When the Cop Is the Victim: A Test of Target Congruence Theory on Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Experienced by Police Officers

Abstract

This study analyzed data from the Police Stress and Domestic Violence in Police Families in Baltimore, Maryland, 1997-1999 (N = 753) to examine propositions derived from target congruence theory in the context of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization experienced by police officers. Specifically, this study tested the influence of target vulnerability, target gratifiability, and target antagonism on IPV victimization. Results from logistic regression models showed that all three theoretical constructs positively and significantly predicted IPV victimization. Results, as well as the study’s limitations and directions for future research, are discussed.

Keywords

victimization target suitability police officers target congruence theory

Recently, scholars have paid particular attention to intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrated by police officers (Anderson & Lo, 2011; Stinson & Liederbach, 2013; Stinson, Liederbach, & Freiburger, 2012). Generally, studies have shown that such factors as witnessing parental violence (Zavala, Melander, & Kurtz, 2015), being subjected to physical child maltreatment (Zavala, 2013b), work-related stress (Gibson, Swatt, & Jolicour, 2001), and experiencing various forms of coercive forces, such as experiencing personal victimization (Zavala & Kurtz, 2016), are all associated with perpetrating IPV in police families. Indeed, such studies are necessary, given that the rate of IPV in police families is similar to that of the general population, with one study reporting that 29% of one law enforcement sample admitted using violence toward an intimate partner (Oehme, Donnelly, & Martin, 2012). However, notably missing in this body of literature are the factors that may lead them to become victims of IPV. This is somewhat surprising given that research has shown that police officers are both perpetrators and victims of IPV (Zavala, 2013a). However, little scholarly attention has been paid in applying victimization theories to understand the correlates of IPV victimization in a law enforcement population. Given that IPV is associated with various negative consequences, such as physical injury, mental health problems, and other negative consequences (Coker et al., 2002), police officers as victims of IPV is worthy of empirical research for theoretical and practical reasons. Understanding the factors that may increase the odds of victimization can help researchers and practitioners develop preventive or treatment programs that may help reduce IPV victimization and its adverse consequences.

One theory that perhaps may shed some light as to which police officer is more likely to be a victim of IPV is target congruence theory as articulated by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996). Routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) remains one of the most popular theories used to explain victimization. However, as pointed out by Finkelhor and Asdigian, this theory is perhaps not suitable to explain victimization between intimate partners or other forms of family violence. Routine activity theory suggests that intimate partners, as well as parents, grandparents, children, and other personal caretakers, should protect the victim from victimization because these people should act as capable guardians in that person’s life. Yet, IPV violates this assumption because those who are supposed to act as a guardianship are in fact the ones perpetrating the violence. As such, Finkelhor and Asdigian articulated that perhaps looking at how an offender judges a person to be a “suitable target” is a better indication of who is at a greater risk for victimization. How suitable a target can be is based on the target’s vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996).

The purpose of this study is to apply target congruence theory on a sample of law enforcement. The study contributes to the literature in two significant ways. First, as mentioned earlier, the literature is dominated by studies documenting the correlates of IPV perpetrated by police officers, but with little attention on the correlates of victimization experienced by them. Second, there are currently five studies that have tested target congruence theory. Only one of these studies pertains to IPV victimization and, therefore, the generality of the theory remains relatively unknown, as most of the studies on this theory have been tested on school/youth victimization, hate crimes, and property victimization. One important requirement for evaluating theory is the exploration of its core propositions with various study populations.

Literature Review

Target Congruence Theory

To better understand why some people are more likely than others to experience violent victimization, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) highlighted the importance of identifying elements that draw offenders to the victim. That is, the characteristics of the victim that can be used by the offender to judge whether he or she is vulnerable to victimization. Finkelhor and Asdigian identified three factors that can increase the odds of a person’s victimization: target vulnerability, target gratifiability, and target antagonism.

Target vulnerability indicates whether the victim can physically deter or resist their victimization. Some individuals are targets for victimization because they are perceived as easy targets. These individuals may possess some characteristics that make them vulnerable to victimization. Psychological problems, emotional deprivation, and physical weakness have all been identified as examples of target vulnerability by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996). Individuals displaying these characteristics increase their likelihood of victimization because the offender may sense them to be weak (physically or mentally) and unable to fight back or deter physical violence, making them an easy target for the offender. For example, someone with depression or mental health problems may be victimized by an offender with the understanding that their current frame of mind may hinder their ability to resist or deter victimization. Thus, they become easy targets. This study include measures of depression, witnessing parental violence, and experiencing past physical child maltreatment to represent reasonable proxy measures for target vulnerability. These measures are included because prior research has demonstrated that depression (Golding, 1999), witnessing parental violence as a child (Edleson, 1999; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003), and experiencing physical child maltreatment (Banyard, Williams, & Siegel, 2001; Springer, Sheridan, Kuo, & Carnes, 2007) are all linked to psychological problems later in adult life. There is the possibility that displaying or having firsthand knowledge of such problems by the perpetrator (i.e., the intimate partner) may make some police officers more prone to IPV victimization.

