CATHERINE KAUKINEN
Bowling Green State University
Status Compatibility, Physical Violence, and Emotional
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
This article analyzing national data (N ¼ 7,408)
examines the connection between men’s and
women’s relative economic contributions in
families and the risk of husband-to-wife physical
violence and emotional abuse. Family violence
researchers have conceptualized the association
between economic variables and the risk of intimate partner violence with respect to the structural dimensions of sociodemographic factors,
whereas feminist researchers connect economic
power to family dynamics. Marital dependency
and stress frustration theories treat income,
education, and employment as socioeconomic
resources, whereas some feminist research points
to the need for research that treats these economic variables as symbolic resources. Although
income and educational attainment reduce
women’s risk of physical violence and emotional
abuse by husbands, I find that status incompatibilities between partners that favor women
increase the likelihood of emotional abuse.
Although men have historically served as primary family providers, more recently, women
have made inroads into the paid labor force, and
their financial contributions are increasingly
important resources for family financial wellbeing (Amato, Johnson, Booth, & Rogers, 2003;
White & Rogers, 2000). The transformation in
Department of Sociology, Williams Hall, Bowling
Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403
([email protected]).
Key Words: emotional abuse, intimate partner violence,
status compatibilities.
452
the roles and responsibilities of women and men
has led to concurrent changes in the quality of
intimate relationships. These changes have implications for marital satisfaction and stability (Nock,
2001; White & Rogers) and are associated with
the risk of intimate partner violence (Anderson,
1997; Hornung, McCullough, & Sugimoto, 1981;
Jasinski, 2001; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999).
I examine the connection between men’s and
women’s economic contributions and women’s
risk of intimate partner abuse. More specifically,
I explore how status compatibility between partners shapes the risk of physical violence and emotional abuse.
I examine three separate status compatibility
measures that tap men’s and women’s contributions to family economic well-being through
employment, income, and education. These measures tap a continuum of status compatibility
between intimate partners, including status parity
and two distinct forms of status incompatibility
(see Table 1). Status parity denotes egalitarian
relationships in which neither partner is dominant, both are employed (or unemployed), they
make equal contributions to household income,
and they have similar educational backgrounds.
Although these relationships in the past were
nonnormative, as Nock (2001) notes, ‘‘marriages
of equally dependent spouses’’ have become
increasingly more common and represent
approximately 20% of all marriages. This article
also explores the relationship between intimate
partner violence and two forms of status incompatibility. The first form of status incompatibility
is that of traditional status relationships in which
the incompatibility favors the husband. Traditional
Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (May 2004): 452–471
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
453
TABLE 1
DEFINING, MEASURING, AND EXAMINING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN STATUS
COMPATIBILITY AND INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE
Defining Status Compatibility
Attribute
Normative
Economic differential
Traditional Status
Status Parity
Status Reversal
Yes
Yes (man dominant)
No/Yes
No
No
Yes (woman dominant)
Measuring Status Compatibility
Economic Status
Employment
Education
Income
Traditional Status
Status Parity
Status Reversal
Woman unemployed/partner employed
Woman employed/partner
employed
Woman employed/partner
unemployed
Similar education
Similar incomes
Woman unemployed/
partner unemployed
Woman has less education
Woman earns less
Woman does not know
household income
Woman has more education
Woman earns more
Examining the Association Between Status Compatibility and Violence/Abuse
Hypothesis
Marital dependency
Marital quality
Stress frustrationa
Feminist
Resource
Traditional Status
Status Parity
Status Reversal
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
þ
Note: þDenotes a positive association between the status compatibility measure and the risk of violence or emotional
abuse.
a
Applies only to low-income, undereducated status parity couples in which both partners are unemployed.
status relationships are characterized by more
highly educated husbands being the primary
breadwinners as compared to their wives. The
second form of status incompatibility, status reversal, is nonnormative and much less common. In
these relationships, the financial contributions of
the woman relative to her husband are the reverse
of what has been typical in two-earner couples
(Tichenor, 1999). Status reversal wives have
higher educational attainment, contribute a
greater proportion to the household income, and
are more likely to be employed while their husbands are unemployed. I explore how these three
status relationships reflecting men’s and women’s
relative contribution to family socioeconomic
well-being shape women’s risk for both physical violence and emotional abuse.
INSIGHTS
FROM
PAST RESEARCH
Research on intimate partner violence has often
conceptualized the effects of income, education,
and employment in terms of the structural dimensions of these socioeconomic factors. Marital
dependency (Kalmuss & Straus, 1990; Straus,
Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980) and stress frustration
theories (Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler,
& Sandin, 1997; Riggs, Caulfield, & Street,
2000; Straus, 1990; Straus et al.) view income,
454
education, and employment as indicators of
access to economic resources (or lack thereof).
Yet, Anderson (1997) suggests that power differences between partners, rather than individual
sociodemographic position per se, place women
at risk for abuse. Her framework clearly points to
the importance of and interaction between gender
and economic status within intimate relationships, thereby integrating elements of both
feminist and family violence perspectives.
Women’s Dependence on Marriage and the Risk
of Intimate Partner Abuse
Although relationship violence correlates with a
number of sociodemographic variables, including
income, education, employment, race, and social
class (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986, 1990; Straus
et al., 1980), traditional status arrangements favoring men potentially place women at greatest risk
for intimate partner violence (see Table 1). In
addition to increasing the risk of violence, marital
dependency perspectives suggest that given
women’s dependence on marriage, women’s lack
of educational, occupational, and financial
resources, and their disproportionate responsibility
for children limit their ability to end violent
relationships (Kalmuss & Straus, 1990). Women’s
dependence on their husbands is often tied to their
typically inferior earning power, which forces
women to rely on their partners to maintain their
standard of living (Straus & Gelles, 1986). Lupri,
Grandin, and Brinkerhoff (1994) suggest that
because men hold the majority of high-paying
positions in society, it follows that they also command higher power in marital and family relationships. The presence of young children may further
reinforce women’s dependency on marriage by
limiting their opportunity for paid employment
(Kalmuss & Straus). Women’s overwhelming
responsibility of caring for children both during
and after marital dissolution creates even more
pressure to tolerate violence (Straus & Smith,
1990). Wives who are economically dependent on
marriage are therefore less able to end or leave
violent relationships than are women in marriages
where the balance of economic resources is more
nearly equal (Kalmuss & Straus; Pagelow, 1981;
Strube & Barbour, 1983). The marital dependency
approach therefore suggests that traditional status
relationships place women at risk for intimate partner violence and abuse and may also impede
women’s ability to flee violent relationships.
Journal of Marriage and Family
Status Parity, Marital Quality, and the Risk of
Intimate Partner Abuse
Women’s increasing financial contributions to
their households have led to a rise in marriages
based on status parity. Nock (2001) points out
that approximately one fifth of all marriages and
almost a third of dual-income households are
‘‘marriages of equally dependent spouses.’’ In
these relationships, neither partner makes a disproportionate contribution, with each partner
contributing approximately 40% to 59% of the
total family earnings. These changes in the economic roles of men and women have implications
for marital quality and satisfaction with marriage.
Marriages of equally dependent spouses are at
greater risk of divorce when wives become less
committed to the relationship. Nock suggests that
some women’s decreasing commitment to their
marriages is a function of the excessive demands
and unappreciated contributions of women as
both breadwinners and homemakers that in turn
affect women’s evaluations of marital quality.
Schoen, Astone, Rothert, Standish, and Kim
(2002) note that women’s employment does not
destabilize happy marriages, but rather, point out
that employment offers women economic
resources to leave marriages that are no longer
satisfactory. Further, satisfaction with these
marriages of equally dependent spouses depends
to a large extent on the willingness of husbands
to appreciate the contributions of their wives
(Nock, 2001), and for both partners to adopt an
egalitarian approach to decision making. So,
although the time demands of women’s jobs
may have led to a decline in marital quality,
increases in economic resources, decisionmaking equality, and nontraditional attitudes
toward gender have been associated with
improvements in marital satisfaction for both
men and women (Amato et al., 2003). Most
importantly, marriages of equally dependent
spouses that endorse egalitarian decision making
and an equal division of power not only have
higher levels of marital satisfaction but also are
at lower risk for marital conflict, aggression, and
physical violence (Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988;
Coleman & Straus, 1985; Kalmuss & Straus,
1990; Kim & Sung, 2000). As Coleman and Straus
(1985) note, egalitarian couples have the lowest
rates of conflict and violence, whereas both maleand female-dominated couples have higher rates.
