Feeling Controlled in Marriage: a Phenomenon Specific to Physically Aggressive Couples? Miriam K
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1999, Vol. 13, No. 1,20-32 0893-320O/99/$3.0O Feeling Controlled in Marriage: A Phenomenon Specific to Physically Aggressive Couples? Miriam K. Ehrensaft, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Richard E. Heyman, K. Daniel O'Leary, and Erika Lawrence State University of New York at Stony Brook Spouses in maritally happy nonaggressive (H; n = 21), distressed nonaggressive (DNA; n = 16), and distressed aggressive (DA; n = 20) marriages were inter- viewed about their perceptions of their spouse as controlling. Four areas of spousal control were assesed: involvement in decision making, relationships with family and friends, freedom to plan activities independently, and sense of competence and self-respect. Overall, as expected, spouses in happy marriages reported feeling less controlled than spouses in the 2 distressed groups. Few gender differences were obtained, with the exception that wives in aggressive marriages were more likely to report that their husbands controlled their sense of competence and self-respect. Differences between the DA and DNA groups depended on the specific area of control. Wives in the aggressive couples were significantly more likely than their husbands to state that their spouse's aggression was an attempt to control them. Scholars and practitioners from a variety of between marital aggression and control, defini- theoretical perspectives have asserted that there tions of control produced by each theory, and is a relationship between coercive control and empirical research that has been associated with the occurrence of physical aggression in mar- these definitions. Then a definition of control is riage (Black, 1983; Finkelhor, 1983; Gondolf, offered, drawing from each of these three 1985; Stets, 1988). Efforts to test this assertion, theories. Finally, the relationship between this however, have been hampered by a lack of definition of control and physical aggression is agreement on how to operationally define studied in a sample of distressed aggressive spousal control. Consequently, this article briefly (DA), distressed nonaggressive (DNA), and reviews existing theories explicating the link nondistressed nonaggressive (H) couples. Partner abuse literature points to three impor- Miriam K. Ehrensaft, Jennifer Langhinrichsen- tant theoretical frameworks for understanding Rohling, Richard E. Heyman, K. Daniel O'Leary, and the link between marital aggression and control: Erika Lawrence, Department of Psychology, State attachment, feminist, and social control theories. University of New York at Stony Brook. Bowlby's (1969, 1973, 1977, 1988) attachment Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling is now at the theory postulates that aggression against an Department of Psychology, University of South Alabama. Erika Lawrence is now at the Department attachment figure, whether during childhood or of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles. adulthood, is a control strategy that functions to This research was supported in part by National regain either physical or emotional proximity to Institute of Mental Health Grant MH19107. Because that figure, when the bond with that figure is the research constituted Miriam K. Ehrensaft's perceived to be endangered. Individuals who are doctoral specialties project, special thanks are ex- insecurely attached to their primary attachment tended to committee members Marvin Goldfried, figure are more likely to perceive subjective David Pomeranz, and Dana Bramel. threats to the bond with their attachment figure, Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Miriam K. Ehrensaft, who is now at the as compared with individuals who are securely Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New attached (Bowlby, 1977; Hazan & Shaver, York State Psychiatric Institute, 722 West 168th Street, 1987). A definition of control based on attach- Unit 78, New York, New York 10032. Electronic mail ment theory would encompass behaviors in- may be sent to [email protected]. tended to regulate the proximity of the attach- 20 CONTROL IN MARRIAGE 21 ment figure. Consistent with attachment theory, ful behavior (e.g., Gondolf, 1985). A definition clinical reports indicate that battering men are of control based on this theory would describe highly controlling toward their partner and behaviors intended to maintain adherence to display extreme difficulty in tolerating their perceived regulations and norms within the partner's autonomy (Elbow, 1977; Ganley, marriage; violence could be used as a form of 1981; Gondolf, 1985; Shields & Hanneke, 1983; retribution for violations of such norms. Sonkin, Martin, & Walker, 1985; Walker, 1984). In summary, ideas from attachment, feminist, Research suggests that partner-violent men are and social control perspectives each yield more likely to be insecurely attached to and are theoretical support for a relationship between less trusting of their partner (Holtzworth- control and physical aggression in marriage and Munroe, Stuart, & Hutchinson, 1997), display different operational definitions of control. higher needs to control emotional distance in Drawing ideas from each of these three theories, their marriage (Dutton & Strachan, 1987), and we propose that an assessment of control should are more dependent on their partner than are cover the following areas: reducing the spouse's DNA men (Murphy, Meyer, & O'Leary, 1993). power to make decisions, limitations of the Feminist theory provides a second theoretical spouse's relationships with others and indepen- link between control and aggression in romantic dence in daily activities, and diminution of his relationships. This theory views family violence or her self-image and ego strength. Behaviors in each of these domains may be defined as as an outgrowth of a patriarchal hierarchy that controlling when they attempt to or have the sanctions the use of male-female violence as a effect of directing or constraining the spouse's means of maintaining male power within the actions, thoughts, or emotions. We reasoned that marriage (Denzin, 1984; Dobash & Dobash, an individual might control his or her spouse in 1979; Lips, 1991). Consistent with this stance, just one, or several, of these areas and, thus, rates of wife abuse appear to be lower in included a separate assessment of control over societies in which wives have economic influ- each area. For us to distinguish feeling con- ence within the marriage, compared with those trolled from mutual and normative interspousal in which wives have little or no economic influence, these attempts had to be perceived as influence (Levinson, 1988). Family violence is negative by the recipient. Control was also also less common in societies in which men do differentiated here from psychological maltreat- not expect to be masters of their homes and ment of a spouse (e.g., Marshall, 1992). We tolerance for violence is low (O'Kelly & conceptualized psychological maltreatment as a Carney, 1986). On the basis of feminist theory, broader, umbrella structure, of which control- partner control (especially by men) would be ling behavior is only one specific subtype, as not denned in terms of male-dominated decision all psychological maltreatment described in the making, beliefs about men's greater competence literature is necessarily controlling (Marshall, relative to women, and expectations that men's 1992; Tolman, 1989). For instance, verbal needs take priority over women's needs. hostility toward a spouse may be psychologi- Social control theory provides a third theoreti- cally maltreating, whereas its actual or per- cal connection between marital aggression and ceived function might be to express anger, rather spousal control. Black (1983) has suggested that than control, per se. There is some disagreement among domestic violence researchers regarding violent responses to perceived deviance or the differentiation between psychological abuse injustice by others serve as conflict manage- and control. Although some maintain that the ment, as a means of expressing grievances, and function of all psychological abuse is to control as a form of social control. Consistent with this the partner, others disagree. Because it is our theory, most marital assaults do occur in the position that the function and impact of all context of disagreement or a grievance (O'Leary psychological abuse may or may not be to et al., 1989; Vera Institute of Justice, 1977). control the partner, we chose specifically to Social control theory may also be operative in focus our definition of control on behaviors that remarks made by male batterers, implying that do constrain or limit the partner and that are their wives deserved to be beaten for perceived perceived by the partner as unwanted. offenses such as attempts at autonomy, failure to fulfill traditional household chores, or disrespect- It is surprising that few empirical studies have 22 EHRENSAFT ET AL. sought to demonstrate the link between control partners. For husbands, our hypothesis was and marital aggression, and most existing based on findings indicating that aggressive men studies suffer from important methodological have stronger needs for control than do nonag- shortcomings. First, most studies that address gressive men (Kimerling & Arias, 1994), control fail to specify just what it is that they are suggesting that aggressive husbands might be measuring. Other studies do not differentiate more likely to interpret their wives' behaviors