Target gratifiability means that the victim has some quality, possession, skill, or attribute that the offenders wants to obtain, possess, manipulate, or have access to. The use of violence toward the victim is one way in which the offender can acquire or obtain that quality, skill, or attribute of the victim. Thus, target gratifiability increases the odds of victimization. In this study wanting to have the final say (i.e., “I expect to have the final say on how things are done in my household”) will be used to capture target gratifiability. It is reasonable to believe that decision-making dominance in an intimate relationship may be perceived as unfair and, therefore, wanted by the offender. Police officers with this frame of mind are more likely to report victimization because the offender will be inclined to use IPV to acquire this quality as suggested by the theory.

Target antagonism is the term used to describe personal characteristics of the victim that increases the odds of victimization because it elicits anger, jealousy, or other adverse behavior from the offender. For instance, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) suggested that being a “mama’s boy” or being homosexual can increase the chances of school bullying and hate crimes, respectively. Being flirtatious can arouse the offender’s jealousy, which in return fuels the offender to use violence toward the victim. In the current study, police officers’ level of anger is used to measure target antagonism. There is the possibility that the victim’s own anger can arouse the anger of the offender, leading to the likelihood of IPV. This idea is consistent with the theory in that it is still a quality or attribute of the victim that can arouse the anger of the offender. Prior studies have found an association between high levels of anger and IPV (Eckhardt, Samper, & Murphy, 2008; Kuijpers, van der Knaap, & Winkel, 2012; Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005).

Prior Research

Although the theory was introduced a decade ago, there are only a small number of studies that have been carried out to test the propositions of the theory. After developing the theory, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) tested it using longitudinal data collected from the National Youth Victimization Prevention Study. Three types of victimization (i.e., nonfamily, sexual, and parental assaults) were examined and their study showed that variables representing target antagonism (i.e., disobedience and acting out behaviors) significantly predicted parental assault, while measures of target vulnerability (i.e., physical stature, psychological distress, physical limitations, age, etc.) and gratifiability (i.e., respondent’s sex) were significantly related to nonfamily and sexual assaults. Augustine, Wilcox, Ousey, and Clayton (2002) analyzed cross-sectional data gathered from 40 different middle and high schools in the state of Kentucky. Their study found that target vulnerability (i.e., sex and age) and target antagonism (i.e., having an impulsive personality and ethnicity) modestly predicted violent and property victimization. Their measure of target gratifiability (i.e., social economic status) was not found to be significant in their study. Waldner and Berg (2008) tested the theory in an attempt to explain antigay violence toward a sample of gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents. As suggested by the theory, respondents who were “out,” visited or engaged in gay organizations or activities, and consumed higher levels of alcohol were in fact more likely to be victimized. These factors increased the risk of victimization because they are signs of target vulnerability (i.e., intoxication) and target antagonism (i.e., homosexual behavior in public). Popp (2012) analyzed waves of data from the School Crime Supplement and the National Crime Victimization Survey and reported that children who were bullied or who were called names (i.e., target suitability) were at a greater risk for victimization, providing support for the theory.

Currently, only one study has applied the theory to IPV. Sween and Reyns (2017) analyzed data gathered from the Canadian General Social Survey and found that only two out of the three constructs of the theory were significant in predicting IPV victimization. Specifically, intimate partners who refused to allow the victim access to family income (target vulnerability) and those who put the victim down or destroyed their possessions (target gratifiability) were more likely to report being victimized. Jealousy, their measure for target antagonism, was not found to be significant. The current study contributes to this body of literature as this is the only study that has examined the theory on IPV.

Current Study and Research Hypotheses

A great deal of studies has been produced by scholars attempting to document the correlates of IPV perpetrated by police officers. However, lacking in this body of literature are studies that document the correlates of IPV victimization. Because studies have shown that IPV is associated with many negative consequences such as health problems, depression, substance abuse, and others (Coker et al., 2002), it is important for researchers to understand all the correlates of victimization to establish preventive or treatment programs grounded in empirical research. To this end, this study tests target congruence theory as articulated by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) to highlight potential predictors of victimization among a sample of law enforcement officers. Based on previous studies on this theory, the following hypotheses are tested:

Hypothesis 1: Target vulnerability (i.e., depression, witnessing parental violence, and physical child maltreatment) will be positive and significant in predicting IPV victimization.

Hypothesis 2: Target gratifiability (i.e., having final say in what goes on in their household) will be positive and significant in predicting IPV victimization.

Hypothesis 3: Target antagonism (i.e., anger) will be positive and significant in predicting IPV victimization.

Method

Data

Data for this research are obtained from the cross-sectional study Police Stress and Domestic Violence in Police Families in Baltimore, Maryland, 1997-1999 (Gershon, 2000), which has been used by several scholars to document the correlates of IPV among police officers (Anderson & Lo, 2011; Gibson, Swatt, & Jolicour, 2001; Zavala, 2013b; Zavala & Kurtz, 2016; Zavala et al., 2015). While the data were not designed to systematically test target congruence theory, it does contain reasonable proxy measures for each core constructs of the theory. The study was a collaboration effort between the Baltimore Police Department, Baltimore’s Fraternal Order of Police, and a research team from the Johns Hopkins’ School of Public Health. This study consisted of a five-page questionnaire that was administrated during roll call to police officers in all of the department’s precincts. The purpose of the survey was to document the amount of stress among police officers, and whether that stress translated to several adverse behaviors, including engaging in IPV. Out of the 1,150 surveys distributed, 1,104 police officers (93.2%) participated in the survey. It is important to note at this point that the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow the current study to talk about causes, but rather limits the discussion to correlates. For more information, see the final report published by Gershon (1999).¹

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in the current study is being a victim of IPV perpetrated by a spouse or intimate partner. Following Zavala (2013a), victimization was conceptualized by asking respondents if they have ever been physically victimized by “your spouse or significant other?” Respondents were allowed to answer this question with a yes or no response (0 = no, 1 = yes). About 16% of the respondents reported being victimized by a spouse or an intimate partner.