Alternatively, status parity may be in the form
of both partners being unemployed, earning
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
below average incomes, having a lower level of
educational attainment, and being disadvantaged
because of race or ethnicity. In these cases, stress
frustration theories suggest that diminished economic resources may lead to conflict in intimate
relationships (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997;
Riggs et al., 2000; Straus, 1990; Straus et al.,
1980). Unemployment, and in particular, chronic
poverty, may be particularly stressful situations
for men, leading to frustration that in turn may
heighten the risk of husband-to-wife violence
(Gelles & Cornell, 1990; Jasinski, 2001; Riggs
et al., 2000). In this case, ‘‘the socio-demographic
correlates of husband-to-wife violence reflect
stressors (e.g., lower income, underemployment,
etc.) and a lack of coping resources that may
increase the risk of aggression’’ (HoltzworthMunroe et al., p. 292). According to frustration
theories, intimate partner violence should be
particularly prevalent in relationships in which
both partners are unemployed or work long
hours, household income is low, and neither has
high educational attainment. Stress frustration
theories also predict that newer relationships,
young age, cohabitation instead of marriage, and
the presence of young children would heighten
the risk of violence and abuse.
Status Reversal, Marital Quality, and the Risk of
Intimate Partner Violence
In looking at the impact of socioeconomic variables on the risk of husband-to-wife partner
violence, some feminist researchers (Anderson,
1997; Kurz, 1989; Schwartz, 1988) have pointed
to the need for gender-based analyses examining
the connection between economic power and
family dynamics (Lupri et al., 1994; McCloskey,
1996). Anderson suggests that the power differences between partners, not individual sociodemographic positions, place women at risk for
intimate partner violence. Her framework points
to the interaction between gender and economic
status within intimate relationships, thereby integrating elements of feminist and family violence
perspectives. Income, education, and employment are clearly indicators of access to resources
for both husbands and wives. At the same time,
they have symbolic importance for gender identities, self-esteem, and marital interaction and
conflict. Access to socioeconomic resources and
statuses outside the home therefore have implications for the distribution of power and control
within families and within intimate relationships.
455
Status incompatibilities that favor women, also
referred to as status reversal, have implications
for marital relationships. Status reversal couples
have lower marital satisfaction and stability, with
negative consequences for psychological wellbeing and interpersonal conflicts (Hornung et al.,
1981; McCloskey, 1996; Tichenor, 1999).
Tichenor’s research suggests that 64% of status
reversal couples express dissatisfaction with
some aspect of their relationships. Other
researchers have identified higher rates of marital
dissolution among status reversal couples (Heckert, Nowak, & Snyder, 1998; Ono, 1998; White
& Rogers, 2000; Zimmer, 2001). Rogers and
Amato (1997) and Rubin (1994) both find that
marriages involving low-income husbands are
more likely to experience marital problems due
to the economic insecurity of these relationships.
Similarly, Ono suggests that because women’s
occupations are more likely to lack security and
less likely to be on a career track, the economic
stress associated with men’s unemployment
places these marriages at risk. Dissatisfaction
and higher rates of marital dissolution may therefore be a function of the economic stress of
marriages in which men are unemployed and
women are the primary economic providers.
Yet, research on the effects of status reversal in
marriage has led Tichenor (1999) to conclude
that the balance of marital power is more closely
associated with gender than with income and
economic status.
The socioeconomic differences between
spouses that favor women in these status reversal
relationships may be viewed by some couples as
problematic and uncomfortable. Spouses who
lack access to economic power may require
strategies ‘‘to construct a relationship that conforms to the conventional marriage contract’’
(Tichenor, 1999, p. 649). Among status reversal
couples, these strategies may include redefining
the economic provider role, thereby allowing the
husband’s other contributions to be seen as
important family resources. Status reversal couples
may also adopt practices that are perceived by
the couple as acceptable and equitable, yet from
an outsider’s perspective may be seen as unfair.
For example, status reversal women may defer
to their husbands to demonstrate that they
are not using their greater economic contributions to make claims to power in their marriage
(Tichenor). Women’s deference to husbands in
family decision making may help to maintain
men’s power within these relationships. Tichenor
456
concludes that couples are doing gender through the
actions that they take regarding power in marriage.
Given the important implications of status
reversal for marital quality, other researchers
have examined the impact of this type of status
compatibility on the risk of intimate partner
violence and emotional abuse (Anderson, 1997;
Hornung et al., 1981; Macmillan & Gartner,
1999; McCloskey, 1996). Jasinski (2001) suggests that for men, violence is one means of
constructing a traditional masculinity. When
men lack access to economic resources and
employment to establish a traditional masculinity, they may use violence in an attempt to reestablish their power at home. According to
resource theory, power is the ability of one
individual to affect influence over another (see
Macmillan & Gartner, 1999 and Tichenor, 1999,
for a discussion). Given that family and marital
relationships are systems in which economic
power determines and shapes roles and responsibilities, violence in homes and within intimate
relationships may be used when other resources
are absent (Jasinski).
Much of the work on the relationship between
status reversal and the risk of intimate partner
violence has examined the impact of men’s and
women’s financial contributions to household
income (Hornung et al., 1981; McCloskey,
1996). This literature points out that income disparity between intimate partners favoring women
rather than overall poverty contributes to the risk
of wife abuse (McCloskey), thereby providing
support for resource theory and the need for
gender-based analyses on the association between
economic roles, family dynamics, and the risk
of husband-to-wife violence (Anderson, 1997;
McCloskey). Status reversal with respect to
employment has also been shown to be an important predictor of partner violence. A woman’s risk
of life-threatening violence is higher when she is
employed and her husband is not (Macmillan &
Gartner, 1999), and when her employment status
is higher than anticipated relative to her partner’s
occupation (Hornung et al.). Similarly, DeKeseredy
and Hinch (1991) and Straus et al. (1980) suggest
that the risk of intimate partner violence is highest
among couples when the man is unemployed.
Tjaden and Thoennes’s (2000) research also supports the hypotheses derived from resource theories
on the role of status reversal. They find that women
are at an increased risk of intimate partner violence
when their educational attainment is higher than that
of their husbands.
Journal of Marriage and Family
Drawing on exchange theory, Macmillan and
Gartner (1999) have examined the association
between men’s and women’s labor force participation and the risk of spousal violence by treating
employment as a symbolic resource. They suggest
that husbands who are disadvantaged on reward
power are more likely to use violence. Within
intimate relationships, patterns of employment
that threaten the traditional male masculine
identity (that includes the man as financial provider) increase the risk of spousal violence
against women. Their findings indicate that a
woman’s risk for the most severe types of physical violence by her spouse is greatest when she is
employed and her partner is not. Macmillan and
Gartner suggest that the association between status incompatibilities between partners and the
risk of physical violence reflects efforts by men
to coercively control their wives. Similarly,
Hornung et al. (1981) find that status reversal is
associated with physical and life-threatening violence and increases the risk of nonviolent psychological abuse. In summary, because financial
contributions are important means for men to
construct a traditional masculinity (Anderson,
1997; Tichenor, 1999), patterns of employment,
education, and income between partners that
threaten masculine identity will increase the risk
for both physical violence and emotional abuse.
Physical Violence and Coercive Control in
Intimate Relationships
In studying violence between intimate partners,
Johnson and Ferraro (2000) have pointed to the
importance of making distinctions between different forms of violence and the need to clearly
examine the role of power and coercive control
in violent relationships. They suggest that these
distinctions may help to shed light on apparent
discrepancies in the academic literature on intimate partner violence. These include differences
in the measurement, correlates, etiologies, and
theories of intimate violence identified by family
violence researchers, versus those working
within the feminist literature. Johnson (1995)
and others (Johnson & Ferraro; Macmillan &
Gartner, 1999) have suggested an examination
of the continuum of violence, control, and emotional abuse (Hamby, Poindexter, & Gray-Little,
1996) to shed light on the etiology of intimate
partner violence and provide directions for prevention and intervention programs (Lupri et al.,
1994). Johnson suggests that there are distinct
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
patterns of violence between intimate partners.
Patriarchal terrorism is part of a general pattern
of control by male partners that is likely to
include severe forms of violence that escalate
over time (Hornung et al., 1981). This violence
includes the systematic use of severe forms of
violence and nonviolent coercive control meant
to subordinate, isolate, and increase women’s
emotional and financial dependence on their
male partners (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999). Johnson and Ferraro therefore suggest that researchers
address physical violence as well as emotional
abuse and control of women by male partners. In
contrast, common couple violence does not include
severe acts of violence, is likely to be mutual
between partners (gender symmetric), and does
not exhibit a general pattern of coercive control
by the male partner. Violent resistance or selfdefense is a form of violence that is largely perpetrated by women. Mutual violent control includes a
pattern of violence in which both male and female
partners are controlling, emotionally abusive, and
violent.
