Psychological aggression in dating relationships: The ... - Springer Link

Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1991

Psychological Aggression in Dating Relationships: The Role of Interpersonal Control J a n E. Stets 1

This research examines the relatively unexplored area of psychological aggression in dating relationships. One causal factor of particular interest is interpersonal control, that is, the degree to which one person controls another in a relationship. Data are collected on men and women inflicting and sustaining psychological abuse in heterosexual college dating relationships. The results show that interpersonal control is an important predictor of psychological aggression. KEY WORDS: psychologicalaggression; dating/courtshipaggression;control.

INTRODUCTION This research examines psychological aggression as a distinct form of interpersonal aggression (Garbino et al., 1986). Research on psychological aggression is sparse even though psychological aggression may be a precursor to physical and sexual aggression, and even though it may affect the quality of life for individuals in ways similar to physical and sexual aggression. Studies that exist suffer from conceptual underdevelopment, biases in sampling, and a lack of rigorous methodology. For example, Hoffman (1984) conceptualizes psychological aggression as behavior that threatens a woman's capacity to work, interact, or enjoy good physical or mental health. This conceptualization lacks clarity. Research on psychological aggression is also often carried out on self-selected women victims which leads to biased results (DeGregoria, 1987; Hoffman, 1984; Walker, 1979). Finally, 1Department of Sociology,Washington State University,Pullman, Washington99163. 97 0085-7482/91/0300-0097506.50/0 9 1991 Plenum Publishing Corportion

98

Stets

researchers studying psychological aggression generally do not offer an explanation of how they arrive at the various psychological tactics that they study or what factors may influence inflicting and sustaining psychological aggression. The prevalence and causes of psychological aggression in dating relationships are examined given the lack of research in this area. Psychological aggression is addressed through a scale that was developed and given to a sample of dating college students. The causes of psychological aggression are investigated by relying on the physical aggression literature for some guidance. Since psychological aggression may lead to physical aggression (Barling and Arias, 1987; Stets, 1990; Straus, 1974) or accompany it (Walker, 1979), some of the underlying factors that generate physical aggression may also generate psychological aggression. One causal factor of particular interest is interpersonal control, that is, the act of managing or regulating another's thoughts, feelings or actions. Sociologists, in particular, have confined their conception of control to the societal level by focusing on class, race or sex, (e.g., in the positional power of the incumbents). With regard to gender, for example, Patriarchal Theory (Dobash and Dobash, 1979) suggests that physical aggression (particularly husband-to-wife aggression) is a result of the subordinate position that women occupy relative to men in society. Men's use of physical aggression in interaction reflects and reinforces their power and control in the social structure. This argument has also been used to explain why rape occurs (Brownmiller, 1975; Russell, 1984). Similarly, in Resource Theory, the lack of men's control on the macro level (through an objectively high status) influences abusive behavior on the micro level to compensate for a loss of status (Hornung et aL, 1981; Kalmuss and Straus, 1982; O'Brien, 1971). Criminologists have linked control with aggression but the connection is different. For example, Control theory (Hirschi, 1969) states that a weakened/severed bond with conventional society lifts restraints (controls) on aggressive behavior. Social control theory (Black, 1983) holds that aggression is a way of seeking retribution for perceived injustice. Finally, the Power-control theory (Hagan et aL, 1985, 1987) states that parents' restrictions (controls) on their children's behavior influence the degree to which their children engage in delinquent activities. While control can be discussed in terms of mens' and womens' structural positions, it is equally important to examine control as a basic interactive feature that may result in psychologically aggressive behavior. Control may occur irrespective of one's gender, and thus irrespective of one's structural position. It is hypothesized that those who control others will be more likely to inflict psychological aggression to get another to obey. These people will

