Journal of Family Psychology1999, Vol. 13, No. 1,20-32

Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0893-320O/99/$3.0O

Feeling Controlled in Marriage: A Phenomenon Specificto 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 spousalcontrol were assesed: involvement in decision making, relationships with familyand friends, freedom to plan activities independently, and sense of competence andself-respect. Overall, as expected, spouses in happy marriages reported feeling lesscontrolled than spouses in the 2 distressed groups. Few gender differences wereobtained, with the exception that wives in aggressive marriages were more likely toreport that their husbands controlled their sense of competence and self-respect.Differences between the DA and DNA groups depended on the specific area ofcontrol. Wives in the aggressive couples were significantly more likely than theirhusbands to state that their spouse's aggression was an attempt to control them.

Scholars and practitioners from a variety oftheoretical perspectives have asserted that thereis a relationship between coercive control andthe occurrence of physical aggression in mar-riage (Black, 1983; Finkelhor, 1983; Gondolf,1985; Stets, 1988). Efforts to test this assertion,however, have been hampered by a lack ofagreement on how to operationally definespousal control. Consequently, this article brieflyreviews existing theories explicating the link

Miriam K. Ehrensaft, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Richard E. Heyman, K. Daniel O'Leary, andErika Lawrence, Department of Psychology, StateUniversity of New York at Stony Brook.

Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling is now at theDepartment of Psychology, University of SouthAlabama. Erika Lawrence is now at the Departmentof Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles.

This research was supported in part by NationalInstitute of Mental Health Grant MH19107. Becausethe research constituted Miriam K. Ehrensaft'sdoctoral specialties project, special thanks are ex-tended to committee members Marvin Goldfried,David Pomeranz, and Dana Bramel.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Miriam K. Ehrensaft, who is now at theDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, NewYork State Psychiatric Institute, 722 West 168th Street,Unit 78, New York, New York 10032. Electronic mailmay be sent to ehrensam@child.cpmc.columbia.edu.

between marital aggression and control, defini-tions of control produced by each theory, andempirical research that has been associated withthese definitions. Then a definition of control isoffered, drawing from each of these threetheories. Finally, the relationship between thisdefinition of control and physical aggression isstudied in a sample of distressed aggressive(DA), distressed nonaggressive (DNA), andnondistressed nonaggressive (H) couples.

Partner abuse literature points to three impor-tant theoretical frameworks for understandingthe link between marital aggression and control:attachment, feminist, and social control theories.Bowlby's (1969, 1973, 1977, 1988) attachmenttheory postulates that aggression against anattachment figure, whether during childhood oradulthood, is a control strategy that functions toregain either physical or emotional proximity tothat figure, when the bond with that figure isperceived to be endangered. Individuals who areinsecurely attached to their primary attachmentfigure are more likely to perceive subjectivethreats to the bond with their attachment figure,as compared with individuals who are securelyattached (Bowlby, 1977; Hazan & Shaver,1987). A definition of control based on attach-ment theory would encompass behaviors in-tended to regulate the proximity of the attach-

20

CONTROL IN MARRIAGE 21

ment figure. Consistent with attachment theory,clinical reports indicate that battering men arehighly controlling toward their partner anddisplay extreme difficulty in tolerating theirpartner's autonomy (Elbow, 1977; Ganley,1981; Gondolf, 1985; Shields & Hanneke, 1983;Sonkin, Martin, & Walker, 1985; Walker, 1984).Research suggests that partner-violent men aremore likely to be insecurely attached to and areless trusting of their partner (Holtzworth-Munroe, Stuart, & Hutchinson, 1997), displayhigher needs to control emotional distance intheir marriage (Dutton & Strachan, 1987), andare more dependent on their partner than areDNA men (Murphy, Meyer, & O'Leary, 1993).

Feminist theory provides a second theoreticallink between control and aggression in romanticrelationships. This theory views family violenceas an outgrowth of a patriarchal hierarchy thatsanctions the use of male-female violence as ameans of maintaining male power within themarriage (Denzin, 1984; Dobash & Dobash,1979; Lips, 1991). Consistent with this stance,rates of wife abuse appear to be lower insocieties in which wives have economic influ-ence within the marriage, compared with thosein which wives have little or no economicinfluence (Levinson, 1988). Family violence isalso less common in societies in which men donot expect to be masters of their homes andtolerance for violence is low (O'Kelly &Carney, 1986). On the basis of feminist theory,partner control (especially by men) would bedenned in terms of male-dominated decisionmaking, beliefs about men's greater competencerelative to women, and expectations that men'sneeds take priority over women's needs.

Social control theory provides a third theoreti-cal connection between marital aggression andspousal control. Black (1983) has suggested thatviolent responses to perceived deviance orinjustice by others serve as conflict manage-ment, as a means of expressing grievances, andas a form of social control. Consistent with thistheory, most marital assaults do occur in thecontext of disagreement or a grievance (O'Learyet al., 1989; Vera Institute of Justice, 1977).Social control theory may also be operative inremarks made by male batterers, implying thattheir wives deserved to be beaten for perceivedoffenses such as attempts at autonomy, failure tofulfill traditional household chores, or disrespect-

ful behavior (e.g., Gondolf, 1985). A definitionof control based on this theory would describebehaviors intended to maintain adherence toperceived regulations and norms within themarriage; violence could be used as a form ofretribution for violations of such norms.