Independent Variables

Target vulnerability

As pointed out by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996), target vulnerability is the inability of the victim to resist or deter their victimization. Three measures are used to capture target vulnerability. Following Gibson et al. (2001), depression was captured by asking respondents how often, in the past 6 months, did they experience any of the following 12 items: “loss of sexual interest or pleasure”; “feelings of low energy or slowed down”; “thoughts of ending your life”; “headaches or pressure in your end”; “blaming yourself for things”; “feeling blue”; “nausea, upset stomach, stomach pains”; “feeling no interest in things”; “feeling hopeless about the future”; “feeling so restless you couldn’t sit still”; “crying easily”; and “feeling something bad was going to happen to you at work.” Officers marked their responses using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = never to 4 = always). Scores on these items were added together to form an index, where higher scores indicated higher levels of depression (α = .87). The mean for depression is 18.0. Following Zavala et al. (2015), parental violence was captured by asking the following question: “Did your parents ever get physical with each other?” Respondents were allowed to answer this question with a yes or no response (0 = no, 1 = yes). About 23% of respondents witnessed their parents engage in IPV. Finally, following Zavala (2013b), physical child maltreatment was captured by asking the following question: “Have these people ever gotten physical with you: Your parents when you were a child?” Respondents were allowed to answer this question with a yes or no response (0 = no, 1 = yes). About 34% of respondents reported physical child maltreatment.

Target gratifiability

Recall that target gratifiability is the concept that reflects qualities of victims that make them appealing or desirable to potential offenders. The respondent’s gratifiability was captured by asking them whether they must always have the final say in what happens in their households. Specifically, respondents were asked their level of agreement with the following question: “I expect to have the final say on how things are done in my household.” Officers marked their responses using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). I reverse coded the numerical assignment from the original survey with strongly agree coded as 5 and strongly disagree coded as 1. Higher numbers indicate stronger beliefs about having the final say at home. The mean for having the final say is 2.35.

Target antagonism

Target antagonism refers to the idea that the risk of victimization increases because some characteristic of the victim arouses jealousy, anger, hatred, or other negative impulses into the offender. The respondent’s antagonism was captured by asking them their level of anger. Anger was conceptualized by the following two questions: “When dealing with stressful events at work, how often do you let your feelings out by smashing things” and “Yell or shout at your spouse/significant other, a family member, or a professional.” Officers marked their responses using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = never to 4 = always). These two questions were indexed into a variable, with high scores indicating greater levels of anger. The mean for anger is 2.73.

Demographic and Control Variables

To control for the potential influence of the officer’s sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, and rank, these variables are included in the current study. This is because past research has indicated that sex (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), race/ethnicity (Grossman & Lundy, 2007), education (Cunradi, Caetano, & Schafer, 2002), marital status (Vatnar & Bjorkly, 2012), and rank (Anderson & Lo, 2011) can all influence IPV. Sex is coded 1 for males and 0 for females. Race/ethnicity is coded 1 for White respondents and 0 otherwise.² Education is coded 1 for college graduates (i.e., officers holding a 4-year college degree or higher) and 0 otherwise. Married is coded 1 for respondents who are married and 0 otherwise. Rank is a continuous variable with the following categories: 1 = officer trainee, 2 = officer, 3 = agent, 4 = detective, 5 = sergeant, and 6 = lieutenant or above. The majority of respondents are male, non-White, married at the time of the survey, and did not possess a college degree. Furthermore, the majority of respondents held the rank of officer.

Prior research has shown that people who perpetrate IPV are also victims of IPV. This phenomenon is termed bidirectional IPV, and it can increase the odds of IPV from occurring (Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Field, 2005; Melander, Noel, & Tyler, 2010). To account for the possibility of bidirectional IPV, this study also controls for the respondent’s perpetration of IPV. Following previous studies (Anderson & Lo, 2011; Gibson et al., 2001; Zavala, 2013b), respondents were asked the following question: “Have you ever gotten out of control and been physical (e.g., pushing, shoving, grabbing) with your spouse/significant other?” Respondents were allowed to answer either yes or no (0 = no, 1 = yes). About 8% of respondents reported perpetrating IPV toward their intimate partners.

