Feminism,Status Inconsistency,and Women’s Intimate Partner Victimization in Heterosexual Relationships

Abstract

This study used a random community sample of 303 women in romantic relationships to investigate the role of educational and employment status inconsistency and patriarchal family ideology as risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, while considering demographic factors and relationship context variables. Sequential multivariate logistic regression models demonstrated a decrease in the odds of IPV victimization for Hispanic women and women who were older as compared with their counterparts. In addition, increased relationship distress, family-of-origin violence, and employment status inconsistency significantly increased the odds of IPV. Clinical intervention strategies and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)feminism intimate partner violence patriarchy status inconsistency women’s victimization

The late 1970s witnessed an increase in public and scholarly attention directed toward the study of domestic and intimate partner violence (IPV; see Lutze & Symons, 2002). Feminist scholars in particular were among the first to underscore the importance of violence in intimate relationships. Feminist theory contends that patriarchal power structures of male dominance and female submission are maintained in society and reinforced in relationships, in part through an individual’s access to resources, including their occupational and educational status, and income-earning potential. These structures are replicated in the family and in adult marital, intimate, and courtship relationships as they pertain to authority and decision-making (Johnson, 2005; Lorber, 2001). In particular, family and courtship relationships often mirror gendered divisions of power in society (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997), so that men are charged with decision-making and authority, and women are responsible for nurturing, caretaking, and supporting the family through domesticity, even when the women are also working outside the home (Johnson, 2005). Politically, feminist scholars and women’s advocates brought attention to the previously concealed phenomenon of partner violence by reiterating that “the personal is political” (see Lorber, 2001, for a review). In doing so, attention focused on power-oriented explanations of violence against women in various relationship and social contexts (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980; R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

Although not feminist in origin, status inconsistency theory is useful for understanding male violence against women as it explains the link between status and victimization through a sociological perspective (Yick, 2001), drawing from standard exchange and exposure models of IPV. Such a model suggests that familial control and decision-making power are associated with a family member’s ability to accrue resources of value. Inconsistencies in status or power, operationalized as educational accomplishment, income earned, or employment, may invoke feelings of stress and inadequacy among individuals who lack these resources (Lenton, 1995).

Status inconsistency theory suggests that individuals in roles that violate social norms will experience negative social and psychological outcomes related to this role conflict (Stryker & Macke, 1978). Indeed, studies of status inconsistency within partnerships reveal that individuals with a status that is incongruent with social norms may experience cognitive dissonance, withdrawal and dissatisfaction in interpersonal relationships, and feelings of anger (Stryker & Macke, 1978). It follows that, within heterosexual couples, an inconsistency between partners in levels of power through income, education, and employment (particularly where the female has greater resources as compared with her male partner) may threaten these social norms and increase risk for stress and dissonance among males (Yick, 2001).

While the theoretical underpinnings of status inconsistency theory suggest direct relationships between resource accrual as manifested by tangible opportunities for wealth and assets, feminist theory would draw connections to traditional gender hierarchies in couples and/or families, and suggest that status inconsistency produces deleterious outcomes because these status “shortcomings” have implications for self-worth as they are defined by patriarchy and are directly experienced, to varying degrees, by men (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Lang, 2005; Yick, 2001). Indeed, an integration of status inconsistency with feminist theory would suggest that when a man’s status is threatened by (a) a lack of financial resources or (b) perceptions of inferiority based on incongruent status comparisons, the likelihood of his use of physical violence in the family to maintain control and regain power is increased (Anderson, 1997; Claes & Rosenthal, 1990; Yick, 2001). Relationships characterized by women with higher educational and professional status as compared with their male partners are not, therefore, just barriers to prosocial relationships and positive mental health outcomes. Rather, they are tangible threats to patriarchal values of male dominance and prestige in familial and courtship relationships. In turn, status-reversal relationships may generate feelings of stress, inadequacy, and fear among men (Lenton, 1995; Yick, 2001). To neutralize these feelings, men may rely on the most fundamental source of power available to them—the use of physical strength and violence to dominate women (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Jasinski, 2001; McCloskey, 1996; Teichman & Teichman, 1989; Yick, 2001).

Although studies often examine rates of domestic violence among couples of different socioeconomic status levels, few studies have examined the influence of differences in education and employment within the couple itself (Anderson, 1997; Atkinson et al., 2005; Gelles, 1974; Hornung, McCullough, & Sugimoto, 1981; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; McCloskey, 1996; Yllo & Bograd, 1988; Walker, 1999). A substantial body of literature has examined the educational level and employment status of women, as compared with other women, as risk factors for IPV victimization, with mixed results. A recent meta-analysis by Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, and Tritt (2004) revealed, however, that female employment tends to increase risk of IPV victimization and that higher levels of education decrease female victimization risk, although the effect sizes were not substantial (employment, r = .01; education, r = −.05). Conversely, male unemployment (r = −.10) and low education level (r = −.13) predicted perpetration of IPV. These studies, however, did not account for the role of employment and education status as compared with that of a partner, raising questions about the impact of such comparisons on IPV victimization.

More recently, several scholars have examined the impact of female employment among immigrant couples in the United States, particularly as it facilitates acculturation and contributes to marital conflict (Flores, Tschann, Marin, & Pantoja, 2004; Grzywacz, Rao, Gentry, Marín, & Arcury, 2009). Findings suggested, for example, that among Mexican American females, acculturation via employment contradicts culturally defined, traditional gender role expectations, challenging the beliefs and values of male partners and increasing risk of marital conflict and violence (Grzywacz et al., 2009). Indeed, studies have demonstrated that as Mexican immigrant women acculturate, they feel empowered and are more likely to demand greater equality in terms of decision-making and independence, subsequently amplifying relationship stress and occasionally resulting in victimization by male partners (Flores et al., 2004; Frias & Angel, 2005; Grzywacz et al., 2009).

