This study examined the combined impact of individual-level and group-level variables on self-reported intimate partner violence, operationally defined as mild to severe physical aggression on the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale, among married male U.S. Army soldiers. The sample comprised 713 servicemen from 27 companies stationed at an Army post in the Alaskan interior. Group-level variables were based on individual reports on various dimensions of group climate aggregated at the company level. Contextual analyses were conducted using a variety of regression approaches. Individual-level predictor variables significantly associated with intimate partner violence included race, symptoms of depression, poor marital adjustment, alcohol problems, and a history of childhood abuse. Group-level predictor variables significantly associated with intimate partner violence included lower leadership support (vertical cohesion), a culture of hyper-masculinity (operationally defined as increased group disrespect), and lower support for spouses.

The goals of this study were to explore some of the ways gender affects cohesion and readiness in the small military unit, and to examine its impact on variables that may be related to unit cohesion, such as a culture of hypermasculinity. Using data from a 1998 survey of U.S. Army soldiers, the study found that men in male-only units manifested more group hypermasculinity than those in mixed gender units, and that group hypermasculinity was associated with higher levels of cohesion in male-only units, but not in mixed gender units. In addition, in male-only units, group hypermasculinity was, paradoxically, associated with a positive environment for spouses. On the other hand, in mixed gender units, group hypermasculinity was associated with a negative environment for spouses and a negative environment for women as coworkers. Across all groups, lower levels of group hypermasculinity and support for spouses were associated with a greater percentage of blacks in the group.

The relationship of intimate partner violence to psychological distress and the mediating or moderating effects of social support were examined among 99 married active duty Army women and 477 married active duty Army men. Although approximately 40% of both the men and the women had experienced physical partner violence in the past year, in neither group was physical violence correlated with psychological distress when controlling for other variables. Among women, psychological abuse inflicted by a partner was significantly associated with greater psychological distress. Among men, poor marital adjustment was associated with greater psychological distress. An unexpected significant interaction effect was found among women indicating that those who were violent toward their partners under conditions of high peer support experienced greater psychological distress.

Correlates of self-reported intimate partner violence (IPV) were examined among 488 married male U.S. Army soldiers. Study results were examined within the framework of Johnson's (1995) typology, which proposes that there are two main types of IPV, common couple violence and intimate terrorism. We predicted that poor marital adjustment would be associated with minor violence, hypothesized to be indicative of common couple violence. We also predicted that psychological and behavioral characteristics associated with perpetrators of IPV would be more strongly correlated with severe inflicted aggression--a pattern hypothesized to be indicative of intimate terrorism. The results, based on a multivariate analysis of covariance, generally supported our hypotheses. Furthermore, the higher levels of IPV reported by Black respondents in this study were associated with the pattern hypothesized to be characteristic of common couple violence.

It may not be appropriate to draw conclusions about serious intimate partner violence in the military based solely on the results of family conflict surveys.