An understanding of the role of male power and
control in intimate relationships has implications
for looking at the causes and consequences of
male-on-female partner violence. Research
(Hamby & Sugarman, 1999; Kaufman & Jasinski,
1998) clearly suggests that there is a strong link
between violence and emotionally abusive and
controlling behavior in intimate relationships. For
example, Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) find that
jealous and possessive male partners who are verbally abusive and who deny their female partners
access to family, friends, or family income are also
likely to use physical violence. Yet, in their analyses, Tjaden and Thoennes conceptualize nonphysical abuse as a predictor of physical violence.
Similarly, Gartner and Macmillan (1999) used a
measure of coercive control as a predictor of severe
physical violence. Rather than predicting violence by
intimate partners, Johnson and Ferraro’s (2000) intimate partner violence typologies suggest that coercive control characterize some forms of violence.
SUMMARY AND GOALS OF
THE CURRENT STUDY
Feminist and family violence researchers have
explored the role of socioeconomic factors on
the risk of husband-to-wife intimate partner violence, yet there remain controversies within the
existing spousal violence literature on the exact
457
role of these factors in the etiology of physical
violence and emotional abuse. This suggests the
need to continue to explore the symbolic nature
of income, education, and employment. This
would include an examination of the relationship
between status compatibility between partners
and both physical violence and nonviolent emotional abuse by husbands. In the present study, I
examine four hypotheses regarding the relationship between three forms of status compatibility
(e.g., traditional status, status parity, and status
reversal) and the risk of husband-to-wife physical
violence and emotional abuse. Throughout, I
highlight how these hypotheses may be viewed
as both competing and complementary. First, I
draw on the literature on the impact of traditional
status relationships on the risk of physical violence and abuse. Marital dependency perspectives suggest that women who are dependent on
husbands and marriage are at greater risk of
experiencing physical violence. Consequently,
this model would predict that women in traditional status relationships who are unemployed,
have lower income, and are less educated will be
more likely to experience violence and emotional
abuse as compared to women in less traditional
status relationships (i.e., status parity and status
reversal; refer to Table 1). Second, I draw from
the literature on marital quality and women’s
satisfaction with marriage. This research suggests
that status parity marriages that include egalitarian decision making have lower rates of intimate
partner violence as compared to either male- or
female-dominated intimate relationships. Therefore, women in status parity relationships (in
which both partners are employed and have
similar incomes and educational backgrounds)
should be less likely than women in both traditional and status reversal relationships to experience abuse. Third, in examining the association
between status parity and the risk of abuse, I
draw on the implications of stress-frustration
theories. This work suggests that diminished economic resources may lead to stress, frustration,
and conflict in intimate relationships and
heighten the risk of violence. This suggests that
unemployed women with unemployed partners
should have the greatest risk for violence and
abuse. Finally, I draw from feminist research
and resource theory to examine whether men in
status reversal relationships use violence in an
attempt to reestablish their power at home,
given their lack of access to economic resources
to establish a traditional masculinity. As a result,
458
Journal of Marriage and Family
those women in status reversal marriages should
be at greater risk for abuse as compared to
women in both status parity and traditional marriages. This model would predict that higher
levels of income, education, and employment
for women (relative to the status of their partner)
place women at greater risk for violence and
emotional abuse as compared to women in traditional
and status parity relationships.
METHOD
Sample
To examine the impact of status compatibility on
the risk of violent and emotionally abusive behavior in intimate relationships I use data from the
1999 Canadian General Social Survey, Personal
Risk (Statistics Canada, 2000). The final sample
for the survey consisted of 25,876 Canadian men
and women (15 years of age and over), with an
overall response rate of 81%. The respondents
from the survey do not form a simple random
sample of the target population. I use survey
weights in all of the statistical analyses presented
to account for stratification, and multiple stages of
selection and unequal probabilities of selecting
respondents. The survey collected detailed information on the most recent incident of spousal
victimization in the 12 months prior to the survey,
and victimization experiences within the 5 years
prior to the survey. Because physical violence in
intimate relationships is statistically rare, the analyses presented below use the 5-year time period.
Although the use of large-scale representative
data helps to avoid some of the problems associated with clinical sample bias, a different form
of selectivity could potentially bias the results.
Community samples typically underrepresent the
most severe and violent forms of intimate partner
abuse (Johnson, 1995), and women participating
in national surveys may be unlikely to report
incidents of violence as criminal assaults, thereby
underestimating intimate partner violence
(Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992). The
sample may not include all women who are victims of the most severe types of intimate partner
violence. Therefore, my study may underestimate
somewhat the effect of status compatibility on the
most severe type of abuse that includes both physical violence and emotional abuse. After selecting only the married and cohabiting women from
the larger sample of 25,876 Canadian men and
women and omitting those with missing data on
the dependent variable, 7,408 women respondents
were available for analysis.
Variables
Physical violence and emotional abuse in intimate relationships. The measures of partner violence and emotional abuse are similar to those
used in other surveys of intimate partner violence. For example, the Violence and Threats of
Violence Against Women and Men in the United
States Survey, 1994–1996 and the 1993 Canadian
Violence Against Women Survey include similar
categories of violence. Experiences with violence
ranged from 1% to 3% for threats, pushes, slaps,
and thrown objects, to less than 1% for the most
severe forms of violence (such as sexual assault,
choking, and threats with a weapon). Although
physical violence by intimate partners is rare, the
women reported a variety of forms of emotional
abuse by their husbands. Among the women in
the survey, 10% had experienced some type of
emotional abuse by their husbands. This includes
1% to 5% of women having experienced sexual
jealousy, social isolation and control, property
destruction, financial control, put-downs, and/or
threats to others.
Dependent variable. Although previous researchers have conceptualized emotional abuse
(Macmillan & Gartner, 1999) and patriarchal
ideology (Lenton, 1995) as predictors of physical
violence, my analyses view controlling and emotionally abusive behavior by men as a distinct
form of abuse that may include physical violence.
Conceptualizing emotional abuse as a separate
category of abusive behavior is consistent with
previous research on intimate partner violence
and abuse (e.g., Hornung et al., 1981). Therefore,
my dependent variable for the multivariate
analyses has three categories tapping Physical
Violence and Emotional Abuse. First, I have a
category for women who were the victims of
Physical Violence with or without emotional
abuse. Physical Violence includes at least one
type of physical assault (slaps, pushes, kicks,
hits, bites, beatings, choking, weapon use, forced
sex); 3.3% of the women had experienced physical violence. Note that some victims of Physical
Violence also experienced emotional abuse by
their partners. This emotional abuse includes
financial abuse (11%), limiting contact with
family members (19%), put-downs (39%), sexual
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
jealousy (35%), threatening harm to others (7%),
controlling the respondent’s movements (30%),
destruction of property (16%), and threats of
physical violence (52%). In chi-square analyses,
I split the Physical Violence category into two
separate groups: Physical Violence with Emotional Abuse (2%) and Physical Violence without
Emotional Abuse (1.3%).
The second category in the dependent variable
is a measure of nonviolent abuse referred to as
Emotional Abuse; 8% of the women experienced
this type of abuse by their husbands. These
women were not the victims of any physical
violence. Women who were the victims of Emotional Abuse experienced financial abuse (8%),
put-downs (36%), sexual jealousy (43%),
destruction of property (3%), threats of physical
violence (4%), their partners limiting their contact with family members (20%), threatening
harm to others (4%), and controlling the respondent’s movements (35%). The third category in my
dependent variable is nonvictims; 89% of women
in the survey did not experience any physical
violence or emotional abuse by their partners.
Only cases with valid data on the dependent
variable are used in the analysis.
Status Compatibility Between Intimate Partners
Descriptions and univariate statistics (means and
standard deviations) for the status compatibility
measures and control variables are shown in
Table 2. The variables measuring the woman
respondent’s and her partner’s education and
income are ordinal-level variables. Income was
coded as a 12-category variable denoting income
amounts from none to $100,000 or more. Education was coded as a 10-category variable denoting income amounts from none to doctorate,
master’s, and some graduate. Although these
variables are not truly interval, they approximate
interval-level variables having 10 or more levels.
As a point of clarification throughout the results
section, I discuss the association between these
variables and the dependent variable as they are
measured. Employment status is a dummy variable denoting those who are currently employed.
