The Social Causes of Husband-Wife Violence - UNH IT - University ...

The John K. Fesler Memorial Fund provided
assistance in the publication of this volume, for which
the University of Minnesota Press is grateful.

The
Social Causes
of
Husband-Wife
Violence
Murray A. Straus
and Gerald T. Hotaling
Editors
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA PRESS OMINNEAPOLIS
1786

Copyright a 1980 by the Vniverrity of Minnesota
All rights reserved.
Published by the University of Minnesota Press,
2037 University Avenue Southeast,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
~ibrary of Congress Caralosng in Publication Data
Srraus, Murray Arnold. 1926-
The social causes of husbandwife violence.
Bibliogiaphy: p.
Includes indexes.
1. Conjugal vioience-Social aspecrr-Unired States-
Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Horaling, Gerald T.,
joint aurhor. 11. Tide.
HQ809.3.U5S88 306.8'7 79-27071
ISBN 0-8166-0886-5
ISBN 0-81664955-1 pbk.
The University of Minnesota
is an equal-opporurnity
educator and employer.

Foreword
Despite the lip service ritualisticallp paid to the
need to integrate sociological theory and empirical
research, too often research on the causes and consequences
of social problems lacks thDoretiCa1 guidance. Much
theorizing in such areas, on the other hand. procee9s in
blissful ignorance of scientific aata. The virtue of this
book is that it avoids these pitfalls. It presents research
findings vithin a firmly held theoretical framework, at the
same time that some of the empirical findirgs rifins
existino theories. These findinas. to borrow Robert K.
nerton's formulation. help to initiare, refornulate,
deflect. and clarify theories, rather than simply testing
them; and thus contribute not only to empirical knowledge
but also to the consolidation of tha theoretical
propositions in the area of family relationships and in the
general field of social conflict and violence.
what I like particularly in the approach of flurray
Straus and his associates is their commitment to an ironic
perspective. They have a fine sense of the incongruities
between the public image of an institution, :n this case the
family, and the underlying reality. Just as medical
research has shown that hospitals, which are supposed to
make people well, may make them sick and produce iatrogenic
diseases, so the authors show that family living, supposedly
predicated on consensus, integration. a3d harmony, may lead
to forms of conflict and v;olence rarely found outside the
family context. The very features of family life that
contribnta to intimacy, it turns out, also facilitate high
degrees of violmce between spouses.
Murray Straus and his associates are finely attunea to
the need to attend to the unanticipated as well as the
anticipated consequences or social actions. They are aware
that although evil intents may lead to desirable
conseqnences, good intentions may lead to undesirable ones.
-.

we learn here, for example, that more egalitarian relations
betveen husbands and uives may have the ironic consequence
or itcreasing rather than decreasing conflict betveen them,
at least in the short rur. The authors' orientation to the
ironic perspective on human affairs yields significant
insights that could probably could not have been reached
without this stance.
ThrOnghcUt this book, the authors eschew what Georg
Siamel once called the "fallacy cf separateness." That is,
they never succumb to the temptation to reg+rd family
conflicts in terms of the personalities cf husbands and
vives. They are succ~ssful at conveying the idea that
family conflicts, as all types of irteractions within the
family, cannot be understood without the realization that
they tend to derive irom social srructures and cultural
norms. The high incidence of conflict and violence in
conzemporary families, they argue persuasively, ousr b?
nnderstood in terms of furdanental co2tradicti3;s buil; into
the foundations of family life. They argue, for example,
that when the resources of a spouse are low--when that
spouse has, for example. a low status position in the
occopational world--the chances are higher that he or she
w i l l resort to violence in marital quarrels. They draw
attention to the interfamilial consequences of the
deprivatlon of valued status position with attendant losses
of ego identity and symbolic reinforcement of self-worth.
Bence, the Ironic tinding that working-class husbands, rho
tend to cling to an ideology of male dominance more
determinedly than middle class husbands. in fact possess
fewer resources for exercising power in the family and thus
resort to violence more frequently to compensate.
An ironic perspective, alert to the ambivalence of
homan relationships, especially in intimats settings, has
borne considerable fruit in this work. Aware that (to
borrow from Bronislaw nalinouski) aggression like charity
begins at home, they have documented with instructive
thoroughness that, ccntrary to the prevailing image, family
relations are the breeaing ground of both love ana
hostzlity, of selfless devotior and of destructive violence.
what is more, they have shown that to decrease rhe level of
violence in family settings ixvolves more than counseling
and therapy. It involves EO less than a restructuring of
relarions between men and women, which, in its turn, is
largely dependent on a iundamental restrncturirg of the
allocation of power and status in the society at large. I
hope that their semlnal contribution w i l l find an echo among
scholarly investig+tors and sccial prsctltioners alike.
Stony Brook. N.I. Lewis A. Coser

Acknowledgments
This book is a product of the Family Violence Research
Program at the University of New Sampshire. The program
began as a result of the stimulus provided by the 1970
annual meeting of the Batioral Council OL Pamilp Relations.
The theme of that confererce was "Violence And The Family."
Preparing a paper tor the conference (Straus, 1971) and the
discussion that followed. made us see both the theoretical
and the practical importance of research on physical
ViOlSnce in families. RE are now even more convinced that
such research w i l l increase our gelera1 undsrs;anding of thb
human family and w i l l provide knowledge thar w i l l rsduc~ a
Source of vast human misery.
The Paaily VLolence Research Program also illustrates
what can be accomplirhed when a group of graduate students
and faculty focus on a single topic ores even a relatively
short period of time. ur hope it confirms the faith ir our
work Shown in the financial support provided by +.he
University or new Hampshire and by the National Instttute of
nental Health (grants number nH27557. nR13050. and ME15161).
A list of publications from the Paeily Violence Research is
available on request.
we also want to express our appreciation to the
anonymous referees who reviewed the book. and '0 many
colleagues, both at the University of New Sampshire ana
elsewhere, whose comments, criticisms, and suggastions have
been important to the development of the Family violence
Research Program in general and/or the specific chapters in
this book. A Special thanks to Sieglinde Fizz for her
Conscientioos typing of this manuscript and for her patience
acd good nature throughout this project.
Durham. New Hampshlre nurray E. Skraus
Gerald T. Eotaling
vii

FOREWORD by Levis L. Coser
ACKBOYLEDGBENTS
Contents
Ex: L eBisu
Culture, Social Organization, and Ironp in rhe Study
of Pamily Violence, by Gerald 1. Botaling and
Kurray A. straus
Uife-Beating: Bow Common and Why?
bp tlurrap 8. Straus
The fiarriage Llcense as a Bitting License: Evidence
from Populer Culture. Law, and Social Science.
by lurrap A. straur
Vlolence and the Social Structure as Reflected in
Children's Books from 1850 to 1970. by nartha D.
uuggzns and Burray A. straus
A Cultural-Consistency Theory of Family Violence ir
lexican-American and Jewish-Ethnic Groups, by
Joseph C. Carroll
---- Part ---- 111. Social Qspization and Pq!&&y SL_a&ezE:
Sexual Inequality and Wife Beating,
by lurray A. Straus
stress and Pamily Violence,
by Keith n. Farrington
The Paradoxical Nature of Pamily Relationships acd
Family conflict. by Joyce E. Poss
Attribution Processes in Eusbaxd-Wife Violence,
by Gerald T. Botaling

--- Part -- IV. -- The InterDlax of culture a& Sccial Q.;q=gizgtior
10. "And we Eaven't Bad Iry Problems Sincen: Conjugal
Violerce and the Politics of marriage,
by Ralph LaRossa
11. Uife-Employment, narltal Equality, and Husband-Rife
Violence, by Bruce u. Brovn
12. Resources. POVBI, and Susband-Wife VioleLce, by
Craig M. Lllen and Burray 1. Straus
13. A Soc~ologlcal Perspective on the Preventian of
II~E-Beatl~g
by Hurray E . Straus
BEPEREBCES
ADTBOR INDEX
SUBJECT INDEX
ABOUT TAE AUTHORS

Part I Overview

Chapter 1
Culture, Social Organization, and
Irony in the Study of Family Violence
Gerald T. Hotaling and Murray A. Straus
That acts of physical violence are common--even
typical--oi American DarriagEs has been well established
(see Chapter 2 and Straus, Gelles, and Sreinnetz, 1979).
Yhar is not known is why violence occurs, or what to do
about it. The perspective of this book is simple: that
physical violencs between husbands and wives is socially
patterned. $1
The chapters are deliberately diverse. but all share
the perspective that violence grows out of the ncture of
social arrangements. In part. the diversity is inevitable
because the authors are different. The mejor differerces,
however, are built into the plan of the book--to present
major differences in vieupoin;. lost of the chapters
present thwries to explain the prevalence of violence in
the famly. Since the social causes of husband-wife
violence are dlverse and complex, the different chapters
seek to show how different sets of these factors might
operate to produce violence.
The chapters also differ because. no matter how cogent
the theory, it must be supported by empirical evidence.
Consequently, five of the chapters report such data. Aere
also deliberate diversity exists. illustrating such
aifferen? methoas as case studies, content analysis of
popular literature, brief questionnaire studies, and a
survey of a nationally representative sample of couples.
Each of rhese theories, and each of tbese methcds, has
limit~tiohs and advantages.
paradox of marital violence.
Tcgether, they help unravel the

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 4
MRRITAL VIOLENCE AND THE SOCIAL STRUCTUSE
Any attempt to understand uhg physical violencs occurs
so often in American marriages must take into account the
way society Structures the interaction of husbands and
wives. Of course, a proposition that .simple is recessarily
deceptive. Our intention is not to convrnce the reader that
the aspects of social patterning to vhich this book gives
attentlon are the only causes of marital violsncs. We
acknowledge the complexity of married life, but temporarily
narrow our focus so that we can gain a clearer understarding
of that part of the complex vhcle of husband/vife corflict
that is created by the very nature of our society.
Physical violence among family members usually is
considered an infregusnt occurrence; when violence does
erupt, the husband or wife who resorts to it is thought to
be dafective or abnormal. Neither vieu seems to he correct.
Rars and riots aside, physical aggression occurs more often
among family members than among any others. noreover, the
family is the predominant setting for every form of physical
violence from slaps to torture and murder. In fact, some
form of physical violence in the life cycle of fzmily
members is so likely that it can be said to be almost
universal (see the section on "Family Sccialization in
Violence" in Chapter 2). If this is indeed the case, then
violence is as typical of family relationships as is lsre.
The available evidence suggests that, with rare
exceptions, family members using violence are not mentally
ill. Instead. violent acts by one family member againsr
another are the result of socially learned and socially
patterned behavior.
The aspects of causation this book describes are what
soc101ogiSts refer to as "social structure." The coccept of
social structure is almost as elusive as it is important for
understanding how society works and how social life affects
our relationships. A recent volume (Blzu, 1975) gives ample
testimony to the vide variety of ways in vhich the concept
is used. But amidst this diversity of definition, a gansral
ihterpretation exists, as stated in the program of the 1974
meeting of the American Sociological Association:
Whatever t h ~ sp~cific orientation, the
structural approach is designed to explain, no:
the behavior of individuals, but the structure
of relations among groups and individuals that
finas expression in this behapior. (Blau,
1975:2)
our speciflc approach to social structure contairs two
main elements. First, we use the term to mean those aspects
of society that are relatlvely enduring and that transcecd

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 5
the individual and the particular moment. Rot that social
structure is fixed: indeed, it constantly changes. But
compared vith other factors being enamired, it is relatrvely
stable. Second. we identify tuo different but interrelated
processes of social patterning: culture and social
organization. In reality, culture and social organization
cannot be separated. but for aralytical porposes it is an
important distinction.
The following two sectiors sunmerize the concepts of
culture and of social organization. These w i l l be familiar
to many readers of this book, especially sociologists, and
can be skipped over. Rowever, ue want to address th3se in
other professicns concerned with family violence, such as
psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, police
Officers, and lawyers. These sections sill help alert them
to these crucial aspects of the sociological perspective.
This is particularly importart because it contrasts sharply
with the more usual psychclogical explanations for riolsnce.
The Concept of Culture
when we describe "cultural influence1' we are really
talking about causes. The question addressed in Part I1 of
this book is the extent to which culture causes violence
between family members. Before that question can be
answered, one must first be clear about vhat culture is.
The term culture means something roughly siailar to
social heredity, that is, the total legacy of past human
behavior effective in the present or vhat is available to be
learned from others (Williams, 1970). That concept covers a
vast domain, ranging from how to hold a spoon or say the
old ~ - ~~ father to ~~ the ~~~ com~lezities . . of matrix aloebra. Thus a
~~~~~
mreat deal of the culture of a sociefv is not of direct
2 -
-
lnterest to those concOrned with understanding the famrly.
The aspect of culture of direct interest is what are
called social norms. A social norm prescribes the correct
thing to do *her interacticg vith another person. To be
cultural norms, these norms must be prescriptions shared by
the society cr sector of a society in which the b~havior
takes place. They also nust bc rules of behavior that are
learned from others.
Cultural norms in large part account for differences
between the family patterns of people in different societies
and in different subgroups within one society (for example,
differences between social classes or betveen groups such as
Prench-speaking and English-speaking Canadians).
Cultural norms regulate almost all aspects of family
life. They provide a blueprint of the behavior appropriate
for husbands, wives, children, grandfathers; in fact, for

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 6
each of the relationships within a family. Thus. the
culture contains norms specifying how marriages are to be
arranged (and, if necessary. dissolved), who fs LO be
regarded as a member of the family. what activities a
husband should carry out in relation to the rife and vice
versa, how children should be brought uo, ard so on.
If ths idea of cultural norms as causes of family
behavior were taksn liberally, all families within a giver
society would be expected to act in the same w3y.
Obviously, that is not the case: every family is in some
ways urique. Therefore. even thoogh culture does, on the
average, define what family life is like, it cannot tell the
whale story. Ue must round out the story somewhat by
consid~ring what sociologists call social organization.
Social Organizational Influences
Social organization refers to the patte-n of
relationships amcng individuals and among groups--how the
parts are related to each other and to the whole. Some
aspects of social organization are dictated by the culture,
many are not. Whether or not it is prescribed hy culture.
each aspect of social organization has consequences that are
distinct from the cultural influences. For example, a
family might contain ore, two, three, four, or eight
children. Cultural "rules" specify how many children one
should have: the middle-class rules of the recent past
tended to specify two or three children. AnyonE who had ro
children was under considerable cultural pressure. The
pressure is often subtle. but may be expressed openly: "Why
donqt you hzve any childrsn?" or "Kow cons you have six
children?' But subtle or cot, social prPssures to conform do
exist and most of US follo~ the rules of the culture.
Now the number of children in a family is an important
aspect of its socigl organization and makes a difference to
what goes on in that family, no matter whether the parents
had that number of chlldren becauss of cultural rules,
hiological limirs on fertility, or contraceptive failure.
To take a simple example, if t he family eats the evening
meal together, the number of children present rill influence
how long any one child can, or the average, talk at the
dinner table. Rssume that each child gets ar equal chance
and that the meal lasts 30 minutes. If there are two
children, each child can talk for ten minutes (allowing ten
minutes for the parerts to say something). But if therf are
four children, each child*s l i m i t is cut to fire minutes.

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 7
TEE SOCIIL STRUCTURAL CAUSES OP BUSBABD-RIFE VIOLENCE
The preceding two sections preface the shared ideas of
the authors of this volume. This is not to sly that they
are in complete agreement as to the social structural causes
Of husband-wife violence, but all focus on the cultural and
Organizational features cf Bm-rican marriagss a.d their
relatlon to conflict and vtolcnce.
Each chapter in this book. whether it is a deduction
from an existing theory, a case study, or a statistical
analysis, attempts to clarify some aspect of the social
causes Of husband-wife violence. The chapters are
deliberately diverse in approach because re believe that
case studies, statistical analyses, and theoretical
deduction all are necessary in the search for an explanation
of marital violence.
One of the difficulties in research on fanily violence
has been too heavy an emphasis on fact-gathering relative to
testing causal theories. Since this is partly because
PrOmiSiPg theories have not been formulated, half of the
chapters attempt to fill that void. 3ut in no case is the
purpose of any chapter to set forth an integratea or
complete sxplanation of husbacd-wife violence. That task is
at the presen% stage of our knowledge clearly beyond what
Can be accomplished, even though preliminarr steps have been
taken (Gelles and Straus, 1979).
with thls general understanding, the authors of the
various chapters spare the reader a repetitious disclaimer
about the partial nature of the theory examinea and, in the
Case of the strictly theoretical chapters, do not repeat
that the conclusions are intended to stimulafs empirical
research. not to substitute far -~- such -.--
~ data. --.-. Thlrs. .-... for -..
example. in the first two chapters we try to show that some
factor in the family system cot only produces a high level
of aggression, but also makes wives the most frequent
victims of that aggression. The third chapter, although
admitting the organizational features of family life that
contribute to this high level of aggression, examines
through popular culture and other matezials the prevailing
sexist attitudes about the role of violence in the faailv
system. The result is to make explicit the implicit set ii
cultural norms and values +hat legitimate, and at times
encourage. violence betveen husbands and wives.
Conversely, Parrington (Chapter 7) and Hotaling
(Chapter 9) both recognize the exrstsnce of cultural norms,
but focus on the organizational features of married life
that contribute to violence. Parrington presents a theory
of intrafamily violence based on the notion of optimum
Stress level. He defines stress as an imbalance between the
demands with which an individual or family is faced and the

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 8
capability of responding appropriately to them. Be argues
that all individuals and faailies derrlop persoral and
unique optimum stress levels at which they function most
comfortably. Similarlg. Hotaling specifies the particular
combinations of family rules End family structural
characteristics which produce a high probatility that a
family member w i l l attribute malevolent intent to the rule
violations of other faoily members.
The Ristory of the Study of Family Violence
DeScribir.g a "history" of the sociological study of
intrafamily violence may be premaure; it has beer a very
short time since sociologists first turnea 2 critical eye on
the phenomenon. But the period has been long enough to
point out some differences between "earlier" work and the
present volume. Previous efforts rere aimed at establishing
the prevalence, the correlates. and, most important, the
socially patterned nature of family violence (Steinmetz and
Straus, 197'4; Gelles, 1974). Intrafamily violence was
established as a widespread phenomenon, appearing in many
forms besides the mars spectacular crimes of murder and
child abuse. Studles of husbands and wives revealed
varying, but suhstantial, aaounts of spousal violence.
The most accurate measure, to date. of the extont of
husband-wife violence comes from the analysis of data from
the representative sample of American families presented in
Chapter 2. Straus finds that, during the survey year, one
of every six couples (16 percent) reported violence between
spouses. If the reference period is the duration of the
marriage, the figure is between one of four and one of three
couples (27.8 percent). Straus warns, however, that these
figures are probably affected by substantial underreporting.
It is almost certain that not everyons "told all.' Pilot
studies and informal evidence (where some of the factors
leadirg to underreporticg were less) indicate that these
figures could easily be twice as largs.
Previous work on intrafamily violence also has negated
the comfortable notio2 that family violance can be explainea
SolEly hy psychopathology. The sheer amouc?. es well as the
~~~~~~~~d variat:=c i? rlres at lrtritaeily VID~FPCE among
various SDclal qroups, bol:?s ar expla2a:ioc a?.chcrel rr ?he
abnormalities of individual members.
Besides establishing the prevalence of violence in the
home and the extent of 'sociological causes, earlier
investigators also have paid attention to +he particular
social factors related to family violence. For exlmple.
some of the factors found to be associated with different
rates of family violence were subcultural norms (Coser,
1967; Wolfgang and Perracuti. 1971), social class
(Levinger. 1966; Kohn. 1969). and a husband's lack of ths

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 9
"resources" necessary to legitimate his positLon as family
head (Goode, 1971: O'Brien, 1971).
ThesP writers point to factors that may make certain
couples more or less likely to engag5 in physical
aggression; the present volume focuses attention on the
nature of married life i+self. Ths oriectirg qu?sticc
becomes: vhat cultural and social organizatioral processes
make the marital dyad a potentially violent social
relationship?
B few sociological investigators as well have
recognized certain incongruities in marriage. For example,
Cuber ar,d Haroff's study (1965) of middle-class marriages
reveals a type characterized by arguments and fights. The
"conflict-habituated" marriage basically relies or hostility
to bind the couple together and to lend stability to the
marriage.
Aicks and Platt (1970). in a review of studies of
marital happiness, find that low happiness often may be
associated with marital stability. Similar findings that
appear contrary to common sense are those of Blood and Rolfe
(1960) and Piteo (1961). who stated that marriages over time
experience a d=g& in companionship, affection, and common
values and beliefs: as couples become more familiar vith
each other, they become more estranged. Lastly, simmel's
(1950) classlc analysis of the marital dyaa sees the
two-person bond as the most imtimate and, at the same time,
the most unstable social relationship.
RereiC lies the important contribution of logically
orgarlzel, probrrq :heore-zeal zrd ssp1:ical snalys?s: rtay
ars rpprcally courrer:?turi:ve, :hat IS, tt.ay rovsal the
existence ot phe~omen2 aid relatronsh-ps con'razy t3 zaaa?r
sense.

Page
The chapters contained in this volume mphasize
large part the ironic nature of married life and violent
The intriguing question, which all thesn chapters aadrer
is why the social group that society most cften lcoks to 1
warmth, intimacy, help, and love. is also characterized
cruelty and violence. It is to an examination of this a
other ~ronies about husbard-wife violence that ue ccw turn
IRCNP AND PABILY VIOLENCE
The recognition and study of family violence hz
blurred apparently simple ideas about the relationshi
between the ramily and deviance. Once we recognize tha
families are not easily classified as either normal o
abnormal, healthy or sick, the picture becomes complicated
These complications, though, lead to a fuller appreciatio
Of the complexity of family life. As David natza has argue
in his interpretation of theories of deviance and thei
handling of the distinction between conventional and a~vian,
phenomena:
once the distincticn hetween good and evil is
made problematic, once their interpenetration is
stressed, a similar insight map develop with
respect to the relations between phenomena and
their purportea causes. (1969:69)
It we accept the nocion that the family is a social
group capable of generating conflict and violsnce just as
easily as intlnacy and love, we can accept the idea of irony
in the relation of tamily life to violence.
What do we mean by irony? nost simply, irony rPfers to
a point of view, the ability to see Phenomena related to one
another in curious ways. As fiatza notes:
... irony refers to the complicated--and
suprising--relations between good and evil
phenomena in sequer.ce. Irony is a state of
affairs or a result opposite to, and as if in
mockery of. the appropriate result. (1969:691
In a sociological sense, irony is a point of view that
recognizes the coexistence of incongruities in the culture
and organization of social life. Thus, the marital
relationship is organized according to certain cultural
values that ere intended to maximize love, support, and
happiness. Xouever. because of this very sane mode of
organization an6 because of the influence of thess sane
cultural values, conflict and violence coexist with these
more benign aspects of married life. Again, as NatZa tells
us, "a key element of irony is latsncy" (p. 70). Qualities
inherent in social norms end social organization, despite

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 11
their hidden nature, lead tc unexpacted ZesuLts ic the
family setting.+Z
Irony also points to the existecc* of pa'terning in
relationships where no patterning is obvious. For example,
Reinhold Niebuhr has deficed irony as "appnrent.ly for?nFrous
ircongruities in life rhich are discovere9, cpon closer
examination, to be not merely fortuitous' l1952:viii). The
incongruities surrounding husband-vife violence are ironic
in Niebuhr's sense cf the word, for the sxisting evidencs
Supports the claim that husband-vifr violence is not the
result of rardom events, but is patterned into the very
structure of marital and family relatiocs.
Before we specify the ironies apparent in husbacd-wife
uiolence, it would be useful to point out why there is such
a rssistance to viewing husband-wife violence as a patterned
aspect cf married life.
The Eyth of Pam~ly Nonviolence
The family is usually thought to he a group committed
to nonviolence between its members. Family msmbers are
supposed to maintain benevolent and loving relationships.
From rhat is known about the prevalence of family violence
in American society, there seems to be a discrepancy between
the idealized picture of the family and rhat actually goes
on [Steinmete and Straur, 1974: Chapter 1; straus, 1974b).
This idealization is a useful, perhaps necessary social
myth. Its usefulness derives from the family's position as
a tremendously important social institution. Elaborate
precautions are taken to strengthen and support it. In
Pestern Countries, one of these supportive devices is the
myth of familial love and gectleness. The ideal exourages
people to marry and stay married despite the stresses and
strains of family life (Perreira, 1963). Thus fron the
standpoint of preserving the integrity of a crucial
institution. such a mgthology is highly uscful.
This myth is transmitted through
values as reflected in literature,
cultural norms and
motion pictures. and
television. For example, Buggins and Straus (Chapter 4)
find the myth cr family nonviolence a pervasive theme of
children,~ literature between 1850 and 1970. Uhlle .the
authors find that the typical children's classic bock is
marked by a number of violent acts, including killings,
alaost no intrafaaily faailp violence is depicted. This
seems remarkahle in llght of the fact that i n society
generally, physical violence betvsen family members is more
common than be:weer any other aggressor-victim relationship.
AS the myth of family nonviolence makes clear, a set of
cultural norms promulgates an image of the family as a place
of lose and gentleness. Bt the sane time, as already

Ch.1. Social structure and Irony Page 12
mentioned, a set of norms exists that legitrmates, axd at
times encourages, the use of violence on fenily members.
This is an excellent example of a cultural contradiction.
Cultural contradictions are found i? most, perhaps al:
societies. They are by no means entirely unaesirable. In
fact. cultural contradictions help prevent sccieties from
stagnating, open possibilities for social change, ard allow
for a measure of individual iutonomy. without them, we
night be slaves to the dictates of culture. Each individual
and each family must manipulate many, often conflicting,
norms and values to work out a strategy appropriate to their
Own CirCUmStanC'3s and aspirations. The process of selectirg
from and reconcillng the different aspects of a culture is
one of the reasons why, despite cultural noras, families
differ.
The choice of norms for guiding one's life leads to
diversity, but there is no guarantee that one w i l l recognize
all of the implications of that choice. Certain unsxpected
resuLtS. 01 latent features of these choices. make
individual and family life a complicated matter.
This complexity is especially true for violence in the
faaily. Knowing that our family system is a violent system.
rational people certainly woold not choose this situation.
Yet over 90 per cent of Bmericans marry, and many marriages
are marked by conflict and violence. Perhaps what is
important for understanaing the relationship between
vlolence and the family is not individual choice but the
ironies that seem to underlie the norms and organization of
family life.
Irony 1. Cultural norms that legitimate and, ar
times. encourage violence between faaily
members are instrumental in maintaining the
family system; but these same Lorms
perpetuate violence as an integral part of
family life.
A set ot norms exists that legitimize the striking of
family members, at least under certain conditions. These
norms sometimes are used to justify the use of violence to
maintain the family systen. In no way should this statement
be interpreted to mean that we favor any type of family
System Over another. Whether our present family structure
should be mairtained or changed is nct at issue here. In
most forms of social organization. whether it is a whole
society. a bureaucracy, or the family system, there is an
emphasis on maintaining the status quo. Even though social
organization constantly changes, groop well-beicg is
adversely affected if no provision is made for a relatively
stable framework for action.

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 13
Our interest hers is understanding the relationship
betveec the norms that legitimize violecce erd the role
these norms play in family life. Goode (1971) argues that
those who desire to maintaiP the present family syst?m may
USE force or its threat as a form of social control. In
other words. norms legitimizirg violence maintair craer in
the fanily group by imposing strong sanctions uh~l ar
individual tries to play by other "rules." For many in
American society, force or the threat of force in the family
is seen as a permitted technique for preventing or
controlling certain behaviors of family members. Is Goode
notes:
... the mother who abandons her children. the father
who runs off vith the children, the wife or husband
who takes a second spouse, the child who beats up
his mother. the adolescent girl rho wishes to sp~nd
a ueekend with her boyfriend against the rill of her
parents, the wife who wishes to change the family
domicile without the consent of her husband, a11 can
be and sometimes are restrained by either force or
its threat, if not from family members then at their
request by the community through its command over
force (1971:626).
nost Americans see a moral obligation for parents to
use physical punishment as a means for controlling children
if other means fall (Stark and McEvoy, 1970). and a good
proportion see it as the most desirable means for
Controlling children. Although the legal right of a husband
to physically punish a wife no longer exists (Calrert,
1974). the informal corms of certain social groups (and
speolflc families in all segments of society) still
legitimize the use of physical force to control an errant
spouse.
Of the modalities that ensure that the family functions
as an efficient social group. violence is seen to have high
instrumental value. It uorks--at least in the short run.
This kind of violence is what Gelles an8 Straus (1978)
call 'legitimate-instrumental** violence, violence that is
permitted or required by the norms of society. Physical
force 1s used to induce some desired act or to prevent some
undesired behavior. Legitimate-instromental violence occurs
in all role-relationships of the nuclear family vith greater
or lesser frequency. The greatest frequency is in the
parent-child relationship in the form of physical
punlshment, but as Straus shows in Chapter 3, the marriage
license also tends to- be a hitting license.
Violence can also t+ke a ~~legitimate-expressiv€ls
form.
By expressive violence ue mean the use of physical force to
cause pain or injury as an end in itself. Examples of this
type of violence in the family include the videspread

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 14
beliefs that it is better to spank a child than to "hold in"
one's anger and better to let siblings "fight it out' than
to interfere.
R t tines violence in the family setting goes beyond
sanctioning by cultural norms; it is illegitimate. This
most widely recognized type of violence in ths family
includes the most spectacular and extreme forms: child
abuse and murder.
Whenever physical force is used within the family, for
vhatever reason. there are certain unexpected outcomes.
Chapter 2 points 'to three such unexpected outcomes. The
first is the association of love vith violence. The child
learns that those vho love him/her most are also those who
hit and have the right to hit. The second unintended
Consequence is the lesson that when so~ething is really
important. it justifies the use of physical force. Pically,
and most important. these indirect lessons becoms so
fundamertal to the individual's personality and vorld view
that they are gsneralizcd to social relationships, end
especially to the relatiocship closest to that of parent and
child-- that of husband and wife.
This last point is examined in detail in Joseph
Carroll's chapter on the differential role of violence in
Mexican-lmerlcan and Jewish subculturer. He attempts to
show how general family norms and values oparafing uithir
these two divergent ethnic groups act to influence the
actual use of violence as well as its perpetuation in future
generations.
The irony here is that these norms, seer. to be
necessary in maintaining the family group, also gaarantee
that violence w i l l become a regular feature of family life
in the future. This guarantoe is ensured by simple
membership in the family group. R s Gelles (1974) notss:
"...the family serves as basic training for
violence by Exposing children to violence, by
maklng them victims of violence, and by
providing them with learning contexts for the
commission of violent actsn (p. 170).
Indeed, the evidence is clear that early experiences with
physical punrshment lay the groundvork for the normative
legitimacy and actual use of intrafanily violence. Overs
and straus (1975). in a study of exposure to violencs and
Violence approval, show that the more violence experienced
by a child, the greater the tendency to fzror the use of
violence as an adult. Gutsacher (1960) states that a common
experience amorg a group of murderers he studied was the
high level of violence their parents inflicted on them when
they were growing up. Tansy's (1969) study of homicidal
offenders finds that 67 percent had histories of violent

ch.1. Social Structure ard Irony Pilgs 15
child-rea-mg. Gelles (1919) finds tha? respondrn%s who had
seen their parents engaging in physic31 violence vers much
o r likely to physically fight vith rhexr our spouses than
were people uho never saw their parents physically fight
(p. 173).
Welsh (1976) explored the relationship betwsen severe
parental punishment and juvenile delinquency. Be defines
severe parental punishment as any type of physical
discipline using an object capable of lnflicting physical
injury. welshqs analysls of three samples of delinquent
children ~ -- - led him to conclude that the recidivist - - - - male
dsll-.qur?: ~ n o cad never beer exposed t C L bilL, blard,
exte:5icn cord or ti?: wb5 COr.EIlSzer:. IC CddlI:>r, Ie1sh
t1r.d~ amOCg ale ?elirlue~?s -
c srrcco rElatlCnshio b2-weer.
severe parental punlshnent and aggression.
Increasicg evidence indicates that a high price is paid
for aaintaining order in the family through violeoc?. The
norms that legltieate violence assure a family institution
and a society characterized by violence for years to come.
Irony 2. The social organizational features of
family life that contribute to intimacy also
facilitate the occurrence of a high rate of
intrarpousal violence.
Though the family shares certain characteristics vith
other social groups, as a social group and as an institution
the family has distinctive characteristics. Gellss and
Straus (1978) have catalogued certain of these features of
the tamily to point out that a spscial theory of violence is
necessary for the family group. Some of these
characteristics, and others mentioned by authors in this
volume, serve a dual role in the family. on the ore hand,
they contribute toward making the family a warm, supportive,
and mtimate environment: on the other hand. they suggest
reasons why this social group may be especially prone to
violence. we llst eleven such factors:
1. ILmf RJ&. An elexentary characteristic
accounting for the high incidecce of violence is that so
many hours or the day are spent ints1actir.g with other
family members. Bowever. although this factor is important,
the ratio of intrafamily violence to violence experienced
outside the family far exceeds the ratio of time spent in
the family to time spent outside. Comparing the fariily with
another group in which large amounts of time are spent, such
as a work group, provides a concrete example that far more
is involved than "time at risk."

ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Pege 16
take place over which a dispute or a failurs to meet
expectations can occur.
3. in tens it^ of Involpg~Emyg;. Not only is there a vlder
range of possibilities for disputes or d5ssatisfactione.
but, in addition. the degree of injury felt in such
instances is likely to be much greater than if the ssme
issue were to arise ir relation to someone outside the
family. Foss (Chapter 7) considers this factor especially
important in generating hostility among family members as
well as in creating the strategies for dealing vith
conflicts of interest among family members.
4. Infrmqinca Activities. nany family activities hzre
a 'zero sum" aspect. Conflict arises from such decisions as
whether to play Bach or neodelssohn on the family stsreo,
vhother to go to a movie or bowling, or how to line up for
the bathroom. Less obvious, but equally important, is the
infringing of one's perscnal space or self-image by the life
style and habits of others in the family, such as those who
leave things around versus those who put everything away, or
those who eat quickly and those who like leisurely meals.
6. and a g~~~g?&?;&s. The differences in age
and sex of family members (especially during the
child-rearino ~ . vearsl . couoled vith the existence ~ . of
A ~ ~ ~ - - . . .--- -~ ~ -
~~ ~
oenerational and sex dlfferences in culture and outlook.
make the famlly an arena of culture confllct. Thlr confllc+
1s expressed zn such phrases as "the battle of the sexes"
and "the generatron gap."
7. Bscrzbed Roles. Compounding the problem of age and
sex differences, family statuses and roles are assigned, to
a considerable extent. on the basis of biological
characteristics rather than on the basis of competence and
interest. One aspect of this structuring has traditionally
been a focus of contenrion -- socially structured sexual
inequality or. in contemporary language, the sexist
organization of the family. Straus (Chapter 6) argues that
a male-dominated family has especially high confllct
potential when it exists in a society with an egalitarian
ideology. But, as Bllen and Straus point out (in Chapter
12). even without such an ideologic inconsistency, the
confllct potential is high, because inevitably not all
husbands can fulfill the culturally prescribed leadership
roles.

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 17
8. PaptQ privm. In many societies the normative
kinship and household structure insulates the family from
social controls and social assistance in cnp?.cg with
intratamily conflict. This characreristic is most typical
of the conjugal family system of urban-industrial sociities
(Laslett. 1973). Both Foss (Chapter 8) and ADtaling (Chapter
9) mention that the nuclear structure of America? family
life makes less likely the dampening effects of the presence
of third parties in husband-wife arguments and disputes.
9. Involuntary pembershiz. Birth relationships ars
obviously irivOluztary, and under-age children cannot
:hemselves terminate such relationships. In addition, Sprey
(1969) shows that the conjugal relationship also has
nonvoluntary aspects. First, the social expectatlon is that
marrlage is a long-term commitment, as Expressad in the
phrase "until death do us part.' In addition, emotional,
material. and legal rewards and constraints often make
membership in the family group inescapable, socially.
physically, or legally. So. when conflicts and
dissatisfactions arise, the alternative of resolving them by
leavlng often aces not exist--at least in the perception of
what is practical or possible.
L - ~ ---- -~ ~
~ ~ ~~ -
famiiy life cycle--the birth of children, naturation of
children. auina. and retireaert. ~ ~
. - -. The crisis-like nature of
these changes has long been recognized (Lellasters,1957).
A11 of this, combined with the huge emotional investment
typical of family relatiorships, means that the family is
likely to be the locus of more, and more serious. stresses
than other groups. A reading of Chapter 7 emphasizes the
important role of internal and external stresses on family
life in the explanation of intrafamily violence.
11. Extensive KnoYledue of Social BiO9raEhies. Because
of the intimacy of the marital relationship, spouses usually
have an in-depth kowladge of each other's social
histories--their abilities and shortcomings, their strengths
and vulnerabilities, their likes and dislikes (Hepburn
1973). In effect, the members of marital relationships have
at their disposal icformation that can be used to support
and enhancs each other's identities because each knows about
the things that matter tc the other. A t the same time, this
information can be used to damage the identity of sither
spouse. Goode (1971) suggests that intimates are able to
launch verbal assaults on the partner's vulnerable points
because the nature of marriage exposes each other's
weaknesses. Hotaling (Chapter 9) specifically refers to the

Ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Eage 18
extensive knowledge of partners as predisposing them to
mistakenly attribute malevolent intent to the actions of
spouses.
These eleven factors, and no doubt there are others,
have been posited by authors of this volume and others as
important characteristics of the family group that
contribute to its high rate of conflict and violencs. The
irony here is that many of these same features encourage
wzrmth, ictimacy, and support; for example, large amounts
of time spent fogether, deep emotional involvement, privacy.
and in-depth knowledge of one another.
The relationship of these unique characteristics of the
family to violence as well as to iltimacy has not been
verified anpirically. But the theoretical work on this
issue suggests many intriguing questions for research. The
most ieportant is whether changes in thase unique
characteristics can make the family a less violent group
without Sacrificing the benefits of an intimate arvironment.
For example, if we compare nuclear family str.ucturPs with
various combinations of extended family structures, w i l l
there be a higher level of support between members ic the
latter form, as well as a lower level of stress? Straus'
comparison of supportiveness between spouses iii cuclear and
in joint households (1975) suggests that lack of stress may
be gained at the expense of support. And vhat role do
grandparents play in terms of the occurrence of intrafamily
violence when they live in the same households as the:: sons
and daughters and grandchildren?
Investigations also could
characteristics. For example,
be focused on specific
the affect of involuntary
family membership on violence could be studied by comparing
nonmarried couples who live together with married csuples,
controlling
involveoent
for relevant
among family
factors. ~lso. does intense
members facilitate or dampen the
occurrence of violence? Do families vith extensive
community interests or involvements vith nonfamily members
experience less violent interaction at home? These Examples
suggest
brcuqht
c.lg a Lev
tc bear on
ct .any such questloris :hat c3uld h~
*he specla1 socral ?rger:zaczcnal
teecmre? acd yhe~r irtluerce on tuebana-vlfe s:olcnce.
Irony 3. The change to an egalitarian structure
of marriage leads to the destruction of the
sexist organization of the family but also
seems to lead to higher rates of violence.
The two previous ironies could be called =cz_c ironies.
They were concerned vith the family as an institution an6
social group es compared vith other institutions and social
groups in terms of its proclivity to high rates of violence.
The last two ironies presented here are concerned with micro
level processes, that is, with characteristics that

ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 19
differeatiate families frcm each other.
The tirst of these ironies concerns the sexisr
orgalization of the family (Straus, Chapter 6). This
chapter cites nine specific ways in which the male-dominated
srructure of society and family creates and aaintairs a high
level Of marital Violence. one of the many ways in which
male domination can lead to family violence occurs when the
male is threatened. In our society, where male-superiority
norms are in the process of transition, and in vhich the
presnmption of superiority must be validated hy "resources"
such as valued personal traits and material goods and
services, ascribing superlor authority to men is a potent
force ic producing physical attacks on wives. R husband who
wants to be the dominant person in his family, but who has
little education, a joh that is low in prestige and income.
and a lack ot interpersocel skills, may resort to physical
violence to maintarn his position.
Empirical evidence supports these notions. For
example, in families where the husband's achieved status is
lower than hls wife's. O'Brien (1971) found a greater
tendency to USE force and viol~nce on family members than
when the husband had the -resourcem of a higher prestige
occupation. Also, Allen and Straus (Chapter 12) found that
among working class husbands who were high in economic or
personal resources, there vas no correlation between power
in the family and violence. However, among those working
class husbands who were low in resources, the correlation
between male power and violence was 0.49.
Tho expectation of male doninance is graphically
illustrated in the case history of Joe and Jennifer reported
by La Xossa (il Chapter 10). This couple depicrs the
conflict between men and women ix the transition from male
superlority to egalitarian family norms, most clear in the
dialogue betweel Joe and Jennifer about Jennifer's
employment outside of the home, which Joe perceives as a
threat to his right to he the dominant asmber of the
relationship.
The issue of wife employment, perhaps the most direct
threaz to male domination in the society as well as in the
family, is investigated by Brown (Chapter 11) to determine
its potential impact on husband-wife violerce. In a more
general vein. Brown probes the conflict between emerging
sexual equality and existing norms that promote male
domination.
Logically, we would assume that the increasing
breakdown of the sexist organization of the family would
also lead to a decrease in husband-wife violence. But this
decrease may not be the case, at least in the short run.
During this transition period, as the family restructures
its power distrrbution, conflict and violence may actually

Ch.1. Soclal Structure and Irony Pagp 20
be increased as men feel threatened by their loss of power.
Ironically. attempts bq women to increase their power =n
society and the family map serve to victimize vomen further.
at least temporarily.
In the long run, the egalitarian ethos should lead to a
decrease in husband-wife violence, hut it w i l l not decrease
until men begin to accept egalitarian norms as legitimate.
Irony 4. The suppression of conflict, widely
felt to decrease violence, may actually
increase it.
Most people fear conflict and try to aroid it.
sociologists and psychologists do research to find out why
conflict occurs, ostensibly to be able to provide
information that w i l l enable people to aroid conflict.
narriage counselors and other professionals concerned with
the family, with a few exceptions such as Bach and Uyden
(1968) and ShOstroB and Ravanaugh (1971), focus much of
their efforts on helping families to avoid conflict. The
implicit assumption hera is that the suppression of conflict
w i l l lead to the avoidance of hostility and violence.
Houever, conflict theorists have presentea a convincing
case for exactly the opposite assumption; they argue that
conflict is an inevitable part of all human associations
(coser, 1956; Dahrendorf, 1959; Sprey, 1969).
Furthermore. they hold that any social unit that attempts to
suppress conflict runs a high risk of collapsing, either
because it falls to adapt to changing circu~stances or
hecause hostility accumulates, eroding group solidarity.
The application of ccnfllct theory to famlly vrolence
has assumed that conflict 1s central to. or even 2
prerequlslte for, vlolencc. Hoverer, a dellneation of how
conillct processes and violence are related has not received
adequate attentlon. Poss takes on thls Issue ln Chapter 8.
Foss contends that certain unique features of the
husband-wife relationship, that is. the high frequency of
interaction betveen spouses. total personality involvement.
and the difficulty in simply leaving the family setting.
vlll produce hostility and generate attsmpts to suppress or
ignore hostility. Foss proposEs that the avoidance of
conflict SiTuationS ironically tends to increase hostility
as well as the probability of violence.
If suppressing conflict leads to violence does this
imply the more conflict the better for marital
relatiocships? The question of how much conflict is
desirable in the family setting is an uninvestigated and
important Empirical challenge. Straus (1978) has suggested
that rhere is a curvilinear relation between the amount of
conflict and group vell-being. That is. the absence of

ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 21
conflict in the sense of conflicts of isterest is
theoretically impcssible; Ever if it could be brought
about, suppression of conflict vould he fatal for group
vell-being. A t the same time, very high levels of cocflict
can create such a high level of strass and/or such rapid
chazqe that group welfare is adversely affected.
If Strzus' hypothesis is correct, that a certain level
of conflict is indeed healthy for the marital relationship,
how could the appropriate level be determined? Certain
the~retical deductions made by authors in this voluae and
Others suggest that the level of intimacy in marital
relationships may be a key factor in the amount of conflict
experienced. Several writers have suggested that the more
intimate the relationship, the more likely the occurrence of
conflict (Simme1.1950; Sprey, 1969; Poss. Chapter 8:
Hotaling, Chapter 9: Brown, Chapter 11). Pertaps, then,
the lessening of those factors that contribute to intimacy
also would reduce the amount of conflict in the family.
Possc chapter points ont that in some patterns of
family life a less intimate or intensivs involvement is
characteristic. Rn excellent case in point is dsscribed by
CubPr and Haroff (1965) as the "passive-congenial' marriage.
a llfe-style in vhich all emotional and irstrusental
satisfaction does not derive from the marriage. In
marriages in which creative energies and the satisfaction of
interests and emotional needs are nlt exclusively directed
to the marital relationship, less intensive patterns of
invclvement w i l l occur. whether this type of marriaqs also
has less conflict and violence is a crucial question for the
study of family violence.
TRE IRONIC NATURE OF INTRAPAIILY VIOLEBCE
when this book was planned, the key ideas to be
presented were those of culture and social organization. As
the book began to come together, what might be called the
"ironic nature cf intrafamily violence" Kept cropping up.
This in no way undercuts the importance of culture and
Social Organization as interpretive tools. The dual
influence of culture and social organization is described
throughout this volume as revealing the socially patterned
nature cf marital violence. The individual personalities of
married ccuples, without considering ths socially
constructed nature of marriage itself. cannot explain why
marriage as a social institution is characterized by a high
incidence of strife and violerce.
But culture a d social organization are somewhat static
notions and do not force one to face up to the dynamic and
emergent nature of fzmily interaction. In the context of
this book, it is largely the notion of irony that provides
the needed dynamic. we have pointed to four such ironias.

ch.1. Social Structure and Irony Page 22
~t first glance, these ronies nay seem to b? only amusing
oddities. They are more than this. Recognizing the
existence of these Counterintuitive processes Sensitizes US
to the complexity of family life. Ironies highlight the
fundamental contradictions that reside ir the cultural rorms
and social organization of family life. They force us to be
wary of accepting the conmon-sense dichotomy between vice
and virtue, good and evil. love and conflict.
Lastly, the exploration of ironic rel+tiooships
naturally leads to the opening up of new and interosting
research questions on family violence. Rather than viewirg
irony as residing in nature or in the universe, a
sociological perspective cn irony leads us to focus on the
complex relationship betueen culture and social organization
and its role in gereratirg the contradictions of family
life.
NOTES
*Part of the first section of this chapter is a revised
v~TSi0n of part of "cnltural and Social Organizational
Influences on violence Eetveen Family nembers" (straus
1974b).
1. For the purposes of this chapter, violence is
defined. following Gelles and Straus (1978). as "sn act
carried out with +he intection of, or perceived as having
the intention of, physically hurting another person." The
"physical hurt" can range from slight pain, as in a slap, to
murdsr. Blthough this is the basic definition of violence
used in Our research, it is usually also necessary -0 take
into account a number of. othar charactcristlcs of the
viol5nt act. such as whether it is ~instrumeotal" *o some
other purpose or "expressive," that is, an 2nd in itself;
apd whether it is a culturally permitted or require3 act
versus one that runs counter tc cultural norms (legitimate
versus illegitimate violence). Thus, the blsis fcr th3
*sintext to hurt" may range from a concerr for a child's
safety (as when a child is spanked for going into the
street) to hostility so intense that the death of ths other
is desired. The former woold be an example of "legitimate
instrunental violence" and the latter of "illegitisats
expressive violecce."
2. Certain aothors in this volume. e-g.. Po55 (Chapter
7). use the term paradox rather than irony. As natza (1969)
notes: there are two meanings of paradox-the general and
the technical. Ir the general meaning of paradox, soneChing
can be both paradox (a texet contrary t3 commcn sense) end
irony (an outcome of evlnts that mocks the fitness of
things). Poss uses the tern paradox ir the general an3 20:
the technrcal sense of ar apparrnt Internal ccntradict;on.

Chapter 2
Wife-Beating: How Common and Why?
Murray A. Straus
Chapter 1 made frequent references to th;
high rates of physical violence that
characterize Rmericzn marriages. until
recently. sucb assertions had to be based on
impressionistic evidence, or on studies of small
or perhaps unrepresentative samples, f3r
example, couples seeking divorce or couples
involved in "domestic disturbance" police calls.
Th=s chapter. however. reports the results of 3
study of a large and nationally representative
Sample of couples. The rates of violencs found
in this study were somewhat lower than expectad
for "ordiParyn pushing, slapping, and shoring,
but astoundingly high for "wife-briting." In
addition to documenting the high incidence of
wife-beating, data on "husband-beating" is also
presented and "sed to illustrate a recurring
thene of this volume: that marital violencc
cannot be ucderstood in terms of a single factor
such as sexrsm. aggressiveness, lack of
self-control, or mental illness of husbands who
beat fhelr wives. Each of these factors is
importan: but does not acc0ur.t f3r the rate 3f
assault by vives OP husbands.
of
The first objectlve of this chapter is to present some
t h findings ~ on violence between spouses from a recently
completed study of American couples. These findicgs are
unique. being the first such data on a natiolally
represectative sample. Although the findings have
limitatiocs, they give a+ least some indication af the
extent to vhlch wife-beatirg is part of the way of life of
American fanilies.*l

Ch.2. if e-~eatir.9 Page 24
The secord objective is to explain furthsr the irony
that the group to which most people look for love and
gentl~n~ss is also the most violent civilian
society.
group in our
he first of these objectivas poses tremendous
technzcal problems. The secora objective, in addition to
the technical probless, poses theoretical problems
fundamental to our understanding of human society.
Therefore, what follows should be taken as highly teLtative.
beginning ansvers to these questions.
Dat+ w i l l be presented on a sample of 2.143 couples.
This sample was chose? in a way that makes it exrremely
likely that they are representative of all American couples.
The age, race, and socioeconomic status of the couples in
the sampl? correspond quite closely with census data for' the
nation as a whole. So fer 50 good. But what about the data
on wife-beating?
WEAT IS RIPE-BEATING?
TO do research on the incidence of wife-beating, one
must be able to defire it in a way that can be measured
objectively. one soon realizss that "wife-heating' is a
political rather than a scientific term. For most people.
wlfe-beating refers only to those instances In which severe
damage is inflicted. Othor violence is treated as normal or
laughed off with remarks such as "Hornen should ba struck
regularly, like gorgs." or take the following:
concord, N.R. (AP) The New Rampshire CDmmission
on the Status of Women has rejpcted a plan '0
help battered wises, saying that wife-bsatinq is
caused by the rise of feminism.
"Those women libbers irritate the hell out of
thelr husbands,' said Commissioner Gloria Belzil
of Aashua.
A t a meeting acnday, commission members,
appointed by GOV. neldrim Thornson, said any
program to help battered wives would be "an
ilrasion of privacy.*# (Portsaouth Berala, Sept.
13. 1977)
This statement suggssts that a certain amount of
vlolence in the family is "normal violerce" in the sense
that it is deserved (for example by "irritating the hell"
out of one's spouse) and that, contrary to its pcsltion on
ViolencE outsid4 the family, the state should not intarfsre.

Ch.2. Rite-Beating Psge 25
A rscEnt conversation with a student who had deciaed to
do a term paper on violence in the family suggests the same
conclusion. She came to see me tor help on how to rirrow
the toplc ?o something manageable. I suggested chat she
could choOR tc concentrate Or husband-wife violence,
parent-child violence, or riolenca between th= children in a
tamily. She was astoulded at the last possibility and said
"Well, I never thought of my brother hirting me as
violenC4.' There seems to be an rmplicit, taken-for-granted
cultural norm that makes zt legitimate far family members to
hit each other.
A t what point does one exceed the bounds of "ordinary"
marital violence? When does it become "wife-beating?" To
solre this problem that Richard Gelles and I took for our
research, we gathered data on a continuum of violent acts,
ranging from a push to usi2g a kLifs or gun. This allows
readers to draw the line at whatever place seems most
appropriate for their purpose.
EEASURING WIPE-BEATIBG
But this "solution" can alsobe a means of avoiding the
issue. So besides data or each violent act, tie combinEd the
most severe acts into what can be called a "severe siolsnce
index" or, for purposes of this chapter. a "Wife-Bs~ting
Icdex."
The Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) were used to gather
these data (Straus. 1979). These scales provide data on how
family menbers attempt to deal with conflicts between
themselves. The Physlcal violence Index of the CTS contains
the following eight items:
K. Throwing things at the spouss
I. Pushing, shoving, or grabbing
8. Slapping
N. Kicking, biting, or htttirg with the fist
0. R i t or tried to hit with something
. P- . Beat uo
Q. Threatened wzth a kclfe or gun
R. Used a knlfe or gun
The overall Violence Index consists of the extenr to
which aLy of these acts were carried out during the prroious
12 months. The Wife-Beating Index consists of the extfnt to
which acts N through R occurred.

~h.2, Wife-Beating Page 27
The choice of acts N throogh R as ths Wife-Beating
1ndeZ does not reflect cur conception of what is permirsibl4
~iolence. I find nsne of these to be acceptablr for
batueen any human beings, ircluding parent acd
child, brother and sister, husband and wife, student and
t~acber. minister and parishioner, or collaaguss in a
depattment. In short, I follow the maxim coined by Jchn
valusex: "Peopl~ sre 10t for hittiog.'
What, then, is the basis for selecting items R through
R to make up the Wife-Beating Index? 1tia simply the'.
thes9 are all acts that cerry vith them a high' risk of
serious physical injury to the victim. With thesD
consideratiors in mind. WE can turn to the questioc of
tryiog to estimate the extert of uifs-beating in the united
states.
TEE SXTENT OF YIPP-BEATIAG
The procedures for epasuring violsnce just described
were used i~ a study of a nationally representative sampls
of American families, made possible by a grant from NIMs. ?.
probability sample of 2.1Y3 families was studiea. In
approximately half the cases the person providing the
informatiof was a woman and ir half a mar. To be eligible
for iPcluSion in the study, the respondent had to b? cra
member of a male-female coupla, aged 18 to 70. The ccuple
did not have to hare children, nor did they have to be
legally married. Our sample contains couples vith and
wiThout children, ar.d married and unmarried couples in about
the sane proportion as are found in the population.
---
YEarlp Incidence. The most direct, but in some ways
also a misleading, statistic emerging from ths data an the
Z.lU3 couples ir our sample is thet. for the 12-morth period
preceding the ixterview. 3.8 percent of the respondents
reported one or mcre physical attacks that fall ucd?r our
operational dstinition of wife-beating. Applying this
iCcidenCe rate to the appraxieately 47 millicn couples in
the united States means that, in any one year. approximately
1.8 million wives are beaten by their hushanas.
I mentioned that this can be a misleading figure; two
other facts must be considered: how often thes? beatings
Occur. and how they fit in with thn overall pattern of
violence in the family.

~h.2. Wife-Beatirg Page 29
-- FreMgEy @rlX ths Ygs. Among those couples in
which a beating occurred, it vas typically not an isolated
instance, as can be seen from the "Frequency* colums of
able 1. Kovever,
overstates the case;
the mean frequency of occurrence
ir a few cases violence was almost a
daily Or weekly event. For this reason, the median gives a
more realistic picture of the typical frequency of vi~lence
in the violent families. This is 2.4, that. is, th? typ%ca1
pattern is cver two sericus assaults per year. But of
course there is great variarior. For about a third 3f +he
couples who reported an act that falls in our categxy cf
wife-beating, beating occurred cnly once during tho year.
A t the other E X ~ ~ E Bwere P cases in which it Occurred once a
week Or more often. About 19 percent reported two beatings
during the year. 16 percan' repcrted three or four, and 32
percent reported five or more.
A more literal interpretation of the data can he
Obtalned frcm looking at the figures in Table 1 for each
type of violent act. Whec the category of "wife-beating" is
restrlcted to those who used the term *'beat up" to describe
vhat happmed (item P), the figure is 1.1 percent, with a
median of 1.7 beatings per year. while this is much lower
than the 3.8 percent figure that takes into account all the
severe violent acts, it still represents over half a million
families.
Duration of fiarriaae Rates. Inother aspect of
vife-heating that must be considered is the proporlio~ of
families in which a beatirg occurred. Onfortunltely,
our data for events before the year of the survey aa not
identify the assailent and the victim. 111 that can be
reported is that 28 percent of the couples in the study
experienced at least ore violent incident and 5.3 percent
experienced violence that we consider a beating.
IG some of there cases. it was a single slap or a
Single beatlng. Bouever. there are several reasons vhy even
a single beating is important. First, in my values, even
or.€ such event is intrinsically a debasement of human life.
S~cond. physical darger is involved. Third, many, if not
most. such beatings are part cf a famlly power struggle.
Often only one or two slaps fix the balance of paver in a
family for many years--or perhaps for a lifetime.
Physical force is the ultimate resource that most of us
learn as children to rely on if a11 else fails and the issue
15 crucial. As the husband in the family describea in
Chapter ID said when asked why he hit his wife during an
argument:
... She more or less tried to run me and I said
no. and she got hysterical and said. "1 conld
kill you!" Lnd I got rather angry ar.d slapped
he- in the face three or four times and I said

Ch.2. wife-Beating Page 30
-Don't you ever say ?hat to me again!" And ur
haven't had any problem slcce.
Later in the interview, the husband evaluated his use
of physical force as follows:
You dor.lt use it until you are forced to it. A t
that point I felt I had to do something physical
to stop t h bad ~ progression of events. I took
rn? chances vith that and it worked. In those
circumstances my judgment was correct 3rd it
worked.
Since superior strength and size gives the advantage to men
in such situations. the single beating may be an sxtremely
important factor :n maictainicg male doainance in the family
system.
kccurax of Estimates. How much confidence ca' be
placed in these figures? I am reasonably confident that the
sample is representative of Rmerican cooples gen€rally. But
that is only one aspect of the accuracy question. Tha other
main aspect is whether our respondents "told all." BEre I
have doubts tor the following reasons:
1. Und~rrepOrti~g of domestic violence is likely to
occur among two gzoups of people, for opposite reasons. For
a large group, viclence is so much a normal part of the
family system that a slap, push, or shove (and sometimes
even more severs acts) is simply not noteworthy or dramatic
enough to be remembered. Such omissions are Especially
likely when we ask about evects over the entire length of a
aarriage.
2. Paradoxically, there is also underrepart:ng at the
Other end of the vlolence cortinuum--those who ~xpsrlenced
such severe violent acts as being bitten, hit vith objects.
beaten up. or attacked with a knife or gun. ThEse acts go
beyond the "normal vlolence' of family life. Such acts are
admitted reluctantly, because of the shame involved if one
is the victim, or the guilt if one is the attacker.
3. I final reason for regarding thsse figusrs as
drastic underestinates lies in the naturE of our sample.
Since a major purpose of the study was to investigate the
~xtePt to which violence is related to other aspects of
hushand-wife interaction. we sampled only couples living
together. Divorced persons were asked only about the
current marrlage (again because of inte:riew tims limits and
rrcall accuracy problems). Since "excessive' violence is a
major cause of divorce, and since our sample is limitEd to
couples living together, these data probably oait many of
the high violence cases.

Ch.2. wife-Beating Page 31
These Corsideration~, plus the higher rates in our
pilot studies and informal evidence (where scne of the
factors lsading to underreporting were less) suggest that
the true incidence for violence in a marriage is probably
closer to 50 91 60 wrcert of g.&& c=&~ than it is to the
28 percent who were willing to describe violent acts in a
Bass interview survey.
WIPE-BELTING IS NOT RESTRICTED TO WIVES
Although this chapter is concerned primarily with
vife-beating, an adequate understanding of the phenomsron
requires that we cocsider it ir a wider context. We must
reCogPize that one does not have to be married to be the
victin of physical violence by a partner. Our national
survey (Pllo and Straos, 1980) a stody by iiennon (1976) of
students living together, and much informal evidence suggest
that couples who are no? married have rates of viclonc? that
are as high or hlqher than those married. In fact, cloplee
do not have to live together. Once a step is taker touerd a
aarriage-like arrangement. as in a boyfriana-girlfriend
relationship, and Especially if regular sex is involved. the
violence rate jumps dramatically. Violence can no longer be
figured i~ the rates per 100,000 characteristic of assaults
ir general. Instead, simple percentages, that is, rates per
hundred, are more logical. Why this happens is imporlant in
itself and also because it throws a great deal of light on
the situation of wives.
ADSBAND BEATING
NOW we come to findings that may be surprising to some
readers. The rational sample data confirm what all of our
pilot studies have shown (Gelles. 1974; Steinmetz, 1977;
Straus, 197Y): that violence betveeo husband ar.d vife is
not a one-way street. Thr old cartoons of the vife chasing
a husband with a rolling pin or throwing pots and pans are
closer to reality than most of us (especially those of us
with feminist sympathies) realize. This can be seen froa an
inspection of the wifc columns in Table 1.

