Incidence, Explanations, and Treatment of Partner Violence

Lawson, David M.

doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00221.x

Cited by 50 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This differs from Kipnis and Schmidt's definition of assertiveness but is similar to other theorists' (e.g. Bandura, 1979;Lawson, 2003;Thomas, 1976) definitions of assertiveness. Tannen (1995, p. 230) defines indirectness as "the tendency to say what we mean without spelling it out in so many words."…”

Section: Journal Of Management Researchsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Yukl and Tracey (1992) agreed with this classification of assertiveness as consisting of negative behaviors such as the use of demands and threats to gain compliance. Most social scientists (e.g., Bandura, 1979;Lawson, 2003;Thomas, 1976), however, have made a different distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness. In these approaches, which differ from Kipnis and Schmidt (1983), and Yukl and Tracey (1992), assertiveness (Thomas, 1976) happens when an individual makes a clear statement of desires and preferences with no implication of threat if someone does not comply with the request.…”

Section: Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Males Will Use Reason As An Upward mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these approaches, which differ from Kipnis and Schmidt (1983), and Yukl and Tracey (1992), assertiveness (Thomas, 1976) happens when an individual makes a clear statement of desires and preferences with no implication of threat if someone does not comply with the request. Aggressiveness, on the other hand, involves the capacity for pressure and threats (Lawson, 2003). Wilson, Lizzio, Zauner, and Gallois (2001) presented an approach that offers social rules for managing subordinates who try to take control of managers.…”

Section: Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Males Will Use Reason As An Upward mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Managing Up the Hierarchy: US Correctional Institutions and Differences in the Use of Influence Strategies

Kayes

2009

jmr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study generated and tested hypotheses regarding the use of upward influence strategies and gender in a US prison system. The present study focused on the upward influence strategies used by male and female employees across ten different prisons. Kipnis and Schmidt's Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies was administered to 201 state employees. The sample was 85 % African American and nearly equally distributed by gender. Data was analyzed for differences among demographic groups. Results show that males use Reason, Bargaining and Coalition strategies; whereas, females use Friendliness strategies more frequently to influence their boss. Implications for research on the choice of influence strategies between genders in a predominately African American population are explored.

show abstract

Section: Journal Of Management Researchsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Males Will Use Reason As An Upward mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Males Will Use Reason As An Upward mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing Up the Hierarchy: US Correctional Institutions and Differences in the Use of Influence Strategies

Kayes

2009

jmr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For many studies of IPV, it is difficult to determine whether the procedures confer "minimal risk" or "more than minimal risk." Minimal risk means that the chance and extent of harm that might result from research participation are not any greater than normally encountered during daily activities or during standard psychological or physical examinations or assessments (45 CFR 46.102i, 2001 (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995;Medina et al, 2001), interviews (Lawson, 2003;Murphy et al, 2005), and problem solving discussions (for reviews see Heyman, 2001;Gottman, 1998). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Procedures commonly used in IPV research that, under many conditions, would likely confer minimal risk are questionnaires (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995;Medina et al, 2001), interviews (Lawson, 2003;Murphy et al, 2005), and problem solving discussions (for reviews see Heyman, 2001;Gottman, 1998). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Risk of Partner Aggression Research: Impact of Laboratory Couples Conflict Protocols on Participants

Owen¹,

Heyman²

2006

Violence Vict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) research on participants is unknown. A measure of impact was given to participants in an IPV study to assess systematically the impact of completing questionnaires, engaging in conflict conversations, and being interviewed individually about anger escalation and de-escalation during the conversations. Participants completed the six question, Likert-scaled, impact measure. Both male and female participants rated the impact of the study as helpful to them personally and to their relationships. Female participants rated different segments of the study as more helpful to themselves and their relationships, while male participants did not find any segment of the study to have a different impact than other segments. KeywordsEthics; Participation Impact; Intimate Partner Violence; Couples; Observational Research Male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs in between 5.2 and 13.6% of American couples each year (Shafer, Caetano & Clark, 1998). IPV elevates victims' risk of physical injury (O'Leary, 1999;Thompson, Saltzman & Johnson, 2001;), chronic and acute physical problems (Coker et al., 2000), and myriad psychological disorders (e.g., Major Depressive Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety disorders and substance abuse; Magdol et al., 1998). The prevalence and impact of IPV has evoked the interest of advocates, clinicians, and researchers alike, resulting in over 5,600 published works listed in PsycINFO.An important but nearly unstudied element in this burgeoning area is the meta-topic of research participation's effect on research participants. IPV is considered a "sensitive topic" (i.e., one that might pose considerable threat to both participants and researchers; Lee, 1993). Possible harm to participants in research studies on sensitive topics is a concern of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), whose primary goal is to ensure the safety of research participants (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1978). For many studies of IPV, it is difficult to determine whether the procedures confer "minimal risk" or "more than minimal risk." Minimal risk means that the chance and extent of harm that might result from research participation are not any greater than normally encountered during daily activities or during standard psychological or physical examinations or assessments (45 CFR 46.102i, 2001 (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995;Medina et al., 2001), interviews (Lawson, 2003;Murphy et al., 2005), and problem solving discussions (for reviews see Heyman, 2001;Gottman, 1998).However, is minimal risk a correct assumption for these research methods? Most researchers formulate their opinions about the risk involved in conducting such research through informal means (e.g., past experience, perceived norms within an area of study, discussions with colleagues). When little is known about the impact of a study, researchers may infer minimal risk based on these informal means, whereas IRBs ...

show abstract

Explanations and Models of Family Violence

Lawson¹

2015

Family Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incidence, Explanations, and Treatment of Partner Violence

Cited by 50 publications

References 72 publications

Managing Up the Hierarchy: US Correctional Institutions and Differences in the Use of Influence Strategies

Managing Up the Hierarchy: US Correctional Institutions and Differences in the Use of Influence Strategies

The Risk of Partner Aggression Research: Impact of Laboratory Couples Conflict Protocols on Participants

Explanations and Models of Family Violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About