Psychological Aggression in Dating Relationships

99

also be more likely to sustain aggression because victims of psychological aggression may themselves inflict aggression (having learned this behavior from their partner) to stop the other from controlling them. Indeed, the reciprocity of physical aggression is well documented (Cate et al., 1982; Henton et al., 1983; Deal and Wampler, 1986; Burke et al., 1988). Psychological aggression may be reciprocal as well. Other factors that have been examined in the dating physical aggression literature may also be important in explaining psychological aggression. These include background experiences of aggression when young, individual characteristics (including self-esteem and acceptance of aggression), and the relationship characteristic of behavioral involvement (Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989). Since witnessing and/or experiencing physical aggression in childhood influences involvement in aggression while dating (Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989), and since psychological aggression often accompanies physical aggression (Walker, 1979), those who have witnessed and/or experienced physical aggression have probably also observed and/or been the victims of psychological aggression. It is expected that people who have witnessed and/or experienced physical aggression when young will be more likely to inflict psychological aggression while dating because they have learned that psychological aggression is an appropriate response to use in situations of conflict (Bandura et al., 1961). They may also be more likely to sustain psychological aggression due to the reciprocity of aggression. Self-esteem negatively influences inflicting and sustaining physical aggression while dating (Comins, 1984; Deal and Wampler, 1986; Stets and Pirog-Good, 1987). Those who have a poor self-image may act aggressively to raise their self-esteem (Kaplan, 1982). People with low selfesteem may be more likely to sustain aggression because they feel they deserve such behavior. These same dynamics should operate for psychological aggression. Positive attitudes toward physical aggression promote physical aggression in dating relationships (Cate et al., 1982; Deal and Wampler, 1986; Henton et al., 1983; Stets and Pirog-Good, 1987). Those who accept physical aggression may also accept psychological aggression. Therefore, those who inflict psychological aggression will be more accepting of physical aggression. Those who sustain psychological aggression will also be more accepting of physical aggression, otherwise they would not tolerate such aggression. Finally, physical aggression is more likely to occur in more serious dating relationships (Cate et al., 1982; Henton et al., 1983; Laner and Thompson, 1982; Sigelman et al., 1984). Behavioral involvement, a characteristic of serious relationships, positively influences physical aggression

100

Stets

while dating (Burke et al., 1988; Stets and Pirog-Good, 1990). Dating relationships in which there is high behavioral involvement (time spent with one's partner is large) may be characterized by an increased chance that conflict will arise over such issues as fideIity or how to spend time together. If commitment to the relationship is breached (perhaps by dating another), it may serve as the basis not only for physical but also psychological aggression. Therefore, it is expected that those who are more behaviorally involved will be more likely to inflict psychological aggression. They will also be more likely to sustain psychological aggression because of the higher chance of conflict arising and influencing the onset of verbally offending or degrading behavior.

METHOD

Subjects A random sample of upper level classes was obtained from a listing of courses at a large Midwestern University. (Only college students' courtship experiences were of interest. Upper level classes were selected to avoid freshmen whose courtship experiences over the past year might include high school relationships.) Letters were sent to the professors in the sampled classes explaining the research on dating aggression. They were asked if they would agree to have their students participate in the survey. The close-ended survey covered: (1) experiences of psychological aggression with up to four dating partners during the past 12 months; (2) background information, including respondent's childhood experiences of aggression, attitudes on aggression, and self-esteem; and (3) characteristics of the dating relationship, including the level of interpersonal control and behavioral involvement with each partner. Eighty-three percent of the randomly sampled classes completed the survey on an in-class basis. Those not participating were married or not dating. Comparing the sample to the general distribution of upper class students showed no significant departures for age, sex, and area of study. Because of the very low frequency of non-whites in the sample, they were excluded from the analysis. (There were only five non-white male relationships and three non-white female relationships.) The final sample included 583 respondents and 1096 relationships. For the analysis of inflicting aggression, there was complete data on 378 relationships for men and 510 relationships for women. For the analysis of sustaining aggression, there was complete data on 367 relationships for men and 499 relationships for


101

women. For this study, the focus is on the relationship. On average, men and women had slightly less than two dating partners in the last year. Measures

Dependent Variable Psychological Aggression. Psychological aggression refers to acting in a verbally offending or degrading manner towards another. The mistreatment may take the form of insults or behavior that results in making another feel guilty, upset, or worthless. This definition is grounded in individual's perceptions of what psychological aggression means to them. In a previous pilot study including a random sample of 505 college students who were dating, respondents were given an open-ended question which asked them to indicate what they thought was psychological aggression. A content analysis revealed 35 statements that were considered to be characteristics of psychological aggression (with various wordings and phrases). Of these 35 statements, the 20 items that were most commonly mentioned were selected and were used in the 1987 survey. Of these 20 items, 10 items were characteristic of behaving in a verbally offending or degrading manner. These 10 items were used to form the psychological aggression scale for this study. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency ("never," "two or three times this past year," "often, but less than once a month," "about once a month," or "once a week or more," coded to an annualized rate of 0, 2, 7, 12, and 60) with which they emitted each of the following acts with each of up to four people they had been dating during the past year: (1) Insulted him/her (2) Said things to upset him/her (3) Made him/her feel guilty (4) Made him/her feel inferior (5) Said mean things to him/her

(6) Gave him/her the cold shoulder (7) Degraged him/her (8) Criticized him/her (9) Hurt him/her feelings (10) Called him/her names

They then indicated how often they sustained each of the acts during the past year. To check whether the scales were different for men and women inflicting and sustaining psychological abuse, a chi-square was computed which tested the significance of the difference in the psychological aggression factor loadings for men and women. Results showed no significant difference for inflicting (X 2 = 14.58, 20 (dr), n.s.) or sustaining (X2 = 28.29, 20 (dJ), n.s) psychological aggression. Therefore, the meaning of the items are the same for men and women. The results of the factor

102

Stets Table I. Factor Analysis and Reliability of the Psychological

Aggression Scale for Men and Womena Factor Loading Item

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Insulted him/her. Said things to upset him/her. Made him/her feel guilty. Made him/her feel inferior. Said mean things to him/her. Gave him/her the cold shoulder. Degraded him/her. Criticized him/her. Hurt his/her feelings. Called him/her names.