A select few studies have included measures to assess the patriarchal nature of a partnership while examining the impact of intracouple status indicators, though within the literature on resource exchange and status inconsistency, integration of these feminist theoretical contributions to the study of IPV is rather sparse (but see Anderson, 1997; Atkinson et al., 2005; Yick, 2001). Research on status inconsistency and patriarchal relationship context, as it informs male-to-female IPV, can provide a more complete understanding of the sources of violence and provide suggestions for effective clinical and criminal justice policy interventions. To address this gap in existing research, the current study used a sample of 303 survey responses derived from female community members to assess the effect of status inconsistency and relationship dynamics, including patriarchal family ideology, on IPV within heterosexual partnerships. Specifically, this analysis modeled the relationship between educational and employment status inconsistency and IPV, while considering partnership-specific contexts including patriarchy, relationship distress, and family-of-origin violence to further clarify the factors that correlate with male-to-female interpersonal violence.

Feminism and Status Inconsistency: An Integration

Patriarchal Relationship Context and IPV

Koss and colleagues (1994) argued that “acts of violence against women cannot be understood solely through common psychological approaches that emphasize individual psychopathology or troubled communication patterns” (p. xvii). To be sure, male violence against women must be conceptualized as a component and consequence of the larger historical, social, and cultural context. Equally important within this framework are gender role ideologies and attitudes about male violence against women that are replicated within heterosexual partnerships (Koss et al., 1994; Yllo, 1983). An examination of studies regarding the influence of patriarchy, traditional gender beliefs, and status inconsistencies has demonstrated positive associations between these factors and male-perpetrated IPV (Anderson, 1997; Atkinson et al., 2005; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1993; Gelles, 1974; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; Yllo, 1983, 1984; Yodanis, 2004). For example, Atkinson et al. (2005) found that among men who earned less than their wives, the endorsement of traditional gender role ideologies increased the likelihood of IPV perpetration as compared with their egalitarian counterparts.

Studies have indicated that when female partners are less accepting of patriarchal values than male partners, they are at greater risk of abuse (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1993), further demonstrating the potential impact of gender and gender stereotypes on partnership dynamics. To be sure, Yllo’s (1983, 1984) macro-level studies examining gender roles and the effect of higher female status on IPV illustrated that states endorsing traditional gender role ideologies produced the highest levels of IPV as compared with states with more egalitarian ideologies. Furthermore, those states with a greater proportion of women boasting high educational, political, and professional status reported a greater prevalence of abuse among husband-dominated families, providing additional evidence for the potential interaction of status inconsistency, gender ideology, and relationship violence. Indeed, analyses that fail to ascertain relationship context may not garner a complete picture of how status inconsistencies affect relationship outcomes such as IPV.

The Effects of Status Inconsistency on IPV Within Heterosexual Intimate Relationships

Micro-level examinations of status and power inconsistencies between male and female partners in the home have produced similar results. Specifically, inconsistencies in power and status, such that the female partner has more social and financial resources due to employment, income, or education, has predicted a range of adverse consequences (Anderson, 1997; Gelles, 1974; Hornung et al., 1981; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; McCloskey, 1996; Yllo & Bograd, 1988). One of the most damaging effects of intimate partner differences in status and power has been its inverse relationship with marital satisfaction (Hornung & McCullough, 1981; Tichenor, 1999), where higher female status relative to male partners has been associated with less marital satisfaction among men (Hornung & McCullough, 1981). Tichenor (1999) found, for example, that approximately 64% of individuals in status-reversal relationships (i.e., those in which wives earn substantially more than their husbands) reported marital dissatisfaction, compared with 13% of couples characterized as conventional, where the male partner earned equal to or significantly more than the female. Additional research has disclosed that, among couples reporting higher female income, there is a greater risk of divorce and lower marital quality for women (Heckert, Nowak, & Snyder, 1998; Ono, 1998). These findings suggest that the presence of status inconsistencies in intimate relationships may produce deleterious results, such as relationship dissatisfaction among both men and women, potentially leading to more serious outcomes, including domestic abuse.

Although theories about power and violence against women exist in the current literature, there are relatively few quantitative investigations of the relationship between power dynamics, status differences, and male-perpetrated IPV (Anderson, 1997; Gelles, 1974; Hornung et al., 1981; Lenton, 1995; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; Teichman & Teichman, 1989; Tichenor, 1999; Yllo, 1983). Among these analyses, results have demonstrated a somewhat consistent relationship between higher female professional status, income earned, and employment and increased risk of male-perpetrated domestic abuse (Anderson, 1997; Atkinson et al., 2005; Gelles, 1974; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; McCloskey, 1996; Yllo & Bograd, 1988).

Claes and Rosenthal (1990) found, for example, that men were more likely to abuse their female partners when they perceived them as having power. In a study by Anderson (1997), male-perpetrated IPV increased among couples when the woman made more money relative to her male partner. Furthermore, results indicated that as the gap in income earned between partners increased, so did the likelihood of male-perpetrated violence, suggesting that higher male income in a heterosexual partnership operated in a protective capacity for the perpetration of IPV (Anderson, 1997). Moreover, the likelihood of IPV perpetration has been higher among males who reported lower earnings than their partners, particularly among those who also endorsed traditional gender role beliefs (Atkinson et al., 2005; Chung, Tucker, & Takeuchi, 2008). The latter reiterates not only the significance of feminist theory and gender role traditionality as it influences relationship outcomes independently but also how these relationship contexts may interact with status discrepancies to produce even greater adversity among intimate partners.

