Controlling Behaviors and Intimate Partner Violence Among Women in Spain: An Examination of Individual,Partner,and Relationship Risk Factors for Physical and Psychological Abuse

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been linked to a broad range of negative consequences. Thus, early detection and prevention of behaviors associated with IPV is necessary to combat this global public health problem. Controlling behaviors (CBs) within the intimate context, including acts to constrain free mobility or access to friends and relatives, have been characterized as a moderate form of violence and may be an indicator of more severe IPV. Previous research in this field, however, has been primarily conducted in the United States. Accordingly, we lack knowledge of similar findings in other countries to draw more general conclusions about observed associations between these variables, and to identify underlying mechanisms. The current study analyzes the role of control within the Spanish context by examining its correlates, as well as the role and impact of CBs on psychological and physical violence. To achieve these objectives, we use data from the Spanish sample of the Violence Against Women Survey carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (N = 1,520 adult women). The results indicated that young women, women with a previous history of physical/sexual abuse during childhood, and women who have resided in Spain for fewer years are at greater risk of experiencing control within the context of an ongoing relationship. Partner risk factors included frequent episodes of drunkenness and general violence (i.e., violence outside of the home). In addition, control was more frequently reported among couples where the man was older than the woman. As hypothesized, women who reported CB by their partners were more likely to experience psychological and physical violence. These findings emphasize the importance of preventing CBs to avert the most severe forms of violence, and provides relevant information about the groups that could most benefit from these efforts.

Keywords

intimate partner violence domestic violence coercive control criminology cultural contexts

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been recognized as an important social and public health problem with serious consequences for victims’ physical and mental well-being (e.g., Ansara & Hindin, 2011; Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012; R. Walker, Shannon, & Logan, 2011). IPV is defined as an act of violence committed against a partner and perpetrated by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner (Fawson, 2015). According to recent estimates, one in three women globally experience physical and/or sexual IPV at some point in their lives (Devries et al., 2013). Over the past several decades, there has been a rapid expansion in the IPV literature including studies focused on establishing prevalence rates, documenting key correlates, and developing theory (e.g., Breiding, Chen, & Black, 2014; Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; L. A. Walker, 2006; Widom & Wilson, 2015). Much of this work, however, has been conducted using U.S. samples. Although existing research has provided important evidence for the development of prevention and intervention efforts in the United States, it is unclear whether the etiology of IPV is similar across other cultural contexts. International research has shed light on the prevalence of IPV against women; however, additional work is needed to determine the extent to which established risk factors apply outside of the United States.

Prior feminist research on the etiology of IPV has emphasized the distinguishing features of this form of violence, focusing considerable attention on the role of coercive control. According to a feminist perspective, violence against women can be understood as a means of maintaining control over female partners (M. P. Johnson, 2008). Examples of coercive control include damage to property, social isolation, monitoring whereabouts, and economic deprivation among others (e.g., Johnson, 1995, 2006; Pence & Paymar, 1993; see Rodríguez-Carballeira, Porrúa-García, Escartín, Martin-Peña, & Almendros, 2014, for a review). Etiological factors identified in prior work include family background factors (i.e., exposure to violence in the family of origin) and sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., age, minority status, and education level). In addition, recent work has developed a more dyadic framework, directing attention to the individual characteristics of both members of the couple, as well as features of the broader relationship (e.g., Giordano, Copp, Longmore, & Manning, 2015; Shortt et al., 2012; Stets, 1992).

In the current investigation, we use data from the Spanish sample of the Violence Against Women Survey carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to examine risk factors for physical and psychological IPV among women in Spain. Given that IPV was a particular focus of the FRA survey, the protocols include a broad range of items capturing physical and psychological victimization based on definitions from the World Health Organization (WHO), which include psychological acts such as humiliation, intimidation, and belittling, as well as more physical forms of violence (e.g., slapping, kicking, strangling, etc.). In particular, we examine the role of controlling behaviors (CBs) in IPV, as such behaviors have been central to both IPV theory and research based primarily on research findings from the United States. In addition, we examine whether a number of established risk factors, including individual, partner, and relationship characteristics, are associated with psychological and physical IPV among women in Spain, and furthermore, whether such factors are associated with the use of CBs in their own right. Findings from this research will help determine whether the etiology of IPV against women in Spain accords with prior research conducted in other cultural contexts. Moreover, this investigation will shed light on key focal areas for prevention and intervention of psychological and physical forms of abuse, as well as CBs, within the Spanish context. This is key as most prior research has focused on identifying risk factors for IPV; however, CBs are also serious and unhealthy relationship dynamics, and thus it is important to determine their causes in order to inform programmatic efforts.

Coercive Control and IPV

Feminist theorizing has been integral to the field of IPV research, and has drawn particular attention to the unique dynamics involved in male-female relationships. Traditional feminist perspectives focus heavily on the dynamics of power and control (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Yllo, 1993), and view IPV as a manifestation of men’s active attempts to maintain a position of dominance over their female partners (Anderson, 1997; 2005). Indeed, the use of control within the couple context has formed the basis of typological approaches to intimate partner violence, including attempts to distinguish between the types of violence observed in more general surveys of the population (situational couple violence) as compared to agency/shelter samples (intimate terrorism) (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson, 2006). In particular, Johnson (2008) argued that control is a defining characteristic of intimate terrorism, a type of violence that is rooted in patriarchal traditions of male dominance. Although the idea of a general need for dominance/control is not reflective of the majority of IPV cases, many scholars have demonstrated that control tactics are commonly reported in large, broadly representative samples (e.g., Bates, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2014; Giordano, Copp, Longmore, & Manning, 2016; Stets & Hammons, 2002). In addition, recent discussions of the dynamics involved in situational couple violence have highlighted that the use of violence toward an intimate partner is often motivated by efforts at control (see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Misra, 2012 for a review). Thus, it is important that researchers continue to investigate the role of control in IPV using community-based samples, as it appears to be a more pervasive feature of relationships in which violence is present than has been suggested by earlier theoretical accounts.