In summary, ideas from attachment, feminist,and social control perspectives each yieldtheoretical support for a relationship betweencontrol and physical aggression in marriage anddifferent operational definitions of control.Drawing ideas from each of these three theories,we propose that an assessment of control shouldcover the following areas: reducing the spouse'spower to make decisions, limitations of thespouse's relationships with others and indepen-dence in daily activities, and diminution of hisor her self-image and ego strength. Behaviors ineach of these domains may be defined ascontrolling when they attempt to or have theeffect of directing or constraining the spouse'sactions, thoughts, or emotions. We reasoned thatan individual might control his or her spouse injust one, or several, of these areas and, thus,included a separate assessment of control overeach area. For us to distinguish feeling con-trolled from mutual and normative interspousalinfluence, these attempts had to be perceived asnegative by the recipient. Control was alsodifferentiated here from psychological maltreat-ment of a spouse (e.g., Marshall, 1992). Weconceptualized psychological maltreatment as abroader, umbrella structure, of which control-ling behavior is only one specific subtype, as notall psychological maltreatment described in theliterature is necessarily controlling (Marshall,1992; Tolman, 1989). For instance, verbalhostility toward a spouse may be psychologi-cally maltreating, whereas its actual or per-ceived function might be to express anger, ratherthan control, per se. There is some disagreementamong domestic violence researchers regardingthe differentiation between psychological abuseand control. Although some maintain that thefunction of all psychological abuse is to controlthe partner, others disagree. Because it is ourposition that the function and impact of allpsychological abuse may or may not be tocontrol the partner, we chose specifically tofocus our definition of control on behaviors thatdo constrain or limit the partner and that areperceived by the partner as unwanted.

It is surprising that few empirical studies have

22 EHRENSAFT ET AL.

sought to demonstrate the link between controland marital aggression, and most existingstudies suffer from important methodologicalshortcomings. First, most studies that addresscontrol fail to specify just what it is that they aremeasuring. Other studies do not differentiatebetween coercive control and decision-makingpower (Blood & Wolfe, 1957). or betweencoercive control and noncoercive influence of aspouse. Clearly defining what is meant bycontrol allows us to test whether specificbehaviors and attitudes are more commonamong husbands versus wives, distressed versusnondistressed marriages, and aggressive versusnonaggressive marriages. A second major short-coming of most research linking control andspousal aggression is the absence of comparisongroups to control for marital discord. Finally,most research on control and aggression is notbased on dual spousal reports. To fill the gaps inexisting research, we tested the idea that spousalcontrol is specifically related to marital aggres-sion, rather than to overall marital discord, bycomparing happy nonaggressive, distressed aggres-sive, and distressed nonaggressive couples.

The socially undesirable nature of partnercontrol may pose threats to measurements ofsuch behavior. This is particularly true forpartner-aggressive men, who tend to deny orminimize their aversive behaviors toward theirwives (Gondolf, 1985; Sonkin et al., 1985).Consequently, we asked participants to report ontheir spouse's controlling behavior, rather thanon their own behavior. Moreover, an attempt toinfluence a partner may or may not be perceivedas controlling by the targeted partner. Forinstance, an individual might perceive a spouse'sattempts to limit time spent without him or heras a desirable sign of affection. Thus, we elicitedthe partner's cognitive-affective response toeach behavior to distinguish behaviors per-ceived as controlling from those perceived asnoncontrolling influence.

The study tested the following hypothesesregarding the association between feeling con-trolled and marital aggression on the basis of thetheoretical and empirical literature reviewedabove. First, we predicted that both partners inaggressive marriages should report feel morecontrolled than partners in nonaggressive mar-riages. We based this hypothesis about wives onfeminist theory's position that wives of aggres-sive husbands are highly controlled by their

partners. For husbands, our hypothesis wasbased on findings indicating that aggressive menhave stronger needs for control than do nonag-gressive men (Kimerling & Arias, 1994),suggesting that aggressive husbands might bemore likely to interpret their wives' behaviors ascontrolling, to perceive a threat to their owncontrol, and thus report feeling more controlledthan do nonaggressive husbands. Second, accord-ing to feminist theory, wives should feel morecontrolled than husbands in general, and wivesof aggressive husbands should feel particularlycontrolled. Finally, we expected that wives inthe aggressive group would be more likely thantheir husbands to believe that their spouse wasmotivated to use physical aggression as a meansof maintaining control over them.

Method

Participants

The sample was composed of 21 maritally happy,nonaggressive couples (H), 16 maritally discordant,nonaggressive couples (DNA), and 20 maritallydiscordant, aggressive couples (DA). Previous studiesusing similar samples have found that the occurrenceof marital aggression decreases as age and yearsmarried increases (Pan, Neidig, & O'Leary, 1994).For this reason, spouses were included only if theywere married between 1 and 7 years. This samplingstrategy also increased the likelihood of obtaining arelatively homogeneous sample and of ruling outthird variable confounds. Couples were recruited soas to fill three different groups. Happy couples wererequired to obtain an average score of at least 115 onthe Marital Adjustment Test (MAT; Locke & Wallace,1959), neither spouse could obtain a score lower than100, and neither could have engaged in any act ofphysical aggression at any point in the marriage, asmeasured by the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus,1979). Maritally discordant but nonaggressive coupleswere required to obtain an average MAT score nohigher than 100, neither spouse could obtain a scorehigher than 115, and neither could have engagedin or received any act of physical aggression at anypoint during the marriage. Maritally discordant,aggressive couples were to meet the same MATcriteria as the discordant, nonaggressive couples, butwere also required to endorse at least two acts ofhusband-to-wife physical aggression on the CTSduring the past 12 months (throwing an object at thepartner or more severe acts), as reported by either thehusband or the wife. This decision to include onlycouples reporting at least two acts of husband-to-wifeaggression was to obtain a more homogenous, stably

CONTROL IN MARRIAGE 23

aggressive group, rather than one in which theaggression was a single occurrence.

All of the couples were obtained from advertise-ments in local newspapers in Suffolk County, LongIsland, NY, inviting "couples married between 1 and7 years to participate in a study of marriage" and werescreened for eligibility by telephone interview, usingthe MAT and the CTS. As this advertisement yieldeda rapid filling of the H group, the announcement waslater rerun inviting "couples married 1 to 7 yearshaving problems in their marriage to participate instudy of marriage." Of 168 couples who werescreened for the project, 57 were rejected as they didnot fit any group, 35 were accepted but were neversuccessfully scheduled, 75 were accepted and partici-pated, and 21 of these 75 were being recruited for adifferent study. Thus, the final sample included 54couples.

Sample Characteristics

The sample was 84.5% Caucasian, 6.0% Hispanic,2.4% African American, 2.4% Asian, and 4.8% other.A 3 (group) X 2 (gender) multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA), with gender as the repeatedvariable, and age, income, years married, years ofeducation, and number of children as dependentvariables indicated significant group differences onthe above variables, Wilks' A (10, 174) = .67, p <.001. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs)revealed group differences on education, F(2, 91) =5.32, p < .01, and number of children, F(2, 91) =8.88, p < .001; DA spouses had less education andmore children than DNA and H spouses. No groupdifferences were obtained on the other demographicvariables. Neither gender differences nor Group XGender interactions were found.