Research has also reported significant relationships between status inconsistencies and IPV in couples where female partners held more prestigious professional positions as compared with male intimates (Gelles, 1974; Yllo & Bograd, 1988). Results have been mixed in this regard, however, as a study by McCloskey (1996) demonstrated that higher occupational status among female partners did not have a significant effect on male IPV perpetration. Even so, inconsistencies in income earned (i.e., female partner earning more than male) were associated with increased victimization among the women in McCloskey’s analysis.

The majority of research examining the effect of status inconsistency among heterosexual partners has focused on the impact of relative income and occupational prestige on the exclusion of employment status. Over time, the number of couples characterized by male primary breadwinners has significantly decreased (Wilkie, 1991). Consequently, it is important to examine the influence of unemployment among males in partnerships with women who are employed. In contrast to relative earnings comparisons, the “status gap” produced by female employment/male unemployment is more pronounced in terms of power and resources.

Employment status has substantive effects, such that females in the role of sole earner have financial control and, consequently, may have greater decision-making power. Even so, the importance of female employment/male unemployment as a risk factor for IPV is in its symbolic representation of traditional gender role ideologies. In other words, when a woman is the only breadwinner in a heterosexual relationship, her status is contrary to patriarchal expectations, which may generate strain among unemployed male partners who lack access to resources (i.e., employment) that confirm their power and masculinity. One study (Kessler & McRae, 1982) reported that wives’ financial independence and role as sole earner had strong negative effects on unemployed husbands’ mental health, beyond that related to wives’ income level or occupational status.

Traditionally, employment status has been a principal component of gender identity, in that masculinity has been largely defined by economic success (Kilmartin, 2000) and, conversely, femininity has been synonymous with domesticity (Johnson, 2005). In couples characterized by female employment/male unemployment, these identities are reversed, even more so than in relationships with employed males who earn less than their female partners. Status-reversal relationships may produce adverse mental health outcomes among unemployed males, thus increasing the potential for male-perpetrated IPV.

Several studies have examined the effect of male and female employment as correlates of IPV; however, only one study (Macmillan & Gartner, 1999) to date has examined male and female partners’ employment status comparatively as they affect risk of IPV. Macmillan and Gartner (1999) found that women who were employed faced decreased risk of IPV victimization when their male partners were also employed; however, employment among women substantially increased their risk of IPV victimization when their male partners were not employed, regardless of other indicators of socioeconomic status or economic deprivation. These findings support the contention of status inconsistency, and more broadly, of feminist theories that highlight patriarchy and gender role stereotyping as contributors to male violence against women. Furthermore, while speculative, findings presented in existing research suggest that male-perpetrated IPV may result, in some relationships, from a desire to regain dominance, power, and control. Given the paucity of studies on employment status inconsistencies and IPV, additional research is necessary to further examine the influence of employment status, particularly within the context of other relationship factors and risk-related variables.

Findings regarding educational status incompatibility are less conclusive than those studies that focus on income inconsistencies within heterosexual couples (Anderson, 1997; Claes & Rosenthal, 1990; Hornung et al., 1981). Evidence has suggested that females who outrank their male partners in terms of education face increased risk of IPV victimization (Gelles, 1974; O’Brien, 1971). Both Gelles (1974) and O’Brien (1971) demonstrated that women who were more educated than their husbands were more likely to experience IPV victimization. In contrast, Hornung et al. (1981) reported a U-shaped relationship between educational status and IPV among men, where male partners reporting relatively higher and relatively lower educational status, compared with men who possessed education equivalent to their female partners, indicated an increased occurrence of IPV. Moreover, the woman’s level of education was most predictive of IPV victimization among both men and women in the sample (Hornung et al., 1981). In one study (Claes & Rosenthal, 1990), educational differences contributed more to the perpetration of violence than perceptions of power between intimate partners; yet women with relatively lower educational levels were more likely to be victimized. These mixed results underscore a gap in the research on status inconsistency and IPV and demonstrate the need for greater clarification in terms of the mechanisms that influence perceptions of power and control and correlate with violence in relationships. This is particularly relevant as women have increasingly sought higher educational attainment and professional positions outside the home.

Purpose of the Current Study

To the best of our knowledge, few studies consider the impact of status measures on adverse relationship outcomes such as IPV and only one study has investigated the effect of employment status as it pertains to power in heterosexual partnerships (Macmillan & Gartner, 1999), despite increases in women’s educational status and dual-earner households. Furthermore, among the status inconsistency literature, research has rarely considered the impact of relationship context in terms of gender role traditionality or patriarchal ideology (but see Anderson, 1997; Atkinson et al., 2005; Yick, 2001). This may be an important consideration independent of status inconsistency or may interact with status inconsistency to produce adverse partnership outcomes. Thus, the current study tested the relationship between education and employment status inconsistencies and IPV in a sample of 303 female community members while considering patriarchal ideology, relationship context, and demographic factors to parcel out the effects of status inconsistency from patriarchal ideology on IPV.

Method

Data were derived from the Fourth Annual Texas Crime Victimization Survey (Kercher, Johnson, & Yun, 2008).¹ Data were collected in 2007 by the Public Policy Research Institute (PPRI) at Texas A&M University. Using a computer-assisted digitized dialing system, 700 citizens were randomly selected from the state of Texas and contacted over the telephone for interviews.² The sample represented 119 of the 254 counties in Texas, or 53% of the counties in the state (Kercher et al., 2008). The current study was interested in assessing the relationship between indicators of status/power and male violence against women in adult relationships. Females who were either currently in a serious romantic relationship (defined as married, cohabiting, or dating) or had been in a serious romantic relationship in the previous 24 months were retained for analysis. The final sample for the analysis was 303 cases.

