Status Compatibility, Physical Violence, and Emotional Abuse in Intimate Relationships

Transcription

1 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 (kaukine@bgnet.bgsu.edu). Key Words: emotional abuse, intimate partner violence, status compatibilities. 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 452 Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (May 2004):

2 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 Traditional Status Status Parity Status Reversal Normative Yes No/Yes No Economic differential Yes (man dominant) No Yes (woman dominant) Measuring Status Compatibility Economic Status Traditional Status Status Parity Status Reversal Employment Woman unemployed/partner employed Woman employed/partner employed Woman unemployed/ partner unemployed Woman employed/partner unemployed Education Woman has less education Similar education Woman has more education Income Woman earns less Similar incomes Woman earns more Woman does not know household income Examining the Association Between Status Compatibility and Violence/Abuse Hypothesis Traditional Status Status Parity Status Reversal Marital dependency þ Marital quality þ þ Stress frustration a þ Feminist þ þ Resource 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,

3 454 Journal of Marriage and Family 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. 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

4 Abuse in Intimate Relationships 455 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 (Holtzworth- Munroe 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. 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

5 456 Journal of Marriage and Family 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. 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

6 Abuse in Intimate Relationships 457 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 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,

7 458 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, 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

8 Abuse in Intimate Relationships 459 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. 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

9 460 Journal of Marriage and Family TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR VARIABLES IN THE MODEL (n ¼ 7,408) Variables M SD 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 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 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, 0¼ other) Disability (1 ¼ yes) Spouse s heavy drinking (1 ¼ 5 or more drinks on one occasion, 0¼ 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 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

10 Abuse in Intimate Relationships 461 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, 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 (w 2 ¼ 58.95, p <.001), education (w 2 ¼ 16.13, p <.05), and income (w 2 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

11 462 Journal of Marriage and Family TABLE 3 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS SHOWING ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN STATUS COMPATIBILITY AND RISK OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE Employment Compatibility Both Employed Status Compatibility Measures Woman Unemployed/ Partner Employed Woman Employed/ Partner Unemployed Both Unemployed w 2 No violence Emotional abuse Violence without emotional abuse Violence with ** emotional abuse n Education Compatibility Woman Less Educated Education Parity Woman More Educated No violence Emotional abuse Violence without emotional abuse Violence with emotional abuse * n Income Compatibility Woman Earns Less Income Parity Woman Earns More Household Income Unknown No violence Emotional abuse Violence without emotional abuse Violence with emotional abuse ** n 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

12 Abuse in Intimate Relationships 463 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 ). The score test (w 2 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 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 (e 0.08 ¼ 0.92 and e 0.09 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 (e 0.29 ¼ 1.34, and e 0.35 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

13 464 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 educational levels of couples that is the important risk factor (Hornung et al., pp ). 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 SUMMARY OF MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR VARIABLES PREDICTING PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE BY A MALE INTIMATE PARTNER (n ¼ 7,408) 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 Likelihood Ratio Predictor B (e B ) SE B B (e B ) SE B B (e B ) SE B w 2 Demographic Woman s age.02* (.98) Spouse s age.07 (1.07) Relationship length.02 (1.02) Couple only in the home.09 (1.09) Woman is disabled.60** (1.83) Urban.12 (1.13) Legally married.05 (.96) Aboriginal/visible minority.54** (1.72) Spouse s drinking.24* (1.27) Education (.99) (1.03).05.21* (.81).10.36* (.70) (1.47) (1.09) (.79) (1.04).11.45* (1.56).02.03* (.97) (1.10).09.19* (.83) (.76).26.99** (2.68) (1.23) (.76).22.58** (1.79).19.69** (1.99) * * ** ** ** Woman s education.09** (.92) Education parity.29* (1.34) Woman more educated.35* (1.41) Employment (1.05) (1.25) (1.20) (.97).24.51* (1.67).28.53* (1.69) ** ** ** Both employed.19 (1.21) Woman unemployed and.29 partner employed (1.33) (.96) (.67) ( (.89)

14 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 Likelihood Ratio Predictor B (e B ) SE B B (e B ) SE B B (e B ) SE B w 2 Woman employed and partner unemployed Income.69** (1.98) (.65) (1.28) ** Woman s income.08** * (.92) (1.03) (.95) Income parity (1.08) (.66) (.71) Woman earns more.34* (1.40) (.87) (1.22) Woman earns less (.91) (.86) (.78) Constant 1.77** **.47 Note: For the model, w 2 (38) ¼ , p < 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 (e 0.34 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 (e 0.69 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 (e 0.54 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% (e 0.02 ¼ 0.98). Consistent with stress frustration perspectives, heavy episodic drinking by her partner (e 0.24 ¼ 1.27) and a physical disability (e 0.60 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 (e 0.53 ¼ 1.69) to experience Physical Violence (as compared to those in the No Abuse category), and status parity women are 67% more likely (e 0.51 ¼ 1.67) to experience Physical Violence (as compared to those in the No Abuse category). These findings are largely consistent

15 466 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 [e 0.21 ¼.81] and No Violence and Abuse [e 0.19 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 [e 0.45 ¼ 1.56] and No Violence and Abuse [e 0.69 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

16 Abuse in Intimate Relationships 467 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 highest 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

17 468 Journal of Marriage and Family 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 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

18 Abuse in Intimate Relationships 469 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 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

19 470 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 Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 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, Coleman, D., & Straus, M. A. (1985). Marital power, conflict, and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. Violence and Victims, 1, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1990). A risk marker analysis of assaulted wives. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 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, Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, Kalmuss, D., & Straus, M. (1990). Wife s marital dependency and wife abuse. In M. Straus &

20 Abuse in Intimate Relationships 471 R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp ). 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, Kurz, D. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender & Society, 3, Lenton, R. L. (1995). Power versus feminist theories of wife abuse. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 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, Lupri, E., Grandin, E., & Brinkerhoff, M. (1994). Socioeconomic status and male violence in the Canadian home: A re-examination. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 19, 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, McCloskey, L. A. (1996). Socioeconomic and coercive power within the family. Gender & Society, 10, Moore, A. (1997). Intimate violence: Does socioeconomic status matter? In A. P. Caradelli (Ed.), Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes and effects (pp ). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Nock, S. L. (2001). The marriages of equally dependent spouses. Journal of Family Issues, 22, Ono, H. (1998). Husbands and wives resources and marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 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, Rogers, S. J., & Amato, P. R. (1997). Is marital quality declining? The evidence from two generations. Social Forces, 75, 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, Schwartz, M. (1988). Ain t got no class: Universal risk theories of battering. Contemporary Crises, 12, Statistics Canada. (2000) 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 ). 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, 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 ). 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, Tichenor, V. J. (1999). Status and income as gendered resources: The case of marital power. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 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, Zimmer, M. (2001). Explaining marital dissolution: The role of spouses traits. Social Science Quarterly, 82,