Analytical Plan

The analysis is conducted in two steps. First, given the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable, logistic regression models are produced to determine which independent variables are correlates of the dependent variable (Weisburd & Britt, 2014). Four regression models are estimated. Model 1 will contain only the variables for target vulnerability and the control variables. Model 2 will only contain the variables for target gratifiability, plus the control variables. Model 3 will contain the variables for target antagonism only, in addition to the control variables. This method will allow us to see the unique effect each theoretical variable has on the dependent variable without being influence by the other variables. Second, one more regression model will be estimated (Model 4) that will contain all the theoretical variables to fully test target congruence theory. As with any regression procedure, multicollinearity may be a problem. To determine if multicollinearity is a problem in these data, tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated. VIFs were calculated by regressing each independent variable on other variables in the model. All tolerances are above 0.70 and all VIFs are below 2, indicating that multicollinearity is not a problem in the present study (Keith, 2015; Walker & Maddan, 2013). After eliminating cases with missing data on all the variables of interest, the final sample size for all analyses is 753 police officers (Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 753).

Variable	Coded	n	M (%)	SD	Minimum/Maximum	Tolerance	VIFs
Dependent variable
Victimization	0 = no	636	(84.5)	0.36
Victimization	1 = yes	117	(15.5)
Target vulnerability
Depression	12-item	753	18.08	4.84	12/45	0.72	1.38
Parental violence	0 = no	579	(76.9)	0.42		0.91	1.10
Parental violence	1 = yes	174	(23.1)
Child maltreatment	0 = no	500	(66.4)	0.47		0.87	1.15
Child maltreatment	1 = yes	253	(33.6)
Target gratifiability
Having final say	1-item	753	2.35	1.12	1/5	0.89	1.12
Target antagonism
Anger	2-item	753	2.73	0.88	2/8	0.75	1.38
Control variables
Sex	0 = female,	98	(13.0)	0.33		0.86	1.16
Sex	1 = male	655	(87.0)
Race	0 = otherwise	247	(32.8)	0.46		0.89	1.12
Race	1 = White	506	(67.2)
Education	0 = otherwise	533	(70.8)	0.45		0.85	1.17
Education	1 = college degree	220	(29.2)
Married	0 = otherwise,	239	(31.7)	0.46		0.90	1.11
Married	1 = married	514	(68.3)
Rank	1-item	753	2.94	1.44	1/6	0.80	1.25
Perpetration	0 = no	695	(92.3)	0.26		0.85	1.17
Perpetration	1 = yes	58	(7.7)

Note. VIF = variance inflation factor.

Results of the Logistic Regression Analysis

Results of the logistic regression analyses are reported in Table 2. Model 1 of Table 2 looks at target vulnerability, plus the control variables. Model 1 shows that all three measures of target vulnerability are positive and statistically significant. Police officers who reported higher levels of depression were 12% more likely to report being victimized by an intimate partner or spouse than police officers with lower levels of depression. Furthermore, police officers who reported witnessing their parents engaging in IPV were 85% more likely to report victimization as well. Finally, physical child maltreatment was positive and significant. Police officers who reported physical child maltreatment were 2.14 times more likely to report victimization. These findings are in concert with the study by Sween and Reyns (2017) and provide further evidence that vulnerable targets are at a higher risk for victimization. Sex, marital status, rank, and the perpetration of IPV are the only control variables that were found to be statistically significant in predicting victimization. Male police officers are more likely than female officers to report victimization, as well as those who are not married. Officers holding higher ranks are 30% more likely to report victimization than those in lower ranks. Police officers who perpetrated IPV are also more likely to report victimization than those who do not.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Predicting Victimization Experienced by Police Officers (N = 753).

Variables	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4
Variables	B	SE	Exp(b)	B	SE	Exp(b)	B	SE	Exp(b)	B	SE	Exp(b)
Controls variables
Sex	1.35**	1.64	3.87	0.78*	0.85	2.19	0.87*	0.92	2.40	1.19**	1.40	3.30
Race	−0.26	0.20	0.76	−0.06	0.23	0.93	−0.20	0.20	0.81	−0.19	0.21	0.82
Education	−0.41	0.18	066	−0.51	0.16	0.59	−0.52	0.16	0.59	−0.37	0.19	0.68
Married	−0.53*	0.15	0.85	−0.59*	0.13	0.54	−0.72*	0.12	0.48	−0.47	0.16	0.62
Rank	0.26*	0.11	1.30	0.31**	0.11	1.36	0.32*	0.11	1.37	0.24**	0.11	1.28
Perpetration	2.5**	4.60	12.5	2.91**	6.45	18.46	2.82**	5.91	16.79	2.44**	4.29	11.54
Target vulnerability
Depression	0.12**	0.02	1.12	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.10**	0.02	1.10
Parental violence	0.61*	0.48	1.85	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.62*	0.48	1.86
Child maltreatment	0.76*	0.52	2.14	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.82**	0.56	2.27
Target gratifiability
Having final say	—	—	—	0.37**	0.14	1.45	—	—	—	0.31**	0.14	1.36
Target antagonism
Anger	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.34*	0.16	1.40	0.04	0.14	1.04
Constant	−6.21**	0.00	0.00	−4.10	0.01	0.01	−4.05	0.01	0.02	−6.70	0.00	0.00
χ² =	164.93			130.29			123.64			0.00
−2 log likelihood	−242.77			−260.09			−263.42			−238.20
Pseudo R²	.25			.20			.19			.26

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Model 2 of Table 2 reports the results of the logistic regression analysis as it pertains to target gratifiablity, plus the control variables. Model 2 demonstrates that target gratifiability is positive and significant in predicting IPV victimization. Police officers with the mind-set that they must have the final say in their household were 45% more likely to report victimization than police officers without this mentality. The same control variables found to be significant in Model 1 remained significant in Model 2.