Dependent Variable

IPV Victimization was captured through the use of a modified version of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) that was administered to the sample during the telephone interview. Responses to each item were coded as dichotomous variables so that “any conflict” was coded 1 and “no conflict” was coded 0 (see Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood, 2006; Whitfield, Anda, Dube, & Felitti, 2003, for similar coding strategies). Thirteen questions pertaining to psychological and physical forms of victimization were aggregated to form the dependent variable so that “any victimization” was coded 1 and “no victimization” was coded 0 (α = .983).³

Independent Variables

Status inconsistency

Educational Status Inconsistency was captured through the use of three dummy variables to measure differences in educational attainment between male and female relationship partners. First, female survey participants selected their highest level of educational attainment from nine ordered response categories that ranged from “no formal schooling” (coded 0) to “doctoral or professional degree” (coded 8). Respondents then selected their male relationship partner’s highest level of educational attainment from the same nine ordered response categories. Next, the mathematical difference was taken by subtracting female education level from male education level producing positive, zero, and negative values. Any case with a positive value captured higher educational attainment among males as compared with their female partners. Cases with negative values captured higher educational attainment among females as compared with their male partners. Cases with values of zero demonstrated equal education levels between both male and female partners. Three dummy variables were then created: Male More Education (no = 0, yes = 1), Female More Education (no = 0, yes = 1), and Male/Female Equal Education (no = 0, yes = 1), with Male More Education as the reference category. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of all variables included in the analysis.

Table 1.

Participant Demographic Variables, Relationship Context Variables, and Status Inconsistency Variables: Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	M	SD	Range	No. of items	α
IPV Victimization	0.668	0.472	0-1	13	.983
Control variables
White	0.608	0.489	0-1
Hispanic	0.269	0.444	0-1
Black	0.098	0.298	0-1
Age	45.248	13.97	18-81
Dating	0.050	0.219	0-1
Cohabiting	0.073	0.260	0-1
Married	0.746	0.436	0-1
Relationship context variables
Relationship Distress	4.579	3.411	0-16	4	.673
Patriarchal Familial Ideology	7.887	2.451	4-16	4	.725
Acceptance of Violence in Relationships	0.170	0.376	0-1	2	.670
Family-of-Origin Violence	0.840	0.368	0-1	4	.642
Status inconsistency variables
Male More Educated (reference)	0.264	0.441	0-1
Female More Educated	0.402	0.491	0-1
Both Equally Educated	0.334	0.472	0-1
Male Only Employed (reference)	0.361	0.481	0-1
Female Only Employed	0.042	0.201	0-1
Male/Female Both Employed	0.569	0.496	0-1
Male/Female Neither Employed	0.028	0.166	0-1

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Employment Status Inconsistency was captured through the use of four dummy variables to measure differences in employment status between male and female relationship partners. Female respondents were asked to report their employment status (no = 0, yes = 1) and the employment status of their male partner, coded similarly. From here, four dummy variables were created: Male Only Employed (no = 0, yes = 1), Female Only Employed (no = 0, yes = 1), Male/Female Both Employed (no = 0, yes = 1), and Male/Female Neither Employed (no = 0, yes = 1), with Male Only Employed as the reference category.

Relationship context

Family-of-origin violence. To capture family-of-origin violence during childhood, the experience of witnessing interparental violence and corporal punishment receipt were assessed. First, subjects were asked if, during their childhood, they witnessed one parent “hit or throw something” at the other parent. Responses were coded “0” if they responded never having witnessed interparental violence and “1” if they responded ever having witnessed interparental violence. Next, respondents were asked if they had ever been physically punished (e.g., “spanking, hitting, slapping”) as children by either parent. Responses were coded “0” if they reported never having been physically punished by either parent and “1” if they reported having been physically punished by either parent. Subjects who responded affirmatively to either forms of family-of-origin violence were coded “1,” and subjects who did not affirm both experiences were coded “0” (see also Franklin & Kercher, 2012; Franklin, Menaker, & Kercher, 2012; α = .642).

Acceptance of the use of violence in relationships

Subjects were asked, “Generally speaking, are there situations that you can imagine in which you would approve of a man slapping his wife’s/girlfriend’s/partner’s face?” Similarly, subjects were asked, “Generally speaking, are there situations that you can imagine in which you would approve of a woman slapping her husband’s/boyfriend’s/partner’s face?” Subjects who responded affirmatively to either of the items were coded “1,” and those who responded negatively to both items were coded “0” (α = .670).

Patriarchal family ideology

Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with four statements about male control in a relationship as it referred to decisions about working outside the home, social activities, head of household designation, and sexual intercourse. Specifically, statements were phrased, “A man has the right to decide whether his wife/partner should work outside the home;” “A man has the right to decide whether his wife/partner should go out in the evening with her friends;” “Sometimes it is important for a man to show his wife/partner he is the head of the house;” and “A man has the right to have sex with his wife/partner when he wants, even though she may not want to.” Responses were captured on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded 1) to strongly agree (coded 4). The four items were summed to create a scale that ranged from 4 to 16, with higher numbers representing increasingly patriarchal family ideology (α = .725).

Relationship distress

A series of four questions was posed to subjects regarding agreement with their intimate partners on relationship-related issues. Subjects were asked to indicate how often they agreed about “managing the money;” “cooking, cleaning, or house repair;” “social activities and entertaining;” and “affection and sexual relations” over a 2-year time period. Each question was captured on a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from never (coded 4) to always (coded 0). Items were summed to create a scale ranging from 0 to 16, with higher numbers reflecting increased relationship distress (α = .673).

Control variables

Three demographic variables were included in the analysis: race/ethnicity, age, and relationship status. Three dummy variables were created to capture race/ethnicity: White (no = 0, yes = 1), Hispanic (no = 0, yes = 1), and African American (no = 0, yes = 1), with White as the reference category. Age was measured as a continuous variable and ranged from 18 to 91 years. Finally, three dummy variables were created to capture relationship status and, in particular, if subjects were currently or had been married (no = 0, yes = 1), cohabiting (no = 0, yes = 1), or dating (no = 0, yes = 1) in the previous 24 months, with dating as the reference category.