CBs are highly characteristic of coercive controlling abuse (Myhill, 2015) and intimate terrorism (Johnson, Leone, & Xu, 2014), as well as more common forms of relationship violence, and are also considered a form of psychological aggression (Henning & Klesges, 2003). CBs are characterized by the efforts of one partner to systematically control the other partner’s actions, relationships, and activities (Krantz & Dang Vung, 2009). The use of CBs within the romantic context establishes a rigid behavioral pattern where the victim is punished when he or she fails to follow the rules established by the coercive party (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). This control is exerted by the perpetrator through acts of physical abuse, intimidation, or through verbal threats of serious aggression (Tanha, Beck, Figueredo, & Raghavan, 2010).

The consequences of CBs vary, but can be quite severe. Notably, it is generally accepted that the psychological impact of CBs is worse than the physical effects. The primary psychological effects reported include fear, anxiety, loss of self-esteem, depression, and posttraumatic stress (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). The experience of CBs within the context of an ongoing relationship is also significantly associated with suicidal thoughts (Saeed Ali, Abbas, & Ather, 2014). This chronic psychological threat negatively affects victims’ social networks, family, and children (e.g., Rivara et al., 2007). Although IPV is considered a very important public health problem worldwide (García-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006), our understanding of its underlying mechanisms remains relatively limited. Given the severity and scope of this social and public health problem internationally, it is important to further investigate whether key risk factors are similarly associated with IPV across contexts to develop appropriate prevention and/or intervention programming.

Importantly, from a perspective of prevention and/or early intervention, CBs, which are grave enough themselves, may be also predictive of more severe forms of aggression. Furthermore, the presence of CBs may help identify those at risk of experiencing violence. In this vein, Beck and Raghavan (2010) note the following: “Absence of reports of physical abuse does not necessarily signal that a woman is safe, but a measure of control may be able to assess risk, particularly during the period of separation” (p. 556). Accordingly, researchers have established that the risk of homicide increases for women after separation from their abusers, particularly when the abuser is highly controlling (J. C. Campbell et al., 2003). As many have noted, there is a high degree of co-occurrence between physical and psychological IPV, and CBs are commonplace in violent relationships. A high percentage of women (80%) entering the criminal justice system after an incident of IPV experienced prior psychological abuse (Henning & Klesges, 2003). Physical and/or sexual violence during the past 12 months was associated with one or more controlling tactics by their partner (Krantz & Dang Vung, 2009). Highly CBs can increase victims’ risk of fatality 9 times (J. C. Campbell, Sharps, & Glass, 2000). Furthermore, coercive control may be more central to understanding the dynamics of intimate relationships than other types of abuse and likely requires intervention at multiple levels (Beck & Raghavan, 2010). Thus, planned interventions should consider the role of a range of CBs to further elucidate the different outcomes of IPV (Frye, Manganello, Campbell, & Wilt, 2006).

Risk Factors for CBs and IPV: A Review of Prior Research

Traditionally, research on IPV has developed a portrait of women as victims and men as perpetrators of relationship violence. Although those roles are interchangeable, there is some research to suggest that CBs are more frequently reported by women than men, and moreover, that control tactics are more closely linked to women’s victimization (Tanha et al., 2010). Relatedly, researchers have suggested that women are just as likely to exert control; however, they are less likely to use violent means to establish a position of dominance within the relationship (Frye et al., 2006). Somewhat surprisingly, despite active campaigns and policies to discourage relationship violence in certain parts of the world, including Spain, research suggests that the demographic group most at risk of experiencing CBs are young women between the ages of 16 and 24 (e.g., Gobierno de España, 2015). Taking these gender differences into account, it is important to consider the characteristics of both members of the couple, as well as key features of the relationship, as such factors are likely associated with the use of control within the relationship context.

Regarding controlling men, they are characterized by prior criminal arrests for violent and nonviolent offenses (Henning & Klesges, 2003), alcohol abuse (Foran & O’Leary, 2008) and lower levels of education (Krantz & Dang Vung, 2009). With respect to relationship characteristics, research has focused recent attention on employment, economic and educational status similarities/discrepancies in the couple. Findings from this work indicate that physical violence risk increases when women do not have the economic resources to leave the relationship (i.e., lower income and lower job status than husband; Antai, 2011). In instances where the woman earns more than her male partner, research has identified a greater likelihood of male aggression in general, and sexual aggression in particular (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Lang, 2005). Nevertheless, the association between income discrepancies, CBs, and psychological and physical forms of IPV remains undetermined. With respect to employment status, research suggests that the greatest risk of IPV occurs when neither member of the couple is employed (Alvira-Hammond, Longmore, Manning, & Giordano, 2014), followed by instances where only the woman is employed; the risk of violence is considerably lower among couples where both members are employed (Franklin & Menaker, 2014). The findings are less clear with respect to educational discrepancies. Although some early studies conducted in the 1970s found that women with higher levels of education than their male partners were at greater risk of IPV victimization (e.g., O’Brien, 1971), more recent research has failed to find a significant association between educational discrepancies and IPV (Franklin & Menaker, 2014; Rodríguez-Menés & Safranoff, 2012). The current research explores the impact of income and educational discrepancies within the couple on CBs and physical and psychological IPV.