Ch.2. Slfe-Beating
the VOfd VlOleDCe.
- - -- -- --
Page 32
Sg'cific piclent Acts. If we look at the specific
typss of violent acts sampled by the CRT, there is eviaence
-.- for +he .~~. ont and Dan L - ~ throvino ~ - ~ ~ stereatvoe. 2
since the number of
L - -
~ 2 . ~ .
wives who threw things at their husbanas is almost twice as
larqe as the number of husbazds who threv thinqs at the:=
wives. For half of the violent acts, however, the rate is
hioher far the husband: +he freouencv is hisher for the
d~ -- A
husbands in all but tva of the items. The biggest
discrepancy in favor of wives occurs in kickirg and hittinq
vith objects. Such acts are less depenaent on superior
physical strength. This Eggma to support the viev
important diff~rEncE between male and female
that an
domestic
violence stens from the smaller size, weight, and muscle
development of most women, rather than from any greater
rejection of physlcal force on moral or normativ: grourias.
Pollcy mulications. Althooqh these findings show high
rates of violence uiq~, this fact shcula not divert
attention from the need to aive urimarv attertion to wives
as the imlaedlate focus of social policy.
are a number of reasons tor this:
There
(1) P oalidity study carried out in preparatiori for
this research (Bulcroft and straus, 1975) shows that
underreporting of violence is greater for violecce by
husbands than ir is for violence by wives. This is probably
because the use of physical force is so much a part of the
male way of llfe that it is typically rot the dramatic and
often traumatic evect that the same act of violence is for a
voman. To b~ violent is not unmasculine. But to be
physically violent. & unfsminine according to contemporary
Raericac standards. Consequently, if it were possible to
allow for this difference in reporting rates, even ic simple
~umerica.1 terms, wife-beating probably would be the more
severe problem.
(2) Wen if one does not take into accourt this
differencs in unaerreporting, the data in Table 1 show that
husbands have hlgher rates of the most dangerous and
injurious forms of violence (beating-up and using 6 knife or
gun).
(3) Table 1 also shews that when violent acts are
committed by a husband, they are repeated more often ?ha> is
the case for wives.
(4) These data do not tell us what proportion of the
violent acts by rives were in response to blows initiatea by
husbands. Wolfgang's data on hosba~d-wife homicides (1957)
suggest thet this is an important factor.

ch.2. uif %-Beating Page 33
(5) The greater physical strength of men makes it more
likely that a woman WLll be seriously injured when beeton up
by her husbacd than the reverse.
(6) A disproportionately large number of attacks by
hnsbards seem to occur vhec the wife is pregnant (Gslles.
1976). thus posing e danger to the as yet unborn child.
(7) aomec are locked into marriage to a such greater
extent than men. Because of a variety of economic and
social constraicts, they oftor have no altarnative to
putting up with beatings by their hnsbands (Gelles. 1976;
Bartin, 1976; S?raus, 1976a. 1977b).
In short, wives are victimized by violence in the
family zo a ouch greater extert than are husbands and should
therefore be the focus of the most immediate rsmedial steps.
Bowever, these data also indicate that a fundamental
solution to wife-beating cannot be restricted to she
immediate problem of the assaulting husbands. Rather,
violence is embeadPd in the structure of the society an6 the
family system itself (straus, 1976~). Ths particularly
brutal form of viclence known as wife-beating is likely to
end only with a change in the cultural and sscial
orgatizational facCors underlying parent-to-child,
child-to-child, and wife-to-husband violence as ~€11. Some
of the spacitic steps to accomplish this change are outlined
in Chapter 13.
TEE CRUSES OF RIPE-BEATING
ROY I turn to the proposition that the causes of
vife-beating ars to be fonnd in the structure of American
Society and its family system. Demonstrating this, svsn in
. --- . .
principle. is a vast undertaking. Indeed, ?ha: is whni this
book is abcut.
seven of the
In - this chaoter. . I w i l l sim~lv idertifv
maln fectors and *he aensrel tenor of the
argoment. Plgure 1 glves an overvlsw of these factors and
some of thelr rnterrelatlonships.
3 combination of these factors (plus others cot
diagrammea for lack of space) makes the family the most
violent of all civilien institu5ions and accounts for that
aspect of family violence which we call wife-beating. Let
US look briefly at each of these factors.
--
1. of Ea&x s~9fLLgi. An essential
starting point for any understanding of fasily violence is
the hlgh level of conflict characteristic of families. In
Chapter 1, eleven reascns for the typical high level of
coqflict within the family ware idsntlfied and briefly
explained. These reasors included the broad rarpa of
activities shared by family members, with consequert greater

Ch.2. Wifa-Beating Pag~ 34
opportunity for cocflic's of interest than in more narrowly
focused groups; the age and sex differences built irto the
structure of the family: and the assigcment of fanily roles
on the basis of age and sex rather than interest ard
COP~S~~CCE. A l l four chapters in Part I11 consider varicus
aspscts of intrafamily cocflict. Chapter 8 csnsiders thess
co~flicts in the light of conflict thecry and the paradox of
'he love-hate relationship so often found il families.
2% yZq& Level of Violence in f& socie; et The high
level of conflict inherert in the family, coebrned vith the
huge emotional investment typrcal of family reletionships.
means that the family is likely to be the locus of acre, and
more serious, conflicts than other groups. But confli-t and
violence are not the same. Violcnce is only one olpans of
dealing with conflict. What accounts for the use of
violence to deal vith conflicts within the f~mily? A
fundaaeotal starting place is that we are part of a violent
society. There is a carry-over from one sphEre of life to
another. as I have triad to show in a paper comparing levels
of family violence in different societies (Straus, 197la).
However, granting the carry-over principle, this explanation
is by no means sufficient. Conflict is 31sO high, fox
example; in academic departmects. Eut there has never been
an incident of physical violence ia any 3f the six
departments in which I hare taught during the past 25 years.
In fact. I have only heard of one such inciaant occurring
anywhere. Clearly, other factors must be present.
3, sad 4. Fzmil~ SgCii&@si~~ in Zio&ens%. One 3f the
most significant of these other factors is that the family
is t h ~ settino in which most DeODle first exoerlence
&
physical violecce, and the setting that establishes the
emotional context and meaning of violenc~.
Learning about violence starts with physical
punishment, which is nearly universal (steinmetz and Straus,
1974). When physical punishment is used. several
consequences can be expected. First, most obviously, is
learning to do or not do whatever the punishment is ictendea
to teach. Less obvious, but equally or more important, are
three other lessons that are so deeply learned that they
become an integral part of one's personality and world view.
The first of these unintended consegusnces is the
CssoclatioC Of love with violence. PhysLcal punishment
typically begins in infancy with slaps to correct and teach.
Iomay and Daddy are the first and usually the mly ones to
hit an icfaLt. and for mast children this continues
throughout childhcod. The child therefore learns that those
who love him or her the most are also thYse vh3 hir.
Second. since physical punistmmt is used to train the
child or to teach about danqa;ous things to be avoided, it
establishes the moral rightness of hitting other family

T ~ E third unintended conseguence is the lesson that
when something is really important, it justifies the usa of
p&ysical force.
These indirect lessons are cot confined to providirg a
model for later treatment of one's own chilaxen. Sathet.
they bECOme such a fundamental part of the icdiviaual's
personality and outlook that they are generalized to other
social relationships, especially to the relationship closest
to that of paren? and child-that of husband and wife.
Thus, early experiences with physlcal punishment lay
the groundwork for the ncrmative legitisacy of all typss of
violence but especially intrafamily violence. Rs suggested
by box 4, it provide: a role aodel-indeed. a spzcific
nscriptn (see Chapter 4 ar:d Gagnon and Simon, 1973)--for
such actions. nany children do not even nesd to gensralize
this socially scripted pattern of behavior from the
parent-child nexus in which it was learned to other family
relationships: it our estimates are correct, millions of
children can directly observe physical violence between
husbands and vives (see also Ovens and Straus. 1975).
5, Cgl_sg=& E m . The preceding discussion has
focusea .on the way ir. which violence becomes built into the
behavioral repertory of husbands and wives. Though
important, early experience could not account for the high
level of family violence, were it not also supportpa by
Cultural norms 1Egitinizing such violenr predispositions.
Since most of us tend to think of norms that call for love
and gentleness within the fas~ly, it is difficult to
perceive that there are bcth @ jgg? and & fa&? cultural
notms legitimizing the use of violence between family
members. Chapter 3 documerts the evidence for the existerce
of such norns and Chapter 5 illustrates the indirect effect
of cultural norms.
6, agfi Z, =pal Ineaualt~~ 2 s C2g1=3 !9g52gg~sg 2s
Women. The last two causal factors, boxes 6 and 7 of Pigure
-----
1, can be considered together and summarized in the
pToposition that the sexist organizaticn of the society and
Its family system ;s one of the most tundamental factors in
the high level of uife-beating. Chapter 6 and Plrt IV
demonstrate this proposition. Policy recommendations aimea
at preventing vife-beating arE examined in Chaptsr 13. Some
aspects also have been presented earlier in this chapter.
Slnce these issues are discussed ir depth in other chapte:s,
I w i l l note only that boxes 6 and 7 of Figure 1 summarize
the main elements of sexism that lead $5 wife-beating.
Perhaps devoting an inappropriately small part of the
text Of this chapter to sexual inequality--one of the most
important causal factors in uife-beating,--will dranetize

that sexlsm is orly one part of the complex causal matrix of
family violence (cutllned in Figure 1). That male domixance
does not protect men from violence by other men also
illustrates this complexity.
'1f true equality between the sexes were somehow to he
achleved tomorrou, all forms of family violence (including
wife-beatiog) would continue to exist--though prohably at a
Somewhat lower ircidenc~--~nl~ss step5 also are taken to
alter the factors identified in boxes 2. 3, 4. and 5 of
Figure 1. The level cf nor-family violence also must be
lowered to end the training in violence that is part of
growing up in a typical American family. Violence is truly
woven into the fabric of American society. and int3 the
personality, beliefs, vilues. and behavi3ral scripts of most
of our populatioo. Ellmination of wife-beating depends not
only on sliminating sexual inequality. but also on altering
the system of violence on which so much of American
depends.
society
ROTE
1. This chapter, originally presented at th? conference
on "Battered wires: DEiicing the Issues,n Center for
R962aroh on women. Stanford University. Hay 20, 1977; and
at the Second World Congress, Internetional Society on
Family Law. flontreal, June 14. 1977, is a shortened and
revised version of "wife-Beating: Bow Common and why."
reprinted vith permission from Victimologp sol, 2. Number
3, 1977. (c) 1977 Visage Press. Inc. The materials in this
chapter w i l l be presented more fully in a forthc3rnirg book.
- Behjn_& ==a& mz Violence ;gali_s=g c+_g&&~
(straus. Gelles. and steinmetz, 1980).

The cultural corms and values psrmittigg
husband-wife violence resemble what Bern 3 ~ Ben d
(1970) call "noncorscious ideology." This ides
points out that on some issues (the Bess
examined the role of women in America!? society)
our per,spective is so deeply held and so subtle
that we cannot Even imagine alternative beliefs
and attitudes. Only when lsnonconscious
ideologiesn are challerged are people apt t5
display the depth of such a belief system. Orly
under challenge is the rationale of the ia?ology
likely to surface.
Bs the chapters ix the following section
aake clear, our society fails to recognize the
massive cultural "scripting" (Gagnon and Simon.
1973) that makes it more permissible to strike 3
family member than to hit a friend, co-worker.
or stralger. One of the reasons these cultural
norms OK scripts are ignored is 2 deeply held
belief that violence is an integral part of
human nature. This belief blinds psople to
seeing that cultural norms specify who may ba
hit and uhc may not, ard how hard, and under
what circumstances.
Another factor blinds people to the
Culturally patterned nature of family viclencs
(548 Chapter 1): the irony tha: the manifest
ideology (as contrasted with the "ncnconscious
ideology") emphasizes peace, harmony, and
gentleress amorg family members. The reality to
which the chapters ir Part I1 testify is that
norms legitimizing intrafamily violence are
present ard powerful. They nay not be easily
recognized, but *nonconscious ideologies* seldom
are. Beccgnizing these taken-for-granted
cultural norms is critical to understanding the
Social causes of family violence: family
Violence must be seen as s mode of behavior
acquired through years of cultural and family
socialization.
Page 38

Chapter 3
The Marriage License as a Hitting License:
Evidence from Popular Culture, Law,
and Social Science
Murray A. Stmus
This chapter emphasizes a thene that
underlies many of the other chapters. It is the
ability to see through or probe behind the
official version of reality. official norms nsy
exalt the family as a group devoted to
gentleness and lore, but this chapter provides
evidence that these norms coexist with a more
Subtle set of norms that legitimate the nse of
force and violence in the family setting.
The chapter also raises a number of
critically important questions for UnderstandIcg
violence in the family system. Although it
demonstrates the existence of pro-violence
norms. the questior of how such norms come inta
existence in the first place is not ansvered.
Why are they being maintained, sonetiaes with
great fervor, by men and women alike?
Throughout this volume there are hints to
answers to these questions. For exa~ple, the
chapter on violerce in children's books (Chapter
4) illustrates ore of the ways that cultural
norms are
generation.
transmitted from generation to
The chapters in Part III show some
of the ways that the nature of families creates
a high level of conflict, and the conaitions
under which conflict turns into violence.
Finally, Part I V helps us avoid the trap of
fixing an any one factor as $ks cause, or evec
the main cause, of husband-wife violence. Each
of those chapters shows rhat neither cultural
norms nor family szructure alone can account for
the high rate of husband-wife violence.
together they form an explosive conbination.
........................
But

Ch.3. narriage License Page 40
In Chapters 1 and 2, and in a series of other papers
and books (Gslles. 1974, 1977: Steinmetz and Straus. 1974;
Straus, 1973). evidence was presented that the family is
~leeminrnt ~~~ in - all lvDes ~- of ~- ohvsical .~.-- ~- violence. - from slaDS to
~
torture ~ and murder. ~~~ -~ These ~~~ studies ~ suaapst > thar the first
-- ~..
2
priority for those corcerned with the level of violence in
hmerican society should not be violence in the streets, but
violence in the home, and the factors that lead to it.
The most appropriate place to begin is vith a
discussion of the physical punishment of children. Ye
believe that physical punishment serves as the primary
mechacism by vhich members of our socisty learn to us? both
verbal and physical aggression. Parental use of physical
punishment is remarkably similar to many experiments on
aggrsssion using electric shocks. Even more important.
physlcal ponishment provides a powerful role model through
which the child learns that if one truly vishes to influence
another, physical force is effective and socially
acceptable: that it is legitimate, often morally necessary
to use physical violence on those one presumably loves: and
that one should respond to aggression with aggression.
Since studies in the United States and Great Britain
show that at least 93 percent of all parents use physical
punishment (Steinmetz and Straus, 1974). and that at least
half contlnue to use it through the senior year in high
school (Straus, 1971; Steinmetz, 1974). it is an almost
universal social learning experience. noreover, this role
modeling is supplemented for an amazingly large number of
children by explicit instlgation to aggression. Exhortation
to violence is not restricted to slum families. Parents
typically psreit or urge a child to fight back if a sibling
is aggressive. noreover, 70 percent of the respondents in
one national sample survey felt that "when a boy is growing
up, it is very important for him to hare a few fist fights"
(Stark and ticEvoy, 1970).
IS for husband-vife aggression, this chapter vill
attempt to shov that a marriage license is an implicit
hitting license. The available evidence shovs that the
typical adult is more likely to be attacked--verbally,
physically, or even morally--by his or her own spouse than
by any other persor. Data on homicides in at least a dozen
different ccuctries (Curtis. 1974; wolfgang, 1956:
Bohannan, 1960) show that murderers and their victims were
more often members of the same family than of any other
murder-victim relationship. In fact. when woman are
murdered, it is overuhelmingly by their husbands. End. to
complete the picture, when husbands nurder wives thep tend
to do so with great brutality. as indicated by such things
as multiple stab wounds or multiple gun sh3ts. as compared
vith the single srab or single shot typical when wives
nurder husbands (Yolfgang, 1956).

Ch. 3. flarriage License Page 41
Theretore, something in the family system not only
produces a high level of physical aggression. but also makes
wlres the victim of that aggression. Chapter 6 examines
this high rate of aqgression agains- women in terms of the
sexist Organization of society and the family, and
identifies nine of the processes that link sexual ireguality
to physical aggression against women. starting with the most
obvious linkage: the use or implicit threat of physical
intimrdatioP to keep voaer subordinate.
TEE PARIDOX OF FABILY VIOLEBCE XORnS
AS noted in Chapters 1 and 2, the norms and values
relating to intrafamily violence pose a paradox. On the one
hand, there is the "myth of family nonviolerce" (Steinmetz
and Straus. 1974; Straus. 1974b) that reflacts cultural
nor86 and aspirations for the family to be characterized by
love, gentleness, and harmony. on the other hand, social
norms exist that imply the right of family members to strike
each other, theretare legitimizlng intrafamily assaults. at
least under certain conditions.
as nlted in our discussion of The nyth of Family
Nonviolence in Chapter 1, cultural contradictions and
discontinuities of this type are pres9nt in Every sociatp to
a greater or lesser ext€nt.(Benedict, 1938; Eabree, 1950:
Ry+n ard Straus, 1954). Physical aggression is a prime
example of this in Bmsrican society. Although thzro are
clear norms and values restricting violence an3 emphasizing
the value of peace and harmony, especially between family
members, simultaneously a high level of actual violence
exists, along with rorms glorifying aggressior and violence.
In respect to the family, the legitimation of violence is
sometimes explicit or even mandatory--as in the case of the
right and obligation of parents to use an appropriate level
of physical force to train and control a child. Ir fact.
parents are permitted to use z level of physical force that
is denied prison authorities in conrrolling innares. Ir the
case of husband-wife relations, similar norms are prFsent
and powerful. but largely implicit, unrecoyniz?d, or covert.
what is the eviderce that such norms exist?

Ch.3. tlarri~ge License Page 42
IBPORilAL nANIPESTETIONS OF CULTURAL NORMS
PERMITTING OR APPROVING lAAlThL VIOLENCE
Ingehorg Dedichen, who lived vith hristotle Onassis for
12 years, describer an incident in which 0c.assis beat. her
severely until he quit frcm exhaustion:
The fol1ow:ng day instead of apologizing,
Onassis explained, "A11 Greek husbands, I tell
you, all Greek men without exceptioc, beat their
wives. It's good tor them." And then hz laughed
(Shearer. 197S:q).
nosc of the American or English public reading this might
dismiss it as a Greek peculiarity. But, just as cn3ssis'
statemect is an exaggeration for Greek men, our denial of
this norm Exaggerates in the other directioc. crce one is
aware that there are norms legitimizing marital (and
especially husband-tc-wife) violence, irstancss such as the
above pop up constantly. One amazing examplE is the arcient
(and flagrantly sexist) joke told on ths BBC women's program
"Pettycoat Lane' in the spring of 197'4. One woman asked
another why she felt her husband didnlt love her anymore.
Rer answer: "Ha hasn't hashed me in a fortnight."
ht a higher literary level, plays provide many ~xamples
of the marriagE license as a hLtting license, including
Several by George Bernard Shaw, 3rd t h recent ~ play about a
Lesbian Coupl~, "The Killing 0f.Sister George," in which
June makes threatening motions toward Alice:
Slice: Don'? touch me. ~ o u ~ got r e no right.
June: I've got every right.
Alice: 1.m cot married to you. you knov.
The above are, of course, only literary rsflectioas of
the cultural norms that can be observed in everyday life.
These examples racge fcom casual remarks such as that cf th%
railway conduc?or who, vhen asked by a voman for help with a
stobborn seat, did so and remzrked, "sowe of these seats are
just like women: yon have to kick them to maki thae work"
(protest letter to Th€ Nev York Times, July 19. 1974:5).
Other examples appear in the meaia with at least tacit
approval of their contents. as in the following section of
the videly read column by Ann Lanaers (October 29, 1973):
Dear Ann Landers: Come out of the clouds, far
Lord's sake. and gat down heze vith us humans.
I an sick to death of ycur holier-than-thau
attitude toward women whose husbands give them a
well-deserved helt in the mouth.

Ch.3. narriage License Page 43
Don't you know that a man can be pushed to the
brink and sone:hing's gat to give? h crack ir!
the tseth can be a vocderful tensLon-breaker.
It's also a lot healthier than keeping all that
anger bottled up.
By husband hauls off end slugs me every Eer
months and I don't nind. Be feels better and so
do I because he never hits me unless I deserve
it. So why son'?. you cone off it?-Peal mppy
Dear R.H.: If you don't mind a crack ir~ the
teeth every few months, it's all right with ma.
I hope you hare a good dentist.
I number of husbands and wives interviewed by Celles
expressed similar attitudes, so that Gellss developed a
classification of types of "normal violence" 'hat includes
such categories as "1 asked for it." "I deserved it,,* "Shp
needed to be brought to her senses," 4tc. (G2llos.
1974:58). Other examples occur in connection with family
disturbance polic~ calls, with wives as well as husbsnds
often asserting their right to hi5 each other bicaus~ they
are sarriea (Parras, 1967; Yorkshire Post. Bay 23, 1979:9).
These sane attitudes are widely shared by officials of the
criaical justice system. scastimes this presumea right to
hit is linked to the race or social class of the couple, as
shown in Deny of Pamas' examplss and in an English judge's
remark, 'if he had bean a miner in South wales I might have
overlooked it" (London Daily Birror, January 29. 1974:l).
This remark made headlines, but only because welsh miners
PrOteStEd.
E final example is provided by a marriage counseling
case (Straus, 1973:120) ir which the husband hit his wife on
numerous occasions. Re ard his mlfs felt that he coula not
help hiaself because, ir the heat of ths trem?ndous
arguments, he "last control." The counselor, however, tried
to persuade the couple that the husband's behavior was not
simply a reversion to "primitiven levels, but in fact was
under normative control. He did so by asking the husband
"Why didn't you stab her?' This conversa5ion brought out the
implicit. unrecognized, but core5heless operating noro that
peraitted the husband to hit his wife but not to stab her.
This unrecognized norm legitimizing intrafamily violsace.
unless it producss severe injury, parallels the Califoraia
"wife-beatingm statute cited below.

Ch.3. narriage License Page 94
Legltlmation of Husband-Wlf- Vlol~nce
by the Courts and Pollcs
There 1s considerable evidence that Even though laws
giving husbands the right to "chastise" ar erring vife are
no longer with us. the underlying spirit 3f such laws
lingers. That spirit is now primarily extralegal, but in
important ways it is still embodied in the legal system.
------
Immunilp
legitimisations
$o&r. one of the most important of these
of husband-wife violence is to be fou~d in
the doctrine of "spousal immunity' that, to this day, in
many jurisdictiors prevents a wife from suing her husband
for assault and battery. In other jurisdictions, the law
has been changed ccly recently. Truninger (1971:269) cites
the following example:
In Self vs. Self (1962) th+ wife alleged that
the defendant husband ..." unlawfully assault4
plaintiff and beat upon, scratched and abused
the person of plaintiff," and that as a result
plaintif* 'sustained physical injury to her
person and emotional distress, and among other
icjuries did receive a broken arm.' The
hosband's motion for a summary jodqmsnt was
granted by the trial court.
on appeal. the California Supremp court reverssa
the trial court's judgment, thus overruling
eeveral older California cases supportirg
interspousal immunity. The raCiocale of courts
retalning the common law sp3usal inmucity
doctrine fear was that allowing the tort action
"would destroy the peace and harmony of ths
hone, and thus would be contrary to the policy
or the 1 2 ~ . ~ ~
PGar ~f fhe Police i~ P$. As Truninger also points
out, it is doubtful Whether a vife gains much, other than
the principle, from ability to sue her husband for assault
acd battery: the actual operation of both the civil and
criminal justice systems puts up snormaus obstlcles and, in
any case, it typically does nothing to prevent imeEdiate
repetition of the offense while the case is bsing
adjudicafed. Usually the only way in which a riol€nt spouse
can be removed from the hcae is by arrest, but the police
make such arrests rarely. In fsc', until th- 1976 revision.
the International Association of Police Chiefs' *r%ining
manual recommends that arrest,s gpi be made ic such cases.
The co-arrest guideline probably is more clcsely
followed than any other ir the training manozl bscaose it so
clearly fits the experience end values 5f the polic*. In
gereral. the police see. to st-are the belief i n the
legitimacy of spousal vioLence. prsvided tha rEsulting

Ch.3. larriage License Page 115
injuries or destruc:ion are within llmits. sore policp
dEpartmEPtS have informal "stitch rules- whereby the wouna
requires a certain (high) number of stitches befsre an
officer makes a2 arrest (Field and Field, 1973:229). Parnas
(1967) cltfs case after case of the police avoiding arrasts
in s;tuacions aandaticg ore were the parties not husband and
wife. Almost any polrcsnac can cite nuwprous eramplas of
husbands' claiming the right to strike their wivss. and many
police themselves believe this to be the law (TLunirger,
2972: 272: Coote. 2979) .*1
obtaining even basic physical protection is ofter
difficult as is graphically shown in the following instance
(REV York Times. June 14. 1976) :
It was about 4 o*clock in the afternoon "ten a
call came into the 103rd Precinct station h~use
in Jamaica, Queecs, from a woman vho said her
husband had beaten her. that her face was
plesding and bruised. She thought some of h?r
ribs had been broken.
Wan yon help me?- she pleeded to the pclice
officer who answered the phona. 'By husbard's
gone now, but he said he vould come back and
kill me.' She wes also frightened, she said.
thlt he would start heating the children rbr te
returned.
'It's not a Pollcs Department thrng," +he
offlcer told her. "I+'s really a family thing.
You'll have to go to Famlly Court tomorrow.
There's nothrrg that I can do."
of Prosecutors to &i. Dsspite the repeatsd
nature and frequent severity of marital violerce, it is
erdured for long periods--often mary years--by large Gumhers
ot women. Some of the reasons that so many wives tolerate
this situation follov from the variables analyzed in this
paper. other factors hare been identified in Gslles' paper
"Pbused Hives: why Do They Stay?" (1976). sooner or later,
however, the situation brings large nuabers of ween to the
pcint ot desperation. Soma rsspord to this by leaving. or
even by killing the husbacd; others attempt to secure a
warrant for the arrest of their husbands. Por obvi3usly
differert reasocs, each of these alternetives is typically
unsatistactory. If the wife etteapts to bring charges, she
faces being "cooled out* at every step by officials sf the
criminal justice system. This prccsss is illustrated by
Pield and Field's tabulation of the approximately 7,500 such
attempts ir. Washington, D.C. in 1966:
Invariably, the police had told +hem that, in
order to protect themselves, they had tc "get =
warrant from the district attorney.' They

Ch.3. marriage License Page 46
announced typically, "I have come to get one."
TO them this implied an automatic process, like
dropping nickels into a verding machine, and
they expected a routine procedure culminating i n
the issuance of a warrant for their husband's
arrest. Their heightened feeling of precipitats
danger reinforced this expectation. and thsir
eense of grievance and desperation was further
solidified bv the lono vait thev endured before
talking with the ir-itial screening policeman or
the district attcrney. Of these 7,500 women,
fewer than 200 left having secured their
objective (1973:232).
Finally, ever when the circumstancas are such that the
pclic~ and district attorney cannot avoid bringing charges.
few such cases get to trial.
R survey cf the assaalt cases in the District of
Columbia showed that over three-fourths of ths
cases !!ct,involving husbanas and wives went to a
disposition of the merits of guilt or innscence.
The enforcement pattern was reversea in
husband-wife CZSES. Orly about one-sixth of all
arrests involving marital violence ultimately
ended at trial cr vith a guilty plea. 3cd the
crime charged by that time vas invarisbly a
misdemeanor rather than a felony (Field and
Field. 1973: 224).
------
Victim Com~ensaticr. :rother vay ir which th? law
continue5. 5.2 effect, to legitimize husbans-wife assault
crops up in connection with the workings of boards ana
commission^ that have besn set up in England and a feu
Aaericaa states to compensate vicfims of crimes. The
English board explicitly ruled against ccmpersation when ths
victim is a spouse (Williams. 1979) and this also seems to
be the case vith the California lsv (Edelhertz and Geis,
1979:278; Trunioger, 1971:270).
T& Les=& astern aFd cultural &E~;PQ 2f IPtrafalllE
- violence. -- - - -- The situatior described in this section is vell
summarized by the phrase used as the subtitle of Pisla and
Field's article (1973) cn the criminal process ir cases of
marital violence: "Neither Justice Nor Peace." 4 situation
so pervasive is not llkely te he a result of hisflrical
accident. nor is it likely to b? a consequence 3f the many
difficulties in dealing legally with marital violence and
the low rate of success achieved by invckicg criminal law.
These difficulties and uncertainties, after all, l o not
deter the ~~~ oalice A and ceurts -~ --~- from ~- ~ ~ rnvokino - criminal
adjudication processes for many crimes--such 35
prostitution--with an even love? rate of success in ccntrol.
Rather, the failure to invoke criminal penalties rafleczs
historical continuities in the cultural norms that make the

Ch.3. marriage License Page 47
marriage license a hitting license. This is elaost clcar in
the California Penal Code section on wife-beating, which
prohibits an assault only if it results in severe physical
injury. But the most cleer conremporary legal expression of
the right of husbands to use physical force is found in the
immunity of husbands from prosecution for rape of their
wives.
Expermental and SUTVE~ EVZdenCe on
Approval of laTital Vlolence
There is a slowly growing body of Empirical research on
intrafamily aggression and violence, some of which provides
evidence on the cultural norms we are considering. The
snrvey conducted for the United States Rational Commission
of the Causes and Prevention of Violence foand that about
one quarter of the persons interviewed said they could
approve a husband or wife hitting each other under certain
circums;ances (Stark and 8cEvoy. 1970). That figuze is
probably a considerable underestimate because of the
existence of opposite corms--the more socially acceptable
ac3-siclence n3rms and the implicit or covert pro-violence
norms.
The contradictcry and covert narure of the corms
approving marital viclecce makes expsrinental and
ob~ervational studies particularly approprilte, because
these stodies do pot depend on the willingness or ability to
verbalize norms and values. Urfortunately. for practical
reasons. all the observational studies have beer of
parent-child violence (Rellak and intell. 1974). But there
have been experimental studies of marital aggression or
studies that bear OL marital aggression.
he first of these studies also reflects ths mora
geneyal phenomenon of male hostility to women:
One of the leist recognized indices of mals
hostility to females is the reaction of men who
watch a violent act against women, rather than
coamitting or initiating it themselves. Three
psychclogists from Richigan State university
staged a ssries of fights that were to be
witnessed by UnSuspectiCg passersby. The
researchers found. to their anazement, that ma15
witnesses r~shed to the aid of men being
as~aultsd by either women or o4n, and thct man
helped women being hit by othpr women. Rut not
one male bystander interfered when a male actor
apparently beat up a woman (Pogrebin, 1974:49-55
and 80).

Ch.3. narriage License Page 48
In addition to the icterpretation of thess ficdings as
reflecting male hostility to women, it also seems likely
that they reflect the rorm permitting assaults betwsen
spouses. That is, the male bystanders did not come to the
aid of a female victim of a male assailant because they
inferred that he was the womac's husband. This, in fa=%, is
the reason a number of bystanders gave for nor intsrvening
as Kitty Genovese was murdered (Rosenthal. 1964). This
corclusion is further given credence because it agrees vith
experimental studies of "bystarder intervention,' such as
the experiments reported and summarized by Bickman (1975).
Bickman concludes that the social definition of what acticns
are right for the bystander is a more powsrful determinant
of intervention than the severity of the crime or concern
for the welfare of the victim.
Closely related to these findings is an unpublished
experiment by Churchill and Straus in which the subjects
were given a description of an assault and asked to irdicate
what punishment they felt was appropriate. In the course of
the assault, the victim was kcocked unconscious. In half
the descriptions the assailant was described ss the vomanvs
husband. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ In the ~~~ other ~~ - half. ~- the descriotion ~ ~ . - ~
was ~~ .~~ identical
~~ ~~
except that the couple was described as "going together" for
a year. The mean punishment score when the victim was not
married to the assailant was 4.15, compared vith 2.65 when
the victim was the wife. Boreover. this experiment probably
understates the differerce, in that it specified thst the
unmarried cou~le had been ooiro toaether for a vear. The
dltference pkobably would have -beep much greater if the
unmarried couple had not been descrlbed as havzcg a
quaslmarltal relatlorshlp.
In a final set of experiments bearing on this issue.
couples interacted in a standardized laboratory task
involving conflict. The data for married ccuplss was
compared vith the data for urmarried couples in the Sam9
task situation. E study by Ryder (1968) found that
strangers were treated more gently than were spouses.
Similarly. using an experimental task that required the
couple to reach a decision, Winter, Perreira, ard Bowers
(1973) found the unzelated couples listened respectfully to
one another whereas married couples were often rude to ane
another. Although thEre is a long distance betveen ruaeness
and violence. it seems likely that what Ls marifested in
these two experiments is the beglnning of the journ3y that
for many couples ultimately ends in violence (Straus,
1974a).

ch.3. larriage License Page 49
TRZ CYCLE OF INTRAPABILY VIOLENCE
In Chapter 2 the role-modeling function of physical
punishment was described, and especially the implici: lesson
that it is permissible, even mandatory, to ose physical
violence on those one loves most. But the learning of
social scripts for aggression betveen family members takes
place in many other ways, and I w i l l conclude by briefly
menticning just one of these: observation by childrsn of
aggressivs behavior between the parents theaselvss, ana
physical violence in particular.
Whenthe Family Violence Research Program began, we
were under the impression that violence betveen spouses is
rare. and that middle class parents take pains to avoid
physical fights in the presence of their children. The idea
that physical violence between spousgs is rare was the first
of the myths about intrafamily violence that the data from
the program forced us to abandon. Subsequently, a study by
BulCrOft and Straus (1975) suggested that the itea of
parents' being able to hide physical fights may also be
iccorrect.
In this study, 121 university students and thsir
parents each separately completed parallel qusstionnaires,
including one section that dealt with conflicts betweec the
parents. There was a series of items concernirg modes of
coping with these conflicts (the Conflict Tactics Scales
deSCrlbEd in Strans, 1979 and used in Chapt?rs 2 and 12).
These items were arranged in order of coerciveness. starting
with discussing things calmly, and endirg with hitting the
other with a hard object. A violence index uas computed
from the latter questions.
we found a surprisingly high correlatior. between the
SCOrJS computed on the basis of data obtained frsa the
student and ~~- the ~~. scsrec -....- ohtainnn on the basis of +he
~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~.
questionnaire completed by each parsnt: the Correlation
brtween the parent-report data and the child-r?port data for
husDand9s violence was .64, ard for the wife's violence
index the correlation was .32. The significance of this
finding in the present context is that it indicates the
degree to which children know about acts of physical
a49Z9ssion between their - - Darents. at lrast durinq the Tear
th; child is a senior in high schooi. coosequsntl$. par;nts
seem again to be serving as role models for lntrafamily
physical aggression and for learning t h ~ social corms
which--to repeat the opening statement 2f this chapter-aaks
the family the most frequent setting for aggression of all
types. ranging from insults, to slaps. $0 baiting, torture.
and murder.

ch.3. narriage License Page 50
NOTES
Part of this chapter is reprinted with permission from
nurray R. Straus, "Sexual Inequality. Cultural Warms, and
Wife-Beating," originally published in YtztLE&zy. 1976: 1
(Spri~g):5(1-76. (c) 1976 Visage Pzess, 1r.c.; a ~ in d Emilio
c. Viano. editor, Victims and So~ie$x, Washington, D.C.,
Visage Press, 1976.
1. Programs to lcform and train p3lice to deal more
effectively with family disturbances have bpen initiated in
several cities. see Bard. 1969, 1971, 3nd Chapter 13.

Chapter 4
Violence and the Social Structure
as Reflected in Children's Books
from 1850 to 1970
Martha D. Huggins and Murray A. Straus
The previous chapter showed that cultural
norms make the marriage license a hitting
license. The research reported in the present
chapter vas designed to see if this approval of
violence between family members is a theme in
books written for children. The resalts show
that childrer's books do depict a great deal of
riolence. including killings. In addition, they
reinforce the lesson of physical punishment by
depicting riolence as an effective means of
secoring justice or of achieving some valued
end.
Aowever, althongh this chapter shows that
children's books describe and justify violence.
for violence the findings are not what we
expected. Giver the high rates of familp
violence pointed cut in Chapters 1 and 2. it is
iro~ic that in these stories little of the
violence takes place between members of the same
iamlly. Thsre is a ride discrepancy between the
reality of family life and the idsalized picture
implied by the lack of family violence in
children's books. Bs in television, physical
aggression is largely depicted as something that
occurs between strangers. The chapter concludes
with a discussion of the discrepancy between the
violent reality of family life and the media's
avoidance of shoving violence between family
members.
........................

Ch.4. Violence in Children's Books Page 52
of the highly industrialized nations of the vorld, the
united States is clearly one of the aost violent (Palmer,
1972:15). Nany explanations have been offered for this
phenomenon (Graham and Gurr, 1969). and undoubtedly a cumber
of factors operate to maintain physical violence as a
continuing aspect of American social structure. On2 factor
that has been a subject of considerable controversy is the
mass media.
Some investigators argue that violence in the media
reflects the violence of the society (discussed in Lynn,
1969). Others maintain that violence in the mass meaia and
in sports serves as a safety valve, permitting aggressive
drlves to be drained off--the "drive discharge" and
"catharsis" models (BEttelheim, 1967; Freud, 1959:
Peshbach and Singer, 1971; Lorenz, 1966). Both the
"reflection" and the "catharsis" theories see violence in
the media and in sports as having either a neutral or a
neutralizing role. They therefore contrast sharply with
theories that hold that violence in the media is part of the
process of transmitting and encouraging violance. Among the
latter are the "cultural pattern" theory of Sipes (1973).
.social learning" theory (Bandura. 1973). and "general
systems theoryn (Straus, 1973).
The theoretical and methodological issues underly+ng
this COntrOverSy are so complex that an eventual resolution
w i l l require, at the mimimum, an accuaulation and
*triangulation' of evidence from a variety of
investigations. Aistorical studies of a variety of cultural
forms are particularly needed. A study of chilaren's books
therefore seemed desirable because (1) most of the available
research on the mass media and violence focuses on
television. Childrsn's books, however, may be just as
important or more important. Our informal observation is
that the impact of a book read by a child (or to a young
child by a significant person such as a parent) is extremely
powerfol. (2) The availability of children's books for over
one hundred years enables a degree of historical depth not
possible for any of the other mass media.
Thgoretical Perspective. We believe that the relation
between literature and society is "dialectic": literary and
cther artistic productions reflect the culture and social
organizatlcn of the society. especially its dominant strata.
However, once it is in existence, literature serves to
control and mold that culture and social structure. If the
artist's work is to be accepted, he or she must draw on the
Cnltural heritage of society and appeal to important
elements in the lives of members of society. It the same
time, the work of ac artist--once accepted--becomes s part
of that cultural heritage and is one of many elements
influencing and controlling what goes on in the society.

Ch.4. Violence in Children's Books Page 53
Previous content analysis studies have given some
indication of the relationship between changes in society
and changes in literary contents. straus and Boughton
A--- ---- -- --
cross-lagged correlation. Since we w i l l not be presenting
such data, the present chapter is not offered as a test of
these assumptions. Our aim is more modest; simply to
present the results of our historical analysis, together
with our interpretation of the trends.
-
specific Obiectives. One of the purposes of the study
is to determine if the level of interpersonal physical
violence depicted in children's books has been increasing or
decreaslng during the 120-year span from 1850 to 1970. He
pose no hypothesis about the direction of change, because
the available evidence does not suggest any overall '
or decrease in the level of violence in the Unitea
during this period (Graham and Gurr, 1969).
States
The second objective is to gain information on the way
society defines and labels physical violence for its next
geEBration. The study exanines the extent to which violence
in literature is depicted as an nexpressive" act (carried
out to cause pain or injury as an snd in itself) or an
"instrumenzal'* act (carried out to achieve some extrinsic
purpose). Sznilarly, the proportion of violent acts
presented by the authors as "legitimateu and "illegitimate*
suggests how society evaluates and labels physical violence.
Finally, the content analysis was designed to obtain
information on rhe statuses, roles, motives, and emotions of
the characters involved in violence. azd the precipitating
conditions, outcomes. and consequences of violence. To the
extent that violence in literature mirrors violence in the
society, such information provides insight into this
important aspect of social structure. To the extent that
literature influences society, such information gives
important clues to the "scriptn (Gagnon and Simon, 1973) for
violent behavior presented to children.*l

ch.a. Violence in Children's Books Page 54
SAIIPLE BND SETHOD
g~mle. R three-step samplirg process was used. The
first step was the identification of what, for want of a
better tar.. can be called "children's classics,' books
recognized by a literary elite of the society. we focusea
on this type of literature because, as Marx suggested
(1964). the ideas of the elite strata tena to be the
dominant and influential ideas in the society. Prom .this
perspective, it is not the moral evaluations of the
popula3.on at large that give rise to a group's definitions
of reality, but mainly the evaluations of the aominant class
(Parkin. 1971:92). On the. basis of these assumptions, we
sought out lists of recomme~ded an3 esteemed children's
books, for example, the nuotable Children's Books:
1965-1972' prepared by the Book Evaluation Committee of the
American Library Associatiou.*2 The body of work compiled by
this method is a chronologically ordered list of all books
published between 1850 and 1970 that were included in any of
the lists of recommended books.
The second step of the sampling process was designed to
yield five books published in 1850. and five published every
fifth year thereafter. in 1855. 1860. and so on, up to and
including 1970. for a total of 125 books. For those rears
in which many books appnared, the sample of five was drawn
by random numbers. If there rere fnuer than five books in
the sample year (as sometimes happened i n the early years).
books from the closest adjacent year were included, for
example, a book published in 1856 is included in the sample
for 1855. Since these are all "classic" or "recommended"
books we were able to find 115 of the originally selected
125 boots in nearby libraries. The missing tsn books were
replaced by a random selection from among the other books
published during the appropriate years.
The third step in the sampling process coesisted of
using a *.able of random numbers to select fifteen different
pages from sach book. We followed this procedure to prevent
longer books from disproportionately influencing the
resnlts. Our data than describe any act of interpersonal
physical violence that occurred on one of the sample pages
1s 125 "recommendedn chFldrenvs books published from 1850
through 1970.13
goding p=$&&. The basic unit of analysis consists of
an act of interDersona1 violence, which ue define as the
identifying the book in -which it occurred and providing
space to code the type of information identified a few
paragraphs back. Bore speczfic information on ?ach of these
variables w i l l be given when the relevant data are

Ch.4. Tiolence in ChildreL's Books Page 55
presented. *4
FREQUENCY AND TRENDS IN VIOLENCE
nary observers of the American scene have suggested
that America is a violent society. Palmer (l972:l5), for
example, contends that:
"Since its inception, the United States has been
in the front ranks of violent societies. Born
in revolution, vracked by civil war, involved in
numerous vars, it has also the tradition of
bloody rioting, homicide and arrest."
According to the statistics cited by Palmer, each year
there are 15.000 criminal homicides, 35.000 suicides.
300,000 Serious assaults, and 50,000 forcible rapes, and
these are minimum estimates. Thesr more extreme forms of
physical force only partially illustrate a more widespread
pattern of violence in the United States. Por example.
physical fights between husband and wife may occur in half
to three-quarters of all marriages (see Chapter 2). and
physical fights between siblings are so common as to be
almost universal (Straus. Gelles, ald Steinmetz, 1979). Is
the violence that is so much a part of American life found
in the literature for children?
Ths answer to this rhetorical question is a clear
"yes." lore than three-quarters of the 15-page
'book-segments" had one or more violent episodes, with a
total of 264 such episodes. The largest number of violent
episodes in a single book was 10 (in &IS_: &gf&g).
The mean number of violent acts per book-segment uas 2.1.
The flgura of 2.1 violent episodes per book-segment means
that a 50-page book is likely to include about seven violent
acts and a 150-page book. about 21 violent acts.
- aowities oz &enEp. The,variety of methods used in
these books0 cause physical pair or injury to another
Covers most of those knom to the human race. Thess ranged
flom merelv shakino someone trvo such incidents\. tc hittino
. . - ~
and kicking (39 incidents), torture (6 incidents), hurning
(11 incidents), stabbing (43 incidents), ard shooting (40
incidents). The most frequent type of violence involved
pouncing on someone, grabbing then forcefully or causing
them to fall (66 inciaents or 25 percent of the tstal).
Boverer. such relatively mild forms vere outnumbered by
about two to one by more severe forms such as stabbing.
shooting. torture, and burnirg.
This fact is also reflected in the classification of
acts on the hasis of the resulting physical injury: 22
percent of the 264 cases described a physical injury, and an

Ch.9. Violen~e in Children's Books Page 56
additional 33 percent described a violent death. Clearly,
YE are not dealing with "kid stuff." The essentially adult
nature of the violence portrayed in these books w i l l be
shovn at greater length leter.
0
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 g 05
10 15 20 75 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
- - -
Time Period

Ch.4. Violence in Children's Books Psge 57
Historical Trends. Figure 1 gives the mein number of
violent acts per book-segment for each five-year time
period. This chart reveals no long-tern "secular" trend.
This finding is consistent vith the conclusions of Graham
and Gurr (1969:628) concerning studies of actual rather than
fictional violence. A t the same time, there is a pattern to
the highs +nd lows in fictional violence. The highs tend to
occur when the society is engaged in war. Thus, the highest
points in Figure 1 occurred during ths Bmerican Civil war
(1865). World sar I (1915). world War 11 (1945). and during
the peak of the Viet Nam denorstrations in the united States
(1970) .*5
These data. shoring that violence in children's fiction
is associzted with the collective violsnce of the society,
are remarkably close to the findings of studies that show an
increase in actual violence ~ U g a g society during periods
of war (Ercher and Gartner. 1976: Aenry and Short.
1954:102). The archer and Gartner findings are particularly
impressive because they are based on data for 110 different
nations. The correspondence betwepn the findings of our
content analysis vith analyses based on actual
violence is also of methodologicaL interest
levels of
in that it
provides additional support for using
understand the operation of a society.
content analysis to
FICTIONAL VIOLENCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL OF DSVIANCF
The data just presented suggest that violence is an
integral part of ~recomended" children's books. Housver.
Since Our interest is not in children's literature 2% ge,
but in using children*~ books to gain a greater
Understanding of the role of violence in American society.
our focus will be on the nature of violence and its
correlates. Re have already presented one such
correlate--the association of fictional violsnce with
periods of national collective violence. This can be
lnterpreted as manifesting the pricciple that artistic
p:oductions rsflect the sociocultural matrix of the artist.
Rs suggested that fiction nay serve to mold and control
SOc2ety. acd it is to this issue that we now turn. Durkheim
(1950) and Erikson (1966) hold that moral violations are
Singled out for punishment and public disapproval as a means
of strengthening the commitment of the society to its moral
norms. Thsoretically, the high incidence of violence in
these books could be a vehicle to expose an6 puzish those
who US8 violence. Several of our findings. however, suggest
thar this is .ot the case. In fact, the implicit message is
that violence is effective in resolving seemingly ins3luble
problems.

Ch.9. Violence in Children's Books Page 58
The first Evidence for this interpretation is the large
proportron of the violent incidents classified as
"instrumental violence" (defined as the use of violence to
forc? another to carry out, or to hinder mother from
carrying out. some act). Some 72 percent of acts were
classified as instrumental violence. compared vith 28
percent classified as "expressive violence" (acts carried
out to cause pain or injury as an end in itself).%
violence in these books is portrayed overwhelmingly as
usef "1.
E second type of evidence against the theory that the
violence is a vehicle for conveying moral disapproval of
violsnce is shown in the outcomes. Of the 171 instrumental
violent acts that could be coded for outcome, 60 percent
were depicted as achieving the desired outcome.
Third, WE classified each act according to whether the
book's author portrayed it as legitimate or illegitimate.
Of the 261 acts that could be coded 03 this dimensioc. 48
percmt were presented as socially legitimate acts.
Pinslly, additional insight is gained when the
instrumentality and the legitimacy dimensions are
cross-classified, revealing that most of the acts of
instrumental violence (55 perc9nt) were depicted as socially
legitimate whereas "orly" 28 percent of the expressive acts
of violence were depicted as legitimate. Thus. when
violence is portrayed as a means of achievement, it tends to
be giren the stamp of social approval by the authors of
these books. Bnt when it is portrayed as an expression of
emotion, it is depicted as illegitimate. We suggest that
this relationship represents the combination of the
historically important emphasis on achievement in Rmsrican
soclety coming tcgether vith the nations1 heritage of
violence.
Overall, the eridsncc suggests tha't the high frequency
of VL~~EDCI 51 children's books is not part of a social
control process restrictirg violence.
storiss is typically carried out
The violence in these
to achieve some ecd or
solve scme prcblen: it is usoally successful: end, when
used for such lnstrunertal purposes. it is most often
depicted as Socially legitimate. Thus, to the extent that
children's books are a means of social control and
socialization, thep contribute to the
of violence in American society.
institutionalization
- a vocabnlm of notives. Even if these books are not
part of a process by which the society exposes and labels
violence as a deviant act. other social control - and ~~~~ -
Socialization functions in relation to violence are not
ruled out. Ue have suggested just the opposite--that these
hooks play an important role in labeling violence as
legitimate and in teaching the socially appropriate

ch.4. Violence ir Children's Books Page 59
occasions for its use.
As Bandura (1973) shows. aggression and violence are,
for the nos7 part, socially scripted behavior. Among the
nost important elements of the script for violence taughr in
these children's books are "motives" or reasons that
communicate to the child society's definition of the
occasions on vhich violence may be used. Our initial
analysis made use of 34 categories, some of which sere
predetermined and the remainder added as we came across
reasons that did not fit the categories. These 34
categories then were groupea unaer six major heaaings.
In designing the study, we f~lt that violence in
children's books Often would be presented as a msans of
punishing or preventing socially disapproved behavior,
especially on the part of children. To allow this hunch a
fair opportunity to be proved or disproved, we combined all
codirg categories that could be considered violence used to
enforce social norms or values. we included any indication
that the purpose of violence was to enforce a legitimate
authority: to punish violations of aesthetic norms (table
manners, etc.). Jack of thrift, lying, stupidity,
wickedness, or greed; cr to promote the general triumph of
good over evil. The "Social Controlw category in the
accompanying tabulation shows that all these instances came
to Only 18 percent of the total number of violent acts.
TABLE 1. NOST COMEON REASONS FOR IIITIATIBG VIOLENCE
-----
Reason X
(N=264)
Goal Blockage or Frustration 22
Emotional States 22
Social Csntrcl
Self-Def ense
18
18
War . .
10
No Apparent
Other
The low percentage of violence for social control does
not come about because any other rationale dominates the
portrayal of violence in these books. In fact. the two
categories that share top place, "Goal Blockage or
Prustration" ana "Emotional States,' inclnae only about 22
percent each of the total Cases. The Goal Blockage category
includes using violence to remove an obstacle: for example,
to femove a barrier to the satisfaction of hunger, to attack
a person blocking attainment of a goal. to assert one's

Ch.4. Violence in child re^'^ Books Page 60
pouer in general, The other top category, "Enctioral
States." includes violence motivated by some strong emotion
such as shame or humiliation. revenge, or rage over having
been insulted.
The Social Control. self-Defense, and War categories
combined come to 46 percent of the motives Jr reasons for
v~olence. Thus, the types of violence for which a moral
case can be argued are slightly less frequent than the
combined frequency of violence to attain some other end,
gratuitous violence. or violence as a result of an esotional
state. Clearly, if these are morality Tales, an important
part of the moral code being communicated is the "eye for an
eye, tooth for a tooth' aspect of the Old Testament. By and
large, these conclosions apply over the entire perioa from
1850 to 1970- Roserer, the Social Control category tended
to be more common prior to 1930. In addition. one of the
subcategories occurred only in the period 1955 to
1970--violence used to punish the "stupidity" of othsrs.
Perhaps the increasing burraucratization of modarn society
and the attendant denards for rationality, so well described
by Weber (1964). leads to depicting "sheer stupidity"
(Irrationality) as one of the more serious moral
transgressions of cur time.
C ~ i t a Punishment. l
Pnother aspect of the vocabulary
of motives contained in these books concerns vinlent aeath.
The fact that someone was killed in 33 percent of the
book-segments provides an opportunity to gain insight into
the social definition of killing and death that is presented
to children. Rn important aspect of this depiction comes to
light because the death often occurs because the victim has
committed some moral wrccg or crime. That is, although the
terms "capital punishment" and "death penalty" are not used,
these hooks graphically describe use of the death penalty.
And, as Bruno Bettelhoiin (1973) says about "...those great
American folk heroes, The Three Lirsp P=gsn (in uhtch the
big bad wolf is boiled alive for blowing the house down):
'Children lore the story ... But the important lesson
underlying the e'joyment and
captures their attcntion."*l
drama of the story equally
we felt that the books sampled contained many such
examples of ths iuplicit use of the death penalty. To check
this, re crosstabulated the variable indicating deatt or
other injory with the act that precipitated the violence.
The results show that capital punish men^ (the killing of a
character who committed a moral transgression or crime)
occurred in 22 percent of the instances ir which a character
died. Since these are happenings of gzeat dramatic
intensity, what Bettelheim calls "the important lesson
underlying the Enjoyment and drama of the story" is likely
to make e strong impression on the child's mird. It is not
at all far-fetched to suggest that this literary background
is part of the basis for the widespread, seemingly

ch. 4. Vlolence in Children's Books Page 61
irrational commitment to the death penalty Og so nany
mericans (see Gelles and Straus. 1975).
RRCE, SEX, hND PBUILY
Race. The racial identification of violent characters
----
in these books and their victiss does not shov any striking
devzation from the composition of the United States
population. Of the initiators of aggrassire acts, 80
percent were white. 9 percent black, 1 percent oriental, 7
percent Indian, and 8 percent "other.' The distribution for
victims of these zggressive acts is approximately the sane
(79, 7, 2. 5, and 6 percent).

Ch.4. Violence in Children's Eooks Page 62
Sex. nost of the violence in this sample of books took
place--~etveen men. uinety-one percent of the aggressors
were male, as were 86 percent of the victims. Thus.
violence in these hooks is overwhelmingly depicted as a male
actlvity. If the period covered by this study is one
showing a gradual movement toward sexual equality, this
trend should be reflected ir a gradual increase in the
proportion of female characters who engage in "masculine"
acts of all types, including aggression. The lower line of
Figure 2 does indicate just such a trend.
Although the proportion of vomeu aggressors is growing,
there are many ups and downs in Figure 2. Gecas (1972) did
not find any such trend over time in a study of adult
magazine fiction, and it may be that the "trend" re observed
reflects a coinciderce cf random fluctuations. Arguing
against this possibility is the fact that the correlation of
0.45 has a probability of chance occurrence of less than
0.05 when measured over 25 time periods. In addition.
Pigure 2 suggests a cyclical pattern within the general
trend. A spectral analysis (Dixon, 1965) was therefore
carried out to determine if a dependable cyclical pattern
could be seen in the time series; this analysis revealed a
cycle of four time periods (20 years), accounting for 38
percent of the variance.
In the absance of other information, it is difficult to
interpret this 20-year cycle. One possibility is t hat a
child reading these books at age 10 would have reached
maturity and perhaps vould he writing books of his 3r her
ovn in 20 years. That generation's authors might then tend
to produce works of fiction influenced by the depiction of
female chlzactsrs in the books they had read as a child.
But whatever the explanation. the fact that this cyclical
pattern. in combination vith the upward secular trend,
accourts for 58 percent of the variance in the proportion of
female aggressors suggests that more than chance factors are
shown in Figure 2. In addition. the increase in female
aggressors is consistent vith an increase in the proportion
of wcmen arrested for various crimes, especially violent
crimes (Roberts. 1971) .*8
Adults --
Versus Children. On the basis of actual and
pctential injuriousness, and in terms of the purposes
depicted, we suggested that the violent incidents in these
books are not "kid stuff.' The most direct evidence is that
80 percent of the initiators of violent acts vere cdults.
HOr was this figure often mitigated by ase of an animal or
other nonhuman characters: 80 percent of the aggressors
vere humzn characters. The image presented to children in
these hooks is of adults being physically violent.
Boreover, the percentage of acts in which the aggressor is
an adult has gradually been increasing over the 120-year
span of this study, as the upper line shows in Pigure 2.

ch.4. violence in Children-s Books Page 63
The preponderance of adult figures as physical
aggresso:s is an instance of fiction that does cot mirror
reality, not because adults in our society are not--;iolent.
bnt because children zg. Pushing, shoving, hitting, and
pbysical fighting are more common among children than among
adolts, rather than the reverse.89 This reversal may
represent one of the mp-hs concerning violeuce in Rmerican
middle-class society. namely, that violence is approved only
when its end is seen as socially worthy or valusd, as
punishment of wrongdoers or npreventative' air raids.*lO
-
P&Ly Violence. Another myth that these books
transmit is the notion that physical violence between family
members is rare. There is a wide discrepancy betveen the
-- idealized victure - of ~- the ~ -. familr -- a as -- a - orauo ..- .= committea ..-- -. ..- tn ..
nonviolence hetween its members and "hat actually goes on.
The available evidence suggests that violence is typical of
family relations (Steinmetz and Straus. 1973: Straus,
1974b: Straus. Gelles, and Steinmetz. 1979). In childhood.
the persons most likely to strike a child are siblings and
parents. In adulthood. the victim of assault or murder is
most likely a family member. As shovn in Chapter 3.
informal norms. largely unverbalized, make a marriage
license a hitting license (see Gelles, 1974; Schulz, 1969).
Nevertheless, in these children's books, 91 percent of
the vlclent incidents take place betveen persons who are ggt
related. Two percert of the violence was by fathers and two
percent by mothers. In only a single incident did a husband
hit a wife and in none was the aggressor a wife or
grandparent. These findings are parallel to those revealed
ic an informal search for instances of husband-wife violence
in 20 r~orels for adults (steinmetz and straus, 1974).
The absence cf husband-vife violence in adult fiction
and the virtual absence of any intrafamily violence in
children's flction calls for an explanation, especially
since so much contemporary fiction attempts to show reality
in grim detail. although these data do not permit a
z cf~nltive answer, re suggest that the following processes
may be at work.
First is a process of social control. The society does
have a commitment to familial nonviolence, even though it
exists side by side vith more covert norms permitting and
encouraging intrafanily vlolence (Chapter 3). Thus, the
cultural representations of society tend to portray families
in a way that vill not encourage peoplE to violate this
norm.
second is a process of s%G& coQsfzEi&g f Eg&&&.
The society must have its members define the fanily as a
place of love and gentleness rather than a place of violence
because of the tremendous importance of securing conaitnent
to the family as a social group. The ayth of family

Ch.4. Violence in Children's Eooks Page 6U
nonviolence is one of the many ways that the institution of
the family is strengthened and supported. It helps
encourage people to marry and to stay married despite thc
actual stresses of family interaction.
Third, most speculatively. the ~pf;& a_f fagu
nonviolence discourages members of the intellectoal elite,
whether novelists or sociologists, from probing into thir
aspect of the family. We have all been brought up on thir
literature and even read it as adults. Apparently. havinc
accepted the literature's basic premises, novelists avoie
writing about physical violence between family nsmbers, and
sociologists have practiced "selective inattention" tt
research on this aspect of the family (Steinnetz and Straus,
19741.
SUBBARY BND CONCLUSIONS
Our study of 125 'classic" Or "recommended' children's
books pnblished from 1850 to 1970 revealed an extremely high
incidence of physical violence. Almost all the books
described one or more acts of actual or threatened violence.
The typical children's book can be expected to have one
violent incident, a third of which is lethal, for every
seven pages of text. There was no general increase or
decr9ase over the 120 years studied. However, the portrayal
of violence tended to be h~gh during periods in which the
Society was engaged in war, and to bs low during periods of
economic difficulty.
if the depiction of violence were construed as a
vehicle to express societal disapproval of violence. it
would be presected as evil. and the psrpetuators of violence
uculd be :ariahcC. Tte opposlte serms TO be the care. For
exlmpl*. 'r:strumertaln v:oleicr was frsqusnt, 3rd 7yp;callp
zerulied LL tte a:tllr.m€~t 3f the aggressor's >,lrpos?.
Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these books do
have important functions of socialization and social
control. They provide scripts and role models through which
generations of young Bmericans have learned how to behave
violently. Among the elements of these complex scripts thzt
must be learned are the motives that one can legitimately
invoke to justify violence, the kinds of persons who can be
violent and against whoa violence is permissible, the level
of socially acceptable injury, and the Emotions that are
approprlate or required or the part of the aggressor (for
example, joy or remorse) and the victim (for examFle, rage,
tears, or humiliation). A l l of these elements and their
COnPlex interrelations are depicted for the child in this
sample of books.

Ch.4, Violence in Children's Books Page 65
Violence between family members is a major exception to
the conclusion that children's books provide a script for
Violence. Vlolence within the family was rarely poftrayed,
reflecting the social mythology of familial nonviolence.
he myth of family nonviolence may ;n turn reflect the high
stake that society has in securing ana maintaining
comeitment to the family as a social group.
NOTES
*Paper presented at the 1975 annual msoticg of the
Eastern Sociological Society. This rese=rch was partly
supported by National Ir~stitute of flental Sealth grant
nomber 18-15521 am3 by a summer fellowship awarded to the
senior author by the University of New Eampshire Graduate
school. We would like to express our appreciation to Paul
Kaplac for his work on coding the 125 books, to Loren Cobb
for assistance with the spectral analysis, and to Paul Drew,
Arnold Linsky. Stuart Palmer, and Donna Peltz for valuable
comments and criticisms on an earlier draft.
1. Assuming that literature does influence society, a
content analysis hy itself can only indicate the nature of
the message. It does not provide data on the intensity of
the influence or on the specific sectors of the population
that are most, least, or not at all influenced. In a
complex modern society, both the intensity and the extent of
irfluance are highly problematic, for the same reasons that
"funcYiOna1 iotegratiol" in general is problematic in such
socisties (Cohen, iY69: 151-156).
2. The folloving supplenentary material is available on
request: (1) List of books analyzed. (2) List of book
lists used to locate books for each of the fire year
periods. (3) ccdf and cote sheet used in the content
analysis.
3. For 193 of the books, we were able to obtain
information on the apprcximate age-of-child range for which
the book was considered suitable. We coqed the aidpoint of
th9 age range for each book. These median ages rangsd from
five books with a recoamerded age of six years to one book
for 16 year 016s. The mean of the median ayes was 10.8
years and t h mode ~ was 10 years (26 percont of the cases).
Y. Although ue coded only acts of interpersonal
violence that occurred on the pages drawn in the sample, we
read as much of the rest of the book as nec3sssry to
determine such things as the social characteristics of the
actors and their motives. E copy of the detailed content
analysis code may be obtained from the National Auxiliary
Publications Service. See footnote 1.

Ch.9. Vlolence in Childrec's Books Page 66
TWO different coders made the content analysis. E test
of the reliability of the content analysis procedure was
carried out three days after the actual coding had begun.
A l l books coded that day were done by both coders. For the
360 coaings compared (10 books, 36 variables per book),
there was an 87 percent agreement.
TO prevent differences between coders from influencing
the trend analysis. each coder analyzed only two or three of
the hooks for a given year. 'Therefore, possible "drift" or
changes in coding standards that might have occurred as the
coding proceeded would not bias the time series analysis.
5. None of the hooks published during the peak years
were "mar stories." In addition, little of the violence
portrayed in any of these books is the killing or wounding
of an enemy soldier.
6. Our coding categories were y erpr=sslve.
versus =*I;& rr.strums%tll. srr.ce b ~ t h coap0ler.ts nay be
orassnc. SEE - .- S-laus. Fellas. a ~ d Ster?.ae-z 11973) for 3
~ ..--.. -. -.~- ~ - - ~ - . ~. -
discussion of this and related issues in identifying types
of ~ ~ violence. The ~~. cadino of esch act as either ~ ~
> orimarilp
~~
icstruasctal or exprsssrse was carried out sspara:ely from
the codrcg ot such variables as ttn specifrc raasors for
lLl?ia:ina V:O~E~CP (SEE Table 11 and there 1s iherPf3re 2
~A -~ ~ ,~ ~
small discrepancy between the two variables. If the tvo
noninstrumental categories aresubtracted from Tahle 1, this
produces 71 rather than 72 percent instrumental acts.
7. Rettelheim was referring to teaching the work-ethic
i this quotatior, but we feel it is equally applicable to
the violence-ethic that is also presented.
e. Of course. as those familiar with crime statistics
realize, this does not necessarily mean that women have
engeged in more violent +cts. Changes in the social
3afinition of women siailar to those occurring in these
children's hooks may also characterize the perception of
women by the pclice and public prosecutors, leading to an
increase in arrest rate rather than an increase in incidence
of violence.
9. Eowever. if the unit of violence is homicide or
those assaults that enter the official statistics, then the
peak age is the middle to late twenties.
10. Esssrting that this is one way in which children's
literature reflects ideal rather than actual social patterns
points up the weakness of the "dialectical interplay"
theory, namely. that it is untestable: nothing can refute
it. Correspondence can be claimed as an instance of support
of the 'freflection'l process and a discrepancy can he claimed
as part of the *influence" process. Neverthaless, as Cohen
(1969:6) notes. untestable theories can have hsuristic

Ch.4. Violence in Children's Books Page 67
value. In the present caso it sensitizes us to finding
instances that, in our judgment, reflect one or the other of
thase two processes and to speculate abwut the underlying
reasons. If these speculations point to isportant social
processes, It can be said that the theory has heuristic
value, especially so if it leads to sobseqoent research to
test these speculations.

Chapter 5
A Cultural-Consistent! Theoy of
Family Violence in Mexican-American
and Jewish-Ethnic Groups
Joseph C. Carroll
up tc this point we have been co3sidering
cultoral norms that deal directly with violexce.
Rowever, this chapter suggests that pven
cilltural corms that do 2% have a marifest
reference to violerce also affect the level of
violence. ?or example, norms Day structure
family rolcs in a way that iccrezsss tsnsion an4
hostility in the family, even though that is cot
what is intended. Carroll argues that the
elements 02 a culture tend to be interaspendent.
Hs applies this "cultural consistercy" theory t3
nexican-Saerican and Jewish-American families.
For example, Carroll concludes that i n
mexican-lm~rican families, norms call for male
dominance in husband-wife r9la:ionships and
father dominance in pareat-child relatiocships,
whereby it is not legitimate for a wife or child
to contest the husband or fsther, are
systematically 1:IkeZ to a high lsvsl of
violence. In Jewish families, it is nct
illegitimate to argue with one's husband, uifs.
or father. Conflicts arc not settled on the
basis of ascribed power, but or. the basis oE
discussion and krovledge (either scriptural or
scientific). To the extent that this ideal is
folloved, corflicts can be settled without
resorting to violecce.
while this chapter examines only two ethnic
Snbcultures, it is a promising beginning to the
development of a typology of family subcultursl
norms and their role in permitting or
discouragir.g the use of violence as a means of
coxflict resolutioc.