Analytic Strategy

The analysis proceeded in two stages. First, independent samples t-tests were conducted to distinguish mean differences between the IPV and no IPV victimization groups. The outcome variable of interest was dichotomous and, as a result, multivariate logistic regression models were estimated to determine whether education and employment status inconsistencies were significantly correlated with reports of IPV victimization, while also considering relationship context and demographic factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).⁴ Three multivariate logistic regression models were estimated, with variables entered sequentially to observe any changes in model fit and assess the interaction between relationship context (e.g., patriarchal family ideology) and status indicators. Model 1 included the dependent variable, regressed on the control variables. Model 2 included the control variables with four relationship context measures added. Model 3 contained all of the variables of interest—adding the status inconsistency measures to determine their effect on IPV victimization, while considering the influence of relationship context, patriarchal family ideology, and demographic controls.

Results

Table 2 presents the results of the independent samples t-tests and demonstrates several significant differences between women who reported IPV victimization and those who reported no IPV victimization. In terms of demographic characteristics, women who reported IPV victimization were significantly younger than their counterparts. In addition, a significantly greater percentage of women who reported IPV were not married as compared with those who reported no IPV victimization. Upon consideration of relationship context descriptors, IPV victims reported significantly more relationship distress, and significantly more family-of-origin violence. In examining the status inconsistency variables, education did not significantly differ across groups, though several employment dyads were significantly different between the IPV victimization subsample and those who reported no IPV victimization. In particular, a greater percentage of the subsample that reported no IPV victimization relied solely on the man’s employment for subsistence. Similarly, a significantly smaller percentage of the couples who reported no IPV victimization were dependent on female-only employment as compared with their victimized counterparts. Finally, a significantly greater percentage of the victimization subsample reported dual-employment partnerships.

Table 2.

Subject Mean Differences Between IPV and No IPV Victimization.

Variables	IPV victimization	No IPV victimization	t value
White	0.622 (0.486)	0.564 (0.498)	−1.049
Hispanic	0.249 (0.433)	0.316 (0.467)	1.303
Black	0.099 (0.299)	0.103 (0.305)	0.113
Age	42.897 (13.080)	49.757 (14.697)	4.415*
Dating Relationship	0.064 (0.245)	0.026 (0.159)	−1.743^†
Cohabiting Relationship	0.081 (0.273)	0.060 (0.239)	−0.689
Married	0.719 (0.450)	0.819 (0.387)	2.152*
Relationship Distress	5.535 (3.265)	2.673 (2.916)	−7.670*
Patriarchal Familial Ideology	7.850 (2.468)	7.852 (2.426)	0.004
Acceptance of Violence in Relationships	0.175 (0.380)	0.154 (0.362)	−0.487
Family-of-Origin Violence	0.899 (0.302)	0.730 (0.446)	−3.645*
Male More Educated	0.265 (0.442)	0.254 (0.437)	−0.210
Female More Educated	0.415 (0.494)	0.377 (0.487)	−0.665
Both Equally Educated	0.321 (0.468)	0.368 (0.485)	0.886
Male Only Employed	0.302 (0.460)	0.478 (0.502)	3.169*
Female Only Employed	0.059 (0.237)	0.009 (0.093)	−2.867*
Male/Female Both Employed	0.613 (0.488)	0.478 (0.502)	−2.377*
Male/Female Neither Employed	0.026 (0.158)	0.035 (0.184)	0.462

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. IPV = intimate partner violence.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Table 3 presents the results of the four multivariate logistic regression equations that estimated the effect of status inconsistency on female IPV victimization. Model 1 contained only the demographic control variables and demonstrated that Hispanic respondents were significantly less likely than their White counterparts to report IPV victimization. Similarly, older women faced significantly decreased odds of victimization when compared with younger women. In Model 2, the relationship context variables, including Patriarchal Family Ideology, were added, which increased the model’s overall predictive strength, as evidenced by the Nagelkerke R² (.326). Hispanic ethnicity and age remained significantly correlated with IPV victimization. In addition, two of the relationship context variables produced significant increases in the dependent variable: Relationship Distress and Family-of-Origin Violence. For each one-unit increase in relationship distress, the odds of victimization increased by 1.356 times. Similarly, experience of violence in the family-of-origin increased the odds of adult victimization by 2.410 times. It is important to note that patriarchal ideology did not reach statistical significance in Model 2, demonstrating no difference in IPV for couples reporting patriarchal, egalitarian, and matriarchal family dynamics—a finding that is inconsistent with the expectations surmised by the feminist explanation of violence against women (e.g., R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Models: The Effect of Status Inconsistency Factors on IPV Victimization.

