1 / 143

Biased assimilation, belief perseverance, group think and the DV paradigm

Biased assimilation, belief perseverance, group think and the DV paradigm. Sacramento, CA. Feb 16, 2008.

robert-ward
Download Presentation

Biased assimilation, belief perseverance, group think and the DV paradigm

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biased assimilation, belief perseverance, group think and the DV paradigm Sacramento, CA. Feb 16, 2008

  2. The human understanding when it has adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there may be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate. ----- Francis Bacon : The New Organon and Related Writings (1620).

  3. The Woozle Effect • Langley & Levy 1977, (Wife Beating: the Silent Crisis) reported that half the women in the US were abused and cited a Gelles & Straus study as the basis for their inappropriately extrapolated statistic but the study had been conducted in a shelter. • In 1980, Linda Macleod published a book called Wife Battering in Canada: The Vicious Circle in which she claimed (p.21), every year 1 in ten Canadian women in a relationship are battered. • The first Canadian domestic violence incidence survey was done in 2000. MacLeod’s figure was apparently based on the proportion of women that a shelter in Windsor, Ontario said they had to turn away.

  4. Beyond Woozle • Arias et al. (2002), quoting Stets & Straus (1992a) as a source, claimed “women were seven to fourteen times more likely to report that intimate partners had beaten them up, choked them, threatened them with weapons, or attempted to drown them”. (p. 157). • Of course, Stets & Straus say no such thing. There is no action by action analysis reported (such as choking or drowning) and they conclude that male and female violence rates are identical.

  5. Beyond Woozle • Neil Jacobson on Oprah: there are 2 kinds of male abusers: cobras and pitbulls • (to sell his book, When Men Batter Women, Jacobson and Gottman 1998)

  6. The Current Climate • ABA Website – 85% of perpetrators are male • American Psychologist (Bornstein 2006) “studies indicate that more than 95% of abuse perpetrators are men” (p.595).

  7. The Paradigm • all IPV (intimate partner violence) is male perpetrated “95%” • Also “normative “ (Dobash & Dobash) to sustain male dominance • Female IPV is self defense or preemptive strikes -> still originates in male Hx of abuse

  8. Feminist Sociology: Power & Control • As Dobash and Dobash (1979) put it, "Men who assault their wives are actually living up to cultural prescriptions that are cherished in Western society--aggressiveness, male dominance and female subordination--and they are using physical force as a means to enforce that dominance" (p. 24).

  9. Main Beliefs • All male battering is for “power and control” and instrumental • All female violence is self defensive, therefore, couples therapy is ruled out, too dangerous for women • Male violence escalates if unchecked, hence, males need to be more “accountable”. • Male violence is “normal violence” therefore, therapy is not warranted. • Focuses on confrontation of sexist beliefs which “cause violence” and “male privilege” • Source: Pence & Paymar (1993) Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth Model (Springer).

  10. Main Beliefs 2 • All “psychological causes” of IPV in males are excuses • All forms of couples interaction causes are “blaming the victim”

  11. Feminist Sociology: Power & Control(Yllo & Straus 1990) • Focus on male violence (in general) towards women • Patriarchy: Male violence as “normal” control • Emphasis on gender relations and power • Bograd (1988) “All feminist researchers, clinicians, and activists address a primary question: “Why do men beat their wives?”…why men in general use physical force against their partners and what functions this serves for a given society “

  12. Impact on Court Mandated “Intervention” (not Treatment ) • “Using slavery, a colonial relationship, or an oppressively structured workplace as an example, the facilitator can draw a picture of the consciousness of domination”. • – E. Pence and M. Paymar, Education Groups for Men who Batter: The Duluth Model, p.49. ( see RDV chapter 14)

  13. Where did the “paradigm” originate? • “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…the molding, direction, and expression of sexuality organizes society into two sexes: women and men. This division underlies the totality of social relations. “ • ---- Catherine MacKinnon, Toward a feminist theory of the state (p. 3) • MacKinnon CA. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University Press.: Cambridge , Massachusetts, 1989.