~h.5. Cultural Consistency Page 69
The coxcept ci the subcultore of violence rpfprs to
norms that deal directly with the extent to vhich violpnce
may be used era the conditions under vhich violence is
permissible. Eowever, this conceptualization does no* deal
with the questlan of how such norms and values con= into
beicg and why they persist as cultural patterns. One
explanation of the development of these cul+ural patLerns
asserts that specific cultural elements reflect the
cperation of the culture 3s = '~=fgg. White suggests that
cultnre may have systemic properties, in that the structure
of culture consists of integrated components rela'sd by
cause and effect (1975:36). Thus. norms concerning ~F?lence
tend to reflect and he cgnsistent with tke values
characteristic of a group.
The purpose of this chapter is to develop such a
cultlral-consist=rcy theory of violence and to apply this
theory to Mexican-Bmericar and Jewish ethnic groups. These
groups were selected because they seemed to have markedly
different values and norms, allowing for examination of the
th40ry from two diffsrect standpoints. The two groups may
be Seen as extremes on a cultural value continuum on which
other ethric groups may be placed and compared. Dther
theories besides cultoral consistsncy assert that a colture
reflects the typical pers0r.ality of z society's menbers or
that a cultnre reflects the pressurPs and liaitations
inherent in the organization of a society. These
explanations are also important for a full uraerstanding of
a cultur;, but they are omitted from the present chapter to
allow room to adequately develop a cultural-coosistency
theory.
A CULTURBL-CORSISTEICY TEEOBY OF VIOLEBCB
Sicce the goal of this chapter is ta axplaio the causs
of family violecce in certain ethnic groups in terms of
cultural consistency, we must first lefine what we mrar by a
subculture. Rccordirg to Wolfgang, subcolturss arisr vhan
not all of the valu~s, beliefs, or norms in a society are
given equal status by all groups. Subcultural groups may
partially accept or deny elements of the central or dominant
values. yet remain within the cultursl systam (1967:99).
Thus a group of people, for example, an ethnic group, may
share values and norms regarding family life tkat ars not
identical to those gererally accepted by the wider so-iety.
In our definition, values for family life refer to hasic
values of the athcic group rather than to those that deal
explicitly with violerce. Examples of more basic ValuSs are
those of power relations assigned by age and sex, or the
practice of religion.

Ch.5. Cultural Consistency Page 70
llthough they are not concerned with specific eLhric
groups. Parsons and Shils' discussion of the consistency of
cultural patterns is relevant. They state:
Cultural patterns tend to become organize3 into
Systems. The peculiar feature of this
systematization is a type of integration which
we may call consistency of pat?ern (1953:Zl).
The Corsistency of pattern of such a system w i l l
exsst to the extent to vhich the same
combination of value judgments.. .runs
Ccnsistentlp throughont the actors' responses to
different situatiors: that is, to a differen?
class of objects, different objects in the sane
class, and the same Objects on different
occasions (1953: 172).
In a cultural system, as the 5erm is used above.
Orientations toward a particular ronsocial or social object
are interdependent. Social objects may be individuals or
collectivities (1953:s). Culcural patterns refer to the
extent to which systems of ideas or bsliefs, and systems of
value oriertations are shared by members of a culture.
According to Parsons and Shils, the problem for the
studsnt of culture is to determine the value judgments that
lead to cmsistency of patterns.
In order therefore to determine the existence of
Systematic coherence where there has not been
explicit systeaatizatiol, if is necessary frr
the student of cultare tc nzcover the *xylicit
Culture 2nd to detect whatever common premises
may underlie apparently divers? 3r.d unconlectea
Items of orientatiol (1953:22).
The positior taken in this chapter ie that each sthric
group shares a set of "commoa premises" thaL constitute the
source of mcmbers' actiorl ir all areas of life. Thes? are
the basic values of the group. Thns, to arrive at the
actual level of family violence, we must examine the basic
family values of the ethnic group.
There is little doubt that norms for falily viol~ncs
do
exist in some ethric groups. Lewis (1960) found th+t severe
punishment was traditional in Tepoztlan. Parents believed
in early punishment that began about the time s child
learned to walk, although the most severe punishmen: of
childrel occurred between the ages of five and twslrs.
Lewis reported that although puxishment in this village had
become less severe. it was not uncommon for fathers to beat
their children with a stick or rcpe.

Ch.5. Cultural Corsistency
In years past family
bounds oi the law.
Page 71
violence was even within 'he
canon Law in years past accepted wife-beating as
a fair means of keeping a spouse in ordsr. I
hundred Years aao ~~< 5% -~ was an unouertioned - --~- ~ oattern
in many familles, due in pert to the lack of
Status of a woman. and in Dart to their - - chattel
value in a marriage [Pennell, l974:lS).
The final question to be discussed in the development
of a theory of eChnic family viclsnce is how the norms of a
group remain strorg from generation to generation. wolfgaxg
believes that learning processes perpetuate the snbcultural
norms for violence.
The development cf favorable attitudes tcvard,
and the use of. violence in a subculture usually
involve learned behavJor and a process of
differential learning, association. or
identification (1967: 160).
Since imitation is a powerful learning process (Baadura,
1973). one could say that the greater the amount of violence
in parents' behavior toward a child and toward each other.
the greater the chance that the child w i l l sct violently
late; in life (see chapter 12, section D).
A t this point it may be appropriate to assess the idea
that one's culture has a great deal to d3 with the
development of personality. Perhaps in viewing culturr as a
cause of persorality, we see only half cf the picture.
Personality may have a lot to do with the developmene of
culr'lrs. Yicqer (1965) has stressed ttls p-lzr i n .n
rxamlnarlor ot vherher -he sociocultural system aftocts
:~dis:duaI actlor cr wherher :r.divi?lal act_?> iffscrs +h*
SOoiOcultural system. or both. Be calls for a more careful
specificaclor of causal relatiorships in studies of culture
and states that tke relationship between cultural nxms and
personality is reciprocal. In other woras, "individual
responses to and interpretations of culture lea3 to
normative variation" (1965:82). Also, Kardiner (1963) has
reported that although culture and persorility changa each
other in a cyclic process, institutional charge tends 50 be
followed by personality change. The follomirg diagram
illustrates the reciprccal nature of the relationship
between culture1 values, norms. and personality.

Ch.5. Cultural consistency Page 72
Exircme male domi- Old over young ihc micrcr the dii- Chiidicn 5houId icdrn
nance (Caiiilo-Bcron, (Penaioid) ciplinc the be!!^ the to hc iubmiirive and
Fermndei-Marina hii id (cnrilIo.Beron, obedient to rhc father
el ai., Lewis, Madscn Ramirez) (Fcinnndez-Marina ci a$.)
Penaloral
Norms:
I
Mother iuppoits
Fathci tends to
father's authority -.c-----favordaughter
(Fernandei-Marina (Penalom, Lewis)
el a!.. Lewis]
Uistsnce and severity in rather-ion icla!ioni
[Pcnalosa, Lewis)
I
+
.1
coercive power
I
Low degiec of referent power (Lewis1
4
Son's fear of the father (Fernandcr-Marina cr al., Madsen)
I
i'erpetuoiian: I. Majority oi hoyi deqire 4 to be itim . thcir . lather, even
though they fear him (Feinundci-Marina el ail
1.
2.Child ai aduit treats his wrc and children thcramc
way his father treated him IPenaIod
Figure 1. Mexican-American paicnt-child violence

ch.5. Cultural Consistency Page 73
In movins erom these general prrnciples to specific
ethnic groups. Our first step was to collect an invectarv of
family values and noras from-the literature or each sthcic
group. Family values were defined as "generally tccspted
esplrations and ideals which are publicly sanctisned"
(Kardiner, 1963). and which are concerned with intrafsmily
relatioFshipS. Norm axe see2 as more specific rules
governing behavior. arising from ths values 3nd more closely
licked to violence. For example, a basic value in
Ksxican-American ethric groups would be the dominaocs of old
over young, whereas a norm would be the severity of
parent-child relations.
Nsxt, WE attempted to develop hppotheses concerning
causal links betveen the family values and the aorns for
ViolencE or nonviolence. The final step was to find
child-rearirg norms in ths literature that seem to
perpetuate behavior in Each ethnic gronp.*l
A11 of the basic family values in Figure 1 are
concer2ea with the all-encompassing authoritarian rale which
the older male possesses in nexican-lrncrican families.*? The
fundamental incompatibility betveen great zuthority and
intimacy suggests that the four basic family values prcaote
distant and severs father-chila relations. Yirazae (1977)
reported that father-child relations do tend r3 b5 so~e~hat
distant. Lewis (1960) suggested that distance may be
manifested through a gen+ral lack of affective relations as
fathsrs pay lass attention to children as they grow older.
An example of severlty would be that children are often
severely pnrished for an offense such as lying (Penalosa,
lY68:685). Penalosa and Levis both report that relations
between fathers and daughters tend not to be as distact or
Severe as father-son rolatiocs. Fathers map show a mild
form of favoritism to daaghters and be more protective and
possessive.
Implicit in the above parrgraph is the follaving
proposition relatizg any cne of these basic family values to
more speclfic norms.

Ch.5. Cultural Cons-stency Page 79
1. TO the extent that ths nale poss~sses s great
amount ot authorrty in faally llfe, the sor?
w l l l that culture be characterrzed by %=start
and severe father-son relations.
In the cultural-consistency theory for nexican-American
families an important relationship exists betveen ths norm
of distant. severs father-son relations and the actual ose
Of violence. The severe father-son relations may lead to
the son being afraid of his father; the son's fear
contributes to tha father's exercising of control through
his temper and violent outbursts.
How does the SOP'S fear of the father lead t3 the
display of temper and violent outbursts as a meacs of
control? Apparertly, the presence of rear in a rElstiDnship
inhibits the degree of communication betwesc two p=rt!es.
Possibly the distance and emotional aloofness between father
and son indicates low "referent pover" and therefore the
need to use "coercive power.' Referent power is the degrep
to which one person's identification or onenrss with another
allows th9 latter person to influence the former (French and
Raven, 1959:1611. Coercive power aoes not derivs from
attraction or identification but from the threat of
punishment as a means by which one person influences another
(French and Raven. 1959:157). In other words. the child
COntOrmS to the father's wishes not because of a mutual
attraction but because of the threat of force an3 thz high
probability of punishment. The presence of a great degree
of coercive power may contribute to the fear of the fathez
that Fernanaez-Earire t & (1958) acd Badsen (1969)
report as prevalent in ~uerto-~ican and uexican-~msrican
families. Eadsen stated that Mexican-American college
students asked to evaluate the father's role in the Latin

ch.5. cultural Consistency Page 75
fanily felt that it was too authoritarian. Studerts
reported that "it is true that the children have a great
respect for the father but it is a respect based oc fear*
and that "[the fa-her] should be a friend to his chilaren,
cot a dictatorn (Badsen, 1964:SZ).
This fear may impair a child's understandirg of the
father's desires r%la%ing to a certain matter. The
psychological distance and minimal comnunicaticn may lead to
the child acting in a way which the father feels is wrong
and may increase the chance that the flther w i l l act
violertly.
Five .propositions lirking severe and distant father-son
relations and the actual use of violence are implicit in the
paragraphs above.
2. The more severe and distant the father-son
relations, the lower the referent power it
that relationship.
3. The lower the referent power, the greater the
Coercive power that the father needs to bring
to bear on the son.
4. The great-r the coercive pover, the greater
the son's fear of the father.
5. The more the son fears the father, the more
difticult it may be for that son to
undsrstand his father's desires and the
greater the chance that the sor w i l l not act
according to those aesires.
6. TO the extent that &he son does not act
accordlng to the fatter's desires ard a
COerclvE power relatzonship exLsts betvesr
father and son, rhe greater the chance that
Control "111 be based cn temppr and violent
Outburs+s.
usicg deductive logk, these five propositions can be
merged to show the relatiocship between the norm of severe
and distant father-son relations and the actual use of
violence as follows:
Ccmbining 2, 3, and 4:
7. The more severe and distant the father-son
relationship, the greater the. son's fear of
the father.
Then coablning the above with 5:

Ch.5. Cultural Consistency Plga 76
8. The nore severe and distant the father-son
relationship, t h greater ~ the chance that the
SOL w i l l not act according to the fathsr's
desires.
Finally, combining 7 with 6, the link between the norm for
violence and the actual use of violence is made.
9. The more severe and distant the father-son
relatlOnShlp, the greater the chance that
cortrol w i l l be based on temper and violent
Outbursts.
It deductive logic is usea to combine prlpositions 1
aLd 9, the following proposition is yieldea.
10. TO the extent that the male possesses 2
great deal of authority in family life, the
greater the chance that control rill be based
on the use of temper and violent outbursts.
Thus, according to the cultural-consistency theory, in
nexican-American ethnic groups, a value related to family
lifs that has nothing directly to do with the use of
violence acts to increase the actual lerel of violence. The
method of linkiJg propositiocs used above can be used to
relate the other three family values to the actual 12ve1 of
family violence.
This pattern of violence is probably perpsruated
through social learning processes (3andura. 1973). Owens
and Straus (1975). for example. show ?hat +he morc vialence
experienced by a child, th- greater the tcndancy to favor
violence as an adult. Apparently the child comes to believe
that the best ray to have his own children act obsdiently is
to use physical force, even if he was afraid of it as a
child. ringer's statemert that :ndividual pcrsanality has a
great deal to do with the development of culture also
applies here. If the child feels that the use of force is
the best way at controlling other members if his flaily,
cultural norms that may support this vie= are reinforced.
The discussion up to this point has centered on the
formal normative system found in Mexican-8morican
famIlieS.*3 nirande (1977) reports that this formal
st-ucture does exist bat has been interpretEd bolh as a
source of pathology and as a source of warmth and security.
llirande (1977) also suggests that while the formal structure
of norms nay exist, familial and sexual roles are being
modified as Mexican-lmericans are assimilated, in incrsasirg
numbnrs, into Aaerical society. Eaukes and Taylor's 1975
study of the power structure of nexican families supports
nirande's point. Thus. it is possible that changing roles
may be manifest in less support of the father's fcrnal
aothority and less distant an$ less severe fathsr-son

Ch.5. Cultural consistency Page 77
relations. As a rssult, the proposed link betvcsr th=
fcrmal normative structure and family violence may be weaker
than predicted above.
On the other hand, recent research on family violence
among Anglo-Americans suggests that as tha traditional male
dominated power structure becomes undermined, thsre map be a
tendency for family violence to increase in the short run
(see Brown, Chapter 11 and Allen and Straus. Chapter 12).
This may be especially true of families which become female
centered (Straus & &.. 1979).
Jews traditionally hava been characterizsa as havirg a
lov rate of family violence. most Jevs would be considered
in or above the middle class today, and this stetus might
contrzbote to their lov rates of family violrnce.*q Souever.
even a? the turn of the century. when most Jews war?
working-class immigraCtS, they probahly also had lover rates
of famlly violence than other poor ethnic groups. Jewish
family values may be related to the low level of family
violence.
Figure 2 applies the cultural-consistency theory of
family violence to Jewish-Americans.
1. To the extent that intellectuality is
stressed, the emphasis w i l l be on rational
means at sclvirg family problems. rather than
on verbal or physrcal coercion.
B function of intellectuality in Jewish families. which
may be more closely related to nonviolence, is the fact th+t
ncrms for articulateness, argumentativeness, and
parect-child bargaining are prasent. These thres norms
w012ld seen to sanction conflict but to channel it off into
di~cussion rather than physical action. Yaffe reported

Ch.5. Cultural Consistency Page
that:
4
Anything far the
EOBe discipline is far less strict among Jews
than among other groups. Jewish parents arr
naggers, screamers, nudgers--but not hitters.
The child has to go pretty far before he'll get
the back of his father's hand. And a lot more
ConverSational freedom is tolerated. Jewish
children are allowed to interrupt, cantradict
the grown-ups, be "fresh* (1968: 312).
Importance of family in Religiosity ofmaie Pursuit of Knowledge:
Jewish identincarion (Shapiro and Daihefrky, the mind is a great tool.
(Shapiio and Daihefiky) Bemrrein) (Beinstein, Gordon,
1
Intense parentchild
involvomeni (Shupiia
and Darhefrky, Yrffe)
-
4
Cornpaision
4
lnlellecruality
Children (Shapiio (Shapira and Shapiio and Darhefrky)
and Dashefiky) Dashefrkyj
Pwtootion: Bays perceive ihemielvei as like their father (Shapiio and Dahefrky)
Figure 2. lewirh.American parent-child violence
Shapiio and Darhefrky,
Siiodtbeck, Yuffe)
Daiheiiky, Yaffe) Bargaining
Non-Violence

cultural Ccrsistency Page 79
Similarly. Zukls study of 300 Jevish families (1978)
d a strorg current of egalitarianism running through
sh families. particularly in more assimilated, less
O ~ O X ones. This feeling, combined with ths channeling
ggressien into verbal rather than physical expression,
s to "the high level of bickering that occurs between
and and wife, between parents and children. and betweer
.... Teasicg, sarcasm and ridicule =re reqularly
ov~d br -. Darents to set limits on childrel's behavior."
Eternally ln competltion. the Jewlsh fsmlly 1s a
aerltocracy.
Thus. lt is posslble that frrquent ccnflrct may be a
characterlstlc of Jewlsh famrlles. If that is the case, the
frequency of ccnflict may be a slgn that &wish famllres are
very stable.
when close relationships are characterized by
frequent Conflicts rather than by the
accumulation of hestile and ambivalent feelings,
we may be jnstified, given that such conflic?~
are not likely to concern basic consensus, in
taking these fregoent conflicts as an index of
the stabilixy of these relationships (Coslr.
1956:SS).
The following prcpcsition can be developed from the
above discussion:
2. The greater the emphasis on articulateness,
argumentativeness. and parent-chill
bargaining. the greater the chacce that
conflicts rill be resolved through discussion
ra+her than viols3l cr coercive action.
Pically, the basis of a cultural-consistency analysis
can be shovn by combining propositions 1 ard 2 to pr?sent
one relationship between a basic family norm and the actual
use of violent or nonviolent action to resolve a conflict.
3. The greater the extent that the pursuit of
knowledge is stressed, and debete and
conflict are regarded as legitimate, the
greater the chance that conflicts w i l l be
resolved through discussion rather than
violent or coercive action.

Ch. 5. Cultural Consistency Page 80
CONCLOSIOA
In this chapter we have attempted to construct a
cultural-consistency theory of family violence. This theory
is based on the idea thet cultural values having Po msnifsst
reference to violence act either to increase or to hold down
the actual level of family violence ir csrtain ethnic
groups. Values and norms were linked together, and the
Corms were ;n turn linked to the actoal level of violecce in
an ethnic group. The perpetuation of the use of vialence
from generatloc to generatior was also examined.
The flexican-American and Jevish-aaerican ethnic groups
were used to illustrate this theory. A higher lave1 of
family violence was assumed to bf present in
n~xican-American than in Jewish-lmerican fsnilies. The
higher level of violence in Mexican-American families was
proposed to be associated with the values of severe male
dominance, strict discipline. and submission to tte fither.
severe and distant father-son relations were seen to be ths
result of these values, leading to fear of the father, poor
ccmmunicatiol, and a resulting high level of parent-child
violence. Perpetuation of this subculture is accomplished
through the desire for boys to be like thsir fathers even
though they fear then, ard because a child turned adult
treats his wife and children the same way his father treated
his family. Modifications in the formal normative structure
of lerican-American f am:lies
husband-father's formal authorrty vere
challnnging the
noted and seen as
possibly
run.
increasing family violence, at 1~2st Ln the short
Values of the Jewish ethnic group also were examined in
this theoretical framevork. The basic famzly v=lues
emphasized vere the pursuit of krowlsdga and the use cf the
mind rather than the body. The value of intellectuelity
resulting from these values was proposea t3 lead fo the
favoring of articulateness. argumertstiveness, and
bargaining as a way to solve family aisputes. Thus, debate
and rat physical coercion is used and there is less family
violence. Values are perpetuated in that boys perceive
themselves as like their fathers.
Finally. as noted ir Chapter 1, the conclusions of this
chapter, like the conclusions of the other theoretical
chapters. are not put forward as established facts. Rather.
they are intended as stimuli ard hypotheses for empirical
research.

ch.5- Cultural Corsistency Pege 81
NOTES
*A revision of a paper presented at the amoal meeting
of the National Council on Family Relations. August 20-23,
1915. The preparation of the chapter vas supported bp
Aational Institute of mental Realth grant number 13050. i
would like to thank Professor Dorothy Pinnegan of
Colby-Sawyer College fcr many helpful soggestions and
conments through the develapment of this paper.
1. Another source of perpetuation could be fesaback
processes that occur ir the proposed causal chain beiveer
broad family values not related to violecca, norms of
violence, and the actual use of violence. The use of
violence to control a situation, resulting in the label of
violence. might strengthen the norm of violence through a
self-fulfilling prophecy. in fact, the perceived
effectiveness of a norm of violence or nonviolence might
even strengthen the more basic value from vhich the violent
or ncnviolent norm has criginated. I!! other words, if the
norm of violence or nonviolecce is al effective means of
control. then the vay of life that sanctions this norm would
be further reinforced.
2. The Grebler e_t_ a_&: (19701 study of urban
Llexican-Aeericans found that the value placed on the man as
authority figure varies by income lev21 and neiphbarhood.
Rowever, nearly tvo-thirds of those vith medium or lower
income living in areas vith a high psrcentage of
mexican-lmericans felt that the hustand shculd have complete
control over the family income. This findirg suggests that
the value of male authority is quite strong in ethnic
enclaves.
3. I would like to thank Prcfessor Alfred0 Mirande of
+he Universi:y of California, Siverside, for brirging to mg
attention a view of the Mexican-American farily which
differs from the view which is more prevalent in the
literature. This view implies that K~xizan-Rmrrican
families would have a lover degree of family violence than
is suggested in this article.
4. Erlazger (1979). in a review of studies Examining
the relation betweer social class acd family violence,
rsported differences betveaa social classes, with physical
punishment increasing as one goes down the ststos ladaer.
HOveVer, the diffsrences zrs not as large as many would

Part 111 Social Organization
and Family Violence

Important as are the cultural horns tha
make it leglcimate for family members to us
physical force on each other. thsy do not full
explain family violence. First, these norms zr
guidelines more for culturally y=gi$&b
actions than for colturally rs&=$$ actions
So the question resains as to why sow* fsailie
do and others do not engage in such permissibl
violence. We must also examine how or why norm
legitimizing violence within the fanily ca
into being, and why such norms coctinue
exist.
A s With most aspects of society, ro sing1
factor provides the answer to these questions.
Rather a complex interweaving of factors exists
that ve are just beginning to unravel. X3verer.
Even at this early stage in the scientific study
of family violence. it is clear that nzny of the
threads making up the fabric of violence in the
family are those identified in Chapter 1 as
social Organizational factors. 9 r.umbfr oE
these were briefly discussed ;a that chapter.
for example, the involuntary nature of
aembership in e faaily, the privacy of the
family as a social insti+utioa, ald assignment.
Of roles within the Easily by age and sex rather
than by interest or competence.
The chapters in Part 111 treat some of
these social Organizatiocal factors in aetail,
indicating the types of social arrangements that
give rise to situations in which people fEna ta
resort to the use of violence. Sioce thesi
arrangesents are regularities of social life.
most of which have been part of :he structure of
the human family for perhaps thousands 3f years,
we can specula+e that they are also at the root
of the persistence of norms that permit violercs
in the family. Cultural norms tend to evolve i n
a vag that reflects, regularizas, and
legitiaizes the typical behavior of members of a
society. In shorf, as was noted in Chapter 1,
culture and social organization are tvs facets
of a single reality. Even so, they are far fros
harlng a fixed and immutable relationship to
each other. The emergent nature of all homar
life dictates that cul5ure and social
organization w i l l constantly get out of Lins

y~th each other, with a resulting pressure tc
restore the synchronizat~on.
The chapters in Par? 111 has3 at least four
things in common. First, they share what could
be called an emphasis on structural
~onduci~eness. Each chapter seeks to explain
the high rate of conflict and violence in the
family by focusing on some zspect of th2
structnre of relations between family nenbsrs
and on how the nature of these relationships
contributes to or dampens violence.
Secocd. each cf the authors, 5n his Jr her
own way. highlights the irony that th?
organizational structure of family life creates
conditions for warmth and intimacy as well as
for conflict and violecce.
Third. these chapters do not present nau
data, but instead summarize and extend a large
number of existing empirical studies ana
theoretical arguments. Th~y organize and make
deductims from existing thecry and rssearch on
violence and family violence. Nct that they
feel collecting new data is unnecessarp, but
organizicg and icterpreting. from a scciological
perspective, what is already kcown abcut family
violence can give new insights and a sounder
basis for future empirical research.
Last, posslbly the mcst zmpoztant aspect of
the format of tke chaptsrs in Part 111 is their
exlmtra+.iar ot . ways in which Eccial
sarrables ere :n-errelated. Po: uc-il r?
uzdersTarC hou a nanbDr cr r-les2n' sariehlc;
fit together, explanations of family conflict
and violence vFll be incomplete.
Page 85

Chapter 6
Sexual Inequality and Wife Bea
Murray A. Straus
......................
This chapter describes a major aspect o
the social structure underpinning husband-wif
violence: the sexist organization of the famil
and the society in general. It argues tha
sexism produces violence because men us
violence to marntain their position as "head of
the household." nore is involved in sexism than
the "rightn to be the head of thr faaily as
supported by cultural values end beliefs;
sexism is also grounded in i~stitutional
arrangements--such as the expectation that men
w i l l marry ycungsr wonen and the segregated
labor market ix vbich women's jobs are lpss well
paid--that maKe male dominance a reality. A
society, or groups within a society, may favor
equalitarian relationships, but unless these
notions go beyond beliefs and become rsflectea
in societal arrangements, the domination of
women by men is bound to continue.
Ban7 cf the issues examined in this chapter
crop up again and again throughout t.he vclume.
These issues are critical in the discussion of
practical steps to reduce and eventually
eliminate husband-wife violence, a thrm?
examined fully in Chapter 13.
This Chapter describes some of the ways in which rh
male-dominant paver structure of the family gives rise t
violence. This implies that, as our society msv?s tovsra
nore egalitarian family system, both the actual levels o
violence and the norms implicitly permittfng such vi3l=ncs
w i l l decline. Al'hougb this decrease is the like1
low-term outcome, it is far from a certainty. First. man
cther factors affect the level of violence in the famil

- 1. - Defense - cf Bale P.uth01it~. Ir the c>nL.DxL of an
vidualistically oriented urban-industrial society, the
rlption of superior authority to husbands is a poteEt
CE producing physical attacks on wives. In such a
iety, male-superiority norms are not clearly understood
are in the process of trarei+icn, and the pz=sgs~;:Qe if
e superiority anst be validzte4 by supprior 'r~sources"
h as valued
vlcos (Eodman,
pfrsonal
1972).
tralts and material
If every nan wsrs,
gools and
in fact.
Derior to his wife in such resources 3s intellisence.
.owledge, occupational prestige. and income, there would be
concordance between the authority ascribsd an3 the
dividual achievements ex~octed to acconDanP that authoritv
. .
ach:evement-oriented societies. clelrly, such
p9ricrity is not zlways the case, dSspitE the societal
ruoture that gives men tremendohs advantages in access to
€58 traits and resources. Consequently, many men feel
nost compelled to fall back on tho "ul+.ima?a resource** of
ysical force to Paintain their superior pcsition (Goode.
71; Seraus, 1974b:bb-57). P graphic illustratici! of just
is process is the case of Joe and Jennifer reportsd
Rossa (Chapter 10). Bllec and Straus gire st~tistica, b?
idence in Chapter 12.
-- ---
2. Com&a:p nasculinit~. Talcott Parsons (1997) has
Zrgued that in modern industrial societies, the s~p3rztion
of the male occupa2ional role from the family and ?he
predominance of the mother in child rearing crectes a
fundamental difficulty for men in resppct to achieving a
masculine sexual identity:

Ch.6. sexual Inequali'y
The bcp has a tendency to fcra a dirsc
teminine identLfication. sicce his mother is th
model most readily available and significant
h i But he is not destined to become an adu
woman. noreovsr he soon discovers that
certain vital respects Women are considera
inferior to mer. that it would hence bs shamefu
for him to grow up to be like a "omin. Rex
when boys emerge in%o what Freudians call t
"latency period," their behavior tends to be
marked by a kind of cog~gllpg $s;q&&&te
hqgression toward women vho "after all are
blamc," is an essertial concomitant (p.305).
llthough Pazsons' emphasis is on the particular
constellation just described as partial explanatior I
gsneraLly bigh level of male aggressiveness i? H-
sOCie?les. it also seems lLkely to be part of the
that so much male aggressiveness is diroctad agairst
wives in particular. Similarly, Parsons' analy
shows the origins of female aggressive
perticular structure of the family in industrial sc
much of this aggressiveness is focused specifically aq
men, especially husbands. as the agents of women's repre
position in society.*2 This climate if mnlual artagn
bctvsen the sexes provides a coltext :hi? is not o
conducive to attacks by husba~ds on uirss but probably
underlies a number of other related pheriomeaa, snch a
growing evidence that in mar7 insrences, "rape is a p,
trip, not a passion tripD (Eezt, 1?75:40: Borgzss
Aolmstrom. 19741. loreover. as in the typical homose
tape in prisons (Davis. 1910). the degradatior
humiliation of the victim is often a eajor mstivating for
3- Economic Co~strairts ,?a giscriminatiQQ. Thp ss
ecO?.omic and occupational structure of society allows u
few alternatives. Tbe jobs open to women ire 13uer
status and. despite antidiscrimination legislation. vo
continue to earn less than men in the same occupatfo
Without access to good jobs, women are depfndent cn thhusbands.
If a divorce takes place, almas? all hnsban
default c?. support payments after a sh3rt time, ev
assuming they could afford thsm in the first plac
Corsequently, many women continue to endure physical attac
trom their husbapd because the
pcverty (Gelles, 1976).
alternative tn divsrce
children, but at the same time society eoss rot pror
elther economic recompense for her doing so, or chila car
Centprs that take over part of the burden s3 that she ca
earn ecough to support her children. Occupations
discrimination, lack of child-care facilitiss, inadsquat

port from either the aovernmsnt or the father--all
omm into remairing married even whec they are the
f violence.
fir$& or i&g SWe-?ar€nt FEpppla. Another of the
norms that helps to maintain the subordination of
the id?a that childrer carrot be adsquatsly brought
e parent. Thus, if a woman is to have children, she
o have a man. TO the limited extsnt that research
supports this view. the situation comes about only
of the confounding of poverty acd social ostricisn
ngle parenthood. Blthough it seems likely that if
ressure and constraints were removed, most women
want to live with a man, an importart ninority does
nd lives, i~ effect, in a state of fcrced
ation. Thus. innumerable and. under present
ons, unnecessary social and acoxoaic constraints
the sicgle-parent family from bsing a viable social
nd forces nary women to accept or ccntinue a
Pate, StrSSSfnl relationship.
1. Eps~agce of ~jfg
-t system, being a wife
rg= Xpggp. undsr the
ard mother is the most
rtant single role for a woman. IndEed, Emerican
ural noras
ss married.
sting much
are such that one CEnfor be i full voman
E mar, OR the other hand, hcs tbp option of
or little of himself in the husband-father
depending on his interest, abllity, ard c:zcumst.arces.
Short, *he stigma of being a divorced aaz is saall
ared with that of being a divorced womac--to whlcn a
cia1 term, with overtones of immorality, ha5 been
ached: divorcee. This forced dependence on the wife
E as the basis for a respected positior ir society aakes
difficult for a womal to rsfusf to tolerate mile viclence
d end the marriage.
7. Aega+jx Self-Image. Wnder the present social
rncture, women tend to develop negatir~ self-images,
pecially in relation to the crucial trait of achissesent
orner, 1972: Truxisger. 1971:260). As a conraquence,
-clings of guilt ard masochism develop, which parmit women
0 tolerate male aggression acd violence and, in some
xtreme cases, to seek it. Pull sexual equality would
liminate this as a sexually structured pattern of bshavior.
ven though it may remair or an individual-to-indisiaual
asis. Only 2 de-emphasis on individual competitive
ChiovBment w i l l fnlly eliminate this problem.
--
8. Women as Children. The conception of women as the
roperty of men is no longer part of the legal system of
ndustrial countries. Aowever, Elements of this outlook
linger in the folk culturc and also survive in certain
aspects of +he law, such as in 'he statotes that declare the
husband the head of the bousehould and give him vlrious
rights over his wife, like the right to choose thf place of

Ch.6. Sexual Inequality
abode, to which the wife must conform.*3 In additio
is the related coccepticn of women as uchildli
combination, these aspects of the saxist orgaciz
Society give husbands a covert moral right to use
force OP their wives andogous to the overt legal --
parsnts to use physlcal force on their children (see G
1979:58).
9, &l_e orientation sE $25 QhB:n_al ~nsticf
Not only is much male violence against wires attributa
the sexist organization of society, but the final tnd
is that th€ male-oriented organization of the cr
justice system virtually guarante4s that few vcmaa ui
able to secure legal relief. To begin vith, the long
in obtaining court orders and "peace bonds- make
useless in securicg immediate relief from the dan
another assault. Even without. thGse delays. many
cannot attend court because of the lack of chi1
arrangements during the long hours of waiting for a ca
Come UP Or because, zs OfteP happezs, the cas
rescheduled. P-mong ather impediments to securin? pro
against assaults by a husbard a=€ +hose dsscribed
section of Chapter 3 or *'Legitimation of Rusban
Violence by the Courts and Police": immurily from sui
failure of police to act against hUsSands, :hs "cooling
by police, prosecuting attcrreys, and judges of wive
attempt to bring complaints, and the denial of coapsns
by public compensation review boards.
SEXUAL LIBERATION AWD TPE REDUCTION OF NRRITAL RSSRO
Alrhough Goode believes that force or its threat
ultimately necessary for the existenca of society, h~
concedes that *'...the amount of force now appliea in th
various areas of family life ...[ is not] ... either necess
or desirablen (Gocde, 1971:92]. One of the ways in uh
the amount of fcrce [necessary to maintain a viabl~ patt
of family llfe] can be reduced is to reduce the degree
inequality found withlc the family. Children's immatn
imposes a l i m i t on the extent to which they can be gr
equality vith their parents.
and physical conditinns that
But the particular econo
may have justified
subordinete position for women in earlier periods of hist
are Clearly no'lccger present.
The goals of the voaenls movement are cents~rd
elimlnating each of the violence-producing lnequit
discussed in this chapter. Since these factors account
the higb level of physical assaults on women by th
husbands, achievement of the goals of the feminist movem
is tremendously important for any reduction of mari
assault.

Pege 91
the process of advocating these fundamental
1 changes the women's movement has mads vsrious
coctrihutions. For example, the ideology of ths
movement itself encourages women t3 resist all
oppression. especially physical violence. Thsro
n an explosive growth of "battered-wife shelters."
g in England about 1972 and in the nnitea S'ates
1975. These provide imoedia'e physical escape,
arly for those with young children who night
e have xo alternative to being victimiz+d by their
vomen's movement has been perceptive in recognizing
perior male physical strength and skill are important
f the process by which male dominance is aaintainad.
recognitior pertly accounts for the emphasis on karate
her self-defensive training. Enwover, it is uclikely
karats will, in fact, protect womeo frcm assault,
e than the ability to respond physically protects men
assault by other men. Boreover. the karate approach
utionaltzes the role of physical violence ir social
ction and hence incrraszs the likellhooa of further
ce. Ieverthelsss, the ehphasis on physical
~fense trainirg is an important spu& step towards
entoal elimination of violent rsp:essiDn of rsaen.
his even?uality w i l l Only Clme aboat if the more
enfal problems of sexual insquality car be 0v;:coms.
ately, emphasis has shifted from training in the us9
sical force to trairing in "assertiveness," which is
ortant Step in the direction of sexual equality.*u
Bevsrtheless, the difficulties of the period of
sition cannot be overlooksd. The lonu-run consequences
a more equalitarian society may be t3 lesss~ the
uency with which wives are victims of assault by
bz~.ds. Eut, we suggested earlier (see also Kolb and
aus, 1974: Whitehurst, 197U). the &&~~=EY~ Conseqnences
y be the opposite, because a sizable number of mec w i l l
easily give up their sex-stereotyped roles. A 1 1 three
ters in Part IT document this in different ways: a case
of a specific couple, logical deduction, and
stical data on a large sample of cauples. Like
aditionally oriented women, men are cocditioned by their
lrure to perceive only the prerogativ?s and advantages of
e traditional male role, and to ignore its bu~denr,
straints, 2nd disedv3ntages. Thus, a less violent world
d less vi~lence in th4 fzmily require men's as wall as
men's liberation.
Ocfortunately, progress toward sexual equality end
reedom from sexually stereotyped roles has rot basn as
great as seemed possible in the early 1970s. R t present
(1978-74). there is even considerable doubt that th? Fqual
Rights Bmendaent w i l l pass. B state-hy-state tally by the
International Women's Year Commission found that stat- lavs

Ch.6. Sexual Inequality
(which govsrn most domestic matters) continue to gi
substantially fewer ziqhts than their husbands in r
inheritance, divorc5, property ownership, domestic
and adultery (united Press, October 30. 7977). Kan
show that traditionel sex roles remair entrench
among the ycung. For example, a survey of 17-par-
the Wational Bssessment of Eaucatioral Progrsse foun
nnly half of this age group thinks all women should b
to pursue careqrs Outsids the hone (Be* Fork Tirnss, 2
1977: 826: see also Reinhold. 1977).
8.5 a recent coementaror put it: "Scrakch alm3s
man, and you'll find wistful memories nf his aofher a
socks and cooking Sunday lunch...." (Prarckn. 1977;
also Stapp and Pines. 1976). The detlils vary, of co
with the setting and the socioeconomic level, but the
of male superiority reeairs the same. In that same ar
Pzancke tells abou' a frierd:
... who has made a name for herself i
educational films in new Ycrk, had aicner in LJ
Anqeles recently with another old friend. uh
has made a much bigger nans for himself in
televisior. Settling down over late-night
brandies, she was stunned vhsn he turned to her
andsaid, Vcu krow, I can't imagine being
married to you. I d panic 2nd run." "Why?"
Sally askea, hurt that Fheir fri-~dshio vhich
had mver even touched on the subject of
-.
marriaae. seemed suddrnlv flawed. "You're 1
star," he said. But. Sally pointed out, h l was
the one getting qucted in Tine and Bevsreek and
was probably earring $100,000 a year to her
820,000. "Eaybe so." he said declarativ~ly.
"but underneath !t all I think you're smarter
than I am."
what lurking terrors possess men when their
womln achieve success on their own? Ths truth
of the matter is, that in spite of Virginia
slims, ve haven't come such a long ray. babies
(Prancke, 1977:uU).

xual Inequality Page 93
There are, of course, many other factors which
te to the existence and mairtenancs 5f norms
ng intrafaaily violence. Owens a d Strsus (7975),
ample, present data on the correlatior of childhood
nces of viclence (including victimization) with
ence attitudes and velues. See alss the discossiac
e influence of sociely's positive Evaloation of
E in Chapter Y; ar.d in Straus. 1979a. 19146.
. See whiting (1965:137) ard the discussior. of "the
yth" =a Stsinaetz acd Straus (1979:lO-13) fs: other
n which the pattern of male-female relationships built
the society helps to create antagonism bEtw~En rhe
and hence strecgthens tho associatiJn between
y and violence.
. It is pertinent that. EvEn in a state known for its
and familial experimentation, as recently as 1971,
lifornia State Bar Issociatian voted ~ p t to repeal
egislation (Trucinger, 1971:216).
4. The combir.ation of sexual equality, ffaals
rtiveness, and sexual libefaticr mioh' also contribute
educing rape. If women were to escape the culturally
sotyped role of disinterest in and resistarc* '3 sex.
were to take on an zssertive role in expr-ssina +heir
sexuality. rather thar. lea~lng such sxprassion tc ths
ertiveness of men, womsn's LEV status mig?t csntributa to
reducticr in rape in several nays. Pxrst, many rapes
an illegitimte extersior. of sanctiored techriqu?s of
ercoming" the culturally prescribed resistance of women
EX (Kirkpatrick and Kanin. 1951). Seccnd. the
unding of SEX and aggression that is built into our
rure could be reduced (Steinmetz and Straus, 1974: 70-13).
rd, to the extent thet sharply differentiated sex roles
responsible for ths , phenomena of "compulsive
culinity' and structured antagonism between the sexes,
elimination of sexual inequality woold reduce the Dumber
"power trip" and "degradation ceremonyl motivated rapes
ovnmiller, 1975).

Chapter 7
Stress and Family Violence
Keith M. Fanington
This chapter emphasizes the effect of
family structural characteristics on the amount
Of Stress experienced. Parricgton suggests that
compared with most other groups, th? family
Experiences more stress and may b~ less capabls
Of coping with it. The family, because of its
urique structure, elso may be less efficiert in
dealing vich str~ssfnl situ~tims.
It is interesting to contrast this
sociological perspective with the implications
of a "medical" model for the cortr31 of
violence. "Curzngw violence through drugs snd
surgery has a powerful appeal to laymen ana
SciEntiSts alike. If a day does arrive when it
becomes routine to take a pill when we feel ths
Urge to kick a co-worker or thrsv a punch at our
mate, intrzfamily violence w i l l probably still
exist. If the family runs out of nonaggression
pills. one spouse could blame the other for
being lax, and might feel justified in hittin3
the Other so that he or she won't forget the
next time. or perhaps a mother w i l l slap her
child because the child refuses ro swallow ths
nonaggression pill.
FaSringCOn's point of view is that
regardless of medical technology, the structure
ot relationstips betwen family members must
change it vzolerca is to be redoze*. If
conflicts ot interest and stress in family lifs
are inevitable, thsn tho family must develop a
Structure for resolving thase conflicts
nonviolently. Blthough Chapter 13 offers some
suggestions. achievirg thrse ends w i l l be
difficult. since, as Farrington points out.
family structure works against the nonviolect
resolotior of stressful situations.

P GENERAL STRESS FBhlEQOEK
The concept of stress has had a histary markPd by
considerable conceptual ambzguity and dissension (nechanic,
1962: Chaptsr 1; 1968:296-300; Lazarus, lQ66:Ct.ap%?; 1:
Levzne and Scotch. 1967:163-165; Scott and Sowazd, 1970;
acGrath. 1970). Stress has been defined ana studied as (1)
a threatening or disruptive stimulus (Grinker and Spiegsl,
1945; Basowltz & g., 1955:7; Hill, 1958: Janis.
1958:13); (2) 3 particular response or patter3 of respenses
in ?he face of such a stimulus (Eas0wit.z er a_&.. 1955:289:
Janis, 1958:13; Eechanic, 1962:7): or (3) a skate of the
organzsm as it is exp~rieccing such a stimulus (Selye. 1956:
Dohrecrend. 1961; Wolff. 7968). The ?roblems srisicg from
this lack of a common definition have led a number of
theorists to abandon the attempt to achieve specificity, and
instead to use the term "stress" to refer to a general field
of study that encompasses all of these more specific
phenomena (Janis, 1958:ll-13: Lazarus, 1966:27; Levine ana
Scotch. 1967:169: BcGrath. 1970:16). This is the approach
taken in the "general stress madel,* accordirg to which
family violeccs w i l l be analyzed in this chapter.
Components Of Stress
The phenomenon of stress can be seen as compossa of
several distinct elements. Drawing fcam schemes devslopsd
by Eill (1958). Dohrenvend (1961). Levine and Scotch (1967)
and BcGrath (1970). the general stress model treats the
follo~irg as the compon~nt parts of any stress situatioc:
-- ---
1. The Stressor Stimulus. This refers to any situation
or condition, encountered by an individual or group, that is
capable of producing disroption or threat for that
lndividoal or group. When this condition occurs, it can be

Ch.7. Stress and Family Violerce
said that the stimulus is imposing a "denand" on
ir-vclved, by regulrirg that Some response be a
alleviate the stressor situation and remove the thr
danger or disruption.
Some theorists havs viewed StrPssor s'im
necessarily synorymoos with major tragedi
catastrophes. This idsa is ucfortunate, for it igno
subtle effects of less dramatic stimuli. Re S
Eoward rote:
The concept of stress has besn t3o clos
equated with extreme trauma acd duress. T
association has hed the effect of divert:
attention away from the study of stimuli th
are wearing to tte organism, and that hav
important physlological acd psychologicl
COnSsquences for it, but which are neithc
dramatlc or especially ur.usual...both trauaati
and nontraumatic
StTeSSfUl in ?he
but wearing events ar
SeCSE that th~y both produc
the same types cf ptysiological
psychological responses (1970:266-267).
ac
IC fact, it is not even necessary that the. stimol
viGved in nsgaCive terms. Hany ceutrally or even posi
defined rtimoli axe capable of placing great demands
those experiencing them (Kolaes and Bahe, 1967). B.
people respond as much tc their perception of a situati
to the actual situation, virtually all stimuli in
Social environmezt have the potential to produce stress
some individuals.
2. O ~ j ~ g DEmand. v e This refers
realit? of a given situatior. To
to the "object
the extent tha
strsssor StimU1uS poses demands that are independent of
cognitive procosses of definition and percoption,
Individual Or group involved can be said to be experienc
objective demand. While perhaps quite csmmon aT
physiological or Siochenical levels of hnnan Eristen
stressors that cornpletsly bypass cognitive auarsness
evaluation are probably somewhat rare at the social lev
Rowever. this is no? meant to imply that objective dsmana
never an importanC aspect of "sociolzglcal" str
situations. For example, facing the thought of parachut
fxom a plans. 0; being confronted by whit appears to be
armed criminal, are situations that pose a rery real thr
to the unfortunate victim, irdependent of that pars3
specific evaluation and definitton of the situation.
-- ---
3. Subj'=i&E Qg-=d. ?.ppley and ?rumbull h
Observed that. "With the exception of EXtreBs and sud
life-threatening situatfors. it is reasonable to say that
stimulus is a stressor to all individuals txposed t3 i
(1967:7). This variation in what is viewed as stressful

145s and Family Violecce Page 97
individual diffcrezcfs in learning and experisace.
has aptly noted, "Ran is vulnerable [ta stross]
he reacts not only to the actual JXIS~CCS of
but to threats and symbols of danger erperieccsa in
t" (1968:3). therefor^, ii frequently happens that a
5 posing 10 real "Objective" danger is nonerhsless
ed and defined +s probl~matic. 12 soch an irstance,
es litae diff~relcf how mnch objective demand
g exists: what :p irportazt is that the definition
er or threat has been made, and ths indiviaualfs)
d w i l l be acting in accordance with this definiiion.
the terminology of the general stress sodel. this can
rred to as "subjec+ive' demana.
RPsBzse SaDabilitLss. This category includes all
a skilis, attributes. and resources that an individual
up has at its disposal in dsali~g vith stressor
i. RlthOUgh the list of pOssibl9 T%spDnse
llties is Fcdless, some of the more important oms
a include past experience Ln asaling with similar
1886, various skills that hare been learned or acquired,
lligence and creativity, the motivation ro deal with the
ation, support and encouragement from others in *he
-a1 system, the asoort of energy availahlc, 325 th?
ity to ccctrol orets emcticnal state. ill of these
se elements are vieved by the general stress ao?el as
ning to form a reservoir of possibl~ reepocsas to
ssful stimuli.
5, thgice of 2eazss. Rhen an individual or group is
ronted by a stressor stimulus, one or more responses
be selected from those availabla and applied 'cward
s stressor. Obviously, just as individuals ana groups
y substantially vith rEgard to what :hey sez as posing a
eat or problem. so also w i l l they vary in their capacity
deal with various eituatians acd in the repocses that
ey w i l l make 11 a given sztuation. Bousver, it seems
asonable to assume that, ir the great ~ajority of cases,
effort w i l l be mde to meet the inpandtng deaands to the
atest degree possible. This does not imply that ths best
ice "ill aluays be made, but it does assone ths: the
ividual or group w i l l he notioetsa to act in its best
erest by making what it believes to be an appr3priate
6, Stress Lev1.2. If t h response ~ made to a st:esror
stimulus is Sutfxient to meet and sliminate the dpnands
being posed by that stimulus, it can be said that nastery,
or ~ucc~ssful rEso1utioP of the problem, has taken place.
Under these circumstances, the stressor situation should no
longer be problematic. In fact, ths individual or group
w i l l probably be more effective in dealing with similar
problems in the future because of this experience (Scott and
aovard. 1970:272). In this serse, it can bt arguad 'tat
stress has certain positfve consequences, provided it

Ch.7. Stress and Family BLoleece
remairs within reasonable limits.
Eowever, ?he rasponse made to a stressor sti
not guaranree that demand w i l l be eliminated
insLances, the responsefs) rill b~ insuffi
inappropriate. and mastery w i l l not occur. Th
such failure on the part of response copaDi
according to tbe general stress model, an increa
"stress lavel' of those Lnv~lved.
Viewing "stress" as the discrepancy betw€en d
response capabilities is cot a nev iaea:
canceptualization is suggested by Mechanic (1962:
1968:301) and XcGrath (1970:17-211, and is inplici
and soward's eprohlen-solvingw stress model (1970
and Scott, 1965). Eccolding to this view. the g
discrepancy between impending demands an* 4aistilg
capabilities. the greater the stress level of the i
or group in question. In using the term "stress
rather than simply 'stress," the grneral stre
assumes that man and the groups he forms are in ?. c
state of stress, and that a s-&Qt_e congru?rce
demands and resporse c2pzhil;t=es for acy indLoi
group is impossible.
In accordance vith this view that stress
"constant" in huaan experience, the general stress
Suggests that individuals ana groups adapt to this fac
life by developing a sLress level at vhich they fee
comfortable ard function most Effectively. ThPsa flop
stress levels develop over time, and they represe
combined product of a number of social, psychological
StruCturaL factors. Scot'. and Howard suggest that ih=
wide Individual variations in these optimum stress 1s
with some persors acd groups deaandi3g more congruence
others:
The cature of this lsvel variss tremendously
BmOng individuals: There ars persons xho
reguire high and sustained levels of stimulatior
in order to feel comfortable and satifled:
there are others vho require camparatirely law
levels of srlmulatlcn, and vho fsel most
Comfortable when demands made on them arr
tightly dispersed arourd very low activity
levels (1970:270).
In additlon to purely individual differences in optim
str%ss level. substantial macroscopic variation betvsEn a
among societies is also liXsly, with sems gr2ups accurtam
to a much higher level of stress than others.
Because these optimum stress levels are, in effect,
cumulative product of all past experience, thay are lik
to be firsly ectrenchsd ard quite resistant tc rapid

s~ and Fanily Violence Pilge 99
nge. On the ofher hard, an inaividual or group's
+&& stress level is likely to be subje-? to
fluctuation, deperding on the partLcular stimuli
d. For the most part, these changes should be
811nor. 211OY%Dg the stress level to remain within
le, or at least tolerable. limits. In those
in which changes are not minor, where stress level
exceeded, the situation becones problematic.
ding to the gecsral stress model, changss in
eve1 occur whether the discrepancy between demands
nse capabilities is "positiven or "negativeo in
. Just as the demands being placed ??. an
1 o r group nay be coo great, so too can they be too
Grath uses the terms "overload" and uunderloaam to
his disticction, and states:
re is ncw a substantial body of
it~ratDre...whlch suggests t h ~ t tress-like
ffects may result from an env:ror.ment that
places too little asnand on...tha focal organism
works such as Paliner's theory linking "t?nsi~n' and
ce (197U; 1972). Klausner's studies of stress-seekirg
, Aeroc's inv=s+igation of the 'lpathology of boreaoa"
and seid~rberg's clinical descrip%ioc of the "trauma
tl9ssness1' (1972) seem to support the co9tention ?hat
tle demand can be just as dangerous 2s too much.
o sumn~rize the notion of stress level, it can be saia
"Stress not only rcvolves a *state' of the focal
SP and a 'state' of the environment, but also involver
.latlonship between the two11 (McGrath. 1970:16). The
ter the discrepancy betvefn existing demanas and
lable respocse capabilities, the greater vill be the
s5 level of that individual or grcup. T3 the extent
this imbalacce is not presently, and does 09t suddenly
me, too great: as lorg as mast existing demands cac bs
t satisfactorily from within these response capabilities;
d as long as enough demand exists to challenge the
dividual or group sufficiently. fhe stress level cln be
id to he at a minimal. nonproblematic level. iioverer. if
increase in the actual stress level of ar individual or
roup is a significant departure from the optimum stress
~vel of tha; individual or group, this change is likely to
ve overall negative consequences for those icvolvea.

Ch.7. Stress and Family Violence
unresolved Stress Sltuatlons
In the discussion thus far, it has been argued th
variables interact to determine an individual's or g
stress level. From this proposition, it follows tha
tailure to achieve mestery over a particular st
stimulus can be ~ttributed to (1) the nature of tt.~ st
situation, and/or (2) the response(s) made by
Experiencing this stressor situation. As ve shall
characteristics cf each of these elements of the s
experlefics can preclude successful resolution 3f the p
at hand.
First, in considering stressor stinuli, it is o
that problems vary ir terms of their potentia
response. no matter what they atteapt. Sc?rt and Pouara
(1970:271; Yoward and Scott, 1965:146-147) bavs identified
three types of problem srtuatlons that prelude successful
. .
map:=ry: (11 prctl+ms *tk- jcsc deaacls rr FIC?:s :f ?he
org??:sa.n reporre c?p=.b:lil:=s. (2) probl=lr ikat taw* co
demands exist. so that it is imp3ssible to mse
s~cce~~Fu11y. IP any of these situations, no natts
response(s) are chosen, they simply w i l l not be sufL
to achieve maszerp aver the stressor stimulus.
Concerning the resporses made to stress sitoat-
Scott and Howard (1970:272: Eoward and Scott. 1965:147have
r.icely deliceated a typology of possLble resp3c
These include (a) the assertive response, in which t
involved meet the problem "head-on," and attempt to solv
in a direct and meafiirgful fashior., (b) the div~
response. in which resources and eEergy are applied to
problem but are ~1sdirected. t.t;us leaving the actual pr
virtually untouched, and (c) the inert response, in eff
a %on-response.' in which there is no meaningful att4
made to resolve the problem at hald.
Even rn stress situations in which an individual
group faces a stresscr stimulus that is potecti
solvable--in thar they possess response cepabili
sufficient ro meet its demands--only by zhoosing
assertive response w i l l they actually achieve msster
Divergent or irert responses are not actullly directed
the problem ir question; thus, these responses are unab
to Contribute directly to a resolution of that problem.

stress and Panily Violence Psge 101
~ences of the Failure to Achieve nastery
r the above reasons, there are ruaerous stress
tions in whlch the demands posed by a stresscr stisulus
ot be met successfully. Responses to these szrPssors
e made, yat mastery of the situetion floss not result.
plained earlier, 'his discrepancy between demand and
e capabilities represents the stress level of ths
ual or group in question. And, to the axtent that
iscrepancy represccts a drastic or major change 2n
Stress level--in the direction away from one's optimal
s level--it is to be expected rhat this unresolved
situation may become even more problematic aver time.
or sxample, ?he continued presencs of ths still onmet
s nay have a serious impact npon those inrcl~e3. For
e, the failure to resolve a problpm of f=~lty
nication betweex a husband acd wife car easily lsaa to
, mor~ serious, marital problems.
1 second possible consequ-nce 3f a? iniffmcLive
onse to stress may be that, not only has this respozse
ed to deal with the crigi2al problem, but it pay have
vertently introduced new stressor stimuli. 1s w~lff
8:3) suggesrs, the consequences of a respons? mede to a
55 situaticn may turn out tc he mare d~maglrg thin the
cts of the stress Situation itself. Par zxsmple,
ereas a husband hitting his wifo might appear to i?rminata
fectively a current nari'al argument, this divergent
sponse could, on a lorg-term basis, csuss r?scntmerf and
stility to build up within the wife, thus posing
re serioos problem for the future.
an even
Elso, thsre is what Scott ard Rovard have termed the
cord order problem" of handlicg the unres3lved t=nsions
t have arisen during the attempt to resolve the current
45.5 situation. These "tensicnsn refer ts a stite of
rgy arousal within the individual. In the words of Sco't
EOwBrd:
... evec when problems Ere successfully solvea. 3
time gap exists between the initial prcvocation
and the ultimate resolution. During the time ir
which the problem is being dsalt with, the
organism 1s i n a st+te of qrsater ar lESS=r
Bobilization, a state in uhich Energy and
resources are bound up so that ths organism
experiences tension. In cases of successful
problem salving. tonsicns are evantually
dissipated and the organism returns to its ususl
level of functioning. when problems are cot
Solved, however. tensions persist until
mechanisms are found to cope with them. The
failure to master threats therefore gives rise
to a second-order problem: ... that of dealing