Model 3 of Table 2 examines the variable target antagonism, plus the control variables. This model indicates that target antagonism is positive and significant. Police officers who reported higher levels of anger were 40% more likely to report IPV victimization. The same control variables found to be significant in Models 1 and 2 remained significant in Model 3. Finally, Model 4 of Table 2 tests target congruence theory fully by including all three theoretical constructs in the regression model, plus the control variables. In this model, two out of the three constructs are significant in predicting IPV victimization. More specific, target vulnerability and gratifiability remained positive and significant, while target antagonism became nonsignificant. Police officers with higher levels of depression are 10% more likely to report victimization, while those who reported having witnessed their parents engaging in IPV are 86% more likely. Those reporting physical child maltreatment are 2.27 times more likely to report victimization. Officers with the mentality that the must have the final say in their household are 36% more likely to report being victimized by their intimate partners. This is a drop from Model 2, indicating that target vulnerability has a stronger influence on victimization than target gratifability. Marital status, which was significant in the previous models, drops from being significant. All other control variables from the previous models (i.e., sex, rank, and perpetrating IPV) remained positive and significant in this model.

Discussion

A number of studies have documented the correlates of IPV perpetrated by police officers (Anderson & Lo, 2011; Zavala, 2013a, 2013b; Zavala & Kurtz, 2016; Zavala, Melander, & Kurtz, 2015). However, absent from this body of literature are studies that document the correlates of IPV victimization experienced by police officers. The most common theory used to explain victimization is routine activities theory. However, such an application may not be suitable to explain IPV given that intimate partners should act as guardians against victimization as predicted by the theory. Instead, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) argued that researchers must look at the needs or motives of the offender, and how some of the victim’s characteristics (i.e., vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism) may actually increase their risk of victimization. Understanding the factors that may lead to victimization is important to document, since IPV victimization has been linked to several adverse behaviors, such as depression, physical injury, mental health problems, and others. Preventive and treatment programs addressing the correlates of IPV victimization may then be created to help reduce it. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to test target congruence theory on a sample of police officers. Data obtained from the Police Stress and Domestic Violence in Police Families in Baltimore, Maryland, were analyzed to determine, if any, the applicability of the theory to this social issue. The results of these analyses produced several interesting findings.

Hypothesis 1 stated that target vulnerability will be positive and significant in predicting IPV victimization. Three reasonable proxy measures were used to capture the concept of target vulnerability (i.e., depression, witnessing parental violence, and physical child maltreatment), and results show that all three were positive and significant. Hypothesis 1 is supported in the current study. Some perpetrators may purposely victimize individuals who are in a weak state of mind (i.e., depression) as suggested by the theory. This is because the victim may not have the ability to deter their victimization or is not able to fight back due to their emotional state. Knowing this information, the perpetrator may take full advantage of the victim’s weak situation and proceeds with his victimization. Results are similar to those reported in other studies looking at the relationship between depression and IPV victimization (Vaeth, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Caetano, 2010). Similarly, witnessing parental violence and being subjected to physical child maltreatment also increases the odds of IPV victimization. These results are in concert with other studies using non–law enforcement samples (Gover, Jennings, Tomsich, Park, & Rennison, 2011; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Gover, Park, Tomsich, & Jennings, 2011; Jennings, Park, Tomsich, Gover, & Akers, 2011; Kerley, Xu, Sirisunyaluck, & Alley, 2010). Recall that witnessing parental violence as a child and experiencing physical child maltreatment are linked to psychological problems later in adult life, making victims more prone to victimization as suggested by the theory.

Hypothesis 2 indicated that target gratifiability will be positive and significant in predicting IPV victimization. Again, this variable was found to be positive and significant in these data. Hypothesis 2 is supported. Police officers who needed to have the final say on what goes on their household were in fact more likely to report victimization. Target gratifiability is the idea that the victim possess a quality or attribute that the perpetrator wants, needs, or has access to. Always wanting to have the final say might generate feels of unfairness, being under control, having little decision-making power in the relationship, and not having the ability to do things without potentially being overruled. This ultimately leads some perpetrators to use violence toward the victim to acquire such quality or attribute. Such reasoning is theoretically in line with the theory and it was supported in these data. In addition, it is also consistent with the larger literature documenting the link between controlling behaviors to IPV perpetration and victimization (Ehrensaft & Vivian, 1999; Frankland & Brown, 2014; Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2008; Simmons, Lehmann, & Collier-Tenison, 2008). This is the first study to document this event in a law enforcement sample.

