Cultural spillover theory asserts that the prevalence of socially legitimate violence to attain ends for which there is widespread social approval is part of the explanation for the prevalence of illegitimate violence. This study was a test of the cultural spillover theory as it applies to intimate partner violence (IPV). Based on data from the International Dating Violence Study (IDVS) in 32 countries, we tested the proposition that agreement with socially approved forms of violence “spills over” into violence against an intimate partner. Two versions of an index to measure legitimate violence were constructed: (a) An individual-level legitimate violence index based on the beliefs and behavior of 14,252 university students in 32 nations in the IDVS and (b) a nation-level legitimate violence index consisting of the mean of the student scores on the legitimate violence index for each of the 32 nations in the IDVS. We used the revised Conflict Tactics Scales to obtain the data on physical violence and injuries inflicted by the students in the IDVS. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the hypothesized relation of the individual student legitimate violence index to IPV. Socioeconomic status, limited disclosure scale, respondent’s age, and length of the relationships were included as covariates. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to further investigate the associations between legitimate violence index obtained from the aggregated student data and the nation-level IPV, controlling for the gross domestic product (GDP) index and limited disclosure scale. Both individual- and nation-level analyses consistently supported cultural spillover theory’s explanation of IPV. The association between legitimate violence and IPV at both levels of analysis was stronger for women than men, which is consistent with some previous studies. The results suggest that reducing legitimate violence can make an important contribution to reducing IPV.

Findings regarding women's perpetration of physical partner violence (PV) and bidirectional PV are a major source of controversy in the family violence literature. Questions remain as to how frequently women use PV, in comparison to men, when they are the sole perpetrators of PV and when involved in bidirectionally violent relationships. We also do not know much about women's perpetration and the bidirectionality of nonphysical forms of PV. To answer these questions, we used dyadic concordance types to categorize couples into bidirectionally violent, male-only violent, and female-only violent, and then analyzed the frequency with which the men and women used violence. We conducted these analyses for physical PV, verbal sexual PV, severe psychological PV, and controlling behaviors, among a population-based sample of 1,601 men, ages 18–59, who reported ever having a romantic relationship with a woman. Results indicated that for physical PV, severe psychological PV, and controlling behaviors, bidirectional PV was the most common, followed by female-only perpetration. Within bidirectionally aggressive relationships, women committed significantly more physical PV and controlling behaviors; there were no sex differences in frequency of PV perpetration for these three forms of PV for male-only versus female-only PV. The exception to this pattern was verbal sexual aggression, with men committing significantly more of these acts and male-only perpetration just as common as bidirectional aggression. Bidirectionally aggressive relationships were also the most aggressive. These findings lend support to a family systems perspective when seeking to understand PV and for assessing both victimization and perpetration when investigating PV.

Based on information 11,408 university students provided on perpetration of physical assault in a romantic relationship, they were classified into three Dyadic Concordance Types (DCTs). We then examined six risk factors drawn from previous literature of partner violence: physical abuse as a child, antisocial personality characteristics, alcohol abuse, coercive control, chronic denigration in a relationship, and patriarchy at the societal level. We hypothesized that some risk factors for assault are different dependent on the DCT. Using multinomial logistic regression, we found that some risk factors were associated with an increase in the risk of a couple being in the Male Only assaulted DCT more than the other two DCTs (e.g., men who were high in antisocial personality characteristics). Other risk factors were found to be associated with a greater increase in the risk a couple being in the Both assaulted DCTs (e.g., chronic denigration). These results suggest that theories about the etiology of partner violence should take into account whether the couple is Male Only, Female Only, and Both assaulted. Identification of the DCTs of cases can be helpful in focusing research, treatment, and prevention of partner violence in a way that better reflects the actual situation.

Research on child mistreatment tends to focus on the mother or the father as the abusing parent, even though there is wide agreement that both theory and practice should deal with child maltreatment as a family system problem. Most children have the benefit or the risk of more than one caretaker for substantial periods of their lives, most often two parents or stepparents. This article is intended to illustrate the value of research which uses concordance analysis (CA) to identify children who experienced three dyadic concordance types (DCTs) of mistreatment: father-only, mother-only, or both parents, including single-parent combinations of caretakers. A concordance approach that identifies possible abusers in addition to the presenting parent using the three DCTs is a practical first step toward a family system perspective to enhance child abuse theory, research, and practice.

Previous research on corporal punishment (CP) has found associations between CP and detrimental child outcomes including depression, behavioural problems, and crime. Conversely, positive parenting has been found to foster positive child outcomes but, positive parenting does not ameliorate the negative effects of CP. To date, research has not examined how parents' differential use of CP might be related to crime, while still controlling for positive parenting. The present study seeks to address the gaps in the CP literature by examining the effects of CP and positive parenting on criminality within the context of dyadic concordance types (DCTs). DCTs examine the behaviour of both parents in disciplining children with CP: father-only, mother-only, both, or neither parents. Using the large-scale, International Parenting Study (n = 9,376), we determined that CP perpetrated by both parents or by the mother only were most significantly associated with criminal propensity and criminal activity of individuals in early adulthood.

This chapter shows that there are common elements underlying physical punishment, child abuse, throwing things at a spouse, and wife beating. To the extent that ordinary violence is linked to child abuse and wife beating, efforts to reduce the incidence of child abuse and wife beating must include attention to the ordinary violence typical of American families, including ordinary physical punishment. The strategy used to investigate whether ordinary physical punishment and child abuse share the etiology, and whether the ordinary pushes, slaps, and shoves which occur between spouses have the origins as wife beating, is to compare the correlates of "abusive" violence with the correlates of ordinary violence. The theoretical implication is that some reconsideration must be given to conceptual distinctions between different types or aspects of violence, such as instrumental versus expressive violence, minor versus severe violence, or socially approved versus illegitimate violence.

The goal of this book is to stimulate further research by psychologists, sociologists, and other social scientists concerned with child development and parent behavior. Given the recent and growing concern with corporal punishment, the book appears at an opportune moment, when it might be the catalyst for more systematic and coherent research. Chapters define corporal punishment from the perspective of a particular theory, identify those aspects of corporal punishment that the theory is most adequate to explain, and relate the theory at hand to other theories. Many of the chapters also review empirical research on corporal punishment informed by the given theories, explore methodological issues, and suggest avenues for further research.

This study examined the relationship of the age and gender of the child, and the occupational status and gender of the parent, to the incidence and frequency of physical punishment and two levels of physical abuse of children, as measured by the minor, severe, and very severe violence indexes of the Conflict Tactics Scales. The subjects were children from a nationally representative sample of 3,229 families. Physical punishment was found to peak at ages 3 and 4, being used by 90% of the parents, and to decrease steadily after age 4. More than one-half of all parents were reported to still use physical punishment with their children who were 13 years of age. No age trend was found for very severe violence. Parents who used any level of violence tended to do so repeatedly. Boys were the victims more often than were girls, and more blue-collar parents than white-collar parents engaged in both minor and severe violence. These effects were found to be stronger for severe violence. Mothers used minor violence more often than did fathers. Only one significant interaction effect was found: for very severe violence, of the abused children in this sample, repetition of the abuse tended to be greatest when the victim was a girl and the perpetrator was a white-collar father. Several explanations, particularly social norms, are used to interpret findings. (Author/NB) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *******************************************t***************************