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	b	SE	Exp(b)	b	SE	Exp(b)	b	SE	Exp(b)
Control variables
White (reference)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Hispanic	−0.926	0.296	0.396*	−1.012	0.378	0.364*	−0.939	0.389	0.391*
Black	−0.443	0.421	0.642	−0.890	0.550	0.411	−0.987	0.573	0.373^†
Age	−0.046	0.010	0.955*	−0.047	0.013	0.955*	−0.055	0.014	0.947*
Dating (reference)	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Cohabiting	−0.254	0.568	0.776	−0.467	0.775	0.627	−0.091	0.807	0.913
Married	−0.441	0.352	0.644	−0.423	0.502	0.655	−0.160	0.534	0.853
Relationship Context Variables
Relationship Distress				0.304	0.055	1.356*	0.314	0.058	1.369*
Patriarchal Family Ideology				0.045	0.062	1.046	0.071	0.065	1.073
Acceptance of Violence in Relationships				−0.284	0.381	0.753	−0.380	0.402	0.684
Family-of-Origin Violence				0.880	0.418	2.410*	0.979 1	0.438	2.690* *
Status Inconsistency Variables
Male More Educated (reference)							—	—	—
Female More Educated							−0.673	0.401	0.510^†
Both Equally Educated							−0.646	0.432	0.524
Male Only Employed (reference)							—	—	—
Female Only Employed							1.846	1.221	6.332
Male/Female Both Employed							0.796	0.324	2.216*
Male/Female Neither Employed							2.486	1.216	12.012*
Model χ²	30.295*			76.961*			88.322*
Nagelkerke’s R²	.117			.326			.371

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Model 3 presents the results of the full model. The dependent variable was regressed on the education and employment status inconsistency indicators, relationship context variables, and demographic controls. Hispanic ethnicity and age remained significant correlates of victimization and relationship distress and family-of-origin violence continued to produce significant increases in the odds of IPV, while patriarchal family ideology maintained non-significance. The addition of status inconsistency measures demonstrated that, while education inconsistency failed to reach statistical significance, differences in employment between relationship partners produced several significant findings. First, those partnerships where only women held paid employment did not produce effects on IPV that significantly differed when compared with male-only employment households. Results demonstrated that when both males and females were employed, however, the odds of victimization increased by 2.216 times, lending credence to the notion that female employment (as a proxy for independence and status) may challenge male authority and power in a partnership, particularly as compared with those households where the male partner was the primary breadwinner. Findings presented here, however, are inconsistent with results reported by Macmillan and Gartner (1999). Moreover, the final model was able to account for 37% of the variation in the dependent variable as evidenced by the Nagelkerke R² (.371) and significant model χ².

Discussion

This research used an integrated framework drawing from traditional sociological theory on status inconsistency, paired with tenets from the feminist explanation for violence against women (Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980; R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Lorber, 2001) to determine whether employment and educational inconsistencies in status (i.e., female employment/male unemployment, higher female education level) functioned as risk factors for male-perpetrated IPV, while considering patriarchal ideologies and relationship contexts. Several important findings are worthy of additional discussion.

First, in contrast to prior work (Gelles, 1974; O’Brien, 1971), educational inconsistency was not correlated with male-to-female IPV among the sample in this study. It is instructive to note that relationships where women reported greater educational attainment than their male partners approached significance as a correlate of IPV victimization (Exp(b) = .510, p < .10). Even so, educational attainment among heterosexual couples had no significant impact on IPV outcomes. This may be explained, in part, by the increased availability of post-secondary educational options, the increased expectation that both men and women will obtain post-secondary education, and an increasing number of men and women who are involved in higher education learning. Collectively, these factors may have diminished the potential that partners differed in educational level or perceived educational attainment as threats to power. In addition, differences in education level, while indicative of potential disparity in professional status or earning potential between partners, may not directly predict access to power through tangible resources in the same way as employment outside the home. Indeed, an individual’s education level is a proximate measure for other concrete status indicators, such as professional prestige, whereas employment outside the home represents physical presence in a work environment as opposed to remaining inside the couple’s dwelling. To be sure, factors like family background may have more to do with the decision to leave the home for wage-earned labor (e.g., Del Boca, Locatelli, & Pasqua, 2000) than educational status, speculating why education status discrepancies may have little to do with IPV among heterosexual couples.

Second, employment status inconsistency was correlated with the outcome of interest, though findings were contrary to those presented by Macmillan and Gartner (1999). Results revealed increased risk of IPV victimization among women who were part of a dual-earning couple as compared with male-only breadwinner partnerships. Put differently, dual-employment partnerships increased the odds of victimization by 2.2 times as compared with male-only employment relationships. This finding lends some support to research on resource exchange, status inconsistency, and general feminist contentions regarding the way in which working outside the home may threaten a man’s status through his primary control of power, resources, and social capital in a relationship. Indeed, when women are homebound through their role as domestic workers, they lack connections to co-workers and the social capital that is produced through those connections, in addition to wages, job prestige, resources, and thus, power. In turn, they must rely solely on their male partner for financial sustenance and can benefit from the distinction that his employment brings the couple. Those women who work outside the home have access to these tangible and intangible assets, which may devalue or, in some cases, even undermine the contributions and provisions supplied by male-only employment. Future research may qualitatively assess the circumstances in which both partners work outside the home to investigate the context for increased risk in dual-employment homes. It is possible that those relationships that turn to female employment as a supplement to male income in times of financial need are more vulnerable to IPV than relationships where both partners are employed with lengthy and stable professional careers.

Results also indicated that when both partners were unemployed, the odds of IPV victimization increased by 12.0 times as compared with those couples with a male-only breadwinner. The direction and magnitude of this relationship speaks to the substantial stress and strain that unemployment may have on heterosexual relationships that lack money and resources to meet basic needs. In other words, in relationships plagued by unemployment, status inconsistency is less of a concern and source of contention when compared with basic survival. Others have argued that financial stress and economic disadvantage in a family produces general strain (Agnew, 1992), which may manifest through intra-familial homicide and particularly IPV directed toward women (e.g., Diem & Pizarro, 2010). Findings presented in this study add to existing research on the deleterious impact of general financial disadvantage for women’s victimization (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, 2003; Harries & Kovandzic, 1999; Miles-Doan, 1998; Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003), and also underscore the role of employment status on IPV by highlighting the substantial difference that wage-earned labor has on relationship dynamics as compared with the negligible impact of differences in education level on relationship safety.

