Analysis of the Case and the Relationship Between Hedda Nussbaum and Joel Steinberg - Essay Example

The killing of Lisa Steinberg is probably one of the most publicized case of the 1980s. Who can forget the horrible images of a battered and bruisedHedda Nussbaum, the sweet innocent face of Lisa Steinberg, and the mean visage of Joel Steinberg? Who can forget the details of the case? Indeed, the case was so celebrated that it was shown, gavel to gavel, on Court TV, the first case to be publicized as such. (Gado, “Trial by TV”). Although Hedda was suspected to have killed Lisa, it was determined that she was a victim along with her purportedly adopted daughter (Gado, “Hedda, the Battered Spouse”). Her story is one that is told many times, by countless women across the world. Understanding the dynamics of the relationship, however, is complicated. Why did she stay? Why was he so abusive? Although the relationship may never be fully understood, it can at least attempt to be partially explained under the theory of relational control-motivated aggression theory, a theory that takes into account many dynamics that fit into different typologies of abusive and combative couples. However, before we can apply this theory, we must look at the facts of the case and of the relationship. The Basic Fact of the Case and the Relationship Between Hedda Nussbaum and Joel Steinberg Hedda Nussbaum was a shy, reserved writer of childrens books. (Gado, “Hedda, the Battered Spouse”). She met Joel Steinberg when she rented a share in the Hamptons. (Larry King Live p. 1). He was a practicing attorney, and became a Svengali-like figure to Hedda. The two began dating and the relationship developed quickly. However, Hedda broke it off after a couple of months, as Joel was already showing controlling tendencies – he was pushing her to see him every night, and if she tried to refuse, he pushed her until she changed her mind. (Larry King Live p. 1). Unfortunately, Hedda was introverted and seemed to have low self-esteem, so she was easily manipulated by him. (Larry King Live p. 1). So, even though they broke up early, they ended up back together because Joel showed up at the house she was renting. (Larry King Live p. 1). The power imbalance in their relationship was obvious. Hedda desperately wanted to marry Joel, Joel did not want to marry Hedda, so Joel convinced Hedda to go along with this. (Larry King Live p. 2). When the two went to parties, Joel would “critique” Hedda after the party, telling her that she should have said certain things, and should not have said other things. (Larry King Live p. 2). Joel arranged an illegal adoption of Lisa (what happened with the illegal adoption was that Joel, in his role as an attorney, arranged for an adoption of Lisa with the birth mother. The birth mother thought that an adoption was arranged, but, actually, Joel simply took Lisa home and kept her. There was probably no other way of adopting Lisa or any other child, due to the marital status of the parents), and Hedda went along with this too. (Larry King Live p. 3). Joel was into free-basing cocaine, so Hedda did that with him. (Gado, “Hedda Takes the Stand”). Joel wanted Hedda drinking more water, so he forced her to eat hot peppers. (Larry King Live p. 8). These are just some of the actions that showed the dynamics in their relationship – Joel was into total control, and Hedda was very much into letting him have this control. Joels controlling nature actually seemed to be helpful to Hedda, in a way. For instance, Hedda stated that Joel brought her out of her shell. She stated that she began to get raises and promotions at Random House, and credited Joel with her success, as she “started coming out of the wallpaper,” due to his influence. (Larry King Live p. 2). Reading these statements Hedda made, one cannot help but feel for her, as you can picture her as the introverted wall-flower that she probably was. She felt that this man was literally magical, because she suddenly became less introverted and apparently found her voice at work. It is just too bad that she did not apparently find her voice within the contours of her relationship with Joel. The assaults began infrequently. About three years into their relationship, Joel hit Hedda, an act that apparently surprised and shocked them both. (Larry King Live p. 4). The next assault happened about six months after that. (Larry King Live p. 4). After this, the violence apparently got much worse. However, the violence in the relationship was strangely downplayed in Larry Kings interview with Hedda. Although the interview was conducted in 2003, 16 years after the killing of Lisa, one gets the sense that Hedda still was not completely ready to throw Joel under the proverbial bus. But other eyewitness accounts of the couple told the story. Eyewitnesses state that Hedda sustained a multitude of injuries over a period of years, from approximately 1978 until the killing of Lisa