Omega Reliability =

Inflict

Sustain

0.66 0.68 0.50 0.54 0.80 0.44 0.64 0.64 0.58 0.58

0.78 0.73 0.59 0.74 0.82 0.66 0.79 0.86 0.75 0.71

0.90

0.95

a Principal components analysis.

analysis are presented in Table I. The results show an omega reliability (Heise and Bohrnstedt, 1970) of 0.90 for inflicting psychological aggression and 0.95 for sustaining psychological aggression. The items were summed to form a single scale with a higher score reflecting greater psychological aggression. This scale differs from the "verbal" tactics of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) in several ways. First, the items in the psychological abuse scale are grounded in people's descriptions of what psychological abuse means to them; it is unclear how the items for the verbal tactics of the CTS emerged. Second, the verbal items of the CTS presumably reflect verbal aggression but this is difficult to see given such items as "stomping out of the room/house/yard" or "crying." Although the tactics may be alternatively identified as acts of "Symbolic" Aggression (Straus, 1979), the unidimensional meaning of the items is still unclear. Finally, while degradation is an important component of psychological abuse, this element is not fully captured in the "verbal" items of the CTS.

Independent Measures Interpersonal Control Based on earlier research (Stets, 1988), six items were selected to measure interpersonal control over another. Respondents were to show the frequency "never," "seldom," "sometimes," "often," "very frequently") with which each of the following statements described their relationship with each of up to four partners they had been dating in the past year:


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

103

I keep my partner in line I am successful in imposing my will onto my partner I get my partner to act in a way that I want him/her to act My partner is free to go wherever s/he wants to go even though I may not approve I accept my partner for who s/he is rather than trying to change him/her When my partner does not meet my expectations, I understand and accept it

T h e c o n t r o l scale items w e r e s e l e c t e d f r o m a p r e - t e s t o f items, all o f which w e r e b a s e d on qualitative d e s c r i p t i o n s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l as r e v e a l e d in Stets' (1988) research. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e following e x c e r p t f r o m a p e r p e t r a t o r in Stets' s a m p l e illustrates t h e first item: I wanted her to fall into a role model, but if she got out of that role model, that's not what I wanted. I had broke that security. I guess the only way that I could get her back in line was to hit her. (Stets, 1988, p. 109) I t e m f o u r is illustrated in t h e following way by a victim: He would get really angry. If I went to the grocery store and I'd take a little bit longer than what I should have, he didn't like it because I was supposed to be where he wanted me to be at the exact time. I wasn't supposed to do anything that I wasn't told to do. (Stets, 1988, p. 110) A s a n o t h e r e x a m p l e , i t e m five is illustrated in the following e x c e r p t by a p e r p e t r a t o r : I'm finding out that I don't need to strike out...Accept what I do and be truthful with myself and accept the fact that I'm not going to change Nancy. I'm not going to change anybody else for that matter. (Stets, 1988, p. 118) In this way, all t h e i t e m s in the scale w e r e b a s e d on t h e c o n n o t a t i o n s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l h e l d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s in Stets' study. I t e m s 4, 5, a n d 6 w e r e reverse coded. L i k e the psychological aggression scale, a chis q u a r e was c o m p u t e d to test w h e t h e r t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e in t h e interp e r s o n a l c o n t r o l f a c t o r loadings for m e n a n d w o m e n . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d no significant d i f f e r e n c e (X 2 = 6.15, 6 (dr), n.s.). C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l items have the s a m e m e a n i n g for m e n a n d w o m e n . T h e f a c t o r analysis is p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e II. R e s u l t s show an o m e g a reliability o f 0.71. T h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t r o l items w e r e s u m m e d with a h i g h e r score r e p r e s e n t i n g m o r e acts o f c o n t r o l exercised over the other. Witnessing and Experiencing Physical Aggression. A s u b s e t o f i t e m s f r o m t h e Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, 1979) w e r e used to m e a s u r e d whether respondents had observed physical aggression between their p a r e n t s a n d e x p e r i e n c e d p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n in c h i l d h o o d . T h e C T S is divided into t h r e e types o f conflict resolution: reasoning, verbal, a n d v i o l e n t tactics. It is t h e violent tactics that w e r e u s e d to c r e a t e witnessing a n d exp e r i e n c i n g aggression. R e s p o n d e n t s w e r e told to t h i n k a b o u t t h e worst y e a r o f t h e i r c h i l d h o o d in which d i s p u t e s b e t w e e n their p a r e n t s a n d t h e m o c -

104

Stets

Table II. Factor Analysis and Reliability of the Interpersonal Control Scale for Men and Womena Item 1. 2.