IPV Among Spanish Women: Key Contextual Considerations

In Spain, violence within the intimate context is especially problematic, both in terms of its magnitude and seriousness, and primarily affects women. During 2014, 83% of all intimate partner homicides (53 in total) were committed by men against their female partners, whereas the remaining 17% were committed by women against their male partners (Consejo General del Poder Judicial, 2016). At the same time, one in 10 women residing in Spain (10.4%) reported having suffered physical violence at the hands of a romantic partner, and 8.1% reported having experienced sexual coercion. These figures increase considerably for psychological violence, including CBs (25.4%) and emotional forms of abuse (21.9%; Gobierno de España, 2015). There is less information about male victimization within the Spanish context, and thus it is impossible to provide a comparison of victimization experiences by gender.

Over the past 40 years, Spain has experienced an impressive degree of social change, the most important of which was the transition from a dictatorship to a democracy. Prior to this regime change, violence against women within the domestic sphere was considered a private matter, and therefore, did not require official intervention. Efforts to increase the awareness of Spanish society toward violence against women were slow-starting, but remained constant until such violence was understood to present a serious social problem. Subsequently, a number of legislative changes were made, including the addition of spousal/intimate partner abuse to the penal code and the promulgation of a law specifically targeting gender-based violence (i.e., Ley Organica de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género). These changes were reflective of Spain’s formal acknowledgment of the gravity of violence against women, and provided clear-cut guidelines for its legal ramifications, including sentencing (Ferrer & Bosch, 2006). Nevertheless, despite low levels of endorsement of more severe forms of violence against women (i.e., physical and sexual forms of abuse), there remains broad acceptance of certain CBs which, as highlighted above, are astonishingly prevalent. More specifically, 31% of Spaniards endorse the use of certain forms of control within the couple context, and 14% are accepting of placing restrictions on an intimate partner (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 2012).

The Current Study

The objective of the current investigation is to corroborate the results of prior research conducted in other countries on CBs and IPV. In particular, we examine associations between a broad range of CBs and physical and psychological forms of IPV. In this way, we are able to examine the predictive value of CBs, as well as further develop our understanding of control as a risk factor for certain types of abuse. In addition, drawing on prior research, we control for the effects of both individual and partner characteristics, as well as features of the romantic relationship. At the same time, this study attempts to evaluate the extent to which individual, partner, and relationship characteristics contribute to our understanding of CBs by examining correlates of CBs in predictive models. Findings will contribute to our understanding of factors associated with the use of control to inform programmatic efforts and potentially dismantle such behaviors before they become more firmly cemented, and before they escalate to more severe forms of abuse.

Data and Method

Sample

The data analyzed in this study come from the Spanish sample (n = 1,520 women above 18 years of age) of the Violence Against Women Survey, carried out by the FRA in 2012. Respondents were selected using a random probability methodology and were interviewed face-to-face by female interviewers. According to the definitions recommended by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (2011), the response rate (RR3) for the survey was 31.1%.¹ The analytic sample consisted of all respondents reporting on a current relationship with valid responses on the outcome variables (n = 1,161). Missing covariate information was preserved using multiple imputation techniques in Stata 14.

Dependent Variables

CBs in the current relationship

The first dependent variable in the analysis was controlling behaviors in the current relationship. This measure was assessed by asking respondents how often their current partners (a) try to keep them from seeing their friends, (b) try to restrict their contact with their families or relatives, (c) insist on knowing where they are in a way that goes beyond general concern, (d) get angry if they speak with another man, (e) become suspicious that they are unfaithful, (f) prevent them from making decisions about family finances and from shopping independently, (g) forbid them to work outside the home, and (h) forbid them to leave the house. Items were rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). To create a composite index, responses were summed, with higher scores indicating greater severity of CBs (range = 0-16). The interitem correlation for these items ranged from .44 to .71, and the alpha coefficient was high (Cronbach’s α = .84). This measure was also examined as an independent variable in models predicting physical and psychological IPV.

IPV in the current relationship

In accordance with previous research (D. W. Campbell, Campbell, King, Parker, & Ryan, 1994; Sierra, Monge, Santos-Iglesias, Bermúdez, & Salinas, 2011, among others), we assessed IPV by measuring psychological and physical violence. Psychological violence was measured with eight questions that ask respondents how often they experience acts of humiliation, intimidation, and belittling (e.g., “my current partner threats to hurt my children”). The 4-point scales were first dichotomized (by coding sometimes, often, and all the time as 1, and never as 0), and then summed (Cronbach’s α = .77). To differentiate between victims and nonvictims, this variable was transformed into a dummy variable, coded 1 if the respondent had experienced at least one incident of psychological violence, and 0 otherwise. Physical violence was measured using 14 questions assessing physical and sexual abuse. These include threatening, pushing, slapping, beating, grabbing, kicking, burning, strangling, stabbing, and forcing sexual acts. To compute the index, all the variables were first dichotomized (affirmative responses were coded as 1) and then summed (Cronbach’s α = .77). As in the case of psychological violence, this variable was dichotomized distinguishing between victims of physical violence (coded as 1) and nonvictims of physical violence (those who responded affirmatively to any of the 14 questions).

Independent Variables

To address the issue of spuriousness, the analyses accounted for several variables that have been identified as correlates of the dependent variables in prior work. These controls were grouped into three main categories: (a) individual characteristics, (b) partner characteristics, and (c) relationship characteristics.

Individual characteristics

Women’s personal characteristics included age (18-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60 years and above), education, employment status (currently employed = 1), immigrant minority status (minority = 1), whether the respondent had ever resided outside of Spain (1= yes), and whether the respondent had children (children = 1). Education was measured with seven categories ranging from less than primary school (1) to postgraduate studies (7). We also controlled for previous experiences of violence by including self-reported physical and sexual abuse during childhood (childhood physical/sexual abuse= 1).

Partner characteristics

In addition to individual characteristics, several characteristics of the partner were included in the models. These included age (15-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39,40-49, 50-59, 60 years and above), education (ordinal variable ranging from less than primary school (1) to postgraduate studies (7)), employment status (currently employed = 1), alcohol consumption (“consumption with no episodes of drunkenness,” “one or less episodes of drunkenness a month,” and “more than one episodes of drunkenness a month”), and a dichotomous variable indicating whether the focal partner had engaged in violence outside the family (1= yes).

