1. 1. Gender Differences In The Relation Of Dyadic Types Of Partner Violence To Depression Among University Students In 15 Nations Murray A. Straus Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 603-862-2594 murray.straus@unh.edumurray.straus@unh.edu Website: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2 Zeev Winstok Center for the Study of Society, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel zeevwin@research.haifa.ac.il Presented at the Society For the Study Of Social Problems annual meeting, New York 8 August 2013. This is one of a series reporting results of the International Parenting Study directed by Angele Fauchier (angele.fauchier@unh.edu), and the Dyadic Types Research Program. Papers on these and related topics can be downloaded from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2angele.fauchier@unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2 The work was partly supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant T32MH15161, the University of New Hampshire.

2. 2 Questions To Be Addressed 1.What percent of university student couples in 15 nations experienced violence in their relationships in the previous 12 months? 2.Of those who experienced violence, what percent were in each of three “Dyadic Types” (DTs): Male-Only, Female-Only, Both-Assaulted? 3. What is the relationship between violence in a relationship and depression and does this vary depending on: A. Whether the partner was the victim or the aggressor, or both victim and aggressor? B. Whether it is the male or female partner? Results are somewhat surprising 4. What is a plausible theory to explain them? 5. What are the implications for A.Theories to explain PV? B.Methodology for research on PV? C.Efforts to prevent and treat PV?

3. 3 The International Parenting Study 15 Nations, 11,408 university students Analyses control for variables such as: Age of student Socially desirable responding Parent’s education

4. Table 1. International Parenting Study Sample Characteristics for 15 Nations Region Nation N % FemaleMean Age Total 11408 69.8%21.07 AsiaTWN Taiwan 443 57.7%20.19 HKG Hong Kong 473 66.6%22.99 EuropeBEL Belgium 889 74.2%19.76 GRC Greece 973 72.5%20.89 ITA Italy 260 77.7%21.82 POL Poland 378 50.9%21.42 RUS Russia 173 54.0%19.48 GBR Scotland 1122 67.2%20.24 SVN Slovenia 189 86.2%21.93 CHE Switzerland 196 95.3%23.92 NOR Norway 533 72.5%22.39 ESP Spain 106 89.3%21.55 Middle East ISR Israel 366 60.9%23.82 N. America CAN Canada 1586 74.7%23.18 USA United States 3721 68.1%20.28 4

5. 5 Measure s Partner violence: Short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for seventy and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520. Cases will be analyzed by comparing “Dyadic Types” of partner violence Depression: Major Depression Inventory Olsen, L. R., Jensen, D. V., Noerholm, V., Martiny, K., & Bech, P. (2003). The internal and external validity of the Major Depression Inventory in measuring depressive states. Psychological Medicine, 33, 351-356.

6. MAJOR DEPRESSION INVENTORY (MDI) Over the last two weeks… 1. Have you felt low in spirits or sad? 2. Have you lost interest in your daily activities? 3. Have you felt lacking in energy and strength? 4. Have you felt less self-confident? 5. Have you had a bad conscience or feelings of guilt? 6. Have you felt that life wasn’t worth living? 7. Have you had difficulty concentrating, e.g., when reading the newspaper or watching TV? 8. Have you felt very restless? 9. Have you felt subdued or slowed down? 10. Have you had trouble sleeping at night? 11.Have you suffered from reduced appetite? 12. Have you suffered from increased appetite? Alpha: Men =.92, Women =.90, Total =.91 Response categories: 5= All of the time, 4= Most of the time, 3= More than half of the time, 2= Less than half of the time, 1= Some of the time, 0= At no time Olsen, L. R., D. V. Jensen, V. Noerholm, K. Martiny, and P. Bech. 2003. "The internal and external validity of the Major Depression Inventory in measuring depressive states." Psychological Medicine 33:351-356. IPS Q 6

7. 7 Data Analysis Analysis of covariance Controlled for: Education of father Education of mother (are the results just a reflection of SES? Misbehavior as a child (are results just a continuation of a long –standing pattern) Corporal punishment by father As above Corporal punishment by mother As above Age of student at time of study (because older persons have lower crime rates Limited Disclosure scale (do the results just reflect that willingness to disclose one type of socially undesirable behavior is associated with willingness to disclose other types) Nation in which data was collected There are important differences between nations in the prevalence of crime. National differences in crime, include DT are analyzed elsewhere (cite??). The focus of this study is whether there are effects of DT that are in addition to the national context effects.