As expected on the basis of selection factors, asignificant group difference was observed for theDyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), F(2,92) = 94.40, p < .001. Follow-up univariateANOVAs revealed that the difference in DAS scoreswas attributable to a difference between the H groupversus the two distressed groups, and that the twodistressed groups' DAS scores did not differ from oneanother. The mean DAS scores were 122.20,(SD = 11.86), 88.30 (SD = 12.81), and 86.50(SD = 12.51) for the H, DNA, and DA groups,respectively. Table 1 shows the demographic meansfor each group. Consistent with the study acceptancecriteria noted above, averaging the reports of both theDA husbands and wives, husbands had committed anaverage of six acts of mild aggression (e.g., pushing,shoving, slapping) and one act of severe aggression(e.g., beating up) in the 12 months prior toparticipation in the study. The frequency of aggres-sion perpetrated by husbands in this study is roughlycomparable with, if somewhat lower than, ratesreported by community samples of batterers (e.g.,

Table 1Demographic Means for Happy (H), DistressedNonaggressive (DNA), and DistressedAggressive (DA) Spouses

Variable

Years of ageMSD

Years marriedMSD

Family income ($)MSD

Years of educationMSD

No. of childrenMSD

H

31.006.62

4.452.09

48,05319,409

14.40a

2.92

1.02a

1.30

DNA

34.6010.49

4.112.51

51,76720,791

13.60b

1.89

1.23b

1.22

DA

31.906.82

4.863.96

39,08821,207

12.41C

3.56

2.11C

1.26

Note. Means with different subscripts are differentat the p<. 05 level.

Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997, reported a mean of12.9, and 8.6 acts of aggression in two communitysamples of male batterers). Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge,and Tolin (1996) reported means of 5.96 to 31.51 actsof violence in three groups of court-mandatedbatterers in treatment for spouse abuse.

Measures: Phone Screen Instruments

CTS (Straus, 1979). The CTS is a scale com-posed of physically and psychologically coerciveitems occurring in the context of a marital conflict.Participants reported, separately, how frequently theyand their spouse engaged in each tactic during thepast 12 months. The aggressive tactics includethrowing something at the spouse, pushing, shoving,slapping, hitting, kicking, beating up, and using aknife or a gun against the spouse. Couples in whichneither spouse endorsed any of those items wereidentified as nonaggressive.

A factor analysis found the CTS to be structurallysound (Pan et al., 1994), and the psychometricproperties of the original CTS are well documented(Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). The CTS isfrequently used as a dichotomous yes-no classifica-tion measure of aggression (e.g., Anglin & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1997; Ehrensaft & Vivian, 1996).

MAT (Locke & Wallace, 1959). The MAT is ameasure of marital adjustment suitable for rapidadministration on the phone (O'Leary et al., 1989). Itconsists of 15 items, 9 of which assess the degree ofdisagreement on major marital issues. It is sensitive tochanges in marital therapy (cf. O'Leary, 1987), and its

24 EHRENSAFT ET AL.

convergent validity has been repeatedly demonstrated(e.g., Navran, 1967; Spanier, 1976). Scores can rangefrom 2 to 158, with higher scores indicating higherlevels of adjustment; a score of 100 has been thetraditional cutoff point for marital distress. The scaleserved to classify spouses as maritally discordant orhappy. A longitudinal study of recently marriedcouples (O'Leary et al., 1989) reported a mean MATscore of 115. On the basis of that study, we classifiedcouples as happily married if they scored above thisvalue.

Study Measures

DAS (Spanier, 1976). The DAS is currently themost widely used measure of overall marital satisfac-tion. Its psychometric properties are well established(Spanier, 1989). Scores range from 0 to 151.

Control Interview (Ehrensaft, 1994). Parts I -mof the Control Interview were semistructured so thatall participants were asked the same questions, butcould answer open-endedly.

Part I: Participants were queried about the degreeto which their spouse controls them on the following

four dimensions: (a) decision making (major deci-sions, spending money, etc.), (b) relationships (free-dom to pursue relationships with friends and family),(c) activities (freedom to select activities, scheduleone's day, and engage in activities without thespouse), and (d) self-image (being treated as worthyof respect, competent, and able to manage indepen-dently). Table 2 lists the topics and sample questionsfrom each dimension. For each question, if theparticipant indicated that his or her spouse exercisedsome influence over that topic, the interviewer thenasked the participant to describe the effects of thatinfluence (i.e., positive, negative, or neutral) on his orher feelings or behaviors, or both. Only responsesindicating negative effects were scored as indicatingthat the respondent felt controlled by the behavior.

Items in the Control Interview were originallyselected on the basis of face validity, following areview of the spouse abuse literature. For instance,Walker (1984) indicated that residents of shelters forbattered women often reported batterers' attempts toisolate mem, forbidding them to pursue close relation-ships with others. Thus, questions in the relationshipsdimension addressed the degree to which the participant

Table 2Control Interview Topics and Questions

Topic Question

DecisionsMajor decisionsSocial decisions

Spending moneyPersonal decisions

RelationshipsFamily/friends

ConstraintsJealousy regarding

affairActivities

Freedom

Schedule

AloneForbiddenAwareness

Self-imageRespectCompetence

Self-sufficiency

How much influence do you have over major decisions, e.g., moving?How much influence do you have over social decisions, like what to do together on the

weekend?How much influence do you have regarding spending money?How much influence do you have over personal decisions that don't have anything to

do with your spouse, like handling a problem at work or with a friend?

How does your spouse feel about you spending time with your family/friends? Is thereanyone whom he discourages you from spending time with or being close to?

Are there any constraints on whom you spend time with, or on what you do with them?Has your spouse ever accused you of having an affair, or acted suspicious about you

having an affair?

How much freedom does your spouse give you to do the things you want, go where youwant, etc.?

Does one of you have to schedule his or her day around the other, or consult the otherabout how you schedule your time?