Given that the goal is to examine the relationship
between men’s and women’s relative socioeconomic status (status compatibility) on the risk of
intimate partner abuse, I do not present in the
results section statistical models that examine
the main effects of the socioeconomic variables
for men and women.
459
I constructed status compatibility measures for
employment, education, and income. Table 1
outlines the definition, attributes, and measurement of the three forms of status compatibility
used in the analyses (e.g., traditional status, status
parity, and status reversal) as they relate to
income, education, and employment. Status
parity denotes egalitarian relationships in which
neither partner is dominant with respect to
income, education, or employment. Traditional
status marriages are normative or traditional
with respect to the division of economic power.
In traditional status relationships, status incompatibility favors the husband. Finally, status
reversal denotes a nonnormative relationship in
which status incompatibility favors the woman.
Status compatibility between partners for
employment is measured using four dummycoded variables. For status parity relationships,
there are two separate dummy variables: one for
both partners employed and one for both partners
unemployed. The dummy variable for traditional
status incompatibility denotes when a woman is
unemployed and her husband is employed.
Finally, status reversal is measured with a
dummy variable denoting when a woman is
employed and her husband is unemployed. The
majority of respondents are in a dual-earner
family (47%), one quarter (23%) are unemployed
and their husbands are employed, and 18% are
unemployed, as are their husbands. Only 6% of
the respondents are in a status reversal couple
(she is employed and her husband is not
employed). The reference category for the multivariate analyses is both partners unemployed
(24%).
Status compatibility between partners for education is measured using three dummy-coded
variables. These dummy variables were constructed from measures of the respondent’s and
her male partner’s education. I first created an
education difference score by subtracting the
partner’s education from the woman respondent’s
education. The education difference score ranged
from 8 to 9. Next, I constructed the three
dummy variables based on the education difference score. Education parity denotes women
whose education is within one category above
or below her male partner (i.e., an education
difference score ranging from 1 to 1). Traditional status incompatibility is a dummy variable
denoting women whose education is two or more
categories below her partner (i.e., an education
difference score ranging from 8 to 2). The
460
Journal of Marriage and Family
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
FOR
TABLE 2
VARIABLES
IN THE
MODEL (n ¼ 7,408)
Variables
M
Employment (1 ¼ yes)
Respondent employed
Spouse employed
Respondent employed and partner employed
Respondent unemployed and partner employed
Respondent employed and partner unemployed
Respondent unemployed and partner unemployed
Education
Respondent’s education (1 ¼ no education to elementary to
10 ¼ doctorate/master’s/some graduate, modal value, 3 ¼ high school diploma)
Spouse’s education (same as above)
Education parity ( 1 category above or below partner)
Woman more educated ( 2 categories above partner)
Woman less educated ( 2 categories below partner)
Income
Respondent’s income (1 ¼ no income to 12 ¼ $100,000 or more)
Household income (same as above)
Income parity (woman earns 45% to 65% of household income)
Woman earns more (> 65% of household income)
Woman earns less (< 45% of household income)
Woman doesn’t know household income
Controls
Age (16 to 80 years and older)
Spouse’s age (1 ¼ 15–24 to 7 ¼ 75 and older)
Urban (1 ¼ yes)
Visible minority (1 ¼ yes)
Aboriginal status (1 ¼ yes)
Married (1 ¼ yes)
Length of relationship (1 ¼ less than 5 years to 6 ¼ 36 years or more)
Household size (1 ¼ couple only, 0 ¼ other)
Disability (1 ¼ yes)
Spouse’s heavy drinking (1 ¼ 5 or more drinks on one occasion, 0 ¼ other)
status reversal variable denotes women whose
education is two or more categories above their
partners (i.e., an education difference score ranging from 2 to 9). Among the women in the
Canadian General Social Survey, most have similar educational backgrounds to their partners (i.e.,
56% have educational attainment within one
category), 17% of women are less educated, and
27% have a higher level of education. The variable measuring the woman respondent’s education is included in the model to control for level
of education. Including the woman’s education
allows for an examination of the relationship
between compatibility in education and violence
SD
.56
.75
.47
.23
.06
.24
.50
.43
.49
.42
.23
.38
5.69
2.77
5.18
.56
.27
.17
2.93
.49
.44
.37
4.87
8.34
.22
.15
.38
.24
2.37
2.05
.42
.36
.49
.43
45.59
3.80
.76
.08
.02
.87
3.54
.48
.07
.19
14.30
1.46
.43
.27
.14
.34
1.71
.50
.26
.39
and abuse that is not a function of the level of
education of either partner.
Income compatibility is measured with four
separate dummy-coded variables. The income
parity variable denotes women who contribute
45% to 65% to the household income. This
differs slightly from Nock’s (2001) marriages of
equally dependent spouses that tapped women’s
contributions ranging from 40% to 59%. Two
dummy-coded variables are used to represent
traditional income incompatibility favoring
husbands. One dummy variable is used to denote
couples in which the woman earns less money
than her partner (less than 45% of the family
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
income). The other measure of traditional status
incompatibility is a dummy variable denoting
women who do not know the household income.
Given that income is a focal variable in the analysis and there were a large number of cases
(24%) in which women did not know the household income, I did not impute missing values on
household income or use these to construct a ratio
of the woman’s income relative to the household
income. Rather, I use the variable household
income unknown as a dummy variable in the
analysis and make meaningful the data missing
on household income. I conceptualize not knowing the household income as traditional status
incompatibility. This also provides a control for
the cases in which the household income was
missing. Finally, status reversal denotes couples
in which the woman earns greater than 65% of
the family income. In the analyses, the contrast
category is the variable measuring women who
do not know the household income. Approximately one fifth are marriages of equally dependent spouses (22%), and 38% of women earn
substantially less than their partners, contributing
less than 45% to the household income. Additionally, 15% of women are in status reversal
couples. As noted, 24% do not know the household income. The ordinal-level income variable
for the woman respondent is also included in the
analyses to control for level of income on the risk
of physical violence and emotional abuse.
Demographic and control variables. I control for
a number of demographic and relationship characteristics that may also be associated with violence and abuse (see Table 2). Respondent age
is a continuous variable, and spouse’s age and
relationship length are ordinal-level variables.
Marital status (cohabitation is the reference category), disability, and urban residence are
included as dummy variables. Among the sample
of women in the survey, 87% are legally married,
7% reported some form of long-term physical
disability, and 76% live in an urban area. I control for household size with a dummy variable
denoting those respondents who live in twoperson households (48%), as opposed to those
living with children or in other family forms. I
also control for spousal drinking with a dummy
variable denoting a partner who engages in heavy
episodic drinking (five or more drinks on one
occasion [19%]). A dummy variable denotes
respondents who self-report being from a visible
minority group (i.e., Black, Afro-Caribbean,
461
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arab, and so forth)
or identify as Aboriginal (i.e., Aboriginal people
of Canada, First Nations people of Canada, Native
Canadian, Status and Nonstatus Indian people,
Metis, Inuit, and so forth); White women are the
reference category. Among the women in the
survey, 8% are visible minority and 2% are
Aboriginal. Aside from the discussion of the
protocol for dealing with the data missing on the
dependent variable and for household income,
missing data on explanatory variables (less than
6%) were substituted with the valid mean.
Analysis
The first step in the analysis examines the pairwise association between the status compatibility
measures and the dependent variable using the
chi-square test. For the multivariate analysis, I
estimate a multinomial logit model. In the
model, the coefficients reveal the association
between a given predictor and the log odds of a
respondent being in a particular category of the
dependent variable relative to the reference category. It is also possible to form the log odds of
membership in any pair of categories. With three
categories of the dependent variable, there are three
logical, nonredundant contrasts. These three
contrasts include: (1) No Violence or Abuse
versus Emotional Abuse; (2) No Violence or
Abuse versus Physical Violence without Emotional
Abuse; and (3) Emotional Abuse versus Physical
Violence (with or without Emotional Abuse).
