Lay Persons’ Versus Psychologists’ Judgments of Psychologically Aggressive Actions by a Husband and Wife

Abstract

Literature assessing knowledge of and attitudes toward social issues has demonstrated that mental health professionals and lay persons often differ greatly. To add to the normative information in the field of psychological abuse and to determine whether the differences previously found between mental health professionals and lay persons extend to this field, a sample from each group rated psychologically aggressive items by a husband toward his wife. For the 102 items, psychologists were more likely to label the behaviors as "psychological abuse," but this tendency was due to psychologists considering the behaviors as either "always" or "possibly" abusive, whereas lay persons demonstrated a bimodal response pattern of rating the behaviors as "always" or "never" psychological abuse. Lay persons were much more likely than psychologists to rate items high in terms of severity level, however. The two groups used different contextual factors for determining that a behavior was psychological abuse when they initially were uncertain that it was abusive.

Gender Differences in Reporting Psychological Abuse in a National Sample

“…Similarly, both genders report that females engage in a form of abuse that involves the issue of trust (i.e., checking on details) more than respondents' reports of males ever engaging in this behavior. This finding seems to parallel previous research in which laypersons tended to view monitoring behaviors as a marital right more than a means of controlling one's partner (Follingstad, Helff, Binford, Runge, & White, 2004).…”

Does Context Matter in Determining Psychological Abuse? Effects of Pattern, Harm, Relationship, and Norms

“…Should we consider the initiator abusive when the other partner is vulnerable or sensitive to conflict, but not consider the initiator abusive if a recipient is not bothered by the behavior? These findings mirror those of a previous study (Follingstad et al, 2004b) in which lay persons-more so than psychologists-tended to deem behaviors to be a greater violation when they had the potential to produce emotional hurt.…”

“…In addition to the myriad problems inherent in collecting self-report data on sensitive topics, this approach seems to turn a blind eye to the interpersonal nature of psychological interchanges in intimate relationships as well as ignore nuances of and contextual meanings for these types of behaviors. Researchers have already determined that these brief checklist items are not viewed similarly by all clinicians (Follingstad & DeHart, 2000), or by psychologists versus lay persons (Follingstad et al, 2004b). In addition, psychologists do not rate these as constituting similar levels of abuse when the behaviors are enacted by a husband versus a wife (Follingstad et al, 2004a).…”

“…For example, lay persons were less likely than psychologists to view jealous actions or monitoring behaviors as abusive (Follingstad et al, 2004b), which is in line with findings from dating violence studies suggesting that couples in longer relationships believe they have more of a right to control their partner's actions (e.g., Laner & Thompson, 1982). O'Leary (2001) reminds us that psychological aggression is commonly found among happily married couples, which seems to imply that some of the same behaviors may have differential effects based on overall relationship satisfaction.…”

Intimate Partner Violence: The Effect of Gender and Contextual Factors on Community Perceptions of Harm, and Suggested Victim and Criminal Justice Responses

“…Follingstad and DeHart (2000) reported that using a sample of psychologists, the frequency and the duration of abuse were more influential in identifying psychological abuse than intentions or the perceptions of harm by the victim. However, Follingstad, Helff, Binford, Runge, and White (2004) subsequently found that lay persons were more reliant on information regarding the perpetrator's intentions than the frequency of the behavior. Further research is required to examine whether an intent distinguishes the perceptions of normal relational disputes and accidental harm from IPV and how this factor interacts with both the gender of the perpetrator and participant as well as the frequency of violence.…”