I keep my partner in line. I am successsful in imposing my will onto my partner. 3. I get my partner to act in a way I want him/her to act. 4. My partner is free to go wherever s/he wants to go even though I may not approve. 5. I accept my partner for who s/he is rather than trying to change him/her. 6. When my partner does not meet up to my expectations, I understand and accept it. Omega Reliability = 0.71

Factor Loading 0.68 0.64 0.69 -0.30 -0.61 -0.51

a Principal components analysis.

c u r r e d . T h e y w e r e a s k e d to i n d i c a t e the f r e q u e n c y (using t h e s a m e categories that were used to measure psychological aggression) with which their parents inflicted particular behaviors on each other and on themselves. These behaviors included: (1) threw something, (2) pushed, g r a b b e d or shoved, (3) slapped or spanked, (4) kicked bit, or hit with a fist, (5) hit or tried to hit with something, (6) beat up, (7) t h r e a t e n e d with a knife or gun, or (8) used a knife or gun. T h e items were r e c o d e d to an annual rate with a higher score showing witnessing frequent physical aggression between parents and experiencing frequent child aggression. Self-esteem. Self-esteem was m e a s u r e d using the 10-item R o s e n b e r g self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1979). This scale has high reliability and has b e e n used in other studies on dating aggression (Burke et al., 1988; D e a l and Wampler, 1986; Stets and Pirog-Good, 1990). Acceptance of Violence. T h e violent tactics of the CTS were further used to m e a s u r e respondents' acceptance of violence towards w o m e n and m e n . R e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d w h e t h e r e a c h v i o l e n t tactic "always," "depends," or "never" was an act of violence against w o m e n and men. If the r e s p o n d e n t answered "depends" or "never" (i.e., felt there were times w h e n the act was not violent), a score of one was given; otherwise, it was scored zero. T h e scores were s u m m e d across items with a higher score indicating greater acceptance of violence. This acceptance o f aggression scale has b e e n used in o t h e r research on dating aggression (Burke et al., 1988). A c c e p t a n c e of aggression against w o m e n was placed in the model for males inflicting p s y c h o l o g i c a l a g g r e s s i o n a n d f e m a l e s sustaining aggression.


105

Acceptance of aggression against men was put in the model for females inflicting and males sustaining psychological aggression. Behavioral Involvement. This measure is composed of two variables: the number of months the respondent has been dating another, and the number of dates per year that the respondent had with a dating partner. The correlation of these two variables was 0.60. The variables were each standardized (to zero mean and unit variance) and summed to form a scale.

RESULTS T h e r e are two aspects of this analysis that require comment. First, to account for individuals dating more than one person, survey respondents were to describe their relationship with each of up to four dating partners. Given this sampling frame, the analysis uses relationship level data to predict inflicting and sustaining psychological aggression. Because of this, there may be correlated errors in the observations. While not affecting the estimates of the coefficients, it may result in tests of significance that are inflated. Durbin-Watson statistics were employed to test whether the errors for each observation across multiple partners were correlated (Hanushek and Jackson, 1977). This procedure has been used by Burke et al., (1988) and G o o d et al. (1986). While too numerous to report here, the results showed significant correlation among the errors. To correct the inflated tests of significance of the coefficients, the t ratios were calculated using only the n u m b e r of i n d e p e n d e n t observations. This r e d u c e d the e f f e c t i v e N, resulting in tests of significance that are appropriately based only on the number of independent observations. The n u m b e r of independent observations for each of the equations is shown at the bottom of Table VI. Second, the dependent variables, while continuous, are censored. They have a lower limit of zero and there is a "piling up" of cases at that lower limit. Because of the censored nature of the dependent variables, multiple regression is not an appropriate statistical technique. It does not consider the concentration of cases at the lower limit of zero. Tobit analysis, a multivariate technique designed for this situation, was used. This provides maximum likelihood estimates for equations in which the dependent variables are censored (Amemiya, 1974). Table III reports the means and standard deviations for each of the variables in the models as reported by men and women. Across relationships, women are more likely than men to have witnessed aggression between parents. This is consistent with evidence that young girls are more

106

Stets Table III. Means and Standard Deviations

Variables Witnessing aggression Experiencing aggression Self-esteem Accept violence against own sex Accept violence against opposite sex Control Behavioral involvement Inflict psychological aggression Sustain psychological aggression N

Dating Relationships Reported by Males

Dating Relationships Reported by Females

Mean (S.D.)

Mean (S.D.)

