Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:17:17.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marital Violence: Issues in Conception, Assessment and Intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Robert L. Weiss
Robert L. Weiss*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
*
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403, USA
Get access

Abstract

This paper discusses current issues in the literature on marital violence. Issues in three areas are discussed from a research and clinical perspective: conceptions of marital abuse, assessment of marital aggression and issues in treatment. Although there are specific cognitive-behavioural treatments reported in the literature, a position of caution is advocated here. Before intervening there are issues that the therapist should consider carefully. (1) Assessment must first answer whether conjoint marital therapy is appropriate at all. (2) Therapists must define their own position and estimate availability of supporting resources (e.g., legal, medical) when working with abuse. (3) Although all couples should be screened routinely for the nature and frequency of their aggressive patterns, neither the sensitivity nor specificity of currently available screens is yet established. Examples of current approaches to assessing spouse abuse are presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 6 , Issue 3-4 , September 1989 , pp. 153 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arias, I. & Beach, S.R.H. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, I. & Johnson, P. (1986, 11). Evaluations of physical aggression in marriage. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Barling, J.K., O'Leary, K.D., Jouriles, E.N., Vivian, D. & MacEwen, K.E. (1987). Factor similarity of the conflict tactics scale across samples, spouses, and sites: Issues and implications. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bograd, M. (1984). Family systems approaches to wife battering: A feminist critique. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 558–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.Google Scholar
Ewing, C.P. & Aubery, M. (1987). Battered women and public opinion: some realities about the myths. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 257–264.Google Scholar
Fidler, D. & Kleinknecht, R. (1977). Randomized response versus direct questioning: Two data collection methods for sensitive information. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1045–1049.Google Scholar
Fox, J. & Tracy, P. (1986). Randomized Response: A method for sensitive surveys. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Genteman, K.M. (1980, 03). Attitudes of North Carolina women toward the acceptance and causes of wife beating. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Women's Studies Association, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
Gondolf, E.W. (1987). Evaluating programs for men who batter. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, N.J. (1987). The randomized response technique: Estimating the prevalence of relationship abuse in a college population. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.Google Scholar
Howell, M.J. & Pugliesi, K.L. (1988). Husbands who harm: predicting spousal violence by men. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 15–27.Google Scholar
Hudson, W.W. & Mcintosh, S.R. (1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: two quantifiable dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43(4), 873–885.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. & Zigler, E. (1987). Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(2), 186–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, B.Y. (1985). The Wife Abuse Inventory: A screening device for the identification of abused women. Social Work, 30(1), 32–35.Google Scholar
Lewis, B.Y. (1988). Psychosocial factors related to wife abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolin, G. (1979). Conjoint marital therapy to enhance anger management and reduce spouse abuse. American Journal of Family Therapy, 7, 13–23.Google Scholar
Margolin, G., Sibner, L.G. & Gleberman, L. (1988). Wife battering. In Van Hasselt, V.B., Morrison, R.L., Bellack, A.S. & Hersen, M. (Eds.), Handbook of family violence. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Neidig, P.H. & Friedman, D.H. (1984). Spouse Abuse. A treatment program for couples. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
Novaco, R.W. (1975). Anger control. Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
O'Leary, K.D. (1988). Physical aggression between spouses. A social learning perspective. In Hasselt, V.B. Van, Morrison, R.L., Bellack, A.S. & Hersen, M. (Eds.), Handbook of family violence. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
O'Leary, K.D. & Arias, I. (1987a). Assessing agreement of reports of spouse abuse. In Hotaling, G.T. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second National Conference for Family Violence Researchers. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
O'Leary, K.D. & Arias, I. (1987b). Marital assessment in clinical practice. In O'Leary, K.D. (Ed.), Assessment of marital discord: An integration of research and clinical practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
O'Leary, K.D. & Arias, I. (1988). Prevalence, correlates, and development of spouse abuse. In Peters, R. DeV. & McMahon, R.J. (Eds.), Social learning and systems approaches to marriage and the family. New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
O'Leary, K.D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J. & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263–268.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, A. & O'Leary, K.D. (1986). The treatment of marital violence. In Jacobson, N.S. & Gurman, A.S. (Eds.), Clinical handbook of marital therapy. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Schulman, M.A. (1979). Survey of spousal violence against women in Kentucky. Harris Study #792701. Conducted for Kentucky Commission on Women. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Sedlack, A. (1988). Prevention of wife abuse. In Van Hasselt, V.B., Morrison, R.L., Bellack, A.S. & Hersen, M. (Eds.), Handbook of family violence. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Spanier, G.B. & Filsinger, E.E. (1983). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale. In Filsinger, E.E. (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment: A source book for family therapy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Stark, E. & Flitcraft, A. (1988). Violence among intimates. In Van Hasselt, V.B., Morrison, R.L., Bellack, A.S. & Hersen, M. (Eds.), Handbook of family violence. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 48, 465–479.Google Scholar
Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J. & Steinmetz, S.K. (1980). Behind closed doors. Violence in the American family. New York: Anchor Press.Google Scholar
Teske, R.H.C., & Parker, M.L. (1983). Spouse abuse in Texas: A study of women's attitudes and experiences. Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston State University: Huntsville, TX.Google Scholar
Walker, L.E. (1984). Battered women, psychology, and public policy. American Psychologist, 39, 1178–1182.Google Scholar
Weiss, R.L., & Cerreto, M.S. (1980). The Marital Status Inventory: Development of a measure of dissolution potential. American Journal of Family Therapy, 8, 80–85.Google Scholar