in 1987. These included “black eyes, broken bones, broken teeth, a fractured nose, burns, beatings and other acts.” (Gado, “Hedda the Battered Spouse”). Neighbors frequently saw her with dark sunglasses on, with bandages all over her body, and surmised that Hedda was indeed very troubled. (Gado, “Hedda the Battered Spouse”). It was evident that, at least in part, that Joel battered Hedda as a means to gain control. This exercise of complete control and domination pervaded through the couples relationship. One method that Joel used to gain control over Hedda was putting her into an ice-cold tub whenever he wanted to “discipline” her. (Larry King Live p. 5). Joel had also gained control over Hedda by isolating her, cutting her off from her family, friends and job, and by keeping her from going outside. (Larry King Live p. 7). Hedda willingly conceded total control, as she felt that she couldnt live without him, and calls herself “brainwashed,” and a “zombie.” (Larry King Live p. 7). Indeed, the fact that little Lisa died is because of Joels complete control over Hedda. Joel had hurt Lisa very badly, although the exact circumstances of what happened to the poor child are unknown. What was known was that Lisa went to ask Joel a question, and she came out of the room unconscious. Joel then went out to dinner with some friends, and left Hedda and the unconscious Lisa at home. However, Hedda did not try to get Lisa help because she “didnt want to show loyalty or distrust him.” (Gado, “Lisa”). It is possible that this was a fatal decision, for Lisa might have lived if Hedda would have gotten help for her right away. We will never know for sure. The Application of Relational Control Motivated Aggression Theory to Hedda and Joels Relationship Relational Control Motivated Aggression Theory was a theory developed by Loreen N. Olson in 2004. She based her work on earlier work done by Michael P. Johnson (1995) , and expanded on it. Johnson posited in his article “Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence Against Women,” that there are, just as the title states, two forms of violence against women: patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence. (Johnson p. 283). In this work, Johnson attempted to reconcile the acrimonious debate about the nature of relationship violence. This acrimonious debate pitted the scholars whose studies showed that women perpetrated violence as often as men and the feminist scholars who forcefully stated that their own studies showed that relationship violence was exclusively perpetrated by men. (Johnson p. 284). In reconciling these two competing theories, Johnson states that each group is looking at a completely different phenomena. The group whose studies focus on the symmetry of partnership violence, stating that women are just as violent as men are looking at a phenomenon known as “common couple violence,” while the feminists who insist that domestic violence is a male-dominated phenomenon were studying “patriarchal terrorism.” The two phenomenons have different roots – the patriarchal terrorism phenomenon is rooted in “the patriarchal traditions of the Western family,” while the common couple violence phenomenon is rooted in the violent nature of culture in general. (Johnson p. 286). Moreover, common couple violence tends not to escalate into more serious forms of violence, while patriarchal terrorism does, as evidenced by the population of battered womens shelters. (Johnson p. 286). Yet another difference between the two phenomenons is that, with the common couple violence, the need to control is situational specific. That is, when an argument pops up, there is a need to control the topic of that argument, but there is not a general need to control the relationship. In the patriarchal terrorism model, the man needs to control his women at all times. (Johnson p. 286). As Johnsons work was based upon the role control plays in relationship violence, so, too, is Olsons. In Olsons theory, there are three properties of control. The first property is that of location. (Olson p. 213). There are two dimensions of the property of location, which determines how pervasive the need to control is. These two dimensions are systemic and episodic. If this dimension is systemic, then the need to control permeates throughout the couples life. It is not confined to the conflict episodes, but in every area. When a couple is not fighting, there is still a need to control. (Olson p. 213). The other dimension of property is episodic, where the need to control is confined to the conflict episode. In this dimension, neither member of the couple tries to control the other until a conflict episodes comes up, then, and only then, does the issue of control come up. (Olson p. 213). The next property is that of movement. (Olson p. 213). There are two types of movement, fluid and stable. Fluid movement is when each member of the couple takes control and some point or