3.262a (11.290) 20.171 a (39.017) 31.937 (6.085) 1.368a (1.899) 1.103b (1.786) 6.210 (3.772) 0.000 (1.811) 35.489 (59.222) 29.542 b (61.420) 378

12.492 a (51.174) 13.840 a (26.998) 31.080 (6.444) 0.794a (1.294) 0.873 b (1.299) 6.457 (3.756) 0.000 (1.663) 39.686 (68.823) 42.731 b (96.585) 510

a Means for relationships reported by men and women are significantly different at the .01 level. b Means for relationships reported by men and women are significantly different at the .05 level.

likely than young boys to stay close to home (Block, 1983). Therefore, they would be more likely to witness aggression between parents. Men are more likely than women to have experienced child aggression. This is consistent with research that shows that young boys sustain more physical punishment than girls (Block, 1983; Weitzman, 1979). Table III also reveals that there is no difference in the amount of control exhibited by men and women across relationships. Therefore, interpersonal control is not a gender-specific process. Women are just as likely as men to act to control in interaction even though their social structural positions are largely subordinate to mens'. Further there is no difference in the amount of psychological aggression inflicted by men and women. There is a difference in the amount of psychological aggression sustained, with women experiencing more aggres-

107

Psychological Aggression in Dating Relationships Table IV. Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Agression Inflict

Item Insulted him/her. Said things to upset him/her. Made him/her feel guilty. Made him/her feel inferior. Said mean things to him/her. Gave him/her the cold shoulder. Degraded him/her. Criticized him/her. Hurt his/her feelings. Called him/her names. N

Sustain

Males

Females

Males

Females

Mean (S.D.)

Mean (S.D.)

Mean (S.D.)

Mean (S.D.)

4.06 (11.06) 6.08 (12.97) 4.19 (9.83) 3.01 (9.84) 2.99 (8.93) 4,37 (10.68) 1.25 (5.72) 3.72 (8.98) 4.08 (9.00) (1.72) (7.14)

5.04 (13.19) 6.23 (13.72) 5.08 (12.00) 2.02 (7.72) 4.35 (12.00) 5.40 (12.45) 1.11 (5.63) 4.34 (11.01) 3.52 (8.71) 2.56 (9.63)

2.73a (8.53) 4.70b (11.25) 4.00 (10.45) 2,05 (8.92) 2.69 (9.00) 3.38 (9.12) 1.05~ (3.92) 3.42 (8.64) 3.71b (10.34) 1.80 (6.66)

4.35a (13.09) 7.11b (16.01) 4.84 (12.38) 3.31 (11.04) 3.59 (11.33) 4.18 (12.57) 2.29a (10.03) 4.01 (12.13) 7.04b (15.21) 2.00 (8.63)

378

510

367

499

a Means for relationships reported by males and females are significantly different at the .05 level. b Means for relationships reported by males and females are significantly different at the .01 level.

sion t h a n m e n . M e n m a y b e u n d e r - r e p o r t i n g the a m o u n t o f psychological aggression they inflict. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , w o m e n m a y b e m o r e sensitive to b e i n g psychologically a g g r e s s e d against. T a b l e I V shows t h e m e a n s a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s by g e n d e r a n d role in the aggressive r e l a t i o n s h i p (inflicts o r sustains aggression) o f e a c h o f t h e items that c o m p r i s e the psychological aggression scale. S o m e f o r m s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l aggression o c c u r m o r e often t h a n others. F o r e x a m p l e , " d e g r a d i n g a n o t h e r " o r "calling t h e m n a m e s " occurs less o f t e n t h a n upsetting a n o t h e r o r h u r t i n g their feelings. S o m e might p e r c e i v e t h e f o r m e r as m o r e s e v e r e t h a n t h e latter. R e l a t i o n s h i p s r e p o r t e d by w o m e n r e v e a l