RESULTS
Bivariate Association
The chi-square analysis tested pair wise associations between the categories of the three status
compatibility measures and a four-category
dependent variable (No Abuse, Emotional
Abuse, Violence without Emotional Abuse, and
Violence with Emotional Abuse). As the findings
in Table 3 indicate, the status compatibility
variables—employment (w2 ¼ 58.95, p < .001),
education (w2 ¼ 16.13, p < .05), and income
(w2 ¼ 23.82, p < .01)—all significantly differentiate among the four categories of the dependent
variable (violence/abuse measure). The bivariate
associations between employment compatibility
and the risk of violence and abuse suggest that
status reversal women (woman employed and
partner unemployed) are the most likely to
462
Journal of Marriage and Family
TABLE 3
CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS SHOWING ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN STATUS COMPATIBILITY AND RISK OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND
EMOTIONAL ABUSE
Status Compatibility Measures
Both
Employed
Employment Compatibility
No violence
Emotional abuse
Violence without
emotional abuse
Violence with
emotional abuse
n
Education Compatibility
Both
Unemployed
88.2
7.7
1.7
87.4
9.2
1.5
83.2
12.9
1.5
92.5
5.7
0.3
2.3
2.0
2.5
1.4
3505
1737
404
Education
Parity
Woman More
Educated
90.4
7.4
0.9
1.4
1275
88.8
8.1
1.4
1.8
4161
87.8
7.7
1.5
3.0
1972
Woman Earns
Less
Income
Parity
Woman Earns
More
Household
Income Unknown
88.3
8.2
1.7
1.8
2840
88.9
7.7
1.4
2.0
1656
86.4
9.2
1.4
3.1
1101
90.9
6.6
0.7
1.8
1811
No violence
Emotional abuse
Violence without emotional abuse
Violence with emotional abuse
n
w2
58.95**
1762
Woman Less
Educated
No violence
Emotional abuse
Violence without emotional abuse
Violence with emotional abuse
n
Income Compatibility
Woman Unemployed/ Woman Employed/
Partner Employed Partner Unemployed
16.13*
23.82**
Note: Cell entries are percentages.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
experience Emotional Abuse (13%) and the least
likely to be in the No Violence/Abuse category.
Although the differences are small, the findings
with respect to education compatibility suggest
that women in status reversal relationships are
less likely to be in the No Violence/Abuse category, whereas these women are more likely to
experience Violence with Emotional Abuse.
Finally, with respect to income compatibility,
status reversal women (women who earn 65%
or more of the family income) are the least likely
to be in the No Violence category. In contrast,
they are most likely to experience Emotional
Abuse (9%) and are also more likely to experience Violence with Emotional Abuse (3%). Taken
together, these findings are largely consistent
with feminist and resource theories that suggest
that access to income, education, and employment has symbolic importance for gender identities, self-esteem, and marital interaction and
conflict.
Multivariate Analyses
The multivariate analyses present all three nonredundant contrasts among the three-category
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
dependent variable using multinomial logit
regression. The first two contrasts are across
what may be viewed as increasing levels of violence and abuse. In Table 4, Equation 1 contrasts
Emotional Abuse versus No Violence or Abuse,
and Equation 2 contrasts Physical Violence (with
or without Emotional Abuse) versus Emotional
Abuse. Equation 3 contrasts Physical Violence
(with or without Emotional Abuse) versus No
Violence or Abuse. I first estimated the association between the status compatibility measures
and the dependent variable using an ordered logit
approach. The decision to present and highlight
the two adjacent contrasts suggests an order to
the dependent variable. I therefore first tested to
see whether the dependent variable was ordinal in
nature. A critical assumption of the ordered logit
model is that of parallel slopes. If there is a
variable that affects the likelihood of a person
being in the ordered categories, then within the
ordered logit model, it is assumed that the coefficients (and odds ratios) linking the variable
values to the different outcomes will be the
same across all of the outcomes (Borooah,
2002). I assessed the parallel slopes assumption
with the score test (or LaGrange Multiplier test) of
the parallel regression assumption included in
SAS’s LOGISTIC procedure (see Long, 1997,
pp. 142–143). The score test (w2 ¼ 54.19, df ¼ 19,
p < .001) was significant for the model that
included the status compatibility measures and
all of the control variables. This evidence suggests
that an ordered logit is inappropriate, and I
proceeded with a multinomial analysis highlighting the two contrasts across adjacent categories of
the dependent variable. I also present the contrast
between Physical Violence (with or without
Emotional Abuse) versus No Violence or Abuse.
The findings reported in Table 4 examine the
association between status compatibility and the
risk of physical violence and emotional abuse
with a multinomial logit model. Long and
McGinnis (1981) suggest that in multinomial
logit regression, individual and specific tests of
significance must be considered in combination
with the overall pattern of effects and overall
significance for a particular independent variable.
This provides an evaluation of how strongly each
independent variable differentiates among the
contrasts of the dependent variable. The final
column lists the likelihood ratio for the association between each variable and the dependent
variable. The coefficients in the final column of
Table 4 indicate that employment status reversal
463
significantly distinguishes among the three
categories of the dependent variable, and both
status parity and status reversal for education
are significant.
Prior to examining the findings for the status
compatibility variables, I look at the coefficients
for income and education. The findings in Table
4 provide support for economic dependency theory and suggest that a woman’s education and
income are important factors that distinguish
between physically violent, emotionally abusive,
and nonviolent relationships. Higher incomes and
greater educational attainment (Equation 1) both
reduce a woman’s risk of experiencing Emotional
Abuse as compared to No Violence/Abuse
(e0.08 ¼ 0.92 and e0.09 ¼ 0.92, respectively).
These findings are consistent with economic
dependency perspectives and Pagelow’s (1981)
findings, which suggest that diminished educational and occupational resources and skills
inhibit a woman from leaving an abusive relationship, reinforcing her dependence on marriage
and leading her to endure abuse from her husband
(Kalmuss & Straus, 1990).
Status Compatibility and the Risk
of Emotional Abuse
Next, I outline the specific findings with respect
to the association between status compatibility
and the risk of Emotional Abuse (relative to the
No Violence or Abuse category). The findings are
largely consistent with resource and feminist
theories. Equation 1 of Table 4 indicates that
controlling for the woman’s level of educational
attainment, women in status parity or status
reversal relationships (having equal or higher
levels of education relative to their partners) are
more likely to experience Emotional Abuse (as
compared to No Violence or Abuse). Although
higher levels of education reduce the likelihood
of Emotional Abuse (B ¼ 0.09), the association
between the education parity and reversal measures and the risk of abuse suggests that as a
woman’s educational attainment increases relative to that of her partner, the insulating role
of her education is washed way in protecting
her from the threat of Emotional Abuse
(e0.29 ¼ 1.34, and e0.35 ¼ 1.41, respectively).
Although educational attainment clearly protects
a woman from Emotional Abuse (consistent with
dependency theory), it does so only when a
woman’s educational attainment is not greater
than that of her partner. This finding is consistent
464
Journal of Marriage and Family
with Hornung et al. (1981), who find higher
levels of psychological abuse in couples in
which the woman’s educational attainment
exceeds that of her partner. They conclude that
‘‘it is not educational attainment per se that is
associated with increased risk of violence, but
rather, that it is an incompatibility in the educa-
SUMMARY
OF
tional levels of couples that is the important risk
factor’’ (Hornung et al., pp. 681–682).
There is also a significant association between
income compatibility and the risk of Emotional
Abuse by husbands (Equation 1 in Table 4).
Specifically, a woman in a status reversal relationship in which she earns 65% or more of the
TABLE 4
MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR VARIABLES PREDICTING PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
EMOTIONAL ABUSE BY A MALE INTIMATE PARTNER (n ¼ 7,408)
Predictor
AND
Equation 1
Equation 2
Equation 3
Emotional Abuse
vs. No Violence
or Abuse
Physical Violence
vs.
Emotional Abuse
Physical Violence
vs. No Violence
or Abuse
B (eB)
SE B
B (eB)
SE B
B (eB)
SE B
w2
.02*
(.98)
.07
(1.07)
.02
(1.02)
.09
(1.09)
.60**
(1.83)
.12
(1.13)
.05
(.96)
.54**
(1.72)
.24*
(1.27)
.01
.01
(.99)
.03
(1.03)
.21*
(.81)
.36*
(.70)
.38
(1.47)
.08
(1.09)
.23
(.79)
.04
(1.04)
.45*
(1.56)
.02
.03*
(.97)
.10
(1.10)
.19*
(.83)
.27
(.76)
.99**
(2.68)
.21
(1.23)
.27
(.76)
.58**
(1.79)
.69**
(1.99)
.01
9.06*
.12
1.33
.07
6.71*
.15
4.26
.23
29.15**
.17
2.72
.18
2.45
.19
22.75**
.15
23.54**
.09**
(.92)
.29*
(1.34)
.35*
(1.41)
.02
.05
(1.05)
.23
(1.25)
.18
(1.20)
.03
.03
(.97)
.51*
(1.67)
.53*
(1.69)
.03
20.82**
.21
11.23**
.25
9.41**
.19
(1.21)
.29
(1.33)
.16
.04
(.96)
.41
(.67)
.29
.15
(1.16
.12
(.89)
.25
1.720
.26
3.69
Likelihood
Ratio
Demographic
Woman’s age
Spouse’s age
Relationship length
Couple only in the home
Woman is disabled
Urban
Legally married
Aboriginal/visible minority
Spouse’s drinking
.08
.05
.10
.15
.11
.14
.13
.11
.14
.09
.18
.26
.19
.21
.22
.19
Education
Woman’s education
Education parity
Woman more educated
.12
.15
.24
.28
Employment
Both employed
Woman unemployed and
partner employed
.16
.30
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
465
TABLE 4. CONTINUED
Equation 1
Equation 2
Equation 3
Emotional Abuse
vs. No Violence
or Abuse
Physical Violence
vs.