Ch.7. Stress ard Pamllp Vrolence
Page 102

----
~CT~SSO~
~~~
Page 103
-~
should ~resent no further difficult~. - ~ .~ Rcuever. . ir
instances, the stressor situation will not be resalved
he responses made. Ir these situations, the disczspancy
een demand and responsa capabilities rspresents an
ease in stress level. This increase in stress leo.1 has
potenfial to produce additional problems for those
Ired. Let us now apply this framework to the stuay of
ss and %he Family
APPLYING TRE GWFRAL STRESS MODEL
TO InTBAPAnILP BIOL37CY
A number of theorists have already begun to irdicite
importance of "stress" for explaining a major portion of
afaeily violence, especially in the area of chila sbuse.
example, Blumberg (1964-1965) views overz~alons physical
shment of children by parects as being as much s result
the various 5treSSe~ experienced by *he child's pareots
t is a result of the actual desire or neea to coctrol
child's behavior. In Plumberg's words, "When everything
getting On top of 2 no+her she smacks more"
64-1965:19Y). Gil (1971) explains . socioec3nomic
fferences in child abose as resulting at least partially
m the difterential number and saverity ~f strassful
eriances characterizing family life at different social
ss levels. In explaining violence directea toward
laren, Gelles' "social psychological' model of child
use (1973) attributes primacy to a variety of "situational
The ccnmon thread rurnicg through these statements is
at any theory that attempts to explain irtrafamily
olence nust give primary consideration to the structural
biables likelp to determine a family's predisposition to
olence. This is precisely what the stress fraseuork
110~s US to do. since it views - ~ these structural - ~- variables
StrPsSOr SIinuli thac impose demands on individuals and
milies, and to which scme response must be made if stress
VelS are to remain within tolerable limits.
There can be little doubt that the modern family, both
a social unit and through its indiviaual members,
cour.ters numerous stressor stimuli in the course of its
y-to-day existence. As Campbell statss,

[Modern] changes [in family solidarity] ao 30
necessarily signify a decllne in the impnrtanc
Of the family. They do reflect the increasin
pressures which the fzmily is under--but t h ~ s
stresses frequently stem precisely from the fac
that more is baing drmanded of fanily life than
ever before (1969: 251) -
The stressor stimuli that corfront fasilies and
members stem from many different scurces. For example
are relatsd to the functions that the famil7 is "entr
uith performing, both with regard to its individual me
and to the larger social structure. Others are the
of PErtiCUlar characteristics of i3dividual family
such as their status in the scc'el stratification syst
their present position ir the "family life cycle." Eo
regardless of the Specific origins of the stresscr s
that confront any particular family. the point tn b
here is that these confrontations are facts of
life--not isolated and out-of-the-ozdinary CccurrencEs
In addrtion to these external stresses, the f
itself is often a source of stress. in that many pro
can be traced back tc particular family sitoatim
stroctures. For example, Croog (1970) notes that
problems as intrafamily value conflicts, the parti
characteristics of the various stages of the family
cycle, and problems of role conflict are potential soo
Of Stress that arise from directly vithin the Easily u
IP addition to those stresses that emanlte from withi
family are numerous events experienced by individual me
m the "external world,* vhich are then brought back
the family setting. Rlthcugh the family is comnsnly Lho
of as a place vhich family members can bring these ex
Pressures and "let off steam," this action may have o
negative consequences for the family as a uhsle. A s
states, "The release of these emotiscs nay in thsms-
create tension situations that have the effects of strss
as far as other family members are concern&" (1970:
Even in situatiors in vhich the family itself is not
source of a particular problem, the family may oererthe
amplify the effects of that problem on its members,
operating as a "crystalizing entity vithin vhich t
stressors emerge and exert their impact" (Crsog. 1910:25
Vlolence as a Response to Stress
If th9 family does experience numezous stres
situations. it Eollcus that individual family mcmbsrs,
families as social units, often w i l l be called on to itts
to meet and eliminate the demands posed by vari
stressors. 3.36, as discussed earlier, when confronted w
a stressful situation, these people w i l l look '0 th
repertoires of response cepabilities as they try to come

stress and Family Violence Page 105
response that produces mastery.
learly. as Goode (1971:629) has suggested in his
urce theory" of family violence, the potential to use
ce can be regarded as an importart resource of
duals or groups. Pnt into the terms of the general
5 model, the capacity for violence represents a portion
individual's or group's response capabilities that can
plied to the solutioc of varFous problems.
st only is violence a Qpss&&f response t3 stressful
.lors: in our society, it often represents an
t& response. Xs stein me?^ and Straus note.
icans have alvays had a propensiry to use violence to
re natioral and personal goals4* 197:1Ul) B major
n for the prevalence of violence thr2ughout our
ty's history has been that 5ur social norms and
ral values actually sancticr and legitimize t h use ~ of
nce as appropriate behavior in many situations (see
er 3). This Cormative Epproval ?f violence seems to be
ially true within th= context of ths family, wherr, for
le, it is acceptable, or at least permissible, to spank
sbehavlng child or slap a nagging rife when
unstances "call for" such behavior.
IS Viole~ce Used as a Response to Stress?
The use of violelce as a possible response to stress
uations represents an interesting paradox. The
ilability of nost resources for any particular individual
family is likely to depend or a number of structural acd
rsonal features, including socioeconcnic status, 39%. and
x. Borever, virtually everyone possesses th+ resource of
sntial violence. It is true that different inaiYiaucls
1 require vastly different situations to provcke then to
ertent that they will commit an act of violecca or
ression. Ilso, the actual means of expressing violence,
the resulting msuccessn of the act, rill vary greatly.
ever, the point to be made here is that, whereas the
session of most other resoorces varies from pers3n to
erson and family to family, the potential for violence is a
constact" part of all individual and family respocse
pabilltles, no matter how extensive or how minimal the
malrder of the response capabilities.
on the other hand, althoogh everyone cqn use violence,
at everyone do=. Violence is not almys the response
hosen to a stressful situation. In fact. it is used
Elatively infrequently. Thus. o ~ e question of major
mportance corceras the issue of ~gqp violence is usEd as an
SSErtiV0 response to a stress situation. and Kg1 it is used
n those instances.

Ch-7. Stress and Family Violence
The Availability of Rlternatire Responses to Strsss
One of the most important considerations in ans
this question conce?ns the nature of th? other re
capabilities. A s Bettelheim suggests. "whether or n
w i l l use violence or avoid it depends entirely 0.
alternative solution5 are known to a person facin
problem" (1967:301). Similarly. Steinmetz and Straus a
We believe that the willingness and ability to
us6 physical violence is a 'resource'.... E
family member car use this resource tc
CompePSate for lack of otter such rssouzces ir
money, knouledge, and resFsct (1974:9).
Goode has developed this general idsa in b:s rtsg
theory of family violence (1971). Goode identifies "fo
and its threat" as on9 of four major sets of ressurces t
an individual can use in c?Lcmptirg +o achiere desrrsd i
Violence can be used as z resource uhen other alterpa
resources, i.e.. econcmic, prestige, and trait resoor
are ulavailable or have proved ineffective. RDusver, G
emphasizes thac the actual use of violence is likely t
dependent upon the state of the individual~s
resources. Thus. lf other appropriate resources do e
it is likely that one or more of these w i l l be triad
solution to the problem instead of violence. as
states:
most people do cot willingly choose overt
vlolence vhen they command other means because
the costs of using force are high in ary social
system, but especially in the family....
Consequently, it is a general rule that the
greater the other resources an indiviaual can
command, the more force he can muster. hut the
less he w i l l actually deploy or use force in 3n
overt manner (1971:628).
Thus, we see that violence and aggression are 'substitut
for other types of resources vhen these other resources a
rot a par' of existing response capabilities.
SUbc~ltural or Family Norms Regarding Violence
Ox the oce hand, it has been argued that our soci
has norms and values that positively sanction the use
vlOlePCe in the family setting. Rnd this legitimization
aggressivs behavior is likely to increase the extont
which violence is ~ctually used as a "problem-solo
technique" within the family.

h.7. Stress and Pamily Violence Page 107
Aouever, as Wolfgang and Perracuti suggest in their
subculture of violencP thecry (1967), it is alsc likrlg
* the norms governing the appropriateness of the use of
olance w i l l also vary somewhat wirhiq society. Thus, in
cme segments of society, violence nay be regarded as mars
ulturally acceptable than it is in other po~tions of
ociety. A s this 1eg:tiaation of violence vanes, the
redisposition to use violence as a response to stress
tuations should vary accordingly. Thus, in those
ubcultures.' and in those particular family ur:ts, vhere
istirg norms most explicitly sanction violence and
grfssion, we should most often ~xppct ToSpOn95 of a
olent nature.
st Experience with Violence
Empirical evidecce suggests that persocs who behave
ggressiv~ly withic their families tend to have family
ackgrounds of viclence (Xeinpe el 2.. 1962: Stcsl? and
ollock. 1968: Gil. 1971). This sugges5s that. no5 only is
iolenc~ a learned behavior. but in addition, is taught end
rznsnitted by the family as part of the socialization
recess. Thus. it can be argued that the family operates as
"training ground" fcr violence (Steinmetz and Straus,
974: Pa?? IV: Gellss ard Straus, 1978).
Violence. Tension. and Frustration
Thus far, discussion has centered on the use of
iolePce as an assertive response to a stress3r s:imulus.
he implicaticn has been that violent?, wher used in this
ashior. represents a rational attempt on the park of a
erson to deal with a probleaatic situation in what that
erson believes is an appropriate and effective aacner to
hieve a desired end. This coacepticn of stress-induced
olerce seems conparable to what Gelles and Straus have
raed instrumental violerce--"the use of pair or injury as
punishsent to isduce another person to carry out some act

Ch.7. Stress and Family Violence
or refrain from ar act11 (1'378).
Aovever, there is another place in the general
model where violence is expected to occur-as a conseq
of the secord-oreer problems of tension and frustratis
can result from unresolved stress situations. In fa
15 here that intrafamily violence is likely t3 occu
often--not as an assertive, prcblem-oriectsd at+e
achieve mastery of a situation, but rathor a
"irrational.' lashing-out behavior spawned by see
unresolvable problems. And, just as the concep
stress-i~duced violence appear; to corresp3nd cl3sa
Gelles and Straus* definition ot "instrumental" violenc
does the idea of violence as a reactim to frus'ratio
tension seem roughly compsrable to "exprassiva" Violec
defined by these authors---the us- of physical fa
cause pain or injury as ar. end itself" (Gelles and s
1978) .
Frustration and Stress
AS used by Social scientists. the concfp
frustr3tion seams to r9fer most often t3 in emotional s
accompanied frequently by anger and anxiety, that may a
vhen an individual is prevented from attaining a ass
gnal. We suggest that this affective state of frustra
can, like tension, be viewed as a 'second-order prob
Springing from the failure to satisfactorily resolve
stress situation--in effect, ar "emotioral counterpart
the unexpended energy that Scott and Bovard term "tensio
Tb* incorporation of stress-produced "frustration"
the general stress modal appears to bs coisistent w i t
rest of the framework. Implicit in this trsatmen
frustratioC are all of the necessary elements of a s
situation discussed earlier: (a) a stressor stimulus,
the form of a desired goal, and pressurss. both internal
external. to attain that aoal: lbl . . obiective scd
Sublective demand to achieve that Goal: . tcl .. the response
capabilities of the person from which an assertivb,
divergent. or ar tuert response, w i l l be ch3sen: and (a
discrepancy between demand and response, implying that.
ole recson or another, the desired goal has nct be
attaiced.
Vlewing frustration in this manner. the general stre
model is able to treat a vide range of specific situatio
and conditions as nfrustraticg." For exaaple, a mother m
beccme ufrUstratEd' by the fact that her young ch
continually cries and misbehaves. e husband and f%t
whose racial and educatiocal background prevents hLm f
obtaining a stable job through vhich he can support
family may well be "frusirated*. by this situation. a no
may find the housewife-mother role "frustrat=ngql in tcrss

Ths Qeneral stress model would not denv the important
een as arising from an unresolvsd stress situation.
7s. the aeneral stress model sees all frustration as
lying the existence of Stress, ln. t h ~ t it ultimately
s from the discrepancy betveen a desired goal and the
ity to aChieVE that gcal.
.ration and the Family
A number of inves?igatoFs have lrckee fTuS+r?.ti3E with
afamily violence. For example, Gil's the?ry of child
= (1971) holds that the poverty existing in the lover
econonic levels cf society creates frustrstions
sed 1c child abuse. O'Brien explains violence between
nds and wives by suggesting that the inability to
hieve adequa$e economic revards might result in "f anily
tered venting of the aggressiveness on the par? of the
sband which had its antecedence in frusL.rstions
ountered in the larger structures of the social and
nomic world" (1971:696). shitehurst (1974) predicts that
trend toward greater equality for women may us11 pose a
jor source of frustration, and hence of violence, f3r men
cannot cope with their new status.
BUT. vhat is it abour the family that has promptea these
d other frustration-based theories of family violence? Is
ere a special connec'ion betveen frustrakion and the
mily? Is the family a more likely setting than other
cia1 groups for the geceration. and acting sut. of
ustration?
The family can be regarded as a urique social entity in
eras of its potential for frustration. Part of the reason
or this special positioz, as discussed earlier, is that the
amily routinely encounters numerous strsssor stimuli in the
curse of its daily Existence. The sheer number of Stresses
aced probably ensures that et least some of these cannot be
esolved.
Ic additicn,
ociety and the
the family owing to its positinn in
mechanics of its int~rnal structure, is
ikely to bp confronted with a number of stressors that have
lov probability of successful resolution sca hence s high
otentLal fcr generating frustrat:on. Some of th? more
ommon "insolublen demands families often face include the

Ch.7. Stress and Family Violence
the s~~~essful regulation of the conflicts that s
occur among intimates, +nd the supervis'on of the act
of all taaily members ir the external world.
Thus, the family seems to engendsr frustratior
both quantitatively and quali?atively, it faces
problems in trying to counter stressor stiauli.
Gelles and Straus probably do not overstate th
saying that "the family, by virtue of its struc
functions, can be viewed as an inherently fru
institution for its members* (1978:28).
Response Capabilities of Families
However, the large number and vide variety of d
stress experiences aIe only part of the reas9
frustration is typical of families. Enothor sst of
InCIEaSeS the likelihood of frustration withln -he
These tactors derive from the ability of families to
thE stres~es they do face.
Although the family may be relatively "stress-p
it does not necessarily follow that the fam
well-equipped to cope with these stressors and the a
that they impose. on the contrary, apparently the
urban family is "a less than successful group dealin
stresses and problems" (Gelles and Straus. 1978).
There are many reasons for this inadequacy
example, the status positions represented within the
generate diverse, often conflicting, interests, and
conflicts nay interfere vith optimal decision-making.
because the typical moderr faally is relativaly smal
limited rumber of people can be used as resour-
attempting to cope vith a difficult situation. In add
the intimate and intense nature of family relatic
often means that decisions are made emotionally rather
rationally.
These and other structural characteristics are 1
to render the family a relatively inefficient sccial
with regard to both the decision-waking and the perf,
of tasks based upon these decisions. Thls ineffic
often makes it difficult to mest the demands of such
family rasponsibilitias as socialization of the youo
fulfillaen? of the emotioral needs of all family aembez
say nothing of the more dramatic crises that frsqu
befall inaividoal families.

tress and Family Violsnce Page 111
posed hy these stimuli. Bnd, according to the
stress model, the result of this unfortunate
for the generation of frustration.
as a Reaction to Frustration and Tension
n if we agree that the likelihood of frustration
g in the family 1s high, the eruption of xip&pgce is
aiced. R causal linkage is necessary to detzrnine
how frustration in the fam'ly translates into
ive behavior.
OaUSE the general stress model equatfs the
no?s of tension and frustration, it is useful to
to Scott and Howard's treatment ~f tension
272-273) in attoepticg to detersice tta relatiocship
.n frustration and violence. These aufhors argue that.
an icdividual is faced with the "second-ordsr problem"
-tempting to resolve the tension created by a failure at
y, the only rpal course of action svailable is to
ate this accumulated tension through some mechanism of
e. Tha; such a line of reasoning is applicable to the
nal state of frustr~tioc is shorn by what EEndura
:31-39) has referred to as the "aggressive drive
lesn of violent behavior, most notable of which is
d gt alL's "frustration-aggression hypothesis'' 11939).
hether one prefers to attribute this behavior to
ses of social learning (Bandura and Falters. 1963;
,a, 1973; Steicmetz and Straus, 197U) or to innate
gical potertial (Dollazd pi gL.. 1939; ardrey, 1966:
z. 1966). there can be little denying that ViolencE is
inly one of the more popular means of "blowicg off
in our society. ffcr only is violence a fig_ousg:
nism of tersion release, but, at least in emerica.
ression is defined as a Erg& response to frustrition"
inmetz and Straus. 1974:9). Thus, to the extent that
family has an Rinherently frustrating" chanctsr,
ressive violence should be expected to occur often within
family setting.
It should be emphasized that a distinct, qualitative
rence exists bitwsen violence that ts an asser:ive.
umental reponse to a stressor situation, and vi3lence
is an expressive reactioE to frustratior and tersion.
difference holds even though the same stressor
ation can be the source of violence in bsth oases. and
. thouqh these two types of violence can be outwardly
istinguishahle.
The reason fcr making this distinction is that very
ferect cognitive processes appear to be involved in these
types of violent act. on thc one hand, strass-induced,

Ch.7. Stress and Family Violerce Page 112
instrumental violence is problem-oriented and
goal-directed--an attempt to directly meet and resolve the
demands posed by a stressor stimulus.
On the other hand, frustration-produced, expressive
violence lacks this ra?ioral, problem-solving dimension. It
is not an assertive response, and it is not really dirsctea
toward the solution of a problem. llthough this kind of
violent behavior is goverred, at least to some extent, by
internalized norms that specify spproprilts types of corduct
in given situatiocs (Gelles and Straus, 1978:21)--+nn thus
is not really "unconscicus" or "beyond the control" of the
actor--the fact remains that expressivs violence doss not
represent the rational, carefully chosrn rssponss to a
Str4ssor SltuatioL that instrumental violence doss.
Expressive Vlolence and Cctharsx
The general stress model's treatment of .expressive
violence does not imply adherence to vhst Steinmetz and
Strans have termed the "cathars%s ~vthn IlqlU!lu-~K.
~ .~~.
Straus. 1974). Proponents of t
(Dollard ey G.. 1939: Bett
1968) have argue,~~ ~~~
violence tends to -. .- . , - - - - - . -
feelings to the point where more serious aggression results;
hence. they regard the limited Expression of aggression as
desirable and beneficial. Acwersr. the aeneral stress model
~ ~- ~~
does not consider frustration-produced violence in such
functionalist terns: rather. it expresses an empirical fact
regarding intrafamily violence--that it is often a
consequence of unresolved stress situations, an8 that the
"intervening* process is frustration.
Possibly, expressive violence doas improve a stress
situation temporarily. Even Straus, a severe critic of the
catharsis viewpoirt, concedes, 'There can be little d
that an outburst of aggressive activity is often follove
a sharp reduction in tension, an emotional release, and
a feeling of quiescence. Thus, there is often ar =meed3
cathartic effect" (1979a:25). However. even if viol
does dissipate accumulated frustration and tension, t
outcomes are probably only temporary and superficial. P
a long-term rievpoirt, it is doubtful t
trustration-caused violence w i l l have acy mfaningf
posltive affect on a problem: Expressive violenze rare1
directed at the geriuine causes of a problem. Therefore.
is unlikely to change the cocditions that caused the tens
and rrustratlon in the first place. In fact, because of
potential for reinforcing future violent behsvior (Feshb
1970; Bandura. 1973:31-39: Steinmet2 and Str
1974:14-1.5)- expressive violence not only fails to impro
present troablesome family situation, but also can c
unintended and undesirable long-term consequences.

ch.7. Stress and Family Violerca Page 113
vwerload" versus "Underload" Stress Situations
E SOUTC~ of Some difficulty ir the scheme proposed here
whether any qualitative differences exist between
erload" and "underlOzd*- stress situations ic their
trntial for generating expressive violent;. Rs discussed
arllsr. the general stress model deflnes stress as sgp
~gnificant discrepancy between demand and respor.se
apabilities, whether demand exceeds response capebiliti~s
r vice versa. The connectiors between stress, frustraticn,
rd violence may be fairly clear in the case of "overload"
tress situations: what about the cornectiocs between
xpressive violence and "underload" stress sifuations marked
y excessive rootine, lack of challenge. and e general
bsence of stimulation?
gsgarding the comparative effects af '*ovnrlnsd* rsrsus
ndsrlcad" stress situations as causes cf violence and
gression, the presect inclination of the general stress
del is to assume that they are. in effect. the same. This
consistent with the "Clockwork Orange" theory of family
lence (GElles and Straus. 1978:30-32). vhich suggests
t aggressive behavior often occurs in situations where
e glove fits too smoothly and family members try to. 'stir
ngs upv jusr to maks things interesting." On the strength
this +hecry, then, one would expsct psrsnnr to sttack
thers VhEn their lives are marked by boredom and lack of
citcment. just as t h ~ y do when faced by unsolvable
oblems.
uesticn
Aovever, there are those who would probably
this assumption (Palmer, 1970; 1972: Gelles and
traus, 1978:31), sugges5icg that this aspect of the
elationship between stress acd violence needs
nvestigalian before this question can be resolved.
much

Ch.7. Stress and Family Biolecce
If Sound, the geceral stress mods1 would seam to
a strong position to contribute sobstentially tow
integrated theory of family violatce. It allows fo
incorporation of
social-psychological
elements
approaches
fron several imp
to family violenca
example. frustration-aqgression theory and social le
theory. Et the same time, the general stress model
into account the various structural factors that de?s
which families w i l l be most likely to Experience s
what r3~ources they w i l l have at the3 disposal io ae
stress, and, most important of all, the likelihoo
stress H i l l result in violence (Fzrrinqton, 1975:37-45
NOTE
*Portions of sections of this paper appeir in nTow
General Theory of Stress and Family violrncs.* by
Farrington, a paper presented at the 1975 annual reeti
the Rational Council on Family Rslatioos.

Chapter 8
The Paradoxical Nature of Family
Relationships and Family Conflict
Joyce E. Foss
Not all violence betveen family members is
the result of a conflict. Ind cot all conflicts
end in violence. whether or not the inevitable
confllcts of family life eventuate in viclence
depends partly on vhether there are alternative
methods for resolving the corflict. Bowever, in
Chapter 7 Parrington proposed that families may
be structured in a vay that adversely affects
their capabilities for resolving confllcts. In
this chapter. Poss examines this contention in
more detail and also concludes that in intimate
groups like the family, structural constraints
work against effective conflict resolution.
rmong +he factors working agaixst families'
using conflict ~esclution techniques that have a
low probability of producing violence are the
high emotional investment betveer family
members. their total personality involvement.
and the knowledgs that members cannot simply
pick up and leave when a conflict develops.
Simple avoidance is a widely used technique to
prevent an escalation into violent encour.ters.
but it is a very difficult strategp in groups
that are structured to generats high levals of
interactio~, ecoromic interdependence. and
smotional commitment. Besides. as Poss notes.
the avoidance of conflict in in+imate groups
uill lead only to more conflict.

Ch.8. Paradoxical Family Relationships Page
interpersonal violence and aggression. The issue cf thl
relationship between family structura and conflict anr
violence 1s important for several reasons. Firs?, neithel
family sociologists nor conflict theorists gDnerally ha.,!
taken full advantage or the family arena as one in which
conflict approach might be usefully applied (Parrington an(
POss. 1977: Skolnick, 1973: Spre?, 1969). Second. more
specifically, conflict theory has bear iaentifisa as r
potentially fruitful approech to the study of violecce ir
families (Gelles and Straus, 1974; Steirmetz snd Strams,
1974:5-6). Further, several other frameworks i3sntifiea aa
valuable in the area, such as resource, structura,
exchange, and frustraticn-aggression theoriss (Gellps an[
Straus, 1374). also include confl2ct as a c+ntral coccept.
Yet, thoogh conflict ofttn is preselted as celtral tc, or a
precondition for, violence. a specific theory of hor
conflict processes and violence are related has not been
adequately delineated.
Lewis Coser's work or cocflic: provides a found
for this analysis: his extensive attention to inti
groups makes his work readily applicable to the fsm
This chapter presmts a number of propositions conce
family Conflict and violencs and summarizes the formul
In diagrammatic form. A major emphasis in the chapt
carefnl specification of key concepts in the area.
TKX F91ILY PS A STRUCTURAL PERADOX
COSerls analysis of conflict in intimate groups hi
on a recognition of the paradoxical nature of t
Structure. Intimate groups are paradoxical in that ths
Strnctural elements that make hostility likely also crea
high probability that hostility w i l l be suppressed. The
key characteristics of intimate groups ara the
freguency of interaction and the total persona
involvement among group membsrs. The following propositi
illustrate the paradoxical relationship of these struct
features with hostility and the suppression of hostility
TWO focal variables 1r thls part of the analysis are
confllct of Interest asd hostlllty. wblch are deflred as
rollo~s:
Conflict sf lpterest: hr. nobjsctrv€a sztuatlsr.
In which two or more partles hold
contradictory saloes and clalms over scarce
status. power, and resources.

8. Paradoxical Paaily Relationships Pags 117
This definition of conflict of interest concurs vith
er's use of phrases like "conflict situation" or
casions for conflict' to refer to a situation in which
interests of the participants are objectively at odds.
r sharply distinguishes between such a situation and
llct itself, which refers to a particular kind of 5 g f 6 ~ ~
ehavioral strategy. This distixction w i l l be fu?ther
ored when cocflict itsElf is discussed. Ros'ility also
no? a behavior or action, but is a ~cQj~~fiv3 feeling of
ositioc, that may
flicting interests.
or may so? occur when peopl= havs
ily Structure and Hosxllitp
Intimate groups are by definition characterized by
al, rather thar segmented. personality involvament 2nd bp
igh frequsncy of interaction (Coser, 1956:611). Following
work of Simmel and Freud, Coser argues that habitusl or
tense interactior "furnishes frequent occasions for
nflict' (1956:62)--or frequent conflicts of interest, in
rms of the present argument. In relationships with 3 high
equnncy of interaction, conflicts of interest w i l l be
ed and numerous. In cther words. frequect interaction
uces both a high number or ESZ~B~P of conflicting
rests and a high frequency with which those conflicts of
.rest w i l l arise.
The relationship be?ween degren 9f personality
Olvement and conflict of interest is similar. "The more
relationship is basnd on the participation of the total
ocality--as distinct from segmental participation"
er. 1956:62), or the more bases on which persons are
racting vith Ens arothsr, the greater the var:DkY and
nency of the conflicts of interest that arise. Two
ositions can then be stated:
P,o~~br&op 1. The more frequent :he
interaction, the more freguent and varied are
Conflicts of interest.
-- Pro~ogz%g 2. The more total the personality
involvement in a relationship. the more
frequent and variea are conflicts of
interest.
coser further asserts (1956:62):
---
Prog%ir;im 3. Conflicts of interest tend to
prcduca hostility.
This proposition states that when people are face3 with
onflicts of interest, snbjective feelings of ill w i l l or
position are likely to arise. Bowever, this rule is not
thout rxcepticn. For example, subjective hostility map

--- not occur when 'he participants define as legitimate an
Aobjectivelyn unequal distribution of resources. Yet even
though conflicts of interest do not always laed to
hostility, zt is appropriate to stata przposition 3 as a
general tendency.
Proeosltlon 4. Preqosnt lnteractror tads to
-- - create hostxllty.
Propos-?lo% 5. Total prrsonallty involvement
tezds tc creat- hostlllty.
To turther snmnarize the argument thus far. if lrtrmate
groups are those characterized by frequent lnteractron and
total personality Involvement. then:
a=~s&&?; 5. Intzmate relatlonshlps tend t>
create hostlllty.
Pamllr Structure and Suppression of Aostzlity
Intimate relationships tend not only to
hostility, but also to cause a high affective or expre
investment in the relationship that in turn gene
efforts to suppress hostility (Coser, 1956:EO-6
affective investment seems to involvs tv3 elements:
positive liking or attraction to the relationship. ana
replaceability of the members of the relationship*l. Th
two concepts are roughly equivalent to the concepts
Conparison Level and Comparison Level of Rlternativss
Thibaut and Kelley's exchange theory (1959).
In accordance vl+h Aomans' hypcthssis that iocr~ase
irteraction 1s related to '*mutual sentlments of llklng,"
Coser suggests (1956:62) :
~~=posltlon 1. The more frequent the
interactlon. the greater the posltlve affect
among group members.
The specific effects of persocality involvement are
entirely clear in Caser's discussion, but it s..
reasonabls to posit that total personality involvemeni a0
not have an important direct effect on positive affect, b
influences the perception of the replaceability of gr
members. E relationship characterized by total persona
involvement is largely built on the unique cmtributions
each personality. Bs Simmel points out, this is especia
true in dyadic relationships like marriage (1950:122-1
when this occurs. the replacement of one group member
at the very least seriously alter the quality of g
relationships. Thus:

8. Paradoxical Family Felationships ?age 119
-- P r o . The more total the personality
involvelert ir a relationship, the lower the
replaceibility of group members.
Ps suggested above, positive affect and low
laceability of group meabsrs cln be further relatea in a
necting proposition.
--- Proeg&r&ip 9. The greater the positivs affect
ard the lower :he replac-ability of group
members, the greater the cff~ctive or
expressive inv=?:mert 1n the group.
coser further suggesrs (1956, 1962, 1968):
--- ProEoslfion 10. The greater the affectivs
investment in a relationship, the greater the
fear of dissolution of the relationship.
p=oEosi;t_Zor 11. The greater the fear if
dissolution or a relationship, the greatmr
the tecdency to suppress hostility.
Rnd finally, to summarize. we can state:
Propositio~
12. Irtimate relationships tend t3
produce suppressiox of hostility.
rumental DEpe2dency ard Suppression of Eastility
The preceding discussior treats only the high aflgEfiEp
stment in intimate groups acd its subsequent effect on
ression of hostility. There are also significant
rueectal icvestmects in relationships. Cos3rvs Dsphasis
ntiRatE g~oups that are based on voluntary association
havs influfnced his lack of attention t3 the
rumental aspects of irtimate relatiorships. This is not
ar that volurtary relationships are never based a: least
ially on irstrumantal concezcs. Rather, we suggest that
relationships are rocvoluntary their instrunental bases
me more importart and nore appzrent. This seems ?a be
c+se with the family.
rs sprey points out, "participation ir the fsmily is
a troly voluntary matter" (1969:702). In the first
e. children have no choice in participating in family
tionships. Secard, for adults, marriags is essertially
oluntary in that there is "no real alternatire...3 the
ied state as a lif- career" (Sprey, 1969:702). Sprey
€5 that individuals have little or no cho:ce as to
her to enter family reletionships in general. Yet, +he
mmertal dependencies ir family relatiorships ere
-recognized (sse Scaczoni. 1970; 1972:62-66): hsving
2 entersd a particular family relationship. I? is at best

difficult to 19ave it. Thus, family relationships ar
relatively nonvaluctary or cosxive at this levsl.
difficulty in leaving family relationships say b4 due
to the affective insestmert in intimate groups discuss
Coser, but it i5 also due '0 the instrumental inverfne
aependencies of faaily members.
That the high inaLrumenta1 investmsct tn fa
suppresses hostility may acCually he cortradictory.
zffsctire investment, high instrumental lnvesment i
relationship may increase fear of the relationsh
dissolving, and ir tom prodace attempts to supp
hostility. Thus. wa stete a ptrallel to Propcsitivn 10:
Propsa:loy 13. Th? hlgher Lhe ms:rumental
lrvestnsn* IP a relatlonshzp, the hlgher +he
pear if dlssolutlon of tbs relatlonship.
S ~ C S Propos~tlon 11 furLher assarts tha* fear I
dlssolutlon produces suppression of hostlllty, we can th,
s!lggest that ths greater +he lnstrumental lnvestment in
relatlonshlp, the greater the snpprasslon of bostilzty.
on the other hand, a family member may be aware of tt
irstruoental deperamce of the o_t_hsy on the relationshZp a,
thus may recognize the law probability of the other'
leaving. The person may then have less faar of tl
relationship's terminating (perhaps rightly s ~ ) acd mc
therefore be &== likely to suppress hostility. Thr6
factors mitigate against this possibility. First
instrumental investment may increase the fear of dissolutrr
indirectly, by increasirg affective investmen'.
Suggested i!! Scanzoni's exchange modol of
This j
marria:
(1970:16-25).
instrumental
Second, family members may not rezognize tt
bhses ot thEir relationships. f hi
nonrecognition may ever be the norm for aarite
relationships in which cultural Emphasis on romantic lsva e
the basls for the relationship may obscure the icstrumentz
aspects. Third, evan when the person does recognize t E
ipstrumental bases of the relationship, a pertnzr voul
probably recognize his or her own dependencies befor? thoe
of the other, if oaly because one is more sensitive to as
iamillar with one's own predicament. Consider the positic
of a young woman uirh several yourg children and feu skill
relevant to employment outside the home. Eer or
instrumental dependencies on the marital relationship see
so obvio~s and extreme
husband's dependency nay
that she may not realize th3c he
be equal to hers. PErceirFn
herself as havicg the most to lose should th? marriage brea
up, she w i l l fear its dissolution and thsrsfore
suppress hostllity.rZ
attempt t

Page 121

Thus, to the extent that both (or ~11) msmbers of
group have an instrumental investment, each has something t
105~ if the group dissolves and so each may be fearful c
expressing hostility. For the above rPasons
Proposition 13, that ins:rumental icrastment incrsasPs fez
of dzssolution, stands--at least for the PreSsPt. 01
further commecf is in order. Propositions 10 an8 13 sugger
that both atfsctive ard instruepntal inrrstments in
relationship lead group members to feer tte dissolution c
the relationship. Yet, objectively speaking, it is possibl
tc argue that those very lrsostmects that lead grrup slsber
to fear dissolution of the grGup are zldrsd tts strpn_gEQs c
that relationship--8
intimate groups.
curious contradictior i n the life c
Figure 1 summarizss ic diegrammatic form the mai
outlines of the model presented thus far. Intimate groups
characterizes by frequent interaction and total personalit
involvesent, are paradoxical in structure, ir that the
promote both subjective hcstility and attempts to suppres
hostility. The instrumental investmeots which CharactEriz
famly relationships also contriDute to the suppressioc o
hostility.
The processes 1% irtimate grcups considered thus fa
place the actox in a state of a~bivalence. On th€ one hzna
he or she is taced vlth a namber of conflicts of intsres
and feels resulting hostility toward another. Dn the othe
hand, ha fears thc relationship's dissolution and attempt
to suppress
paradoxlcsl
hostility.
structure
The ir.timata group repres-nts
likely to produce subjectiv
ambivalence or tension.
a+ . - this point it is appropriate to shift 3ur focus fro
causal chains to the options or choices available scd th
conditions ~nfluencing these cholces.
options examined are avoidance
The three bshiviora
and sxpressivs an
instrumental conflict. Coser does not as clearly prssen
this stage in
whzch a number
the cocflict process as z dacision poln: a
of options ere open to group membsrs
Rather, his analysis lnplies an alnas: icevitabl'
progressLoK toward expressive conflict in intimate groups,
Pur'her, Ccser does rot explicitly include avoidacce as i
pos~~ble choice. although he aces suggsst some possihll
consequences of avoidance strategies.

8. Paradoxical Family Fslaticnships p3gc 123
ms of conflict
EefOrE examinirg the condltions influencing the choice
strategy, we need to ccnsider ths meaning of som= key
~epts. Conflicts of inferss: usre dsficed earlier is an
ective situa?ion ir which the participants hold
tradictory values and claims, aid uc not-3 thii Coser
*fully diStiCgUlShJS between such an ChjFctivf situation
behavioral strafsgies l i k ~ c0r.f lict. ThLs distinction
maintained here.
-- Conflict: - Active oppositron betweao parti?s
holding contradictory values and cllias over
scarce status, power, and resources.
This definition underscores the very real possibility
t persons with objectively artagonis3c interests lo rot
essarily engage in actegocistic behavior. It must hO
ressed that the term conflict refers to the actual
hapipr or group .embers. No matter how Eerions ths
nflicts of icterest amorg group members appear to be.
nflict itself has not occurred unless the participants
tually engage in some torn of antagonistic bshavior.
This definition ot conflict is equivalent to thst of
ser. as a "struggl~ over values and claims to scarce
.us, power. and ~ESCU~CFS" (1956:8). H3wever. we
5 inguish between two forms of conflict.
Instrument21 conflict: Task-orianted csnflict.
he distinction between ~xpressive and ins?rumen+al
onflict is based cn Coser's modification during the course
f his analysis ct key concepts and definitions. nost
nportant is his discussion of "r~alilti~' and
con-reallsiic" conflict:
Conflicts which arise from frustretion of
specific demands within the relationship and
from estimates of gairs of the participants, acd
which aIE directFd at the presumed frustratirg
object, can be called ze_aMs:ig confgcts
inscfar as they are means toward a specific
result. 4p-realistic g~~flZ:=--. are a3t
occasioned by the rival ends of the ahtagorists,
but by ?he need for tersion release of at Least
one ot them (1956:49).
C35er goes OE to state that "henceforth,
'conflict' w i l l apply to realistic conflict only"
ths term
(1956:60).

&qzfs&c&: A spscrflc stra-egy with the intsrt
or goal of lnjurlng the other.
"Afc~: Speclfxally physrcal aggresslon.
Consistent wl?h +he theories at Steinnetz an< Strar
(1974:U) and Coser (1956:SO-51). aggressron can be
sunstrategy of either instromental cr expressrvS ccnflict
In oLher ~ords, aggression i+self can be charact-rized a
l~strumental or expresslre.
Dlstrrgulshlng Irstrumental and Expressrve Csnflict
Instrumental and expressive conflict a;? pors ty,pe
that, in reality, oflen are mixed ic the same act (Coser
1956:53-54). Still, criferia by which we should disticguis
these two forms of conflict need examining. Coser is co
altogether consisrent ox this matter. On the sne hand, h
argues Chat exprsssive and instrumental conflict csn h
dlstirguished ir , terms cf th-ir consegusPces: "wherea
[instruaentzl] conflict necessarily changes the prsv'
tsms of the relationship of the participants,
hostility [nxpres5ive conflict] has no such neczss
effects and may leave the terms of the ;Elation
unchangedn (1956:QO).
The flaw in this analysis is that instrunPntal corf
is essentially *figs as thac kind of behavioral expzes
at hostility that results ic change or is instrument

8. Peraaoxical Pamily Belatiorships Page 125
ccessful. One difficulty is that whether a strategy was
eed instrum4ntal Or expressive co~fll~: must be
irically assessed 22~2 facts as tc whettsr il was
cessful (for a discussion cf prohleas with PZ ~2%; fago
~YSBS 12 a related ccnnection, see Skinner, 1953:31-35:
erwood, 1957: 195-233). Second, the anelysis implies that
ever an instruaental strategy is ussd, a 5uccEs~ful
one is inevitable. This contradicts Caser's own
pition that even wber ec icstrunsntal ccnfl:cL sta'egy
sea, the specific m?zns adoptpa 3ra not nrcissarily
uate for reaching the intended goal (1956:54). Third,
approach implies that f-xgresgr_ve conflic: is h q ~ ~
essful in fostericg the attainnant of irstrumental
5. Pinally, confounding the potential consequences of a
vioral strategy vith the very definftion of the strategy
ludes empirically examicing relationships between
ous strategies and outcomes.
A second possibility for distinguishing between
strumental and expressive conflict is to examine the
ality of the acts performed. The major difficulty vith
s possibility has already been suggsstea: that
rticular strategi~s can often be used in both icstrum?ntal
expressive Conflict. For example, aggression is prcbably
t often indicative of purely expressive behavior, but can
a ratianal chcice of behavior in pursuit of son2
trumental goal. Ttus, the aggressive quality of so act
oat sufficient evldenoe that the act necessarily falls
o one or the other types of conflict.
The third approach, "sad here, is to differestiate
trumental and Expressive conflict according to the ictent
goals of tke participants. This approach is cocsistenr
th the portions of CosEr's analysis that do not base the
stinction CL success or outcome. as in: n...conflicl is
ewed by the participants as a means toward the achievement
rea11stic ends, a means which night be ahsodonad if other
ans appear to be more effective for raaching the ssea end"
956:54). In contrast, expressive conflict has as its goal
he mere expre~sior ot diffuse hostilities" (1956:51). Th?
me epproach is also used here in defining aggression in
rms of one party's goal of inflicting some injury on the
her. This goal can ir +urn be a means toward achieving a
re general instrumeotal or expressive goal.
The use of goals is itself a rather shaky basis for
ese importart distinc+ions. Still. it is consistert with
e of Coser's approaches and avoids the problems of his
her, outcome-based. approach. Pinally, using,gosls in
fining aggression is internally consisten: vlth our
proach to instrumental ard expressive conflict, scd is
mpatible vith current literatore on family violence.*3

discussion, and it sesas 1egi:iaate to include thi
theoretical link in the conflict process. Thu
state:
prQgEsltQr x. If the tendency tow+
bostilit~ does not outweigh the tendsn
toward suppression of hostility, avoidarce i
the most likely outcome.
Pvoldarce say be deflned as:
- avoidance: -- Any
nonongagenent
tactic oriented tovar
or dis=ngagament, inCluK
physical, emotional, and intsllEctu
nonecgagement or withdrawal (adapted fro
Rctaling in Chapter 9).
Coser suggests that in intimate grnups 2 strat2
avoidance il cor:flicts of interest is dEsticed i
(1956:62). In rhs first placs, if no attsmpt is ma
6911 with contradictory interests, the original co
w i l l remain uzresclved. Et the same time, new cecflic
interest wlll arise out of the structure c
relationship. Thus.
Pro~oslibo~ 5. When an avoidance stratsgy is
used. Conflicts of Internst W l l l aCCUmU1aAF.
Porther, slncF Proposition 3 suggested that conflict
ct interest create hostility, us can stste that t1
accumulation of conflicts of intsrest indicate8 !
Proposition 15 w i l l cause further hastility. Combining ti
two propositions, vs can state in summary:
P,!os1t~o3 ". When ar avcldancs strategy 1s
used, host=lr+y Increases.
P s this strategy of avoxdcnce continues, snd hostllit
rncraases, subjective hostrllty w r l l eventually be too grea
+o be suppressed, and a mor9 actlve confllct strategy nil

~ p 3 ~ 12- : ~ Tte & grsater ~ ~ +hz h0st;:;ty. L.hs
more llkely is bost~llty to outweigh
suppression of hostllity.
End, the corollary of Proposition 14, which stated that
if hostility does not outweigh suppressior of kostil%ty *hen
avoidance is the outcome, follows:
Propositior 38. If hoctility outweighs tbs
suppresslor. of hostility, conflict--eithsr
expressive or instrumsntal--is the most
likely outcome.
The logic of Coser's analysis suggss~s that any kind of
avoidance in an intimate =elationship w i l l eventually fail
in this manner. eovevsr. in contrast to Caser, some kirds
of avoidance nay actually provide a fairly stabla resolution
of conflxcts of interesr, under certain circumstancFs.
Avoidance car. slnply mean avoiding recognition or discussion
of the specific conflicting interests that has€ created
hostility. 0: avoidance can involve m31f general strstegias
of reducing the aaonnt of Lnteraction or personality
involvement in the relationship.
Resolvicg Conflicts of Ir+erest Through Avoidance
Reducing the amount of perr0r;ality icvolvement and/or
icteraction in a relationship may resolvz a specific
cozflict of ixterest; perhaps more important, if we accep*
PrOpOsition~ 1 and 2 that frequent inter3ction and total
personality involvement sngender conflicts of interest, then
reducing the level these two elements should lower The
possibility that new conflicts of interast w i l l develap.
Even though the family terds to be 3 cssrcive
institution in that it is relativ?ly difficult to "lesve the
field," regular family patterns do
amount of interpersonal withdrawal.
provide for a cartain
For example, one spouse
may become imaersed in work or in child care, thereby
1esseCing interaction a%d involvEment with :he other. Such
accoanodatiors involving personal withdrawal are represented
in Cuber and Hareff's (1965) typology of marriages. Ic ths
"devitalized marriage" couples gradually drift away from
th~ir inlfial clcseness, and ir the "psssi7e-congenial
marrieae' - -~ .~ the couols views their marriase as 3 "cscveriert
~ -.and
comfortable way to livs while directLng ens's true
interests and creative energies elsewhere" (Skolnick,
1973:239). In gsneral, marriages that hars an openly
recognized instrumsntal rather than expressivE emphasis show
less intense patterns of involvement.

Ch.8. Paradoxical Family Relatiorships
Whether such marriages always result from an a
Strategy in conflicts of int=rest is noc :he point. B
we simply wish to note that family patrerns comaonl
that allow for reducing the intensity of ictera
therefore lowering conflicts of irterert and ho
Still, C-rtain conditiors need to 51 net if in a
strategy is to actually reduce, or at lsast not exa
conflicts of interest ard hostility. First:
of irterest. "4
This proposition is relevant both to the
strategies of withdrawal just discussed and to
Specific avoidance of particular issues that d
involve general in+srpersonal withdrawal. When con
legitlmata, this specific kind of avoidance may ta
form of "agreeing to disagre€.v As Sprey pcint
"families may live together in motual rsspect in the
great dlffErenCes in beliefs or values' (1969:704).
-- Propositior 20. I£ an avoidance strategy is
considered 1eg:timate and if it actually
reduces involvement in areas where conflicts
of interest tend to develop, then the number
of conflicts of interest w i l l decrease.
The basic argument is that although families in ge
may be intimate Ervironaerts, some faoilies are
intinate than others. moreover, in sons patterns of f
life legitimacy is corferrea on less intimate or in
involvement, such 25 the American marriages idsntifie
Cuber and Earofi, and many of the English vorkia
middle-class couples Bott stmaied (1957).*5 TJ the e
that an intlmzte relationship becomes lagitimatelg
iCtimate, then the pressures toward hostility inheren
intimate relatioEships are lessened.

8. Paradoxical Family Relationships P'iqe 129
BOYeVer. ve reeaphasized thit, as ?zop=sirl3ns 14
15 suggest, an avoidance strategy in intima'? faaily
ationships in general vill not resolve existing corflicts
iCtereSt, and conflicts of intczrs? and hostility w i l l
mulate. In addition, avoidance s?rateg;ss, Even under
ditione of legitimacy and specifycity, may have only
mited usefulness in resolving conflicts cf inter=+ a-a
y exacerbate problems over the long ruz. In th* firs?
ce, avoidance uspd repeatedly and indiscriminetely may
d to the "corrosion" of relalionships described by Blood
wolfe (1960:87-88). Second. avoidancE used frequently
become the characteris+ic style for asalicg with ggy
flict of interest. Thus, when inpartant issuas con? op
which one or more parties consider aroidancs an
egitieate straLegy, cortinued avoidance w i l l lead to tho
era1 +ccumulation of hostility described above. Perhaps
.mportmt, the lack of previous practice in working out
r issues w i l l make attempts to dsal directly with the
-.ect ones more difficult.
ACTIVE ANTAGOAISE: EXPBESSIVF ANTAGONISE IND COBPLIC?
TO the exten? that persorality involvement in a
ationship is total, expressive antagonism is likely to
ur, partly because greater knowledge of the other makes
rg personal attack possible. Bs Eotaling poiatsd out.
..intimates know how to support the idertities of each
ther becanse each knovs about the things thet matter cr are
mportart to the other. While this extsnsive klovled~? can
E used to Support and enhance identities. st the 59Be t i m 8
t can be used to damage the identity. ..." (see Chapter 9).
11~0, where ties are "diffuse and affec?.ivem IC3ser.
use a common example, one cannot easily distinguish between
an action being "a mear thing to do" and the actor beirg "a
mean person,. vher there is total personality icvol~ement.
In another sense, +he expressive and icstrueental asp~cts of

Ch.8. Paradoxical Family Fllatio?ships
the relationship ars so irtortvired that they are
to SEparate. Thus. for example, raising the .
reassiqoing ins?rUaental responsibilities may be int
by rhe Other as an accusation of lazin~ss- 9ased
considerations:
proeositiof 21. 'be greater the persorals
involvement, the more ltkely is cc~flict
takl the form of expressive conflict.
SECODB, if much hostility has accumulated. conf
nore llXely to be expressive. Proposition 16
discussion of avoidance suggests that hostility 1
accumulate in istimate groups. Increased hostili'
great personality Lnvalvement, may make it diffic
examine issues oh their merits. Thus,
--- ProEc&r&on 22. The greater the accusulation
hostility. the more. likely is cmflict f
take the expressive form.
Effects or Express~ve a?d Iostrusmtal Confllct
Certain effects of an avoidance outcome h3ve a
been considered. To sum.marize, unless an avoidance s
is used in actual areas of conflicting interests
viexed as legitimate. it vill fail to resolve the
Conflicts of interest: this failure of rssolution. con
with the additior of the avoidance itself as an is
with the ihevitable occurrence of rew issues, vill ca
aCcumUlatiOr: 05 conflicts of interest acd an incr
hostility. The implications for succsss of expressi
issibumental conflict need similar consideration.
conflict. Unfortunately, as &ser argues, the u
exprDSsire COnflicL 1PSsecs 'he likelihood thst the or'
Conflicts of interest w i l l he resolved. First,
suggests that exprassivs cooflict terds to increase
in'ensity of the encounter. although Coser does
FXpliCitly dffins "intensitp." it seems roughly equivale
to aggression and/or vtolesce (l956:69). BggresrFcn he
been defined hera as 'a specific strategy with the intent o
goal of injuricg the other," and violeoce is a sabtyps
aggressior. In line with coser's discussion of express
Conflict and intensity, it is suggesied that:
PEPEOS~L-IOL 23. Expressive Confllct tends ts
lncreasP aggress~on.*6

aradoxical Pamlly Relationships Page 131
er further s~ggssts ?I!+: vhCn aggression is ssed,
ellhood decreases tbat cocflicts of icterest will he
fully resolved.
er interfere
Ths
with
"zggress5Ve overtonas" 3?
the participaots' ability
an
to
er the original cl+ias of conflicting interest
-- -
ProEsitior: 2. Aggrssslon tends to rsduc? ths
likelihood of SUCCE~S~U~ resolution of
c~r~flicts of intsrest.
y combining Prcpositiocs 23 and 24, it c3n be further
that expressive conflict tends to reduce the
ood that conflicts w i l l be resolve6 successfully.
converse shculd also be noted, that instrumental
~ct tends to increase
lict lesolution.
the likelihood of successful
--
Leqitimacn =qa s&&sz Besau+apg. Proposition 19
rts Chat if a strategy is considered illegitimais. the
ategy w l l l becoms e nev issue, thereby iocreasing
fllcts of isterest and hostility. This propcsitisr was
anced in refereccs to avoidance, but it seams =qually
licable '0 iCStr~menta1 and expr2ssive conflict
ategies. Exp~e~sive conflict seams more likely to be
idered illegitimate than instrumectel cocflict, and thus
likely to increase conflicts of interest. Bowever. as
us polnts OUT (1974a:442), the participants Ray view as
tlmate expressive co~flict that milltatss against
easing Conflicts of interest, or may see instrumental
fllct as illfg5tima+E, in which case
.flict wonla increaseccnflicts of intsrest.
instromental
Yet even if expressive conflict is considsred
itimate and doer not add to future cosflicF; of ictzrest,
may still be relatively ineffective in resolvirg Present
conflicts ot in?eres?. 85 Propositions 23 Bad 29 suggest.
expTessive cozflicx introduces elements into an encountsr
that interfere vith racing the initial conflicts of
interest. Put another way, expressive conflict interferes
wlth tte possibility at task-oriented conflict Occurring.
Under most circumstances, instrumental conflict is mast
likely to resolve contlicts of interest, rhrle expressive
cOnf11ct and avoidance are generally less ~ffoctive.
EOV~VET. any of the three strategies could be effsctive
under certaln conditions. The fical prop3siCiun asserts
that regardless cf the strategy ussd, if conflict is
resolved successfully, then ths strategy employed wiXl he
reinforced.
gpr3s&pTcg 25. Successful rssolution of
initial conflicts of interest reinforces ths
strategy used.

Ch.8. Paradoxical Family Relationships

ch.8. Paradoxical Family Relationships ?age 133
Pignre 2 sunmarizes in diagrammatic form the overall
model.*7 In*-inate groups, like the family. charsctarized by
frequent interaction and total personality involvemect are
paradoxical in structure in that they pronote bozh hostility
and the snppr€ssion of hostility. If the tendency toward
hostility does PO? cu+w~igh th2 tender.cy to suppress
hostility. than the most probrtle outcome is avoidaccr. In
general, avoidance is cot an effec'ive means of conflict
resolution and is likely te increase hostility. If
hostility c~tneighs the tendeecy to suppress hostility, the
outcone w i l l be one of two forms of conflict. Of these,
expressive conflict is more likely than instrumsntal
conflict. However, expressive conflict is more lik?ly to
produce a99ression and as a result is less likely to i2831ve
lnitial conflicts of interest thar is ins~U*:X of
r"12?i3r50:~5 all sro :rca:rrc?blp llnkid ra *h? s:r=.'%gics
cczs:der%d here ~ 2 ccr:r:bu:e a
+o a tulle: u~3?rs?3r3:~.7 of
conflict and violence in the family.
Relevant to the prescnt discussion is the ofter cited
basic tecet and contribution of conflict theory: that
conflict is an integral. inevitable part of all social life.
Examination of this essertion requires rsturning ts the
distinction between conflicts of interDst and conflict. 1%
seems qoiee reasocable to assert that c_2~f&igtz af ir_+pzgst.,
ir the sense of occasior2s gereratirg contradictory claims.
are irevitable- Yet cpzf&zc_i, especially task-crisn'.ed or
instrumental conflicl, is certainly not inevitablr. In
fact, the thrust cf this chapter is that in intinate groups
like the family, conflict in this specific senss is very
difficnlt to carry out and is thus highly likely to bs
absent.

Ch.8. Paradoxical Family Eelationships Pag
Plnally, we trust the attention to terminolsgy
helped keep conflzct ard violerce concep5unlly dis
Populer conceptions often sesm to eqnata
canflzct and vlole~cc, cz ?c v:ew ccnfllct as prcducLnq
violerce. In contrast to soch a view, ws argue th
is the absence of specifically instromertal confli
families that leads to a high level of interpcr
violence and aggression.
NOTES
*I would like to espscially thank Dennis Poss
GSrald Botaling for their cornmeit on earlier drafts of
chapter.
1. Personality icoolvenent and affective investment
b~ related (see Propositions 8 and 9). but 5h.y
coxeptoally distinct. The important feature of persona
involvement is its totelity. Affective investment iaoo
both the strength of at:raction or liking and
replaceability of menbers.
2. This is not an entirely satisfactory resclutio
the coctradiction, particularly since it ignores un
exchange. Yet to rescloe this question fully vould req
ar intricate series of propositions about cxch
pro~~sses, which would take us far afield and would bs
beyond the scope ard focus of this chapter.
3. Rotaling defines aggression as "a physical
psychclogical act or acts, occurring in an interper
situation, which are judged to be intentio
harm-producirg" (Chapter 9). Since he focus5s
---- attrjbutio~ cf aggressive intFrt in families, the emp
In dstiaitior is on tha perception by gse~s of the per5
intest. While the focus here is not on percaptiors
others, re suggest thct these approaches to d~fin
aggression are similar in emphasizing inter~t or qoals of
actors. The possibility of using intent or goals a
definitional basis is alsc recognized in the suggestion
"...to the extert that actors define such behavior
noreal ana not inrended to irjure. they are cot aggrss
acts. ..* (straus, 1974.3: 942).
4. This proposition is stated in general tarns, ni
it applies not only to avoidance, but also to expressive
instrUmEnta1 conflict, which w i l l be discussed later.

Chapter 9
Attribution Processes
in Husband-Wife Violence
Gerald T. Hotaling
.....................
B c?nt~al tenet of this chapter is
"intent" is imputed rather than obse
Therefore, an action is intentionally agqrs
Or violent only when the imputation is
Rttribution theory alerts ns to the imp3
Of undsrstandinq why. and under what condi
on? perceives an action as aggressive ra
thaP as onintentioral or accidental.
The chapter attempts to shov that cert
Structural cbaracteristics of the family prod
conditions that ircrease the probability that
family membsr w i l l attribute malevolent inte
to the acts of another faaily member. The act
we refer to are those that violate family rule
Hotaling pciltr to what he feels is a cectr
irony in fanily life: ths factors th
Contribute to the warmth and intimacy of famil
reletionship5. such as the sharing of secret
and personal information. also flcilitat
perceiving rule violations as int?ntion+ll
malevolent.
A fir!al section of the chapter examines the
Yay in which attribution of aggression or
violence serves to stabilize violence as a
regular feature or family life.
........................
Violent behavior results from a process that
participants construct within a situation. Struct
theories of violence have tended to nPglec?
interpersonal developnent of violent behavior acd f
136

The rrezet0rne:lor cf ":rrr:al' '2-7 "s=rr?urqS nlr-ors
:":mate r?l~+.io:sC1p~. 1:ke tt.e farn:ly, is ssen is tei-q
I
tac=l:tat=d by certai? 0rcar.lzaCicral or ~truc:uzal l=n'urcs
:ne aar::al Scrd.
I
logical startlng point in this kind of social
ogical analysis is the examination of the contsntior
he "meaning' of aggression*l and viclance is
atic. The perception of an act as intentional
ion or as accidental herm-doins is an tapartant
,=tion in analyzing violence (e-g., Tedeschi, $2 +i.,
In many instances, the perception of aggressive actions
onproblematic. Cultural values and beliefs greatly
t the identification of aggressive acts.
ictensity, offensive, and pain-producing actions are
ly taken for granted as signs of +ggrEssion or
ace. But haaan aggression need not take the form of
t physical damage; aggression can be nanifsst in
al, indirect, passive, and subtle forms of psychological
. It is Especially when harm-doing actions take these
s that judgmental controversies are likely to arise.
human aggression is of this type and there are good
ons why this is so. A s Bandura (1973:Y) states:
People ordrnarily refrain from direct persons1
assaults because such obvious actions carry hiqh
ris1s of retaliation. Rather, they favor aisguis~a
modes of agqression that, being difficult to
interpret or to consider blameworthy, afford
prot~ction agai~st counterattack.
=-.-.---- r.-'-~ --- -~ .----
~~ ~ ~
:ive and nocaggressive actions. To this end,
-wife violence w i l l be examined within the co~tsxt of
tior theory.

Ch.9. lttribution Processes
LTTXIBUTION THEOBY
In i*s simplest fore, attribution theory describe
process by which people attempt to explain and prpdict
behavior. In other words, it inusstigates people's
for the nearing or behavior.
LS Kelley and Thibauc (1969) have defined it:
Attribution refers to the process of inferr
or perceiving the dispositiocal properties 3
ePtitieS....Bttributicn theory describes th
PrOCESS by which the indiviaual seeks an
attairs CcncepLiors of the stable disposition
or attributes (p.7).
While there are at least three distirct attributio
approaches (see Aeider. 1958: Jones and Davis. 1965: an
8. H. Kellep, 1967, 1971). all three perspectives hav
common elements. shaver (1975) has identified some of th
commonalities of the above theorists in terms of thre
stages in the attribution process. The first stage involve
the observation of an actlon, either directly or indirsotl
through the reports of others. The secona stsge. and th,
one that is tmportazt to the theme of this chapter, involve;
the attribution of inrention. Ona attampts to interprpt th,
actions Of others as in+entiocal ard goal-directsd or as +b,
result of accident. reflex, or habit. The final stag
concerns the imputatic1 a "ceusem and searches for thl
ansver to "why the person acted as he/she did." The 3nswe:
USna1ly takes one of two forms: the action is attributed t i
Causes in the environment or the situation ("Re's under i
lot of pressure latelyn) Or to ths undef1y:ng aisposltion o:
the person ("He's just in aggreSSIve person"). This
sequsnce of events nay require only seconds to complete 01
In some cases, such as jury deliberations, several days o!
weeks-
The concern with attributional processes, especiall)
the attribution of intention. has bDen evidr-nt in th? work
or psychologists in work an aggression and violence. 0ve1
the years, researchers have argued ahout how they wouli
decide when to label a response or set of responses a:
aggressive or violent (Bass, 1971; Eandura, 1973: ant
Tedeschi, a., 1974). The emphasis is these vritings i:
on the expsrimenter-subject relationship. 1.. what
criteria ar ExperimEnter would use to chara-terize subject
responses as aggressive. Unfortunately. the question of hor
a person imputes intentional aggressiveness in a variety of
relational contexts has rot been fully investigated.
In this chapt~r, the attribution of aggression ard its
role in the production cf family violscce w i l l be examined
via the rule system and structure of tho husbaca-wife

tribution Proce~ses Page 139
ship. A najQr question w i l l be: are there
tional rfaturss pecalier to the hushand-wife
ship tha* facilitate t h atfributicn of melev?lent
THE NATUEF OF BELATIOIRL RULES
groups have rules and regulations,
- -
v~riation in the extect to which -
~,h.r,nr 1s con'rolled hr rules. In ~ ~~ * --- orher - words. . orou~s ,~ .
'.heir rules: (1) their substentise
behavior they control: and (2)
ange. that is. where a3d when thsy
axamole. workers in a steel plant
. .
err- mles for wte? to show UD f< )r wsrk. when to 50 home.
uFh work to get docs, and hbv to get. the work done:
arly, in graduate school dapartments, rules (at times
cit) concern the appropriate amount of work to b9 done
n given periods. These sorts of rules are of limited
active and spatiotemporal range, in that they are
rced primarily with inettumental behavior an3 are
cable ocly durirg specified times and in specified
3s. Their scope is not all-embracing.
In the husband-wife relationship, rules are of broad
stantive scope. Rere, rules ere designed to control both
trumental and expressive behavior. Furthermore, they
r a vids spatiotemporal range: they are applicable
ss Situations and in and out cf one another's presence.
ions differ as to why ralational rules are of such broad
pa, but various authors agree that these rules attempt to
trol a large amount of behavior.
Both D. Cooper (1971) and R. D. Laing (1972) have
ressea th* nature of relational rules in families and
.ir import for individual members. These a*~thors
phasize the political nature of family rules: holding
t the family as an extension of capitalist ssciety
ates rules through which "dehumanization" of the
ividual tekes place. Prom their perspective, faxily
es are all-inclusive and restrict individual growth and
velopnent. Through rules. family menbars ere forced into
les in which a major portior of reality is kept beyond
evezyday experience. while their ideslogical oriectation
map differ, these authors both highlight the fact that the
family attempts to coxtrol a vids rangP of behavior.
From a somewhat different perspective, Denzin (1970)
2nd Turnar (1968) outline a set of rules, applicable to the
huaband-wife relaticnship, vhoss function it is to protect
and echance icdividual identi?ies.*Z Denzin argues that
"zules of rslatioDShiD" are generated in intimate relations

These rules are: (1) task mlrs, -0 specify who dc?? vhak
when, and with whoa; (2) rules specrfying daference an
demeanor; (3) rules for regulating knowledge, secrecy, a
personal problems; and (4) rules specifying proper csndn
of ego and other vhen not in each other's presenc
Similarly. Turner (1968) suggests two rules that vill
developed between ictimates to protect the identities of o
arother. They are: (1) the avoidance of one another
sensitive zones; and (2) the declaration by the winner ?ha
his/her victory is attributable to luck or exparierce rathe
than the ineptness of the vanquished.
Takicg Denzin and Turcer together, we could say that
relational rules are agreamerts between intimates that each
vill avoid behavior that threatens the situated id€ntities*3
of each. These rales are necessary because each has
revealed to the other intimate knowledge. sscrets, desires
and persocal problems. important to identity, that are not
available to the public at large.
TO summarize the discussion thus far we can cocceivs of
relational ruler as being somewhat ironic. For people to
reman in physical and emotional proximity, rules must be
developed that protect and enhance situated identities, and
that at the same time restrict and control behavior.
TEE NRTORE OF RELATIONAL ROLE VIOL1TIONS
ncst relational rules betveen intimates are gna$fig&,
-- ing&&$t, and pbiquous. In addition, they are constantly
bsing ncdified according to different situatFcna1 demands.
For example, one spouse may begin to interpret rules
differently withcut inforaicg the othsr of the changed
perspective. In such a situaticn, violations of rules are
easier since the boundaries between rule conformity end
violation become quite precarious. For example. a husband
tzlkinu to another woman at a Dartv ma7 be COEsidared a rule
> .
violator by his wife accoriing to his distance from the
woman, the exprnssicr on his face, and the contert of ths
COn~PrsatiCn. This say be so even though the husbacd never
Intended a violation of relational rules. The point is that
the ambiguous, undefined and implicit nature of relational
rules raises the probability that rule violatiors w i l l
occur.
Since rule violations may be either intentional or
accidental, the nearing of. the violation that t h other ~
attribotes to the violating actor is significent (Scott and
Lyman, 1970). The violation of relational rules leads
intimates tc feel embarrassment, irritation, annoyance, and,
at the extreme, self-threat and publicly designated dsviance
(Denzin. 1970).

T ~ E mannfr in which a violaticn 1s perceive3 hss import
for the conseguences. A perscn w i l l give the rerporse
appropropriate to a viclation, according tc his/her
perceptiof of the violation as "accidental" harm-doing or as
aggression. Most interaction between family membsrs is
harmOniouS and cooperattve. Indeed, most rule viol3tions
are sf seen as aggressive. but rather as accidents, as
responses tc situational demands, or as respsnses to
extraneous influences, such as alcohol or drugs. Actually.
relative to the rate of relational rule violitions pfrceivea
as aggressive, most rule vio1atior.s are denied or dismissed.
If this were not so. ntima'e relationships would be very
difficult to maintain.
THE RELATION BETWEEN TEE BTTPIBUTION OF RULE VIOLATIONS AS
AGGRESSIVE BND INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE
Bs mer.tLor.Ed previously, the attribution of rule
viola?ions as intertionally aggressive is an important step
in the occurrence of interpersonal violence. R s Turner
(1968) puts it:
when ego perceives that alter is attempting fo
cegatively affect his interests.. .the chazact=r
of the interaction is pervasively altered by
heightened preoccupation with sslf-images.
incressed use of ~mphatic and diagnostic
interpretatlocs ot gestures. ..and constant
efforts to assign credit and responsibility
(p. 106).
Attempts to locate the "intent' of the rule violation
w i l l determine the subsequent action taken to reduce the
harm-doing of the rule violation. If malevolent intact is
attributed to the rule violator, the pr3bzbility of vi3lence
is increased. lany experimental studies have found that the
perception of oppcnent's intent is a more important variable
in the instigatior of aggression than actual physical
attack. If a given act is seen as aggressive, it
dramatically escalates the probability of counteraggression
(Bandura, 1973: Epstein and Taylor. 1967: Easelli and
altrochi, 1969).

RESPONSE TO RULE VIFLFTIONS 9?TQIBUTFD YO 9GSRISSI3R
The attribution of aggression alons is not sufficient
tor the irltiaticn ot interpersocal violsnce. PJllowicg ths
imputaaon, the ettributor w i l l evaluate the situatioc and
the possible alt.err+tive responses he/she can make. 8spburn
(1973) has suggfsted three possible tactics the atleibutor
can choose to reduce the harm-dolng caused by th? rule
violation (see Elcuchart) .
&pp&ggd!c=. ore tactic that can be used to deal uLth
violatiors is avoidalce. The tactic of avoidance
~8cessitat~s e physLcal withdrawal from the location or an
eieotlonal disengagement trcm t h encounter. ~
The Lactic of
avoFdance 1s difficult in rntimate relaxionships vh-rs there
are extorral carstraints on the participarts tc rsmsin in
the sltuatior (SSP Foss, Chapter 8).
Rcc??g$lQ~~. Another tactic is acceptance of the rule
vio1a:ioc. Acceptance of rule vioktion is also difficult
ZP ln+imate relationstlps, where 'ha rnles serve to protecr
the laentitles ot the participants. Acc~ptir.g tb.e rule
violation 2s appropxiat~ behavior r?c?ssarily alters the
e ~ p ~ c t ~ t leach o n ~ has toward the other. DisruptLng these
stable and orderly irteractior patterns makss vulnerable
OPE'S identity.
If either accept?.nce or avoidanc~ is sslsctsd is a
tactic by which to respond to aggressive rule viols'ions,
the likelihood that the encounter vill end in violfrcs is
grcitly dialnlshed.
It is the tactic of retaliatior that is
l~ad tc interpezsonal violenca. Whnr ago
cf retaliation helshe risks retaliation by
other. Initially, ego vill label the rul? violation as
aggressi're, that is, tracsmit tc the violator tha' hP/she
attributes inrsc+ianal harm-doing to him/her. Once the rule
violation is labeled, ego can legitimatsly seek re+ribution
f r c ~ the rule violator. If the rule violator cannot
aaequately negotiate the aggressive label, he/sh? may
counterre'aliate rc an att=spt to rid hia/h?rselt of chs
aggressive
contertion
labnl. This process accords with SpEey's
(1971) +hat successful management of conflict i~
tamlies rEqUirfS the ability to negotia+e, bargain, acd
cooperate--to manipulate a range of bahaviaral skills. If
the process of r~talia~io~-~~~nfe~re?aIiatio~
continuas, the
p~obabllity of Y F O ~ E is ~ C increased. ~
TC snmmarlze the
tom:
precsdlng sectim i n propositional
P r o ~ o s i t ~ ~ ~
2. if 2 rule violation is
ZtTrlhuted as agqressivs, thet is, as

Ch.9. Rttributiox PTOC~ESES Page 144
intentional harm-dorng, rhe probability of
interpersonal vialerce is ircreased.
If 'he attribution of aggrnssiveness is eade, ar
evaluatiOP of the situation w i l l determine an appropriate
resporse by which to reduce the harm-doing of the ruls
violation. It is posited that:
--- Propositioii 2. The mare intinete 'hi
relationship, 'he less liksly w i l l ecceptacce
Dr aVOld2nCE be used as a tactic t? reducs
the harm-doing cf rule violations.
Since acceptance or zvoldance is difficuit for thosc
iPvolPed in enaurlcg intZaate relationships:
-- .b?
ProposP~or 2. Th9 Bore intimate
relatiorship, ?he more likely w i l l
retaliation be used as a tactic to ?educe th?
harm-doirg of rule viola?ions.
If the ractic of reLaliation is ch?sen, chances
increase that violence vlll ensue; thp norm of reciprocity
will legitimize r~tallaticn.
-- Prlp.oslti0n u. If the attribution of aggression
1s communicated to the rule violator, thr
probability of courterretallaticn iccreases.
--- Propositioz 5. The lover the negoiiatiol
abilities of the actors involved, the higher
the prcbabiliry 3f comterretallation.
-- Proposition 6. The mOZE the ZDt3112tiOPcounterretaliation,
:ha hTgher ih8
probability of violfrxe.
CE2BRCTEPISTICS OF BOLES END ROLF VIDLBTIONS
TBIT ENERBCE AGGPESSIVE ATTPISOTIOA
Whether a rule violation is aggressive is typically
icferred from, amocg other things, charactsristics sf the
rule vlolator (e.g., power 3rd status), charactsristics 3f
the situation (prEssrce cf alcohol or csarcioc), and
cheracteristics or tho ruls violation itsclf. This lz'rsr
category is of Interest hare. Certail charscteristics of
rules and types of ruls violations do sesm to lead L3 the
v~olaior's being SEEP as e ggressi~e. The ch3r3cteristics of
rules to be cahrldsred in this cornecrion are thlse that:
(1) control or restrict. behavior, (2) thzeite?. situated
idonaties, (3) arc hlghly cchnecied 'a other rules. ica (9)
disrupt pstablished claims. In the discussion of each of
these Charactfristlcs ~e w i l l attempt to demonstrat? how

ch.9. Rttrlbutlon Pracessrs Pao= 7115
ccr'air structural features of ths husbind-uif? relationship
may echancs the attributior or aggression for rule
v101ations.
Experlme~tel stndies have found that actions ths?
control t h ~ behavtor of another, or corstrair anath?rrs
beha~ioral al?smatiVFS Or OUtCOmeS, 2r? mOrC likely '3 be
at%ributed as aggr~ssive (Brown and Tedsschi, 1974; Cimezon
end Janky, 1972: Tedeschi. ct a&., 197Y). Wh?n an ictioa
forces a person ~ n t o a position in which alternative csuzses
of action are sevsrely ltmited, the actor probably w i l l
eualoate the ac+ion as gaal-dirscted. Ere rull rialiticns
that occur between Intimates more likely to be parceivea as
ont trolling thaP rule viola+ions ic other scctal
rdatiorshlps? St has already been nentionfd that a viao
variety of rules betveel intinaies are undofinsd and
axSigiion~. Eu?, ir addition, ac argan~zetiocal Eeature of
the husband-wife rel~tionship say ilcreasc the dsqree to
which z zule
paTt7~FT.
niclatinn of one spouse impinges oc the
In nary ins*i

-- Pr~PCsitioL 8. The lover

Two people by no means reckless of eact othsz's
righfs and teelings, hut ever tender cf them for
thc 805t part, may tcar at each other's
heartstring^ in this sacred bond with impunity:
though if +hey uerc acy other twa they uould not
Sp28k or look at each other again after th?
ootrages -hey exchange....If the hushnd a23
wife 32E blunt, outspoker people Like 'h?
Laphams, they do lot weigh their words, if they
ars more refined, they wsigh them rsry
carefully, srd krov accuratsly just tow fnr thlv
"111 vary 3rd in what most s?ns~tiue spot they
may be plarted ulth the mast effect (1964:SO).
Bssides possessirg kraviedge of other nemh?rs that can
be "sed to do harm, intlaetes are predisposed to inpux; harm
where DO nalevoler,ce 15 nFCESSarily irtendcd. For ~xnmple.
lf 1n the pressice ot cthers, 2 wife sxprssses tha lesire
tor certain material goods th+t are bayond her aezns. a
hushand vho is sersltive about his aarring p3tential may
teil threatened by such a statement. while her ints2t nay
have been to share her feelings about 'hings she uould likq
to hav2, the COmeFxt may be threatening to tte kushand
because he knows :hit she knows that te is sensitivs about
such thlngs. Fecause she knlvs ho is sensitive about such
things, he :s likely to feel, she would not have szld ir
unless sh? meant to commenr on his earning capscity. Lf 2
PonlntimatF had exp:essfd :he same desire for azrerial
goods, +her? would have heen no reason far the hushan3 to
p~~ceive such i statenent 2s threatening t5 his
self-ldfLtlty.
If a norlntlmate asks, "Why dcnqc you ~vsr taka your
wlfe aut Lo drr?er?qs ths question may cat be percsived as
thriazening even when it ==s meant salevolfntly. The
perceiver cannot he crrtail that rhe nonintinate kn3xs he is
~FTsiriVe about such ramazks. Because he knovs :hat his
wife COPS he 1s sensiti~e t3 such thl?gsr the sa.4 remark
by her vlll be more lik~ly perceived as threztaning.
Bttr~botion theory offers scne empirical evidence that
this sort of situatlor say indeed occur. Jonss in6 Davis
(1965) pr3vide ~xp~rimental ~fsezrch 02 the knowl~dge pe9ple
use In deciding wish certainty an acr's intsr.tion+liiy. Two
of the:= COCC~US:OIS are 3f direct corcern to intlmate
TJlatlODShipS:
Rnovledgf end ahility are preconditions for th2
esslgrment cf ~~~~~~~~~s. Each plays a rcl? ic
enablirg the perceiver tc decide uhe'hcr en
effect or CO~SE~USCCF of action was accidsatsl
(1965:221-222).

Ch.9. Attribution Processes
-- Pro&gZ& 11. The aore extensive the
knovledge of social biographies, the higher
the certainty that other's ruls violation was
intentional-
Highly Connected Pules
The violation of a rule that is highly connected to
other rules iccreases the probability that th2 rule
violation w i l l be perceived as aggressive.
When a highly cornectfd rule is violated, it has the
potential to disrupt the entire functianirg of the
organization. For example, ir tbe military as ir many
bureaucracies, rules are clearly specifiel and highly
dlfferentiated. The violation cf a rule is hardlad an a
statute basis. The violation is coded. 3na "suitable
punishment' is predefined. The rules are so fragmented that
it is difficult to violate highly connected rules: though
the rules are connectPd, each rule is also disticct from
others.
In intimate relationships, relational rules 3:s not
disxlnct from one another, but vague, undefinea, and Ear the
nost part highly cornected tc ore another. As an example, a
TUlE violation in which e husband refuses to fulfill 2 task
tunctioc. by not helping around the house may generats +r
argument in which the generalization is made that he is lazy
and doesn't care whax happens around the hosa. 92 may
retort that his wife dces cot always please him with what
she does around the house and, besides, he works and she
doesn't. Reference to past evects may ba br3ught in, as
ve11 as recourse to dispcsitioral traits tc bolster
argumentive points. To summarize:
P z E E L : ~ ~ ~ . The more inximate the
relationship, the more vague and undefFnsd

ch.9. Pttrlbotlon P~CCCES~S Page 149
s i n . Th* more vagu* ard undsfined
the rules, the higher the connectedness of
the rules.
-- -- - --- -
ProESitiOn 19. The more intimate the
rslaticnship. the higher the probability that
rule riclatiors w l l l bs violations of
connected rules.
highly
o i o 2 . The violation of a highly
cccnected rule heightens the probability that
the rule violator w i l l b? perceived 3s
aggressive.
Disruption of Claims
StablR interaction patterns, developed over the course
of a reletionship, order and make predictable the
explctations cf ezch participant toward the other. Patterns
of "claiming behavior' develop and become stahilizad.
Claiming behavior, as the phrase implies, refers to Raking
claims or demands on another because of your social position
relative :O the other. Intimate relationships, as ccnpared
vith ConTn+im~te relaticnships, car be characterized by
E&ai&ggg CoBDlacence, wherein patterns of claiming
behavior become taken fcr grarted. RelatiDcal complacence
is 1.55 likely to occur in groups ia which pettfrns of
claiming behavior are based solely on secondary or exchange
considerations; for example, in employ2r-employee or
landlord-tenant relations.
Relational rule violations that disrupt established
patt~r~s ot claiming behavior have a high probabili+y of
being perceived as aggressive.
The inauguration of asymmetrical claims into ar
initially defined egalitarian (symmetricsl)
relationship, or of symmetrical claims into an
initially defied authoritarian (asymmetrical)
relaticnship w i l l disrupt the harmony of the
intsraction and threaten the id9ntities of the
participants (Eepburn, $773: 27).
The literature illustrates the effect of iltroaucing
symetry Lnto initially defined asymmetrical relatiocships.
Reiss (1968) points out that almost half of the cases of
police brutaltty involve an open defiance of the cffic?x's
authority. That is, the arrested party sough? to disrupt
taken-for-granted claies--in this case, a rejectioc of the
officer's authority- Westley (1953) reports chat whDn asked
to indicate those circumstances in which th-y deem violent
techniques appropriate, the police most oftsc cited those
instances i T ~ which their claims were defied by uncooperative
person5 SO that coercion had to be used to maintain their

ch.9. Bttrlbotio~ Processes Page 150
self-intsrest. Tedeschi, gi =l. (197U) 2rgllE thii or=
tactor that leads pcrsms to label ects as aggrssivc is tho
advancernext of self-intezest. I disiuptio? 3f established
claims is likely to be perceived as the advancsmsnt 3f the
Orher's selfish int~xests by the party whose interests arm
being negatively ettacted.
In intimat? relationships, relaIlona1 coaplaceccs ray
pradisposn one p+rty to view disruptions of c1ai.s as
attemp's to further self-ipterest of the othfr. For
example, a previoosly lonvorklng wife who decid?s to get 3
job could be perceived es attempting ts disrupt previausly
established claims. Her inIent nay be sssertive. ro+
aggressive, but it may be percsived as 2ggrP55ivE by hex
hnsband who sees such an actran as negatively aff€cLirg his
self-intsrest. Thls process is illustrated iir ChaptFr 10 of
'his volume in Ralph IaRossa's cass study cf J3c afid
Jennit?~.
to
These four charactfrlstics of rule violations arr held
facilitate 'he perception of rule via1atior.s as
malevolent. If rule vialaticrs occur that have one 2r more
ot these CharaccerisIics, the probability is high that such
r n l ~ violations
hzrm-producing.
w t l l be perceived as intentionally
Up to now, WP have been primarily concerned virh thc
inpotation of irten:icoality to the actions of 0th~:~ ecd
it5 role ir facilitating violence. ?.nother larg?
ccnslderatian in attribution theory c0ncerr.s locabinq the
"cause'. of the ac-ion. Tt:s perc~ivs: w i l l sOmczin?s 3'tsmpt
to lrterpret an actilr by linking it to the =nvirmn+r: or
the personal dispositior of the actor.
A good deal of evidezcs frcm attribution theory shows
that pressures =xis% to attribute :esponsibility to th-
person, that is, to his/her persocality or disposition, thr
more times aggressive Ections occur or are percsivad as
occurr:rig. Reletional rule violations that result i~
interpersonel violence reir.force the perceLv2r in vi?wing
the violator 3s an aggressive person. Experiaantal sviaence
from Kelley, si =A. (1962) supports this c0rten:ion:
En effect is attributed to ore of its psssibl?
CBUSPS with which, over tine, it covaries.
A s t h ~
assccia?ion between rule siols?ions 3rd
ir:erpe~~Onal violence tocoEes sironger, and occurs under
difterect conditions, so does the certainty rhat the rule
vlolator is an aggr-ssive person.

other proc?sses also are a? work that irfluence the
pe~c?l~er to view the rule Violator a5 ax aggre5sive p2rsOn
rather than 2s 2 victim of his/hez envizonment. Far
extmple, an experiaert by KarousD snd Pansor (1971)
dpmonstra+ed that people are gfrsrally cost-orienrcd in
tOrairg Overall eYBluationS. When an objsct 3r avect has
bath posifiv€ and r?ga-ive characteristics, p~ople v3igh tho
nore thai 'he posltive. Ir the fsmily situsticn,
preVlOuS rul? viole'ions have caused i n t ~ ~ p e ~ s o ~ a l
V;~len~~, subsequent ac+ions taksn by :he rule violatcr.
containirg both posltive end lqative faalurss, nap
be mgr~ 1:kely to be see? as aggressive.
nore important to our discussion of the Lapn*ation of
aggression to the personal dispositio~ of the sctar is th=
nature of violence itself. v:olence is usually s high
intensity. paic-producing act. If in th= past a+t=~.pts to
~eeolve rule violatiocs have escalated to vislenc-, the
prlbability is greater of seeiog the other as agg:crsive.
Exper;aental ev;dcsc€ from both KElley (1967) snd Palstsr
(1966) polnts out 'hat the perceiver has an increesicp leed
to attrxbute rssponsibllify as the outcomes of sctiocs
become nore severe.
In a social-psychological sanso. the consequeccas for
the role vxalator car be SEV~~P, in tha* changes ir
self-concep' may occur as attributions to 'he personal
~hazz~ter~stic~ are trarsaitted. The rule viola's; say
begin to see hia/hers~lf 8s aggressFvI or violent an0 ic: In
toxs of the larqer cultoral meacing 3f beiog an aggr;ssive
OT violent person.
lffect me's ittribntior.. The action nbservsd has air-cL
positive or lagativs corsequecces for 'he
hedoristically relevant. also, perceiver
pcrcsiver--r' is
bias may occur
becauss of the relationship of actor :a perceivsr. whar the
pErCeirer belLeVes that ths action he/sh? cbserrss hss been
conditroned by his/her presence, pe:sonalisa w i l l affect
dispositioral a?:rlbufions.
Eecause of the
these two factors
high interdspendence cf tts c3aple.
*re especially relevant to intimate
relationships. Rflati~nal rule viol%?iors are

Ch.9. Bttrlbutio~ Process~s Page 152
hadonistically relevant aria personalistic to intimates and
miy bias the attribution process. Inciaates may be
reluctant to lebel a spouse rs aggressivs or vlolent b?causs
t h attributioc ~
hes laplications for both. T3 lab?l an
intlmate as an aggressxva cr viols-t persln may be too
diffScult to reconcile ulth the image of spouse 3s a freely
cholqn, close emctianal partcer. The perceiv9r may tend to
err LP tho dxrectioc of nonrecognition of the spuss~s
Xe~pOXSiD~lity =Pa ac'ribute ruls violsti3r.s $3 the
er~ironment or situaticr rather than tc tho partcerqr
per~onali*y. ?indings from a study by Ylrrow, 2: gi.
[1955), of wives' definitions cf husbands'+m;tional prabl4ms
can be thus irterpreted. They repcrf a grsst raluct3cc? on
+he part ot wives to labs1 their husbands as msntally ill.
Not wtil a11 p9ssible in+.erpz=tations or their hushafids*
behav10r are Examired and found wanting is the attribution
to psrson~l disposition made. In othsz words, the evidecce
has to b? orsr~helming before the husbecd ls seen as a
mentally 111 person in need of professional help.
The other concep; relevant to attribution bias amcng
Irtinates is what Xelleg (1971) calls plurrlistic ignorance.
This v&rlahlP TF~?XS to the lack of consensus an an
attribution through either the absence of conparisoo 3r the
lacK of other observers. The private nature of th? frmily
institution (Laslett, 1373). i? vhich most activities take
plaCB0~t 05 visu ct onf family menh?:s, height=ns the
likellhcad ot pluralistic ignorance. Ittributions a2ds ic
the family setrirg usually 'ak? place wrthout feedback from
others. The lack of 'bird parry observers and the inshility
to observe Other sets of =ntimatcs during the resolution if
rule violations leads to e lack of certainty as to 'ha
proper at'rzbutian. Because of this lack of certainty and
the possibiljtp of errcr. dispositioral a+tr;bntions sap be
made in + conservative direction, blaming th? situation
rather thrn the spouse.
Bs was me~tion~d i? referents to lahelico mental
illness. attribut:~~ bias C C U ~ bc ~ an inportant variebl? il
ac~oufiting for the reluctrnce of many married persons to
seek help when i~volved in violert rslationships, unril the
outcomes becon? severe tcr everyone involved.
CONCLUSION
The relatlorshlp between husband-wife violence and two
aspects of attributicn theory were examined in this chlpter.
The first or these aspects, the attributio~. of ilfOP:i3nal
agg1?ssion, was seen as ac rmportart variable in the
occurrencs of interpersoral violence. It was lrgued that
the violatlor of relational rulss, vhich ars design?& to
protect the ide~tities of pir:icFpacts in Lntimate
relationships, can tnit-ate + process wherein rhe vllidity

~h.9. Rttrlbutlon PTOCGS~ES Page 153
Of the rule is negotiated, and attempts to Toduca the
harm-doing of zhs violation are bsgun. l'hs siclation of
iela;:onal rulss may be iccid9ntal or deliberate, the
slg~~tiCan? factor beizg the msaning of the visiafinr th+t
the oxher attrlbutes -a ths violatcr.
FJUr kirds of rul= vlolaiioos most likely ts be
perceived 25 aggressive are (1) rule violaticcs ?tat c3rtrol
behanor, (2) rule violations seer as thraats tc sltuazsd
identirres, (3) violations of rules that 2re highly
to other rules, and (9) rule vi311tior.s tkat
dlsznpt. established claims.
The second aspect oE af!ribution theory examioaa was
that concezned with the process of locaiinq the "cause" of
the actioc. 09ce a perceiver attrlbutes ir.tentlonali2y to
anothsr's acticns, he/she atturnpis to interpret tbe cause of
th4 actio?. Pttributions are made to the envircca-st or
slruation, or to the persnrality sf the actor. Certain
feizures of lntxmste re1ztio~~h:ps were seen as promacicg
attrrbutro~al bias, wherei~. sltuat~ocal ai3 e?.vir~cmental
tac10~5 IFF blamed tor vlolent actions rather thin the
personal drsposltlor of +he actor.
NOTES
+A V ~ T S ~ O X ~f th+s chaptqr was preserted st rhe Theory
Constrnctio~ Workshop at the ZCXUZ~ meeti~g of tk4 BlfioPal
Conncll on Family Bela+lors, August 13-20, 1975. The
prepazarror of this chipter was supportsa by N3tion21
I~stitutr of n e ~ t nealth ~ l grant No. 13050. I would like
to rhank Es. Joyce E. FCSS B P ~ 85- Siu~dra L. Etw-11 for
many helpful suggestions throughcut the formulstiox of this
chapter.
1. RggrEssiCn 55 here defined as a physical Or
p~y~hological act. or acts, occurrirg in 3r icterp-rsaral
situation, that are judpcd to he irt=c?i3rally

harm-producing. The ddsticctinn betvofr:
violrrce is so prcblematlc +hat it would
aggressior and
take an rctirc
chapter to deal with thr eaetsr (sse G~lles era Sfraus,
1978). his chapter focuses ox hcu attribution processes
faclliiate violence by producirg a cycle of escals:inq
aggressior.
2. Iden?.ity is seer hFre 85 a socicl pheccmenon.
Through OUT posit~~n-SB+S, iz the social structure in
rElatlOh to other positrcn-sets, it is established where and
what we are. Mas? basically, iaeirity is the answar ts thp
question, "Who am I?"
3. Sltu~ted ~dentity to the lcc3tion of ace's
social self in rslatlon to e sp~ciric social pos

art IV The Interplay of Culture
and Social Organization

Tht chapcers in the prec?ding seciior
emphasize that cerizin aspacts of fasily
Organization increass the p=ohability a£
C03flict. But ccnflict 1s not ths same is
violence: the:? a x many nanviolen+ usys 3f
sertling conflict. EOVBV~T, in a group
charac-erized by a high degree of conflict,
where P O ~ S legiLimizs the use of physical force
(as shown in Part 11). the *?age is set far 3
high ~ F V E of ~ Violence. This coablnatioc of
social Orgarizatio~al and cultural factors forms
the ~OCUS ot all three chepters in Part IT.
The three chapters have something alse io
COmmoC. A l l illustrate what All?n and straus in
Chapter 12 call the "ultimate resource theory of
vi01~r.ce." TMs theory statas that vislence w i l l
be used as a resource when other resouzcss srr
lacking. Thus 2 tanily member with little
power, mor-y, or status is nore likely to resort
to vlolerce as a means of winning a c~cflict.
The chapters in ihls section usi vastly
dittsrent rn+%hods, but each comss to gzips "5th
the type of questicns just listed. ?

e Haven't
Since": Conjugal Violence
olitics of Marriage
Ralph LaRossa
JOE and Jennifer, the couple whose story we
follow in this chapter, is not the stuiy of a
"disturbed" couple.
varying degrees,
They, like other csuples in
have certain conflicts of
interest--some of which may end in vi3lence.
Thslr story gives us an inside view of the
interplay of cultural and social organizntional
factors in producing warits1 violencl. Is
pointed out in earlier chapters, the fact that
cultural norms permit violencs amsrg family
membqrs does not automatically mean that
viol~nce w i l l be used to resolv? c3nflict
situations. we must also understand the social
organizatioc of the marriage. This is vividly
illusfrated vhen Joe relates the time he slapped
Jenflfer
during a
"three
pariod
or
in
four times." This o=currea
their narriage when Joa
perceived Jennifer as attempting to doricate
the~r relationship. Joe responded to this
attempted coup with violerce because he felt hs
"had to do something to stop the bad progression
of events." In short, violenca was us~d vhen
other factors that in his mind voull validate
his claim to dominant power uers lacking.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In an attempt to help fill the need for ethrsgraphiss
3f Rn~~ican marriages, I recently co2ductld a qualrtative
study Of Sixteen married cJuples expecting their first child
(LaBossa. 1977).t1 By conversations with those couples led
me to c3nclud9 that, contrary to popular opinion,
confrontatios azd strugglo as well as conssnsus ard
equilibrinm are at the root of the marital union. The idea
thlt marriage is a ccrflLct system is hsrdly nova1 (see

Sprey, 1969. for example). what evidsntly his been lickicg
however is empirical suppaet for this contention.*2
he purpose of this chapter is to present a.
illustration of the cocflict theme. The casa study that
follows tells the story of Joe an& Jennifer (Pseudonyms), a
couple whose power struggls is manifested in 1 varisty of
ways. heir story is particularly sigcificsot bacauss of
the violent side to their relationship. Through ;heir
experience, the cold war metaphor, iaplicit in tho conflict
approach, truly comes to llfe.
JOE AND JENNIFER
Th? first pregnancy meant essentially two zhings to Jo+
and Jennifer. It meant that after having waited Pearly four
years they were finally starting a family, sonsthing they
had aluays wanted to do. It also signaled a chaogf in their
work strncture. For the first time since they ware married
JenLifsr would not be uorkino. nor? inoort.int. for the
firs: :=me smce they sere marri;d Joe would be ;he sole
wage earner. The significance of this latter point is that
Joe intended to ase his new position to m+ke a claim for
dominance in the marriage.
Joe was a metaphorical speaker. DftEn, vhile
discussing an issue, he uould (to "clarifya a point) brlnp
in anecdotes from hls personal experiences or relats the
issue to the in'ernationzl state of affairs. There were
tmss during my irterviews with this couple. I aust ccnfess,
when I wished he vould have been more specific in his
answers. I learned however that I had to accept, as others
had, that Joe uas just "deep."
Jennifer: Joe is a very deep thlnker, ard hs
always has soeethlng on hls m~nd. Pe car.
drlve you right up a wall!
Though Joe did most of the talking, Jennifer was not ar
a 1055 for words. Scmetimes she found it difficult to get a
word in etgeu~se or remember what question I had asked after
Joe had plcked i? up and ruz with iz for a uhils, but then
SO dFd I. Phen JenEifer did speak. she said %hat was on her
mind--as dld Joe: but, as she once said, what it took Joe
to say in a paragraph, she said in a sentence. On a number
of cccasions durine ~ X F interviews vhile Joe was building an
argument (and this vas particularly true if 33e's argument
mas an attempt to justify why he should be in charge) a feu
well placsd ucrdr by Jennifer and Joe's edifice uould come
tumbling dew.

Ch.(~- Eavcn't 5ad any Prcblems Since Page 159
JOE ard Jennifer had knoun each other since high
Sch~ol. Their first raactioc to each other was, as Jencifer
put ~ t, 'mntnal disgust." Both attribute this ts the fact
?hat they are each honest types--if they asn't like you,
they tell you-ard, in the beginning, they told each other
more of vhat 'hey didn't like than of vhat they liPe3. In
tloe, their hatred turned ro love. #ha: attraztad thpe to
each other was thsir similarities--their opeaness, their
aggzessiveness, and, interostirgly, what they saw as the
inability of either to dominate the other. it was a
relationship bullt explicitly or. corflict and honesty. (Joe
once described Jennifar as his "confessor,' +nd he hers.)
T ~ E couple could not recall any specific paint at vhich
the7 decided to gst marrled. "Someplace a1or.g the lice,' it
"as just assumed. Though they nay not have gone through the
rarr~age proposal ritual, the transition to the married
state was 0x3 they took very seriously. Joe and Jecnifer
yere a religions couple. Joe. In particular, prided hinself
on hls interpretations of ths Bible. They did not believe
iz di~orcs. They f~lt it reflected ueakn~ss--a couple's
inability to face llfe's problems.
when they got married, they lived solely on Jencifer's
income. Bavitg graduated from high school with a business
alploma, she worked as a bookkeeper. Joe was just beginning
hls thlrd year of college, studying to be an accouotart.
Actually. for rhE tirst three and a half years of their
marriage, Jencifer would be the primary wage earner. This
yas because after Joe was awarded his bachelor's degree, he
vent on ;o attad a postgraduate business schml which took
hlm a year and a half to complete.
~oth believed that the vay they sere aach raised
explained their personalities and uhy ,hay complemectel each
other. Jenn~fsr described hcr prs-marriage family life as
ore in vhich shs was the primary decisi3n-maker.
Jennifer: I uas always very inaependect bsfore
I got BaXrlEd. BS a matter of fact, my
parents were never my rule. I was the 1812
of my parents.
Joe, on the ether haad, was brought up in i patriarchal
home--all decisions Mere made by his father.
502: ... Bnd at my house it %as just the
opposite. ny father was a very strong father
Image. ?radltlocal. "Come to him, your
fath~r w i l l decide for YOU ."... Es rsuldn%
g i v ~ mr any responsibility.
Jennifer's iidependerce, they felt, was a Euncticc of
her tanng been forced to be independent all alcng. 309's
was a aanifcstatior of his rebellion against his father's

Ch.10. Kaven't Had Any ProDlems Since Page 16,
autocratic style ("I had to sort of assert nyszlf*),
According to Joe, Jennifer caae to the marriage wanting t,
"ge+, rid of" some of her power, and he caae "wanting s:re,l
so their relatlocship "worked out all right." Neither voul,
try to dominate the other.
Rlthough Joe claimed that Jennifer wanted less pare:
and ;ha? she would not try to dominate him, this evidentl:
was &sf the czse. Soaet5me during the first t u ~ years oj
their marriage, Joe and Jennifer got into in argum2nt thai
ended in violence--Joe struck Jennifer. The conflict was I
power struggle: Joe supposedly hit Jennifer becaust
Jernifer was trying to dominate. HE responded uith forcr
because he telt he "had to do something physical to st3p th'
bad progression of evente." The sequence opens uith mj
asklng Jennirer whether she thought she ran things now--that
15, does she Delieve she is "the rulef of JOE 35 shs was
"the rule" at her parents and sistors.
Intervieuer: DO you think you run things now?
JeCnlter: NO, I tried hard, though!
Joe: She tries. One day we had a conflict and
she mare or less tried to run me and I told
her n3, ard she got hystsrical and said, "I
could kill YOU!" And I got rather angry ana
slappad her in the face rhrfe or four times
and I said "Don't you 2V91 5+y that to me
again." And we haven't had any problems
since. so she's sort of learned that she
~sn't gomg to dominate.
Jernitsr: Yes, aT.6 1 krnd of llke 'he idea,
too.
Joe: She threw a temper rantrum when she
realized that she couldn't dominate ae, and
"her sha started getting hysterical, ... that's
the last time, kid! Yeah that's th? worst
argument ue ever had! That uas a drawn out
bang out fight. It lasted about four hours.
It sort of built and built...
Interviewer: Were you surprised uheo Joe hit
you?
Jo?: Oh, bey, was she.
Je~cifez: Yeah.
Joe: She started crying not because I hur; her
but becaase she vas shocked--"How lare you!'
Ittarvlewer: uhg d-d you hxt he:?

10. Ea~er't Bad A c ~ Problems Since Page 161
jennlfer: That was a long time ago.
~oe: That was a real long time ago. It's just
Like if you want to do som?thing like tear
down a house, what do you use? Do you use ao
atom bomb. or do you os? a crane snd hammers
acd stuff like that? It's just like physical
force. You dor't use it until you're forcG3
to use it. A t thet point, I felt I had to a3
something physical to stop thi bad
progression of events. I took my chances
with that and it uorkad. In those
circnnstanc9s, my judgment was correct and it
W C ~ ~ E I .
~ecnifer: Joe aoesn't usually use force. That
Ua5 the fzrst and the last tin€ he'll ?VEX a3
that. It was my fault. I was tryicg $2
dominate him, that's for sure. But I was
always that type of person. Chzt's vhy. I
always had to be that typs of person, becausE
I always had to naXe my ovr decisions. I
never had anybody else make my decisions.
Joe: I'm a very dominating psrson, t30. $3
there was a conilict there.
Jenlifer: I think rhat's one of the reasons v?
got along so w i l l , because he was the first
person I vent out with that I couldn't
dominate. So he was a challenge.
J09: That was a severe conflict. I don't know
Lf we hadn't solvea that problem, if wa w~ula
still be married, because of the tension.
I ' m not the ki~d of person that's going to b?
aomlnated.
Je~nlfer: R c ~ I'm not either.
JOB: 50 ve'w had to agree, thrmgh s process
of compromise, and talking this 3ut. We'ra
l:ving on reconcLliation and compromise and
understendirg.
Though lengthy, the Sequence is important. It is
Important not orly for what is said, but for how as vsll.
For example, the tenor of Joe's comnents--he speaks 2s if
~ennifer were auilty of disrespect or even insuborainstion
("Dm't you Ever ssy that to me again!".. ."Thai's the last
time. kid!"). ?"en more, there is ucdoubt2dly a csrtain
amount of pride expressed--he Gsx he had won 7h.t arguasrt.
Jenrlfer, on the other haid, is quick to point out "that was
the first a_= the 68t time feel1 erer do thet [hit h?r]."
She wanted to make it perfectly clear to me, but more

ch.10. Havez't Had sny Problens since Page 16
importantly tc JOE, that she too had no intention of beit
dominated--and. perhaps. that shs considered Joa's glcalin
a2 attempt to do just that! She goes on to admit that sb
married Joe because "he was a challenqe.' Does she mean b
this that she cozsiders Joe her opponent? Ths conflic
Patnrs of thelr marriage rs explicitly acknowledged whsn jo
concludes by saying that their relationship works
"reconci1ia:ion and compromise" (words which connot,
"conflict' as well as "ucdsrstandlng."
BS noted, Joe was a studeof for the first three and
half years of their marriage. When he graduated, h,
accepted an offer to work as an accountant with a lo=*:
firm. Ole month after Joe tcok :he job, the couple begal
trying to conceive a child. Four months later they founr
out that Jencifer was pregnant. They uer2 wideray jus:
biding their time, waiting for Joe to finish school--the
point at vhich +hey felt it would be time to start a family.
They always intended to have children. R s Jennifer put it,
they never "really seriously' cocsiderrd n3t hevin:
children.
Joe: I think having children is a
f l f l l e t People that are narrisd and
don't have children tend to get more selfish
as they get older. And I think there's a lot
of truth in that.
Jenciter: If you see people without children,
they tend to be vezy selfish, self-centered
people.
JOB: I thlnk people uho have children tead to
he more outgoing, acd have a healthier
attitude toward life.
They also bellered the chlld would brllg them closer '3 each
cther . Joe: I thick it's going to pull us tsgether
more... Each and every little item that you
do together or cac discuss together or have
il Conmon brings you clossr togethsr.
In anditlon to these reasors, the couple offered yet
%other reasor vhg they opted to have s child. They wanted
to star* 3 family befor? Jennifer got "ioo ambitious" in her
jcb. The fact is that while Joe may have just been starting
h:~ czreer, Jz~nifer had become quite established in hers.
She bad becans tt.e superv;sor of the bzokkesping dapartment
in the company she had bees
married.
working for SLnce they were
J~lzif~;: I fignrfd I better have one baror* I
gat too ambitious in my job. I was getting i

lot of proeotioLs and I decided if I got too
ambitious I may not want children. I might
get too involved 1n material things.
ind in another intervie*--
Jennifer: Tters's a point in your life "her you
shonld have 3 family-.. If ysu wait too
long, you start to believe that money is m3re
importan; thsn family life. I've seer. rh+t
happen to some other people.
508 and Jennifer's deemphasis of "saterial things" and
the:r positlvr regard for "family life' was, to a large
degree, an Outgrowth of their religious beliefs. Bt the
COrs of these beliefs is the notion that working is for
pei~onal fulfillment and cot for the monetary rewards it may
br=ag. Jennlfer spoke of beiLg a full-time mother, so I
asked her whether she believed she would ever return to
wort. She assured me she would, that she would like to work
zs a consultact eventually, if orly part-time. She felt it
was important for her to pursue her career, that "in this
day and age. you need more then just the family." It was
apparent that Jcnclfer's corcept of s ~ l f was related to her
career as well as to her family. So ues Joe's. While
533c:rer's ambitions ware being stifled, Jae's ambitions
"era being ralged. Jennifer once said that when her
"quiet," "subdued' family first met Jos, they were "sh3ckedt'
by hi5 ffank3ess. The impression the couple give hswerer
When they speak of the effect uhich moving fros stndsnt to
vorkPr had on Joe is that he had lost some of his
a~~ertlve~ess i C the interim. Through his work he 115s
eridintly regaining his indepecdence 3nd self-confidence.
JeoriSer: I think JOE is getting more
independent ... He's been working well with
all the business people he's beEa dealing
w i t h lately. RS'S gstti~g more
self-confident...
Intervrewr: Do you feel that Joe lacked
self-conf~dence?
Jenciier: I thlnk that "hen you first get out
of school YOU do. You're not ussd to being
-11-h hasines5 people. You're used to be=zg
with s~ude~ts.
I D ~ ~ ~ Y I E W Fhat ~ ~ : do you think about your s?lfcorfSderce,
Joe?
Joe: I thick I'm gairiig more self-confidsnce.
With more experience you know what ts do.
another self-confidence builder which Joe was rnrclvfd with

Ch.10. Haven" Had Eny Problems Since Page 16Y
was studying for the Certified Public Bccountant (CPA)
exams. Ee dianqt went to be a CPB. BE jnst wa~ted to pass
the exam and. as he said, "stick my tongue out." (.st whoa?
He didn't say.) Jernifer also warted him to take the exam so
that he would be more flexible. If he didn't like one job,
he would. be able to move to another with more ease.
The fact that both Joe and Jannifer's individual
concepts of self were so related to th~ir rsspective careers
is particularly interesting. When the subject of arguing
came up (I asked all the cauples vhar they usually argued
ibout), Joe ard Jenrifer said that ths thing they argued.
about the most was accounting and bookkeeping. When I asked
them why they argued so much about accounting and
bookkeeping, it became apparent that they considsr
themSE1Ves. sore 01 less, in the same business--the business
of handling money--and that in this business thsy bath hare
their own ideas. Actually, they seam to approech the
bnsiness f~om two airferDnt ---.-. mints of view. ~ o e . as an
~ A - ~ - ~, ~~accDuntant,
represenzs ~ h e abstract or rhsorotical
viewpoint. Jennifer, as a
concrete (down to earth) vieu.
bookkecpsr, represents the
R L later ~ on,
Interviewer: Why do you think you end up
arguing ahout it?
Jennifer: I thi~k rhatls something we both have
our own ideas or.
Joe: Sometimes I ' m inconsistent and shs points
it oat. E t Other times her knJwlsdge about
the subject is Lor as high as mine, so I have
to sort Of Educate her.
Jenrifer: I ' m more accurate and he's sore
knovlsdgeable. Put it that way.
Jennifer: HE'S an accountant, ana I'm a
bookkeeper-
Joe: Yeah. she's + bookkeeper. Bookkeepers can
fLnd errors, and accountants can make up
systems 2nd can decide hou the systels can
zur or why, and the bookkeepers can figti
errors.
Jan~:fer: Eookkeeper~ can correct accountarts'
mistakes.
Tt~' classic ~oztfli~t--~ducati~n
VB~SUS sxperie~ce--
seems to be at the root of their discussioc. Despite what
may appear to most of us as an intellectual ?xsrcise, the
fact that Joe and Jennifer's individual concepts of self are

ch.10. Har~n't Had Any Problems Since Page 165
so related to the money handling business makes their
con2rontations more than a dirersias. They "era, I believe,
man2festatLons of the same conflict that had bean going on
be'vsen them sicce they net in high school--who doainstes
whom?
Given that the onset of pregnancy signaled a change in
the work structure of the couple's marriage, on? might also
suspect that thslr perennial conflict vould develsp into
some interesting power plays and parries. This is, in fact,
essentially whet happened. Joe may heve rebelled agsirst
his father's attempt to exE:t control ss t he husbacd-father.
The74 rere, however, lndicztions that Joe too would have
lik~d to command Jernifer's respect an3 suboramation
because te too vas no* the aan of the house.
Joe: Hell, I'm a pure male chauvinist pig. and
I'll admit it.
Jennifer: Yeah.
JOE'S chznvinism, or more precisely his belief that he
should doninste Jennifer bscausf that's the way it should
be. was often not es explicit as the above adaiss:on, but
thsre was no mistaking its Existence in some of Joe's other
comments. Por exaeple:
Joe: 1 doo't really discuss the pregnancy that
much with others. I let Jennifer do all ths
aiscussing... my backgrourd with the people
In this area: %he nsn just don't discuss
pregnancy...ve let the women take care of
that.*3
Joe: It seems like there's a breakdown in
TO~ES, if you know what I'm gftticg at. It
seems like zll the women "ant to ba coal
alners zll of a sudden. It seems ro be th?
thi~g to do. Ey theory is: that the vomEc
would be better off to star home and take
care of the kids and take care of tha social
clubs and that sort of stuff. And the men 93
out znd earn the money... I think the basic
problem rith juverile delinquency and the
*hole mess that this country is in is that
ths mar goes out and works, and ths woman
~ O E S OE* and works, and the children are left
Dome...
Unfcrtunately for Joe, Jennifer wouldn't buy his
ideological (the culture says that's :he way it's SUDPOSEB
to be) theory or who doainates whom. To be a master, one
must have a slave. Sat the byproawct of

Ch.10. Aaveh'i Had Eny Problems Since Page 166
~ > -.--- ~.~ ~ ~- ~ ~- ~ ~ -- - -. ~
cali& the nsource theory of pouer. his theory argues
that the allocation of tasks and power is based (or should
be basod. it you're using it as a maxim which Joe was) or
the comparative resources of the members of a society and by
the life circuwstancss within - ~~~ which thev live. In more
sznple terms, what thi; means for the 'micro society.
marriage, is that the division of work ma, most
importantly. power is deesrmined not by ideology but by who
brings in more resources. R resource is deficsd as anythirg
that one partner may make available to the othan, helping
the latter satisfy his or her needs or attain hls :r her
goals (Blood and Xalfe. 1960:12). Boney and expertise.
example, might qualify as resoures.
for
Rithin the resource theory system. Joe's claim to pouer
would be structurally based on the asssrticn that hf was
bringing in what some ccuples consider thc most iapsrtant
resource--money. Perhaps Jennifer tried to use this
justification to domilate Joe auring the first three acd a
half years of t heir marriage. She was then th% breadwinser.
Rod perhaps Joe, though he (literally) fought her attempts
durlng the early years of their marriage to make such a
claim, eventually was convinced of h?r deficition of the
situation. would this explain his loss of self-confidence
that getting a job (resources?) helped him to regail?
Fherher or not Joe was making a claim basea on rules which
had existed all alorg, it was obvious he anticipai,ed using
uhat he saw as his caeperatively greater resources to
support his domination. Wi*h the transitiox to parenthood
he would become the breadwinner, he would have the
responsibilities, and he would be ia charge...cr sa he
hoped.
Joe: I'm sort of proud and happy now that my
wife's pregnart and we're going to have a
child. and it was the motivating farce in
terms of me thinking about being the
breadwinner, assuming a specific role. She's
going to be staying home. Before, I was just
another person going out and WorKing and nav
I'm going to be the breadwinner...
Icfervisver: Do ycu lite that?
JOF: I thlnk it's nice to feel that you'rp
raking charge. .. V h ~ n you have
reSpOnEibil~ties, you end up being in charge.
OPCS agaln, to Jos's frus~ration. Jennifer vouldn't buy
his theory on who dominates whom. She mads it clear a
number of times during the interviews that she had no
intention of endorsing Joe*s claim. The sequence which

ch.10. Haven't Bad Any Problems Since Page 167
follows illustrates Joe's moves and Jennifer" counntzroves
in thelr negotiation of power.
Intervlever: In the organization of your
marriage, are you the boss?
Joe: In the circumstances here, in the uay
we're dividing the authority, now she's gofng
to be the housewife and I'n going to b€ th2
principal breadwinner. That mores me up 2
notch in terms of baing the breadwinner ana
having the say in financial matters. Sh3's
going to be in control of the house
ex~losively. She's going to have more say in
what goes on vith it, even mare so vith the
furnishings of the house.
Jenclter: I don't thick he's the boss, b?canse
I never
either.
thought of ~~yself as being the boss
Interviewer: What do you think of 502'5 notion
that if he's making the aoney, he's a notch
up on you?
Jennifer: Oh, that's his idea.
Joe: Well. I think when. ..anybcdy does
something to assume responsibility in a
specific area, there is sort of a raising of
him there in euthority in that area. ?ha:'s
211 I'm trying to get at. Because I w i l l be
the sole breadvinner, my authority w i l l go up
slightly.
Irterviever: So your authority is going up hsre
and Jenrifer's is going dovn here. [I
motioned vith my hands to indicate two
aitterent levels. 3
Jecnifsr: I'd still work on that one... It's
still going to work th+t mine vill go up
there. [Translation: I "ill still have 3s
much authorzty as he has.] Re thinks that ray
[bur I know better].
InfErvLevar: Do you believe he's the boss
b4C2~59 hers the breadvrrrer?
Jennifer: 60 can tslisue it if he wants.
Interviever: What do you think he believes?
Jennifer: I thlnk he's more of a hsusehclder.
Thaz's a better word.

Ch.10. Havec't Bad Any Problems Since page 168
Joe: Yeah. I get stepped upon!
[Laughter].. .for example, it there shoula be
a prowler in the house and they had a gun, I
would probably assume responsibility in that
circumstance because I'm in charge sf the
weapons. and I'm the more physical, violect
personality? [Laughzer] So I would take mars
rfsponsibili~y 1n that circumstance bscause I
am more knovledgeable. Now if she was
gung-ho on guns, I'd say. "Here, you go
downstairs..." [Laughter] That sort of thing.
In times of emergency I take over... We each
assume our own responsibilities
area.
i C our our
Intervlever: But you're going to be head of the
household.
Joe: Yeah. [Laughter] I like the way you said
that!
Inter~iewer: what does it mean to be head of
the household?
Jennifer: It neens nothicg. [Laughter]
Joe: This is what it means. It means nsthirg,
but when a job is botched up, the buck stops
here. That's what it means! [Laughter] ...
What I'm saying is if I the sole
breadwinner. I think over a period of time
I'll be feeling more authority in specific
areas doe to the Circumstance that I'm
familiar with. If she should get a job, my
responsibility as sole breadwinner woold have
to go down. And hers w i l l start t3 rise.
She's the on9 who's going to be in contact
with the kid more time than I an, so 1'8
going to have tc lean over and say. "OK,
she's the boss when it comes TO taking care
of and making decisions about this little
kid." See what I'm gstting at? Because this
turns the area of responsibility, bscause
she's more in touch with it. and s3 Jn and s3
forth. So what happens is that there are
many areas of responsibility. So at any
given pclnt in time, you assuse "boss if the
caz.'> "boss of the ueapons," "boss for hone
defense." "boss for beirg breadwinner.' 'boss
tor heavy manna1 labor," "boss for repairs
and rep1aceaents.n "boss over the tool^.^
Her--"boss for childbearing, childcariny,
food, shopping, household decisions*...I was
just trying to explain that because I an
earning the money solsly that I probably w i l l

ch.10. Aaven't Bad Any Problems Since PagE 169
end up having nore decision making pouer in
that area.
Jennlter: Yeah. but I know hov to handle it
more.
TherE 2re a number of things worth noting in the above
sequence. Plrst of all, Joe's claim is bound to run irto
trouble from the start. Ee is atteapting to argue that
since he is the breadwinner, he is to hare "the say" in
financial Batters. Given their sensitivity to money
handling. Jennifer's fical reply, "Yeah, but I know how to
handle it [money] more [because I'm a bookkeeper and you're
an abstract accountant]," is predictable. SBcordly,
although Joe elaborates on his claim by arguing that
responsibility Implies authority, and that Jennifer w i l l ,
because of her responsibilities, be "boss" of Some areas
too, the tact is soae areas have more veight than others.
The area in this household which carries the most veight is
the flnancial area. Joe knovs this, but tben so does
J~rnlfer. She retusfs to give Joe's claim validity by
derying rt access to tCEir world of conseosull rules ("Oh.
that's his idea..." "Re cen believe it if he wants..." "It
means nothing") .
Toward the end of the pregnancy, it appeared Chat Joe
had not given up on an ideological claim to power, that he
in fact uould resort to both ideology and resources to
support his po~er play. By the fourth intsrvieu, Jennifer
had quit work and was trying to adapt to being a housewife.
It was difficult for her. She took a great deal of pride in
th9 work she had dons, the books she had set
department she supposedly had straightened out.
up, the
when she
left, everything in the department started to "fsll apart."
The person who took JennifErqs place didn't want to learn
what to do, so they claimed, and as a consequence Jennifer
had been called a number of times to give sssistarce over
the phone. The whole affair provokfd a conflict betveen Joe
and Jsnnifer. In spite of Jennifer's attachment to her
previous job, Joe wanzed her to "let go." He was actually
quite vehemen; about it. H i s threat of rhat he uould do "if
they [Jennifez's former co-uorksrs] call up" is intsresting.
A9 says he is goi3g tc "act like a father" when he tells
:hem t3 stop call:,g. Is it his father he is going to act
like. his Either
for Jce? Erd for
the patriarch who maae all the decisions
vhon is he acting--JenciferVs former
co-workers or Jenr~ifer, herself?
Joe: ... If they call up here, I ' m going to get
on the phone and act llke a father. Bnd 1's
golng 70 tell them, "Hey, you'd better hold
up now, and if you call once acre, I'm going
to punch you lr the mouth." and I'n goirg to
hang up an them. End I know they are going
to bother her. I don't want that to happen.

Ch.10. Haven't Had Iny Prcblems Since Pags 170
Joe once said that he felt the pregnancy made him more
of a man and Jernifsr more of a mornan. Perhaps what he
neat by this is that fir:ally he can draw that line as his
father drew the line. whether Jennifer w i l l be able to
continue to resist remains to be seen.
CONJUGAL VIOLENCE AND THE POLITICS OF NARRIAGE
Joe and JenEifer's relationship appears to be bullt on
rntarpersonal conflict--"an inconparible 8iffersccE of
objective . . . a desire cn the part of both Contestants to
attain Ghat is available only to one, or only in partw
(Dahrendori, 1959:135). The conflict between them may be
viewed in essentially oce of two ways-as a sign of a
"disturbed" or '#sick" relationship, or as a normal
COnSEquenCe cf the marital bond. The first conception, the
consensus approach. assumes that the husband-wlfe union is a
r;lationship based an agreement and homeostasis. Thf second
concepticn, the conflict approach, assumes that dissensus
and struggles for power are inherent qualities of a
marriage. The first conception is the popular one.
muever, the validity of this conception has been questioned
in many of the chapters of this book and by sociologists
such as sprey. sprey (1969). for example, argues that the
~o~sensus approach is based on two fallacies: (1) the
bellEf that participation in the family is a voluntary
matter. and (2) the notior that the family is a buffer
berween the individual and society.
TO dispnte these claims, Sprep notes first that
membership in one's rats1 family is obviously not by choice,
and that there is no real normative alternarive t~ the
marhied state as a life career in our society, and secondly
that conceiving the family as a world into vhich one may
withdraw from the conflicts of everyday life erronsously
assumes that individuals are somehow apart froa rathsr than
involved in socisty. A conflict approach is of course not
new to social scierce (cf.,Robbes. narx, Simmel). For some
reason, however, it has traditionally been resezved for
explainma macro level relations (for example the class
struggle) end norfamilla1 oicro encounters (the presectetion
of self in everyday life). The approach is just b?ginning
to gain slgnificart suppcrt among family researchers.
Presenred here as an isolated case, Jos and Jennifer's
story may cams across as a docoasnt of a "disLurbsd"
relationship. Constdered ic conjunction with the other
conple~ i= the largar study froa which this case study was
taken, however, Joe and Jennifers's marital experience does
not seem that orusnzl. The fact is all the sanple couples,
in one way or another and in varying degrees, were involved
in an ongoing interpersonal confrontation. What about Joe's
violence toward Jennlfer dnrirg the first two years of their

ch.10. Raven't Bad hny Problems Since Page 171
,,,arriago? Is this "usual?" It is true that of the sixteen
couples in my sample only two disclcsed a Violent ~ncounter
(the other couple also said the vife uas the victim;
ssesed to be a precipitator). Not t3 be overl~oked
boxever is the fact that recent mquiries into the incidence
~f taaily violence suggest that conjugal violence may irdeea
be a usual occurrezce (see Chzptsrs 1 and 2). The research
indicates that Joe ard Jsnniferrs marriage may be sore
typtcal than we realize, or would like to believa.
Recen? attsapts to Explain family violence have. in
fact. resulted in the dsvelopment of theories uhich
coapleaenf the conflict approach. The conceptualizations
proposed by Allsr. and stzaus (Chapter 1%) and by Brown
(Chaprer 11) are cases in point. Each of these theories
sees husband-wife violence as a consequence of an intsrplap
bBtYeen cultural and social structural variables rather than
psychopathological factors. Implicit in eich is the
assertion that social conflict is t9$2 the
organization of the corjugal system and of the larger
society vith uhich that system transacts.
Drawing from the work of Goode (lY7l), Rodman (19721.
and RO~ETS (1379).
nUlt5rnate Resource"
Blleo ard Straus' chapter proposes th4
theory of conjugal violsnce.
Esse~tially the theory suggests that in an
individUallsticallp oriented urban-industrial society (for
example the United States) where male superiority norms are
weak and somewhat ambiguous and where the pr?sumption of
male saperiority must be validated by
"resources" (such as material goods and
sup?riari:y ic
valued person51
traits). violence w i l l be invoked by an indiviaual who lacks
other resources to serve as a basis for power. In other
words, 9iolence may be understood as ths "ultimate ressurce"
for sustaining a power claim. Ellen arc7 Straus' theory
offsrs a cogent explanation of why Joe resorted to violenco
to stop what he saw as "the bad progression of events." &:
the time of the encounter, Joe lacked the resources to
ground his patriarchal ideology ("I'm a pure male chauvinist
pig, and 1111 admit it"]. Economically supported by
Jennifer, he could not rely on any "extrinsic" ressurces
(sccnomic acd prestige conffrricg characteristics) is a
basis for power. Purthezmore, Jennifer implies that Joe's
..-ansic" resources (valued personal traits) mre also low
during thli time when she remarks later on that Joe seemed
to be "getting more ind~pendent...sore self-confident* as a
result of his (now) being with "business people" rath4r than
"sf~fi4nls."fU G ~ Y E
ideology v%rsus vife
~ ttis iebalance--husband d0minar.t
dominant resourcp structure (st
mbalance that Allsn and Straus see as characteristic of t h
worklng class)--ope would expect (assuming the validity of
the "Ultimate Resourcen theory) that Joe weald resort to 3
Slap in the face "three or four times" to show Jennifer that
desplte his lack of "extrinsic' and "irtrirsic" resources,
hr is "not the kind of person that's [sic] going to be
~

Ch.10. Haven't Aad hny Problems Since Page 172
dominated."
Joe's threat of violence during the final reeks of the
pregnancy may perhaps also be interpreted within the Rlles
and Straos framework. Was Joe threatening Jenniferqs
co-workers ("If you call once more, I'm going to punch you
in the mouth") 31. was he in fact indirectly threatening
Jennifer? A s long as Jennifer held on to her job, Joe could
not base a claim for power on his greater economic position.
The Education versus experience debats makas it clear that
Jennifer did not see her occupational status as below Joe's.
Was he commuLicating to Jennifer that if her career was
goirg to contilue to interfere he would have n2 choice but
to fall back on the "ultimate resource" to show her he
intEnded to be "boss?"
Joe and Jennifer also illustrate the processes
describes in Brown's chapter on "8ife Bnplopmant, flarital
Equality, and Rusband-Wife Violence" (Chapter 11). Brov~
notes the increase in the number of working wives in Ao~rica
and the corresponding decrease in husband pou%r that this
change implies ("Since money is a resource in marriage, ve
may assume that as more wives contributed ts the family
income the paver of the husband was affected inversaly").
- Brown - devsloDs - ~ a thearv that "traces out ~ . the known and
~ - - ~ ~ ~ - - L
- ~~~ -
theorstical consequences of vife employment and seeks to
answer the question or whether one of the consequences of
uife ~mplopment is an increased level af husband-wife
conflict and violence."
The argument is made that one consequence of the
increased economic ildspandencs of the uife is a change in
her authority
equalitarian.
expectations
Since the
from
male
husband dominant to
has traaitionally been
ascribed superior statas in our society, this attitude shift
leads to a conflict between the wife's equalitarian
authority expectatiocs and the husband's male superiority
norms. The critical question from Brounls point of view is
"Does the
strocture?'
husband accept
If the answer
the equalitarian
to this question
authority
is n2, the
conflict w l l l be seen as illegitimate and the husband vill
revert to trzditio~al domicating techniques increasing the
likelihood of violent conflict. If the answer to the
question is yes, the intimacy in the couple's relationship
w i l l increasn (owing to shared aspects of life) a2d this
increase w i l l in turn iscrease the conflict in the marriage.
("Increasing intimacy brings with it an increasing awareness
cf, and confronta%on urth, the uniqueness of the othsr."
sprey, 1971r729.) 59vevar. the conflict brought on by the
Increased irtimacy w i l l be seer as legitimate-that is,
Constructive and highly desirable--decreasing ths likslihood
of violent conflict. Whether Jennifer's economic
independence prompted a change in her authority expectations
is not clear. She may have held equalitarian or vife
dominant expectations Epye she became a bsokkeeper. Be

