5 Causes of Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence: Learned Behavior
Domestic violence is behavior learned through observation and reinforcement. Like other forms of aggression, domestic violence is not caused by genetics or illness. People are not born perpetrators and for the most part there is no disease or illness that turns a non-abusive person into an abuser. Domestic violence is a behavior acquired over time through multiple observations and interactions with individuals and institutions (Bandura, 1979; Dutton, D., 1988). The behaviors, as well as the perpetrator’s internal “rules and regulations” about when, where, against whom, how, and by whom domestic violence is to be used, are learned. Domestic violence and the beliefs that support it are learned through direct observation (e.g., the male child witnessing the abuse of his mother by his father or from the proliferation of images of violence against women in the media). It is also learned through the reinforcement of the perpetrators’ experiences (e.g., perpetrators receiving peer support or not being held responsible, arrested, prosecuted, or sentenced appropriately for their violence).
Domestic violence is observed and reinforced not only in the family but also in society. It is overtly and covertly reinforced by society’s major institutions: familial, social, legal, religious, educational, mental health, medical, entertainment, and the media (Bandura, 1979; Dutton, D. 1988; Ganley, 1989; Dobash & Dobash, 1979). These social institutions advocate the use of violence as legitimate means of controlling family members (e.g., religious beliefs/ positions that state that a woman should submit to the will of her husband, laws that do not consider violence against intimates a crime, medical and mental health systems that blame victims for “provoking” the violence). These practices reinforce the use of violence to control intimates by failing to hold perpetrators responsible for their actions and by failing to protect victims. (See Jones (1994) for a more complete discussion of social supports for battering. )
Domestic violence is repeated because it works and thus the pattern of behavior is reinforced. The use of the abusive conduct allows the perpetrator to gain control of the victim through fear and violence. Gaining the victim’s compliance, even temporarily, provides partial reinforcement for the perpetrator’s use of abusive tactics. Often the battering behavior is also reinforced by the responses of peers, family authorities, and bystanders. More importantly, the perpetrator is able to reinforce his own abusive behavior. He is able to justify his actions to himself because of the socially sanctioned belief that men have the right to control women in relationships and have the right to use force to ensure that control.
Domestic Violence and Gender
Domestic violence is a gender-specific behavior which is socially and historically constructed. Men are socialized to take control and to use physical force when necessary to maintain dominance. While most victims of male violence are other men, the majority of victims of domestic violence are female, although female-to- male, male-to-male (gay), and female-to-female (lesbian) violence also occurs in intimate relationships. Male violence against women in intimate relationships is a social problem condoned and supported by the customs and traditions of a particular society. There is a great deal of discussion about whether gender is the sole factor determining the pattern of abusive control in intimate relationships or one of a cluster of significant variables (Miller, 1994; Renzetti, 1994). However, gender is clearly a salient issue when considering the following factors: the prevalence of male-to- female domestic violence, injuries to female victims, the use of physical force as part of a pattern of dominance, and specific responses of victims and perpetrators to domestic violence.
As previously noted, in the majority of reported domestic violence cases, the perpetrators are men and the victims are women (Douglas, 1991). In heterosexual relationships, some women sometimes use physical force, but their use of physical force is not always at the same rate or severity as men’s (Dobash & Dobash, 1979, 1992; Gelles, 1994). Studies indicate that while both men and women sometimes use similar physical behaviors, the physical effects of male violence are far more serious than female aggression as measured by the frequency and severity of injuries (Berk, Berk, Loseke, & Rauma, 1983). Furthermore, the impact of the physical aggression varies according to the gender of the victim — female victims of male intimate violence experience more negative consequences than male victims of female intimate violence (Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994).
Furthermore, the purpose of women’s use of physical force appears to be different than men’s. In studies of heterosexual relationships, women use physical force against partners for self-defense, whereas men use force for power and control (Saunders, 1986; Hamberger & Potente, 1994; Jacobson, et al., 1994). In homicide studies, women are shown to be more likely than men to have committed homicide in self-defense. In contrast, male perpetrators of homicide are more likely to stalk victims, kill victims and/or other family members, and/or commit suicide than female perpetrators of homicide (Wilson & Daly, 1992). The research on battered women who kill also suggests that women’s use of physical force is related to protecting themselves from the severe violence of male perpetrators (Gillespie, 1989). Browne (1987) found no distinguishing characteristics between battered women who kill and those who do not. The only differences found in comparing these two groups of battered women were found in their batterers (i.e., the men who were killed had been more violent against the victims as well as the children than those who were not killed).