108

Stets

frequent feelings of being upset, degraded, or hurt than relationships reported by men. Table V presents the correlations among the variables. At the zero order level, there is a significant positive correlation between interpersonal control and psychological aggression, and this holds for both men and women. The results also indicate that we must control for the other variables to avoid a spurious relationship between interpersonal control and psychological aggression. Indeed, there are several instances of both interpersonal control and psychological aggression being related to "third variables." For example, self-esteem negatively influences interpersonal control and psychological aggression for women, and witnessing aggression when young positively influences interpersonal control and psychological aggression for men. A n o t h e r significant finding from Table V is that inflicting psychological aggression is significantly correlated with sustaining psychological aggression. Therefore, like physical aggression (Burke et aL, 1988; Cate et al., 1982; Henton et al., 1983; Sigelman et al., 1984) and sexual aggression (Stets and Pirog-Good, 1989), psychological aggression is reciprocal. Table VI shows the maximum likelihood estimates of the tobit equations for dating relationships where men and women reported inflicting and sustaining psychological aggression. The tobit coefficients are interpreted in the same way as unstandardized OLS regression coefficients. Each coefficient represents the amount of change in the dependent variable for a one unit change in the independent variable. However, since the observed dependent variable cannot fall below zero, changes in an independent variable which would result in scores lower than zero on the dependent variables are assumed to have no observed effect. These results reveal that after controlling for all other factors, interpersonal control positively influences inflicting and sustaining psychological aggression in dating relationships. These effects are large relative to the other factors as revealed in the size of the coefficients, and they hold for both men and women. These findings, in combination with the lack of gender difference in either level of control or level of aggression, suggest that it is interpersonal control rather than structural positions in society which account for psychological abuse. When controlling for interpersonal control, the results also show that women with low self-esteem both inflict and sustain psychological aggression. Finally, when controlling for interpersonal control, greater behavioral involvement influences inflicting psychological aggression by women and sustaining psychological aggression by men.

0.166 -0.05 -0.02 -0.04 -0.03 -0.05 0.02 0.01

0.02 -0.15 c 0.01 0.02 0.03 -0.07 c 0.05 0.07

-0.07 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.14 b -0.05 -0.17 b -0.16 b

SELFEST

0.90 b 0.08 -0.03 -0.05 -0.02

0.01 0.08 0.03

ACPTVF -0.06 0.07 0.03 0.85 b 0.06 -0.05 -0.01 -0.04

ACPTVM 0.12 b 0.08 -0.02 0.03 0.09 0.11 c 0.39 b 0.24 b

CON

T a b l e V. C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x o f V a r i a b l e s b y G e n d e r a

EXPER 0.14 b -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.06 0.266 0.15 b 0.01

BI 0.15 b 0.01 -0.04 0.05 0.08 0.366 0.15 b 0.53 b

PSYI

0.04 0.03 -0.06 0.01 -0.02 0.23 b 0.17 b 0.55 b -

PSYS

a Males are on the upper half of the correlation matrix and females are on the lower half of the correlation matrix. b D e n o t e s s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r e n c e in t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s at p < 0.01. c D e n o t e s s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r e n c e in t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s at p < 0.05.

W I T N E S S = W i t n e s s i n g v i o l e n c e w h e n y o u n g , E X P E R = E x p e r i e n c i n g v i o l e n c e w h e n y o u n g , S E L F E S T = Selfesteem, ACPTVF = Accept violence toward women, ACPTVM = Accept violence toward men, CON = Control, BI = B e h a v i o r a l i n v o l v e m e n t , P S Y I = Inflict p s y c h o l o g i c a l a g g r e s s i o n , P S Y S = S u s t a i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l a g g r e s s i o n .

WITNESS EXPER SELFEST ACPTVF ACPTVM CON BI PSYI PSYS

WITNESS

E

-3.396 0.609 0.007 -0,333 0.544 6,439b 3.457 251.600 (0.001) 378 204

CONSTANT WITNESS AGGRESSION EXPERIENCE AGGRESSION SELF-ESTEEM ACCEPT VIOLENCE CONTROL INVOLVEMENT

Maximum likelihood X 2 (prob) N Indep. cases

< 0.05. bp < 0.01.

ap

Inflict

Variables 5.213 0.035 0,014 4,628 -1,548 5.114b 6.975 h

Sustain

42.200 (0.001) 367 202

Males

119.400 (0.001) 510 287

18.072 0.065 0,074 -1.267 a -2,518 8,128h 7.234b

Inflict

499 285

(0.001)

147.400

44.312 0,026 0.152 -2.441 a -5.569 8.696b 4,230

Sustain

Females

Table VI, Tobit Coefficients for the Models Estimating Inflicting and Sustaining Psychological Aggression

g


111

DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence and causes of psychological aggression while dating. Of particular interest was the role of interpersonal control in predicting inflicting and sustaining aggression. The results are important on several points. First, across relationships men and women control their partner at about equal rates. This challenges the idea that men are more likely to control in the interpersonal sphere as an extension of their macro level control (Dobash and Dobash, 1979). Interpersonal control while dating is not simply derivative of control in the wider society. This is not to deny a relationship between macro-level processes and micro-level relations. Indeed, who controls another in a relationship may be dependent upon who is "less in love" (Peplau, 1984) or who has the "least interest" in the relationship (Waller, 1938). Less love or less interest suggests more control over the other. This lack of interest may be influenced by the position one holds in society. For example, women's lack of love in a relationship in comparison to men's during the early stages (thus their greater control compared to men) may be due to being more practical and discriminating about who they date (e.g., whether their date is economically competent) (Huston and Ashmore, 1986). They attend to this as they know that, on the average, their status will be more dependent on their mates' status than vice versa (particularly if they are housewives). However, men can afford to be romantic and playful and less discriminating in who they date. Thus, they readily fall in love and so do not have as much control over the other (as women would) at least initially (Hill et al., 1976). Consequently, although men have more control in general from a structural perspective, it may be diminished during courtship by the above mechanisms while that of women is increased to the point that they use as much interpersonal control as men. This relative equality in interpersonal control may explain why men and women act to control another at about equal rates. However, this "equality in interpersonal control" may not be maintained throughout the length of a relationship, particularly if and when a relationship is transformed into marriage. Nevertheless, some of the processes occurring during courtship continue in marriage. For example, the amount of conflict/negativity during courtship is significantly related to the amount of conflict/negativity in marriage (Kelly et al., 1985). The same may be true for mens' and womens' use of interpersonal control. Another important result that stems from this research is the finding that net of other effects, interpersonal control predicts psychological aggression. Psychological aggression is a strategy to get another to act in a