How does spouse feel about you going places alone?Is there anything you are "not allowed" to do?How aware is your spouse of what you do and where you go on a daily basis?

How much does spouse seem to respect you as a person, by what he/she says or does?How much does spouse treat you like an independent adult, like you can function as a

parent and worker?How much does spouse act as though you would be able to manage without him/her?

Does he/she tell you that you couldn't manage without him/her, or that no one elsewould want you?

CONTROL IN MARRIAGE 25

felt controlled by his or her spouse in developing andmaintaining relationships with family and friends. Follow-ing the original selection of interview items, a list of all ofthe items was given to 10 psychologists and psychiatrists,who were asked to sort them into categories. Items weredeleted (n = 4) if raters obtained less than 80% agree-ment on their dimension classification. Agreement washigh, and items that were conserved obtained interrateragreement ranging from 80% to 100%.

Finally, the list of items was submitted to a test ofinternal scale reliability using the current sample.Items that significantly reduced item-scale alphaswere deleted (n = 2). Cronbach's alphas for theretained items in each dimension were as follows:decision making, a = .83; relationships, a = .76;activities, a = .80; and self-image, a = .75. Moderatebut not high correlations with marital satisfactionwere expected. Consistent with this prediction, theDAS and the four dimensions of the ControlInterview correlated as follows: decisions, r = —.43;relationships, r = —.46; activities, r = —.47; andself-image, r = —.56.

All of the responses to Part I were coded accordingto a set of mutually exclusive, exhaustive categories.A code of +2 was assigned to responses in which aparticipant suggested that he or she either (a) hadmore control than the spouse, or (b) had completefreedom over the topic (e.g., "I make 90% of thesocial decisions"). A code of +1 was assigned whenthe participant stated that he or she was somewhatinfluenced by the spouse, but that this had a positiveeffect on either the participant or on the marriage(e.g., "I must schedule my day around him, but I feelthat this is good for our marriage"). If a participant'sresponse indicated that the spouse had some influ-ence, but indicated that the effect was neutral, theresponse was coded 0 (e.g., "Having to come homebefore midnight does not really affect the way Ifeel").

Responses in which the participant suggestedfeeling somewhat controlled were coded — 1 (e.g., "Ifeel somewhat restrained from seeing my friends, andthis bothers me a little"). Those in which theparticipant suggested feeling quite controlled werecoded —2 (e.g., "I can't see my friends anymore andit really bothers me"). Uncategorizable responseswere coded other.

As a concurrent validity check for the ControlInterview, the four dimensions of the interview werecorrelated with the Dominance/Isolation subscale ofTolman's (1989), Psychological Maltreatment ofWomen Inventory (PMWI). This self-report scaledifferentiates battered women in domestic violenceshelters from nonbattered women and includes itemssuch as "My partner ordered me around," "Mypartner monitored my time and made me account forwhere I was," and "My partner tried to keep me fromseeing or talking to my family." For husbands,

Spearman's rhos (rs) for negative control responseswere as follows: decisions, T-S = .35, p < .01;relationships, rs = .27, p < .05; activities, rs = .32,p < .05; and self-image, rs = .16,/? > .10. For wives,the correlations were decisions, rs = .52, p < .01;relationships, rs = .24, p = .07; activities, rs = .53,p < .01; and self-image, rs = .25, p = .08.

Part II: Participants were then asked to indicatewhether they felt that their spouse tried to controlthem (yes or no), and to quantify, on a 10-point scaleranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely), howcontrolled by their partner they felt, regardless ofwhether the partner was trying to control them.

Part III (only for participants who report receivingaggression from their spouse): Participants wereasked to describe one incident in which they receivedmarital aggression. They were also asked what theythought their partner's motivation was when he or shewas aggressive. Last, they were asked (yes or no)whether they thought the aggression was conducted inorder to control them or in response to losing controlover them.

All of the responses were coded directly fromvideotapes of the interviews. Five undergraduateswere trained to code the interviews through anintensive training curriculum. During this training,disagreements regarding categorization of responseswere resolved by consensus. Reliability was calcu-lated on a random sample of 25% of all interviews.Kappas-by-category were .94 for +2, .81 for +1, .53 for0, .61 for - 1 , and .87 for - 2 . When the - 2 and - 1 codeswere combined, kappa-by-category was .85.

Design and Procedure

The present study was part of a larger study on boththe positive and difficult aspects of marriage (Langhin-richsen-Rohling, Schlee, Monson, Ehrensaft, & Hey-man, 1998). At the laboratory, participants completeda demographic questionnaire, all self-report instru-ments, and several other short interviews beforecommencing the Control Interview. Spouses wereseparated during self-report measure administrationand during the Control Interview. Interviewers andcoders were blind to the couples' group assignment.The order of husband and wife Control Interviewswas counterbalanced across couples. Specific guide-lines about the extent to which probing was permittedwas provided to interviewers to ensure consistencyacross participants' responses. Participants wereasked only about controlling behaviors that they hadexperienced from their partner. They were not askedabout the control behaviors in which they hadengaged. The Control Interview was conducted byone of two trained graduate-level interviewers andlasted approximately 30 min per spouse. Participantswere debriefed in full and paid $60 per couple for 3 hrof participation.

26 EHRENSAFT ET AL.

Results

For each participant and for each dimensionof the Control Interview, a proportion ofresponses indicating perceived negative spousalcontrol was calculated. Analyses were con-ducted by summing the number of —1 and —2(negative control) responses given for thatdimension and dividing this number by the totalnumber of questions answered for that dimen-sion. For instance, of the total five questionsposed on the decision-making dimension, if aparticipant gave two answers that were coded as— 1, that participant would receive a proportionof 2/5 X 100 = 40%.

Table 3 shows the mean percentages of feltnegative control across each of the fourdimensions, for husbands and wives in H, DA,and DNA marriages.