another. Control shifts from one member to another. The other type of movement is stable. There are two types of stable movement – in one type of stable movement, each member of the couple share the power, and this does not change. The other type of stable movement is where one member of the couple has the control and this does not change. (Olson p. 213). The third property is that of ownership. This is basically an issue of whether or not the power is shared in the relationship. If the ownership is dyadic, then the power is shared. If the ownership is individual, the power is not shared. Olson stated that this locus of power is the most important, as the individual ownership, where the power is not shared, tends to experience the most violence, followed by couples who divide the power and finally couples whose power is egalitarianism. (Olson p. 219). In applying the three properties to the situation with Hedda and Joel, it is clear that their situation was systemic, stable and individual. As stated above, Joel controlled every aspect of his relationship with Hedda. Whether he was forcing her to take a cold bath as a form of discipline, “critiquing” her social interactions, or forcing her to go along with an illegal adoption, Joel was controlling Hedda and the entire relationship. Whats more, the control was stable. Joel always had the control, and this never changed. Hedda never did take any measure of control in this relationship. The ownership was also individual, as the power was not shared. The next aspect of the relational control-motivated aggression theory that must be examined is the quality and nature of the aggression itself. The types of aggression include low, moderate, high and severe. Low aggression includes such acts as refusing to talk, crying, yelling, and stomping out of the room. Studies have shown that low aggression techniques are used much more by women then by men. (Graham-Kevan & Archer p. 22). Moderate aggression include “verbal insults or swearing at the other, or noncontact, physical displays of anger, such as kicking, hitting, throwing, or smashing inanimate objects or threatening to hit or throw something at the other person. (Olson p. 214). High aggression includes “intensive face-threatening verbal aggression, such as belittling personal attacks and condemnations of other, or physical contact such as pushing, slapping or shoving.” (Olson p. 214). Severe aggression features “more severe verbal abuse, such as threats to personhood and possibly to children or pets, or more severe physical attacks, including kicking, biting, punching, hitting with an object, beating up, raping, and using a weapon, such as a knife, gun, or vehicle.” (Olson p. 214). Studies have shown that the more severe form of aggressiveness is practiced by men. (Graham-Kevan & Archer p. 23). The next aspect of aggression is the frequency of the aggressive encounters.. Frequency is divided into four sub-categories. Annual is zero to two times per year. Monthly is 3 to 12 times per year. Bi-monthly is 13 to 24 per year. Weekly is 25 plus per year. (Olson p. 215). Olson (2004) combined the severity of aggressive encounters aspect with the frequency, and came up with four different kinds of couples. The first kind of couple was the abusive couple. They are the highest on the severity scale and experience these aggressive encounters weekly. The second kind of couple is violent. They experience high aggression on a bi-monthly basis. The third couple is aggressive, who experience moderate aggression on a monthly basis. The lowest level is combative, who experience low aggression on a yearly level. (Olson p. 215). Of course, these couples do not encompass the entire spectrum, as aggressive couples do not fall neatly into perfectly lined-up categories. For instance, a couple might experience high or even severe aggression on an infrequent basis, or experience low aggression on a weekly basis. In fact, this is often the case. Couples fight, someone starts to cry, somebody else stomps out of the room, and this might happen on a fairly frequent basis. There are no categories for these couples. Johnsons (1995) work also examined the severity and frequency of aggressive encounters, determining that the more severe and frequent violence is perpetrated by individuals within the patriarchal terrorism construct, while the more moderate, less frequent violence is perpetrated by individuals within the common couple violence construct. (Johnson p. 287). He therefore has a slightly different take on the statistics about the severity and frequency of violent encounters than did Olson, who did not acknowledge that the more abusive couples were probably in patriarchal dominated households, while the more combative couples were probably involved in common couple violence. Hedda and Joels relationship seemed to defy being categorized as one of the above types of Olsons couples, at least at first. Hedda stated that the