  14. Corvo and Johnson (2003) • the bedrock view of feminist thought “that battering (by males) is NEVER... provoked, hereditary, out of control, accidental, an isolated incident. It is not caused by disease, diminished intellect, alcoholism/addiction, mental illness or any external person or event. It is a means for men to systematically dominate, disempower, control and devalue women…. it is greater than an individual act, it supports the larger goal of oppression of women”

  15. Normative? • Acceptance of wife assault is not normative • Only 2% of North American men agree with “ its’ ok to hit your wife to keep her in line” (Simon et al 2001, n = 5238+) • Most marriages are not patriarchal – only 9.4 % of North American marriages are “male dominant” ( Coleman and Straus 1986)

  16. More buts • Violence rates in victim surveys using the CTS show equivalent levels of violence • This is true even when level of severity is assessed (Stets and Straus 1989/92) • In younger age samples, female violence rates are higher than male rates (Whittaker, Morse, Capaldi)

  17. The rejoinder • CTS surveys take the violence “out of context” • Contextual patterns of domination are still exclusively male • However, when “context” ( control, motives for IPV) is measured too, the differences are not so black and white ( LaRoche 2005, Follingstad 2002)

  18. Lesbian Violence • Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships reported on past relationships with both men and women. • Past relationships with women were more abusive • Sample = 1099 in Phoenix • Violence rates higher than in heterosexual relationships • Suggest intimacy is a factor (and psychological problems that are triggered by intimacy)

  19. Belief perseverance • Lord, Lepper and Ross (1979) : Stanford study found that when presented with research contradicting our beliefs (in this case on the deterrence effect of capital punishment) , we are more likely to disparage the methodology than when it confirms our beliefs • Ss judged research methods less acceptable when results contradicted their beliefs (regardless of whether they were pro or anti capital punishment)

  20. Belief Perseverance 2 • In IPV studies, this has taken the form of criticizing the CTS as failing to assess “context” • “context” is taken to mean instrumental use of violence, controlling violence, self defense • But the CTS is 16X as sensitive as “crime victim” surveys and context has been assessed (see below)

  21. So how does the paradigm survive? • 1) don’t ask, don’t tell • 2) ecological fallacy • 3) cherry pick the data • 4) drop female violence from analyses • 5) the “crime data” problem • 6) “evidence “ by citation

  22. How does the paradigm survive? 1 • 1) don’t ask, don’t tell • - surveys of women’s victimization, and of men’s perpetration • Initially only government survey (VAWS) was presented as a survey of criminal victimization of women

  23. Method 1 • VAWS survey often cited as evidence for “male violence” but • Straus 1999 survey found VAWS only 1/16 as sensitive as CTS surveys • CTS surveys generate equivalent rates of violence by gender • “context” issue – self defense, instrumental violence equal by gender

  24. Incidence of IPV • “victim surveys” (e.g. VAWS) generate low baseline reports of victimization but show a gender difference in victimization rate • E.g. the VAWS (US) .03% (for males) and 1.1% (for females) • Advocates like to cite “males are 3X as violent as females” – its .03 vs 1.1 % • Actually, these surveys have filters-> need to define IPV as crime and self as victim

  25. Hence • Men had filters on answering that they were “crime victim” in a survey of crimes against women • Generated a low report rate from both genders but especially men

  26. Incidence data • Are typically seen and interpreted as unilateral victimization • E.g. if “repeat severe violence” is reported by 8% of US women are they all “battered women”?

  27. Battering • Repeat, severe, male perpetrated violence is what we typically call battering • “wife battering” is this type of violence perpetrated by the male • What would “husband battering “ be? • How about the use of severe violence against a non-violent man • What about bilateral violence of equal severity?

  28. Reality check 1 • Stets and Straus • Archer • Whittaker • LaRoche

  29. Stets and Straus 1989/92 • Examined 1985 US National survey data, focusing on violence levels in married couples vs. couples from other survey who were cohabitating or dating • Females more likely to use unilateral violence than males n= 5005 married couples, 526 dating couples, 237 cohabiting couples

  30. Stets and Straus 1989/92 • Data showed that when any violence was reported on a CTS survey, • 10% of those married couples reporting (married) and 13% of cohabitating couples reported females using severe violence when male partner was non-violent (husband battering) • Reverse pattern (wife battering) was 6% -7% • So husband battering was about double wife battering

  31. Stets and Straus 1992 Table 13.2 with violence levels

  32. Archer Psychological Bulletin 2000 • Most comprehensive study of IPV by gender ever done • Meta-analysis, combined all previous studies into 1 combined analysis • Overall sample size was 64000+ • Calculated a measure (d’) that estimates the difference size in terms of a standard deviation (d’ =1 is 1 sd difference)