Relationship characteristics

We included a number of relationship considerations including marital status (married or in a civil partnership = 1), relationship duration (less than 1 year, 1 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years, more than 20 years), and presence of children in the household (1 = yes). Material hardship was taken from the following single item: “Which of the descriptions on this card comes closest to how you feel about your household’s income nowadays?” (responses ranged from 1 = “living comfortably on present income” to 4 = “finding it very difficult on present income”).

Analytic Strategy

First, we examined descriptive statistics for the key dependent and independent variables included in this investigation (Table 1). Next, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to predict CB in the current relationship (Table 2). Variance inflation factors (VIF) were less than 2.50, indicating that multicollinearity was not an issue in the models.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (n = 1,161).

	M/%	SD	Range
Dependent variables
Current controlling behavior	0.39	0.04	0-16
Psychological intimate partner violence	8.53%
Physical intimate partner violence	3.70%
Independent variables
Women’s age	4.91	0.05	1-7
Women’s education	3.74	0.04	1-7
Women’s employment status	36.42%
Belong to an immigrant minority	3.01%
Resided outside of Spain	21.02%
Children	81.57%
Childhood physical/sexual abuse	10.68%
Partner’s age	5.20	0.05	1-7
Partner’s education	3.76	0.04	1-7
Partner’s employment status	54.04%
Alcohol consumption
(Never drink/no episodes of drunkenness)
One or less episodes of drunkenness a month	12.14%
One or more episodes of drunkenness a month	4.74%
Violence outside the family	5.19%
Economic hardship	2.03	0.03	1-4
Relationship length	3.84	0.05	1-7
Children living in the household	47.59%
Married	88.72%
Income discrepancy
(Partner earns less than the respondent)
Both earn roughly the same	16.80%
Partner earns more than the respondent	74.59%
Educational discrepancy
(Partner less educated than the respondent)
Both equally educated	48.66%
Partner more educated than the respondent	27.65%

Table 2.

OLS Regression Coefficients for the Association Between Individual, Partner, and Relationship Characteristics and Controlling Behaviors in the Current Relationship (n = 1,161).

Variables	Zero Order		Model 1
Variables	b	SE	b	SE
Women’s age	−0.053*	0.03	−0.131*	0.07
Women’s education	−0.025	0.03	−0.00	0.09
Women’s employment status	0.060	0.09	0.116	0.10
Belong to an immigrant minority	0.752**	0.25	0.097	0.26
Resided outside of Spain	0.613***	0.11	0.491***	0.11
Children	−0.055	0.11	0.138	0.15
Childhood physical/sexual abuse	0.562***	0.14	0.290*	0.14
Partner’s age	−0.032	0.03	0.132*	0.06
Partner’s education	−0.027	0.03	−0.011	0.08
Partner’s employment status	−0.040	0.09	−0.089	0.10
Alcohol consumption^a
One or less episodes of drunkenness a month	0.244	0.13	0.127	0.13
More than one episodes of drunkenness a month	1.421***	0.20	1.126***	0.20
Violence outside the family	1.415***	0.19	1.161***	0.19
Economic hardship	0.100*	0.05	0.046	0.05
Relationship length	−0.048	0.03	0.011	0.05
Children living in the household	0.006	0.09	−0.026	0.11
Married	−0.409**	0.14	−0.350*	0.16
Income discrepancy^b
Both earn roughly the same	−0.224	0.18	−0.105	0.18
Partner earns more than the respondent	−0.050	0.16	0.017	0.16
Educational discrepancy^b
Both equally educated	−0.055	0.11	−0.001	0.16
Partner more educated	0.016	0.12	0.117	0.26
Constant			0.175	0.37
R ²			.116

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares; b = unstandardized OLS coefficient; SE= standard error.

Reference category for alcohol consumption is no consumption/consumption with no episodes of drunkenness.

Reference categories for income inconsistency and education inconsistency are respondent earns more than her partner, and respondent more educated.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Finally, logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of psychological and physical victimization (Table 3). In these models, CBs in the current relationship was used as an independent variable while adjusting for the controls described above.

Table 3.

Odds Ratios for the Association Between Individual, Partner, and Relationship Characteristics and Psychological and Physical Intimate Partner Violence (n = 1,161).

Variables	Model 1 Psychological IPV		Model 2 Physical IPV
Variables	OR	SE	OR	SE
Current controlling behavior	2.878***	0.35	2.035***	0.20
Women’s age	1.821*	0.45	2.068*	0.74
Women’s education	0.731	0.19	0.811	0.32
Women’s employment status	1.572	0.54	0.895	0.49
Belong to an immigrant minority	1.463	1.09	6.884*	5.64
Resided outside of Spain	1.036	0.39	0.885	0.50
Children	1.604	0.95	1.238	1.24
Childhood physical/sexual abuse	1.398	0.58	2.579^†	1.33
Partner’s age	0.703	0.16	0.705	0.24
Partner’s education	1.412	0.36	0.780	0.30
Partner’s employment status	1.195	0.42	2.405^†	1.26
Alcohol consumption^a
One or less episodes of drunkenness a month	1.400	0.59	1.498	0.90
More than one episodes of drunkenness a month	3.307*	1.69	1.416	1.01
Violence outside the family	3.951**	1.73	6.100***	3.17
Economic hardship	1.030	0.18	1.011	0.26
Relationship length	1.028	0.18	1.052	0.28
Children living in the household	0.795	0.31	0.664	0.40
Married	0.852	0.49	1.139	1.00
Income discrepancy^b
Both earn roughly the same	2.827	1.99	1.014	1.02
Partner earns more than the respondent	3.025^†	1.95	1.145	0.96
Educational discrepancy^b
Both equally educated	0.461	0.23	0.520	0.40
Partner more educated	0.281	0.24	0.601	0.76
Constant	0.003***	0.00	0.003**	0.01
Pseudo-R²	.408		.473

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error.

