1. Dr Elizabeth A. Bates Elizabeth.Bates@cumbria.ac.uk
Testing predictions from the male control theory of men’s partner violence
Dr Elizabeth A. Bates

2. Overview To give a brief overview of the background literature
To present the results of a study that was part of my PhD with a large student sample (N = 1104)
To discuss the implications and future directions

3. Intimate Partner Violence Research
IPV Stereotypical view – dominant male perpetrator
Typologies – to influence treatment
Male Victims – Steinmetz “Battered Husband Syndrome”
A lot of early DV research focused on comparing men who were domestically violent to men who weren’t. Later the research moved on to typologies, trying to categorise men into different types of batterers with the aim of being able to influence treatment. This type of research focusing solely on male perpetrators is part of a large and growing body of literature regarding this type of violence.
Steinmetz was one of the first researchers to flag up the concept of male victims of domestic violence. She also documented the historical records of husband abuse. For example in France a husband who “allowed” his wife to beat him was made to ride around the village backwards on a donkey wearing a ridiculous outfit. She also discussed the appearance of battered husbands in comic strips across the world. This combined with early court and community records convinced her that this was not a new phenomenon in society. Steinmetz posited that there were men being beaten by their wives but that the stigma attached to it was prevented them from seeking help or reporting even the most serious incidents to the police. She further commented that it may be because female victims are more often, and more seriously, injured that they receive more press and media attention.

5. Sex Differences in Aggression
Differing pattern of sex differences (e.g. Archer, 2000; Archer, 2004)
Feminists (e.g. Dobash & Dobash, 1979) believe these two types of aggression are etiologically different – a “gender perspective”
Others (e.g. Felson, 2002, 2006) take the “violence perspective”.
Dual Belief Theory
Dual belief theory – two theories, one that is ok to hit women, patriarchy etc and the other that it isn’t – fits with chivalry and benevolent sexism

6. Feminist Perspective
IPV is perpetrated by men driven by patriarchal values and control
Patriarchal society tolerates this
Women’s aggression is expressive and motivated mainly by self-defence.
IPV male perpetrators are different from other offenders
Similar to evolutionary theories in predictions, different reasons

7. Felson (e.g. 2002) and Chivalry
IPV not “special”, like other types of aggression rather than having different motives
Society doesn’t tolerate it, quite the opposite
Originating at early age where boys don’t hit girls
Suggests norms of chivalry cause men to inhibit their aggression towards women
Women have no such inhibitions as there are few social sanctions to their aggression
Studies (e.g. Harris & Cook, 1994) suggest men’s violence is condemned much more

8. Johnson’s Theory of IPV
Johnson (1995) tried to bridge feminist and family violence research.
“Patriarchal terrorism” vs. “common couple violence”
Later added “violent resistance” and “mutual violent control”
Evidence for the typology:
Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003)
Johnson (1995) attempted to build a bridge between the family violence and the feminist researchers. Where many researchers before him had argued that it was methodology leading to these conflicting findings, Johnson (1995) proposed that they were more to do with the sample population used. Family violence researchers tend to use data from representative community samples whereas those that subscribe to the feminist school of thought tended to use samples found in women’s refuges or men that are in treatment for their violence and so contain those that have been through the most serious of incidents. He originally put forward that incidents of domestic violence could be categorised into one of two types of physical aggression. The first he labelled “common couple violence” and is found among representative samples of married, dating and cohabiting couples. This type encompasses the kind of violence that occurs when arguments get out of control; he did not believe it to be of any serious consequence and unlikely to escalate into anything else. It is this type of violence that Johnson believes is involved when studies show equal numbers of male and female victims. The other type of violence Johnson labelled “patriarchal terrorism”. In this situation the violence used in the relationship is part of a range of behaviours that men use to dominate and control their female partners. It is this type of violence that is more likely to escalate into something more serious and have much more damaging physical and psychological outcomes. Johnson wished to make clear that these were two distinct forms of violence and the latter not merely a more serious version of the former.
Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003b) used four British samples to test if there were in fact the two distinct sub-groups of intimate terrorism and common couple violence. They chose a diverse range of samples and found there was broad support found for Johnson’s theory

9. Same-Sex Aggression Sex difference usually in favour of men
Archer (2004) Sex differences in real world settings confirmed this
Supported by crime statistics – 19% of commit violent crimes compared to 10% women.
Felson (2002) men are most at risk for being victims of violence
Why? Women and fear?
British Crime Survey. For example, for young people aged 16 to 25, 19% of men committed violent crimes compared to 10% of women (Home Office, 2006).
Felson – from both same-sex others and from partners within the home