Obviously, in same-sex domestic violence the gender pattern is different. However, the reality of same-sex domestic violence does not discount the gender issues of domestic violence. Male violence against women in heterosexual intimate relationships is a paradigm for intimate violence in gay and lesbian relationships: one partner is intimidating and controlling the other through the use of or threat of physical violence.
Even though the gender pattern is not the same for same-sex relationships as for heterosexual, there are gender issues related to how gay and lesbian victims and perpetrators relate to the abuse and to how others view same-sex domestic violence. For example, because of their gender socialization, gay victims may have difficulty identifying as victims because it is seen as “unmanly” (Letellier, 1994); the gay community may discount the violence because “that is the way men are” while the lesbian community may deny lesbian domestic violence because “women are not like that;” and the homophobic mainstream dismisses the domestic violence as just part of being gay or lesbian. While same-sex domestic violence is slowly receiving attention in the literature (e.g., Lobel, 1986; Renzetti, 1992; Letellier, 1994), there have been no studies comparing heterosexual, lesbian and gay domestic violence. Consequently, additional questions regarding gender and domestic violence still need to be answered.
Domestic Violence and Cultural Issues
Domestic violence occurs in all cultural/ethnic groups both outside and within the United States. Cross-cultural studies involving non-literate societies (Levinson, 1989; Campbell, J., 1993; Erchak & Rosenfeld, 1994) indicates that wife beating is more typical than husband beating in those societies and that the prevalence and severity of wife beating is influenced by a variety social factors within a particular society (e.g., tolerance of violence, competitiveness between men and women, presence of support networks for women). While a review of that literature is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is referenced here as a reminder that domestic violence is socially constructed and learned.
While researchers seek to understand the significance of cultural differences as related to domestic violence,3 it is helpful for the health care provider to focus on what is known. Domestic violence occurs in all cultural/ethnic groups and has serious physical and emotional consequences for victims, their children and their communities. The health impact of domestic violence to victims has been documented in various ethnic groups: Latino, African American, Asian, Native American, and Caucasian.
Cultural factors should not be used to dismiss the reality of domestic violence in a patient’s life. Perpetrators and others will sometimes offer various cultural rationalizations for the conduct (e.g., “That’s the way she knows I love her,” “It’s part of our culture,” “It is their way of life”) and there may be certain cultural specificity in the expression of those rationalizations (e.g., “women are very violent, too”). This “cultural defense” for domestic violence has even been inappropriately offered in courts in attempts to explain away domestic violence homicides.
Culture sometimes shapes the specific tactic of control used by the perpetrator. Some perpetrators use cultural factors of the victims as a way to further the abusive control (e.g., immigrant status, language skills). Perpetrators may accuse victims of acting “uppity,” “American,” “white” or of being a “bitch” when they assert their human rights. These tactics of control are shaded with cultural issues to give the perpetrator dominance over the victim.
While culture does not alter the reality of the health consequences of domestic violence, cultural factors can influence identification, assessment, and intervention for the problem. The cultural identities of both the patient and the health care provider may affect the identification and assessment of domestic violence. A health care provider unfamiliar with a particular ethnic group may misinterpret a patient’s actions as indicative of abuse (e.g., avoidance of eye contact) or as indicating that she is not a battered woman (e.g., a victim’s rage and threats against her abuser). Victims from different cultural groups have different values and beliefs about interpersonal communication, the role of health care providers, the role of police, and the role of family members which shape how they reveal or don’t reveal their experience of domestic violence.
Cultural issues should be considered in designing effective responses and interventions for both the victims (Torres, 1993; Campbell, D., 1993; Ho, 1990; Hamptom, 1987; Jang, 1991; Plass, 1993) and the perpetrators (Williams, 1994). Just as health facilities have worked to offer all health care services in ways that are accessible to diverse populations with a variety of languages and ethnicities, responses to patients experiencing domestic violence must also be culturally appropriate.