Reference category for alcohol consumption is no consumption/consumption with no episodes of drunkenness.

Reference categories for income inconsistency and education inconsistency are respondent earns more than her partner, and respondent more educated.

†

p ≤ .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results

Descriptive Results

Table 1 showed the means/percentages, standard deviations, and ranges of all variables used in the analyses. Nearly 9% of the sample self-reported psychological IPV victimization, and roughly 4% reported physical IPV victimization. Although these figures are lower than other estimates, including those from U.S. samples (Montgomery et al., 2015), it is important to note that the current investigation focuses on violence in the context of a current relationship as opposed to lifetime estimates. Average levels of controlling behaviors were 0.39, suggesting that the experience of control tactics within the context of a current relationship were relatively infrequent. Similarly, reports of partners’ involvement in violence outside of the family were low, at just over 5%, and less than one-fifth of the sample reported that their partners consumed elevated levels of alcohol. The majority of women were aged 35 or older and had at least a secondary education. Approximately two-fifths of the sample was employed, as were just over half of the respondents’ partners (54%). The vast majority of women had children (82%), however, less than half resided with their children in the same household. This is likely due to the broad age distribution of the sample, and the large number of women participants with adult children. In terms of educational and income discrepancies, women and their partners generally had similar levels of education, however, women participants typically earned less than their male partners.

Risk Factors for CBs

Results from our OLS regression model are presented in Table 2. The first column presents the zero-order relationships between the study variables and reports of CBs. At the bivariate level, women’s age and marital status were negatively associated with CBs such that younger women and women in nonmarital relationships reported experiencing higher levels of controlling behaviors from their partners. In addition, belonging to an immigrant minority and having resided outside of Spain were positively associated to suffering CBs at the zero order. Finally, early childhood abuse, partner alcohol consumption, violence outside the family, and economic hardship were associated with greater exposure to CBs.

In the second column (Model 1), we present findings from a full model which includes the complete range of individual, partner, and relationship characteristics described in this study. With regard to individual characteristics, younger women (b = −0.131, p = .046,) and those who had resided outside of Spain (b = 0.491, p < .001) were more likely to experience controlling behaviors by their partners. Consistent with prior research, women with a personal history of abuse during childhood indicated higher levels of CBs from their partners in their relationships (b = 0.29, p = .036). Regarding the partner’s characteristics, age, and violence outside the family had a positive effect on the dependent variable (b = 0.132, p = .036; b = 1.161, p < .001, respectively). In addition, women reported higher CBs from their partner when their partner engaged in more than one episodes of drunkenness a month (b = 1.126, p < .001). Only one of the relationship characteristics emerged as significant, such that CBs were less severe among married couples (b = −0.350, p = .033).

Risk Factors for Psychological and Physical Abuse

The logistic models examining associations between current CB and psychological and physical violence are presented in Table 3. The first model assessed the odds of psychological violence (Model 1). For each one-unit increase in the CB scale, the odds of victimization increased by 2.88 times (odds ratio [OR] = 2.878, p < .001). In addition, three of the controls emerged as significant predictors. More specifically, older women were more likely to experience psychological violence as compared with younger women (OR = 1.821, p = .015). Women whose partners are violent outside the family are about 4 times more likely to experience psychological violence in their relationships than their peers (OR = 3.951, p = .002). Similarly, women whose partners are heavy drinkers are more likely to experience psychological violence (OR = 3.307, p = .020). Finally, women whose partners earn more money are more likely to experience psychological violence in their current relationship, although this association is marginally significant (OR = 3.025, p = .086).

Model 2 (Table 3) presents the results of the logistic regression examining associations between physical violence and CB, which explained approximately 47% of the variance in physical violence. Based on the ORs, a one-unit increase on the CB scale was associated with an increase of 104% in the odds of physical violence (OR = 2.035, p < .001). Women belonging to an immigrant minority were more likely to report physical violence than those who did not (OR = 6.884, p = .019). With respect to partners’ characteristics, being violent outside the family increased the odds of physical violence by 6 times (OR = 6.100, p < .001). Two additional variables were marginally significant in this model: childhood physical/sexual abuse and partner’s employment status. In this regard, findings indicated that physical IPV was more likely to occur when women had experienced abuse in their family of origin (OR = 2.579, p = .066), and when their partners were currently employed (OR = 2.405, p = .094).

As hypothesized, CBs were strongly associated with a higher likelihood of psychological and physical violence. Moreover, these relationships remained statistically significant after controlling for important respondent, partner, and relationship characteristics.

Discussion

While numerous studies have examined risk factors for psychological and physical IPV in the United States, the current study contributes beyond prior work by considering whether established risk factors are similarly associated with IPV among women in Spain. Using data from the Violence Against Women Survey conducted by the FRA, this study adds to our understanding of the etiology of IPV. These data are particularly well-suited for these analyses as they include key risk factors for IPV identified in prior work, including a range of individual, partner, and relationship characteristics. Furthermore, the data provide information on various CBs, as well as measures of psychological and physical forms of abuse. Recognizing the centrality of CBs to theoretical and etiological discussions of partner violence, the current investigation examines the role of control within the Spanish context by examining its correlates, as well as its influence on psychological and physical violence.