Emotional Abuse
Physical Violence
vs. No Violence
or Abuse
Predictor
B (eB)
SE B
B (eB)
SE B
B (eB)
SE B
w2
Woman employed and
partner unemployed
Income
.69**
(1.98)
.20
.44
(.65)
.40
.25
(1.28)
.35
10.87**
.08**
(.92)
.08
(1.08)
.34*
(1.40)
.10
(.91)
1.77**
.03
.03
(1.03)
.42
(.66)
.14
(.87)
.15
(.86)
.07
.05
.05
(.95)
.34
(.71)
.20
(1.22)
.25
(.78)
1.70**
.04
9.20*
.23
2.56
.23
5.04
.20
2.10
Woman’s income
Income parity
Woman earns more
Woman earns less
Constant
.15
.16
.13
.32
.27
.27
.23
.55
Likelihood
Ratio
.47
Note: For the model, w2(38) ¼ 270.556, p < .0001. The three-category dependent variable is coded 1 for No Violence or Abuse
(88.8%), 2 for Emotional Abuse (7.8%), and 3 for Physical Violence with or without Emotional Abuse (3.3%). With three
categories of the dependent variable, there are three logical, nonredundant contrasts presented across each category of the
dependent variable. For the employment status compatibility measure, the reference category is both partners unemployed.
For the income compatibility measure, the reference category is women not knowing the household income. For the education
compatibility measure, the reference category is women with less education than partner.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
household income has a higher risk (as compared
to other women) of Emotional Abuse by her
partner. Controlling for a woman’s level of
income, the odds of Emotional Abuse are 40%
higher for a status reversal woman (e0.34 ¼ 1.40).
Finally, Equation 1 in Table 4 points to a
significant association between employment
compatibility and the risk of Emotional Abuse
(as compared to No Abuse). Consistent with
hypotheses drawn from resource and feminist
theory, a woman who is part of a status reversal
couple (she is employed while her partner is unemployed) is more likely to experience Emotional
Abuse. Being an employed woman almost doubles
a woman’s risk of being emotionally abused when
her partner is unemployed (e0.69 ¼ 1.98). The association between a woman’s employment and her
risk of abuse is clearly a function of the employment status of her partner.
The other factors that discriminate between
emotionally abusive and nonabusive relationships
include the woman’s race and age, spousal drinking, and a woman’s vulnerability as a result of a
physical disability. Minority women are 72%
more likely to be the victims of Emotional
Abuse (e0.54 ¼ 1.72). Age appears to insulate
women from the risk of Emotional Abuse: For
each year, a woman’s risk of Emotional Abuse (as
compared to No Abuse) is reduced by 2%
(e0.02 ¼ 0.98). Consistent with stress frustration
perspectives, heavy episodic drinking by her
partner (e0.24 ¼ 1.27) and a physical disability
(e0.60 ¼ 1.83) increase a woman’s risk of Emotional Abuse by 27% and 83%, respectively.
Status Compatibility and the Risk
of Physical Violence
As indicated in Equation 3, only status reversal
and parity of education are positively associated
with Physical Violence as compared to No Violence or Abuse. Status reversal women are 69%
more likely (e0.53 ¼ 1.69) to experience Physical
Violence (as compared to those in the No Abuse
category), and status parity women are 67% more
likely (e0.51 ¼ 1.67) to experience Physical
Violence (as compared to those in the No Abuse
category). These findings are largely consistent
466
Journal of Marriage and Family
with resource and feminist theories. For the most
part, the findings in Equation 2 of Table 2 suggest that status reversal is not largely associated
with the risk of Physical Violence (as compared
to Emotional Abuse). As indicated in Equation 2,
none of the status compatibility measures distinguishes between the Physical Violence and Emotional Abuse categories. These findings must be
interpreted with caution given the small number
of cases of Physical Violence. (The Physical
Violence category contains 250 cases, as
compared to the No Violence or Abuse category
containing 6,577 cases.) Given the small sample
size within the Physical Violence category, I
therefore rely on my analyses that examined the
pairwise association between the status compatibility measures and the risk of violence and
emotional abuse. These findings suggest that, to
some degree, status reversal is associated with the
risk of Violence with Emotional Abuse, thereby
providing provisional support for the hypotheses
drawn from resource and feminist theories.
The factors that appear to have the greatest
ability to discriminate among violent, emotionally abusive, and nonabusive relationships
include the woman’s race, the presence of a
physical disability, couple-only households, relationship length, and her partner’s heavy episodic
drinking. As indicated in Equations 2 and 3 of
Table 4, relationship length is negatively associated with a woman’s risk of Physical Violence
(as compared to both Emotional Abuse
[e0.21 ¼ .81] and No Violence and Abuse
[e0.19 ¼ .83]), whereas the odds of experiencing
Physical Violence are higher for women with
partners who engage in heavy episodic drinking
(as compared to both Emotional Abuse
[e0.45 ¼ 1.56] and No Violence and Abuse
[e0.69 ¼ 1.99]). Additionally, Equation 3 suggests
that both minority status and a disability are
associated with a heightened risk for Physical
Violence (as compared to No Violence and
Abuse). As indicated in Equation 2, couple-only
households have a lower risk for Physical
Violence (as compared to Emotional Abuse).
Summary
The findings indicate that, with the exception
of education, status incompatibilities that favor
women are not largely associated with physical
violence by male partners, yet they are associated
with the risk of Emotional Abuse. The findings
provide some support for feminist and resource
theories with respect to the risk of Emotional
Abuse by male partners in intimate relationships.
Economic and employment roles and responsibilities are important mechanisms by which men
assert power and control within marriages and
families. In the case of status reversal couples,
some men may choose to rely on nonviolent
emotional abuse to reassert their authority in the
home. The findings are therefore consistent with
hypotheses derived from resource and feminist
theories, and Crowley’s (1998) research that finds
that men who perceive themselves as inadequate
breadwinners report higher levels of marital conflict. Anderson (1997, p. 667) suggests that when
men do not fulfill the role consistent with the
provider model of manhood, some ‘‘disenfranchised men then must rely on other social
practices to construct a masculine image.’’ Emotionally abusive behaviors may be used by some
men who are limited in their ability to assert their
manhood through the traditional breadwinner
role, yet who would not consider physically
assaulting their wives. Additionally, the findings
provide support for hypotheses derived from economic dependency theories that suggest that
women’s education and income insulate them
from the risk of violence and emotional abuse
and offer a means to escape violent and abusive
intimate relationships.
The findings also identified a number of relationship and demographic variables that may be
important in the escalation of abuse. For example,
relationship length and heavy episodic drinking
by men consistently distinguish among increasing levels of violence and abuse. With respect
to drinking, the findings suggest the need for
multifaceted approaches to domestic violence
that target and intervene in cases of problematic
substance use and partner violence and abuse. A
number of factors are also associated with violent as compared to nonviolent relationships.
These include age, race, disability, and relationship length. Clearly, policies must remain
focused on interventions that address the higher
rates of violence and emotional abuse among
young Aboriginal and visible minority women.
Consistent with stress frustration perspectives,
my findings suggest that victim and social service agencies must continue to develop strategies to reduce the risk of victimization
among young women in newly formed relationships, and those women whose physical disabilities may heighten marital stress and increase
women’s vulnerability to both emotional abuse
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
and physical violence. A number of factors also
distinguish between physically violent relationships and emotionally abusive relationships
without violence. Longer relationships and coupleonly households are associated with a lower
risk of Physical Violence (as compared to Emotional Abuse), whereas heavy drinking by a
partner increases the risk. The identification
of these risk factors in the escalation of abuse
has implications for developing strategies to
prevent physical violence and to reduce the likelihood that emotionally abusive relationships, and
violent relationships without emotional abuse,
become both physically violent and coercively
controlling.
