The Daily: Survey Highlights 1993. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1993.

18. Dobash RP, Dobash RE, Wilson M, Daly M. The myth of spousal symmetry in marital violence. Soc P 1992;39:401-21.

19. Dobash RP, Dobash RE. Wife-beating: Patriarchy and Violence Against Wives. Milton Keynes: The Open University, 1990.

20. Popper A. The invisible reality: Patterns and power in family violence. In: Baker M (Ed.), The Family: Changing Trends in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1991.

21. Berk RA, Berk SF, Loseke DR, Rauma D. Mutual combat and other family myths. In: Finkelhor D, Gelles RJ, Hotaling GT, Straus MA (Eds.), The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1983.

23. MacLeod L. Wife battering and the web of hope: Progress, dilemmas and visions of prevention. Discussion paper presented at the Working Together: 1989 National Forum on Family Violence June 18-21, 1989.

24. MacLeod L. Battered But Not Beaten: Preventing Wife Battering in Canada. Ottawa: National Council on the Status of Women, 1987.

26. Kim JO. Factor analysis. In: Nie HN, Hull C, Jenskin K, et al. (Eds.), Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

27. Kurz D. Physical assaults by husbands: A major social problem. In: Gelles RJ, Loseke DR (Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1993.

29. Duffy AD, Mandell N, Pupo N. Few Choices: Women, Work, and the Family. Toronto: Garamond Press, 1989.

30. Mackie M. Gender Relations in Canada: Further Explorations. Toronto: Butterworth, 1993.

32. Scheff TJ, Retzinger S. Emotions and Violence. Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1991.

33. Busby DM. The Impact of Violence on the Family. Treatment Approaches for Therapists and Other Professionals. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997.

Research for this paper was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Grant 410-77-0580.

Abstract

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

REFERENCES