Analyses focused on determining correlates of CBs revealed that young women, and women who have resided outside of Spain, are at greatest risk of experiencing control within the context of an ongoing relationship. These findings align with recent research which indicated that the highest prevalence of CBs was among adolescents (M age = 15.7; Fawson, 2015). That women who are not lifelong residents of Spain are at greater risk suggests a potential link between immigrant status and IPV, which may be a function of social isolation and a more limited social network observed among immigrant women (Rodríguez-Menés & Safranoff, 2012). It is important to further investigate this potential link as the current investigation used an imprecise measure of immigrant status, which captured all participants who had previously resided outside of Spain. Still, preventive measures targeting the use of control within the romantic context may find utility in focusing specific attention on this demographic group. From an intervention/prevention perspective, these findings further highlight the importance of increasing efforts to eradicate physical/sexual abuse during childhood. Our results showed a strong association between a history of abuse and the presence of CBs in the current relationship. Furthermore, childhood experiences of abuse/neglect have been identified as among the most salient predictors of subsequent IPV (Whitfield, Anda, Shanta, & Felitti, 2003; Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2014).

Attention to partner characteristics associated with CBs provided an emergent profile of men who engage in control tactics which included men with frequent episodes of drunkenness, as well as men who frequently engage in violence outside of the home. Therefore, the early prevention of excessive alcohol consumption and violence in male adolescents may help deter the use of CBs in future relationships. Targeting such behaviors early on may also promote healthier adolescent relationships, and may deter the use of control, as well as more serious forms of abuse, in subsequent relationships. With respect to discrepancies in couple-level income and education, we found no significant associations with CBs. However, women involved with older men, and women in nonmarital relationships, reported experiencing greater levels of CBs from their partners. Future work should continue to explore status discrepancies and the context within which CBs typically emerge within young couples characterized by relationship discrepancies, as our findings may be indicative of the persistence of traditional gender norms within young couples and among individuals who are involved with older men.

In addition to models examining associations between individual, partner, and relationship characteristics and control in predictive models, we also estimated models predicting psychological and physical IPV against women. CBs have been a key focus of IPV researchers for the past few decades, and the findings of the current investigation provide further evidence of the impact of CBs on psychological and physical violence (accounting for 41% and 47% of the explained variance, respectively). These findings coincide with prior research conducted in other European (e.g., Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2008) and North American countries (e.g., Kelly & Johnson, 2008) suggesting that, independent of the prevalence of violence in the countries examined, CBs similarly contributed to the observed variability in violence across contexts. This finding also brings to light the relevance of taking preventive measures or intervening when CBs are observed and not only in response to physical injuries. In fact, the experiences of CBs are more common than that of repeated abuse among women who survived an attempted homicide by their male partner (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Furthermore, many scholars have suggested that acts of physical aggression toward a romantic partner are often provoked by a control motive (e.g., Felson & Messner, 2000). Thus, eliminating this desire to control may lead to reductions in the use of physical aggression. Some researchers have attempted to identify a concrete number of CBs to establish risk for physical aggression. For example, Frye and colleagues (2006) found that 50% of the women that had been physically assaulted had experienced three or more CBs in their relationships. Future research should further consider the amount and types of control that most closely predict physical and psychological violence to facilitate the prevention of violent perpetration and victimization.

The significant associations between control and psychological and physical violence persisted controlling for a roster of individual, partner, and relationship characteristics. Of the controls, our findings indicate that there is a greater probability of psychological and physical aggression among older women. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the experience of CBs was more common among younger women. Although these results may appear somewhat surprising, particularly in a country where the prevention of CBs appears in national publicity campaigns, recent studies in Spain have revealed that one third of young people between the ages of 15 and 29 accept certain types of CBs (i.e., controlling partners’ schedules, prohibiting partners from seeing friends or family, forbidding the partner to study or work) as inevitable in romantic relationships (De Miguel, 2015). Future work should consider the use of longitudinal data to analyze the underlying mechanisms linking control to subsequent psychological and physical aggression.

Similar to the models predicting CBs, our analyses of psychological and physical violence indicated that men who exhibit more episodes of drunkenness are more likely to engage in psychological violence in their romantic relationships. Furthermore, violence outside the family was associated with reports of both psychological and physical violence. It is on the basis of similar findings that IPV intervention programs have included a heavy focus on psychological factors such as emotional decoding and regulation, perspective taking, and empathy, along with attention to alcohol consumption. Although the precise link between alcohol abuse and IPV is unclear, there is some research to suggest that alcohol abuse mediates the association between testosterone/cortisol ratio and anger expression in IPV perpetrators (Romero, Lila, & Moya-Albiol, 2015). However, given that existing treatment programs based on traditional models of IPV and focused exclusively on men’s behavior have shown little signs of success, it is important that future data collection efforts provide a more comprehensive view of relationships characterized by IPV by including attention to individual, partner, and relational sources of risk.

This research builds on existing work by providing an empirical examination of risk factors for IPV among women in Spain. Although the research findings contribute in many ways to our understanding of the etiology of IPV against women, there are a few limitations. First, the data used in the current investigation are cross-sectional. Prior research and theorizing suggest that control and other key risk factors precede the experience of relationship violence; however, we were unable to establish a precise causal order. Future research should examine these associations longitudinally to address issues of causal ordering and examine the potential for reciprocal effects. Second, the current investigation focuses specifically on male-to-female IPV. This is important as numerous studies have established the more severe physical and mental health consequences of IPV against women. However, future research should examine a similar set of risk factors among both men and women in Spain. Finally, although these data allowed for examination of important partner and relationship characteristics, they do not provide a window on the nature and dynamics of relationships characterized by psychological and physical abuse. Future work should move beyond individual sources of risk to consider risk factors from a dyadic perspective to shed light on concrete mechanisms driving the use of control, as well as psychological and physical violence.