Domestic Violence vs. Illness-based Violence
While domestic violence is learned, there is other violence that results from illness. A small percentage of violence against adult intimates is illness-based but is misidentified as domestic violence. This violence is caused by organic or psychotic impairments and is not part of a learned pattern of coercive control of an intimate partner. Individuals with diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s Chorea, or psychosis may strike out at an intimate partner. Sometimes that violence gets identified as domestic violence.
An assessment will distinguish illness- based violence from learning-based violence. With illness-based violence, there is usually no selection of a particular victim (whoever is present when the short circuit occurs will get attacked: health care provider, family member, friend, stranger, etc.). However, with learning-based violence, the perpetrator directs his abusive conduct toward a particular person or persons. In addition, with illness-based violence there is usually a constellation of other clear symptoms of a disease process. For example, with an organic brain disease, there are changes in speech, gait, or physical coordination. With an illness such as psychosis there are multiple symptoms of the psychotic process (e.g., “He attacked her because she is a CIA agent sent by the Pope to spy on him using the TV monitor”). Poor recall of the event alone is not an indicator of illness-based violence (see Section III. B. 2. of this chapter on perpetrator minimization and denial). With illness-based violence the acts are strongly associated with the progression of a disease (e.g., the patient showed no prior acts of violence or abuse in the 20-year marriage until other symptoms of the organic process had appeared).
There has been no systematic research to determine the percentage of cases identified by police or courts as domestic violence that are attributable to illness. In a clinical sample of those individuals identified by community police and courts and referred to a medical center as domestic violence perpetrators, less than 5% were violent as a result of an organic process (Ganley, 1995). More research is needed on this issue.
Illness-based violence can be most effectively managed by appropriate medical or mental health interventions and case management (e.g., instituting day treatment programs, appropriate medications, respite care, institutionalization when necessary). While attention must be given to the safety of the victims in such cases, it is more appropriately dealt with by those knowledgeable about the particular illness. While the victim may benefit from emergency shelter services and safety planning, the perpetrator of illness-based violence would not benefit from specialized domestic violence interventions.
Domestic Violence Is Not Caused by Alcohol or Other Drugs
Many people use or abuse drugs without ever battering their partners. Alcohol and other drugs such as marijuana, depressants, anti-depressants, or anti- anxiety drugs do not cause individuals to become violent. Although alcohol and drugs may be used as the excuse for the battering, research indicates that the complex pattern of coercive behaviors which comprise domestic violence is not caused by consuming particular chemicals (Critchlow, 1986; Taylor & Leonard, 1983; Pihl & Smith, 1988, Gondolf & Foster, 1991).
Some people who consume alcohol or drugs are violent with or without the chemical in their bodies. An addict’s violence may be part of a lifestyle where everything, including family life, is orchestrated around the acquisition and consumption of the drug. Other addicts are so focused on their addiction that they withdraw from relationships and do not engage in any controlling behavior directed at family members.
On the other hand, there is conflicting evidence whether certain drugs (e.g., steroids, PCP, speed, cocaine or cocaine’s derivative, “crack”) chemically react within the brain to cause violent behavior or whether they induce paranoia or psychosis, which is then sometimes accompanied by violent behaviors. Further research is needed to explore the cause- and-effect relationship between those particular drugs and violence.
While research studies cited above have found high correlations between aggression and the consumption of various substances, there is no data clearly proving a cause-and-effect relationship. There are a wide variety of explanations for these high correlations. Some say that alcohol and drugs provide a disinhibiting effect which gives the individual permission to do things that they otherwise would not do. Others point to the increased irritability or hostility which some individuals experience when using drugs and which may lead to violence. Others state that the high correlations merely result from the overlap of two widespread social problems: domestic violence and substance abuse.