112

Stets

particular way. The victims of psychological aggression may also inflict aggression (thus the perpetrators sustain aggression). The victims may have learned (from their perpetrators or someone else, such as their parents) that psychological aggression is an appropriate response to use in situations of conflict. They may also use psychological aggression as a last resort to stop their partners from controlling them. Finally, they may use psychological aggression as an expression of anger for being controlled or aggressed against. A third important point to be made is that although interpersonal control is an important factor in psychological aggression, it is not the only factor. Self-esteem influences women inflicting and sustaining psychological aggression, and behavioral involvement influences women inflicting and men sustaining psychological aggression. These findings may be understood in the different orientations that men and women have toward relationships. Women are more likely to define themselves in their connection to others while men are oriented toward separation and independence (see Huston & Ashmore, 1986 for a review). Since women are more oriented to relationships than men (women's feelings about their relationships are a better index of the status of their relationship than men's feelings), (Hill et al., 1976), relationship experiences will have a greater impact on their view of themselves. For example, if conflict arises over a man showing independence in a relationship (e.g., dating someone else or going out with his "buddies" without telling his partner), the woman may feel rejected and unworthy (much more than if the situation were reversed and the man felt rejected). This is especially true if her relationship with her partner has been serious and she has invested a great deal. His behavior may threaten the continuity of their relationship which she has become attached to materially, socially, and psychologically. She may inflict aggression in response to her partner's rejecting behavior (either out of anger or to control his behavior) and to make herself feel better. In turn, he may respond with aggression of his own, thus making her the recipient of aggression. While we do not know if self-esteem is a cause or result of aggression without longitudinal data, men may find it easier to develop alternative sources of esteem if and when they have problems in their relationship (e.g., through work). Women may find alternative sources not as readily available. The point is that different factors may influence men's and women's involvement in psychological aggression because of the different orientations that men and women have to relationships. In conclusion, recent research shows that interpersonal control influences physical aggression directly (Follingstad, et aL, 1988; Stets, 1988; Stets and Pirog-Good, 1990) and indirectly (by examining variables related


113

to control) (DeMaris, 1987; Laner, 1989; Stets and Pirog-Good, 1987). It also influences sexual aggression (Stets and Pirog-Good, 1989). We now see that interpersonal control facilitates the explanation of psychological aggression as well. Interpersonal control, therefore, appears to be an important ingredient in understanding a number of forms of aggressive behavior. Future research needs to continue building upon the notion that interpersonal characteristics such as controlling another are vital to understanding aggression. For example, issues of trust (the antithesis of control (Holmes and Rempel, 1989)) and competitiveness (an effort to exert control (Laner, 1989)) may help us understand aggression (or the lack of it).

REFERENCES Amemiya, T. (1974). Multivariate regression and simultaneous equation models when the dependent variables are truncated normal. Econometdca 42: 999-1011. Bandura, A., Ross, D., and Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. J. Abnorm. Social Psychol. 63: 575-582. Barling, J., and Arias, I. (1987). Psychological and physical abuse among engaged couples. Paper presented at the American Criminology Meetings. Black, D. (1983). Crime as Social Control. Am. Sociological Rev. 48: 34-45. Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Dcvel. 54: 1335-1354. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will. Women and Rape, Simon and Schuster, New York. Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., and Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychol. Quart. 52: 272-285. Care, R., Henton, J., Koval, J., Christopher, F. S., and Lloyd, S. (1982). Premarital abuse: A social psychological perspective. J. Fam. Issues 3: 79-90. Comins, C. A. (1984). Courtship violence: A recent study and its implications for future research. Presented at the Second National Conference on Family Violence Research, University of New Hampshire. Deal, J. E., and Wampler, K. S. (1986). Dating violence: The primacy of previous experience. J. Social Pers. Relat. 3: 457-471. DeGregoria, B. (1987). Sex role attitude and perception of psychological abuse. Sex Roles 5/6: 227-235. DeMaris, A. (1987). The efficacy of a spouse abuse model in accounting for courtship violence. J. Faro. Issues 8: 291-305. Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence Against Women, Free Press, New York. Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Polek, D. S., and McNeill-Hawkins, K. (1988). Factors associated with patterns of dating violence toward college women. J. Fam. Viol. 3: 169-182. Garbino, J., Guttmann, E., and Seeley, J. W. (1986). The Psychologically Battered Child, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif. Gondolf, E. W. (1985). Fighting for control: A clinical assessment of men who batter. Social Casework 66: 48-54. Good, D. H., Pirog-Good, M. A., and Sickles, R. C. (1986). An analysis of youth crime and employment patterns. J. Quant. Criminol. 2: 219-236. Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., and Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure of gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of common delinquent behavior. Am. J. Sociol. 90: 1151-1178. Hagan, J., Simpson, J., and Gillis, A. R. (1987). Class in the household: A power-control theory of gender and delinquency. Am. J. Sociol. 92: 788-816.