10. Do women increase, or men decrease, their violence from same-sex to partner?
Tee & Campbell (2009) had participants rate the likelihood of using physical & verbal aggression to a same-sex and opposite sex target
Found women were more likely to be aggressive to partner and men more likely to be aggressive to same-sex.
Men’s decrease was greater than women's increase
Richardson & Green (2006)
Richardson & Green – examined the effect of target gender and target relationship on reports of direct and indirect aggression in two studies with two different samples.
They concluded that aggression responses vary according to the relationship type and the fact the same type of aggression is being used for both types of friendships indicates that it is the relationship type that is more meaningful than the gender

11. Aim of Study
To test the male control theory (feminist perspective) of IPV
Men would show more controlling behavior to partner
Controlling behavior to a partner would be linked to IPV for men but not for women;
Men’s controlling behavior to a partner would be unrelated to their physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates
Additionally test assumptions from Johnson’s Typology:
Similar proportions of men and women are to be found among perpetrators of low-level non-controlling physical aggression (“situational couple violence”),
Men are to be found disproportionately among the perpetrators of high-level controlling physical aggression (“intimate terrorists”).
tested three predictions from male control theory: (1) that men would show more controlling behavior to their partners than women would; (2) that controlling behavior to a partner would be linked to IPV for men but not for women; and (3) that men’s controlling behavior to a partner would be unrelated to their physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates. We further examined predictions from Johnson’s typology of IPV, notably: (1) that similar proportions of men and women are to be found among perpetrators of low-level physical aggression that does not involve controlling motives (“situational couple violence”), whereas (2) men are to be found disproportionately among the perpetrators of high-level physical aggression accompanied by controlling motives (“intimate terrorists”).

12. Method
1104 participants were recruited with 706 women and 398 men. There was an average age of 23.55
Some online and some paper version
The following measures were used:
Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) – Perpetration and Victimisation for IPV, Perpetration for aggression to same-sex non-intimates
Controlling Behaviour Scale (CBS-R: Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005) – Perpetration and Victimisation

13. Results
Women perpetrated significantly more physically and verbally aggression
Women reported more verbal aggression from partner but no difference for physical

14. Results
Men used significantly more verbal and physical aggression to same-sex non intimates

15. Results
Within-subjects analyses of d values were performed to ascertain the extent to which men and women were raising or lowering their aggression from same-sex non-intimates to their partners
The within-subjects effect size for physical aggression was d = -.22 (t = -4.21, p < .001) for men, and d = .20 (t = 5.21; p < .001) for women.
This indicates that men lower their aggression from same-sex non-intimates to their partners whereas women raise their aggression from same-sex non-intimates to partner to a similar extent.

16. Results
Women perpetrated significantly more controlling behaviour but similar victimisation scores

17. Johnson’s Typology
No sig differences in category type

18. IPV and Aggression to Same-Sex Others
IPV, aggression to same-sex others and control were all strongly associated
These were strongly associated for both men and women
Men and women had similar predictors
In correlation and regression analysis
Similar magnitude
Contradicts several aspects of the theory

19. Hypotheses Men would show more controlling behavior to partner
Controlling behavior to a partner would be linked to IPV for men but not for women;
Men’s controlling behavior to a partner would be unrelated to their physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates
Similar proportions of men and women are to be found among perpetrators of low-level non-controlling physical aggression (“situational couple violence”),
Men are to be found disproportionately among the perpetrators of high-level

20. Hypotheses Men would show more controlling behavior to partner
Controlling behavior to a partner would be linked to IPV for men but not for women;
Men’s controlling behavior to a partner would be unrelated to their physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates
Similar proportions of men and women are to be found among perpetrators of low-level non-controlling physical aggression (“situational couple violence”),
Men are to be found disproportionately among the perpetrators of high-level

21. Summary of Findings Sex differences in both types of aggression
Partial support for Johnson’s typology
Very little support for male control theory
Similar findings for men and women
Association of control and same-sex aggression
Men inhibited their aggression towards their partners

22. Implications for Research
Supports studying IPV within context of other types of aggression – focus on perpetrator characteristics not societal values
Control and same-sex aggression - controlling IPV perpetrators have a coercive interpersonal style rather than being patriarchal
Support for chivalry theory and normative protection of women

23. Implications for Policy and Practice
Current IPV interventions in UK, US and Canada, roots in feminist research and theory
The Duluth Model (Pence & Paymar, 1993) designed to protect women from controlling and abusive men – curriculum based on power and control, perceived to be male problem
Other models (e.g. Finkel, 2009) argue self regulatory training would be more useful, framework for both IPV and other aggression
Affects resources – 4000 refuges for women, 78 for men (some actually available for both)

24. Thank you for listening!
Any questions?
Bates, E. A., Graham-Kevan, N. & Archer, J. (under review) Testing predictions from the male control theory of men’s partner violence. Manuscript Submitted to Aggressive Behavior
Copies available on request, please take a card with my address on.