Clinical experience cautions against viewing domestic violence as being caused by alcoholism, drug addiction or substance abuse. Such a view can misdirect interventions solely to the chemical use rather than to the domestic violence. For those who are addicted to alcohol and other drugs, stopping domestic violence behavior is difficult without also stopping the addictions. However, it is not sufficient to treat the chemically addicted perpetrator of domestic violence solely for either addiction or domestic violence. Interventions for both require one of the following: (a) concurrent interventions for domestic violence and substance dependence/abuse,
(b) inpatient substance abuse treatment with a mandatory follow-up program for domestic violence, or (c) an involuntary substance abuse commitment (which is done in some, but not all, states) with rehabilitation directed at both the addiction and the domestic violence.
The presence of alcohol or drugs is highly relevant to the assessment of lethality. The use of, or addiction to, substances may increase the potential lethality of domestic violence and must be carefully considered when addressing the safety of the victim, the children, and the community (Browne, 1987).
Domestic Violence Is Not Caused by Anger
The role of anger in domestic violence is complex and cannot be simplistically reduced to one of cause-and-effect. Some battering episodes occur when the perpetrator is not angry or emotionally charged, and others occur when the perpetrator is emotionally charged or angry. Some abusive conduct is carried out calmly to gain the victim’s compliance. Some displays of anger or rage by the perpetrator are merely tactics used to intimidate the victim, and can be quickly altered when the abuser thinks it is necessary (e.g., upon arrival of police).
Current research indicates that there is a wide variety of arousal or anger patterns among identified perpetrators as well as among those who are identified as not abusive (Gottman et al., 1995; Jacobsen et al., 1994). These studies suggest that there may be different types of batterers. Abusers in one cluster actually reduced their heart rates during observed marital conflicts, suggesting a calm preparation for fighting rather than an out-of-control or angry response. Such research challenges the notion that domestic violence is merely an anger problem and raises questions about the efficacy of anger-management programs for batterers.
Remembering that domestic violence is a pattern of behaviors rather than isolated, individual events helps to explain the number of abusive episodes that occur when the perpetrator is not angry. Even when experiencing anger, the perpetrator still chooses to respond to that anger by acting abusively. Ultimately, the individual is responsible for how he expresses anger or any other emotion.
Domestic Violence Is Not Caused by Stress
Life is filled with many different sources of stress (e.g., stress from the job, stress from not having a job, relationship conflicts, losses, illness, discrimination, or poverty). People respond to stress in a wide variety of ways (e.g., problem solving, substance abuse, eating, laughing, withdrawal, and violence) (Bandura, 1973). People choose ways to reduce stress according to what they have learned about strategies that have worked for them in the past.
It is important to hold individuals responsible for the choices they make regarding how they reduce stress, especially when those choices involve violence or other illegal behaviors. A robbery or a mugging by a stranger is not excused simply because the perpetrator claims he is stressed. Similarly, the perpetrator of domestic violence cannot be excused simply because he is stressed. Moreover, as already noted, many episodes of domestic violence occur when the perpetrator is not emotionally charged or stressed. Since domestic violence is a variety of tactics repeated over time for the purpose of controlling the victim, specific stresses are less meaningful in explaining a longitudinal pattern of abusive control (Pence & Paymar, 1993).
Domestic Violence Is Not Caused by the Victim’s Behavior or by the Relationship
People can be in conflicted relation- ships and experience negative feelings about the behavior of their partner without choosing to respond with violence. Focusing on the relationship or the victim’s behavior as an explanation for domestic violence removes the perpetrator’s responsibility for the violence and coercion and supports the perpetrators’ minimization, denial, blaming, and rationalization for the violent behavior. Blaming the victim for making the perpetrator angry, or blaming the violence on problems in the relationship (e.g., poor communication) provides the perpetrator with excuses and justifications for the conduct. This reinforces the perpetrator’s use of abuse to control family members and thus contributes to the escalation of the pattern of domestic violence.
Many batterers bring this pattern of control into their adult relationships and repeat it in all their adult intimate relation- ships, regardless of significant differences in the personalities or conduct of their intimate partners or in the characteristics of those particular relationships. These variables in partners and relationships supports the position that while domestic violence takes place within a relationship, it is not caused by the relationship. Research indicates that there are no personality profiles for battered women (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986). Battered women are no different from non-battered women in terms of psychological characteristics. Once again, this challenges the myth that there is something about the woman that causes the perpetrator’s violence. Furthermore, a study by Jacobson et al. (1994) indicates that no victim behavior could alter the perpetrator’s behavior. This also suggests that the victim’s behavior is not the determining factor in whether or not the perpetrator is abusive.