Hypothesis 3 claimed that target antagonism will be positive and significant in predicting IPV victimization. One measure (i.e., anger) was used to test this concept and this variable was found to be significant in Model 3 only. When the variables from the other theoretical constructs were included in the full model (Model 4), anger dropped from being significant. Hypothesis 3 is partially supported. This result, however, is consistent with the only other study testing the theory on IPV (Sween & Reyns, 2017). Due to data limitations, it was not possible to include other measures of target antagonism in the current study. For example, jealously and employment status incompatibility have been found to increase a person’s risk for victimization (Kar & O’Leary, 2013; Zavala & Spohn, 2010). These concepts are theoretically aligned with target congruence theory. Furthermore, researchers should also look into the role of self-control as a measure of target antagonism because previous studies have documented a link between low self-control and IPV perpetration and victimization (Gover et al., 2011; Jennings et al., 2011). Given that people with low self-control are said to be self-centered, angered easily, and be shortsighted, among other things (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), these characteristics can clearly arouse anger and destructive impulses of the offender and motivate them to commit IPV toward the victim. The inclusion of these measures may have altered the results in terms of the significance target antagonism plays in predicting IPV victimization.

Several control variables were found to be consistently significant and, thus, warrant additional discussion. For example, police officers who reported perpetrating IPV were also more likely to report victimization. In fact, this variable had the strongest influence on victimization than any other variables in the models. Such findings are consistent with research on bidirectional IPV, which suggest that most couples are both perpetrators and victims in the relationship (Caetano et al., 2005; Melander et al., 2010). It is likely that those who perpetrate IPV are getting abused because the victim is possibly physically defending themselves against the perpetrator, resulting in victimization. However, it should be noted that due to the nature of the data, it was not possible to determine which event came first. Furthermore, male police officers are more likely than female police officers to report victimization. A possible explanation for this finding is perhaps the results of having more males than female respondents in these data and their willingness to openly report victimization rather than admitting perpetrating IPV. Finally, police officers holding higher ranks are more likely to report victimization than those holding lesser ranks. One possible explanation for this finding is that those holding higher ranks have been in the department longer and may have accumulated higher levels of work-related stress, depression, and burnout. All of these negative emotions have been linked to IPV in police families (Anderson & Lo, 2011; Gibson et al., 2001; Zavala et al., 2015) and may have rendered these police officers as vulnerable over time. Therefore, they are more likely to report victimization. Clearly, all these explanations will need additional research to determine if this is indeed the situation.

Theoretical and Policy Implications

The results of the current study also highlight several theoretical and policy implications. First, from a theoretical standpoint, the results of this study lends support to the claim made by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) that understanding how an offender judges a person to be “suitable” for victimization can predict who is more likely to be victimized. As such, this theory goes beyond routine activities theory in that it explicitly states the types of suitability that may lead to victimization, an element absent in routine activities theory. Given that target vulnerability, gratifiability and, to a certain degree, antagonism predicted IPV victimization, scholars are encouraged to continue to test this theory further to better understand the correlates of IPV victimization. Second, this study echoes the recommendation made by Sween and Reyns (2017) in that the next step of developing this theory is to establish consistent measures and operationalization of target vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism. Such an endeavor is worthwhile, as it will help future comparisons across studies. In addition, data on perpetrating IPV toward an intimate partner should be collected from the offender, as target congruence theory argues that the victim’s vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism motivate them to use violence toward their partners (Sween & Reyns, 2017). Third, from a policy standpoint, counseling aimed at reducing depression, anger, and other psychological problems should be encouraged, given that the measures of target vulnerability (i.e., depression, child maltreatment, and witnessing parental violence) were all found to be positive and significant in predicting victimization. Zavala et al. (2015) encouraged police departments to make the services of trained professional counselors readily available to officers. However, because police officers may fear the stigma associated with counseling, researchers have suggested requiring periodic counseling for all officers, as this would conceal their need for these services from their colleagues (Carlan & Nored, 2008). Such efforts may reduce future IPV victimization.

Limitations and Future Research

The results of this study should be viewed with several limitations in mind. First, these data were collected over 15 years ago. The scholarly attention and definition of IPV has since evolved to include other forms of IPV, such as emotional, spiritual, and economic abuse. In addition, roles of males and females in families have also changed. This body of literature would benefit greatly if new endeavors were taken to capture new data with this consideration in mind. Nevertheless, the data remain useful because no major equivalent data on negative behaviors among law enforcement officers are available, and perhaps the reason why it is still widely used (Anderson & Lo, 2011; Zavala & Kurtz, 2016; Zavala et al., 2015). Second, the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow for a clear determination of the causal relationship between the study variables and IPV. In other words, the temporal ordering of events may be called into question. To date, there are no longitudinal data available that examines the variables of interests of this study among police officers. The lack of longitudinal data of this nature makes the current cross-sectional data appropriate and consistent with other studies that have examined the prevalence and causes of interpersonal violence in police families (i.e., Anderson & Lo, 2011). Researchers should attempt to resolve this problem by collecting detailed information on IPV perpetration/victimization and key theoretical variables longitudinally.