Correlations between husband and wife datawere significant, as were correlations betweenresponses on each of the four dimensions. Thus,a three-way general linear model (GLM),repeated measures analysis was run, usinggender (2) and dimension (4) as the repeatedvariables and group (3) as the between-subjectsvariable.1 A priori contrasts were requested,comparing the percentage of responses indicat-ing felt negative control by spouses in Hmarriages with those in the two distressedgroups, and then comparing responses byspouses in the DA and DNA marriages to eachother.2

Results of the GLM suggest no overall gendereffect, but an overall group effect, Wilks' A =.53, F(2, 51) = 22.24, p < .0001, collapsingacross the four control dimensions. The H groupscored significantly lower (felt less negativecontrol) than the two distressed groups, Wilks'A = .57, F(l , 51) = 38.56, p < .0001. Ashypothesized, the DA group scored significantlyhigher (felt more negative control) than theDNA group, Wilks' A = .92, F(l , 51) = 4.31,p < .05. There was no significant Group XGender interaction, Wilks' A = .97, F(2, 51) =.70,p>.10.

Participants seem to have responded differ-ently to the various dimensions; an overalldimensions main effect was obtained, Wilks'A = .48, F(3, 49) = 17.80, p < .0001. AGroup X Dimensions interaction was obtainedwhen comparing participants' answers with the

relationships versus activities dimensions, F(2,51) = 3.70, p < .05, and when comparingresponses with the activities versus self-imagedimensions, F(2,51) = 3.78, p < .05.

Univariate analyses for each dimension re-vealed that on the decisions dimension there wasa significant group effect, F(2, 51) = 7.60, p <.001, with the H group obtaining significantlylower scores than the two distressed groups(95% contrast confidence interval lowerbound = -10.02, upper bound = -39.43). Onthe relationships dimension, a significantGroup X Gender interaction was obtained, F(2,51) = 3.87, p < .03, indicating that DNA andDA husbands felt more negatively controlled inthe relationships domain than did DNA and DAwives, whereas this difference was not obtainedamong H couples. On the activities dimension,no gender effect was obtained, F(l , 51) = .92,p > .10, but a significant group effect wasobtained, F(2,51) = 13.64, p < .0001. Spousesin H marriages scored lower than spouses in thetwo distressed groups (95% contrast confidenceinterval lower bound = -34.96, upperbound = -13.06). Spouses in the DA groupreported more felt control on the activitiesdimension than spouses in the DNA group (95%contrast confidence interval lower bound = 3.73,upper bound = 31.10). No significant Group XGender interaction was obtained on the activi-

1 So as to ensure that the assumptions of ANOVAwere not violated when analyzing percentages,examinations were made of the heterogeneity, skew,and kurtosis of the percentage of perceived controlresponses for each of the four Control Interviewdimensions (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989). These threevariables were examined for distributions of hus-bands' and wives' responses in each of the threegroups (H, DA, and DNA), thus looking at a total ofsix distributions. In all of these distributions and onall four of the interview's dimensions, the highestvariance was less than 4 times the lowest variance,which indicates that the heterogeneity did not differproblematically across the different distributions.Similarly, for all four Control Interview dimensions, eachof these six distributions met appropriate standards few-skew and kurtosis (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989). Thus,assumptions of ANOVA were not violated.

2 Although years of education and number ofchildren differed across the three groups, they werenot significantly correlated with the dependentvariables and thus were not included as covariates.

CONTROL IN MARRIAGE 27

Table 3Mean Percentages for Perceived Negative Control and Means for 0-10Perceived Control Scale for Happy (H), Distressed Aggressive (DA), andDistressed Nonaggressive (DNA) Couples

DimensionDecisions

MSD

RelationshipsMSD

ActivitiesMSD

Self-imageMSD

0-10 PerceivedControlscale

MSD

H(n = 21)

8.1018.06

7.6214.80

8.7317.90

10.7120.27

1.832.17

Husbands

DNA(« = 15)

16.3318.94

45.6743.46

26.0027.20

38.3333.89

4.692.32

DA(n = 18)

29.7233.28

54.1731.82

43.6136.77

58.3332.08

5.172.66

H(n = 21)

5.0011.18

13.6811.67

6.6713.45

16.6724.15

2.182.00

Wives

DNA(n = 15)

20.3329.31

28.0027.04

20.0025.07

55.0027.06

3.652.49

DA(n = 18)

29.7238.60

25.1931.15

37.2234.90

63.8837.60

4.033.39

ties dimension, F(2, 51) = .08,/? > .10. Finally,on the self-image dimension, there were nogender, F(l, 51) = .10, p > .10, or Group XGender, F(2, 51) = 1.79, p > .10, effects, but asignificant group effect was obtained, F(2, 51) =24.16, p < .0001. The H group scoredsignificantly lower than the two distressedgroups (95% contrast confidence interval lowerbound = -52.49, upper bound = -27.91). Also,DA wives reported significantly more feltcontrol of their self-image than did the DNAwives (95% contrast confidence interval lowerbound = 3.19, upper bound = 47.92). This lasteffect was not significant for husbands.

Finally, on the 0-10 scale of overall perceivedcontrol, a group main effect was obtained, F(2,48) = 10.39, p < .0001; DNA and DAparticipants felt more controlled than H partici-pants (95% confidence interval lowerbound = —4.91, upper bound = -1.84). Unex-pectedly, DA couples did not report feeling morecontrolled than DNA couples (95% confidenceinterval lower bound = —1.33, upperbound = 2.53). No gender main effect wasobtained, F(l, 48) = 1.54, p > .05, nor wasthere any Group X Gender effect, F(2, 48) =1.07, p > .10. Table 3 shows the means on the0-10 Perceived Control scale.

Perceived Motivation for Spouse'sAggression (DA Spouses)

Mixed-design ANOVAs with gender as therepeated variable on perceptions of the spouse'smotivations for physical aggression revealedthat wives were more likely than husbands toreport that their spouse was aggressive to getthem to stop doing something, F(l, 19) = 4.75,p < .05. Wives were also significantly morelikely than husbands to answer affirmativelywhen asked directly whether they thought thattheir spouse was aggressive in order to controlthem,F(l, 19) = 4.13,/? < .05.