In summary, our results are consistent with the findings of previous U.S.-based research and demonstrate that CBs significantly increase the likelihood of experiencing psychological and physical violence among adult women in Spain. This finding emphasizes the utility of focusing on such behaviors in both prevention and intervention settings, as attention to CBs may help individuals move away from violent relationships, as well as nonviolent but potentially high-risk relationships. Furthermore, given our finding that CBs are more prevalent among young couples, future prevention efforts may want to focus additional efforts on identifying and encouraging healthy relationship behaviors among this demographic group. It is also important to emphasize the vulnerability of immigrant women to CBs, as they are frequently excluded from existing prevention programs. In addition to examining associations between CBs and physical and psychological forms of abuse, the current study sought to identify predictors of CBs in their own right. We focused particular attention on characteristics at the individual, partner, and relationship level, and found a number of potential risk factors including—but not limited to—age, and years living in Spain. Future work should consider a broader range of factors to further elucidate the processes or mechanisms that contribute to the use of control within the intimate context.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2015). European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Violence Against Women Survey, 2012: Special License Access. [Data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 7730. Retrieved from

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 Biographies

Eva Aizpurua received her PhD in criminology from the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Spain in January 2016. Following the award of her doctorate, she continued her work at the University as a postdoctoral fellow for several months before joining the Center for Social and Behavioral Research at the University of Northern Iowa in October 2016. Her research interests include public opinion on crime and criminal justice, survey research methods, questionnaire design, and intimate partner violence (IPV).

Jennifer Copp, PhD, is an assistant professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Her research focuses on crime and other problem behaviors during adolescence and young adulthood, with a particular emphasis on IPV.

Jorge J. Ricarte, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology and the Criminology Research Centre of the University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. His research focuses on cognitive variables related to mental health and aggressive behavior, with a particular interest on the role of autobiographical memories processing in developmental violence.

David Vázquez works as a researcher in the Criminology Research Centre, at the University of Castilla-La Mancha, in Spain. His current research focuses on the social legitimacy of legal authority.

References

Alvira-Hammond

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

Giordano

P. C.

(2014). Gainful activity and intimate partner aggression in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 2, 116-127. doi:10.1177/2167696813512305

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2011). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (7th ed.). Deerfield, IL: Author.

Anderson

K. L.

(1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3), 655-669.

Anderson

K. L.

(2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex Roles, 52(11-12), 853-865. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4204-x

Ansara

D. L.

Hindin

M. J.

(2011). Psychosocial consequences of intimate partner violence form women and men in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1628-1645. doi:10.1177/0886260510370600

Antai

(2011). Controlling behavior, power relations with intimate relationships and intimate partner physical and sexual violence against women in Nigeria. BMC Public Health, 11(1), Article 511. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-511

Atkinson

M. P.

Greenstein

T. N.

Lang

M. M.

(2005). For women, breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1137-1148. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00206.x

Bates

E. A.

Grahan-Kevan

Archer

(2014). Testing predictions from the male control theory of men’s partner violence. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 42-55. doi: 10.1002/ab.21499

Beck

C. J. A.

Raghavan

(2010). Intimate partner abuse screening in custody mediation: The importance of assessing coercive control. Family Court Review, 48, 555-565. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01329.x

10.

Breiding

M. J.

Chen

Black

M. C.

(2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States—2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

11.

Campbell

D. W.

Campbell

King

Parker

Ryan

(1994). The reliability and factor structure of the Index of Spouse Abuse with African-American women. Violence and Victims, 9, 259-274.

12.

Campbell

J. C.

Sharps

Glass

N. E.

(2000). Risk assessment for intimate partner violence. In Pinard

G. F.

Pagani

(Eds.), Clinical assessment of dangerousness: Empirical contributions (pp. 136-157). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Campbell

J. C.

Webster

Koziol-McLain

Block

Campbell

Curry

. . . Laughon

(2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1089-1097. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089

14.

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231

15.

Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. (2012). Barómetro de noviembre. Estudio nº 2968 [Barometer of November. Study No. 2968]. Retrieved from http://www.cis.es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Marginales/2960_2979/2968/es2968mar.pdf

16.

Consejo General del Poder Judicial. (2016). Análisis de las sentencias dictadas por los tribunales del jurado y por las audiencias provinciales en el año 2014, relativas a homicidios y/o asesinatos consumados entre los miembros de la pareja o ex pareja y menores a manos de sus progenitores [Analysis of the sentences issued by jury tribunals and the provincial courts in the year 2014, relative to homicides and/or murders committed by members of a couple or a former couple and minors at the hands by their parents]. Retrieved from http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Temas/Violencia-domestica-y-de-genero/Grupos-de-expertos/Analisis-de-las-sentencias-dictadas-por-los-Tribunales-del-Jurado-y-por-las-Audiencias-Provinciales-en-el-ano-2011–relativas-a-homicidios-y-o-asesinatos-consumados-entre-los-miembros-de-la-pareja-o-ex-pareja

17.

De Miguel

. (2015). Percepción de la violencia de género en la adolescencia y la juventud [Perceptions of gender-based violence among adolescents and youth]. Madrid: MSSSI. Retrieved from http://www.observatoriodelainfancia.es/oia/esp/descargar.aspx?id=4483&tipo=documento

18.

Devries

K. M.

Mak

J. Y. T.

Garcia-Moreno

Petzold

Child

J. C.

Falder

. . . Watts

C. H.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340, 1527-1528. doi:10.1126/science.1240937

19.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

(1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.

20.

Eshelman

Levendosky

A. A.

(2012). Dating violence: Mental health consequences based on type of abuse. Violence and Victims, 27, 215-228. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.2.215

21.

22.

Fawson

P. R.

(2015). Controlling behaviors as predictor of partner violence among heterosexual female and male adolescents. Partner Abuse, 6, 217-229.

23.

Felson

R. B.

Messner

S. F.

(2000). The control motive in intimate partner violence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 86-94. doi:10.2307/2695883

24.

Ferrer

V. A.

Bosch

(2006). El papel del movimiento feminista en la consideración social de la violencia contra las mujeres: el caso de España [The role of the feminist movement in society’s view of violence against women: the case of Spain]. Revista Labrys, 10, 1-20.