ch.10. Haven't Had Iny Problems Since Page 173
that as it may. th~re is no doubt that Jennifer's ideas on
who should be in charge conflicted with Joe's traditional
thoughts on the subject. Confronted with the corflict
between Jennifer's authority expectations, and his own male
superiority norms, how does Joe react? 9e continually
refuses to accept the authority structure which Jennifer
proposes. It could be said (assuming the validity of
nraun's thearvl ~ -- ~- that Joe's slao was one manifestation of his
~ . ~~- ~ ~ . - ~ ~- -~
~~
resorting to traditional dominating techniques vhen his
superiority was threatened.
Parricularly significant is the neaning which Joz and
Jennifer impute to the violent incident. Both see the
encounter as an act that was appropriate, given the
situation (Joe: "1 had to do something physical ..."
Jencifer: "It was my fault.") Their responses provide an
example ot what Gelles (1974:59) calls "normal
~io1encE"--violence that is accepted, approved, and even
mandated in family interaction. The existence of this type
of violence is yet another demonstration of how social
conflict can be built into the orgacizatiox of a Barrisge.
It is Lotevorthy that marital violence is being
conceptualized by these researchers as an act that has both
ideological and social structural antecedents. Their dual
~CCUS 1s ir accord vlth sy conclusions ao the conflict
approach. Specifically, the conflict approach suggested by
the intezvieus does not imply simply an exchange framework.
Rather, the conflicr process emerges as a system*5 in which
the marital symbol structure (convertional sign structure)
a5 well as the marital exchange structure (rssource
structure) influence. ar.d are influenced by, the marital
pover srrucrure (the ability of the husband to affect
marital life versus the zbility of the wife to affect
marltal life). In other words, marital politics (the
distribution +nd exercise of power) is not based simply on
ideology (for example. ths husband is in charge b~cause
that's "the vay it's supposed to be") or on exchange (the
husband is ir charge because he is bringing to the marriage
rewards--money. status--that satisfy his vifa), but on a
sythesis of the tuo.*6

Ch.10. ilaven't Had Rny Problems Since Page 174
NOTES
*I am indebted to Baureen LaRossa and Howard 8.
Shapiro for their helpful comments or an earlier draft of
this chapter. This excerpt is reprinted from Conflict and
pQvEr La earrraae: asc$Lrg f& p=rz$ BLLP by Ralph
Laxossa. Sage Library of Social Research, Vol. 50. (c)
1977, pp. 69-82 by pfrmission of the Publisher. Sage
Publrcations. Inc. (Beverly Eills/London) .
1. The research is essentially two studips il one.
manifestly, it is a study of haw married couplas respond to
the first pregnancy--to the transition to parenthood. nore
important, and at a higher level of abstraction, it is a
study of the structure and pheoomenologp of the husband-wife
relationship. Sixteen married couples vere interviewed
during the twelfth, trentieth, tvecty-eighth, ttirty-sixth
weeks ot their respective first pregnancies. The interviews
vere conjolnt (husband and wife together) and unstructured
(nonstacdardized) . They were conducted in the couples'
homes, were taped and later transcribed. Analysis of the
interne" transcipts was qualitative (the conceptual
components ot explanation vere developed. for the most part.
from the data).
2. Sprey (1969) cites research that he feels
"chronicles" or "illustrates" the conflict framework (Bach
and Qydsc, 1968; Brim a&.. 1961; xaukins, 1968: Levis,
1967; Scanzonl. 1968). To these one could add Larson
(1974) and Rausch g . (1974). Each of these
investigators does offer some finding(s) that may be
interpretEd as support for the conflict approach. None of
these studies. however. confronts the major assumptions of
the conflict approach. In other words, none addresses the
question of how conflict is intrinsic to family life, or how
families manage rather than resolve conflicts. lone of
these studies focuses on the political dimension, the
nucleus. ir. my opinion, of the family as a conflict system.
of the studies cited, Bach and uyden (1968) perhaps comes
the closest to addressing these issues. Their rssearch is,
howevEr, based or clinlcal impressions.
3. Joe's reference to "the people in this area" is
irteresting. Bosn and raised in rural New England. Joe
seems to be claiming that there exists a geagraphically
based subculture and that he is part of it.
4. The idsntiticatio~ of 'extrinsic' ar~a "intrinsic'
rssources is from Blau (1964:20-22).
5. The definition of a system subscribed t3 is
Buckley's (1968:493). "Re define a system in general as a
complex of elements or components directly or irairectly
related in a causal network, such that at least soma 3f the
components are related to some others in a nore or 155s

Ch.70. Xaven't Had Any Problems since Page 175
stable way at af.p 23 GE, The interrelations may be
matual or unidirectional, linear, non-linear O r
in?-rrniAtent. and - ~ ~ varvixo - . , in d64rees of causal efficacy or
prisrizy. The particular kinds -of more or less stable
interrelationships or components that become esrablLshed at
any time constitute the particular s=us;s"f
at that time."
the systel
6. Sprey (1972:237) makes the point that a conflic?
approach "implies a framework of exchange." He does not
explain rhat he meaxs by this. If however he is saying that
cognitive sociology (symbolic interaction, phanoaanslogy)
has no place within a conflict approach, then I must
disagree. In my opinion (and I believe family violence
r~searchers would concur with me on this), a more
appropriate way o? stating the cass is that a conflict
approach implies politics (the distribution and arercise of
power), and polit~cs entails not only the ability to affect
reilfoscenent contingencies (exchange) but also the ability
to affect the defirltio7. of the situation (symbols). For a
discussion of this issue as it applies to the stuay of
marital power, see Safilias-Rothschild (1971).

ife-Employment, Marital Equality,
and Husband-Wife Violence
Bruce W. Brown
A theme in the previous chapter that
pervaded the dialogue between Joe and Jecnifer
was the issue cf wife employment. In this
chapter. Frown suggests that on2 consequence of
V~IES VOrkiPq is an increased level of
husband-wife cofflic? and violence. The
increased econDmic independence of the married
woman changes her auChority expectations from
husb3nd dominant to equalitarian, ana leads to s
conrllct betUEPn the wife's FEY authori'y
expectations md *he husband's male superilriry
norms.
A crucial cocticgency in Brown's
formulation is whether the husband accepts the
equalitariac authority sTructure. If not,
attempts to disrupt his power claims may be mst
with violent rssistzncs, especially if he is
lacking in other resources. Ic the case of Joe
+nd Jennifer, Jsnnlfer's actempt to alter the
zuthority structure of tb=ir marTiZgE caus~d J?E
to use violecce.
1 forther con+ribution of Brcun's chaptsr
15 his irvestigatlon of the factzrs ?haL
~nfluence the husband's acceptance or rejectiob
of equelitarian 2uAh3r5'y pafzerns. la ?b.=
reader w i l l aots. many of ths factors he list5
are bourd up in aais sex role Expectarions that
le3Ve men unprepared far dovelopin3
relatiocstips the? call for shared pnvEr an3
equal task allocation wiLh women.

Research on family pover has emphasized :he hscsficial
effects of the equalitaria? marriage style. It has been
heralded in the popalar culture as a cure-all for *h3
ailments of contemporary sarriages. Aovever, others such as
straus in Chapter 6. Kolb and Straus (1974). and whitshurst
(1974) who have studied the Emerging equalit3rizn sarriag-
style concluded that, vhcterer the ultimate benefits. Suricg
the transition period, the move toward equality betveen ths
sexes may cause many problms.
Such a chanae toward "re sexual equality in the
fcmily, like any other drastic charge ir th?
soclal structure, poses problems, at least
duzicg the trarsrtion periaa. Inaividuals
socialized +.o operate in 028 systsm of family
organization m3y have difficulty opsrst5ng under
new stazd~rds (Rclb and Stnaus. 1974:756).
The focus of this chepter is en explanatisn of c7.e c
the factors that led Whitehurst (197U:76) to sugger
"...that the cocflict bstueen the emsrging equalitarFe
social strncture znd the cortinuing male-sup9ricrity noro
w i l l tend tc increase rather thac dccreass conflict a1
violence betyeen husbands End wives." This chspt-r ?rat€
out the known and theorezical consequences c
wife-saploymsnt and ccnsiders the question of whether one c
the consequences of wife-cmploympct is an increased level c
husband-ulEf corflict ard violence.
LEGITIBRTION OF SERITBL POWER
Blood and Wolfe (1960:ll) think that no change ic the
American faaily is more significant thac the shift from
ore-sided male authority to the. sharing of pover Prd/or
authority by the husband aad uife. P~YCT and aothoritp are
i~volved in przctically ?very aspect of merriage.*l PS Kolb
and straur; (1974:757) state:
... the degrse of control ~xercised by family
memb~rs over ace arather is an Element of family
s:=ucture affected by 8x6 ir turn effacting macy
other aspects cf family integrstiln aod
~nterzct~cr.
Blood and Wolfe's (1960:12) analysis c9ntras:i tv?
so~rces of power ir 'ha oarital r%l3+ionship: "culture ana
conpetnncs." Briefly. their cultural Explanation of pacer
stetss that Dover lies in the ha-ds of the partner "ha the
culture dictit;s should have that pouPr. Io this case,
Elood and Uolfe zpphrently are specking of iuthority, the
right to exercise power. In our own culture, the popular
vifv has beer that "the men shoula be the hes3 of th?
house."

