Verbal Marital Conflict and Male Domination in the Family as Risk Factors of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

A systematic review was performed to analyse the characteristics and quality of the studies that consider the relationship between verbal marital conflict and/or male domination in the family and violent behaviour by men towards their partner. Only 11 articles were identified between 1986 and 2006. Most of them find a positive association between male domination in the family and/or verbal marital conflict and violence towards the woman in the couple. However, limitations such as misclassification bias, recall bias, selection bias, external validity and the problem of consistency (overestimation of effect) were acknowledged by authors of this studies. In eight of the 11 studies reviewed, preventive measures or interventions to deal with the problem were recommended. More and better empirical evidence is required in order to provide suitable measures to address the issue of verbal marital conflict and male domination and its influence on IPV.

Prevalence and correlates of intimate partner violence among older Chinese couples in Hong Kong

“…While previous studies examined perpetrators' high level of domination and low levels of anger management predictive of domestic violence (e.g. Vives-Cases et al, 2009), our study shows the lack of assertiveness and anger management on the part of the victim to be predictive of a high level of psychological aggression on the part of the perpetrator.…”

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence

“…Hand searching is an additional method to minimize indexing errors (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Reference lists from previous partner aggression literature reviews were searched for additional studies that were possibly not captured in database searches (Archer, 2002; Foran & O’Leary, 2008; Schumacher et al, 2001; Stith et al, 2000; Stith et al, 2008; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004; Vives-Cases, Gil-Gonzalez, & Carrasco-Portino, 2009; Williams, Ghandour, & Kub, 2008). When methodological aspects of a study were unclear (e.g., missing reporting of response rate), lead authors were contacted for additional information.…”

Predicting the Risk of Intimate Partner Violence: The Chinese Risk Assessment Tool for Victims

“…At the personal level, substance abuse (Caetano et al 2005 ; Golinelli et al 2009 ; Hien and Ruglass 2009 ; Logan et al 2002 ), jealousy (Buss 2000 ; Wang et al 2009 ), anger management skills (Barbour et al 1998 ; Heru et al 2007 ), violence approval (Hien and Ruglass 2009 ; Margolin et al 1998 ; UNICEF 2009 ), dominance (Kim and Emery 2003 ; Straus 2006 , 2008 ), stressful conditions (Cascardi and Vivian 1995 ; Neff et al 1995 ), depressive symptoms (Danielson et al 1998 ; Lehrer et al 2006 ; Sugarman et al 1996 ), sexual abuse history (Daigneault et al 2009 ; Noll et al 2003 ; Whitfield et al 2003 ; Yoshihama et al 2009 ), and experience of witnessing parental IPV during childhood (Cloitre 1998 ; Hien and Ruglass 2009 ; Yoshihama et al 2009 ) were found to be significantly associated with the risk of IPV victimization. At the family level, relationship distress (Margolin et al 1998 ; Stuart and Holtzworth-Munroe 2005 ; Vives-Cases et al 2009 ), in-law conflict (Chan et al 2009 ; Clark et al 2010 ; Counts et al 1999 ), and financial burden or indebtedness (Balmer et al 2005 ; Chan et al 2008 ; Kempson et al 2004 ) are examples of factors related to IPV risk.…”