8. Male RespondentsFemale Respondents % Figure 1. Dyadic Assault Types For Assault, Dating Relationships Of 11,408 University Students in 15 Nations, As Reported By Men and Women 8 Prevalence Men 14% Women 18%

9. Table 2. Prevalence Of Assault and Dyadic Assault Concordance Types For University Students In 15 Nations Region Nation Preval- ence Dyadic Types For Assault Male-OnlyFemale-OnlyBoth Total 17 104744 Asia Taiwan6 65341 Hong Kong6 145036 Europe Belgium17 94645 Greece24 153253 Italy18 56135 Poland18 83656 Russia24 64846 Scotland20 123652 Slovenia12 114742 Switzerland17 05941 Norway12 95635 Spain10 84943 Middle East Israel6 173350 N. America Canada13 124643 United States18 95140 9

10. Table 3. Mean Depressive Symptoms Score Of Male and Female University Students In 15 Nations Region Nation Mean Depressive Symptoms MalesFemales Total37.733038.2160 Asia Taiwan 47.042342.6855 Hong Kong 49.948746.2921 Europe Belgium 28.384335.2727 Greece 39.323343.8857 Italy 32.413841.4851 Poland 22.718431.8382 Russia 45.714346.5909 Scotland 37.815842.6114 Slovenia 45.806543.1496 Switzerland 43.703735.5152 Norway 37.894740.1266 Spain 20.000039.0099 Middle East Israel 32.307737.3874 N. America Canada 35.850032.6763 United States 37.822837.2526 10

11. 11 Table 4. Analysis of Covariance For Relation of Dyad Types Of Partner Assault To Depressive Symptoms SourceSum of Squares dfMean SquareFSig. Corrected Model659928.243 a 1543995.21659.662.000 Intercept610157.9641 827.433.000 Dyadic Type105794.154335264.71847.822.000 Gender12.1241.016.898 Dyadic Type * Gender14470.45734823.4866.541.000 Participant Age16532.7291 22.420.000 Father’s Education785.4841 1.065.302 Mother’s Education841.0061 1.140.286 Misbehavior when child4472.0051 6.064.014 Corporal Pun by Father5994.4031 8.129.004 Corporal Pun by Mother33169.3871 44.981.000 Limited Disclosure Scale285212.3451 386.775.000 Nation13998.7421 18.984.000

12. 12 Figure 2. Relation of Dyadic Types Of Partner Violence To Depression Of Each Partner Women Men

13. 13 Summary  Both-Assault Dyadic Type The most prevalent Dyadic Type of partner violence Most closely associated with depression – not surprising Both most harmful is consistent with other studies, including studies of harmful effects for children  Male-Only and Female-Only Dyadic Types Also associated with more mental health problems than among non-violent couples, but less so than the Both Assault DT.  Comparing the sole perpetrator with being the sole victim Men are higher in depression when they are the sole perpetrators than when they are the sole victims Women are higher in depression when they are the sole victims when they are the sole perpetrators A Canadian national survey found the same but differences small What might explain these unexpected results?

14. 14 Question 4. What is a plausible theory to explain the results?  The difference between men and women in the relation of partner violence to depression reflects differences in culturally and biologically based gender roles  Two relevant role differences are Greater saliency and importance of Status maintenance and enhancement for men Safety for women  An underlying principle is that threat to central aspects of the self are associated with an increased probability of depression For men, lost of status if their violence becomes known is a bigger threat than lack of safety when they are victim of violence by their partner For women, lack of safety when they are attacked by their partner is bigger threat than loss of status if their violence becomes known.  For the theory in detail, see Winstok, Z., & Straus, M. A. (2014). Gender Differences in the Link between Intimate Partner Physical Violence and Depression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 91-101. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.01.003

15. 15 Q 5 Implications For Theory, Methods, And Practice Theory Explanations of the causes or the effects of PV need to take into account that studies world-wide found that Male-Only: about 25% Female-Only: about 25% Both-Assault: about 50% of couples Self-defense explains female violence only 10-20% of the time Method DTs need to be identify in all research on partner violence Necessary and practical to obtain data on both partners Can be done even when only one partner is the research participant

16. 16 Implications (continued) Practice Because about half of all partner violence cases are in the “Both- Assault” type, including women seeking help from shelters: Service providers need to determine which DT applies to a particular client and why Determining the Dyadic type is second only to determining safety

17. Dyadic Types (DTs) Everyone Agrees On The Need To Take Into Account The Behavior Of Both Partners To Deal With Relationship Issues. But Few Do  DTs are a practical method of doing taking the behavior of both partners into account  Three DTs: * Male Partner Only * Female Partner Only * Both partners engage in the behavior  Practical because DTs obtained by just cross tabulating the behavior of the male partner by that of the female partner If the behavior is an interaction in which both participated, such as violence, data obtained from just one of the partners, has the same validity (or lack of) as when both partners

18. Is the High Percent of Women Who Assault Self-defense?  Studies on who hit first found it was female partner half the cases Hamberger, 199777% Bland & Orn,1986 73% Straus, 2012 61% Stets [, 1990 #4608]58% DeMaris,1992 49% Capaldi [, 2007 #11544] 46%  the median %- Gryl, Stith, & Bird,1991 41% Saunders,1986 40% Fiebert, Gonzalez, 199732% Molidor & Tolman,,1998 30% O’Keefe,1997 21%  9 Studies which asked women whether it was in self-defense: Median = 19%, range:5 to 47% None of the studies found that a majority of women acted in self-defense Almost half of the eleven comparisons found a higher percent of men than women acting in self-defense