Domestic violence in adolescent relationships further challenges the notion that the abuse is the result of the victim’s behavior. Often times the adolescent abuser only superficially knows his victim, having dated her only a few days or weeks before beginning the abuse. Such an abuser is often acting out an image of how to conduct an intimate relationship based on the recommendations of his peers, music videos, models set by family members, etc. The adolescent’s abusive conduct is influenced more by that image or script than by the victim’s behavior.
Both adult and adolescent batterers bring into their intimate relationships certain expectations of who is to be in charge and what mechanisms are accept- able for enforcing that dominance. Those attitudes and beliefs, rather than the victim’s behavior, determine whether or not they are violent.
References
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1979). The social learning perspective: Mechanisms of aggression. In Toch (Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York: Free Press.
Campbell, D. (1993). Nursing care of African-American battered women: Afrocentric perspectives. Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses’ Clinical Issues, 4(3), 407-415.
Critchlow, B. (1986). The powers of John Barleycorn: Beliefs about the effects of alcohol on social behavior. American Psychologist 41, 751-764.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R.P. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.
Douglas, H. (1991, November). Assessing violent couples. Families in Society. 72(9), 525-535.
Dutton, D. (1988). The domestic assault of women. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ganley, A. (1989). Integrating a feminist and social learning analysis of aggression: Creating multiple models for intervention with men who batter. In P. L. Caesar & L. Hamberger (Eds.), Treating men who batter: Theory, practice, and programs. New York: Springer.
Ganley, A. (1995). [Review of intake interviews with batterers seeking treatment program, 1988-1994]. Unpublished data.
Gelles, R. (1994). Violence Toward Men: Fact or Fiction? (CSA Report 9-1-94). Chicago, IL: Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association.
Gillespie, C. (1989). Justifiable homicide. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Gottman, J., Jacobson, N., Rushe, R., Wu Short, J., Babcock, J., LaTaillade, J., & Waltz, J. (1995). The relationship between heart rate reactivity, emotionally aggressive behavior and general violence in batterers. Journal of Family Psychology, 9(2).
Hamberger, L. K., & Potente, T. (1994). Counseling heterosexual women arrested for domestic violence: Implications for theory and practice. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 125-137.
Hamptom, R. (Ed). (1987). Violence in the black family. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Ho, C. (1990). An analysis of domestic violence in Asian American communities: A multicultural approach to counseling. Women and Therapy, 9(1-2), 129-150.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1(2), 101-124.
Jacobson, N., Gottman, J., Waltz, J., Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth- Munroe, A. (1994). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 982-988.
Jang, D., Lee, D., Madrigal, T., Morello- Frosch, R., & Pendleton, G. (Eds.). (1991). Domestic violence in immigrant and refugee communities: Asserting the rights of battered women. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Jones, A. (1994). Next time she’ll be dead: Battering & how to stop it. Boston: Beacon Press.
Letellier, P. (1994). Gay and bisexual male domestic violence victimization: Challenges to feminist theory and responses to violence. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 95-106.
Lobel, K. (Ed.). (1986). Naming the violence: Speaking out about lesbian battering. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Miller, S. (1994). Expanding the boundaries: Toward a more inclusive and integrated study of intimate violence. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 183-192.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Educational groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.
Plass, P. (1993). African American family homicide: Patterns in partner, parent, and child victimization, 1985-87. Journal of Black Studies, 23(4), 515-538.
Renzetti, C. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Saunders, D. (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or self-defense? Violence and Victims, 1(1), 47-60.
Torres, S. (1993). Nursing care of low- income battered Hispanic pregnant women. Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses’ Clinical Issues, 4(3), 416-423.
Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A gender-sensitive comparison. Violence and victims, 9(2), 107-124.
Williams, O. (1994). Group work with African American men who batter: Toward more ethnically sensitive practice. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(1), 91-103.
Supplemental Videos
https://youtu.be/J-9k_itEGFo