Third, two relationship context measures continued to produce an effect on IPV after considering the influence of employment and educational status inconsistencies. Relationship distress and family-of-origin violence were both significantly and positively correlated with IPV victimization among the women in this study. Indeed, for each one-unit increase in relationship distress, the odds of IPV victimization increased by 1.37 times. Similarly, an increase in the experience of family-of-origin violence increased the odds of IPV victimization by 2.69 times. Somewhat surprisingly, patriarchal family ideology had no significant or substantive effect on IPV among the women in this sample. While relatively unexpected, this finding is important for two reasons. First, employment status maintained substantive and statistical significance after considering the impact of patriarchy, suggesting that tangible markers of power may be more predictive of IPV than reported ideological belief systems, at least among the couples represented in this sample. Second, patriarchal ideology and the acceptance of violence in relationships were two of four relationship context variables that emerged as nonsignificant in Models 2 and 3 of the current study. It may be that relationship distress, or disagreement about important decisions in a relationship, and family-of-origin violence introduce adversity in a relationship with a magnitude that blunts any effect that patriarchy or gender ideology has on IPV outcomes. Finally, Hispanic ethnicity and age exerted significant effects on IPV victimization. In particular, women who were Hispanic and who were older faced a decreased risk of IPV victimization as compared with their White and younger counterparts.

The findings presented in this study are important in terms of contributing to the existing literature on status inconsistency, feminist theory, and IPV; however, this study is not without limitations. First, this analysis was cross-sectional and so any significant and substantive relationships uncovered in this analysis were correlational in nature. Second, while this analysis incorporated a random population sample, this was accomplished through a digitized dialing process and participants represented individuals who could be contacted via the telephone. Third, the reports of current IPV victimization were derived from one member of the two-person partnership. Studies have discussed the importance of involving both partners in capturing data on violence in relationships. Despite this, research continues to query one member of the partnership with success in terms of identifying violent and aggressive behavior in relationships (e.g., Bair-Merritt, Holmes, Holmes, Feinstein, & Feudtner, 2008; Whiting, Simmons, Havens, Smith, & Oka, 2009). Finally, while this study used a random sample of adult community members, these participants were residentially located within the state of Texas–a large southern geographic region that may have presented important cultural considerations when interpreting and generalizing the results of the analysis, particularly as they pertain to traditionality in relationship ideology. Future research should attempt to replicate the findings presented here by randomly sampling larger, more geographically diverse adult populations.

In spite of these limitations, results from this study may inform strategies used in clinical practice as they relate to individual risk factors and sociocultural influences on IPV among heterosexual couples. Findings indicating that family-of-origin violence increases risk of IPV victimization among women further highlight the need for psychoeducational programming to target youth who have been exposed to interparental violence. Doing so may prevent or address attitudes endorsing the use of violence in relationships that have been socialized as acceptable mechanisms for conflict resolution. Results also demonstrated that relationship distress due to disagreement on relationship-related issues increased the odds of IPV, providing further support for interventions focused on the development of adaptive conflict resolution strategies among couples.

Perhaps most important, findings related to status inconsistency highlight the need for clinical practitioners to consider gender-specific cultural and contextual origins of individual symptomatology in treatment. Certainly, most men do not use physical violence as a means to maintain power and control in an intimate relationship. Even so, research revealing risk factors for such behavior aids in the prevention of male-perpetrated IPV as well as interventions with men who victimize their partners. Individual and couples counseling for IPV should consider status inconsistencies as potential risk factors for future violence. Efforts should focus on cognitive restructuring for male partners in terms of patriarchal value endorsement as it pertains to the male breadwinner role, approval of gender stereotyping, and gender-specific issues of self-perception and self-worth that are derived from wage-earned labor.

Deconstructing the impact of status inconsistency on IPV victimization among heterosexual couples allows researchers and counseling professionals to address what may be the underlying cause of violence in these types of relationships. Continued investigation of the factors that influence power dynamics within intimate relationships, such as status inconsistency, contributes to a greater understanding of the impact of cultural and contextual forces on IPV, particularly as they may translate into gender role stereotyping. Moreover, diligent focus on the risk factors that increase vulnerability to victimization in interpersonal partnerships aids in theory-building as well as prevention and treatment strategies in an attempt to eradicate partner violence.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Glen A. Kercher and the Crime Victims’ Institute at Sam Houston State University for providing the data analyzed herein.

Authors’ Note

The opinions presented here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the funding agency.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Crime Victims’ Institute at Sam Houston State University.

Notes

Author Biographies

Cortney A. Franklin, PhD, is an associate professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. She earned her PhD in criminal justice from Washington State University in 2008. Her research interests include women’s victimization, particularly sexual assault and intimate partner violence, feminist and criminological theory, and gender and justice issues. Her recent work has appeared in Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Aggressive Behavior, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Feminist Criminology.

Tasha A. Menaker, PhD, earned her degree in criminal justice from Sam Houston State University in 2014. She also holds a master’s degree in clinical psychology from Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include feminist criminology and the study of trauma and violence against women, particularly as it relates to intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and the commercial sexual exploitation of girls. Her work has been published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Child Abuse Review, and Victims and Offenders.

References

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47-88.

Anderson

K. L.

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

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.

Bair-Merritt

M. H.

Holmes

W. C.

Holmes

J. H.

Feinstein

Feudtner

(2008). Does intimate partner violence epidemiology differ between homes with and without children: A population-based study of annual prevalence and associated risk factors. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 325-332.

Belsley

D. A.

Kuh

Welsch

R. E.

(1980). Regression diagnostics. New York: Wiley.

Benson

M. L.

Fox

G. L.

DeMaris

Van Wyk

(2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 207-236.

Brownmiller

(1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Burt

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Chung

G. H.

Tucker

M. B.

Takeuchi

(2008). Wives’ relative income production and household male dominance: Examining violence among Asian American enduring couples. Family Relations, 57, 227-238.