  33. Meta analytic study of sex differences in aggression (Archer 2000) • N men N women Effect Size • violence 30,434 34, 053 - .05* • Injury 7,011 7,531 .15 • Medical treatment 4,936 6,323 .08 • * women slightly more likely to be violent

  34. Archer Key Findings • Women are slightly more likely than men to use intimate violence d’ = .05 • Women are slightly more likely than men to be injured d’ = .15 • d’ = .15 is about 1/6 of a standard deviation difference

  35. CDC (Centers for Disease Control) 2007 • Whittaker et al (2007) USnational study • n = 11,370 age 18-28 National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health (representative cohort sample) • 24% reported some IPV using the CTS 2 • Of those, half were reciprocal (49.7%) • Of those unilateral, 70% of perpetrators were female • Most female injury resulted from reciprocal IPV

  36. Whittaker 2007 • Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator

  37. Conclusion of incidence studies • Most common form of IPV is mutual (Whittaker- 50%, Stets and Straus – 48-52%) • Second most common form is female perpetrated (Whittaker 35%, S&S 28%) • Third most common form is male perpetrated (wife battering) (Whittaker – 15%, S&S 22%)

  38. Not just Reporting • In surveys, using representative community samples, the same results are obtained regarding relative frequency of male and female violence, regardless of whether the respondent is male or female (Stets & Straus 1992; Douglas & Straus 2003), hence, lack of agreement by gender is a non-issue.

  39. so • 1989 (n=5,000+) 2007 (n=11,000) • Stets and Straus Whittaker et al. • Both 50% 50% • Female only 28% 35% • Male only 22% 15%

  40. Limitations of Feminist Position • Female intimate violence more frequent than male (Archer 2001) • Female violence against non-violent males (Stets & Straus 1990) is not “self defense” • Lesbian abuse/violence greater than heterosexual male violence (Lie et al. 1991) 4. “Male dominance” in only 9.4% of American Families (Coleman & Straus 1985) based on “final say” measures.

  41. Reaction • Reaction to the CTS surveys criticized the the reporting of conflict tactics out of context • i.e. that women were exposed to more instrumental forms of violence (patriarchal terrorism: M. Johnson, 1995) • Also argued that male violence was “qualitatively different” (e.g. instrumental vs. defensive)

  42. Canadian General Social Survey • Canadian General Social Survey of • 25, 876 respondents, equally split by gender. • In this survey (Laroche, 2005) the “crime victim” filter was dropped and the focus was on “perceptions of crime”. • 654,000 (8% of all Canadian women) women and 546,000 (7%) men reported being physically abused at least once in last 5 years

  43. LaRoche • intimate terrorism described by Johnson (1995) : repeat, severe, instrumental violence by partner • was measured by questionnaire in this survey • Reported by 2.6% of men and 4.2% of women • In Canadian GSS Survey of 2004.

  44. In other words • The intimate partners of 95.8% of men and 97.4% of women say they do not use instrumental intimate violence • So, why then is gender given the weight that it is? • There may be some stereotypical cases of IPV that are gender non-reversible • But are they a small minority of cases? • Are our policies “drift net” approaches to these cases?

  45. Motives for IPV • Instrumental use of IPV by females contradicts the feminist view that all female IPV is for self-defense

  46. Is female violence self defense? • DeKeseredy & Schwartz (1998) in a survey of young adults found that • 62.3% of women said their violence perpetration was never in self defence • 6.9% said it was always in self defence. • The authors concluded that female violence was “self- defensive” !!!!!

  47. When “mistakes” occur • When “mistakes” occur repeatedly in the framing of research questions, the selection of which research findings are important or the actual interpretation of the data, it raises the question of whether these are just “mistakes”

  48. Self Defense • Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, and Sebastian (1991) asked undergraduate subjects in South Carolina about assault experiences • of the total sample of 495 • 115 respondents reported they had been victimized by a partner using physical force • their perceptions of their assaulters’ and their own motivations were assessed.

  49. Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, and Sebastian (1991) • Women reported being victimized and perpetrating physical aggression twice as often as men. • Furthermore, a greater percentage of women than men reported using aggression to feel more powerful (3.4% vs. 0), to get control over the other person (22.0% vs. 8.3%), or to punish the person for wrong behavior (16.9% vs. 12.5%).

  50. Douglas and Straus (2006) • Was the Follingstad et al data atypical? • Douglas and Straus Examined partner violence in a college student sample in 19 countries (n = 9549) • On average female partner violence was 21% higher incidence than male partner violence

More Related