Ch. 11. Ulfe-Fmploymert Psg= 178
FnPLOYnENT BND POWER
flacy researchers think thet no other factor has
affected the balance of pcuer in Amsricar marriages mcrc
than the increase in ?he number of vorkicg viv%s. klaous
(1974:232), for example. says that:
... with 65.7 percent of aarrind vomec presecrly
engaged ir gainful employment. incluaing 20.6
percent of uown with childrec undcr six years
of age, people nc longer are willing to accapi
the rorms legitimating and prrscribirq s
segregated conjugal role organizstior.
AcCordiLg to the rescurce th~ory of pcvEr ?he increased
res3uxes of working wivss hav~ important implicatiors for
marital power and for ideology concerning marital au'h3riiy.
Sicce socey is a resource in marriage, as the wife's
resources increase. her pow== prssueably also increases and
she is in a better bargaining position to suggest or demand
a more equalitarian +u?hori+y strocture.
LS the casa of Joe and Jennifer illustrates, this
transition to a more FqU3l sharing of anthority apps3rs to
be particularly difficult for husbacds. PC Icubt, many
COPt~mpOrery husbands ard wires vi?v 'he wife's rrplcymert
es a necessary income supplement. This, however, do?s no?
guaEartee thet husbends w i l l find some of the l'u:.ictirded
corsequances" of w~fe-employment easy '3 %&just to. Purks
and W21r (1976:28Q). for example, t3ur.d that husbands of
working wives were less s?tiefiad w i t h =hair n3rriZ"ns *tr2
husbands of nonworking uivss. FurT.hermore, a?er profcmirist
me? seem to prefer 3rfamily woman" to 'career womer." (Stapp
and Pines, 1976). The reasor for husbacds' difficulty wiih
a2 equal sharirg of authority is essentially a csrflicl
betueec +he two bases of pover just discussed--cultural
norms 2nd individual resources. In terns of individual
reso~rces, employed Y~VEC shonld share in the au'horitv
structure at ?h+ mirriage. ~ovever, th= populsr culture and
the legal system (veitzman, 1975) tall husbands just The

Opposite. Kclb and S+raus (197r1:761) cite a recent Barris
Poll to supporr their statement that "both in law ?nd in
popular opilioc, the husbcnd is still expactsa to bs the
tamrly 'head' or leader."
WIPE-EBPLOYBZNT AND TEE CAELLSAGE TO XSCRIBSD
EELE BUTAORITY
The remalrder ot this chapter is concerned vtth en
~xplaratior of the hypothesized relationship bsLueen
wife-employment ard husbard-wife niolencs. "Violent-," as
=sea in this chapter, refers to @?ys:cg&
h~5b2nd6 and wives.
violence bgtweer
Ue begx vitk the prcpasitian rhat smplaymant of the
wrfe provides her with increased resourc9s. These ranaurces
12 turn lead to increased power. In the majority of
stndies, power 232% been corstrued as decisior-aakirg and +he
two ccncepts have come to bs UP& interchangeably
(satilias-Pothschild, 1970). B numbex of these studFes
tomd that xarklng wives exert nore influence in
de~is:o~-rn+kl~g.*2 With =his shift toward scre equal pover
between husbard icd vife, the wit? comes to expect a change
to squaiitarian authority (Blood and Bamblir, 1958). To the
extent thar this change occurs, wife-saplcyment may lsid to
an urdermrning of ascribed male authority pltrercs. RF
scznzor.i (19'lo:lss) statss, "The wife is more m0tivat.a ?o
'go along' with him, to 'give in* to him, to let 'his hare
hLs way' to the extent that he provraes maximue zc3nonic
rewards.' If the husband 1.5 c3 laager provisinq nzximum
economic reuerds, because the vife is now involved tc %His
funct:~~. she 1s cot i5 irclined "'5 go zlonq with him."
Eomans (1961:287) put this idea more ger.frally in '.he
propo~itior that "the most important single 53ctoz in rn8kir.g
a man a laader rs...the ability to provide rare an8 valued
rewards for his followers." If a husband c0 lcnger p ~ 3 0 F d ~ ~
rara and valued rewards for his "tollouer," Sectus- she
herself DOV pmv:des %hem. the husband no longer is in a
position tc be the ucquestionsd leader. The result is an
attempt to shift from a dominant-subrissive to an
equalitariac authority structurs within the marriage.

Ch.11. w~fe-zmploymepi Page 180
norms. Empirical data shcv the existence of such conflic's.
Specifically, Gianopulos and aitchell (1957). Bye (1958 and
1963). acd Glilzer-Balbir (1975:Table 7) found thzt rn-rital
conflict is more frequent emcrg couples in uhich the vlfe is
employed. As stated e~rlifr, Whitehurst thinks 'hst ths
conflict betweex the emerging equalitarian authority
strncture and male superiority norms uiLl inzreasa
husband-wife violence. he remainder of this chapt~r aeals
with the conditions under uhich Uhitehurst's asserfi?n may
be correct.
FACTORS INFLUENCING EUSBAND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE EQUALITPRIAN AUTHORITY STRUCTURE
The husband's acceptaxce or rejection of 'he
equalltar-an authcrlty structure is clntingect upon a cumber
of variables. The PX&SFP? thecry deals with f~ur of those
variables:
1. degree cf compulsive masculinity
2. degree of anticipafory socializatioc
3. degr49 of role clarity
4. degree +C which the transition facilit3tes g3al
attainment.
C&"E~&~XB nasculinit~. Pars3ns (1947) sees
"~O~pulsi'r~ masculinity" as the result of the effort 2n the
pert of man to assert their masculinity and x~pudiate a
~ainr8.l ider:ification with their mothers.
ccmpuisive miscolirlty syrdro~e have bsen
Eleaents sf the
analyzid by a
number of other sociolcgists. For example, Selsuick and
Peek (1971) think that Ewericar msa
tough aPd to avoid shovirg emotions.
are scci3lized to be
Evidence f3r the ideal
of toughness Tn men is supplied in a Canadiac survey
conducted by Goldfarb (1970. as cited in Uhit?hurst,
1974:80). ir which 61 percent of ths rpspondeots felt men
should ba tough and nct back away from a ftght. Ross
(19721, in a top-sslectior study, colfirsed the erarmous
pressures by family and society fo: boys to behave lr. the
accepted masculine way. Uhen bops were giver. s toy
appropriate for the opposiCe sex, they shoved acxiety,
l~dicatlng that an inappropriate toy u3uld mean
embarrassment and possibly pur.ishment.
One aspect cf the wacc~p~ed mssc~li~? my" is fcr
hn~b~cds to be domznant cver their wives. Fsr many
husbards, aL equal sharirg of authority vlthin the marriags
may be viewed 2s a "lack of masculinity#* on their part.
are moving toward an age o: eouality between the sex?=,
We
and
cur difficulty in aeklng this tzarsirlox depelds in part on
the degres cf compulsive masculinity exhibited
in our society.
by husbands

Ch.11. Wlfe-E~ployment Pagr 181
------ B?.ticiEtm so&cii;=gy:op. Anticipatory s3cializz?ion
is defined as thl adoption of the norms and salups of ? roli
before being in a social situztion "hers it is apprcpriats
(Berton, 1957:265 and Burr, 1973:125). Husbands ir Rm?rican
soci9ty have not received much anticipatory s3cializ2tian
for an equal shening of mazilal auth3rity. In fact. just
the opposite seems to be trus of Smerican boys, who hold
~ ~ ~ attitudes 1 s t by t h ~ t01?d.fr age of two (Kuhn, 1976).
Eovever, tc the extsnt that a reu and more egualLtarian
marital ideology permeates the culture through ths mass
media, t h temlnist ~ movem~nt, and family ard sea aducatioc
in the schccls, men w i l l find it easier to accapt this new
marital authority structure uher faced with the Lssu4 il
thFiT 3 % marriage. ~
- Role -- - Clara. ---- Cattrell (1992:6181 defircs rcle clarity
as 'the degree to which thara :s a set of explicit
definl~ions of t h ~ reciprocal behavi3r expected." Bs
mentioned preuiously, t h trarsition ~
to equalitarim marital
authority structures is a difficult one. espscially for
husbands. Komarovsky (1973) tound that althouqh males aqres
verbally vith equality betveen tho sexes, *hiy are still
attached emotionally to treditianal attitudes and p3ttercs
of behavior. Since the amouct of role clarrty influences
thc EasE of transition into roles (Burr, 1973:127), one of
the reasoxs husbands ere experiencing difficulty nay be th?
lack of clarity concerning their roles es meritel partners
in an equali+.ariar aurharity structure.
R role-model of an equalitarian husbard is hardly to be
found in our culture and, therefore, no explicit s=t of
definitions exists for +kc husband to follow. nszitsl role
prescriptiocs. although moving in ths direction sf iccr+asea
EqUalitaTianism since 1900, still tend to relegate husbands
to the provider role and vines to the hoaernak?~ acd
child-rearer roles (Brcwn, 1978). The mass asdia, in
particular, adverttsing during sports evec;s, emphasize tho
"real man" image (Brovr, 1973). The "real msr" is
physically tough, is dcniRant over wonen, axd has the
freedom ?O do what he Dlea~es when hs 019a565. The58
Chara~teristics are in direct opposition to chsracteristics
nfeded tor e viebls relationship with vtres who subsczibe to
an equalitarian marital authority stroctor.?.
- -- - - --- - - - -- -
FacilltatioF of Go21 :

Ch.11. Wife-Smployeent Page 182
confused (Lenasters, 1971). The comics cat only rrf:ect,
but also Shape husbands' attitudes toward sharing marital
euthority.
Dagwocd Rumstead :epresocts an importaut
archetype in :he American psyche-th? irrslevast
male. DagwOOd LS browbeaten by a doninearicg
and assertive wlfe. is abused by his boss. and
15 generally a fallure in everything he tries
(Berger, 1979:lOS).
Failure and ronartalraec:, thel. are belisvfd fo be +he
OU~COQO fcr husbands wh3 let their wives shsre ~guslly in
marltal authority. nnfil men come to psrceive 53me of ?he
advactages to ;QP_~&&J%~ of an equalitari~n relationship
+hey w i l l reslst change ir that 6irec:ior.
--
S:!S&:ty S~;~_!&UE$.
Eeiecrinc or +4$ Esg$l_~r;~~~+s
These four var~ables--degree of compulsive nasculILity.
degree of anticipatcry socializatioc, dfgran of role
cla~ity, and dsgree to which the tracsition facilitit-s goal
atfa~rment--all play a part ic the husband's 3ecision to
accspt or
5tr"Ct"re.
reject the equalitmian marital au'hsrity
Een are trying to cape with the changes through
the traditio~al attitudes. Rh4~ %he 511
dominating techniques no longer prove ~ffsctive.
men becomc Insecure and anxious bscauss of ths
ominous specter of 'failure.'
what arc these "old dominating techniques?" Grsatar
monetary resources is one, but ths ever-increasing
proportion ct employed vivas makes this rescurc? less and
less available. 9 higher level of education is sno'her, but
with the incrsasirg ecrollm-?t of women in callog~, tt~t
also is increasingly less true. In fact, ircrsisss ir
educational attainment may be 02.2 cf th? causal factors of
the emergence of presciptiocs for joint airital
decision-maklsg (Brovr, 1977). If nothicg else, at least
men nsed to have the normative presciprlms cocc=rning
merital authority cn their side, but that also has been
slowly but surely charging (Brown, 1978). Hovevrr, one
adVaPtagE that husbands still have over their wires is their
greater physical strergth. As Whitehurst (1974:78) notes:

ch.11. Wife-Employment Pige 183
when all other resourc-s of aasculins iflentit7
feil. mer can aluays rely on being 'tough' as a
sign of manhood. Hardlicg uivss in aggressivs
ways is 12 some respects an ?xtension of 'he
ncrmal ways men learn lo handle a variety of
problems.. ..
Similarly, Koolaravsky's (1962:227) study of blue collar
families led her '0 coCClUde that the threat of violscce is
ancther ground of RasculinC pcver. Pically. Rolfgacg (1969)
points out that "violerce :s 2 msans of seekiCq pow-r and
may be defined as a? act of dcspair committed whsa the aoor
1s closed to alteraatlve resolutio~s." No Soubl. miry
contemporary husbands feel that the do324 not only hive bsoc
shut, but actually slaaned in thsir faces.
VIOLENCE I N THE FQOALITBRIEN AUTHORITY SlRUCTUPE
up to this point, the chapter has been concern~3 with
the corfllcc ever th9 transition to equalitarian marital
authority structures. Bowever, this is not to suggest that
the husband's rejection of an equalitarian authority
structure is the or17 source of conflict +Ed violarce.
eusba3ds who aCCBpt Fq~ality in authari'y find that this
leads to ircreased intimacy and coepaniocship in their
marital relationship awing to the lncrease ir shared ispects
ot iits. Blood End Aolfe (1960:160) fOursd that the sore
decisions were shared by the husband ana wife, ths acrp
satlsfactioc was expressed with marital compaoionship.
This increased iatieacy would appsar to b% a plus for
equalitariac marriages, but Coser (1969) an6 Sprey (1971)
cautlon that the more intiaate social relations ere, the
more l ikely thay are to give rise tc conflict. ireer (1941)
found that in ethnic groups ic which there are lswer
~xpBctations or ~motioral attichnsnts between hnshaaa and
if%, marriages terd LO be mote stable. Goode (1962)
concludes that marital strain is likely be rsduced when
*he partners laver thFir expect3tiops 3f cmotFocal
performance and comply vith minisel role 3bligatto3s.
The:~tore (azd someuhat peradoxically) marital conflict car
he expected io as th4 narital psrlnrrs shirf nor?
aspects of life.

Ch. 11. @FEE-Employmln~

~h.11. Wlfe-Employm+~+ Pege 185
APOther aspcct at this paradox is ths* if an
~qualltarlan authority structare is acceptid by both
~pouses. ccrfllc? "111 b' riew~d a5 leg~rime~~, bacause both
pertnirs have equal riohxs ro h~ve thrir viavs prevail.
Bach and Wyden (1968:98) suggest :h+t "vrzbal ccc.flict
betwes~ intimatgs 1s not only accspxabl?, especially between
husba~ds ~ r d wires; lf is construc

Reverting tc traditional doolirating
techniques by the husbatd leids to an
ircreased 1ikolLhocd of husband-wife
violence.
Acceptance of the equalitarian authority
structurs by the husband leads to increas=3
intimacy betveer. ths husband acd wife.
Increased intimacy between the tusband aca
w i t s le+ds to inCTeas~d leqilr~8fe corflrct
~E~YEJP the husband and vlfe.
Legitimate cocflicr leads to a lecrsassd
llkelihcod of husband-wife viollnce
meas ot co~flict ~esol~tion.
as 3
NOTES
*Revls~On of 2 paper prfsent~d at the znnoal oeoticg of
the National Councll or Family Relations, Salt Lake City,
Utah. august 20-23, 1975. The pr~paratio~. of this papsr was
supported by Naticnal Instirute of neatal eeilth grant No.
13050. The carmerts and criticisms of Lee Crandell an4 Deac
Knudson ardsd ir the revlsioa of the piper.
1. As used LT this chapter, "paver" rsfers t3 the
p0tsfit:al ability to coc?rol another's b?havior, ald
"authority'
1960:ll).
retsrs to legitimized power (Blcod 2 ~ d W31fe.
2. 3ahr. Boverman and Gecas, 1974:366; Plood,
1363:294; Blood, 1965:lYS: Blood
tee:, 1958:397; EcKlnley, 1964:lQY;
inif R5lfa.
Scaazsni,
1960: 40:
1970:160;
Wolfs, 1959:109. The studies just Ci-.?d zr1 all
inve5tig~t10~5 of Rmerlcan fanlliss. Elth3uqh Eimilar
results have befn fo~nd in some
(xbbatt, 1976:llz; ~looe, 1361:159;
cross-culzural studies
>uric ina Jecsvic.
1967:328; Lupri, 1969:144; ilichel, 1970:159; Oppoxg,
1970:678; Pichmond, 1976:262; Safilios-Rothschild.
1967:346; Welle~, 1968:439). cortradictory ~esults wefa
found by Certers. Raven. and Radrigues, 1971:276; B~ffea.
1960:224; Randfl and lesser, 1972: 134; nildleon and
Pu-nsy, 1960:608; and Strzus. 1977.
3. The valldlty of this assertion depends an
dlszmguishing betvesn conflict (in the sense of "ccnflic?
of luterest" as described in Chaptef 8) and agqressisn (in
the sense ot a malevolect act). If Each ard Wyain's

assertion is rcad as suggesting that vprbal aggresstan helps
avcid phyS:Cal aggressron, the cvidenCF is overvhrlsingly
the oppasite (Straus, 197ua).

Chapter 12
Resources, Power,
and Husband-Wife Violence
Craig M. Allen and Murray A. Straus
Both LaRossa's case study and Brown's
theoretical analysis suggest that "resources"
like the ircoms prcvidod by a wife's emplcymect
outside *he home incresses her power, gpg
increases the likelihood that the husband
w i l l us9 violence to "stop the bad progression
of events," as Joe puts it in Chapter 10. But
neither a case study nor a logical dednction are
sufficient evidence for a scientific conclusioc.
Snch a coaclusior depends on additional data.
and that is what Rllen and Straus's study of
approximately 400 couples provides.
In addition to the statis'ical fiodicgs.
this chapter takes the theoretical 3nalysis ~f
LaRossa and Rrowr one step further. It puts
forward the "ultimaC3 resource t tpory" *5
explain the relationship between power and
violerce by takirg into consider?+icn cultural
norms regarding family power. Tha theory holes
that in individualistic, achisvsme~t-oriecttd
s0ciet:es. ~0r.s suppo~ti~g male superiority are
weak or ambiguous. For ?. hasbznd to be ocrg
than a census *illy in th? sCatistics cc
"household heads." he has td validate his
position by superior "resources" such as oonsy,
occupational status, or valued persoral traits.
If the husband lacks such resources, and feals
entitled to a position of dominance, viclPnc?
may be used as the "ultimaCe resource" to back
up reelings of power entitlement. Data frcn
approximately 400 couples support these ideas.
but only tor Workjng class couplss.

ch.12. Resources and Power Page 189
E nmber of soclalogical theoriss of family violence.
such as those by G i l (1975). Goods (1971), ard Streus
(Chapter 6). hold ?hat the use of physical fosce is the
ultinate sanctior that underlies the maintenanc? of the
presect male-dominan' pattern of family organization.
Although the analyses of these authors may seem plausible,
they rest on piecing together scattered, often
impressioni5t:c evidence. We reed specific tests of the
idea that the threat of physical violence ondarliss the
existing family structure. These data, although linit=d in
several ways, are a step in that direction.
THEORIES OF RESOURCES AND POWER
Pollowlng the work of French acd Raven (1959). Blood
and Volfe introducsd the "resource theory" of family power.
They defined a resource 2s "...anything that one partnnr may
make available to the other, helping the latter satisfy his
needs or attain his goals" (1960:lZ). The Blood 2nd WOlfe
study found that the spouse with the greater cumber of
resources tends to have more power over his or her
parrner.*l However, Radmin's (1967) snalysis 3f data from
several countries fouxd the theory to be suppsrted in the
Wnited States and Prance. but not confirmed by Safa from
Greece and Yugoslavia. Ir the lattes two countries. the
correlations of father's education and occupation with power
were in t h opposite ~ direction from that predicted by the
resource theory. Rodmar. concluded that, to explain the
distribution of maritel pouer, the culture1 cortext from
which norms defiring appropriate resources are d?terained
must be takrr. into account (see also Pox. 1973). In a
subsequent comprehensive review of findicgs relzted to the
resource theory, Rodman (1972) developed a th-ory of
nrssources in u cultural context" in which he suggests that
the dynamics of excharge in the marital dyad car be
understood only in fhh cor.tfxt Of the cnltare of ~h:cb the
dyad is a part:
The balance of marltal power is influezc3d by
the interacfion or (1) the canpararive rescurc%s
of husband and wife ard (2) the cultural or
subcultural expectations about fhe distribution
of marital pouer (1972:60).
TRE ULTIMATE RESCWRCE TEEORY
Goode (1971). Podmar (1972). and Rogers (1974) suggest
that violerce is a resource irvoked when individusls lack
other legltimz?e resources to serve as bases for their
power.*Z Bccording to ~oode (1971). a spouse who lacks the
prestige, money, or skill necessary to induce the other

Ch.12. AeSoUrces and Power Page 190
spouse to perform scme behavior might resort '0 violence as
a final resource, even though the exercise of violencx is an
illegitimate cr negetively sanctioned mode of exercising
paver. Rodman (1972) asserts. however, that this pattern
w i l l b2 found only in a soci€:y in which (1) the norms which
legifimatize the cxsrcise of power are weak and somewhat
ambiguous. (2) the ac+uel exercise of legitimst? psxzr must
be validatsd by the rescurcGs in the form of personal
qualities acd material possession. The Onited States
tppifies this kind of scclety, because (1) equ~litarian
norms are rep1ac:cg petriarchal ocrms in the marital dyad,
(2) as 2 cOns2que~ce. there is norma1ivs ambiguity about :he
dis

ch. 12. Resources end Power
phys1cal force as a basis for power.
the
--- saneis. The data to be reporfed are from a study of
taeilies of studerts in ictroductory s3ciolcgy and
anthropology classes at tke Univ~rsity of New Hanpshire in
the fall of 1972. The data war€ obtained by qu?stior.naires
completed on a volurtary basis during a class period. Of
the 583 questionnaires distributed. 555 or 92 perclct were
completed. Since the ar-alyses to be presentid 3+pended on
both ths studer.tqs and both parent's living at toms luring
the student's serlor year in high school, further cases vere
105t because + parect or the child vas not living et home
tha' year. In additlcn. there was the ireviiable lass of
some cases because ceztair qu~stioes vere not snsverld. The
resulting flnal sample size ranges fxm 324 3 437,
dependlng or the variables ircludsd in a given t3ble- Of
these Cases, 26 psrcent are famllies in vhicb the husbacd is
a manual worker.
--
KeggE Z I ~ Viole~ce. Data 03 husband-uife violerc? was
securzd from on* of the ccuple's children becaus* of (1) ths
dlfflculty Of directly Observi~g the occurre>re of vislent
behavior bstveen spouses, particularly the more extreme
forms: (2) the ethical problems entailed Lr. devisi~g an
experin€ntal situatio~ in which violent behavior between
husbards and wives could be precipitated; and (3) the fear
that the strong cegatire senctians in our sociery against
the u:actic~ and EVSP the edaission of violence would lead
to refusals and/or UnderreportiPo by husbendr a23 wive=.
The validity of interview data on family pattprrs is
always open to question ones one goss beyon? such snbjscts
as 'he ages ard sex of children, and son; rsseazchlrs fssl
that this procedure is even more guss:ionable when a child
is the source of the data. Bowever. Calonico and Thomas
(1973) round that children caE predict
behavior under certax. cixums'arces
their parents'
slightly BPE~
acc~rately thac thelr perents car of cne another. They
attributed t
with the11
h firding ~ to the familiarity cf the childrec
parertsq past behevior. Bahr, 39vcrmar, axd
Gecas (1974) fourd that adolescents across various age
categcri9s vere quite consistent in reporting th?ir parents'
behavior. They suggest 'hat it would be extremely difficult
tor parmts to hide thrir behavior froa adolescent children
over a long period of time. R more comp:ehsnsive
exawitbtior of tbls iss~9, togethzr with data 32 the
validity of the vialerce measure used in this paper. is
glren in Eulcraft and Straus (1975).
high degree of agreamect between
That eralysis shows a
student reports of
husband-wife V~O~ELCB aPd dat2 providod indepsnd?ntly by the
spouses themselren.

Ch.12. Resources and power Pa3e 192
The speclfic technique used to measur? physical
violePCe 1s the Violence scale of the family Cpgfll~
------- ------
Tzctics Scales (cTs) instrument (Straus. 1974a:15; 1979).
In this tschrlgue. the respondsnt is first asked to idsc!ify
the major sources of disagreement and conflict during the
referent year. Pollavirg this, a series of questions are
asked concercicg partner's responses to conflicts 3urirg
that year. These
increzsiCg order of
qnesti~~s are arranged in gradually
coerciveness of respocses, bPgir.ning
with disc~ssi~g things calmly, and ?ndicg with hitting the
other person ~ i t h sowethiPg hard.
The Violence index ccnsists of the final fire items. E
co~p1et.e list of the CTS questions is givar in Straus
(1974a: 1979). togsther with data cn ths ini~rna
consistency rsliability of each index. Validity data ere
qiven ic Bulcroft and Straus (1975).*4
pxgr neasurg. The cnnceptuallzatisc ard measurement
of ccnjugal powerhas posed many difficultiss, as avidanced
by several critical studies (Cromwell and Olson, 1975;
R~er, 1963: Olson, 1969: Olson and Rabunsky, 1972;
Safillos-Rothschild. 1970: and Turk and Ball. 1972). Our
d~flnition 1s sxplained in Straus, 1977 and Straus and
Ta11m2n. 1971. The specific n%asurs used in this chap:=r is
the Decisior Power Index of Elcod end WYlfe (196D).*5
Rlthoogh it has been widely criticized (in part because
it is the most widely used measure). Blood and w?lfe's
measure seemed best sulted to this reso3rch fnr the
follovrrg reasocs: (1) It uses a convenient list of
indicators in which power ls theoreticelly most likely
eeide~t--who has thr final s+y in importent 2nd typical
family de~isions. (2) Its wide USE in the past dscade 2nd a
halt p?rmits coep2riscn with many previous s+udi=s. (3) The
many correlates of paver as measured by this s~riod provide
vhat is, ir sftect, "ccr:struct validaticn" av~denca, and a
recent paper by Straus (1977) provides eutdence of
concurrent validity. (4) Research on power lo tilniliss t.35
incr~zsingly demonstrated the aultidlmensior.al nnture of the
CCP.COPI..
The thecry bFirg tes+ed requiras a mfesure res7ricted
to what Cromwell and Olson (1975) call rhe "paver OutcYnes"
dteenslon. This, of course, deliberately onits othcr
crucial dimersiors such as tho processes by which decisions
are reached. Although for convenience in expositi2r ws
follow ths colvention of using the word eaE.ez Esr the
particular aspect measured, fhe reader must bear in micd
that this ass refers Only to who makes certain som:vhat
arbitrarily selected dec~sions. In particular. tte ne%sure
explicitly excludes vhat French and Rarer (1959) call the
"basis" of power, such as "reward power" (the ability to
provid? rewards because of coctrol of mn€y or 02h?r valued
gooas sr services). "expert poserv8 based on psrcepticc cf

superior knowledge, exc. 4 'power ourcome" typ? measui- was
cecessary because :he theory b-in? tested cnrcerns tho
relatioCShipS between csr'air of French and Raven's "basas"
of power (which we prefer -3 iden'ify as wresourc=sn) and
pOW4X outcomes, in the ser~se of who makes critical
d~cisions.
Since the Flood and Uolfe technique examines answers
that indicate "who has thl final say" in respect to thc six
6e~lS10n~. and sirce the measure is scored so that high
scores show that ? h ~ balarce of poue? is or th-. side 3f the
husband and lov scores shcv that the xi*? his r~lstively
more decisioc power, up w i l l sosetimes use the tern "Final
Say Power Index" or Velativ1 Powei Index' ?a idsntify
instrument.
this
- ReSOUrCE - - -- fleasure. -- - - POT each S~JUSF, a2 Rbsalute
RBSOUICE Index and a R?lative REscurca Index %#?re
c~nstz~cled. The Bbsolute Resource Indzx cansists of the
snm of four items referrirq to 2san_ogir Ezes;ao
conf=rr_&r,g charac?eristics (education, occupatin. incams.
satisfaction with income) and four items refsrring to valuea
r,~~~gg&& '~_Q+;s (high self-esteem, achievement ori-nts'ion
and soc1ab;llty. ard lcv anxisiy). The former cec be
thought of as corresponding to what 31au (39hu:ZO-22) would
call 'm~xtrinsic'z resources, and the latt-z es "hat he
identifies as "intrznsic" resources. A parallel P-lntivs
Re50DTC9 Index vas also computed for F2Ch Sp3U5EI by first
calculating the exten? to which a paziicular J ~ U S P h2a E
hLgter score on each r25onrc~ and thsn sumnic.g ?ktf positive
scores.*6
POUFP AND VIOLENCE
The most elemsntary empirical data or the issus of this
papsr is the correlation Optveer the balarce of power in the
ramlly (+s measured by our versilr. of the 31036 ana W>lf=
'*Decision Power Index") ac3 :he frequency 3E physical
violewe bezwsen spcuses. Howerer, as was explai~ra i~ the
iniroductior, ard as we nore agai3. bolov, snch correl+'ions
are not an adeguate ?@s% of ultimate resource 'hacry b-cause
they do cot take ~n-o account ths resoorcss th?i give
lfgiCloicy to each ac"orTs pcvfr positioc. Neverthelass,
thsS4 simple ~o~r~lations are a~ 2ppropriate poi~i a? which
to bagin the data anelysls, ir for co athfr rsason that to
demonsfrate their inadaquacy.

Ch.12. ResO~rce6 and Power Page 19I1
T ~ E uppe; arrow of Figure 1 give5 the orr re let ions
between the relative pow7 index acd ths us? of violence by
tho total sznplr, by the working class par? 3f +t.e sample,
and by fhe mlddle cless part of th; sample. The
~orrelatio?~ betweer the Re1er:vs Power Irdox and the wife's
violenc~ are show in the lover arrow. In gecsrsl, Figure 1
6hox5 CP~Y low and variable correlations between pcusr and
violence. However. to the extext that Cocclusions can be
drawn, Flguze 1 suggests that in the middle class. ch=re is
ro relationship betweer relative power and the PASbBgCP
VIOI~PCF, but a5 Lhe husband's paver increases, i& x:EQL~
violence decreases (-.16). The pattern is reverse* t3r ?he
vorklng class, "here there is a slight tendency Elr the
husbz~d's Violexce to increase as his power incr~asCS. but
nc relatiocship is shown between his porsr and violence.
The pattern for the Latal sample is 'he same as ihc p3ttern
to= ?he middle class, largely because the preponaersnce of
Case5 are middle class (75 to 80 percent, depending 2n the
variables ic a qiven set of tabulations).*7

ch.1~. Resources and Power
Page 195

Ch.12. Resources and Power Page 196
RFSOURCZS PWD POWER
g&gcs9= R9sourc~s- Par? A of Figure 2 shows that fcr
all SaBplss, as the husb2xdls recaurcsr iccrease, th~r? is a
tecdsncy for his pouer to increase (r = 0.19). Eaealy any
relatlor is seep between Che vifglj rescurcss and the
balancs of power in ?he family. 30% to the extPct -hit z
re1a':lonship exlsts, the negztive correlations suggest %he
other sid= of the coin shoun by the fixdings for the
husband: that is, the nore the wife's resouxcrs tha less
the hUSband'5 POWET.
-------- -----
Pflativs Resources. Corrrlatiors betwesn r$&gd&lg
resOUrCes ax6 the husband*~ balance of pouer are givsr in
Par': B ot F;gure 2. These correla?ions rrveal ths same
pattern as was tound far absolute resources €xc?pt Zh3t the
correlations are larger (sn average of 73 percsnt greater).
Ther9tore Chese data show that bath absolute and relative
~ESOUTC~S affect tt.~ balalce cf powzr in fhe fimilies
studied. Acuever, Evan within the co>t=xt of the lor
ccrrelaticrs that ore EXPFC~S in analysas of a sr~gle causal
factor, ocly ths husbacd.s relative resources se?m to havs a
subs:znti+l relatio~ahip to who has the final say.
F~rth~rmoze. for both husbands scd wives. the ccrr+lation
between resources and power is stionger ~Lthic the working
Class thar ul+hin the middle class part of +ha ssnple.
Despite ihesi qualifications, ths correlations il each
sample, for both husba~as and wives, and for b3th types of
resonrces. are ir the same direction as That predictPd by
the resource theary.*8
TAEORIES OF RESOUSCES AND VIOLElCF
np to :his point ve have shown only a us~k and =rraric
rElat=O~.~h~p betweep nolsnce ard t.h? halarc? of paver in
family decisloni. We suggesied that th? sinple correlation
between power B S ~ violence falls '0 ~ake into iccooat the
dimension of legitimacy ;r, exercising power. in a modern
~ndusraal soclety, as in aosz other societies, pousr is
usualiy ascribed '0 ths husband. But the husband mus? also
posssss the persccal ald macerial r;souzces that ar3 valued
in such a soclety. In short, it was arqu~d that dsspi

ch.12. Resanrces and power PagE 197

Cb.12. Resources and Power Page 198
absolute Resources. The correlations ir the top line
of Figure 3, part A, show that ?he greater the husband's
absclute resources. the less his use of physical violence.
For wives, the correlations shown in the lower arrow of
part A are small but in ?he same direction 3s those for
husbands: the greatEr her abso1nte ~esources, tb.e less her
violence. For both spouses, but especially for th?
husbands. the correlations are stronger for the wrklng
class than for rha middle class.
Turning to the correlations between husband's resouzces
and the life15 viclerce, the upper diagonal arrow of par? P
indicates the same trecd: as ?he husband's absolute
resOurcEs increase, the wife's violence decreases. This
same tendeccy is evldent from the correlations of wife's
r~soucces with 'he husband's violence, except th3t the
ccrrelations. although all negative, are also a11 near zero
iT magnitude. It appears from these data thst the husband's
absolute resources are more releted to ths wifa's ana his
own violence, than the wife's absolute resources are related
to her husband's ard her cwn violence.
- -
Relative Resources. A t first glance it seems as thong~h
part B of Figure 3 shows cnly low and erratic relat

Ch.12. RasO%nces and Pouer Page 199
creating a dual set of rag0 ireme1
Satisty: to exercise 1s ,gitimt
family, one must both have super:
Obviously only husbands can meet
BESOUPCES BND TEE LEGITIMlCY OF POVEB
llthaugh the firdings in the precsdicg three sections
are interesting in their own right, they were pr?sentrd
primarily 70 lay thr groundwork for a axe specific test of
the two main hypotheses derived from the ultimste rsssurce
theory. Specifically, in en icdividual-achievemart oriented
SCCiEXY such 15 the United States, the pattern of
rormativsly prescribed male family leaaership that
characterrzes so many societies is suppleasn'sd by ths
forther requirement that the husband deaons're%r his
eligibility to occupy a lsadsrship p3sitigr in posrzssicq
valued personal charectfristics and providing ecocomic
goods. If he does not, then the legitinacy of his povrr is
undermined. under these circunstacces, we suggest, aale
POW47 w i l l be asSOCia?ed with violence.

ch.12. Resources and over Psge 200
Th4 findings can be summarized under two hsadicgs: e
high resource group and a low resource graup-fl0
Ccrrelations between POYI~ and violecce vere thsc computed
within each of the resource groups. This procPss was
repeated for each of

Ch.12. Resources and Pover ~ a 201 g ~
within the middlE class (top four correlatisns ir. th.
right panel) the regecive correlations shcv that ths more
the balance of power is in favor of the husbsnd, ?he less
the wife's violence. This terdarcy is present bath whe? the
husbana'5 XESOUrCE5 are high and when they 2rE lows but the
correlation is stro~ge1 in the latter case. Withir the
~orklng Class part of the sample, ContrDllLng far the
3usbaod's resources (second block of four correlatlocs in
the right panel of Table 1) produces a much more coinplicafed
set of corrslaticrs: Wher the husband's rssaurces ir= high,
there is a slight tecdercy for high husband p>wsr to he
associaTed u:th low xire riolsncs (as ir tha findings for
the m:ddle class)- But when the husband's absalate
resOUICES are low, rF.en "he greater hls power* tLe maze ~ P T
ulolerce (r =0.31). Both these firdings, and especially the
difrer2nca between the Correlations for low and high
rE50UrCO husbandsv are consistfxt with the theory that
sp~czties that violence w i l l occur when husbands uh3 lack
the ~PSOU~CSE to legitimize their ascribed power try to
EX~TCLSE that power. On the other hand. we have no? as yet
form~lated any satisfactory explanation tor the finding that
vhec the ccntrol for resources is on the b25i6 of the
rf&=$hpg Egerss of husband znd vife, the corrslatians aye
Pear zero, eves though they show the same shift from
negative for the high rescurce group to positivs for ?h? low
resoorco group.
The two right columns in P+rt B of Tabl~ 7 shsw ths
ccrrelations befweec the hwsba~d's pozer i ~ 5te d WL~S'S
violence V ~ E P cortrols are introduced for the wife's level
cf resou:cE+. The aiddl? clsss blnck cf f2ur correlatiors
shows a pattern slmilar tc that tourd wher ?he ccrtrCL was
on the basis or fhe husband's resoorces: csmely, f3r 211
resOnrce groups1 the nore the Lusbz?d's p3vsz. *kC less
violence on the part c2 ?he wife. eut "he? we lo3k at the
125: four correlations in the lowe: right corrar of Table 1,
still a d:fterent pattern is r?vealed. Firs:. the
CCrrelatioPs ars all very low. Aouevsr, the pattprn of
ttese corrslatiocs tits our theory exactly: whan th5 wives
are hlgh in resources. high power on %he par: 3f the husband
1s associated with a tezdeccy towards oiolanca on ihs part
of the wife--porh+ps as a means of rssisting msls aosinacce
or the part of uoner. whose resources lead thsm to '39sire a
greater share of the pover. Conversely, whec resourcns are
low, high pcvnr on ths par- of the husbard is associated
with less ~iolfnc~ an the par: of his wife (althouah +hs
~egatzve cor~fletion~ hetween male power and ths wife's
violence are low). we car speculate t h ~ t this corrslation
represents an acceptance of t h
hlErarChy an the part of women who
claia greater equality.
traditional ~
family power
lack the resources to
Overall, the date on violence initiated by wives are
like those for male violancn. In both inst2ncas. thz data
axe consis+~rt with the ~OBOU~CE theory only vithio the

Ch.lZ. Rescurces and Pouer PagP 202
working class part or the sample. Specifically, when the
husbacd's rsscafces arn high, high male pover is no+ net by
violence on the part of the wife; whereas if the husband's
IESOUZCES are low, male power texas tc be met by female
ViolOLCe. The other side of the coin is shout xhen the
------
wife's resources are conirolled, but the correlations ire
all very low. Nevertheless, ve icterpret the positive
corrslation between malv paver and wife's violence as
reflecting resistance to male domination on the psrt of
working class wivfs vith high resources, and the low
negative correlations as reflecting acceptance sf male
doalnance on the part of working class wives vith low
reSOUrCOS~
SUnflRRY BND CONCLUSIONS
The research presectsd in this paper vis designed tc
explore two clos~ly related issues corcerning physical
Violence in marriage. The first of these issues is the
extent to vhich the use cf physlcal force is associated vith
the maictenance of male dcminance in tha family. The sscond
issue is a test of -he idea that husbands who lack certain
valued persoral traits and materm1 possessisrs (called
"resources") tecd tc substitute physical violencs to
mzintain a poslrlon of superiority. Together ;hsse two
ideas form ths core af what ve call the "ultimste rssource
theory" of intrafamily violence.
Since this is crcss-sectioral ressarch, 'he causal
relatiocships inherent in the ultins'e rcsource theory
cannot be tested in any definitive way. Rather, we coaputea
correlations betveen pcvs: +Ed v'ole2ce a7d simu153~?3usly
held constant certain otner variablas as + mnacs of
discovering if the resulting patrern of ralatlccships
zccords with the idea thai violence is the ultimate resource
underlying male dcminance in lmericah families.
The resulting corralations were uenerelly low.
Therefore. what conriderce cre can have ic these results
derives trom the cansistercy vith vhich we found pattercs 3f
positlre and negative correlations concordsnt with the
theory, and also from the fact tkt the largsst corr=litio?.s
(0.49 and 0.31) were found for those relationships that
constituted the most crucial test of rhe theory. With these
qualifications in mind, the findings caa be suamarizcd as
fellows:
1. Llttle or co relationship exists betveen the
conjugal balance of power and the use 3f violence by either
spouse. This firdlsg is consistect with the ultimate
resource theory in that the theory specifies that male
dominants w i l l lead to ulclsnce only if the husband cannot
legitimize his SUperior p ~ e r position throuqh the