Perceived Influence

After examining whether group and genderdifferences existed with regard to experiencingcontrol from one's spouse as negative, a secondset of post hoc questions arose regardingperceived spousal control. Instead of lookingonly at spousal control that is perceived asnegative, are there group or gender differences,or both, in the amount of overall spousalinfluence the participants experience? A newsummary variable was created for each dimen-sion, calculating the proportion of responses in

28 EHRENSAFT ET AL.

which the individual indicated feeling influ-enced by their partner, whether they stated thatthis influence had a positive, neutral, or negativeeffect on the marriage (i.e., collapsing —2, — 1,+ 1, and 0 responses). A Group X GenderMANOVA was conducted, with gender as therepeated variable and the four dimensions(decisions, relationships, activities, and self-image) as dependent variables. An overall groupmain effect was obtained, Wilks' A = .45, F(8,96) = 5.89, p < .0001, but neither a gender,Wilks' A = .27, F(4,48) = 1.35, p > .05, maineffect nor Group X Gender interaction, Wilks'A = .82, F(8, 96) = 1.24, p > .05, wasobtained. ANOVAs indicated that the H groupfelt significantly less influenced than the twodistressed groups on the relationships (95%confidence interval lower bound = —32.83,upper bound = —1.39) and self-image (95%confidence interval lower bound = -74.97,upper bound = -38.77) dimensions; the Hgroup did not differ from the two distressedgroup on the decisions (95% confidence intervallower bound = -3 .31 , upper bound = 26.71)or activities dimensions (95% confidence inter-val lower bound = -23.08, upper bound =3.79). Also, the DA group felt significantly moreinfluenced than the DNA group on the activitiesdimension (95% confidence interval lowerbound = 3.59, upper bound = 37.18), but noton the other dimensions (confidence intervalsfor decisions = -1.09 to 36.44; for relation-ship = - 1 5 . 6 8 to 23.64; and for self-im-age = -3.84 to 41.42). Table 4 shows the mean

percentage of influence reported by each group,for each dimension, and Table 5 shows thecorrelations between husbands' and wives'reports on mean percentage of control andinfluence responses, respectively.

To test the theoretical assumption that feelingcontrolled should be defined as feeling influ-enced and reacting with negative affect to thatinfluence, partial correlations between the PMWIand influence (any influence, whether seen asnegative, neutral, or positive) responses werecalculated, partialing out the negative controlresponses. For men, the only significant influen-ce-PMWI partial correlation was for the self-image, rs = .32, p < .05. For women, the partialcorrelations were significant for activities, rs =.70, p < .01, and self-image, rs = .68, p < .01.Thus, it appears that for husbands, one cangenerally infer that their wives' influencingbehaviors is perceived as controlling only if thehusband responds with negative affect. Anexception would be for self-image, where anyinfluence over this seems to be perceived ascontrolling. For wives, the picture is slightlymore complex. Whereas influence over deci-sions and relationships is seen as controllingonly if paired with negative affective response,any influence over activities or over self-imageis seen as controlling.

Discussion

Happy couples felt markedly less controlledacross all dimensions investigated than did the

Table 4Mean Percentages for Perceived Influence for Happy (H), Distressed Aggressive (DA), andDistressed Nonaggressive (DNA) Couples

Dimension

DecisionsMSD

RelationshipsMSD

ActivitiesMSD

Self-imageMSD

H(n = 21)

70.2426.25

20.0018.97

50.1620.38

16.6721.41

Husbands

DNA(« = 15)

57.6732.34

39.6733.30

50.3325.53

60.0026.39

DA(n = 18)

73.0629.66

48.3328.34

70.0030.24

64.3530.63

H(« = 21)

63.8130.70

34.2927.67

45.9516.10

17.8623.90

Wives

DNA(n = 15)

47.3321.87

36.0025.30

45.0019.91

41.6732.27

DA(n = 18)

56.9437.46

32.9633.57

54.1730.88

63.8837.60

CONTROL IN MARRIAGE 29

Table 5Husband-Wife Pearson Correlations (r) onPerceived Control and Influence

Control interview Perceived Perceiveddimension influence control

DecisionsRelationshipsActivitiesSelf-image

-.17-.002.04.49*

.21

.66*

.53*-.03

DA and DNA couples. On the other hand, in allgroups, most spouses reported feeling influ-enced by their spouse to some degree. Clearly,most marriages entail a certain level of compro-mise and reduced independence. However, theseresults suggest that spouses in distressed mar-riages tend to perceive this influence as negativeand controlling, whereas spouses in happymarriages are more likely to appraise spousalinfluence as neutral or even positive. Thus, wemay conclude that spouses in happy marriagesare either obliged to make fewer compromisesor they have fewer negative perceptions of thosecompromises.

As predicted, results indicate that spouses inmaritally DA marriages feel more controlledthan spouses in maritally DNA marriages, but inspecific areas. They perceive less freedom toindependently select activities, to spend timealone, or to schedule their time independently.Moreover, wives in DA marriages, relative towives in DNA marriages, tend to feel that theirhusbands have more control over their sense ofself-respect and over their feeling of beingcompetent workers, mothers, or both. Thesewives report that their husbands make them feelas though they would be unable to manageadequately without them. That wives of aggres-sive husbands felt more controlled in such areasmay suggest that these husbands feel threatenedby their partner's autonomy and are motivatedto control their activities outside the marriage.This finding is consistent with Dutton andStrachan's (1987) clinical observation of partner-assaultive men's need to regulate the socioemo-tional distance within the marriage. In fact, to aninsecurely attached individual, the spouse'sattempts to engage in activities outside themarriage may be perceived as signaling distanc-ing and potential abandonment (Murphy et al.,1993).

Two surprising findings emerged in thepresent study. First, no differences were foundbetween DNA and DA couples on the decisionsand relationships control dimensions. This is notto say that couples in aggressive marriages donot have conflict over decision making orrelationships with others outside the marriage.On the contrary, compared with H couples,scores for DA couples were high. However, itseems that those issues are not unique toaggressive couples and may be more closelyrelated to marital discord.