25.

Foran

H. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1222-1234. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.05.001

26.

Franklin

C. A.

Menaker

T. A.

(2014). Feminism, status inconsistency, and women’s intimate partner victimization in heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 20, 825-845. doi:10.1177/1077801214543385

27.

Frye

Manganello

Campbell

J. C.

Wilt

(2006). The distribution of and factors associated with intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among a population-based sample of urban women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1286-1313. doi:10.1177/0886260506291658

28.

García-Moreno

Jansen

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

T. H.

(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. The Lancet, 368, 1260-1289. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69523-8

29.

Giordano

P. C.

Copp

J. E.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2015). Contested domains, verbal “amplifiers,” and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Social Forces, 94, 923-951. doi:10.1093/sf/sov055

30.

Giordano

P. C.

Copp

J. E.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2016). Anger, control, and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 31(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s10896-015-9753-3

31.

Gobierno de España. (2015). Macroencuesta Violencia contra la Mujer [Violence against Women Macrosurvey]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Delegación del Gobierno para la Violencia de Género.

32.

Graham-Kevan

Archer

(2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of Family Violence, 23, 539-548. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9162-y

33.

Henning

Klesges

L. M.

(2003). Prevalence and characteristics of psychological abuse reported by court-involved battered women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 857-871. doi:10.1177/0886260503253878

34.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283-294. doi:10.2307/353683

35.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1-16. doi:10.1177/1077801206293328

36.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

37.

Johnson

M. P.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 948-963. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x

38.

Johnson

M. P.

Leone

J. M.

(2014). Intimate terrorism and situational couple violence in general surveys: Ex-spouses required. Violence Against Women, 20, 186-207. doi:10.1177/1077801214521324

39.

Kelly

J. B.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476-499. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x

40.

Krantz

Dang Vung

(2009). The role of controlling behaviour in the intimate partner violence and health effects: A population based study from rural Vietnam. BCM Public Health, 9(1), 1-10. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-143

41.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

McCullars

Misra

T. A.

(2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 429-468. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429

42.

Montgomery

B. E. E.

Rompalo

Hughes

Wang

Haley

Soto-Torres

Hodder

., (2015). Violence against women in selected areas of the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), 2156-2166. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302430

43.

Myhill

(2015). Measuring coercive control: What can we learn from national population surveys? Violence Against Women, 21, 355-375. doi:10.1177/1077801214568032

44.

O’Brien

(1971). Violence in divorce prone families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 33, 692-698.

45.

Pence

Paymar

(1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer.

46.

Rivara

F. P.

Anderson

M. L.

Fishman

Bonomi

A. E.

Reid

R. J.

Carrell

Thompson

R. S.

(2007). Intimate partner violence and health care costs and utilization for children living in the home. Pediatrics, 120, 1270-1277. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1148

47.

Rodríguez-Carballeira

Á.

Porrúa-García

Escartín

Martin-Peña

Almendros

. (2014). Taxonomy and hierarchy of psychological abuse strategies in intimate partner relationships. Anales de Psicologia, 30, 916-926. doi:10.6918/analesps.30.3.154001

48.

Rodríguez-Menés

Safranoff

(2012). Violence against women in intimate relations: A contrast of five theories. European Journal of Criminology, 9, 584-602. doi:10.1177370812453410

49.

Romero

Lila

Moya-Albiol

(2015). Alcohol abuse mediates the association between baseline T/C ratio and anger expression in intimate partner violence perpetrators. Behavioral Sciences, 5, 113-120. doi:10.3390/bs5010113

50.

Saeed Ali

Abbas

Ather

. (2014). Associations of controlling behavior, physical and sexual violence with health symptoms. Journal of Women’s Health Care, 3(6), 1-6. doi:10.4172/2167-0420.1000202

51.

Shortt

J. W.

Capaldi

D. M.

Kim

H. K.

Kerr

D. C. R.

Owen

L. D.

Feingold

(2012). Stability of intimate partner violence by men across 12 years in young adulthood: Effects of relationship transitions. Prevention Science, 13, 360-369. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0202-0

52.

Sierra

J. C.

Monge

F. S.

Santos-Iglesias

Bermúdez

M. P.

Salinas

J. M.

(2011). Validation of a reduced Spanish version of the Index of Spouse Abuse. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11, 363-383.

53.

Stets

J. A.

(1992). Interactive processes in dating aggression: A national study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 165-177. doi:10.2307/353284

54.

Stets

J. E.

Hammons

S. A.

(2002). Gender, control, and marital commitment. Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), 3-25. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023001001

55.

Tanha

Beck

C. J. A.

Figueredo

A. J.

Raghavan

(2010). Sex differences in intimate partner violence and the use of coercive control as a motivational factor for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1836-1854. doi:10.1177/0886260509354501

56.

Walker

L. A.

(2006). Battered woman syndrome: Empirical findings. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 1087, 142-157. doi:10.1196/annals.1385.023

57.

Walker

Shannon

Logan

T. K.

(2011). Sleep loss and partner violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2004-2024. doi:10.1177/0886260510372932

58.

Whitfield

C. I.

Anda

R. F.

Shanta

R. D.

Felitti

V. J.

(2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 166-185. doi:10.1177/0886260502238733

59.

Widom

C. S.

Czaja

Dutton

M. A.

(2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 650-663. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.11.004

60.

Widom

C. S.

Wilson

H. W.

(2015). Intergenerational transmission of violence. In Lindert

Levav

(Eds.), Violence and mental health: Its manifold faces (pp. 27-45). New York, NY: Springer.

61.

World Health Organization (2002). World report on violence and health. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

62.

Yllo

(1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In Gelles

R.J.

Loseke

D.R.

(Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.