Causes and Maintenance of Domestic Violence: An Ecological Analysis

Intimate Partner Violence During the Transition from Prison to the Community: An Ecological Analysis

“…At the individual level the succession principle highlights the historical, economic, social, and cultural contexts that individuals have experienced over time and how these contexts have shaped individuals' world views. This principle also draws attention to the impact individuals' world views have on their future goals and aspirations (Trickett, 1995;Trickett & Birman, 1989;Trickett & Buchanan, 2001).As with Bronfenbrenner's framework Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998), the ecological analogy articulated by Kelly and colleagues (1966, 1968Trickett, 1984Trickett, , 1996 Trickett & Birman, 1986; (Carlson, 1984;Cunningham, Jaffe, Baker, Dick, Malla, Mazaheri, & Poisson, 1998;Dutton & Corvo, 2006;Gondolf, 2002;Harway & O'Neil, 1999;Heise, 1998).For these reasons, the study of intimate partner violence fits well within the context of an ecological analytical framework. The ecological perspective is appropriate for conceptualizing intimate partner violence in that it allows for the 25 consideration of multiple, interdependent related factors that exist simultaneously at the personal, situational, social-structural, and sociocultural levels (Heise, 1998).…”

“…The following sections are a summary and expansion of current articulations of intimate partner violence (e.g., Carlson, 1984;Harway & O'Neil, 1999;Heise, 1998;Stith et al, 2004) through the lens of Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). In some cases, Bronfenbrenner's original labels for each level of contextual analysis are replaced with the language proposed by Carlson (1984) and Heise (1998). (Carlson, 1984;Delsol & Margolin, 2004;Heise, 1998;Malamuth et al, 1991; Personality.…”

“…In contrast, men who are unemployed may be more likely to engage in partner abuse because they have less to lose in terms of social status (Sherman et al, 1992 Partner conflict. Scholars also identify intimate partner conflict at the situational/microsystem level within ecological analyses of intimate partner violence (Carlson, 1984;Heise, 1998;Stith et al, 2000). In a national survey of families in the US, Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz (1980) found a direct relationship between the amount of marital conflict in couples and the likelihood of physical violence.…”

“…Some evidence indicates that affluent families are less likely to experience intimate partner violence compared to poorer families (Benson & Fox, 2004;Straus et al, 1980); however one cannot conclude that being poor causes intimate partner violence since not all poor families experience partner abuse (Carlson, 1984). Rather, Gelles and Straus' (1979b) theory regarding unequal distribution of resources, stress, and deprivation suggests that socioeconomic 43 status is likely associated with intimate partner violence in that it creates severe stress and tension which, for some couples, leads to physical abuse (Benson & Fox, 2004;Carlson, 1984).In addition, the degree of social and economic deprivation at the community or neighborhood level also appears to impact the rate of intimate partner violence in those communities. Some research indicates that partner abuse is related to community-level rates of unemployment and poverty in urban neighborhoods (Benson & Fox, 2004;Heise, 1998).…”

“…Community attitudes regarding partner abuse and violence against women are also present at the socialstructural/exosystem level of behavioral analysis. Carlson (1984) argues that communities often contribute to the level of intimate partner violence through local norms, laws, and rules, and through their response to the problem when it occurs.Laws and customs dictating the reaction of law enforcement to domestic violence reports and the overall criminal justice response may certainly influence the degree to which some men engage in partner abuse and may also shape victims' willingness to report the abuse (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). Western culture promote expectations for the masculine gender role that are linked to dominance, power, toughness, honor, and superiority of men relative to women (Heise, 1998;Kaufman, 1994;Kilmartin, 2000;Messerschmidt, 2005;Seymour, 2003).…”