A second unanticipated finding was thathusbands in both distressed groups felt morecontrolled than wives regarding the freedom topursue relationships with family and friends(i.e., the relationships dimension). This findingis particularly surprising in view of numerousclinical reports by battered women that docu-ment jealous and isolating behavior by batteringmen (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Walker, 1984).However, two important caveats must be statedhere. First, the context of husbands' reportsregarding their wives' limitations of theirrelationships with others is unclear. For in-stance, wives who request that their husbandsspend less time with friends and more timefulfilling parenting responsibilities may beviewed by aggressive husbands as controlling.Also, aggressive husbands may have a particu-larly poor choice of friends if they are antisocial,may have highly dysfunctional-conflictual fami-lies of origin, or may have very real tendenciesto be sexually promiscuous. Viewed in thismanner, those men's wives' attempts to limittheir interactions with friends and family may beefforts to protect themselves or their children.The second caveat to our findings on therelationships dimension concerns the nature ofour sample. The sample interviewed in thisstudy is considerably less violent than samplesof men arrested for abusive behavior andwomen seeking aid from battered women'sshelters. On the other hand, several studies nowindicate that jealousy, rejection sensitivity, andinsecure attachment are elevated among womenand men in mildly aggressive relationships (e.g.,Downey, 1997; Downey, Feldman, & Ayduk, inpress). In sum, part of the dynamic in bothDNA, and DA couples may involve bothspouses perceiving that their partner wishes tolimit their involvement with parties outside themarriage, albeit for potentially different reasons.

30 EHRENSAFT ET AL.

The absence of gender differences on themajority of the dimensions of the ControlInterview suggests that, overall, husbands andwives feel equally controlled in those areas. Italso suggests that aggressive marriages may becharacterized by a general perception of power-lessness, each spouse feeling that the other isattempting to control them. Results from thisstudy cannot be used to conclude that husbandsand wives actually are equally controlled bytheir spouse, as this study exclusively measuredperceptions of spousal control. Although onemay never be able to objectively assess the truedegree of spousal control in a laboratory setting,observational assessments of control will be anessential methodological addition to this area.

One gender difference that did emerge, as wepredicted, was that wives in aggressive mar-riages tend to perceive their husband's aggres-sion as motivated by a wish to control them,whereas this was reported significantly lessoften by husbands. This finding is consistentwith other research in which men describe theirown marital aggression as instrumentally moti-vated (Hamberger, 1993). The finding is alsoconsistent with social control theory, whichposits that aggression is used as a means ofredressing perceived deviations from expecta-tions. For instance, Gondolf (1985) observedthat aggressive husbands often become aggres-sive in response to a perception that their wifefailed to fulfill a role obligation.

Implications for Applicationand Public Policy

The primary clinical implication for thetreatment of marital violence, at least inmaritally aggressive couples presenting with acomplaint of marital discord, is the need toreduce both the need or sense of entitlement tocontrol one's spouse and the frequency ofcontrolling interchanges between spouses. More-over, it would be important to teach alternateways of obtaining changes in their partner'sbehavior or redressing perceived injustices,instead of using controlling behaviors. Aggres-sive individuals are more likely to feel that theirpartner is attempting to reduce their personalautonomy. Furthermore, wives in physicallyaggressive relationships are particularly likelyto complain that their husbands control then-sense of personal competence and self-esteem.Clinicians working with marital aggression

should routinely question spouses, in individualinterviews, about these types of controllingbehavior. Therapists should also carefully ex-plore the context of behavior that is described ascontrolling. For instance, a wife who tries toprevent her husband from going out on frequentdrinking episodes may be perceived as control-ling by the husband, m such cases, the therapistshould work to reframe the wife's behavior as anindication of concern and frustration regardingher partner's problematic habit.

When a clinician obtains a description of abehavior, has explored the context of thatbehavior, and deems it to represent a harmfulinstance of control, he or she should then workto help the clients to recognize these behaviorsand to understand the negative consequences ofthe controlling behaviors on their partner'saffect. In turn, the therapist should help theclients learn to stop engaging in the controllingbehavior. Clinicians should also attempt touncover the perceived cause of the controllingbehavior. For instance, controlling behaviorsmay reflect a feeling of being threatened by thepartner's autonomy and a fear of losing thepartner. Clinicians may point out that control-ling behavior has a paradoxical effect ofemotionally driving the partner away and mayassist spouses to seek alternate, positive meansof rapprochement with their partner. In addition,clinicians may work with aggressive spouses toincrease their tolerance for the partner's au-tonomy. Note that further research is needed todetermine whether the above treatment applica-tions may also extend to individuals who arecourt mandated for treatment or other popula-tions of severely partner-aggressive men, wherepredominantly male-to-female control patternshave been reported (Gondolf, 1985).

Study Limitations

This study has several limitations. Mostimportant, the results cannot assert whetherfeeling controlled in marriage is a cause or resultof spouse abuse. Clearly, factors other thanfeeling controlled, such as witnessing or endur-ing physical aggression in the family of origin,demographic variables, alcohol use, attitudesabout the use of aggression in marriage(Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981), and psycho-physiological variables (Jacobson et al., 1994),can contribute to the likelihood of engaging inor receiving marital aggression. Future research

CONTROL IN MARRIAGE 31

is needed to clarify the role that control plays inthe prediction of aggression, relative to theseother factors, as well as the process by whichcontrol and aggression become linked. Furtherstudy, which is currently underway, is alsoneeded to determine whether spouses' percep-tions of being controlled would be supported byoutside observers. This would allow a determina-tion of whether spouses in aggressive marriages areactually more controlled or simply misinterpretingtheir partner's behaviors as intended to controldiem.

Another limitation of the study pertains to thegeneralizability of the findings. As noted earlier,the sample may be representative only ofcouples in the early years of intact marriageswho volunteer for a study on marriage. Futureresearch is needed to determine the extent towhich these results generalize to couples whoare separated or divorced, refuse to participate ina study on marriage, have never been married, orhave been married for much longer periods oftime, or where the aggression is so severe as tomotivate the wife to seek protection at a batteredwomen's shelter. Also, given the small samplesize, particularly of the DNA group, replicationof the study would be important.

Finally, perhaps the most important validityissue pertains to the particular definition ofcontrol used in this study. We drew from threeimportant theories that we found clinically andtheoretically useful in defining control and inclarifying the potential relationship betweencontrol and aggression. Other studies takingalternative theoretical views of control may ormay not find similar results. We believe thispoint underscores the importance of clearly definingthe construct of control in empirical studies.