114

Stets

Hanushek, E. A., and Jackson, J. E. (1977). Statistical Methods for Social Scient&ts, Academic Press, New York. Heise, D. R., and Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1970). Validity, invalidity, and reliability. In Borgatta, E. F., and Bohrnstedt G. W. (eds.), Sociological Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif., pp. 104-129. Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., and Christopher, S. F. (1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. J. Faro. Issues 4: 467-482. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., and Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Z Social Issues 32: 147-168. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency, University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif. Hoffman, P. (1984). Psychological abuse of women by spouses and live-in lovers. Wom. Ther. 3: 37-47. Holmes, J. G., and Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In Hendrick, C. (ed.), Close Relationships, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif., pp. 187-220. Hornung, C. A., McCullough, B. C., and Sugimonto, T. (1981). Status relationships in marriage: Risk factors in spouse abuse. J. Marr. Fam. 43: 675-692. Huston, T. L., and Ashmore, R. D. (1986). Women and men in personal relationships. In Ashmore, R. D., and Del Boca, F. K. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Female-Male Relations, Academic Press, New York, pp. 167-210. Kalmuss, D. S., and Straus, M. A. (1982). Wife's marital dependency and wife abuse. J. Marr. Fam. 44: 277-286. Kaplan, H. B. (1982). Deviant behavior and self-enhancement in adolescence. In Rosenberg, M., and Kaplan, H. B. (eds.), Social Psychology of the Self-Concept, Harlan Davidson, Arlington Heights, Ill, pp. 466-482. Kelly, C., Huston, T. L., and Cate, R. M. (1985). Premarital relationships correlates of the erosion of satisfaction in marriage. J. Social Pers. Relat. 2: 167-178. Laner, M. R. (1989). Competition and combativeness in courtship: Reports from men. J. Fam. Viol 4: 47-62. Laner, M. R., and Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in courting couples. Dev. Behav. Interdis. J. 3: 229-44. O'Brien, J. E. (1971). Violence in Divorce Prone Families. J. Marr. Fam. 33: 692-698. Peplau, L. A. (1984). Power in Dating Relationships. In Freeman, J. (ed.), Women: A Feminist Perspective, Mayfield, Palo Alto, Calif., pp. 100-112. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self, Basic Books, New York. Russell, D. E. H. (1984). Sexual Exploitation: Rape, Child Sexual Abuse, and Workplace Harassment, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif. Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., and Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence in college students' dating relationships. J. AppL Social PsychoL 14: 530-548. Stets, J. E. (1988). Domestic Violence and Control, Springer-Verlag, New York. Stets, J. E. (1990). Verbal and physical abuse in marriage. J. Marr. Faro. 52: 501-514. Stets, J. E., and Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships. Social PsychoL Quart. 50: 237-246. Stets, J. E., and Pirog-Good, M. A. (1989). Sexual aggression and control in dating relationships. J. AppL Social PsychoL 19: 1392-1412. Stets, J. E., and Pirog-Good, M. A. (1990). Interpersonal control and courtship aggression. Z Social Pers. Relat. 7: 371-394. Straus, M. A. (1974). Leveling, civility, and violence in the family. J. Marr. Faro. 36: 13-29. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. J. Marr. Fam. 41: 75-88. Sugarman, D. B., and Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In Pirog-Good, M. A., and Stets, J. E. (eds.), Violence in Dating Relationships: Emerging Social Issues, Praeger, New York, pp. 3-32. Walker, L. E. (1979). The Battered Woman, Harper and Row, New York. Waller, W. (1938). The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation, Dryden Press, New York. Weitzman, L. J. (1979). Sex Role Socialization, Mayfield Publishing Co., Palo Alto, Calif.