Perceived power and physical violence in marital conflict

Journal of Social Issues, Spring, 1999 by Lynda M. Sagrestano, Christopher L. Heavey, Andrew Christensen

Domestic violence is a problem of considerable consequence in the United States. Population-based survey statistics suggest that 30% of women will be victims of intimate-partner violence in their lifetimes, and of those, 52-63% will experience physical injury (CDC, 1998). For some couples, the use of influence during conflict escalates into the use of physical violence, and such violence, in and of itself, can be thought of as a form of influence (Frieze & McHugh, 1992). When and why some spouses resort to the use of violence as an influence tactic is a question that has been addressed by substantial amounts of research (e.g., Babcock, Waltz, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993; Cordova, Jacobson, Gottman, Rushe, & Cox, 1993; Frieze & McHugh; Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Stuart, 1998; Jacobson et al., 1994).

Power has been established as one important predictor of violence (Babcock et al., 1993; Coleman & Straus, 1986; Frieze & McHugh, 1992; Hornung, McCullough, & Sugimoto, 1981; Leonard & Senchak, 1996; Murphy & Meyer, 1991). Most studies examining power in marriage have conceptualized power as a function of decision making (i.e., Blood & Wolfe, 1960), or have focused on the behavioral aspects of interactions as indicators of power (i.e., Kolb & Straus, 1974). Cromwell and Olson (1975), in a synthesis of the existing literature at the time, classified the research into three domains of family power: bases, process, and outcomes. However, critics have pointed out the limitations of this approach to understanding marital power (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; McDonald, 1980; Safilios-Rothschild, 1970; Scanzoni, 1979), suggesting instead that power should be conceptualized either as potential (based on resources) or as actual control over outcomes. The current study conceptualizes power as perceptions of potential influence, including expectations for success, and control over outcomes.

Coleman and Straus (1986) argue that is not the amount of power per se, but the level of consensus concerning power relations, that is related to conflict behavior. In their analysis, low consensus is associated with higher levels of conflict, which in turn is related to higher levels of violence. Their data suggest that power may be the important factor that differentiates violent from nonviolent couples that experience intense conflict. Similarly, Leonard and Senchak (1996) found that the association between perceived power inequity and marital violence was mediated by marital conflict styles, including problem solving, verbal aggression, and withdrawal. Specifically, they found that high levels of husband and wife verbal aggression, high levels of problem solving by husbands, and low withdrawal by husbands predicted marital violence.

In addition to consensus, absolute levels of power and status may also be associated with violence. Research suggests that male- and female-dominated couples experience the highest levels of violence, whereas couples who report divided power report lower levels of violence, and couples who report egalitarianism report the lowest levels of violence (Coleman & Straus, 1986). In addition, men who are of lower economic, educational, or occupational status than their wives are more likely to use violence (Hornung et al., 1981; Pan, Neidig, & O'Leary, 1994).

A common assumption is that men who use violence have more power, and indeed, women who are victims of violence often report that they have less power in their relationship (e.g., Frieze & McHugh, 1992). Some research, however, has suggested that couples in which the husband has less power are the most likely to experience violence (Babcock et al., 1993). This inconsistency may be semantic or due to differing conceptualizations of the power construct (Murphy & Meyer, 1991). For example, some researchers have suggested that men use violence as a form of controlling their wives. Because they have power, they can use violence. This violence induces fear in their wives, and therefore they can use violence to invoke psychological and social control (Jacobson et al., 1994; Johnson, 1995). Indeed, higher levels of need for power among men is associated with violence (Mason & Blankenship, 1987). The finding that men with less power in their relationships are more likely to use violence may instead suggest that husbands compensate for their lack of power or need for power by engaging in violence against their wives as a form of control (Babcock et al.; Jacobson et al.). Such use of violence to control suggests that violence serves as a coercive means of influence. That is, the very threat of violence in and of itself can serve as a very effective influence tactic, especially among couples with a history of violence (Frieze & McHugh).

Specific types of communication patterns have also been associated with relationship violence. Psychological abuse, also referred to as verbal aggression, is highly prevalent among couples reporting physical violence. Indeed, as many as 99% of couples reporting violence also report psychological abuse (Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990). Among couples experiencing violence, psychological abuse tends to occur more frequently than physical abuse (Follingstad et al.; Walker, 1979), and may be a risk factor for physical violence. One longitudinal study of newlywed couples suggested that the use of psychological abuse at earlier stages of the marriage significantly predicted violence later in the marriage (Murphy & O'Leary, 1989). An examination of the types of behaviors measured in one commonly used measure of verbal aggression, the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979), reveals that many of the items could be construed as coercive influence tactics specifically aimed at symbolically hurting the other person (Straus). Given the nature of the tactics associated with verbal aggression, it is not surprising that use of such influence tactics serves as a precursor to violence.