abuse started occurring after about three years with Joel, and that it happened infrequently at first. (Larry King Live p. 4). However, the first abusive episode seemed to be severe in nature, as he hit her. The violence did, however, escalate. It is unclear from the the interview with Hedda or the Gado article exactly how often the abuse occurred, but it seemed to be frequent. It is likely that they would be classified as abusive, as it is likely that the abuse occurred at least every week, perhaps daily. Other aspects of the Relational Control Motivation Theory include gender symmetry or asymmetry and reciprocity. On the topic of gender symmetry or asymmetry, Olson looked at studies that indicate that women use aggression as much as, even more than, men. However, other studies indicate the opposite, that men perpetrate more severe aggression more frequently than women, noting that three times as many women die at the hands of their male partners than the converse. (Olson p. 216). Olson noted that it was important to note that “both gender symmetry and asymmetry can exist, in multiple combinations and for various reasons.” (Olson p. 216). As noted above, the fact that different studies bear out different results as to who perpetrates the most violence is possibly the result of studying two different phenomenon, the patriarchal terrorism model and the common couples violence model. (Johnson p. 283). Reciprocity refers to the likelihood that the aggressiveness is returned. Not surprisingly, Olson found that, the more there is a power imbalance, the less likely that reciprocity would exist within the dynamic. (Olson p. 216). Similarly, Johnson found that the victims of patriarchal terrorism by and large did not fight back, with only 26% of women in shelters stating that they fought back. (Johnson p. 287). This is in line with Olsons findings that power imbalances make it likely that the partner not in power would not fight back, as Johnsons theory of patriarchal terrorism relies heavily on an extreme imbalance of power between husband and wife. It was well-documented that there was an extreme power-imbalance between Hedda and Joel, as stated above. And it has been established that the control that Joel influenced over Hedda permeated the entire relationship, and was not restricted to merely trying to control the aggressive interactions. It therefore could be predicted that the aggression and violence between the two would be asymmetrical, with Joel being the exclusive perpetrator. This would be in line with both Johnsons theory about the patriarchal violence verses common couple violence. In light of the already documented power-imbalance between Hedda and Joel, one could predict that Hedda would not reciprocate the violence, and this is exactly what happened. There is no indication that Hedda ever fought back against Joel. Therefore, this theory about reciprocity is helpful to understand why Hedda never fought back – simply because there was such an extreme power imbalance. Hedda had no power in the relationship, therefore did not have the power to reciprocate the aggressive attacks. Olson also looked at sex role ideology and inequity. She basically found that men who subscribe to more manly traits not only initiate more acts of violence against women than other men, but they lack empathy, and have problems with intimacy, as well. (Olson p. 217). Olson was not clear exactly what the manly traits are that pre-disposes one to violence, but I would imagine that dominance, aggressiveness, independence, competitiveness, self-confidence, bluntness and roughness would round out some of the traits to which Olson was referring. (Chambers). While “masculine” men are more prone to violence, women who are more “feminine” and subscribe to traditional gender roles are the ones who are more likely to stay in abusive relationships. (Olson p. 217). Some of the feminine traits are being emotional, easily influenced, submissive, passive, dependent, gentle and nurturing. (Chambers). One can picture Archie and Edith Bunker from “All In The Family” in envisioning these two roles – Archie sitting on “his chair” like a throne, ordering Edith to bring him a beer and Edith rushing to comply with this request. Olson also noted that an earlier study done by Michael Johnson in 1995 found that the sex roles did not have as much to do with relationship violence as the fact that conflicts happen, regardless of traditional sex roles. (Olson p. 218). Olson discounted Johnsons theory, stating that relationship violence is rooted in sex roles, even when the couple is asymmetrical in their sex role ideology – eg when the woman is does not subscribe to traditional female ideology, and the man does. According to Olson, such asymmetry would tend to cause violence because the man wants to be the man and control and dominate the woman, but she is not willing to be dominated, which makes the man prone to violence. (Olson p. 