DISCUSSION
This paper has contributed to the intimate partner
violence literature by highlighting the importance
of looking at the correlates of both physical violence and emotional abuse in intimate relationships. The findings point to the need to continue
to engage in empirical analyses of the correlates
and etiologies of qualitatively distinct forms of
intimate partner violence and emotional abuse as
suggested by Johnson (1995). My research suggests that emotional abuse by husbands is prevalent within both physically violent and nonviolent
relationships. Although emotional abuse by partners exists within a pattern of other physically
violent behaviors, it is also a distinct form of
emotional abuse and control used by some men
in nonviolent relationships. Fully 8% of women
who are not physically victimized by their partners experience one or more emotional abuse
tactics. Among the victims of physical violence,
more than half also experience controlling tactics
by their partners, including social isolation, putdowns, and financial control.
The analyses provide further evidence that the
occurrence and prevalence of physical violence
and emotional abuse in intimate relationships is
an important social and public health concern that
requires further investigation and social policy
interventions aimed at reducing the impact of
abuse. Experiences with husband-to-wife physical violence and emotional abuse occur in
approximately 12% of all married and cohabiting
couples, yet not all couples are equally likely to
experience such abuse. My research indicates that
the risk of physical violence is relatively rare,
occurring in less than 4% of couples, and is high-
467
est among minority women, women who are
physically disabled, and women in new relationships. These findings suggest that stressful situations, including the responsibility for children,
new relationships, and the challenges associated
with long-term disabilities or health problems,
may heighten the risk for the most severe forms
of husband-to-wife physical violence. These findings are consistent with research suggesting that
stressful situations heighten the risk of husbandto-wife violence and abuse in the home (Gelles &
Cornell, 1990). The risk of physical abuse is also
highest for minority women and wives of problem drinkers. More importantly, for the most part,
status incompatibilities that favor women (status
reversal) are not significant correlates of Physical
Violence. Yet, given the small number of victims
of physical violence, these results must be interpreted with caution. Future research with a larger
sample of women should explore the implications
of status compatibility on the risk of violence and
abuse. Future research on intimate partner violence should also include the collection of data
that oversamples those women most at risk for
the most severe forms of violence by intimate
partners. This would include an oversample of
women in economically disadvantaged visible
minority communities.
Although status incompatibilities favoring
women (status reversal) do not, for the most
part, appear to be correlated with husband-towife physical violence (consistent with feminist
and resource theories), they clearly distinguish
among those women at risk for Emotional
Abuse by their partners. Women’s employment
and higher levels of education and income (relative to their partner’s status) are associated with
Emotional Abuse. These findings support the
assertion that men who lack access to economic
resources, as compared to their wives, will reassert their control through a variety of emotional
abuse tactics. These findings suggest that cultural
constructions of gender are factors in emotional
abuse. Understanding the wider implications of
economic resources helps to clarify their connection to husband-to-wife intimate partner abuse
(Anderson, 1997).
In this article, I have furthered understanding
of the relationship between income, education,
and employment status and physical violence
and emotional abuse. The findings provide some
evidence that household income and education
are important economic resources in relationships
that reduce the risk of Emotional Abuse and
468
Physical Violence. This supports the assumptions
of the marital dependency and stress frustration
perspectives. At the same time, I find that
income, employment, and education are symbolic
resources in intimate relationships—that is, being
an employed woman is associated with the risk of
experiencing Emotional Abuse by a partner when
her partner is unemployed. Higher income clearly
reduces the frustration, stress, and conflict in
intimate relationships that may heighten the risk
for physical violence, but when a woman’s contribution to family income exceeds that of her
partner, her risk of Emotional Abuse increases.
Moreover, although education insulates a woman
from Emotional Abuse by her partner, the benefits of educational attainment are diminished
when a woman’s education is incompatible with
her partner’s educational attainment.
My research suggests that in relationships with
status incompatibilities that favor the woman
(status reversal), some men are more likely to
use Emotional Abuse in an effort to reinstate
their power and dominance in the home. Yet,
these men do not resort to the use of physical
violence against their wives. These findings must
be viewed with caution, given the time period
covered by the survey and analyzed here. Given
these limitations, the findings provide tentative
support and are consistent with the view that
employment, education, and financial resources
are symbolic in intimate relationships. Anderson
(1997) has suggested that one way for men to
differentiate themselves from the women in their
lives is by obtaining higher levels of education
and income and greater occupational prestige.
Some disenfranchised men may rely on other
social practices to construct a masculine image,
however. This may include redefining the
provider role (Tichenor, 1999) or using emotionally abusive behaviors that demean and control
their wives when other resources are absent in
order to construct a masculine identification.
Consistent with Anderson, I find that emotional
abuse is therefore more likely among couples who
deviate from the typically gendered configuration
of the man as the economic provider.
The connection between status compatibility
and intimate partner abuse has important implications for reducing the incidence of emotional
abuse, and potentially, physical violence against
women. Although women’s employment has led
to an increasing number of marriages based on
status parity, continued efforts must be made
to translate status parity into equality within
Journal of Marriage and Family
marriage. Given that equality in marriage is
associated with lower rates of intimate partner
violence, Coleman and Straus (1985) suggest
that laws and services devised to empower
women and encourage men to value an equal
partner are likely to be important steps to reducing violence. Equality in marriage would ensure
that men and women receive the same benefits
from status parity marriages. Nock (2001) suggests that there is every reason to be optimistic
that this transformation in the experience of marriage for men and women will occur. As more
boys and young men grow up in nontraditional
households with working mothers, there will be a
greater supply of men with nontraditional gender
ideals (Nock).
Although the findings in this article provide
further support for the literature on status reversal, given the limitations of the variables and
measures available in the Canadian General
Social Survey, the findings should be interpreted
with caution. The small number of cases of physical violence limits the conclusions made with
regard to the role of status compatibility and
intimate partner violence. The missing data on
income also prevented a full examination of the
association between income compatibility and
the risk of husband-to-wife intimate partner
violence. Future data collections should consider asking respondents the reasons for not
responding to the household income question.
This would allow for distinctions to be made
between those who refuse to respond and those
who do not know the household income.
An additional limitation of the analyses is the
inability to examine the marital quality of the
marriages of equally dependent spouses and
measure (and control for) the marital satisfaction
of women in these couples. Given that research
(Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988; Coleman & Straus,
1986; Kim & Sung, 2000) suggests that egalitarian marriages have both higher levels of marital
satisfaction and a lower risk for intimate partner
violence, this is an important direction for future
research. This suggests the need for a greater
integration of the literature on the quality of
marriage and family relationships and research
primarily focused on intimate partner violence
and victimization.
Moreover, the findings with respect to the association between income, education, and employment compatibilities and status reversal and the
risk of husband-to-wife Emotional Abuse point to
the need for further elaboration and theoretical
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
development on the role of power and status in
intimate relationships and on the risk of intimate
partner violence and abuse. Income, education,
and employment are clearly measures of economic
status and power, yet other resources and measures
of status may also shape the dynamics of intimate
relationships and increase the risk of partner violence. For example, future research should explore
the impact of youth, beauty, family prestige, and
inherited wealth. McCloskey (1996) suggests that
these alternative resources and statuses may have
implications for interpersonal relationships and conflict, and may also determine a woman’s risk for
spousal violence and emotional abuse.
Although the findings presented here support
previous research on status compatibilities and
gendered analyses of the risk of violence by partners, the findings may also provide support for a
number of alternative explanations. One possibility
is that status incompatibilities favoring women
may also be uncomfortable for some women who
expect their partners to make a substantial contribution. This may prompt marital conflict and disagreements, which in turn increase a woman’s risk
of experiencing violence and abuse. Alternatively,
McCloskey (1996) suggests that given that abusers
are more often unemployed, perhaps intimate partner violence, combined with the economic strains
associated with male unemployment, lead abused
women to seek out employment. That is, women
who are abused by their unemployed partners
experience a number of economic strains and emotional pushes that lead them to seek employment.
Although the findings with regard to the relationship between husband’s and wife’s employment
and the risk of intimate partner violence may support this alternative explanation, my findings on
income and education provide greater support for
the proposed explanation and previous research
that argue that status reversal leads to abuse by
partners. Women who earn higher levels of income
and have greater educational attainment are unlikely to have attained these statuses as a consequence
of their partners’ abuse. Yet, future research will
have to more closely attend to the time order of
these life events and women’s risk of both violence
and emotional abuse.