ch.11. PPSOU~CBS and Power Page 203
possession of va1:dstlng resources.
2. The greater the husband's rssources, the less his
USE of physical violence. Similirly, ths greater the v~fe's
resources, the less her use of violence. Thes2 findir!gs are
consistent with the ultimata resource theory ic that they
suggest that those who car call on resources that do not
have the costly side effects of violent= "ill use less
vrolence.
3. superiorl?y in resources cqdgf&~p f& peegap Was
also examined far possible association with violence. This
aralysis revealed that the Extert to which a husband's
resouncencnceed ...~---~-
~~~~~~~ those of ~ hie ~ ~ wife has little or no r=lation
to violence bp either spouse. Rorever, the sore the ghfplp
rrsoorcss --- sXceFd ~~ ~~~ those ~ cf her husband. the rore likely Che
~~ hnsbard - ~ 1s to have used . ohvsical . force durino the rsferen'
year. These findings suggsr that the wife's poss?ssion of
SUpEr1OT resources can undsrmine the ability of the
hasband's resources to validate superior poif~r, thus l~ading
to the substitution of 2 resource in which wives cen rarely
be s~pe~lcr to thelr husbands: physical ViolencJ.
4. Finally, the specific hypothesss derivea frne the
ultimate resource theory predicted a tendency for male power
to be assaciated with violence onlp when th* husbacd lacks
validating resources. R? found this hypothesis true, but
only tor working class husbands. Po: husbanls higt in
TFSDU~CES. as pr~dict~d, there was no correlation b?tveen
power and use of violence. But for those vorkicg class
husbands low in resources. the grea'er ?he husband's p3uer.
the more liten he uspa physical force on his spouse ic
situations oi conflic?.
5. In almost all the analyses rsport-l in this papez.
ard especially in the most direct test of the ultimate
:ISOUTC~ fheory summarized in the precedirg psragraph. 'he
correlatiols were stronger in working class familizs, or
sometimes present only in vorking class families.
what could account for the fact that the ultimate
rescurce theory se?as to apply only within working class
families? TWO po~sibilities ccme io mind. The firs? is
based on social
and can be call96
class differenc~s in mals authority roras
the "middle class equalitarian norms"
explanation. The sfcord
types of violence and can
is based on class diEforenzes in
be called the "uorking class
instzumental violence" explanation.
------ ----- -----
Brddle Class ?over Aores. This explanarioc lssumfs
that wlthlr the middle class a significant dsgree of support
no longer exists tor lorms that give superior
husbacds. If this is correct, then few
authority to
middle class
husbands w i l l a+tempt to claim the triditional Bale
authority. Therefore, physical farce is not needea t9 back

up ac ascribed posiilal of authority if the husband lacks
orher resources to validate his ascribed authortty.
U~fortunat~l~. vs find this explanation difficult to iccept.
becanse our personal observation of fa~ilies, tngeth?r with
much other evidence (Bahr, Bowerman, and Gecas, 1974; Blood
and Yolfe, 1960; Kolb and Straus, 1979; Scanzoni. 1970;
Skolnick and Skolnick. 197Y: Chapter 6) suggests that
despite Considerable lip service to sexual equality, the
actual structure of middle class families remains basically
male-dominant.
Rorkinq class I~struacgtal xz~&gc=. This explanition
begins from the assumpfion that what we have called
ninstrumental Tioler.cc*l (SSP Chapter 1. footnote 2) is more
acceptable within the working class, vhnre there is a
ccntinurng tradlticnal saphasis on the 'macho17 or 'he-man."
By cortrast, the rejection or weakness of such norms ma
values in the middlc class may lead middle class husbands to
restrict the instrumental use of violence to a significant
degree.
This does rot mean that physical violence between
husband and wife is absent in the middle class. There is,
in fact. 3 growing body of svidercs that cocjugll violence
is part or the reality of American slddls class family
StrOCture. although less frequent than in the working
Class.*ll But the Px3+ure of tb.is violence may bs differsct.
It nay be larg=ly what we hare ccllpd "expressis2 vi;l&nce."
In tact, the current popularity of "creative aggression,"
"catharsis," and the idea that it is h?ilthy for th3
ind~oldual and good for the marriage to "let it all hang
out.' tends to legitimize expressive violence as something
that must be go' out of one's nys+en (S+raus. 1974s). If
the foregoing is correct, ?her merit31 riolence in the
aiddle class vould be primarily expressive. uhrrsas nariral
vlOlQnce in the wozkirg class would be primarily
instrumental. Therefore. sirce this sxplanation of
instrumental violence is the focus of the ultimate resource
theory, It tollo~s that this theory should apply ozly within
the a0rk:P.g class. because fhat is the ~ 1 2 ~ 5
i which
Instrumental violence is presumed to be the predominaat type
of violence.
Unrortunatelp, this second explanation for the firdlrg
that the ultimate resource theory applies only io the
working class is also difficult to accept because our
personal impression is that uhile there aa? bs less
instrumental violence ir middle class families, it is far
trm Completely absent. Eoueorr, although nsither miadle
Class Equalitarian norms nor working class inatruwental
vLo1e~ce by themselves 50Em suffic~znt to sxplain ths
suppoft of the ultimate rfsoarce theory only for w?rkmg
class tamilies, the combined ~ffects of class diff=rsrce in
power norms and in rorms cor.cerning instrumental violence
nay be sofficiert. Specifically, because of the weakening

Ch.12. R~SOU~CPS and Power P3ge 205
cf male-dominar.ce norms in the middle class, a challenge to
2 husband's superior authority may be less of a threat to
the identity and masculinity of middle class husbands than
of the working class husbands. Biddle class husbirds may be
able to adapt to what they formerly paid lip ssrvic?, and
still retain their self-esteem. If this is the case.
husbands ic the middle class have less need to d?fac& an
+scribed position of au-hority. In addition, t3 ths exterr
that instruasntal violwcs is subject to more r?vsre
limitations in the middle class, it vill be a hrgher "costw
resource because of mcr4 xegative side effects. Thsz~fore,
'h2 lEsSer need to Use this ultimate resource canbinpa with
the greats= cost of using violence nay account fsr the
tizding that the ulfiaate resourcs theory ipplie3 orly
within ths working class sample.
*we arc irdebted to Johc 8. Scanzoni for comments and
critlcism thlt aided in the revision of this plper.
1. "Resource theoryw is a specific instaccs of
"exchange theory" (Fahr, 1974; Resr, 1963).
?henry terms, the rfasorrng just presented
In excharge
1s thtt ac
irdlvidual
renard at
w l l l attenpt
mlninum cost.
to abtein a dssired outcoms or
Thus, if one spouse desires
comp1:ance tron the other in a particular eackange sequaccl,
the less costly the use of the particulaz resourcs sorving
as a basls for his power, the mo:e likely it is to be
iPvoked, directly or indirsc~ly. Eovevsr, In ths abscccE cf
"minimum cost" ~ ~ S O U Z C ~ S ,
it is LRCBSEBZY +O Invoke more
costly rBsourceS to achieve a goal. Ths use of violenc? (as
illegi?inate rssource] tcrclsg another to comply vith ore's
requests is probably much more costly to +n ir.dividual than
the USE of mare legltimats resources such es occupatloral
sta+us, prestige, educatioral attainmexts, personal
attributes, etc., vhich enrlce the other to colply woes
VOluDtanily.
2. For ease or ccmaucrcatior. from this point on, when
the term "'resources" is used it should be taksn as waning
"valued materral possessions and personal characteristics
-- other - - - - than -- - physlcal sfrergth," that is, resources othfr than
+he actual or potectial use of physical force.
3. Slmilar ideas ~+VE been expressed many time5 before
and keep reemerging. For example, in Parsons' 1947 sssay on
"Certain erimary SourCPs and Patterns of Rggression ic the
Soc131 Structure or the Restern world," in Pollo nay's eeYg=
---
and Inrocerce (19721, ir research on "locus af cartral"
(Goodstad? and Rjelle, 1973), an& in van den serghe
(1974:778-787). P2rsons' analysis not only asserts the

Ch.12. Resources and Pover Pa3e 206
basic proposition that aggressive acts ars carri?d out
"...mare out of weakness and handicsp thar out
of. ..strength," but also mentions several of tha fsctors
included in the measure of individual resourcss usel for
this study. Sp2cificz11y. he discuss~s the uss of
aggression as a node of response to anxiety, arguir.9 that
the secure and nonanxious persor is less likely to aggrlss.
He 8150 asserts that in a society valuing individual
achievement, *allure to +chieve is a po'ent source of
frustratloc and hence aggrsssicn.
9. The items indsxirg vi3lerce in the versror of the
CTS used vrth this sample are: I. Threv soa~thing (but cot
at the other) or smashed something, J. Threatened ts hit or
throw something. K. Threv something at the othor, L.
Pushed, grabbed, or shoved, 8. H i t or tried to hlt the
other person, but rot with anything. N. H i t or tried t3 hit
the other with scaethirg hard. The following rDsponse
categories and score weights ars used for ill ifsss:
Never = 0, Once that year = 1. Two or three tiass = 2,
Often, but less than occe a month = 3. About once a month
= 9, Mor? than once a mocth = 5. The Violence Index
consists of the sun of these response category weights.
This lndex has a racge of 0 to 25. However, to avoid giving
Excessive wight to a rev outlying cases with exzremPly high
levels of violence, ths T ~ Y ECOf9S were rmc01+d int3 a
modification of the "ggr(* score nlrmzlizing ~DC~.P:~U? vith
a range of 0 to 8 (see Straus. 1974a:footcot~ 6).
5. Because oi t ine Limitations 13 *.!is quastion~aire,
only six items were used, rather than the eight usld by
Blood and Wolf€: what car to ge+? How fani.19 irrcns is
spent in general? Rherc tc gc on a racatior? Which house
or apartment to take? whether mother should work or quir
working? ThiLgs concerring the children's activities? The
response categories used were: mother always = 1, nother
mar? than father = 2. Father and mcther exectly the
sans = 3, Father more than mother = 9. Father alvsys = 5.
6. These four irdexes (i-e., Bbsolute and Rslativs for
husbands and for wires) were arrived at on the basis sf an
empirical searchicg procedure. Specifically, we first
Searchzd the questionnaire to identify everything that
seemed as though it would fit the idea of an lntricsic or
extrinsic resource. Sixteen such itlns or scares were
identified. We then carried out an "sxternal criterion item
analysis" (Straus. 1964:354) to find thcse items that Were
in fact correlatsd vith our paver oeasure. Each sf ths
eight items makrng up thcse indexes was select?d because it
was found to be correlated vith power for the husband 3r the
vlfe, or both. The itens were stardardized to a rang5 of 0
to 100. Each respondent's score on a given index ther
consists of the mean of the eight standardized items and can
therefore range from 0 to 100.

ch.12. Resources and power Psqe 207
another way of thinking ebaut these scor~s rs chat each
is expressed as percentage of the maxiaum passibl~ score.
Thns. a respordent with an Absolute Resource index of 28 has
an ararage of 28 pErcent of 'he maximum possible points for
the sight resources. B =espondcrt vith a sc3re 3f 28 oc the
R~latLVe Resources index has 28 percent 3f the raw scors
obtained by the respondent whose resources excse5ed that
his or her spouse by the greatest amouct.
of
Finally, it is rnpartant to ncts that because of the
w~y in vhlch these indexes were arrived at, they are simply
a way of summarizing into one convenient measure what would
otherwise require flght correlations or eight table rows.
In particular, these index-s cacnct be used to "test' the
resource theory hecause they include only itens zlrsady
knOwP to be assuciated vith pcver.
7. For PUIPOSES of this study we dlvided +he sample
rnto Occupational class groups based on the husband's
occupation. If the husband was ergaged in macual vork, ve
classified the family as vorking class. If the husb3nd was
ergaged in nonnanual vork, the family was classified as
middle class.
Rsaders should he evare of the folloving two criticisms
of thls procedure. (1) Some would fir.d it prefsrable to use
the concepts of "blue collar" versos "uhite collar*, bscause
of the controversy over what cocstite*?s a sncill class and
the basis for assignmert to classes. (2) Besing the
classification of the cpmelg OP a characterstic of the
husband has a bullt-in sexual bias (Steinwetz and Straus,
1973). Our use of this pzcced3n4 leflects ??.a lov
percentage or vives who vere employed cutride th? homo. ?ad
we tried to use bcth occupetiocs, the number of
un~las~zf~able cases would have resnlted i" an excessive
1055 of Cases *roo ths aralysis.
8. The product moment correletions given in Figure 2
und~rstzts the extent to which these data ara cocsistent
vlth the resource theory. is 2 check to see if curvilinear
patterns vere prssert (which of ccursE vcull sh2v up as
correlations rear zero), we plotted the mean pover sccr? for
each decile cf the reSOUrce SCOrES. The resulting gr3phsr
vlth the exceptions to ha nlted later, did not indicate
curvlllnear relationships. However, they did suggest a
closer assoclatlon of reSourcEs with vi31enc~ thlf 1s shown
by the correlation coefficients. We think that correlations
Ere low because of the large variance associated with the
means we plotted. Ir addition. occasional nonlinear
relitions ars seer. For example. the correlations of the
husbacd's power vith the wife's relative resourcss is
Only -0.09 for the mldale class sample. while this is in
the directior the resource theory preaicts, it is alss no:
Statistically significant and very low coefficient.
Houcver, the plo- for this rslationship shows a graauai

Ch.12. Resources and Power ?age 208
d~creaS9 in husbard's pouer as the wife's resourzes increase
relative to his, until the ninth aec:le, at which point
there is a precipitous drop in husband's power. Thus, the
lox corr~latior. reported in Figure 2 is due to this
threshold effect, acd also variance around the ten means.
The only other nonlineer relationship we were sble to
discern is that b e t ~ powsr ~ n 2nd the husband's vi3lsnce
within the middle class sample. Busband's vial~ccc was
found to he greatest ir wife dominant faniliss, hut also
tends to be high in extremely husband dominant families.
So. it Seems 5s thmgh middle class husbards resort to
physlcal force bath when their ascribed superior position
has been taken away, 2r.d also when they have 3 power
position that goes beyord mere Superiority to one ir which
then wivss have +lmost no decision pouer. See Straus,
1973, Figure 2, for a plor of this relationship and further
discussion.
9. It is important to recognize that rhe superior
reSOUrCFS of huSbaPdS were n3t achieved in open comp~citian.
because of the ic~.umerable impediments to achievemect for
Yomen in nost societies. Therefore, Even if ons accepts
superlor resources as providing a moral justification for
superior power. the serist structuring of opporturity Fr~ the
soclety renders such an ethlcal justificatio~ inrsXd.
10. Those b~lov the median on each resource ixdsx vere
classified as low and those above, as high in resources.
Working class ard middle class faniliss Vera classified
separately to reflect the large class difference in these
resonrces, and on the assongtion +hat beirg "high" 2r "low"
in resources is rolativo to the average l?vel 3f res3u:cns
in the sector of society in vhich one participaias.
11. A graphic illustration vas recently provided is the
Bergman fllm, P'gn a &rrL+qq. Numerous
illustrations, together with stetlstical data, are in cslles
(1979). In the prsssnt sample, the mean violence scare is
0.90 tor worklng class and 0.33 for middle class husbends,
3rd 0.65 for working class and 0.39 for middle class wives.
Expressed as a percentage vhc used niolencs in rhs referent
ysar. the fzgures are 20.5 percept for working cless +Ed 9.6
percent for middle class couples.

art V an icy
ns

The ideas, research nethods, and rssearch
results in this book could be summarized in 2
number of ways. Poi example, we could poict out
and further illustrate certain themes which ruc
through almost all the chapters, such as the
cultural norms legitimizing violence, or th?
conflicts inherent In the
famlly. 01 the 1019 of
"aintalnlng male dominance.
organizatior of tha
phystc~l viol3nce in
The method tirally chosen ts highlight an6
summarize Some if the main themes is to ask what
the practical implications are of the theori?~
and facts car,teined in this book. Consequently.
the tinal chapter identifies six charecteristics
of Bmsriczn social structure that, togethsr.
brirg about the high lcvel of husb3nd-"if=
violepce. For each of these factors Lhsre is =
discussion of what can be dons to changs things
to reduce *he level of rarFtal viclrnse. In
all. 21 different "policy implicatisrs" wpre
deduced. Considerable evidence ?xrsts thst som?
of these ?oL?cias would reduce viol%?.c?: the
other policl~s ire proposed on the strength of
reasonable speculaLloc. Fortunately fs: those
seeking to rsduca the level of marital violencl,
the question of vhether proof can be given that
the policies w i l l actually achxeve a reauction
is almost beside the point; sost of the 21
policy recommerdetions ars steps that arr
socially desirable in their orr right. Psr
example, we do not know how much a lou?r level
of economic insecurity and un?nploy@ent w i l l
reduce assaults by husbands on their wives. But
since full aeploymen: and a basic alnimun incone
is a social good. we "111 has* gained ever if
movement toward that social good has nJ Effect
on the level of marital violence.

Chapter 13
A Sociological Perspective
on the Prevention of Wife-Beating
Murray A. Straus
Our ideas about the causes of wife-beating obviously
influence the steps ve take to prevect it. If wife-b'sters
are thought to be mentally ill. thsn psychotherapy is
clearly needed. If husbands hit their wives because moderr
society puts excessive atrairs on the nuclear f%mrly, then
some reorgazization is needed of the roles in ths family and
the family's relation to the society. 1'. is importsnt to
recogn:ze that this chapter is co?c?rnea only vith the
social causes of husbard-vlfe violencs, and only vith
chznges in socie?y 'hat might prevent marital riolercc.
With this in mind, the chapter w i l l summarize some of
the ways in which vife-beating is produced by the very
nature of our socisty and its family system, and at tho same
time attempt to foraulata policies aimed at reducing tho
level Ot husband-wife violence.
Some recommendations below advocate general social
charge5 rather than tho more specific aspects of "Fieily
Policy Analysis.' as dsfined by Wilson and BcDOnala (1977).
In most cases, however. the suggestiocs listed below are
clearly Daripulable by law or practice in the public realm,
Or by the policies acd decisions af businsss and other
private orgar.xzations.
CULTURAL NORBS PERBITTING WIPE-BEITING
E fundamental zspect of Eaerican sacial structure that
must be understood and corfronied is the existprce of the
cultural norm that, as rotsd in Chapcer 3 and elsewhere.
Bakes the marriage license also a hitting licecse. But C ~ P
coccept of marriage license as hitting license is contained
rot oniy in the folk culture. Nore important, es noted in
Chapter 3 and 6. it remairs embedded in the legal system

desplte many reforms tavcring uomen.
A great deal of other evidezce supports tha existPncs
of the 'hittlng license* norm. I vill have to assume rhat
the i7:tormation pr~s~ntsd in Chapter 3 md 6 makes thc case
plauslbie. What then are tb.e implications for prev+otion?
There seem to be et least two parallel "policy implications"
(PIS).
PI 1. Bake the public aware sf this lerg=ly
unperceived norm.
This policy implication has a paradoxical quallty, but
it is proposed on the +ssueption that awareness can
contribute to the demise of the "hitting licaxsc n9re."
because S U C ~ 3 norm is contrary to other norms and values
about the faxiiy. It w i l l pave th9 uay tovara + sscond
policy impllcation, of specific benpfit to husbards and
wives, but Especially to the latter.
PI 2. Redefine the oarital relatiolship as one
in which ary use of physical fcrce is as
unacceptable as it is between oreself and
those with whom one works, bowls, or play?
tennis.
The speclfic policy charges lmplied by PI 2 are
illnsrrated in the consfrt decree recently siqnnd by *be N-w
York City Police Department (New York Times. 27 Jurs
1978:l). This dccree cblfgates the Poiica DapartInsrt to
arrest men who commlt feloni~us assaults cr other f3l$nies
against their wires when there is reascrable cause to
believe the husband committed the czime. In aaditiar, the
agreement provides that the police n3tify ?ha wife sf her
rights. including the right to make a cztizen's arrest with
the aid of the police. The police also w i l l be rfqUirEd to
remain at the scene of the crime temporarily to protect the
yife Or to assist her in obtaining medical assistaxce if she
requests it. If the husband hcs left the scene, the polic?
must try to locate him an they would anp other suspect.
B more detailed discussion of changes in the criminal
justice system vill be found in the discussioc of PI 19.
POT the individual wife. this means making clear to her
husband that physical force simply vill not bz tolerated.
In an unklovn, but perhaps oat insigniflcart proportior of
csses. this a1028 conld serve to alter the situation bscause
the "h!ttino 1icsPse~f es~ect of marriaoe is so nuch ar
2 &~~~
n~perceilred "taken-for-granted" norm, ind is 50 ccntrsry to
Other widely acknowledged and valued
marr;age relationship.
norms concerning the
By th~ms~lves,
such icdividual attempts 2t redcficicg
the marital relaticnship to render violence illegitimate are
unllkely ro be sufficient. In the first place, normative

Ch. 13. Wife-Eeating Page 213
rules are only one structnral determinant of hahavisr, afid
often a minor aetsrminant. In the second place, such rules
do not arise from thin air. Rether, they reflsct, ana tend
to be integrated with, a network of other cultursl alrepnts.
Perhaps ever more, they rsflect tha reelities of dsily
llvlng.
problem
Cofsequently. I truly useful approach to the
of wife-beating must eddress these more fanaam~ntal
causes. These e l e m ~ are ~ t ~ so closely interwoven that it is
n~arly as difficult to discuss them separately as it w i l l he
to chafgs then. Eonever. they can at lsast be groupFd irtc
somewhat neaningtul patterns.
WIFE-BEATING 1.5 R FEFLECTION OF SOCIETeL VIOLENCE
Thess examples of goserfnsntal violence provide
pow~rful mod~ls for the behavior of icdividual cirizens.
Thsy form er important pert of a mors geraral norszt:vp
sys?am that hllds that uiol€rc= can and should he use3 to
attai~ Socially desirable ends (Blumsc?hal c: $1.. 1972,
1975). Of COUTSE, it is sxtr~mEly
difficult to prova that
go~arnmental violerce provides a role model for icdiviaual
~iclefcs, but one typs of evidence supporting this
conclusion is exEmplified in Chapter 4 and in Archsr and
Gartcer (1976).
suggins and Straus' study (see Chapter 4) locked at a
sample of English language children's bolks covering the
period 1850 to 1970. The original purpose v%s t3 see if the
~ E P B ~
of inwrpersonal violence depicted in these books
shoved an upward or doucward trend over this 120-year
periJd. The resnlts showed no trena of this type. e3vever.
even :bough there were cc "war stories' in the sanplr of
hooks, durifg 2rd immediately follouing szch msjor var the
f1Eg~Fncy of Lct~rpexsoral violence rose dramatically.
Similarly, archer and Sartner (1976) found a p3stwar
increase ir homiclda rates for a large sample of cations.
They concluded that the increase in murder rates was due to
a carry over of the xer-time authorized or sasctioned

Ch. 13. Rife-Beating Page 214
killing. Therefore:
PI 3. Reduce to the maximum extent possible the
use of physical force as an instrument of
government.
tlegra Violence. violence 11 the mass media both
reflects the existing hioh level of aggression and rislence
if American society and helps perpetuate that pattern. The
typical citizen watches "prime time' TV in which more than
half of allcharacters are icvolved in some violencr, and
one of ten in killing (Gerbilsr and Gross. 1976). The aoouni
of gratoitous violence in current motion picturss is alsc
extremely high. The significance of these facts has beer
explored by intensive research, incloding a number of
excellent longitudinal acd experimental stuatss, during 'he
past 10 years. These studies have led almost all scientific
reviewers of the accumulated evidence to cocclude that
violerce in the media is part of i societal patterc that
keeps America a high-violerce society (Surgron Geceral.
1972).
The message of the mass aedia is clearly that physical
force can and should be usod to secure sccially desirable
eras, not just in the "vild west." but in allcsi all aspects
of contemporary life. llthough it is rare tor the media to
depict husbands using physical force on wives, th? more
general message is easily ?ransferred to ?te marit31
relationship. A t presan+, I know of r3 direct sridsnce %tat
the high valus inpliciCly placed 02 both instrumenlsl and
expressiw violence in the mass media is tracsferred ts the
marital relationship: however, this transferral seams so
likely in view at the extEnsire evidence of the phPnomenon
that psychologists call '*transfer of training' thi' *he
fcllouing pollcy implication seems warzactea:
PI 4. Limit violecce in the mass media as much
as is consistect with preservicg fre?dcn of
expressioP and artistic integrity.
Essentially, PI 4 calls for reaucicg the extert to
which television and flctian and nonfiction works "exploit"
v~ol

Ch.13. Wlfe-Beatl~g Page 215
half ot a11 American households coltax a gun, most of which
are "hand guns%$ rather +han "sporting guns." The following
proposal is add:assaa to +his sbtuation:
PI 5. Enzct strlrgent gun control l;gialatio?,
particularly restricticg hacd guns, hut alsc
requirirg thar all guns he kept 13cked acd
unloaded.
PI 5 has hsen ep'ly termed "domestic aisarmamprt" by
Reatai Etzlori. This policy could go a l2ng way toward
reducing the most extreme aspect of domestic viol-nce:
aurder. Of course, domestFc disarmament w i l l 3at rsduce
violerce ES s:, sirce ore can still punch, kick, choke, or
kmfe. But an attack with t gun is much m3r? liksly to be
fatal than are other modes of attack.
".
.HE FRETLP PS TWINING GROUND FOR VIOLENCB
What has befc said 50 fer ~nphasrzEs the extant to
which riolerce ir thb fanly reflects the leva1 of vi=lerce
i!! the society. But the cther side of thc coin is at least
equally important; the level of violence in all aspects of
the socis'y, including the family itself, reflect3 what is
learned and grrerallzed frQm vhat happens ;?. tte ?z%ily.
beginring with icfancy.
- Pfisis& PUTiShnex. The implicit models for hfhavioz
provided by actions of the gavfrnmsrt ar.d dapic-ed ic the
mass 6ed1a form two legs of the stool supporting R~ericaI!
viclerce. The third leg is the family itself. In fact, the
family may play the most crucial role, b=cause the family is
the ssttirg in vhlch most people first experience physical
OiOlencD, and hecause that. violence is expsri?nced ir a
strong emotional contexc. Specifically, at least 90 psrcent
of parents USP physical punishment in their chrlarsr'? early
years. Noreover, far thou* half of all children. this
continues through the end of high school--essentially until
ths child leaves hone (Bachman. 1967: Steicmetz. 1974:
streus, 1971).
The importance of physical punishment ic tra5nir.g the
next generation of violent citizens was dsscrihsd in
Chaptsr 2. I2 the forthc~ming bcok giving the results of
OUT catlonal survey of violence lc families (Straus. G~llcs.
a ~ s+.einaetz. d . 19791. . . 0r.e cha~ter sives deteilea soidenc?
supporti~g this relationship. We found *hat th= mare
physical punishment a child experienced, the m3r% ~ i 3 l ~ ~ t
his/her marriage years later. This correlation is present
for "ordinary' physical punislment, but it is particularly
strong when physical purishment is used haavily.
punishment, then, lags the groundwork for ths
Physical
Darnatire
lsgitieacy of intrafzaily violence ara provi3es a

Ch. 13. Wife-Bsatirg PSgc 216
roiP-rnodel--ir~d8~d a speczfic "scrip?" (Gagno3 ard Simon,
1973: Buggins and Straus, Chaptsz 4)--for bath tho
perpetrators a s :& q&=:i~s of such actiocs. Gelles
(1376). for Fxampls, found tha' One Of the thr== main
tactozs linked Lo a urfe's tolera?ing abuse from her husbacd
in the exiert to which her parents hit her as a child (see
also Lefkoxitz pi.. 1976). an impartsct policy
Impl~cztlon of the fects just pr~sfrred should be:
PI 6. Gradually sliminaie physical punishmert
2s a mode of child rearirg.
I have used +hs +erm *~graduallyW in farmulatlng this
policy implicatior even though my own v3lues fsvsr ?mm=diats
cessation of physical punishment. nsny prsctical
drfficul?les
diftrcultles
sfand
that,
in
if
the way of
disregarded,
lomediets csssation,
cculd have ssricus
Consequences. Specificelly, ve csuld not exp-c? to
elinrrate physical punishment until paT3ntS 530 be pz~vided
al?ernati~e tech~iques for carirolling the behavi2r of
children, to prot~ct thsm from dtngqr and Zo teach the
pract:c21 skrlls ard sthtcal values for which society holds
parents r?sponsibls. That a feu parPn*s n+rlg? to bzicg up
children without physicel punishasr* does ro: imply that
most parents can do so. Such methoas must bs validat+d
befcre VB risk undsrmirirg the vital tssks sf s3cialization
carried out by parents. Forturatrly, sora sffsct~re
techazques are begirning ts emerge (see r=fer=nces follcwing
PI 8).
slQ&go xi&ggc_q. Elaost as uciversal ss physical
punishment is physical fightirg betvasn children ir the
family. Perhzps such fighting is icevitabl? in early
childhood. But it is rot lneritable that iitacks or each
Other by brothers asd sisters be regarded as much less
repreh??!Sible thac attacks or or by ucrelated children.
This diff?rerce zr. 'he way iden'ical acts of violence are
evaluated and handled syabolizes and ruinfcrc?~ the
leglfimacy of riolenc~ betweer fzmily eemb?.rs. 4s a rssult,
V~O~PPC? toward sihlings coc+5rues lang aft?r vi9lance
toward peers has disappeared. For sxample, amsng .he sample
studied by Straus (197Ua). almost tuo-thirds hsd hi: or been
hit by a brothsr or sister during 'he year they Her? skgLgg~
1h high school, canpared with th- one-thira who r?p>rt;d
hittr~g or being h ~ by t someme outs id^ the family. Thus,
right through high school, many youcg people ?xperi?nc9 a
5EC3nd aspect of irtrzfamily violercs that implies that
nothrng 15 ierrtbly wrong about the use of physical force
bstween family asnbsrs.
then:
To the sx'ent that this occurs,
PI 7. Fncaurage pirepts to control acts of
physical force between their children and to
avoid erplicitlg ?r implicitly defrning such
2CtS 26 p?~.1S5ible.

RS in the cans or physical pulishaent, ispl?m=ctirg
PI 7 is not wersly a mat'er of ceas5ng Fo do something. One
of the circumstances highlighted by the social~gical
pers:ective 1s that Elements of the social structure are
int~rwc~en. and rh~refore one of them Cannot hi triaiEa in
iS01+TiO~. In thls case, we must ask: "What is *her? about
the s:tua:ior. of children in a family thet gErerates such a
hlgh level of ~iolencs?~ znd "Row can chlldrer resolve their
di5agree89nts withcut physical fights?'l Ortil children are
sgulpped vith the skllls ta do that, it
.
is
.
as urrealistic
for pare~ts to implcre "dccqt tight" 3s ;r IS for Eaa:ly
life educztors to implore parents rot to spank.
Co~s~guently:
PI 8. Provide paref:s ald children with
tochrlques other then force and caerciar Ear
ccplcg with and resolving the inevitlble
conflicts of fesily life.
nany obsraclfs bar the way fcr iap1ansn:ing PT 8, one
of the most inportic+.oo: which is Eiscuased i n s&ctior E of
this chapter--the feilure to recognize the iccvitabili'y of
ictrafaeily cenflict, and hence to take sfeps far copicg
w:th conflict n9nv:olantly. Eut even LE that vers rot a
zactor, what techriques are available? Rlthough still i
matter of research +Ed cortrcv-rsy, promisin? mc2t.sls fcr
resolving parent-child ard sibllng-sibli'g corflic: havr
bee!! developed over the last feu years (8lechman f: la.,
19762, b: O'Dell, 1974; Pattersor pi 31.. 1975).
"~~3+c-SensozjIII Depiivatio~. Barry Aarlov orcD
ep~tomized the resulls of his classic ~xperimer?~ xith
monkeys rsared xr. iso1at:cn by saying that mockeys daprived
ot warn sac~al contact in infancy z*...~ould rether fight
than love.' The sane idea has surfaced ic a rumbar of
different ways 11 the h5story of social science: for
example. ln the work OD -he autharitsrian p?rsoneliCy of
Fdorzo gr a&. (1950). Par' of what Edorco's "P %=alenT
rneasnres is the propensity to use physical niclsnc4 for
socially desirable ends. People who get high 'F %c+len
SCOT~S, f3r fXamplt, fezd to fa~or the d?ath psnalty 2hd to
feel that sex crimilals should bs bath imprisocSd and
". ..publicly whipped, or worse.8r ldorno $$ 81. found thet
+~CSI sane psopl3 also received ralatively isss lave ard
affection from their parents than did those lcv cr the "P
scale."
Blst rec~ntly, Prsscott (1975) has pcinta8 to
neurophysiological and crnss-cul'ural zvider:~? shoving that
the more a persor is deprived cf a'soeatcJlr.scry
gratification," such as irtimets physical contact, love, and
affectioc, the greater the level of aggression, Fnclu3icg
physical aggressior. For Example, a tabulation 3f 2++a for
99 socleties rev~aled thst thi societies that do no2 plovlae
much physical affectlor to chsir children also tend t3 show

Ch.13. uife-Beating Page
a high level of violence between adults. Sircs 3 lcvina
affectionate ctlldhood tecds to inoculat~ persocs
societies against violenc4, it s ~ e n likely ~ that t
background would be
violence in +he tanily.
particularly efflcicious agai
The pclicy implicatlan that fallows from this find
15 not that parents "should be" warm and affsction
because by nov that has PEcoae part of the standard Ameri
child-reerilg ideolcgy (as compared with the "school of h
knccks" and the "don't spoil the child" ca?c-ptian,
Ratt.er. the policy iepllcatior rscoqnires that, d66pit~
ideology of wermth ard affectioc, millions of childrpn
ir fact deprloca of just that (idorno t 31.. 1950; Pee
1963; Levis. 1971). Consequently:
PI 9. sponsor research to determine ths social
and psychclogical conditions that cause soml
parents :o be cold and distant rsthar thxn
warm and lavirg. and translate the rFsults
into programs to assist such parents.
TEE INEVITABILITY OF CONFLICT I N FABILIZS
Contlic:, ir the serse of differerc?s ir =bj=ctiv~
"interests* Detvssp persons and between groups. is
leeritable part cf all human association (Coser, 19:
DihrE~do~f. 7959: Simmel. 79081. Some srcuos tend zn
groups, :be level of conflict is particularly hi<
Chapter 1 describes same of the charactsristics of :
familythat give rise to its rypicslly high 1evc.l
contllct.
These 51elET charact~~i~tics of the family are by
means a ccnplet~ list of factors that produce confli<
Ro~ever, they should be suffici~nt to indrcats that :
family is typ~cally the locus of a high lsvel of conflict
th9 5a.s time :hat it :s the locus af a high Lsv;l
ictsrpersonal support 3rd love. noderr society dces 1
provide adequate eechanlsms for convi3Lent resolution
these conflicts. First, the fimilyTs pzivacy and soparat5
from close ties with neighbors and relatives cuts it r
from the asszstacc= in solving conflicfs thst such gin5
can p~ovlde. Ther? IS PO one to turr. to for h51p. SBCO?
this same privacy and isola+.ian frcs kin and ceiqhbors ssr
that feu or cc agents of s3cial control exist to bl3ck i
use of physical force. consequertlp:

Ch.13. u~te-Beat:vg Page 219
PI 10. Fedace the iapect of government progrars
and regulatiols that, directly or indirsctly,
enconrage geographic mnhili'y or reduca ties
to the extended family.
T h x pclicy w i l l be Even more difficult $3 implsment
than a+ny of the ofhcrs suggested in this chapter, tot a
nunbsx of r5250~~. First. the ar* acd sciencs
impact analysism is only now bsglnning to
of "fzmily
hs explnrsd
(8inncsota Family S*uay csnter, 1976). Rsiae from a few
obvious programs (such as those policies that giu= more
encour3geme~t to buildirg rev neighborholds than ro
preserving ?he quality of existicg neiqhhorhoods), simply
identityl:y the rel5vant programs and governsent regulations
w i l l be a slow, uncertain process. Second, those pr3grzci
that are ide~tlfifa w i l l usually be ssrvirg sons import?.
purpose. Corsequently, the policy vould be not ~errly
latter of ending so~efhlng, but even more a mattsr - ~
firdllg alternatives that do not pncooraga mobility and *b'
redoction of eatsndsd family ties. Finally, the aid an?
support that intiaate commnnities aaa kir provids are no? an
Onmixed blessicg: they c2r be stif1ic.g st ths Sam- tiap
that they are helpful.
We hare already sugq~s'ed :'a? 3ur cccillingnrss to
recogxize the high level nf cosfllc: in families is irsplf a
source of ~iol~cce. 95 long as ccnfllct within the family
is sieved as urorq, abnormal, or illegitimate, people w i l l
be reluctart tc learn techniques for engaging ir conflict
nonviole~tlp.
PI 11. P B C O ~ ~ ~ ZihP E ine~ltabillty and
ieqitiazcy of conflict within :ha family
rn-her than
dfvlat:cn.
corsider conflic' an abn~raal
Once the inevitability end legitimacy of conflict
within families is recognized, th9 way is open for the
media. marrlege counselors, churches, and hnna. service
agencies to help families rind cocstructive ways of
resolvirg conflicr~. Many of the methods cited in the
refsrs~ce~ followirg PI 8, and those described in secti3ns A
ald I, are dasigred to do just that.
en important aspec-f these methods is that thEy are
ifitsneed for normal farilies; they make no assump*ions
2bout psychop8thclngy. Irstead, these neihods assume :hat
the tasily mmbers need tc learn more efficient vsys of
solving irterperscral problems ind proca?d to tsacb those
tecnniques by rovel, nonaorallstic behavioral mlthods. They
focus on teaching people &p= t o solve problems. not on !&t
the solotion to the problem is.

Although the inevitability of mayital coaflict stauld
b= rscoqnizfd, it is also inportact to av3Fd the trap
represent?d by ore uing of ?he 'encounter grcup' aoo€Bert,
which has i:s parallel anolg a number ?f marriage cours~lors
an3 writers of marital advico books,
vyasn's ihp Ipsptf: ==rap ('1968).
such as Each and
Each and Wvlr-n urge
their readers to drop +*outaod~d ~otions of etiquett?" ard
vertilate their Enger. Duricg oce group ssssion, one 3f the
authozs urged the xnm=n participants, "Don't be afraid to be
a rsal shrsu, z real bitch! Get rid cf ycur pent up
hosrilities! Tell *hem whore you're really it! Let it be
total, vicious, exaggerated, hyperbol?!" (8ouard. 1970:54).
llthough Each ard nyden3s book cortaics 3sserti3rs to
the coctrary. the overall aessags of the bock, as I re36 it,
urgES wives to do just what the quotation suggssts. This
advice is based cn a "catharsis," or "vsntilition' thecry of
agqrsssinn cortrol. That thearr bnyins with the assumptior
that all of us hava in cur natnr4 a greater or lesser
tfnde~cy toward aggression that soneh~v must find
expression. If we attsnpt to repress +Pis dpep hiologicallp
based motivatior, our innate aggression w i l l only cause an
9xplosion at some later tims.
3it---ur?+=iy ror ~trr? h;:
21.?E? TC FT":::CB? T"sC::3"\-t.
.ir- 2r-c~ -: .:uc? '!VICP,
ILY )Ti-':" " C7:C1-:!1C
r:o?r +onnrns -t= -borrv. 3-c T U C ~ OI :- E$CYC 7t.e :=Y-YSO:
. &
.
. that opporturitirs to ohserre aggression or to be aggz,ssivs
tena to produce grea,f:z suhsequnr.t levels of aggression and
viclence (serkovifz. 1973: EaKarson, 1970; Steinlstz and
Strans. 1974; Straus, 197U). In genersl, aggression
against another (either verbally or physically) tends Io (a)
produce courter aggrsssior. (b) Impsass getting tc the real
problem, and (c) 2f it does succfad in soue1chir.g the cthrr
pefson, reiPforces -he use if aggression as a mode of
:nteractlon.
'let
There is. havsver, a ksrnel of truth underlyina 'hs
it a11 hang out" and "ventilation" approacbPs to
marriage. The difference must b? percsived between
assertion (s~anding up for cne's intsr2sts) and aggr?ssion
(acts carrisd out with the ictezfian of hurting tte other].
A~serli~enE.55 is essential: but one cac De assertive
vlthout beilg aggressi~~ (although always with the risk cf
aggression being imputed). For example, the critical first
step5 of 'gstti~g help,' "canceling the hitting license,"
aca "makiT~g clear that ane is prepared to 12aVe,' ire all
highly 25SFTti~2, hat nocaggressive zc's. Sscond.
25~5rtiver~ess is rec~ssary if there is tl be 2ny h~pe of
resol~~ng the co~tlict ~ver which the vi3lsn~~ occurs. If
c02tl:ct arises over the children. ssx, noney, or running
the household, then these issues must 50 faced.

Ch.13. Wrfe-Beating Pzge 221
Procedures for ratronal conflict rescluticf, ofter
comblned wlth systems tcr revardllg occurrences of desired
beha~iOT, are cextrel concerns cf tho recent *'marriage
encounter' movement (Koch ar.d Kcch. 1976: nace 2r.d Eace,
1974) and of behavioral^ th~rapists llke PlFChnan st zL,
(19762, b). Patterson (1975). and a nulnbfr of 0-hers who are
r~pres2nt~d ic the chapters ot an important new b~ok or
'TTpazi Elaxranships (Olsor. 1976; see also Jacnbscr and
nartir, 1976). Ore can say that a prircipal goal af +hese
approaches to "treaclng relationships" is ths inprovemirt of
i~terperso~al skills, inclndirg ass~rtlveness, so thlr the
legitimate iLtsrFs*s 3f 111 partics can be furthered. This
kind ot therapy say also have the zdvantsge of being less
threateclng and more attzactive to husbands. If they rccora
with prev~lllng masculins role models, een are mare
rel~lctant t h a ~ UOmer to hesh ovsr their chilahool or prssent
emorlcns 2 ~ their 6 psy~hologi~al status, as required ic the
tradltionil 'insight" therapy. They pre"2r tc 2ns%ils
actions 2nd results DOZE than histo:? ald p2rsoxil5ty. and
these are precisely the foci of the lev marriage elcountor,
oarrlage snrichrner.?, and marriage counseltog approachss.
Perhaps ;he most pervasive set of factors bringicg
about wife-beaticg
structure of ths
are those
family acd
cocnpcted
society.
with the s=xist
In fact. to a
considerable exrent. *he cultural norms ard valurs
permrtting and sometimss encouraging 'usbard-CJ-wife
v101erce retl~ct the hierarchical and male-dominart +yp= of
SCCiEty rhzt characte~i~es the western world. The ilght '0
use force exists, as Goode (1971) co?.cludes, to p1ovi3~ the
ultimate support fcr the exisrirg povez structure 2f the
tamily. in case thoso low ir the hierarchy rsfuss to accept
*heir place 2nd roles. Nine ct the specific usys i2 which
the male-domitant structure of the society and of ths family
create 3rd mi:nta:n a high level of marital violscct were
described ir ChaptEr 6.
Since many mer musr fall back or the "ultimate
~DSOU~CE' of physical tlrce to aairiaic their authority (see
Chaptsrs 10 and 12 and Goode, 1971). it fcll3ws that a
pclicy thrt reduced this peed would be helpful:
?I 12. ElimiCaiE the husband as "hela of :ha
familyfs from its continuicg presence il tha
lav, ir reltgiol, in admicistrativ~
prccPdare, and 35 a take3-for-grznted aSpECt
of family life.

Ch. 13. Hlfs-Beating Peg= 222
Alth3ugh progress is being made in respect t5 the
achievement of husband-wife equelity, the idea thit the
husband 1s head ot the family remains firmly rootcd in
American culture (see the survey :sported ir. Pxza_$p. 1971;
also ROlb and Straus. 197u and the conclusion to Chapfpr 6).
In United Stated governsen? stalistics, the only time a
VomaP can he classified as the head of a household is when
no husband is physically present. No praviston is made for
lisfirg joir~t head of household. Only through thc activa
pursuit of the goals of the fnairist nlveaent is signiticaor
change llkely. noreover, the importance of the feminist
movemePt goes well beyond husband-vrfe equality, ard it w i l l
be impossible +o eliminate sexism :n the fanily urtil it is
also eliminated ir the society at large.
Although the elininatior of sexism in the family is a
historical Charge at vast magnitude, aspects of sexism are
Ulthln th? immediat~ control ot Individuals. Por example,
both tor her OW protection ar.d as a contribution to the
overall policy objective, no voaan sh~nld Entsr marriage
without it being firmly and pxg&lyit&p underszocd thaf the
husband is ~ o t the hezd of ths family. Unl~ss stated
Othsr~~se. the irpliclt marriage contract includes the
"standardw clause about male leadership. Chirgtng ftis
cortract after marrlage is roT c ~ ~ 6iff;cult. l y
but gives
rlse to feflirgs c: having been misled or chsated.
Althgugh objections nay he made to intr3ducing these
ideas ir junicr and senlor high school classes on the family
(as lcdicated by recent congressional pressure on the
natiocal SclEnce FouLdatiox that rssolted in en3ing support
fcr curriculum projects ic rr?hropology and Psychllogy) ,
nary local school districts w i l l find such content
appropriata. Ir addltlan, the feminist movement can
Contirue to chall+age the implicit support cf male dominant
faally relations ir Eagazines for young vonpn sucb 25
sexQT,zser.. 9~&&, and GagogK.
Ecotomic Constraints and Dlscrimlcation
L+ck of .?CO~OE?~C ~l?srratirs8 to depscdence 02 the
husband is ancther ore of the three aain factors thit 6elles
(1976) found associeted vith beaten wives' remaining vith
thelr hosb~~ds. Thus. tor womsn to be in s p0s:tion ir
which they can refuse to tolerata physical cosrcicn by their
husbands, ccc~pational ard economic equality are absolutely
essent121. Consequently, one of the sost fucdsaental policy
lmpllcati3ns is:
PI 13. ElimiPatE the pervasive systsm of
sex-typed occupations in which "womsn's
9cCUpatioT.S" t9r.d tc be poorly paid. and the
equally psrvaslve difference between the pay
ot Een and womer in the same occupation.

~urder.~ of Child Cars
S~xnally based divisio~ of labor thahasiqns
child-r~aring rssporsibilty to th? wife, occupational
discrlminatlon. lzck ct child-care fzciliti~s, icadequate
child support from either the gcvernaent or the father-all
coerce women to remain married even when the victims of
vi0ltPCE. R busbard aoes not need to fear that if he beats
h:s wits ara th? uif- lezv~s, hs w i l l be rssporsible for
both tht care ot the child ard the need to earn sufficient
ir,came. so, 2 hushaid car hit (acd oth?rvise oppress) his
wlf4 with relative impnnity. Re can be reas3nably confidsn+
th2i if she does leave, he w i l l not hav4 the children ucless
he insists on it; courts are reluctact to award childrin to
fathers in ary circuastancss. No shame is icvolved for a
rather who clzims that the child w i l l be best off with the
mc?her, but for a mothez to say +he chila is he?-cr cff with
the father is cot only shaneful, hut :n many c%s?s vill
cause +he chi= to be institutiocalizsd or placed in a
f~stsr home. Child care responsibility is cnly one of many
examples of SEX-typed r~los that hind wossn to violent
marriages. Sherefo?f:
PI 14. Reduce nr ellmicare the sex-tppel
pattern of faslly role risponsibilities.
Es in the care of sexual stersctyping ir the paid labor
force, lnterest ard ability rathsr than sex need to be the
primary crl*eria for who does what. aoreover, this is a
policy zmplica?ion 'hat, like that in respect t3 paid
employment, is dssirable regardless of its Effect on
wife-beating. Just as many (but not all) woman w i l l find
greater tulfillme~t through eguzl participation ic the paid
12bOr torce, many (hut agaic not all) non vill find grsater
fulfillment than they cow eapsrience in equal participation
It the hcosehola labor force. That possibility is now
denied to me2 because of the shame actached to men's shoving
major irterest ir househola work a d child cars.
PI 14 is a long-range type cf social ch319~. 20d we
need not wait for it LO cnae about. In the meantime. other
steps say be taker to aid vomex :rapped in a riolsnt
marriage by the necessity cf assunxng responsibility for
child care if the mar:lage breaks up:
PI 15. Estsblish or subsidize a comprehensive
ard hlgh qualiiy system 3f day-care centers
£Or pr~SCh0Ol children.
Egail. thls policy is long ovszdue in its own
cat just for its potential ir preventing wife-beating.
right.
Such
ta~iiitiE~ are needed by millions of vomec who
sstlstactory marriages.
erjoy fully

The thEEe BSpSCts Of th9 sfXiST StrUC?UTe Of the
soclety are listed below; thei: imFlicatiocs for
wife-boating Wers described ic Chapter 6 and need ajt be
repeated here.
myth of the Sixgle Parent Bousohold
Preeminence or Wlfe Bole for Wonen
These aspects and the nary other ways in which women
are disadvantaged (and tterefore less able to 2nd a vi3lent
marriage) suggest thet fur.darneltel charges shculd be made.
PI 16, 17, and 18 are xot policy analyses in the specific
sense used by Wilsor. and t3cDorald (1972:l-2). but are
guidelines tor needcd chzcges in public laws and private
practlcss. The mcst iaportact pollcy implication of all
those put forth ir. this chapter is th3t:
PI 16. Pull sexual equality is essfrtial fcr
prevention of wife-beating.
A t +hls poi~t we must make clear an important
liaititlon to much cf what has be?n said. Sexual equality
ir ;tsslf is almosr ceetainly gnf going to er.8 cmflict and
viol~nce between husbardr and wives. Equality vill reducs
or eliminate =*+air, klnas of carflict, but, at the same
time. it w i l l crfata new conflicts. Issues that are rat now
the . ~~ ~ subiJCt - ~~ of dlsameemert i~ million5 of families--such as
2~~ ~
who w i i l work tor wages and who vill vork in the hcas?, or
more saecific issues. such as who vill do the launarv--can
no longer be determined by referring to the tradi~ional
pattern ot tamily roles. Rathcr, these issuss becOmE open
gu"sticn~. OV4r which severe conflict can arise. It is by
no means incor.ceivablc that nsif&x partner w i l l Wact to be
In the paid labor force, or that npzf,hg; vill want to d~ th.
laundry. Consequectly, a rsduction in the level of vl3lerce
also requires tha? couples have interpirsonal and
contlict-ma~egenert skills needed to cope with, ard realize
the befiefits of, a less rlgid family systea. Millions of
p-ople lack these skxlls:
then.
almost all of us can rnprove
In addition. I? would be shcrtsighted. evsn dsrg=rous,
to ov~rlook t h cos;s ~ of freedom ard fleribilizy. Pr~edom
ard f l ~ ~ i b l l ir. l ? faeily ~ pztterrs and sex roles remove sons
of the foundatiors of stability and security in life. Not
eVarycCe
Promm's
flnds rhe berefits worth these :os?s.
(1941) classic book gscg~l fre! E~e:ppg
Prich
was
co~cerned with far more than -he reasons thi? fascism had
such wide support. A t +he Other end of ths continuum. the

Ch. 13. W~te-Beating ?age 225
mllliors of women cppcsed to the Equal Rights emccdmpct and
the ternmist novenen: reflect the anxisty that mazy uc~sc
feel over the possible loss of familiar and stable gui3es to
lits. Tbsrotare:
PI 17. 36 the EOC~C

Ch. 13. Vlfs-Esatlng Paq~ 226
Male O:len+.ation of the Criminal Justice syszem
Not only is much malr violence agairst wives
at'ributable ?o the sexlet organization of society, hut the
male-criented orgarizatior. of The crilinal justics system
v1rt3elly quazactees that fsv women w i l l be able to secure
legal relief (Fields. 1978).
But even if a woman gars to Family Court, unless she
has unusual und~rstandicg cf axd abilliy L3 menipulate +ho
System, there is often a three-weak delay before her r=?u9st
for 3 "peace bord" or ec Oforder of pzotection" comas bsfore
the judge. Such orders ire therefor9 of 10 gre3ter help ir
secnring imeediate pratectior from alath~r zssa2lt th3n the
police officers described in ChapLer 3. men ~ithout these
delays, many voaan carcc+ sttfnri court beczusa of -ha lack
of child-carp arrangensrcs dnriig tb~e long h?urs of vaitir~g
for a casa to corns up, frequently repeated when the case is
rescheduled.
Chapters 3 ard 6 detail mary impediesnts ta securing
legal pro*ecticn agiirst essault by a husband, incluaing (a)
legal delays, especially in ohtainicg a "peace bond" or an
"ard?r of protec?ion"; (b) iminuriiy from suit by one's
spouse; (c) ths requirsnent that, despite aburdint physical
e~idenc~, the police ctticer must witness the atCack before
ar, arrest can be made: (0) the frequent failure of police
to arrest ere2 W ~ E P thsy do witness an asssult: (E) ths
"coalinq out" by police, prosscn:ing a5torneys. and lodges
of wives who attempt to bring complaints: end [f) ths
refusal to maka an award b~ public conpe~sation review
boards (Even ir cases of psrmanprt disability) if the irjorr
"3.5 inflicted by the hnsbard. A l l of these fzct3rs indicate
the nEed for thn following policy:
PI 19. El:mixaLe from the criminal justics
system the implicit tcleration of
vife-beating shcvn in sia'utary an6 common
law; a-i'udes of tbe police. pflse~utor~,
and iudoes: and cumbersome and insffec?iv?
Same movement in the dircctior of PI 19 is ncv takinq
plats. but ir 1s far fror a general trena. B chargs Lr the
1Sgal system zequires a priority activity by vsll ozg+nlzea
feminist g:oups. 8s in the "Now wife Assault Pr2gramn ic Enn
B.rb31, fiichigan (FOLjik, 1976; Resnik, 1976) or in the
cccaslotal enlightere6 polic~ departacnt that rsccgnizes the

Ch.13. Wife-Beating Psge 227
need to rrcrient its mode of copicg viih 'family
dlsturbarce' calls (Bard ~2 81.. 1975).
ECONONIC PROSTRBTION BND VIOLEACE
PmEriCan society, liks most socie:ies, is one in which.
trom early childhood on. people learn '3 TESPOP~ to
trustrat:on aid 5tress by aggression. This r?Spons? is not
inevitable biologically
since ID a few societies people learn to. acd typically
do. respord to frustratior in other ways. N=v?rthel-sa.
aggressive response 2s typical of this roclsty and is
1rkeIy to reaair so ir the foreseeable futo:?. For +his
reason, and because a policy dLrec:ed to rsducing
frus:ratlon would be desirible in irs own right, we shoula
gLvs high pziarrty to enable as may psrsons as possibl~ to
avold slCuatlons cf oxtrems frustration cE important llfs
goals. This proposal is by 30 mfars tha sams as a%temFtirg
to crea&.o e life vithou? frustration. Such a life, even if
it were possible, would be empty, and w3uld probably be a
source of violence in rtself (see the discussion 5f the
TlncksorX Orangew theory of violerce in Gelles and straus.
1978). Aouever. a major blockage ot a critical life gaal is
quite another th1r.g.
a+ny critical lite gcals are (or perhaps
beyond the realm or social policy to facilitate.
on which thcre is high cocsensus, 35 well
should be)
But a goal
as a high
possibility of a ~ h i ~ ~ ichange, r g is the provisior of a
meaningto1 sccupatioral rcle and an adequate love1 of ircomo
for all faailies.
in rndusrrisl societies, tho husbacd's positicr of
le~dership depsnds cn tho prestige and earning power 3f his
Occupetion. Consequcn+ly, it the husband is unaeplcyed or
does cot earn 2n amourt consistent with other men in rhe
fanlyvs nftvozk of associates, his leadsrship positisn is
n~dermin~d. Data from a srudy by O'Brierr (1971) shov '.hat,
when this happens. husbards tecd -0 t ry to maintain their
superior position through the use of physical forc-. Dat3
from my study of the parerts of universizy studeots shov
that ihs percentage of husbands rho struck thair wises in
the last year rarges from a law of 9 and 7 percent for 'hose
whose U:VBS are alm05t completely or completely sa:isf:ed
with theLr family income, op to 16 and 18 percent for those
whose xives are slxghtly satisfied or nlt at 311 satisfied.
There is 2150 e~idelce that asseults on wives
onemploymen: (Parade. 1971:13: Straus,
Steinnetz, 1979).
go up
Gelles,
with
and

a
In discussing the sexist organizatian of the faaily as
cause of uife-beatlng, we poixted ont that if husbsrds no
longer had the burden of being the "head of th? family" and
the a3in "breadwinner," they vould no' ~ e to ~ resort d to
~iclence to maintair that position in situations where the
w:fe is mare cornpeter;, earrs more, or has a Nore
prest:gious occupation. The same reasoning ipplies, pirhaps
even nor6 strongly, vher the husband is unamployed.
Clea~ly, the nost furdam?ntal change needed is male
liberation trom the bcnds of fraditiocel sex roles. Pt the
sam5 time, ve can pursue e policy that, aside from its
int:~?.sic worth. 15 likely to TE~UCS wife-beatirg. It is
stark in its simplici%y and powerful in its €ffE:t on human
welfare:
PI 20. Pull employment for all ser and women in
the l+bor force at wage levels consistsnr
w:th the standards of tte society, and s
guaranteed incorns for those o?.ab19 to work.
hsld~ from its impac' nr uifs-beating, ir. avoiding ma
or the most severe frustratiocs thsL a,ps:soo can exparLance
In en rndustrlal society end in bypassrng issues of power
within the family, full employeent exerts a powerful effect
an ssli-esteem. Kaplan (1975) has shown that the lnu?r an
adolescent's self-esteem, the greater the likelihood of his
being violent; Kaplan's data suggest that bops 13w in
self-esteem 59ek to aChlEVe r~cognition from others thzongh
rialeace. This bshavlor, sf course, is tied to the oquation
of mascu1:~ity with aggresslvensss. Consequartly, when
recogrition through achievemect ir school. sports, 3r an
occupation is lickirg, sales car and do demonstrate their
"manhoodv through uiolercs. Again, the more fundae~ntal
policy abjsctlvs is to chenge the definition cf nasculirity.
But as Long as ;hat definitioc continues to be a part of our
culrure, full employmPnt can help avoid invokrng this aspect
of "eachood" through providing meaningful employment as a
bas15 fOT SSlr-8Steel.
B more radical approzch to this relatiocship bstveen
economic frustration and vife-beating fccuses on what
Critics of Americen sccisty see as the inhueen occupafional
and economic system. Such czitrcs ar? not opposed to full
enployment, but they do oppose the scorosic and social
sys.e.2 that judges humai worth by ~arcings and competitive
cccupatlo~al achle~~me~t. 85 long as such a systpm
pTeV3.115, the bulk of the popularion is deoied a!? adsguate
level of selt-est.sem because only + mirority, by definition.
can be it the top in occupa+ioral prestige ana incorn-. I?
additlor, the strivirg to get to the top pushes the more
humac valuss '0 subcrdin3re position. Ties JE frierdahip,
kin, and community. for example, are regularly sacrifices in
moving to get a better jch or accrpting a promotion.
Consequently, the folloulng policy is proposed:

ch. 13. Rife-Beating Pag? 229
PI 21. Reduce the extent to which scci?ty
evaluates pecpls or the basis of their
eccnonic achievemeres and redvcn thi
occupation+l and economic competition 'hit
this ectails.
The implicaticn of PI 21 is 33: the end t3 all
competition. Coapetitior can be plsasurable, if on? can
rbno=e tha arena -- of ~- ccaoptition - ~~. and if there is a rt=asacable
~ ~ --
chalce of vinlirg. Bather, the policy suggssts the need to
end ;he forced and (for most of the papolsticn) ro-win
competition that now characterizes our 3ccup+tional-sc3nomic
SUnillRY AND CORCLUSIONS
Physical violencs betveer hushand and wife 1s a c9mnor
an inevitable part of human na'orp. Ocly i? rare
but C D ~
i155anc=s is it ?.P OUZgrOYth of p~thn13gical BZlE
aqgressiueiess, or of fenale masochism. Parhe=, the typical
pattern of hushand-wife oiolence, and its extreme Fn the
form of 'wife-bsating." is largely a rpflection 3f the
nature of the socisty, its family system, ard its typlcg of
sex roles znd male/fenalG pernonalirylraits. C3r.segusrtly.
the focus of this chap+er has been ro deduce from these
social factors ?he policies that, if adoptaa, would reduce
the level of ~lf~-b~a

Ch. 13. Wife-Baatlng page 230
------ Factor ZIJ. THE PBCILY IS TAE PRIMABY SETTING IA WHICR
VIOLENCE IS LEBRNED
6. Gradually sliminate physical punishment es a mcle of
child rearing.
7. EncCUZage parents to control acts of physFcal force
between thei: childrer and to avoid pxplichtly or
implic:tly detining such acts as psreissible.
8. Provide parents and children with tschniques other than
torcn and coercion for coping with azd resolving the
inevltahl~ conflicts af faailp lifs.
9. Sponsor rs~earcb ta detsrmine th? sccial and
psychological c~ndltions that cause some parects to be
cold and distant rather than warm a2d l3vinq. +I&
translate the results into programs :o assrsc such
parents.
&r;er 21. THE INEVITABILITY OF CONPLICT IF TE9 FRflILY
10. Reduce the impact of government proarams end
regulations that, directly or indirscLly, anc3crige
geographic mobility or reduce ties to the extended
Family.
11. ReCOgniZE the lr.evitability of conflict within the
family rather 'heo corsider cmflict ar abccrmal
deviation.
Factor 1. SEXUALLY STSREOTYPFD POLES RND SEIISil i N IRE
PRnILY PND TRE SOCIETY.
IliaiPEte the husband as 'head of the family" froe its
co"tinUFPq presence i~ the law.
administratrve procedure, and as a
in religioc. in
'sksl-for-greofed
aspect of family lifs.
Eliminate the pervasive system of sex-typad occupations
in whlch "women's occupations" 'end to be poorly paid.
and the equally pETV351Pf difference between
of men and woeen in the same occupation.
the pay
Reduce or eliminate the sex-typed pattern of family
role responsibilities.
Esfab1:sh or subsidize a comprebensivs end high quality
system of day-care ce-ters for praschool childr?n.
~ u l sexual l equality is essential
u~te-beatirg.
for prevention of
AS the S O C ~ E ~ ~
~limi~ates flx7d sex-roles. ~ltern3riv~
sources of stability and security in sslf-deficition
"ill be needed.
Parent-chLld interaction, parcntal expectations, an6
all othfr aspects of socialization should not be
diffe:ent:ared accordilg to the SEX of the chilS.
Eliminate froe tha criminal justice system the implicit
toleration of wife-bea+ing shown in statutory and
common law; the attitudes of the police, prosecut.ors,
and judges; 2nd cumberscne and in~ffectise proc4dure.s
tha+ make even the available legal remedies and

---
protection ineffective.
PPCDR !I. PRDSTRATIORS BUILT INTO TEE ECONDBIC SYSIPE
20- Fell employment for all men and women in ths lsbor
rorce a+ wage levels consistent vizh the standards of
the society, and a guaracteed income for thos~ unahle
tc work.
21. Beduce the extent to which society evaluetes people on
the hasis of their economic achievemints, ana reducs
the Occupational acd eccnosic coapetiti3n th%t this
entails.
Elthoughthe primary focus cf the chipter uss on
pclicles that w i l l Eexez wife-beeting, *.he desperate
imsadlate sztuaticn of millions of wives must also be
addressed. ConsequeCtly, the last ihird nf tb* loroar pcyr
frcm which this cha?ter was exc?rpt=d (straus, 1977) is
devoted to steps that individual wives mszried to an
assaultive husband can take, and to actions fsaiFist and
community groups, police. end human service ageacl?~ can
take. to cops vixh tte immediate problem.
Changing a pheronener as deeply %bedded in the sacial
system as wife-beating is a vast undertaking. Ss many
actims are needed that one almost does cot know vhcre to
start. Ir fact, a realistic zpproach recognizes that there
is no one place to start. Rather, a broad publiz awareness
a ~ d comnitm~nt to change is necessary. so that individuals
and groups in all spheres of life can attend tc changes in
each af these spheres. For example, change in the legal and
law e~for~ement system w i l l cot in itself end vife-bsa'irg.
Rut, :he police, lawyers, judges, and legislators can act to
remov~ some ot the aaly barrlers that now prsvent vaasn from
~Cc~iving legal protection from
stat"^, u~less the assailant USES
beatings. Thus, in most
a weapon, the police
cinrat make an arrest, even if the rife is obviously injured
and the husband makes nc attempt to decy her charges. (She
cal, however, make a "citizePqs arrest" and icsist that the
police help her--provided she has sufficisr? preserce of
mind, self-confidence. ard determinatim. acd some plsce to
hide when the husband is zeleased frnn jail an hour or two
later!.) The law regulating the evidence needed tc mske an
arxest f3r wife-beating can be changed, just as lavs
regarding ths evidence needed for a rape conriction havn
recently changed. Sirnilerly, putting a husbald in jail
deprives the wife of her aeacs of support: this E3ct is
often pointed out to women and is one reason s3 few SroPrely
beatsn wives press Chargss. BOW EVE^, i C SO.€ states, 3
pri.53~81 can be released for employment during working
hours, and soch lavs could be enacted in other states if the
socisty were tzuly determined to end vife-bs2ting.

Ch.13. Wife-Beating P39e 232
This firal chapter has attempted to trace cut the
policy implications of on1 knowledge of one aspect of family
Violence: ulfe-beating.. There is good riasJn for the
emphasis an vife-beating. Womer are under greater risk than
men of serious injury from physical attack, and they hare
few alternatives for putting up with beatings by their
husbands. In this ard ir previous chapters we pninted out a
variety of social and economic cocstraints that lock vomer
into marriage to a such greatnr extent than men. In short,
as sltea in Chapter 2, women are victimize3 by violecce in
the family to a much greater Extsnt than are husbands, and
should therefore be t h focus ~ of the most inmediate rseedial
embedded in the very structure of s0c:ety acd the family
system itself. The solution to wife-bsating, like other
forms of intrafamily violence, lies in the complex interplay
of cultural and eoclal org+rizatioral fsctcrs surrxn3ing
famlly life.
NOTES
*Revised version of part of "A Sociological Perspactive
and Treatment of Uite-Eeating.' Reprinted with pernissicn
from Bsria Roy, (€d.) Battered women. New Fork: Van
Nostrand-Reinhold, 1977. This paper was first presented at
the 1977 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric
Association.
I am grateful +o naria Roy and tl Professors Richsrd J.
Gel195 and Boward n. Shapiro, and Jean Giles-Sims for
comm2ntS and criticisms of the first draft.

References

RBEOTT. SUSAN 1976 "Pull-ti~e farmers ard week-end wives:
An analysis of al+erilg conjugal roles.,' JDurral of
Narriage and tho Family 38 (February):765-174.
ADOSNO, T. W. E. FRENKEL-EFCNSVIR, D. J. LEVINSCIA, and
N. SLNPORD 1950 Ths Authoritarian Personality. New
York: Rarpfr ard Raw.
ALDOUS. JOIN 1974 "The making of faally roles and family
change." The Family Coardica?or 23 (July) : 231-235.
EPPLEY. fiORTlnER H. and RJCEARD TRUMBOLL (?as.) 1967
Paycholoq~cal Stress: Issu-s in RPsairch. ?trv Y2rk:
~ppleton-ce~tury-crofts.
ARCBER. DINE and BOSENASY GBRTNER 1976 "Violen? acts and
violenf 'imss: A contemporativ9 approach +o pastvar
h0aicid-e rates.' American Socio13gical SEV~PW 41
(Decsnbsr) ~937-963.
PRDREY, ROBERT 1966 The Terriforial Iaperative. Nsv York:
Atheceum Publishers.
EACH. GEORGE R. and PETEF WYDZN 1968 The Intina+e Fr~eRy.
New York: Borrow. Pp.17-33. Blso reprictsa in
Steinnetz and straus. 197U.
PBCEflRN. JERELD G. 1967 Youth ir Transition. Ann Arbor,
michigan: Institute for Sociel Rssearch. University of
nichigan.
BEER. STEPNEN 3. 1974 opFffects on pOvar and tiiVisioL Of
labor in the family." Chap. 7 ic Lois V. Eoffaan and
P. Ivac Nye (eds.). The Employed nother il Essrica
(seccrd Edition). Chicago: Rand ncbally.
EAHR. STEPAEN J., CBAFLES 3. EOREBBLb, and YIKTOB GECAS 1974
wAdalescant perceptions of conjugal power.' social
Forces 52 (narch) :357-367.
BRLSWICK, JZCK 0. ar. d CEBRLSS 1. PEEK 1971 "The
inexpressiv~ male: E trEgedy of Rmerica~ s3ciety." The
Family Coordirator (0ctaber):363-368. Elso rcpriated