Third, physical child maltreatment and the dependent variable IPV victimization were captured by asking broad questions. For example, there is the possibility that physical child maltreatment could have been seen by some respondents as acts of corporal punishment. Similarly, the dependent variable does not capture other types of IPV victimization, such as emotional abuse. Therefore, it is probable that this limited measure is underestimating the prevalence of partner violence among this sample. Future studies should use not only multiple measures that include physical perpetration and victimization but also measures of emotional abuse perpetration and victimization. This is important because previous studies have found a relationship between experiencing emotional abuse and future revictimization (see the review by Kuijpers, van der Knaap, & Lodewijks, 2011). Due to data limitations, the current study was not able to include such measures. However, the utilization of the conflict tactics scale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) should resolve this issue for future studies. Furthermore, other forms of neglect and abuse, such as financial, sexual, spiritual, and so on should also be examined given that these forms of abuse are also found in the general population. Fourth, some respondents may have been reluctant to disclose their victimization, creating the possibility of underreporting. Fifth, as noted earlier, these data were not designed to systematically test target congruence theory. It is possible that having the final say or having higher levels of anger, for example, may protect some respondents from IPV victimization.³ Finally, the generalizability of the study’s results is limited to cities similar to the characteristics of Baltimore. Therefore, future studies should attempt to replicate the study’s findings using a nationally representative sample of police officers encompassing numerous types of law enforcement agencies at the local and federal levels.

Diversity

Future research should also attempt to replicate this study by applying it to a sample of non-heterosexual police officers. The theory’s applicability to IPV in same-sex couples is currently unexplored. This is important because studies have documented that general criminological theories may not adequately explain experiences of non-heterosexual individuals (Koeppel, 2015), especially when it comes to IPV (Zavala, 2017). The theory’s constructs may predict victimization differently, depending on one’s sexual orientation. In addition, the prevalence and frequency of IPV in non-heterosexual police officer relationships is unknown, given that the majority of tests presumably examine heterosexual couples (Anderson & Lo, 2011; Zavala, 2013a, 2013b; Zavala & Kurtz, 2016). Target congruence theory may shed light onto the correlates of the types of victimization that gay and lesbian police officers endure, while being employed in a heterosexual-masculine occupation like law enforcement, such as being targets of discrimination and antigay jokes or derogatory slang (Miller, Forest, & Jurik, 2003). Such a study would help understand victimization risks in a population that has long been ignored in criminological research.

Conclusion

Routine activities theory may not be suitable to explain victimization that occurs within families or intimate partners. As such, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) constructed target congruence theory to highlight the importance of target suitability and how specific factors are used by the offender to judge a person’s suitability for victimization. This study applied this theory to IPV victimization experienced by police officers. Overall, results do support the theory in that police officers with higher levels of anger and depression, who witnessed parental violence, who experienced physical child maltreatment, and who expected to have the final say in their household did report being a victim of IPV. However, several limitations preclude the study from clearly stating a causal relationship between the variables in this study. It is recommended that future researchers attempt to address these limitations and replicate these findings in the hopes of creating preventive and treatment programs that will help reduce one of the most severe social issues still lingering today.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Egbert Zavala is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at The University of Texas at El Paso, where he has been since receiving his PhD in sociology from Kansas State University. His area of research includes intimate partner violence, testing criminological theories, homicide, deviance, and criminal behavior by police officers. His publications appear in Crime & Delinquency, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Deviant Behavior, Journal of Crime and Justice, and others.

References

Anderson

A. S.

C. C.

(2011). Intimate partner violence within law enforcement families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1176-1193.

Augustine

M. C.

Wilcox

Ousey

G. C.

Clayton

R. R.

(2002). Opportunity theory and adolescent school-based victimization. Violence and Victims, 17, 233-253.

Banyard

V. L.

Williams

L. M.

Siegel

J. A.

(2001). The long-term mental health consequences of child sexual abuse: An exploratory study of the impact of multiple traumas in a sample of women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 697-715.

Caetano

Ramisetty-Mikler

Field

C. A.

(2005). Unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Violence and Victims, 20, 393-406.

Carlan

P. E.

Nored

L. S.

(2008). An examination of officer stress: Should police departments implement mandatory counseling? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 23, 8-15.

Cochran

J. K.

Jones

A. M.

Sellers

C. S.

(2016). Does criminal propensity moderate the effects of social learning theory variables on intimate partner violence? Deviant Behavior, 37, 965-976.

Cohen

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

Smith

P. H.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260-268.

Cunradi

C. B.

Caetano

Scafer

(2002). Socioeconomic predictors of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 377-389.

10.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Samper

R. E.

Murphy

C. M.

(2008). Anger disturbances among perpetrators of intimate partner violence: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of court-mandated treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1600-1617.

11.

Edleson

J. L.

(1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 839-870.

12.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Vivian

(1999). Is partner aggression related to appraisals of coercive control by a partner? Journal of Family Violence, 14, 251-266.

13.

Finkelhor

Asdigian

N. L.

(1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3-19.

14.

Frankland

Brown

(2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 15-22.

15.

Gershon

(1999). Project Shields (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

16.

Gershon

(2000). Police stress and domestic violence in police families in Baltimore, Maryland, 1997-1999 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University [producer], 1999. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000.

17.

Gibson

C. L.

Swatt

M. L.

Jolicour

J. R.

(2001). Assessing the generality of general strain theory: The relationship among occupational stress experienced by male police officers and domestic forms of violence. Journal of Crime & Justice, 24, 29-57.

18.

Golding

J. M.

(1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99-132.

19.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

20.

Gover

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Tomsich

E. A.

Park

Rennison

C. M.

(2011). The influence of childhood maltreatment and self-control on dating violence: A comparison of college students in the United States and South Korea. Violence and Victims, 26, 296-318.