The findings also have implications for future
data collection efforts and research on the correlates of intimate partner violence. This includes
the need for continued research on partner violence that makes clear distinctions among various
types of physical violence and the need to more
closely examine elements of power and control in
469
marital relationships. Whereas my research has
made a number of contributions to work on the
role of socioeconomic factors in intimate partner
violence, the data and analyses have limitations
that suggest important directions for future
research. One notable limitation with respect to
the scope of the Canadian victimization data and
other data on intimate partner violence is the
ability to examine the correlates of violence and
abuse only within current relationships. As noted
by Hornung et al. (1981) and Tichenor (1999),
status compatibilities play an important role in
shaping marital satisfaction, and have implications for the risk of marital dissolution in both
violent and nonviolent relationships. Analyses of
the relationship between status compatibilities
and intimate partner violence and emotional
abuse with a sample of currently married and
cohabiting women are therefore conservative
estimates given that status reversal couples are
more likely to divorce. The future collection of
spousal victimization data therefore must attend
to the impact of income, education, and employment compatibilities of previously married and
cohabiting couples. This would include an examination of the demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics of women’s previous partners, and
women’s experiences with violence and emotional
abuse during these subsequently dissolved relationships. Additionally, future research will have
to examine the impact of status reversal on the
risk of male- and female-perpetrated intimate
partner violence and abuse. This suggests the
need for the collection of both victimization and
offending data that question both partners. This
would allow for an examination of the association between status compatibilities and intimate
partner violence victimization and perpetration,
as well as mutually combative behavior between
intimate partners. Although researchers have
explored the implications of status reversal on
husband-to-wife spousal violence, research examining the relationship between status reversal
and mutually combative behaviors and violence
perpetrated by women is limited (see Anderson,
1997 for an analysis of the National Survey of
Families and Households).
The findings may offer direction for interventions and policy in dealing with violence against
women. Given the complex role of economic
factors in shaping the risk of partner abuse,
Moore (1997) suggests the need to take a harmreduction approach to dealing with intimate
partner violence. This involves decreasing the
470
Journal of Marriage and Family
prevalence of intimate partner violence among all
women while simultaneously reducing the frequency and severity of violence among women
of lower socioeconomic status who may be less
able to leave violent relationships. Moore suggests the need to find violence-ending strategies
that are ‘‘congruent with the socio-economic status of the victim’’ (p. 100). Battered women’s
shelters must continue to focus their efforts
toward the emotional and economic needs of
women and children leaving violent homes.
This would include the expansion of employment
and educational programs for those women most
likely to be victims of intimate partner violence
and who may also be economically dependent on
marriage. At the same time, efforts must be directed toward those women most likely to be at risk
of experiencing Emotional Abuse by their partners that may subsequently lead to violence and
continued abuse. Public health initiatives via
medical centers and women’s health clinics
must continue to educate women on the physical
and mental health consequences of both physically violent and emotionally abusive behaviors
at the hands of intimate partners.
NOTE
An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November
2001, in Atlanta, GA. I am grateful to Alfred DeMaris and
I-Fen Lin for their substantive and statistical comments.
REFERENCES
Amato, P. R., Johnson, D. R., Booth, A., & Rogers, S.
J. (2003). Continuity and change in marital quality
between 1980 and 2000. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 65, 1–22.
Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic
violence: An integration of feminist and family
violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 59, 655–669.
Borooah, V. K. (2002). Logit and probit: Ordered and
multinomial models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brinkerhoff, M. B., & Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal
violence. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers
Canadiens de Sociologie, 13, 407–434.
Coleman, D., & Straus, M. A. (1985). Marital power,
conflict, and violence in a nationally representative
sample of American couples. Violence and Victims,
1, 141–157.
Crowley, M. S. (1998). Men’s self-perceived adequacy
as the family breadwinner: Implications for their
psychological and work-family well-being. Journal
of Family and Economic Issues, 19, 7–23.
DeKeseredy, W. S., & Hinch, R. (1991). Woman
abuse: Sociological perspectives. Toronto, ON:
Thompson Educational Publishing.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M.
(1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital
violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.
Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1990). Intimate violence
in families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of
psychological aggression against a partner and
their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 61, 959–970.
Hamby, S. L., Poindexter, V. C, & Gray-Little, B.
(1996). Four measures of partner violence: Construct similarity and classification differences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 127–139.
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.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., &
Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research
on husband violence. Part I: Maritally violent versus
non-violent men. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
2, 65–99.
Hornung, C. A., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Status
relationships in dual-employment marriages: Consequences for psychological well-being. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 43, 125–141.
Hornung, C. A., McCullough, B. C., & Sugimoto, T.
(1981). Status relationships in marriage: Risk factors
in spouse abuse. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 43, 675–692.
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.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1990). A risk
marker analysis of assaulted wives. Journal of
Family Violence, 5, 1–13.
Jasinski, J. L. (2001). Theoretical explanations for violence
against women. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson, &
R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against
women (pp. 5–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and
common couple violence: Two forms of violence
against women. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 57, 283–294.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. (2000). Research on
domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948–963.
Kalmuss, D., & Straus, M. (1990). Wife’s marital
dependency and wife abuse. In M. Straus &
Abuse in Intimate Relationships
R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American
families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence
in 8,145 families (pp. 369–379). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Kaufman, G. K., & Jasinski, J. L. (1998). Dynamics
and risk factors in partner violence. In J. L. Jasinski,
L. M. Williams, & D. Finkelhor (Eds.), Partner violence:
A comprehensive review of 20 years of research
(pp. 1–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, J. Y., & Sung, K. (2000). Conjugal violence in
Korean American families: A residue of the cultural
tradition. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 331–345.
Kurz, D. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife
abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender
& Society, 3, 489–505.
Lenton, R. L. (1995). Power versus feminist theories of wife
abuse. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 305–330.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical
and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Long, S., & McGinnis, R. (1981). Organization context
and scientific productivity. American Sociological
Review, 46, 422–442.
Lupri, E., Grandin, E., & Brinkerhoff, M. (1994).
Socioeconomic status and male violence in the
Canadian home: A re-examination. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 19, 47–73.
Macmillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1999). When she brings
home the bacon: Labor-force participation and the
risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61, 947–958.
McCloskey, L. A. (1996). Socioeconomic and coercive
power within the family. Gender & Society, 10,
449–463.
Moore, A. (1997). Intimate violence: Does socioeconomic status matter? In A. P. Caradelli (Ed.),
Violence between intimate partners: Patterns,
causes and effects (pp. 90–100). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Nock, S. L. (2001). The marriages of equally dependent
spouses. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 755–775.
Ono, H. (1998). Husbands’ and wives’ resources and
marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 60, 674–689.
Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Woman-battering: Victims and
their experiences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Riggs, D. S., Caulfield, M. B., & Street, A. E. (2000).
Risk for domestic violence: Factors associated with
perpetration and victimization. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 56, 1289–1316.
471
Rogers, S. J., & Amato, P. R. (1997). Is marital quality
declining? The evidence from two generations.
Social Forces, 75, 1089–1100.
Rubin, L. B. (1994). Families on the fault line. New
York: Harper Collins.
Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Rothert, K., Standish, N. J.,
& Kim, Y. J. (2002). Women’s employment, marital
happiness, and divorce. Social Forces, 81, 643–662.
Schwartz, M. (1988). Ain’t got no class: Universal risk
theories of battering. Contemporary Crises, 12,
393–394.
Statistics Canada. (2000). 1999 Canadian general social
survey, personal risk. Microdata File, Documentation
and Questionnaire Package. Ottawa, Ontario.
Straus, M. A. (1990). Social stress and marital violence
in a national sample of American families. In.
M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence
in American families: Risk factors and adaptations
to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 181–202). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change
and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985
as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 465–479.
Straus, M. A., and Smith, C. (1990). Family patterns
and child abuse. In M. A. Straus & R.J. Gelles (Eds.),
Physical violence in American families: Risk factors
and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families
(pp. 245–260). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. (1980).
Behind closed doors: Violence in the American
family. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Strube, M. J., & Barbour, L. S. (1983). The decision to
leave an abusive relationship: Economic dependence
and emotional commitment. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 45, 785–793.
Tichenor, V. J. (1999). Status and income as gendered
resources: The case of marital power. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61, 638–650.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and
consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings
from the national violence against women survey.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs.
White, L., & Rogers, S. J. (2000). Economic circumstances and family outcomes: A review of the 1990s.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1035–1051.
Zimmer, M. (2001). Explaining marital dissolution:
The role of spouses’ traits. Social Science Quarterly,
82, 464–477.