Important questions regarding the relation-ship between control and marital aggression areraised by this study. Is this relationship consis-tent across different levels of severity andchronicity of marital aggression or across ageand duration of the marriage? Does the sense offeeling controlled by one's spouse relate to thespouse's behaviors per se or to the individual'sown hypersensitivity to control? What is theprocess by which perceived imbalances incontrol develop over time? Do such imbalancesdevelop in parallel with aggression and maritaldiscord or precede them? Ultimately, answers tothese questions are likely to impact treatmentstrategies for marital aggression and certainlywarrant continued research attention.

References

Anglin, K., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1997). Com-paring the responses of maritally violent andnonviolent spouses to problematic marital andnonmarital situations: Are the skill deficits ofphysically aggressive husbands and wives global?Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 301-313.

Black, D. (1983). Crime as social control. AmericanSociological Review, 48, 34-45.

Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands andwives. New York: Free Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1.Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2.Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: BasicBooks.

Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking ofaffectional bonds. British Journal of Psychiatry,130, 201-210.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. London: BasicBooks.

Denzin, N. K. (1984). Towards a phenomenology ofdomestic violence. American Journal of Sociology,90, 483-513.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violenceagainst wives. New York: Free Press.

Downey, G. (1997, May). Rejection sensitivity andintimate relationships. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Psychological Society,Washington, DC.

Downey, G., Feldman, S., & Ayduk, O. (in press).Rejection sensitivity and male violence in romanticrelationships. Personal Relationships.

Dutton, D. G., & Strachan, C. E. (1987). Motivationalneeds for power and spouse-specific assertivenessin assaultive and nonassaultive men. Violence andVictims, 3, 145-156.

Ehrensaft, M. K. (1994). Control Interview. Unpub-lished manuscript, State University of New York atStony Brook, University Marital Therapy Clinic.

Ehrensaft, M. K., & Vivian, D. (1996). Spouses'reasons for not reporting existing marital aggressionas a marital problem. Journal of Family Psychology,W, 443-453.

Elbow, M. (1977). Theoretical considerations ofviolent marriages. Social Casework, 58, 515-526.

Finkelhor, D. (1983). Common features of familyabuse. In D. Finkelhor, R. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, &M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families:Current research on family violence (pp. 77-88).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ganley, A. L. (1981). Court-mandated counseling formen who batter: A three day workshop for mentalhealth professionals: Participant's manual. Washing-ton, DC: Center for Women's Policy Studies.

Gondolf, E. W. (1985). Men who batter: Anintegrated approach for stopping wife abuse.Holmes Beach, CA: Learning Publications.

32 EHRENSAFT ET AL.

Hamberger, L. K. (1993, November). The function ofaggression is different for men and women. Posterpresented at the Annual Meeting of the Associationfor the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Atlanta,GA.

Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin,D. F. (1996). A large sample empirical typology ofmale spouse abusers and its relationship to dimen-sions of abuse. Violence and Victims, 11, 277-292.

Hazan, C , & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic loveconceptualized as an attachment process. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Stuart, G. L., & Hutchinson,G. (1997). Violent versus nonviolent husbands:Differences in attachment patterns, dependency andjealousy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 314-331.

Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M, Waltz, J., Rushe, R.,Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1994).Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in thearguments of couples with a violent husband.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,982-988.

Kimerling, R., & Arias, I. (1994, October). The role ofpower and control in dating violence. Posterpresented at the annual meeting of the Associationfor Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Atlanta,GA.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Schlee, K., Monson,C. M., Ehrensaft, M. K., & Heyman, R. E. (1998).Perceptions of marital positivity as a function ofhusband-to-wife physical aggression and maritaldistress. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 197-212.

Levinson, D. (1988). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. In V. B. Van Hasselt, R. L.Morrison, A. S. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds.),Handbook of family violence (pp. 435-455). NewYork: Plenum.

Lips, H. M. (1991). Women, men and power.Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, M. (1959). Short maritaladjustment and prediction test: Reliability andvalidity. Marriage and Family Living, 21, 251-255.

Marshall, L. L. (1992). Psychological abuse: Viola-tion, harassment, battering. Unpublished manu-script, University of North Texas.

Murphy, C. M., Meyer, S. L., & O'Leary, K. D.(1993). Dependency characteristics of partner as-saultive men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,103, 1-7.

Navran, L. (1967). Communication adjustment inmarriage. Family Process, 6, 173-184.

O'Kelly, C. G., & Carney, L. S. (1986). Women andmen in society: Cross-cultural perspectives ongender stratification. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

O'Leary, K. D. (Ed.). (1987). Assessment of maritaldiscord. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

O'Leary, K. D. (1988). Physical aggression betweenspouses: A social learning theory perspective. In V.B. Van Hasselt, R. L. Morrison, A. S. Bellack, & M.Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of family violence (pp.31-55). New York: Plenum Press.

O'Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A.,Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence andstability of physical aggression between spouses: Alongitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 57, 263-268.

Pan, H. S., Neidig, P. H., & O'Leary, K. D. (1994).Male-female and aggressor-victim differences inthe factor structure of the Modified Conflict TacticsScale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 366-382.

Rosenbaum, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1981). Maritalviolence: Characteristics of abusive couples. Jour-nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49,63-71.

Shields, N. M., & Hanneke, C. R. (1983). Attributionprocesses in violent relationships: Perceptions ofviolent husbands and their wives. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 13, 515-527.

Sonkin, D., Martin, D., & Walker, I. (1985). The malebatterer. New York: Springer.

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment:New scales fort assessing the quality of marriageand similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 38, 15-28.

Spanier, G. B. (1989). Dyadic Adjustment Scalemanual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Sys-tems.

Stets, J. E. (1988). Domestic violence and control.New York: Springer-Verlag.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamilial conflictand violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scale.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 75-88.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K.(1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in theAmerican family. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Usingmultivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper-Collins.

Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measureof psychological maltreatment of women by theirmale partners. Violence and victims, 4, 159-177.

Vera Institute of Justice. (1977). Felony arrests: Theirprosecution and disposition in New York City'scourts. New York: Author.

Walker, L. (1984). The battered woman syndrome.New York: Springer.

Received October 7,1997Revision received August 11, 1998

Accepted August 12,1998 •