21.

Gover

A. R.

Kaukinen

Fox

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693.

22.

Gover

A. R.

Park

Tomsich

E. A.

Jennings

W. G.

(2011). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: A focus on gender and childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1232-1263.

23.

Graham-Kevan

Archer

(2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of Family Violence, 23, 539-548.

24.

Grossman

S. F.

Lundy

(2007). Domestic violence across race and ethnicity: Implications for social work practice and policy. Violence Against Women, 13, 1029-1052.

25.

Jennings

W. G.

Park

Tomsich

E. A.

Gover

A. R.

Akers

R. L.

(2011). Assessing the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: The influence of social learning and self-control. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 188-206.

26.

Kar

H. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2013). Patterns of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy within marriage. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 109-119.

27.

Keith

T. Z.

(2015). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

28.

Kerley

K. R.

Sirisunyaluck

Alley

J. M.

(2010). Exposure to family violence in childhood and intimate partner perpetration or victimization in adulthood: Exploring intergenerational transmission in urban Thailand. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 337-347.

29.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Gaylord

N. K.

Holt

A. R.

Kenny

E. D.

(2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339-352.

30.

Koeppel

M. D. H.

(2015). How general is the general theory of crime? Using self-control to predict substance use between sexual orientation groups. Journal of Drug Issues, 45, 80-94.

31.

Kuijpers

K. F.

van der Knaap

L. M.

Lodewijks

I. A. J.

(2011). Victims’ influence on intimate partner violence revictimization: A systematic review of prospective evidence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12, 198-219.

32.

Kuijpers

K. F.

van der Knaap

L. M.

Winkel

F. W.

(2012). Risk of re-victimization of intimate partner violence: The role of attachment, anger and violence behavior of the victim. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 33-44.

33.

Melander

L. A.

Noel

Tyler

K. A.

(2010). Bidirectional, unidirectional, and nonviolence: A comparison of the predictors among partnered young adults. Violence and Victims, 25, 617-630.

34.

Miller

S. L.

Forest

K. B.

Jurik

N. C.

(2003). Diversity in Blue: Lesbian and gay police officers in a masculine occupation. Men and Masculinities, 5, 355-385.

35.

Norlander

Eckhardt

(2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychological Review, 25, 119-152.

36.

Oehme

Donnelly

E. A.

Martin

(2012). Alcohol abuse, PTSD, and officer-committed domestic violence. Policing, 6, 418-430.

37.

Popp

A. M.

(2012). The effects of exposure, proximity, and capable guardians on the risk of bullying victimization. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 315-332.

38.

Simmons

C. A.

Lehmann

Collier-Tenison

(2008). Men’s use of controlling behaviors: A comparison of reports by women in domestic violence shelter and women in a domestic violence offender program. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 387-394.

39.

Springer

K. W.

Sheridan

Kuo

Carnes

(2007). Long-term physical and mental health consequences of childhood physical abuse: Results from a large population-based sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 517-530.

40.

Stinson

P. M.

Liederbach

(2013). Fox in the henhouse: A study of police officers arrested for crimes associated with domestic and/or family violence. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 601-625.

41.

Stinson

P. M.

Liederbach

Freiburger

T. L.

(2012). Off-duty and under arrest: A study of crimes perpetuated by off-duty police. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23, 139-163.

42.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

43.

Sween

Reyns

B. W.

(2017). An empirical test of target congruence theory on intimate partner violence. Deviant Behavior, 38, 61-73.

44.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142-161.

45.

Vaeth

P. A. C.

Ramisetty-Mikler

Caetano

(2010). Depression among couples in the United States in the context of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 771-790.

46.

Vatnar

S. K. B.

Bjorkly

(2012). Does separation or divorce make any difference? An interactional perspective on intimate partner violence with focus on marital status. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 45-54.

47.

Waldner

L. K.

Berg

(2008). Explaining antigay violence using target congruence: An application of revised routine activities theory. Violence and Victims, 23, 267-287.

48.

Walker

J. T.

Maddan

(2013). Statistics in criminology and criminal justice (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

49.

Weisburd

Britt

(2014). Statistics in criminal justice (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

50.

Zavala

(2013a). Examining the offender-victim overlap among police officers: The role of social learning and job-related stress. Violence and Victims, 28, 731-748.

51.

Zavala

(2013b). Testing the link between child maltreatment and family violence among police officers. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 468-483.

52.

Zavala

(2017). A multi-theoretical framework to explain same-sex intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization: A test of social learning, strain, and self-control. Journal of Crime & Justice, 40(4), 478-496.

53.

Zavala

Kurtz

D. L.

(2016). Applying differential coercion and social support theory to police officers’ misconduct. Deviant Behavior, 37, 877-892.

54.

Zavala

Melander

L. A.

Kurtz

D. L.

(2015). The importance of social learning and critical incident stressors on police officers’ perpetration of intimate partner violence. Victims & Offenders, 10, 51-73.

55.

Zavala

Spohn

R. E.

(2010). Emotional abuse and controlling behaviors in heterosexual relationships: The role of employment and alcohol use for women and their partners. Sociological Spectrum, 30, 526-549.