19. Dyadic Assault Types For Dating Relationships Among 11,408 University Students in 15 Nations - Any Assault Straus, M. A., & Winstok, Z. (2013). Gender Differences in the Relation Of Dyadic Types Of Partner Violence To Depression Among University students in 15 nations. Paper presented at the Society For The Study Of Social Problems Annual Meeting, New York. 19 10% 47% 43% Q 1. What percent of university student couples in 15 nations experienced violence in their relationships in previous 12 months? Prevalence Men 14% Women 18% Q 2 Of those who experienced violence, what percent were in each of three “Dyadic Types” (DTs):

20. 20 Are These Percentages Unique To This Student Sample? U.S. National Comorbidity Study (N=8,098)* % * Kessler, R. C., Molnar, B. E., Feurer, I. D., & Appelbaum, M. (2001). Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey. International Journal Of Law And Psychiatry, 24(4-5), 487-508.  Predominant Pattern Is Both-Violent  Male-Only and Female-Only about same %  Same pattern as in current study and in more than 50 studies** which found:

21. Ada[ted from Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of Bidirectional Versus Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199-230. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.199 - 48 studies 21

22. Dyadic Types Can be Important For Understanding and Treating Almost All Types Of Relationship Behaviors (Results for `14,282 University Student Dating Couples)_ Dyadic Type Gender of Respondent % Male Only % Female Only % Both Any AssaultFemale925 67 Severe AssaultFemale163153 Any Injury-Perpetration Female2114 65 Severe Injury-PerpetrationFemale391051 Any Psych AggressionFemale917 74 Severe Psych AggressionFemale1331 55 Any Sexual CoercionFemale3310 57 Verbal Sexual CoercionFemale449 47 Physical Sexual CoercionFemale4315 43 IntransigentFemale13978 Percentages are similar when based on reports by male students

23. 23 Question 3. What is the relationship between violence in a relationship and depression and does this vary depending on: A. Whether the partner was the victim or the aggressor, or both victim and aggressor? B. Whether it is the male or female partner?

24. 24 SCL anxiety hand recoded into centiles Male Female

25. 25 SCL anxiety hand recoded into centiles Male Female

26. 26 Relation of Dyadic Types Of Partner Violence To Depression Dating Relationships Of University Students In 15 Nations (N=11,408 ) Women Men  When men assault, either as sole perpetrator or both, male depression higher. Suggests either depression as a cause or male guilt, or both  Women have highest depression when they are the sole victims of assault or both a victim and a perpetrator  Gender Difference In link between PV and depression: Increase in depression is greater for men than women, except when men are the sole victims

27. 27 14,063 Canadian couples Graham (2012 ) lowest level of depression is among male victims of PV and female perpetrators of PV. Men

28. 28 SCLhos5Bn5c SCL Hostility Bn5 Centile Male Female SCLhos5Bn5c SCL Hostility Bn5 Centile

29. 29 SCLhos5Bn5c SCL Hostility Bn5 Centile Female Male

30. 30 Estimated Marginal Means of SCLanx Anxiety scale (Binned) Bn5 Female Male

31. 31 MDItotal Major Depression Index Total Bn5 centile score Female Male

32. 32 Some References On Dyadic Types Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of Bidirectional Versus Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199-230. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.199 Straus, M. A. (2013). Dyadic Victimization Types: A simple but powerful tool applicable to victimization in family relationships world-wide. Durham, NH. Can be downloaded from my website. Straus, M. A., & Michel-Smith, Y. (2013). Mutuality, severity, and chronicity of violence by Father-Only, Mother-Only, and mutually violent parents as reported by university students in 15 nations. Child Abuse Negl. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.004 Straus, M. A. (1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for life long problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. In D. F. Schwartz (Ed.), Children and Violence: Report of the Twenty Third Ross Roundtable on Critical Approaches to Common Pediatric Problems (pp. 98-109). Columbus, Ohio: Ross Laboratories. Other References Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the revised conflict tactics scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(4), 407-432. Straus, M. A. (2009). The National context effect: An Empirical test of the validity of Cross-National research using unrepresentative samples. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(3), 183-205. doi: 10.1177/1069397109335770

33. 33 References On the Conflict Tactics Scales Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001 Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for seventy and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520. Straus, M. A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the revised conflict tactics scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(4), 407-432. Straus, M. A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: the Methodological, theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(5), 538-556. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2023 Straus, M. A., & Mickey, E. L. (2012). Reliability, validity, and prevalence of partner violence measured by the conflict tactics scales in male-dominant nations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 463-474. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.004