10.

Claes

J. A.

Rosenthal

D. M.

(1990). Men who batter women: A study in power. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 215-224.

11.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(1993). Male peer support and woman abuse: An expansion of DeKeseredy’s model. Sociological Spectrum, 13, 393-414.

12.

Del Boca

Locatelli

Pasqua

(2000). Employment decisions of married women: Evidence and explanations. Labour, 14, 35-52.

13.

Diem

Pizarro

J. M.

(2010). Social structure and family homicides. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 521-532.

14.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

R. P.

(1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.

15.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Cohen

Brown

Smailes

Chen

Johnson

J. G.

(2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4, 741-753.

16.

Fergusson

D. M.

Boden

J. M.

Horwood

L. J.

(2006). Examining the intergenerational transmission of violence in a New Zealand birth cohort. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 89-108.

17.

Flores

Tschann

J. M.

Marin

B. V.

Pantoja

(2004). Marital conflict and accultura-tion among Mexican American husbands and wives. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 39-52.

18.

Franklin

C. A.

Kercher

G. A.

(2012). The intergenerational transmission of intimate partner violence: Differentiating correlates in a random community sample. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 187-199.

19.

Franklin

C. A.

Menaker

T. A.

Kercher

G. A.

(2012). Risk and resiliency factors that mediate the effect of family-of-origin violence on adult intimate partner victimization and perpetration. Victims & Offenders, 7, 121-142.

20.

Frias

S. M.

Angel

R. J.

(2005). The risk of partner violence among low-income Hispanic subgroups. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 552-564.

21.

Gelles

R. J.

(1974). The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and wives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

22.

Gover

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.

23.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Rao

Gentry

Marín

Arcury

T. A.

(2009). Acculturation and conflict in Mexican immigrants’ intimate partnerships: The role of women’s labor force participation. Violence Against Women, 15, 1194-1212.

24.

Harries

Kovandzic

(1999). Persistence, intensity and areal extent of violence against women: Baltimore City, 1992 to 1995. Violence Against Women, 5, 813-828.

25.

Heckert

D. A.

Nowak

T. C.

Snyder

K. A.

(1998). The impact of husbands’ and wives’ relative earnings on marital disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 690-703.

26.

Hornung

C. A.

McCullough

B. C.

(1981). Status relationships in dual-employment marriages: Consequences for psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 131-146.

27.

Hornung

C. A.

McCullough

B. C.

Sugimoto

(1981). Status relationships in marriage: Risk factors in spouse abuse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 675-692.

28.

Hotaling

G. T.

Sugarman

D. B.

(1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101-124.

29.

Jasinski

J. L.

(2001). Theoretical explanations for violence against women. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 5-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Johnson

A. G.

(2005). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

31.

Kalmuss

(1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 11-19.

32.

Kercher

G. A.

Johnson

M. C.

Yun

(2008). Intimate partner violence. Huntsville, TX: Crime Victims’ Institute, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University.

33.

Kessler

R. C.

McRae

(1982). The effects of wives’ employment. American Sociological Review, 47, 216-227.

34.

Kilmartin

C. T.

(2000). The masculine self (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

35.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

36.

Koss

M. P.

Goodman

L. A.

Browne

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Keita

G. P.

Russo

N. F.

(1994). No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, in the community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

37.

Lenton

R. L.

(1995). Power versus feminist theories of wife abuse. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 305-330.

38.

Lorber

(2001). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

39.

Lutze

F. E.

Symons

M. L.

(2002). The evolution of domestic violence policy through masculine institutions: From discipline to protection to collaborative empowerment. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 319-328.

40.

Macmillan

Gartner

(1999). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force participation and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 947-958.

41.

McCloskey

(1996). Socioeconomic and coercive power within the family. Gender & Society, 10, 449-463.

42.

Miles-Doan

(1998). Violence between spouses and intimates: Does neighborhood context matter? Social Forces, 77, 623-645.

43.

O’Brien

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

44.

Ono

(1998). Husbands and wives resources and marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 674-689.

45.

Schwartz

M. D.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65-98.

47.

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.

48.

Stryker

Macke

A. S.

(1978). Status inconsistency and role conflict. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 57-90.

49.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

50.

Teichman

(1989). Violence in the family: An analysis in terms of interpersonal resource-exchange. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 127-142.

51.

Tichenor

V. J.

(1999). Status and income as gendered resources: The case of marital power. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 638-650.

52.

Van Wyk

J. A.

Benson

M. L.

Fox

G. L.

DeMaris

(2003). Detangling individual-, partner- and community-level correlates of partner violence. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 412-438.

53.

Walker

L. E.

(1999). Psychology and domestic violence around the world. American Psychologist, 54, 21-29.

54.

Whitfield

C. L.

Anda

R. F.

Dube

S. R.

Felitti

V. J.

(2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults: Assessment in a large health maintenance organization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 166-185.

55.

Whiting

J. B.

Simmons

L. A.

Havens

J. R.

Smith

D. B.

Oka

(2009). Intergenerational transmission of violence: The influence of self-appraisals, mental disorders, and substance use. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 639-648.

56.

Wilkie

J. R.

(1991). The decline in men’s labor force participation and income and the changing structure of family economic support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 111-122.

57.

Yick

A. G.

(2001). Feminist theory and status inconsistency theory: Application to domestic violence in Chinese immigrant families. Violence Against Women, 7, 545-562.

58.

Yllo

(1983). Sexual equality and violence against wives in American states. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 14, 67-86.

59.

Yllo

(1984). The status of women, marital equality, and violence against wives. Journal of Family Issues, 5, 307-320.

60.

Yllo

Bograd

(1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

61.

Yodanis

C. L.

(2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 655-675.