in Rrlsne and 3ero.s Skalrick (eds.) , Ictiaacy, Family,
and Society. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 197'4, PP.
237-244.
EANDUBA, ALBERT 1973 Eggression: E Soclal Learning
Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
BANDURA A. and F. B. WlLTERS 1959 Adnlssc=nt Aggr=sslon.
New Y~rk: Ronald Press.
BANDURA, ALBERT 2Td P. 9. WELTETS 1963 Social Learning and
Personality D€velooment. New Yark: Eoll, Rlnsharf an8
Winston.
BAaD, nORTON 1969 "Family intervention polica teems is +
cOmm~City lental health resource." The Journal of
Crimin~l Law, Criminology and Polics Scicr.cr 60
(21 :247-250.

References Psge 236
BARD, nORTON 1971 "The study and nodificatioc of
intra-familial violence.*+ Pp.159-169 in Jeraoe I.
singer (ed.), The Control of hggrsssion ana Vi~lence.
New York: Academic Press. Elso reprinted in Steirmetz
and Straus, 1974.
BARD, BORTON. t al. 1975 The Function of ths .orlice 52
Crisis IPterventioc and Conflict nsnlgemsct: I
Training Gulde. Hesbington, D.C.: U.S. Dspartmect of
Jnstice.
~ -- ~~--.
BART, PAULINE 5. 1975 ,,Rape daesr't end xiti? a ki~s." VIVA
(June) :39-42 ard 100--102.
BPSOPITZ, HlROLD f$= gL. 1955 Enxiety and Stress: An
Interdisciplinary Study of a Llfe Situa'f3n. Nsw York:
RcGraw-Hill. - ~
BELLAK. LEOPOLD and MAXINE ANTELL 1979 'An intercultural
Study Of aggr1SRi~e bsharicr sl chi13zenqs
playgrounds." hmericen Journal of Or?hopsychiatry u9
191:503-511. . .~
BEn, S. L. and D. J. BEn 1970 "Training the woman to krov
her place: The power of a ron-conscious in
D. J. Bern, Beliefs, Attitudes, a ~ d Humn Affairs.
sslmon+.. California: Sroaks/Cola.
BENEDICT. RUTH
cultural
1938 "Coitinuities and discontinuities in
condltiaaing." . Psychiatry 1:161-167.
Reprinted ix Clyde Kluckhohr and Esnry 9. Burray
(sds.), Personality in Nature. Society, and Culture.
New York: Alfred 1. Knopf.
BERSER, AETBU8 A. 1974 The Comic-stripped :m?rican.
Baltimore: Penguin Eooks.
BERGER, PETE3 2nd HRnSPRIED KELLNEB 1969 "Barriage and the
construction of raali+y." Diaganes 46:l-25.
BFPKOUITZ. LEONPRD 1973 "The case for bot*lirg
PSyChOlOgp Today 7 (July):24-31.
up rsge."
BERNSTEIN, PSILIP 5. 1950 nhat the Jews Eelieve. New Yoxk:
Farrar. stzaus ard Young.
BETTELHEIB. BRUNO 1967 'Children should lssrn about
vlolePc5." Saturday Evening Posz 240 (flarch):lO-12.
A150 reprinted in Steinmetz and Straus. 1974.
BETTELAEIfl, BRUNO 1973 'Bringing up childrec." Laaies Borne
Journal lo (October) :32 if.
BICXEAN, LEONlRD 1975 "Bystander intervention ic a
CfimB.' Paper presentea +t International Advanced Study
Institat? On Victimology and the NFeds of ;ontemporary
Society, Bellagio, Italy. July 1-12,
BLIU. PET% n. 1969 Exchange ar.6 Power
1975.
in Social Life.
New York: John Rilsy and Sons.
BLAO. PETER 1975 Bpproaches t0 the Study of Social
StrnCtUre. New York: Free Press.
BLECHMBN, ELAINE B., DAVID 8. I. OLSON, 3rd I. D.
BELLSIN 1976 'Stimulus control over family
problem-solvi~g behavior." Behavior Therapy.
BLECRBAN. ELXIRE I., DAVID H. L. OLSON, C. Y.
SCEORNAGEL, fl J. RRLSDOBD, and A. J. TURNEB 1976
"The farily contract game:
J3urlal of Corsulting
u4:949-455.
TEchniqne and case stu3y."
and clinical Psychclogy.

References Page 237
BLOOD. ROBERT 0. 1963 "The husband-vif9 relationship." Pp.
282-308 in F. Iven xye and Lois W. Eoffmac (rds.),
The Employed Bother ir Emerica. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
BLOOD, ROBERT 0. 1965 "Long-range causes and consaqusnces
of the employment of married womsn." Journal of
Marriage ard tte Family 27 (Pebruary):83-'47.
BLOOD, ROBERT 0. 1967 Lcve natch and Arranged Uarriage.
New York: Free Press.
BLOOD. ROBERT 0. aca ROBERT L. RERDLIN 1958 "~hc offec-s
ot the wife's e~ployment on ths family power
structure." social Fcrces 36 (nay):347-352.
BLOOD, ROBERT 0. and DONELD 8. QOLPE 1960 Eosbands 3nd
U~YPS: Ths Dynamlcs of narrizd Living. New York:
Free Press.
BLUEBERG. BYRNA 1964-65 'when pe:snts hit out." 20tb
Certury (Yinter):39-41. llso reprinta3 Ln Stsirmet2
and Strzus. 19lU.
BLUNENTfiEL, MONICB. D., POBERT L. KBBN. PRBBK n. ANDREWS,
and KENDRB E. HEED 1972 Justifying Violence: The
Bttitodes of RmerzCan nen. Ann Erbor, Uichigan:
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
ELUMENTHBL, flONICA D., ZETBA 8. CEADIRB, G?RALD A. COLE,
2nd TOBY EPSTEIN JRYBRBTINE 1975 nore absut Jnstlfyisg
Viol~rce: nethodclogiczl S'udies of Bttitudes and
Behavior. Brn Irbar. Michigan: Institute for Social
Research. University of nichigan.
EoRBNNBN. PIUL 1960 "Patterns of murder +ad suicide."
Chapter 9 in Peul Eahannan (ed.), 3-frican Homicias and
Suicide. NEW Yozk: EtheneUI.
BOTT, ELIZRBETR 1957 Pamily and social Network. London:
TBVIS~OC~.
BRIB, ORVILLE G., JR., ROY FAIRCBTLD, and EDGER P. BOBGOTTP
1961 "Relbtlon~ between family problems." narriags ard
Paslly Llvlng 23:219-226.
BROWN, BRUCE W. 1973 "Tte image of the coctsmporary sale
as depicted in advertisicg during sports ivents."
Unpublished paper, Wilkss college, Uilkss-Barre.
Pennsylvania
BROVN, BRUCE 8. 1917 "Educatioc. employment, and
prescriptions for marital decision-making: 1900-1978."
PapPr presented at the arnual meeting of the Bmericar
socrological Issociation. Chicago, Septsmh~r 1977.
BROWN, BRUCE W. 1978 "wife-employment ard ths emergence of
equalitarian marital role prescriptiocs: 1900-7978."
Journal cf Comparatrve Family Studiss (in press).
BROWN. R. C. and J. T. TEDESCBI 1974 'Determinants of
perceived aggressior." unpublished manuscript. Gssrgia
State University.
BRoWN~ILLER. SUSEN 1975 Bgai~st Our will. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
BOCKLEY WALTEP (€6.) 1968 nodern Systems Research for the
Behavioral Scioc?ist. Chicago: Eldine.

Referenc~s P3ge 238
BULC 'ROPT. RICHAPD and RURRBY 2. STRRUS 1975 "Validity of
hosbaxd, wire, end child rspor" of iirtrfamily
v~clence and power." nimsographed Paper.
ED46 iESS. la8 W. and LYNDP LYTLE XOL?ISTROE 1974 Rape:
Victlms of Crisis. - -- Bouie. nd.: Robert J. Brady Co.
FURIC. OLIVERA and ~~ ~~ ANDJELKR ZECSVIC 1967 "Family
authority. marital satisfaction, and the social ns?vork
in Xuooslavia." Jourral nf narriags and F ~ s Family 29
BURKE. RONBLD J. and TBUBRL W3IB 1976 "Relationshtp of
wives1 EmplcymeCt statos to husband, wife. and pair
Satisfaction and PerFOmance."
the Family 38 (nay) :279-287.
Journzl of narriage and
BORR, WESLEY R. 1973 Theory Corstruction and the Ssciology
cf the Family. New ?ark: ~ o t viiey r a ~ a 832s.
BUSS, R. H. 1971
leds.) , The
"RggrPsSion pays.' In 3. L S:ng*r
Control of Aggression and Violence. New
YOEk: Riley and Sons.
CALONICO, JPUES m. 2 ~ d DRRHIN L. TBOnRS 1973 "Role-taking
as a function of value similarity acd affect in the
nuclear family.'
(4) :655-665.
Journal cf Earriage and the F3mily 35
CILVEBT, ROBERT 1974 'Criminal and civil lilhility in
husband-wife assaults." elso reprinted in Steinmetz and
Straus, 1974.
CRUERON. P. an& C. JRNKY 1972 "The effects of sisuirg
'Violent' T.7. upon children's at-home and ir-school
behavior.'
Kentucky.
Ucpublished manuscripf. University of
CAMPBELL, JABIS S. 1969 'The family acd violence." Pp.
251-261 in Steireptz and Straus. 197U.
CARILLO-ESROB, CBPEEN 1974 A
Women. San Prancisco:
Comparisal of Chicano and Anglo
R and r Research Associates.
CENTERS, BICHASD. B3RTRP.B 8. Baven, a2d AROLDO RODfiIGD3S
1971 "Conjugel paver structure: A rn-s~aminatior.~
Americar. SOClOlogiCBl Revlew 36 (Bpril):263-278.
COEEN, PERCY S. 1969 ncde'r~ Social Theory. L3ndon:
Heinsmann Educational Books Ltd.
COOPEB, DRVID 1971 The Death of th3 Paaily. Rev York:
Random House.
CCOT3, RSNB 1974 "Police, the lax, and hsttered wires.n
Macchsster Guardian (Nay 23) : 11.
COSER. LEWIS E. 1956 Tb.e Punctiocs of Social Conflict. New
York: Pree Press.
COSfB, LEWIS A. 1967 Continuities in ths Study of Social
Conflict. New Pork: Pree Press.
COSER, LEWIS A. 1969 The functions of social ~onflict.~
Pp.218-219 in L. 2. Cosfr acd B. RosenbErg (eds.),
s0~101ogiCal Theory: A Saok of Reaaings. New York:
sacmilla*. --- ~
COTTRELL, L. 5. 1942 "The adjustment of the ildividual to
his age and SEX roles." Bmerican Sociological Review 7
r0ctober1:617-620.
CROBWGLL, RONALD E. and DAVID 9.
Power In Famllles. AEV York:
L. OLSON
sags.
(eds.) 1975

References Page 239
CROOG, SYDNEY A. 1970 "The family as a source of stress."
Pp. 19-53 in Sol Levinf ard Normar! A. Sc3tch (sds.),
Social Stress. Chicago: Bldine.
CUBER, JOAN F. and PEGGY BEEOFP 1965 sax and the
Significanr Americans. Ealtimore: Penguin.
COBTIS, LYNN 8. 1974 Criminal Violencs: Nationel Pattsrcs
2nd Behavior. Lexington. 0355-: Lexington Books.
DIBRENDORP. RLLP 1959 Cl2~5 a ~ Class d C~nflict in Sn3ustrial
Society. Lordon: Boutledge ard Regan Paui.
DAVIS, K E N J. 1970
prison system."
"Sexuel assaults In the Philadelphia
rn John B. Gagnon +nd William Sieon
(ids.), The Sexual Scene. Chicaqo: Ildice.
DESZIN, NOSHAN K. 1970
deviant behavior:
"Rule5 Of COZdliCt azd the stuay Of
some >ores on the social
relatrosship.n Pp. 120-159 in J. D3uglas (~3.).
Deviance and Respect?biliCv. wev Ycrk: B3sic Eo-ts.
DIXON, 1. J. (sd.) 1965 EBD--Eiomedlcal Compurar Program.
Pp. 459-481. 1.0s Bngoles: U.C.L.A.
DOXRENUEBD. BRUCE P. 1961 "The social psychological nsture
of stress: R tramEwCrk for causal icquiry." Joum91 of
Abnormal and social Psychology 62 (narch] :294-302.
DOLLBRD. JOBN C. et. a. 1939 Frustration and Eggression.
NCY 89vera: Yale University Press.
DURKHEIN, EMILE 1950 Rules of sociological Mpthod.
ERIRSON, KRI 1966 Wayuard Puritans. New York: Wilep.
ERLRNGEA, HOWARD S. 1974 "Social class diffsrerc9s in
parents' use of physical punishnnnt." Pp. 150-158 in
Steinmetz ard Straua, 197U.
ETZIONI. BUITbI 1971 "Violence." Chapter 14 in Robsrt K.
nertoc and Robert I. Nishet (eds.) . Contemporary
Social Problems. Third Edition. xeu Park: earcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
FERRINGTOY, KEITH 1975 'ITcuard a general stress theory of
xntra-famlly violence." A paper presented at the 1975
ancual neating of the Nazional Council oc Family
Belslions. Salt Laks City, Utah.
FARRINGTON, KEITB and JOYCE E. POSS 1977 "In search of the
'missing' conceptual framework in family soci~logy:
t.ha soclal conflict traxework." Pap?r present& at the
Theory Developwrt ard nethods Workshop, annual meeting
of the Na?iocal couccil an Family Relafioas, October,
1977, Sar Difgc, California.
PENNSLL, NUBLA 1974 Irish marriage. Dublin: The nercier
Press Ltd.

Ref~rences Page 240
FERNBNDEZ-BBRINA, RARON. EDUlXDO P. BRLDONIDO, and RICHERD
D. TRENT 1958 "Three basic themes in Puerzo Rican and
Mexicap-lmerlcan family ~alues." Jourral of Social
Psychology 48:167-187.
PERREIRA, RNTONIO J. 1963 "Family myth and homeos:etis."
?.rchlv95 cf General Psychiatry 9:457-463.
FESBBPCH. SEYnOUR 1970 "Aggre~sian.~~ Chapter 22 i n Paul E.
nussen fed.).
Third Edltlox.
Carnichael's Barns1 of CktLd ?sych9logy.
N9U York: JChl Viley a3a SOXs.
FESEBBCB, SEYMOUR acd ROBERT D. SINGE?, 1971 Talfviriln acd
aggrsssinn. San Frarcisco: Jossey-aass.
FIELD. ER9TRR B. and AENRY 7. FIELC 1973 "narital
violence and +he criminal process: Neithsr justics or
peace." The Social SE~V~CF RCV~EY 47 (June):221-240.
FIELDS, UARJORY D.
intervention
1978
policies
"wife bszting g3V9rDmeFt
and practicis." Testtmo-y at
heaflngs on
Commi%tee oc
"Research Into Dmestic violence,"
scierce and Technslagy, D.S. Bouse of
Representatives. Pebzuary 14-16.
FOTJIK. KRTSLEEN R. 1976 "Rife bezting: BOV i0 dEVplJp 3
vita assault task force and project." En? Lrbor.
filchigaf: Rnn Brbor-Uashtenzv Courty NOW Wife Rssault
Task Force.
POX, GREER LITTON 1973
resources model:
"Another look at thE CCnparEtiVe
lssesslrg the balance of power in
Tnrkish aarriages.Qy Journal of narriage and the
35 (4) :718-729.
Femily
FBBICKE, LINDA BIBD 1977 "Tho body Couct in the battle Of
the sexes." New York Times (Septsmbar 29) :44.
FRENCH JOHN R. P. a ~ BERTRAM d
R. RIVEN 1959 "The bases Of
social power." Pp. 150-167 ir. Dorwin Cartwriqht (ed.),
studies 1r Sccial Power. Arn Brhor: Fessarch Center
for Group Dynamics Ins'iture far SJcial Research,
unlverslty cf Richigen.
FREUD, S. 1959 Why War? Letter to Professor Albert
Einstein. 1932. Ir colleciea Pap?rs. Tolun~~ 5. New
York: Basic Books.
PROBM, ERICA 1941 Sscapc from
Rinehart acd wlnstan.
Fre@dom. New York: Holt,
FURSTENBERG, FSRNK F. JR. 1966 "The American family: 1
look backward."
(June) :326-337.
Rnerlcan Sociological Feview 31
GRGNON. JOHN A. and HILLiRB SIMON 1973 Sexual COcdUCt:
The Social Sources of Human Sexual~ty. Chtcago:
Rldlne.
GECRS, VIKTOR 1972 "Botivos and aggressive acts in popular
fictio5: 5-x and class diff~rencss." bmsricar J-urnal
of Sociologg 77 (January) : 680-696.
GELLES, RICABRD J. 1973 'VChild abuse as psy~hopathology:
I so~tologlca1 cri+iqu9 and reformulstion." Pearicsn
Journal of orthopsychiatry 43 (July):611-621. Also
reprlcted in Stsirme+z and Straos. 1974.
GELLES, RICEBRD J. 1974 The violent Home: A Stu?y of
Physical Aggression Between Husbacds and Wives.
B~verly Hills. California: Sage Publications.

References Page 291
GELLES.BICHARD
Jouraal
J. 1976 "hhused wlvss:
ot Marriage and
ahy do ttey stay?**
the Family 38
INoVenber! :659-668.
GELLES, RICHARD J. 1977 "viol9nca Towards Children in the
United States.' Paper prasonted at the amsricac
RSSOclatlo~ fcr the idvancement of Science, Denver.
GELLES, RICBARD 3. and MUREAY A. STRRUS 1974 "Toverd 21
integrated thsory of intrafanily violent?." Fapnr read
at the 1974 Thecry Constructicx aorkshop it the Annual
neeting of the National Council on Fanilr Selatiois.
St. Lcuis, Missouri.
GELLES, RICEBSD J. 2nd tlUPRAY 1. STFAUS 1975 'F3n:ly
experience 2nd pnblic support of the death pecalty.'*
Pmerican Journel of Orthopnychiafzy 45 (Joiy) :596-613.
GELLES, RICHARD J. and nURRE? ?. STRAUS 1978 "Detpr~lirarts
Of Violence in the famlly: Toward a theoretical
iCtEgration." chapter in wasley E. Burr. Ruebe?. H i l l ,
F. Ivan Nye, snd Ira L. Reiss (eds.), Contempsrary
TheoriCs About tho Family. NPU York:
G3RBNER. GBRGS ard LARR? GROSS 1976 "The
Fre? Press.
scazv world of
TVTS heavy viewe:." Psychology Today 9
(April) :91-49.89.
GIRNOPULOS. ARTIZ and POWARD E. BITCR3IS 1957 "Msrital
disagreements ix vorking wife marriages as a function
Of husband*^ attLtudss toward wife's a~ployasnt."
aarrrage and Fam11y Living 17 (nos?mb~r) :373-378.
GI?., DAVID 0. 1971 '*Violescs agairst children." Journal of
narriage and the Family 33 (?lovenberj:637-648.
GIL, DAVID G. 1975 "Unraveling child abuse." Bm~rican
Journal of orthopsychiatry U5 (April):346-356.
GLPZER-RALBIN, NONh 1975 Old Family, Nev Family. Pp.
27-65 "Ban and vosan: IntPrpcrsmal relationshrps ir
+he marital pair: New York: D. Van gostrand.
GOLDFARE 1970 "We'zs acre violent than we think."
BacLean's nagazine (Rugust):25-28.
GOODE, UILLIEn 3. 1962 "aaritel satisfaction and
instability: A cross-cultural anelysis of airorcs
rat9s." Intermtioral Social Science Journal 14
131 '507-526. ~-~~
GOODZ,' UILLIA~ J. 1971 'Force ard violsnce in the family."
Journal of Barriaqe and the
(Nov~nber):624-636. Also reprinted in
straus. 1979.
Family 33
Stai~~etz aEd
GOODSTADT. B.
LOCUS of
and L. BJEILE
control and
1973 "Power to the povsrless:
the use of power.g' Journal of
Personali'y and sociel Psychology 27 (~uly):190-196.
GORDON, WEITNEY E. 1964 B Community iP stress. New York:
Livxng Eooks.
GRiEB8, HUGE DAVIS 2rd TED ROBERT GURR (eds.) 1969 ViOl~Pce
ID Eserica: Ris?arical and Comparative Psrspectivss.
A3tional Commission On the Cznses and Provention of
Violence: Rsparts. Vol. I 3rd II. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Govs7neent Printing offlca.
GREBLZR, LEO. JOAN P. NOOB!. ~2nd RALPB C. GUZRBN 1970 Th?
fiexican-American People. Nev York: Free Press.

Peferences Page 2i)2
GREEN, 9RNOI.D W. 1941 "3e cult of perscnali'q ara ssxual
relations." Psychiatry 4:393-398.
GRINKER, ROY R. and JOHA P. SPIEGEL 1995 Bell Under
Stress. Philadelphia: The Slakiszon C3mpany.
GUTBACEER, fi1NPRED 1960 Th4 nird of th4 nurder?r. New York:
REWKES, GLENN R. and NIAN4 TAYLOS 1975 "PoVPr s"ruc's?S in
Mexican and a;xican-lmerica:~ fern Earilins." Jourral of
narriaos and the faeilv 37.807-811.
~ -~~. ' - -~~
HARKINS. JAuES L. 1968 ~r8ssaciatioc between cmpanionship.
hosti1i:y. azd nazital satisEactioc." Jourcal of
Narriage and the Family 30:647-650.
BEEB, DAVID n. 1958 "Domin3ore 3rd tho vcrking
Social Forces 36 (May) : 341-397.
BEER. . DIVID 8. 1963 "The measuremen= as6 bases of
power:An ~v~rview." narriage and Family
25-133-139.
*if-."
faail7
Living
REIDER. FRITZ 1958 The Psychology of Interp?rsonal
Relations. Nsu York: wiley and Sons.
EENNoN, CEARLES E. 1976 "Inrezpersocal violence snd its
management by cohabiting couples." Papex presents$ at
1976 western Soclal Science fieeticgs, Tzmpe, ?.rizona.
BENRY, ANDREW and JIflES SEORT 1959 Suicide an9 Homicide.
G~CCCCE. Ill.: Free Press.
RENRY, JULES 1963 Culture Bgainst Man. New Yorh: Random
ROUSE.
HEPEURN. JOEN R. 1971 "The subculture of violecc-."
Criininology 9 (nay) :87-98.
HEPSURN, JOeN R. 1973 "Pi~lent behavior ir interpersonal
?~l?.tionShips."
(summer) : $19-427.
The Socioloqical Qulrterly 19
BERON, HOODBDSN 1957 "The pathology of bor9d3m."
scientific Rmerican 196 (Januzry) :52-56.
RICKS, SARY W. and KARILYN PLATT 1970 '*Rari:al happiness
and stability: a review of the research io the
sixtiss." In Carlfred 5. Brodarick (ed.). A DEcad? of
Family Reselrch and Action. niroespolis, ninn:
Natlonal Conncil on Family Xela:ions.
BILL, SEUBEN 1958 "Generic features of families under
stress." Scciel Casework 39 (F~bruary-fl3rch) : 139-150-
AOFP~AN, LOIS 1. 1960 "Effects of emplnymez+. of mothers an
parental power relations acd the division of hOusEhola
t.asPs." flarriagf and Fanily Living 22 (Februaryj:Z7-35.
ROPPBBN. LOIS U. 1960 "Parental power xel3tlons aPd the
~ZVISIOC of ho-u~ehold tasks.' Pp. 215-230 in F. Ivan
Yya and Lois w. Roffman (eds.). The Employed flo:h?r in
America. Chicago: Rand nc8ally.
RORANSOH. J. 3. 1970 "Psychophysiological evaluatioo of
the catharsis hypcthesds." In 3. I. M+gargee acd J.
. sckanson (sds.), The Dynamics 3f Rggression. New
York: Rarper and Sow.
BOLSES, TZONAS 8. ana PICHRRD X. RASE 1967 "The social
readjustment rating scale." Journal of Psychos3matic
Research 11: 312 ff..

~eferences Page 243
ROMANS, GEORGE C. 1961 Social aehanior, Its El~mrntarg
Forms. A ~ w York: AarCoUrr, Brace and Yorld.
PORNER, RATINA S. 1972 'Tovard an understandicg of
achievement-releted ccnflicts in womec.' Journzl of
Socl=l Issues 28:157-175.
AOWARD. ALBN and ROBERT R. SCOTT 1965 "A propose3 framework
trom the aralysis of stress i- the human orgccism."
Behavioral Science 10:lUl-160.
HOWARD. JANE 1970 Please Teach: 1 Guided Tour of the
Potential novemeni. new York: Dell Publishirg.
ROUELLS, WILLIAI DEAN 1960 The Rise of Silas Lapham.
BnmeP
New
York: Holt, Ricehart and Winston.
JECOBSON, NEIL S. and ShRCLAY NBETIN 1976 'Bebaviorel
marrlage therapy: Current slates." Psychological
Eulletln 83 (July) :5UO-556.
JBNIS, IRVING L. 1958 Psychological Str~ss: Psychoaoalytic
and Behavioral Studiss cf Surgical Pstiants. New York:
John Riley ard Sons.
JONES, E. E. acd K. E. DAVIS 1965 "From acts to
disposit1ocs.- In L. Berkovitz (ed.) . P.dvaccss in
Experimental Social Psychology. 1 2. Nev York:
Acad?mic Press.
KARDEL, DENISE B. and GERALD 5. LESSER 1972 "X2rital
decision-making in American +nd Danish urban families:
R research note.' Journal of Barriage +ad the Family 34
(9ebruary) :134-138.
KANOUSE. DlVID E.
evaluations."
and L.
In
REID BlNSON 1971
. E. Jon3
"NegeLivity in
gl. (eas.).
Bttributicn: Perceiving the Causes of Bsharlor.
I%orrFStoXn, N.J.: General Learning Prass. University
of Nebraska Press.
KRPLAN, HORPRD 73. 1975 Self Lttitudes and Devlant Behivior.
Pacitlc Pslisades, California: Goodyear.
KEADINLR, BERAa 1963 The Psychological Frontiers of society.
New York: Columbia University Prass.
KELLEY, BAROLD H. 1967 *'httribution theory in social
psychclogy." In D. Zerins (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
notlvaiior, 15. Lircoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska
Press.
KELLEY. HEROLD e.
In E. E.
1971 "Ettributioc in social
Jones ga. (eds.).
interaction.
Bttrihution:
Perceiving the Causes at Behavia:.
General Lsarnirg Press.
Uorristour, R.J.:
KELLEY, ARROLD 8. and JOl?N W. TBIBBUT 1969 "Group
problem-solving." Chapter 29 in Gardrer Lindzsy and
Eliot Aronson (eds.), The eandbook of Social
Psychalcgy. 2nd Edition, volnme 0. Reading. nzss.:
4ddiso~-Wesley.
KELLEY, SAROLD I!., J. If. TRIBADT. S. RBDLOFF, and D. EONDY
1962 'The development of cooperaiian ic the 'micirnal'
social situetion." Psychclogical nonogrlphs 76 (19)
(Whole ro. 538).
RENPE, C. HENRY sL al. 1962 "The battered-child syndrome."
Journal
71 :17-24.
of the Raericac asdical Associatior 181 (July

References page 211
KOCR, 30ENME and LEU KOCR 1976 ""he ozgsnt *rive ts aak
good marriages batter.7s Psychology Today 1
(September): 33-35 ff.
KORN, BELVIb L. 1969 Class and Ccnformity: E Study i
Values. Aomeuood, 1lllno:s: Dorrsy Press.
KOLB. TRUDY D. ncd BURPPY P. STRRUS 1974 "l$arit%l pow
and mariial happrness in ralstion to problea-solvir
ability.' Jonrnal
(November) : 756-766.
cf narriage and thr ?Emily 3
KOi3BROVSKY. MIRRE 1962 Blue Collar narriage. New York
Random House.
KOMAROVSKY, 8IRR1 1973 "Cultural ContPadictiOns and se.
roles: The masculrne cise." eeerican Jourral o
Socrology (Jar.):873-884.
Jerome Skol~lcZ (eds.),
Also reprints6 in Erlens ant
I~?imzcy. Paoily, aad Society.
Sostor.: Little. Brown and Co., 1974, Pp. 245-257.
KURN, DEBNNL 1976 "SEX-role coccfpts of two- and thras-yea1
old=." Paper preserted at the anxual meeting sf tht
Western Psychological Association, Los Eagelss,
1976.
bpzil,
LAING, R. D. 1972 The Pclitics cf the Panily. New York:
Vantage.
IBROSSA, RALPN 1977 Conflict and Power in Bazri~ge:
Zxpectl~g i.hc First child. Bsverly Rills: sage.
LARSON, LYLE '2. lY74 msystes and subsystem perception of
family roles." Journal of narriage and the Pimilj
36 (February) ~123- 138.
LESLETT, BARBARA 7973 "Ths family as a public acd privat~
icstitution: R historical perspective." Journsl of
narriage and the Family 35 (Eugust):480-692.
LAZARUS, RICRhRD 5. 1966 Psychological Stress snd the
coping Process.
LEFKOWITZ. HOWROE P.,
New York: ncGrav-Eill.
LEOPCLD 0. WILDER, L. ROWPLL
HOUSEflENB, ard LFONERO D. ERON 1976 'Parental
punishmhnt: E longitudinal analysis of ~ffects.~t Pspsr
rEad at th€ Ictercationzl Sociezy For Research or
eggression conicrance, Paris.
LEBASTERS, ERSEL E. 1957 "Parecthood as crisis." Marriage
and Panlly Living 19 (Norember):352-355.
LERESTERS, ERSZL E. 1971 'The passing of the 6cminant
husband-tather." lapact of Science or Socie'y
(Januiry-Darch) : 2 1-30.
LEVINE, SOL and BORuAN R. SCOTCA 1967 "Toward the
developnent of theoretical modsls: 11." 8Flbank
nei3oria.l Pund Quarterly US
LEVINGER, GEOFGE 1966 "Sources
(2):163-179.
cf marital dissatisfaction
among appllcacts for divorce." American Joornal of
Orthopsychiatzy 26 (Cctobef):803-807.

~fferences Pag; 2115
LEWIS, OSCER 1959 "Family dynanics in a nariciln illa age.^
Barriage and Famiiy Livixg 21:218-226.
LEWIS, OSCRB 1950 TFpoztlan: Village in Eexics. New York:
Ealt. RlPehart ard winstor.
LEWIS, OSCAR 1963 The Children of Sanchez. New York:
Vintsgs Books.
LEWIS, OXaP 1967 kg !rip=. Nev York: Random Bouse.
LEUIS. PORERT R. 1971 "Socializ3tior into national
ViolSCce: Famil.ia1 ~Crr9latSE cf hawkish attitodes
toward war.' Journal of riarriags a.3 =he Pamily 33
(November) :6?9-708.
Straus, 1979.
Also reprinted in Steinm?:~ an3
LOPRTE. RELTNA 2. 1971 occupatiac: Elus?vif;. NPW York:
Oxtord University Press.
LOBFNZ, KONRBD 1966 Oc Bggresrion. New York: Barcourt
3race Jovenorich.
LUPRI, EUGENE 1969 "Co~>tenporary aotharity patterns ic the
West German family: A study in cross-natioral
validation.' Journal of
(February] :139-149.
narriaqe and the Familv 31
LYNN, KENNETA 1969 "Violence in American literature and
tolklorf." Chapter 6 in Augh D. Graham and rta 8.
Gurr (eds.1. Violence in Emerica: Eistorical acd
Comparati~e Perspectiv~s Vol. I. Uashirgtor D. C. :
U.S. ~ovemment PriPting office.
BRCE, DAVID and
narriages--If
VFAR
We
nACE 197Y We
Really Want
Can Have Sstter
Them. Nashoille,
Ternessee: Bbinqdo~ Press.
RADSEN. YILLIRR 196u Bexlcan-Americans of Sooth Texas. New
YOrk: Holt. Sinehart acd Wics;on.
MARTIN, DEL 1976 Battered Wives. San Francisco: Glide
Publications.
BRBX, KARL 1969 The German Ideology. Moscow: Prsgrcss
Publishers.
SASELLI. D. D. acd J. RLTROCEI 1969 "Ettribution of
intent.' Psychological Snllstin 71:445-454.
RRTZE. DEYID 1969 RecomiPg DPviaxt.
Prentice-Fall.
Englewooa Cliffs, N.J.:
BPUREE, RDEA 1979 "Corporal punishment." Assrican
Psychologis:
HPY, ROLL0 1972
29 (Rugust):619-626.
Power ard irnoceace: A SElrch for the
Sources of VZalence. New Yark: Norio3.
nCGARTB, JoSEPE E. (~d.) 1970 Social and Psychcl3gical
Factors in strass. Pp. 10-21 "A conceptual formulation
for research on stress." New York: Rolt, Rinehart and
Winston.
ECKINLEY, DONRLD GILBERT 1964 Social Class aad Pamily
Life. NOW Ycrk: Free Press.
UECERNIC, DRVID 1962 Students Under Stress: R Stuly in
the Social Psycholcgy of Adapt~tion. Nex York: Free
Press.
NECFLNIC, DAVID 1968 nedical Sociology. v=u York: Free
Press
nERCORI0, JOE 1972 Caning: Educational Rite and Tradition.
Spracuse: Syracuse University Press.

~eferelces Page 246
BERTON, ROBERT K. 1957 Social Theory and Social S

References Page 247
PBRBAS. RRYBOND I. 1967 "The
donPstic disturbance.'
(Fall) :914-960.
police response to
wiscansir Law Review
the
91'4
PRRSONS, TALCOTT 1947 "Certain primary sources and
pattorrs of aggression in the social stzuc:ura o:
WestPrn world." Psychiatry 10 (ilay):167-181. Also
ths
PD.
298-322 In T. Parsons (eds.). Essays in Sociological
Theozy, Revised Editiox. new YorK: Tt.e Free Press,
1966.
PLaSONS, TALCOTT and EDWARD 1. SHILS 1953 Toward a
Generzl Theory of ?c'.icr.. Cambridge, nass.: 3zrvard
University Prrss.
PATTERSON, GERALD R. 1975 Families: Lpplicstions of Social
Learning tn Family Life. Revised Edition. Eugsre,
Oregon: Castalia.
PATTERSON. GERBLD R., J. B. REID, R. 8. JONES, and R.
E. CONGER 1975 B Social Learning Epproach to Faelly
Interv~n*:~~. Volume I: Fanilips vith tggressire
ChildrFn. Eugene. Oreqoc: Castalia.
PENPLOSR. FERNANDO 1968 "Hexicar family rolss." Journal of
narriage and ths PaaiLy 30:680-689.
PINEO. A. C. 1961 "Disorchartmext in the later years of
marriage." narriage and Family Living 23:3-11.
POGREBIN. LETTY COTTIN 197'4 "DO vomec make men violent?"
Es 3 (Noveaber):49-55. 80.
PRESCOTT, JAIES W. 1975 "9ody pleasure ar.6 ths origics of
violence." The Futurist (April):64-74.
RBIIREZ. BRNDEL 1967 "Idectificatlon vith Eaaicao family
Values and authoritarianism in flsxican-Rmericacs." The
Journal of Social Psychology 73:3-11.
RPUSCE, RRROLD L., WILLIRLI A. BERRY, RICHaRD K. REPTEL, end
ERRY ANN SWRIN 1974 Communication, conflict, and
flarriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
REINBOLD, ROBERT 1977 "The trend toward sexual squality:
depth of transtormatior uncertain." New York Times
(November 30) : 1.
BEISS, RLBE9T J.. JR. 1968 "Police brutality--answers to
key qusstions." Transaction 5 (July-August);lO-19.
RESNIK, IINDY 1976 'wife beating: Couns~lcr trairing manual
~o.1.' Ann Arbor: AB ~o~/wife Assault.
RICHBOND. MARIE L. 1976 "Beyond resources thsory: Pnother
look at factors enabling women to affect fanily
interaction.' Journal of narriage
(nay) :257-266.
and the Family 38
FOBERTS, STEVEN 7. 1971 'Crime rates of wcmGn up sharply
over
RODNIA, HYflAN
New York Times (June 13) :I, 72.
1967 "narital power in France, Grnece.
Yugoslavia and the United States: R cross-national
discussion." Journal of Barriags and the Pamily 39
(nay) : 320-32U.
RODnEN, BYUAN 1972 "Barital power
resources in cultural context."
Family Studies 111 (Spring):50-69.
and the theory of
Journal of Comparative

aeferences Pige 248
ROGERS. nlRY F. 1979 "1rstrumen:al and infra-resources:
The bases of po~er.~~ P~erican Journal of Socicl3gy 79
(my) :1918-1~33.
FOSENTHAL, A. 8. 196U Thirty-Right vi?n-=ss-s. New York:
ROSS,
3cGraw-Hill.
DOROTHEA and SHEILA FOSS 1972 "Resistant, by
pre-school bcgs to sex-inappropriat? behavior.'
of Educatioral Psychclogy 63 (Angurt):342-346.
Jaurnal
RUEGER. ROSS 1973 "SPeking freedom from the ma19 myth."
Buman Behavior 2 (April) :75-77.
RYRN. SRYCE P. and BURRBY A. STR>.nS 195U '-The int~grlt5on
of Sinhalese socizty.*v S€scarch StudLaS of tha State
collegf of Uashicg%ar 22 (December) : 179-227.
BYDER, R. G. 1968 "Eusband-wife dyads versus married
S?~aIl?ErS." F28ilY PrOCeSS 7:233-237.
SRPILIOS-EOTHSCHILD. COBSTANTINA 19h7 "1 conparison of power
structnre sad marital satisfaction in urban GrrPk and
French families." Journal of uarriage and the Family 29
(hay) :345-352.
SRFILIOS-ROTASCHILD. CONSTANTINE 1970 "The study of family
powfi ~tructu~e: a reoiev 1960-1969." Journal of
Narriage and the Family 32 (Novsmbar):539-552.
SEFILIOS-BOTHSCHILD, CONSTANTINB (ed.) 1972 Tovard a
Sociology of women. Pp. 63-70 "1ns:ead sf a
discussion: co~parionate marriages and sexual
quality: are they compatible?" Lexington, Mass.:
KEroX COrpora%iOn.
SIIILIOS-SOTESCHILD. CONSTANTINR 1976 "R macroexamination
of family power and lors:
and micro-
+r exchange
model.' Journal of narriage and the Fmily 38
(nay] :355-362.
SCRNZONI. JOHN H. 1468 "B social system analysis of
dissolved and existrng famil:e~.~V Jcurrsl of marriage
and the Family 30 (lugust) : 452-461.
SCANZONI, JOBN H. 1970
YoT~: Frf? TTFSE.
Opportuiity and tho Paaily. New
SCANZONI, JOBN H. 1972 Ssxual Bargaining. Engl~vood
Cliffs, R.J.: Prec+ice-Rall.
SCPNZONI, JOHN A. 1975 "Sex roles,
marital solidarlty 15 black
economic factsrs and
and white marriages.''
Jourlal of Narriage
(February) : 130-149.
and the Pamily 37
SCBULZ. DRVID 1969 Coming up Black: Patterns of ahptto
Soci?.lizaticn. Englevood Cliffs, N.J.: Prec'ics-Pall.
SCOTT, KIRVIN B. +nd STAAFORD LYNAN 1970 "Lccoucts,
deviazce a ~ d social order." Pp. 89-119 in J. Douglas
(ed.) , Deviincs and Respectability. New York: Basic
Books.
SCDTT, ROBERT A. and ALAN HOWARD 1970 "NOae1.5 Of strsss."
Pp. 259-278 in Scl Levine and Norman L. Scotch
(eds.) , Sociel Stress. Chicago: Aldine.
SEIDZNBERG. ROBERT 1972 "The trauma of evsntlessnsss."
Psychoanalytic Review 59 (spring) : 95-109.
SELYE, AANS 1956 The Stress of life. Yew York:
NCGraw-Bill.

SBAPIRO, SOWARD and RRNOLD DASHSFSKY 9 7 EthXiC
Identification
Lexingtoz moks.
Rmong American Jews. Lexington. 835s.:
SHAVEP. XELLEY G. 1975 Rn Introduc

References Page 250
STEINUETZ, SOZANNE K. and BURRAY A. STR?.WS 1973 "Ths
family as cradle of violence." Society (formerly
Transac3on) lo (spptember-October) : 50-56. (8
ore-oublicntion * - ~ adaot?t;or cf -- Dart af the iniroductior
~
to vlolenc~ in the Pamily.)
STEINDETZ, SUZANNE K. and BURRAY A. STREWS (Eds.) 197u
Violence in thc Family. New York: Hlrpfr sna Rol
(originally published by Dodd. H&ad and Co.) .
STRKUS. MURRAY A. 1969 'neasurino families.' Chaw. 10 ir
2
Harold T. Christerren (ed.), Pandbook of flerrleg~ aci
the famly. Chicago: Bans BcNally.
STRAUS. MURREY A. 1971 "Some social antecedents 31
physical purishmen*: a linkage theory interpretation.'
Journal of Barriage and the Pamily 3:
(8ovember):658-663. Rlso reprinted in Steinmatz ani
Straus, 1974.
STRRUS, nURRRY A. 1973 "A general systems theory approad
to a theory of violence between family members."
Science Information 12 (3une):lOS-125.
Social
STRAUS. MURRAY A. 1979a "Leveling, civility, and riolencr
Ln the faally." Journal of Barriage and the family 31
(February) : 13-29, plus addendum in August 1974 issue.
Rl~o reprinted in Nursing Education, 1979: and il
Richard Y. Cactrell ald David F. Schraaer (~ds.),
Dynamics of flarital Interaction, Kendall/Punt. 1974,
and in Kerneth C. W. Kammeyer, (ed.) , confronticg tb'
Issues: Sex Roles, flarriage and the Family. Bssron.
Lllyn and Bacon, 1976.
STRRUS, BURRRY A. 1979h Vultural and social organizations:
Lnfluences on violence between family members." I1
Raymond Prirca and Dorothy BarriPr (aas.)
CoCfigUraticns: Biological and Cultural Fact>rs i!
Sexuality and Family. Rew York: D.C. Aeath.
STRAUS. BORRAY A. 19'75 "Husband-wife interaction in nuclea'
and joint households." Pp. 13s-135 in D. Narai'
(ed.). Explcrations i n the Family and Other
Professor K. n. Kapadia nsmorial volume.
Thzcker.
Essays
Bombay
STRAWS, ?IURRAY A. 1976 "Sexual inequality. cultural norms
and wife-beating." Victimology 1 (Spricg) :54-76. A l s
reprinted in Enilio C. viano (ed.). Victims an
Society. Uashirgton, D.C.: Visage cress, 1976, and i
JaPe Rober=s Chapman and Margaret Gates (!?is.). Wane
Into Wlvos: The Legal and Economic Impact on narriage
Sage Yearbooks In Women Policy Studies. VOlumP 2
Beverly Fills: Sage, 1977.
STPBUS, KURRAY R. 1977.3 "A sociological perspective on th
prerentior and treatment of wife-beatirg." In Maria Ro
(ed.), Battered women. New York: Va
Nostrand-Reinhold.

References Page 251
STRAUS, ~URRRY E. 1977b "Sccietal morphogenesis zed
inrrafamily violence in cross-cultural perspective." Ic
Leonore ~oeb Adler
Research. New York:
(ed.). issues in Cross-CulL.ura1
Rctals Of the HEY York ZcadEmy Of
Sciences 285:717-730. Elso reprinted in Karac
ovals ski, (ed.), aomeres Health Care. Vakefield,
nass.: Nursing Dinecsior, Vol. 7, 1968, Pp. 05-63.
STRRWS, EWRRAY A. 1977~ 'qNoraative and behavioral aspects
of violence betveer spcuses: PrelimiPlrp 36%~ of a
natioially representative OSB sample." Papor read at
the
12.
Symposium on Violeccf in Canadian Sociezy, Earch
sTRAUS, nURRAY A. 1917d "Exchange end power in aerriage ic
cultural context: a multiwethnd ard multivariate
analysis of Bombay and Nicneapalis families." Paper
read at the t977 meetlng of th8 Association for Bsiar
Studies, New York.
STRROS. EURRAY A. 1979 "measuring intrafamilp conflict and
violence: the Conflict Tac5ics (CT) scales." Journal
of narriage and the Family. 41:75-88.
STR105, MORRAY I., RICHARD J. GELLES, and SUZANNF K.
STEINBET2 1980 Behind Closed DOOIS: ViOlePCE in the
American Family. New York: Qnchor/Doubleaay. In
press.
STRAUS. fiORR3.Y A.
"Rchievement,
a ~ d
affiliation.
LBRRENCE J. ROUGHTON 1960
and co-operation values as
clues to trends in Rmerican rural society. 1924-1958."
Rural Sociology 25 (December) :399-903.
STRAUS, BURRAY A. and IRVING TALLBAN 1971 "SIfiFAU: E
technig"~ for ob~ervational measnr?ment and
erperinental study of families." In Joac Blaous 21.
reds.1, . - Family Problem Solving. Einsdale. Illirois:
Dryden.
STSODTBECK, FRED L. 1958 "Family ioterzction. values and
achievement.+- Pp. 135-194 in David C. Scclelland,
Alfred L. Baldwin. Uris Brcnfenbrenner and Prld L.
Strodtbeck [eds.), Talent and Society. New Jersey: D.
V+C NOstIanC?.
SURGEON GEXFRAL'S SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COEilITTFB ON
TELEVISION END SOCIAL BEBhVIOR 1972 Report Of th?
surgeon Geceral*s scientific Adrisory Committee 3o
Television and Social Behavior. Washington. D.C.:
O.S. Government Printing Office.
TANEY, C. 1969 "A psychiatric study of homicide."
Journal of Psychiatry 725 (9) : 1252-1258.
?.m?rican
TFDBSCAI, J. T., P. SUTH and R. BROWN 1974 "E
reintarpretation cf research on aggression.'
PsyChOlOgical Bulletin 81r540-562.
TEIBAUT. JOHN W. and EXBOLD H. KELLEP 1959 The Social
Psychalogp of Groups. NEW Pork: John Vilsy end Sons.
TPUNINGER, ELIZ?.BETH 1977 nfiarital violence: T ~ E legal
501utio1. " The Bastings IBY Journal 23
(november) :259-276.

References Page 252
.
WELSH, RALPH S. ' i976 "Severe parental pur.ishnect acd
delinquency: a developasntal theory." Journal of
Clilical Child Psychology 5 (Spring) :17-21.
YESTLEY. sILLIAn R. 1953 '*violence and the police."
American Journal of Ssciology 59 (July1 : 3U-41.
WHITE. LESLIE 1. 1975 The Concept of Cultural Systems. New
nork: Columbia university Prass.
WHITERURST, ROBERT N. 1979 "Violence in husbaua-wife
interaction." Pp.
BRITEHURST. BOSERT N.
75-82 in stcinmatz and Straus, 1974.
197U 'Rlternative family structures
and ~iclecce-reduction." Pp. 315-320 in Steinmetz acd
Straus, 1973.
YEITING, SEFTRICE B. 1965 "Sex identity coaflic* and
physical violence: 1 comparative study." :nerican
Rnthroplcgist 67 (December) : 123-140.
wILLIA~S, DOBALD B. 1979 "conpensaticq victims of crimes
of violence: Bnather look at the schsns.' Pp. 147-153
;a I. Drapkin acd E. Viaco (sds.), victimology: R
Aev FOCUS. volume 11. Sccie!y's REaction
Vict~mizatio~. Lsxingt.on. $lass.: Lexington Books.
to
WILLIAES. ROBIN E. 1970 Rnsricar SociEty: E Sociological
Interpretatior.. New York: Alfrsd A. Krspf.
WILSON, LANCE 8. and GERALD U. MCDONALD 1977 Faailp Impact
Analysis and Family Policy Advocate: The PzOCess of
Inalysis. Family Impact Series. miaessota Family
study center, Report BO. 4.
UINTEP. 8. D.. FERREIRA. 2. J., End N. BOREPS 1973
'D~cision-maki-g in marries and unrelated couples."
Family Process 12:83-94.

Refezeaces Page 253
XOLFE. DONALD n. 1959 *uPover and authority in the family."
Pp. 99-117 ia D. Cartwrigt: (nd.), Studies in S2cial
Power. Bnn Arbor. aichigac: U2lvszsity of E:chigan
Instituta far Social BesEarch.
uOLFP, EARoLD G. 1968 Scress and Discase. second Edi-ion.
EdLted by St~wart wolf ard Helen Goodell. Springfield,
Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.
WOLFGANG, EARVIN E. 7956 "Susbald-wif- hornicifis~.~*
COrTeCtive
2:263-271.
Psychietry an3 Journll cf Social Thsrzpy
WOLFGANG, RBRVIN 3. 1957 "victim-precipitate& criminal
homicide." Jouznal of Criminal Law, Criminology end
Police Science 98 (June): 7-11. Also Pp. 72-87 ic
Earvin 3. Wolfgang (ed.), Studies in Aoeicide. New
York: Harper ard Row.
UOLPGANG. l5BRVIN E. 1969 "violence and human behavior."
Psper preserted at the ennual meeting of the imerican
Psychological 1ssociition. Washington, D.C., Bugust 30.
UOLPGbNG, nABVIN and FRANC0 PERBACUTI 1967 The Subculture Of
Vlclence. Nev Ycrk: aarces and Noble.
YIFPE, JANES 1968 The Amerrcar Jew. New York: Papsrback
Library.
YARROW. MARIAN RADKE, CBERLOTTE GREEN SCIWPRTZ. RBRRIET S.
ilURP!iY, ma LEILB CALBOUN DEASY 1955 "The psychological
meaning of msrtal illness ic the family." Jourrrl of
social Issues 11 (4) : 12-ZU.
YINGER. JOHN n. 1965 Tawara a Fiela Theory of Behavior:
Personali:~ and Social structure. New York:
RcGraw-H111.
YLLO. KERSTI 8. and EURRRY A. STRlUS 1980 "Interpsrssnal
violence among married and cchabiting couples." Family
Coordinator. Epril, in press.
YOUNG, IICHPEL and PETEF WILLBOTT 7973 The Syer8strical
Family: B Study cf Work and Leisure in ths Londoc
Region. London: Routledge and Xegan Paul.
ZOK. GERALD H. 1978 "A therapist's p4rspectlve on Jewish
family veluss." Joornal of narrisgs and Family
Counseling 9 (Jzcuary) :103-110.

Indexes

Abbort. S., 186"
Adorno, T. W., 217, 218
Aldous, J., 178
Allen, C. hl., 16,19,77,87,137,156,171,
188
Altrochi, 1.. 141
Aniiiews, F. zW., 237
Antell, M., 47
Applry, ,\I. H., 96
Archer. D., 57. 213
Ardrey, R., 111
Bach, G. R., 20, 112, 174n, 185, 186-87%
220
Bachman. J. G., 215
Bah~ S. J., 186n. 191. 204,205
Balswick, J. O., 180
Bard, M., 50n, 226-27
Baii, P. B., 88
Bawwitz, H., 95
Bcll. N. W.. 192
Beilak, L.. 47
Bern, D. J., 38
Bern. S. L., 38
Benedici, R., 41
Author Index
Berger, P., 9
Berger, A. A., 182
Brrkowitz. L.. 220
Beins~rin. P. S.. 77, 78
Berry, W. A., 247
Bertelheim, R., 52, 60, 66n, 106. 112
Bickman, L., 48
Blau, P.. 4, 174". 193
Blechman. 6:. A,, 217. 221
Blood, K. 0.. 9, 129, 166, 177, 178, 179,
183, 186". 189, 192, 193, 204. 206
Blumberg, M.. 103
Blurnenthal. M., 213
Bohannan, P.. 40
Boigorta, E. F., 237
Boti, F.. 128
Bowerman.C. E., 186n, 191. 204. 235
Bower. N., 48
Brim. 0. G. Jr., 174"
Brown, B. W., 19. 21, 77, 171, 172, 181,
182.188
Brown, K. C., 145
Brownmiller, S.. 93
Buckley, W.. 174n
Bulcioft, K., 32, 49, 191-92
Burgers, A. W., 88
Buric, 0, 186"

Author Index
Burke. R. J., 178
Burr, W. R., 181
Buss, A. H., 138
Edelheitz, H., 46
Emhree, j. F.. 41
Epsiein, S., 141
Eiikson, I

Author Index
Mundy, D , 243
Murphey, H. S., 253
Niebuhr, R.. 11
Nye. F. I., 180, 235
O'Brien, I. E., 9, 19, 109, 137, 227
O'Dell, S., 217
Olson, D. H. L., 192, 221. 236
Oppong, C., 186"
Owens, D.M., 14, 35, 76, 93
Palmer, S., 52, 55, 99, 113
Parade Mapine, 227
Parkin, P., 54
Parnas, R. I., 43, 45
Parsons, T., 70, 87-88, 180, 205-6
Parterson. G. R., 217, 221
Peek, C. W., 180. 235
Penilosa. P.. 72. 73
Pineo. A. C.. 9
Pines, A., 92, 178
Plarr, M., 9
Pogrebin, L. C.. 47
Pollock, C. B., 107
Prescotr, J. W., 217
Purney, S. W., 186"
Rabunsky, C., 192
Radloff, R.. 243
Rahe. R. H., 96
Ramirez, M., 72, 73
Rsusch. H. L.. 174"
Raven, B, H., 74, 18611 189, 192-93
Reid, J. B., 247
Reinhold. R., 92
Reiss, A. J. Jr., 149
Reinik, M., 226
Richmond, M. L., 186"
Robercs, S. V., 62
Rodman, 14.. 87, 171, 189-90
Rodripe& A, 186"
Rogers, M. F.. 171, 189
Rosrnihal. A. M., 48
ROSS, D., 180
Ross. S.. 180
Roy, M., 232"
Rueger. R.. 182
Ryan, B. F., 41
Ryder. R. G.. 48
Safilios-Rothrchild, C.. 174". 178, 179.
186". 192
Sanford, N., 235
Scanzoni, J. H., 119, 120, 174% 186%
190, 204
Schoinagel. C. Y., 236
Schulz. D., 63
Schwarrr, C. G., 253
Scofch. N. A., 95
Scott, ,M. B.. 140
Scott, R. A.. 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101-2,
108,111
Seidcnbrrg, R., 99
Selye, H.. 95
Shapiio, H., 77, 78
Shaver, K. G., 138
Shearer. L.. 42
Shils, E. A,, 70
Shorr. 1.. 57
Shosrrom, E. L., 20
Simme1.G.. 9, 17, 21, 118, 170, 218
Simon, W., 35, 38, 53, 216
Singer, R. D., 52
Sipcs, R. G., 52
Skinner, B. F.. 125
Skolnick, A,, 9, 116, 127, 204, 235
Skolnick, J. 1-1.. 204, 235
Smith, R., 251
Spiegel. J. P.. 95
Spiey, J., 17, 20, 21, 116, 119, 128, 143,
145, 157-58, 170, 174". 175". 183
Srapp, J., 92, 178
Siaik, R , 13. 40. 47
Steele. B. F.. 107
Srrinmerz, S. K., 3, 8, 11, 31, 34, 36n, 40,
41. 55. 63, 64, 66n, 93, 105, 106. 107,
111.112.116.124,207.215,220,227
Siraus, M. A., 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16,
18. 19. 20, 22n, 25, 31. 32, 33, 34, 35,
36". 40, 41. 43, 48.49. 50". 52, 53, 55,
61, 63, 64. 6611, 76, 77, 87, 91, 93,
105-8, passim, 110-13pasrim. 116,124,
131,134n,135n.137,153-54,156,171,
177, 179. 186.87". 188. 189. 191-92,
204, 206,207, 208,213-16parsim, 220,
222,227,231
Sirodrbeck. V. L., 77, 78

Author Index
Surgeon General's Scirntific Advisory'
Cornmiriee on Television and Social
Behavior. 214
Swain, M. A,, 247
Tallman, I., 192
Tanay, C.. 14
'Taylor, M., 74. 76
Taylor, S. P., 141
Tedeschi, J. T., 137, 138, 145, 150
Thibaut, I. W.. 118, 138
Thomas, D. L., 191
Trenr. R. D.. 240
Tiurnbull, R., 96, 235
Truningei, E., 44, 45, 46, 89, 93
Turk, J. L.. 192
Turner, A. I., 236
Turner, R., 139-40. 141
Underwood, B. J.. 125
Van den Brighe, P. L., 205
Walder, 1. O., 244
Walster. E., 151
Walters, R. H.. 107. 111, 235
Weber, M., 60
Weir, T.. 178
Wcitzman. L. I., 178
Wellei, R. H., 18611
Welsh, R. S., 15
Wesfley. W. A,. 149
Whire, L. A,, 69
Whitehurst, R. N., 91, 109, 133, 177. 180,
182-83
Whiting. B. B.. 93
Williams. D. B.. 46
Williams, R. M., 5
Wiilmott, P., 190
Wilson. L. R.. 211, 224
Winter. W. D.. 48
Wolfe. D. M., 9. 129, 166, 177. 178, 183,
186n. 189,192. 193, 204, 206
Wdff, H. G.. 95. 97, 101
Wolfgang, M. E., 8, 32, 40, 69, 71, 107,
137,183
Wyden, P., 20, 112, 174% 185, 186-87%
220, 235
Yaffc, J., 77, 78
Yarrow, M. R., 152
Yinger. J. M., 71
Ylio, K. A,, 31
Young, M., 190. 236
Zccevic. A.. 186"
Zub, G. H., 79

Subject Index
Absolure Resource Index, 193 Aegrcssive .. person, cultural meaning of.
Absolute resources, 196. 198, 201
151
Acccpinnce: and rule violations, 143. in Aging, and family iifc cycle, 17
intimate rclurionrhips, 144
Alcohol, 141, 171
Achievement: and conflicr. 58, 125; and Anger: holding in, 14; venting of. 220
women, 89; orienration. 188: and ag- Antagonisric behavior, 123, 129-33
gression, 206": and manhood. 228; md Anricipatory socialirarion. 181
human worth. 228, 229, 231
Assertiveness 100, 111-12, 150, 220
Adolercenrr, as source of dara, 191 Attiibuiion iheory. 138-39. 147-48. 150
Adultery, 145
Auihoritarian personality, 217
Adults: in children's books, 62; as aggres- Authoriraiianism, 73. 76, 81". 149
sois, 63; as vicrims, 63
Avoidance: to prevent violence, 115: and
Affection: decline of in marriage, 9; and contlicr, 122-25, 129, 144; definition
violence, 217, 218
Affecrive invrsrmenr, in iniimate groups,
of. 126; as behavioral outcome, 126-29
118, 119. 120. 122, 134"
Balance of power: in family, 156, 193:and
Age differences, related to violence. 34 violence, 196. 200. 201, 202
Aggression, 23, 111, 124, 130, 134n, 137, Bartered-wife shelters, 91
153.54": wives subjecr of, 7; in family. Behavioral therapists, 221
7, 41; in male delinquents, 15; learned. Blue-collar families, 183
10; against women, 88; female, 88; Boredom: and screw, 99: and violence, 113
male, 88: as normal, 111: in conflicis,
125; resolution, 131; disguised, 137;
Boys, and sexism. 181
imputation of, 151; crearive, 204: and Cniifornia Penal Code, 47
weakness. 206n; results of, 220. paiho- California "wife-beaiing" statute. 43-44
logical. 229
Canon Law, 71
Aggressive drive rheaiies, 111
Capital punishment, see Death pcnalry

Subject Index
Catharsis as legirimizer of violence, 112,
204, 220
Causal theories, in family violence research,
7
Child abuse, 8. 14. 103. 109. 216
Child care: and violence, 179; rcrponsihility
for, 223; facilities. 223
Child rearing: norms in eihnic groups. 73:
responsibility for. 88. 181; and physi-
cal punishment. 216,217.230; ideology
of, 218; programsfor. 218
Child support, 223
Childhood experiences of violence. 93"
Children: control of, 41; awareness of
physical aggression, 49: as aggressors.
63; as nonvoiuniary family members,
119: andworking women, 162: respon-
sibiiiry for. 168; sr source of data, 191
Childrcn's litcratuir: violence in, 11, 51-67
Claiming behavior, in iniimaie relation-
ships, 149
Clockwork Oianee rheorv ofviolence. 113.
227
Companionship: decline of in marriage. 9;
and equaliry. 183
Comparison Level, 118
Competition, and human worth, 229
Conflict: in faniily, 10, 49, 218-21;avoid-
ance of, 20; suppression of, 20; and
violence, 20, 116, 134; as inevitable,
20, 133, 218, 219,220, 230;ashealthy.
21; and intimacy, 21;in Jewish families,
79; resolution of, 115. 127; expressive,
123-26; realistic, 123: insrrumenral,
123-26. 129-33
Conflict approach, 170, 171, 173, 174n,
175n
Conflicr of inrerest, 16, 94. 116. 117, 123,
124. 127, 129-30. 133, 157
Conflict Tacrics Scales, 25, 192
Coping: with conflict. 49; with sties 101
through violence. 107
Criminal justice system: artituder toward
family violence. 43.46-47, 211-12.231:
fdurr to act, 44, 45: male orientation
of, 90. 226, 230
Cultural-consistency theory af violence,
69-73: and Menican-American families,
73-77; and Jewish-American fmdier.
77-79
Cultural norms: definition of, 5-6; and
family behavior, 6; legitimizing vio-
lence, 7, 12, 35. 38. 41. 68, 84; and
myth of nonviolence. 11; de fact", 35;
de jwe, 35; and power, 178: and wife-
beating, 229
Cultural valucr, in interpreting violence,
117
L.
Culture: definition of, 5; and family life. 6;
as a system, 69
Day-care cenrers, 223, 230
Death penalty,60-61, 213, 217
Decision making: in family. 110, 193; by
woman. 159; and employment of wife,
179; sharingof. 183
Decision Power Index. 192, 193
Deference rules, 140
Demands: and stress. 98. 99, 101, 113; in-
soluble, 109
Dcmranor rules. 140
De~endency, in inrimsie relacionships,
119, 120
Divorce, 30, 89, 159, 185
Dominance, re? Female dominance, Male
dominance
Dominant-submissive relationship. 179
Drugs: cure for violence. 94; and rule vio-
lstions. 141
Economic difficulry, and violence, 64,227-
3 1
Economic resources, 193, 199
Education: and dominance. 182; as re-
source, 190
Employmmr. and self-esteem, 228. 231
Encounter groups, 220
Equal Righis Amendment, 91,225
Equditariunism: in marriage. 18. 19-20.
156, 172, 177, 181, 183; in ethnic
groups, 74, 79; and violence, 86-87.90,
91, 183-85; and frusriation, 109; a d
intimacy, 149, 172; and conflici, 176;
occupational and economic, 179, 222,
224. 228. 230: and males. 181, 182; re-
jecrion of, 182; class differences in
norms, 190-91
Frcope from Freedom, 224
Ethnic groups: values and norms of. 14,
69, 70, 73: violence in, 14, 71, 80

Subject Index
Erhnogiaphies, of Americnnmarriages, 157
Exchangr model of marriage (Scanzoni),
170 ---
Exchange theory. 205"
Expressive violcncc: ZZn, 108. 111-12,
113; in children's lirerutuie, 53; in fiction.
58; in middle class, 204: in mass
media, 214
Exrended family: and nuclear family, 18:
conflici in, 135"; srability of, 219. 225
Family: and aggression, 7; and stress, 8. 11.
33. 103, 104, 107; stiucrural features
of, 8, 85, 115, 136;supportin, 11, 18,
218; involuntary membership in, 17.
120: relationships sndconflict,49,115,
156:values,73;functionsof, 104;uiban.
110; as 'dehumanizing" agent. 139:
politics, 139, 173, 174% 175n; private
nature of, 152; and children. 16243;
and power, 201; as training ground for
violence, 215-18
Family impact analysis. 219
Family life: complexity of. 10, 22; idealiraiion
of, 11; characteristics of, 41
Faihei: dominance of. 68: relarions wirh
chiidren. 73. 74, 75. See also Ilusbnnd
Fcmalc aggressors, in children's books, 62
Female dominance. 157
Female-centcied family, 77
I'emininiry: compulsive. 225; and employmenr,
225
Feminisc movcmenr, see Women's movemrnf
Fiction, and violence, 57-58, 63
Final Say Power Index, 193
Frustration: reduction of, 108, 227: and
mess. 108. 109;andviolence. 109,112;
causes of, 110-1 1; and aggression, 227
Frusrration-aggresrion theory, 111, 116
General mess model. 95, 105, 108, 111,
112,113, 114
Goal attsinmenc, 109, 180, 181, 185,
189
Goal bloclage. in children's books, 5940
Goal-direcred rule violaiions, 145
Goals: and violence, 105; in conflict, 125
Guns, and domestic violence, 25, 214-15,
229
Happiness, and marital stability. 9
Head of household: male as, 86, 156, 177,
179: rrsponsibilities of. 168: changes
in. 221, 222, 228. 230
Hedonistic iclrvance. 151-52
High resource group, 200
Hitring license norm, 212. 220
Homicide, 8, 11, 1415, 40,45,48, 55, 213
liosriiity: and inrimate ielariunships, 9.16,
116, 118, 128; production of, 20, 129,
130;suppression of, 20, 116, 118, 119-
22, 126-27. 133; and conflicr of inter-
est, 117. 118. 133; subjecrive, 117.
129: expression of. 124, 125; outcome
of, 127: reduction of. 128; and expres-
sive conflict, 130
Household rasks, 148: and violence, 179;
distribution of, 223, 224
Housewife, 181: power in home, 167
Husband: and power, 8-9: and faiher role.
53; and violence, 200, 202, 203, 208"
Husband bearing, 31-33
Identiry: in inrimace relationships, 140,
143. 149; rhreatmed, 144; and rule
violsrions, 146; support of, 146: an ro-
cia1 phenomenon, 154n; and srabiiiry.
225
Illegirimare strategy: in intimarr relation-
ships, 128; in conflicrs of inrciesi. 131;
in conflicr siiuations, 133
Income. and family violmce. 227. 231
individualism, 188: and achievement, 53:
and violence. 87: protection of, 139; in
U.S.. 199
Indusiriaiized nations, and violence. 52
Instrummtal behavior, 139
Instrumental conflict: in inrimsie groups.
122; defined, 123, 124-25; consequen-
ces of. 124: intent in, 125; in conflicrs
of inrerest, 131; effeciiveness of, 131;
and resolution, 131: as result of hosri-
liiy, 133; leading ro aggression, 134
lnstrumenral dependence, on family, 120
lnstiumenral inverrmmrs: and horriliiy,

Subject Index
119; in family, 120; in inrimarepups,
122
lnsrrumenral strategy, 125
Instrumental violmce, 2211, 107, 111-12:
in children's liieruruir. 53, 64; in fic-
tion. 58; and srress. 113; andclass, 203,
204. 205; in mass media, 214
Inreni, 143, 14748: of violmce, 136,137,
138. 141, 150, 153; of aggression. 141
Inrimacy, 110, 115, 117. 118: in family,
9, 10. 128, 136; and identity. 17~18,
146-47; and authoriry, 73;and conflict.
116. 126. 183, 185, 218: and aggres-
sion. 129, 152
Intimate Enemy, The, 220
lniimaie groups: paradoxical struciuie of,
116, 122. 133: dissolurionof, 122.129:
and expressive conflicr. 130; and con-
flicts of inteiesi, 133; and violence,
137.172
Intimate relationships: knowledge of inti-
mazes, 129, 148; rules of, 13940, 149;
maintenance of. 141; and rule viola-
tions, 144. 145. 146; and threat per-
ception, 147; andatrriburion, 147.151;
and equaiiiarianiun, 172, 183, 186
Invasion of privacy, 24
irony: of family violence, 10-11, 21-22,
85: and egalitarian family sysrcms. 87
Jewish-American families, violence in, 77-
79, 80
Juvenile delinquency, 15, 165
Law, see Criminal justice system
Leadership norms, in American sociery,
198
Lcadrrahip role: of husband, 199, 227;
and physical foicc. 227
Literature: and violence, 11, 214: reflect-
ing cultural norms. 42; influencing so-
ciery. 52, 53
Living iogerher, and violence. 31
Love: in family structure, lo, 11, 24, 34.
41. 218: and use of violence, 14, 24,
34, 42, 217, 218, 230:sndaurhoriraiivn
personality, 217 '
Macho image, in working class, 204
,Male chauvinism, 165
Malc dominance, 92, 172, 173, 180, 188:
and conflicr, 16; in tiansirion, 19; when
male is threaiened, 19; and violence.
19, 36, 77, 86, 87. 161-62, 165, 166,
169, 186, 200, 202, 203, 221; and
physical force, 30, 91, 189, 202: in
Mexican-American fmiilies. 68, 74;
rhrough insrirurional aiiangemcnrs, 86;
in urban society, 171; and conflicr.
176, 177, 179-80; failuietoacraiii, 182:
and equalirarianism, 185: social class,
190, 203, 204, 205; resisiance to, 201.
See airn Women, suboidinaiion of
Male power, and violence, 183, 200. 202
~Mariiage: and happiness. 9; as long-term
,,relationship. 17; counseling, 43, 220,
221; srudies of. 47; and encounter
movrmenr, 221; contract, 222
Marriage license, as hirring license, 13, 39-
50, 63. 211-12
Masculiniry, 32, 87-88, 156, 205,221, 228:
compulsive, 930, 180, 182, 185, 225
Masochism. 229
Mass media and carhaisis rheory, 52; vio-
lence in, 52, 214, 215, 229; and sen
roles, 181-82
Mcdiaror. See Third parry arbitraiion
Mexicani\merican college scudenrs, sur-
veyed, 74-75
Mexican-American familicr: male domi-
iinncs in, 68, 73: violence in, 73-77,
80. 81n
Middle-class norms. andviolence. 190. 191,
196, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205
Miliraiy violence. 213
Money: as resource, 166. 172; and marital
role, 169; and power, 169, 178; and
male dominance, 182
Moniicys, and violence. 217
Moihei: iolc of and work, 163; idmtifica-
cion wich, Z80
Motion pictures: and nonviolence myth of
family, 11; and violence, 214
Murder. see Homicide
Myih: of family nonviolence, 11, 41, 49.
63. 64, 65; of violence as socially wor-
thy. 63; of single-parent household,
89

Subject Index
Nonconscious ideology, 38
Nonrealistic conflict, 123
Nonviolence of family, see Myrh
NOW Wife Assault Program, 226-27
Nuclear family: violence in, 13, 17; insta-
bility a€, 17; compared with extended
family. 18; srrainson, 21 1
Occupational groups, classification of,
207% 208"
Occupacional discrirninarion, 88, 222,223,
230
Occupaiional idenfificarion, 225, 231
Old, dominance by, 73
Oprimum stress level, 8. 99
Parent-child violence. 13, 47, 63
Parenrhoad: by-product of, 165-66; rc-
sponsr ro, 174"
Passive aggression. 137
Passive-cangeniul marriage, 21. 127
Percepiion: and stress, 96: of aggression,
137: of violence, 141, 151
Personality involvement: and conflict of
inceiest, 117; and hostiliiy. 118; in in-
chafe irlarionships, 118, 127, 129,
134n; and rcplacemenr of group mem-
bers. 119; and expressive conflict, 130
Personaliry rraits: and poivet, 193; by sex,
229
Physical affection, 217-18
Physical punishment: ro conrrol children,
13; consequences of, 34; role-modeling
function of, 34, 40, 49, 215-16, 230;
and husband-wife violence, 35; Irgiri-
miring violence, 35. 40; in Tepozilan,
70; in Mexican-American families. 73;
andsrress 103:elirninarionof. 216,217
Physical srrmph: and husb:banil braring, 32;
and injury, 33; and mdr dominance,
182-83
Physical Violence lndrx. 25
Police, see Criminal jusiicr
Power: struggles. 29. 160, 165, 166-67:
division of, 87. 166. 201; claims on,
123. 176; in marriage, 177: souicrsof,
177. 178: and rrnploymenr of wife,
179; definition of. 186n;nnd resources
and violence, 190-209
Pregnancy: and violence. 33, 172; and se,
roles, 165, 170;response to, 165, 174"
Piivacy: related to violence, 18: in family
218
Pueiio-Rican families, power in, 74
Race: and artirudes of authorities. 43: anc
violence in children's books, 61
Rnpr: wirhin marriage, 47; number in U.S.,
55; and power, 88: reduction of, 93"
Rarionsl problem solving. 77
Relationd complacence. in intimate rela-
rionships. 149, 150
Relsiional rules: interpretarion of. 139:
violarion of, 140-50:ininrimarcgroups,
140-54
Relative Power lndrx, 193, 194
Rrlarivc Resource Index, 193
Relativr resources: and power. 196; and
violence. 198, 201
Release mechanism. 104. 111
Religious beliefs, and children. 163
Resolution: and srraregy choicc, 131; and
conflicr. 219, 221
Resouice theory: and violence. 105, 106,
196; of power, 116. 178,189:tojusrify
dominance, 166
Resources: and male suprrioriry. 87; and
physical force, 87: and strms, 105, 114;
and subjecrive hostility, 118; claims
over. 123: of wife, 156. 179, 198, 201,
202; definirion of, 178. 205n; md
power and violence, 190-209; measures
of, 193;of husband. 198
Response capabilities ro mess, 97.99, 100,
104-5, 106, 110, 113
Responsibility, and aurhority, 169
Retsliarion, 143, 144
Rcriicmenr, 17
Retiibucion. 143
Reward power, 192
Roles: scx-typed, 16, 223, 224, 225, 228,
229. 230; and violence, 34. 221: in
tiansiiion, 76-77, 181; in mairi%ge, 87,
165,181; conflicrs in. 104: and respon-
sibiliry, 168; clarity of, 180, 181, 182,
185; adoprion of, 181
Romantic love, 120
Rulc violations: accidenral, 14041: ai-

Subject Index
riagc, 9; violencc used ro enforce. 59:
contradictory, 123.
Verbal aggression. 135n. 137. 187n. 220
Verbal conflicr. 185
Verbal expression. 79
Victimizntion: of children. 93n:ofwomen.
20, 33.41
Vioiencr, family: incidence of, 4; and . psy- .
chopathology, 4, 8, 13, 152, 211; as
socially learned and patreined bchsvior,
4, 11, 14, 38, 107, 215;prcvalenccof.
8; measurement of, 8, 25, 27, 191;underreporting
of, 8, 30, 32, 191: Irgiiimate,
13, 22% 25, 38, 39, 41, 53, 58,
106-7; parent-child, 13, 47. 63; ikgitimate,
14. 22". 53; iime factor, relared
to, 15, 18; definirion of. 22n, 124;
"deserved," 24; normal. 24. 30, 43,
173; imiracion of, 32; jusiification of,
35; arrests and, 44-45, 212: rolemodrls
for, 49, 213, 230; and sporis, 52; fictional,
and social control of deviance,
57-61; sibling, 63, 216, 217; imirarion
of, 71; as last resort, 77: peiperuation
of, 80, 81"; curing of, 94; prcdisposiiion
to, 103; as response to srrers, 105:
alrrrnarives ro, 106. 115; social psychological
analysis of, 114, 137. 151; as
subtype of aggression, 130; atrribution
of. 134". 136. 137, 138-39. 141-50;
accidcnral, 137, 138; and rule violations.
144; and marital politics, 157-75;
and resources and power, 190-209;
governmcnrai, 213-14: and peers, 216-
17; avoidance of, 223; unrmployrnenr
and, 227, 228
Violence. gcnrial, in US.. 55
Violence index, 49
Voluntary iclationshipn, 119, 170
War: and children's literamre, 57; and vio-
lence, 64, 213-14: sloiies, 66"
Wife: role, 89; stlying home, 166; as vic-
tim, 171; as dominant, 171-72, 173;
economic dependence of, 176, 222,
228; and power, 198-99; and violence,
200. 201-2. 208n: resources of, 200,
202
Wife, employment of, 92, 150, 156, 159,
172. 176. 178-79, 223. 224.225, 228,
230: and male dominance, 19. 179-80;
consequences of, 176. 177; and vio-
lence, 179, 180; and resources, 185
Wife-bearing: as accrpiabie, 23, 24, 71;
definition of, 24; index of, 25, 27: ex-
tent of. 27-31; causes of. 33-36; pre-
vention of, 35, 212-13, 231. 232; and
sexual inequaliry, 86; as reflection of
societal violence, 213-15; sex role and
sexism, 221; toleration of, 226; risks
of, 232
Wirhdrawal, red Avoiiiancc
Women: subordination of. 41. 165; as ag-
gressors, 62; in violent acts, 66": in
,Mexican-American culrurc. 74; negn-
rive self-images of. 89; as children, 89-
90, 224, 225; righrs of, 92; and suc-
cess, 92; and power, 199
Women's movement. 181, 222: and wifr-
bearing. 24; goal of reducing violence,
90-91; conrriburions of, 91; men's
reactions to, 178; resistance ro. 225
Work-cthic, 66"
Working class, 190-91, 194, 196. 200-5
passim
Working wife, See Wife, rmploymenr of

About the Authors
CRAIG 8. ILLEN 1s ZP Instznctoz in Soci3LJgy a? 10x2
State Uni7ersiCy. AB t25 done zesearch on fsaily
zPtervactiOn techniqoes, pazental discipline 328 13cas of
Control iP children, and childrsnqs ocdeling of cartcoo
characters. Cnrrently, h? is studying relationships among
measures of conjogal power to dere=m:ne if indexes based 3n
con?estod paver are more sensitivs indicators 3f the mazitel
power balance than indexes based on uncorteste3 povsr. 9s
15 the au'hor of "Role Specializatiol and Locus of Contr~l,"
PrEsBnted at the Third Ancoal Pamilp Reselrch Corference,
Brigham Young University. 1974.
BRUCE Y. BRORR is hssist31t PTO~SSSO? Of SO~i0103Y at
Xilkes College in wilkes-Barre, Penrsylvacia. Ee has done
TESO~TC~ on historical a?+lysis of the family, femily
measuresent techniques. and discipline of childrec. 9e is
COY &ling a stndy of how family life has been depicted ir
magizinc advertising sicce 1920, which eaphasizss both
historical and life cycle changes in family companionship
+nd irtimacy.
na19 marriage
Be is the author of "Tha Cimngicg Bole 3: Zhe
Partner as D~picted in ths 20th ceztory
rarriage a+rualn (New York state Soci~logicsl Rssociition,
1973); "Edncation, Employment, and Prescriptiors for
Marit21 D~c1sion-i3ekixg: 1900-1974" (8msricao Sociologicel
nssociation. 1977): "nagazioe Advertising: Its Use i~ the
exstorical stndy of the Psmily" (Pennsylvaoia Sociological
Society. 1979): "Wife-Enploysent an6 the Emergence of
Equa1l:arzan Earit21 Pole Prescr:pticns: 1900-1974"
(zsgm& Of Com~arative Fzmilv Stcdls, Sprirq 1978); and
"Parent's Discxpline of Children in Poblic Placesu ( E a _ ~ ~ & ~
coortinatar, July 1979)- He is co-author, with Burray A.
straos, of SG:&V ngaggrsgn: TPchnQggs (university of
Minnesota rzrss, 1978); and vith Joseph A. Pznzanaro. of
"Compulsory Pre-Karital Educatioo?" (Rilkss College
Quarterly, summer 1979).

JOSEPH CARROLL is ar Pssistart Professo; in Sociclogy
at Colby-Sawyer College ir New LorAon, Anv Aaapsb.irn. Pe
has done research on the icterosnera~ional transmisa~nn of
faaily violence, and cliaa+alogical factcrs associated with
aggression. He is now doing a study of causes of
psychological distress and family problems that emphasizes
the effect of varying degrees of intsgrati5n into one.5
community. Ee is the author of "The Intergeneretional
Transmission cf Family Violence: The Long-term Effects of
Aggressive Behavior." 1977). and the "Effect of Climate on
Homicide and Suicide: Euaidity, Reat, and Cold" (Annual
meetlng of the Society for the Study of Social Problems,
1977).
KEITH PBRRLNGTOB is a memher of the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology at whitman College. R i s research
interests include the causes and consequenc?s of social
Stress, labeling and deviance, and violsnt behavior. Re is
the author or co-author of 'The Scheduling of Personal
Crises: Seasonal Changes in the Pace of Social Ictivities
and Aelp-seeking at mental Bealth Clinicsw (presented st the
annual mPeting of the Society for the Study of Social
Problems, New York City. August 1976). '?Family Violelce and
Household Density: Does the Crowded Home Breed Aggression?"
(presented at the acnual meeting of the Society for the
Study of Soclal Problems. Chicago, Seprenher 1977). and "In
Search of the nisslng Conceptual Framevork in Family
Sociology: The Social Conflict Frameworkm (pfesert3d at thj
annual maeting of the National Council on Paerly Rslations,
San Diego, October 1977). He is currently doicg a
macroscopic analysis of variations in the pace of social
life and their effects.
JOYCE E. POSS is an Assistant Professor in Sccio13gy at
Sangamon state State university in springfiela, Illinsis.
She has done research on sex roles +rd mencll health, the
impact of women's Studies courses on attitudes toward
women's roles, and community perceptions of hospital
Services. Currently she is doing a study of the types of
power assertions used by husbands and wives, uhich
emphasizes relationships between structural and processual
aspects of power. She is the author of "Sex Differences in
the Use oi mental Pealth Clinics: Real Illness or Patient
Behavior?" (Society for the Study of Social Problems Ccnual
aeeting. 1974) ; and co-author of "Review Essay: "=pop
Cor.structIon and the Sgoipgy gg t he Pamilx. by Nesl?y R.
of the 'Eissing' Conceptual Framework in Family Sociology:
The Social Conflict Framework" Annual meeting of the

GERRLD T. EOTRLIRG is an Instructor in SOCiOlOgy at the
University of vcrnont. R i s research interests include
Family Violence. Uental Health and the Family. and Sex Roles
and Health Behavior. Ee is a member of the editorial board
He is the author of "Family Vulnerability to Stigma as
a Factor ir. Aelp-Seeking Behavior" (Society for the Stuay of
soclal Problems meetings 1975), "Facilitating Tiol€nce: Why
Intimates Attribute Rggressionn (presented at the Rational
Council 02 Family Relations meetings 1975). "Social Class
and Value Orientation in the Phase Bovement of Faellies
Through the Rental Realth System" (Society for the Study of
social Problems meeting 1976). "Sex Differences in
~elp-Seeking Behavior" (Society for %he Stuay of social
problem^ meeting 1978, with Saundra Atwell and Joyce 2.
Poss) , and "'dolescent Life Changes and Illness: A
comparison of Three nodels' (Eastern Soci~logical S~ciaty
meetings 1978. to be
Adolescence, 1978).
publlshed hy the Journal of Youth
BARTAA D. BUGGINS is an Instructor at Union College in
the Department cf Sociology. She recently spent two years
as a Yisiti3q Professor i~ t h ~ Department of SJciology at
the Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Brazil. The
VisitlCg PrOteS~orship was funded by the Fletcher School of
Law and
Foundation.
Diplomacy, Tufts Uriversity,
The title of her dissertation
and th? Ford
is "Punishaent
without Crime: Deviaccr, Social Change and Social Control
in Pernambuco, Brazil, 1860-1922." She is the co-author
(with Scott G. HcNall) of "Guerilla Warfare: 4 Prsliminary
study of Predisposing and Precipitating Factcrs," and of a
paper presented at the 1977 Eastern Soci~logical society
meeting on "The Relatiorship between Social 3na Political
Conditions and
Recife, Brazil."
Historic6l Trends in Deviant Behav:or in
RALPH LaROSSB is an lssistant Professor of Sociology at
Georgla State university in htlanta. Re has done rese%rch
on the psycho-social aspects of marriage and first pregnancy

and is currently invclved in two projects: a participact
observation study of the aging process and in in-deprh
ir~iervieu studv of tno tzansition to parenthood. He is the
8URRP.Y A. STBAUS has beec Professor of Sociology at ?he
Unlvsrsity of Nsu Rampshire since 1968. Ee is thf auLhor of
about 80 articles in the sociology of the family, violence.
south Asia. rural sociology, and research methods: and ths
fo110~ln9 books: Socioloqical hnal~sis: An E~pirical
~ ~ ~ r a a Through c h - ~eplicetioc (1968); Family 8eas"rement
Techniques (1969. revised ediLior, 1977) ; Family Bnalyais:
Readinqs acd Replicaticns of Selected Studies (1969):
Famlly Problem Solvinq (1971): end Violerce in the Family
(1979). He
+nd founding
was Assistant Editcr of Sociological Lbntracts
editor of the journal Teaching Soci3logy.
straus was president of
Relations, vica-presidert
the National Council on Family
of the rasterr Sociolsgical
Society, and member cf the Council of the Enerican
Rssociatioz to= tte Fdoa~cemelt of Scierce. Ee was recently
given the E. V. Burgess award for cutstandirg csctributions
to research on the family. Togethsr with Bichara Gelles and
Suzanne Steinmetz, he is the author of 3 book 3n PiPLgaCP LC
*&g &AgrLc&Q Ej~iLy based or data from :he ca+.ionslly
representstise sample of 2,143 families acscribsa io the
article in thls issue.