219). In reviewing Olsons theory about the role of sex ideologies and violence, it is clear that the relationship between Hedda and Joel is a mixed scenario. Hedda did not necessarily subscribe to traditional gender roles, as she did have a fairly high profile job with a very big publisher, Random House, as well as a college degree. (Gado, “Hedda, the Battered Spouse”). She came of age in the early 1970s, back when women were not as likely to have careers and graduate from college as they are now. This was a time when there were “no female news anchors, few female lawyers, and even fewer women scientists,” (Twenge p. 188), and the world was flabbergasted when a young Billie Jean King beat an aging Bobby Riggs. (Twenge p. 188). That Hedda graduated from college in this climate, and became both a writer of childrens books and an associate editor at one of the largest publishers in the world shows that she did not subscribe to stereotypically female roles. On the other hand, Hedda did display typically feminine traits, which contrasts with her apparent rejection of typical female roles. For instance, she was easily influenced, submissive, passive, dependent, gentle and nurturing. She came alive when Lisa was brought into the house, basking in the joy of mothering the little girl. (Larry King Live p. 4). A friend during her pre-Joel days referred to her as “sensitive, extremely gentle and loving to a writer, enormously encouraging.” (Gado, “Hedda the Battered Spouse”). She apparently became very dependent upon Joel, to the point where she lied to protect him the first time he sent her to the hospital in 1978, stating that she had the doctor erase the word “boyfriend,” when asked who hit her, as Joel was a “wonderful man whos helping me so much.” (Larry King Live p. 5). Her submissiveness and passivity were shown by the fact that she let Joel control her in every way, and she was easily influenced by Joel as well, believing, among other things, that Joel was a “healer” and made references to being “brainwashed” by Joel all the way through the Larry King Live interview. (Larry King Live p. 5). Joel, like Hedda, cannot be stereotypically pigeon-holed into gender-specific roles. While he certainly did choose the stereotypically masculine roles of criminal defense attorney and the military (Gado, “Joel B. Steinberg”), roles that are enhanced by masculine traits such as aggressiveness, dominance, competitiveness, ambition and self-confidence, he also had some peculiarly non-alpha male traits as well. Chief among these was his active encouragement of Heddas career. Hedda stated that he pushed her into her raises and promotions at Random House, which is one of the reasons why she stayed with him, as he helped her in her career so much. (Larry King Live p. 4). This encouragement of his significant others career does not fit the stereotype of the manly man who believes that the little woman belongs in two places – the kitchen and the bedroom. Therefore, this aspect of Hedda and Joels relationship somewhat defied application of Olsons theory, surprisingly. Another aspect of the relational control-motivated aggression theory is that there are negative communication patterns. Olson stated that, in violent couples, their talk is more “rigid, oppositional and interfering, verbally aggressive and conflictual,” and that their communication patterns “have been found to reflect postures of dominance and submission, respectively.” (Olson p. 216). Olson also adopted Rogers and Faraces (1975) model for coding relational communication patterns, stating that there are nine different interaction patterns, the most notable being competitive symmetry (one-up/one-up), complementarity (one-down/one up and one-up/one-down), and submissive symmetry (one-down/one-down). (Olson p. 217). Not as much is known about Hedda and Joels communication patterns, although there is some evidence that Heddas own communication pattern was that of a submissive, as she characterized herself as “very, very shy,” and as a part of the wallpaper. (Larry King Live p. 2). Moreover, Joels profession was that of a criminal defense attorney, so it can be surmised that his communication skills were probably better developed then Heddas, and more aggressive. Not much more is known about the communication patterns of the two, however, so it is difficult to ascertain where they fall in the communication spectrum. Olsons next hypothesis is that violence and aggression takes a toll on relationships. This would seem self-evident. However, this is not necessarily true, as studies have also shown that “aggression and relational happiness can co-exist.” (Olson p. 219). Olsons theory is that the couples who make it work, despite the presence of aggression and violence in their relationship have positive communication in other parts of their relationship, and that there is a “positive relation between flexible control patterns, complementarity, and shared dominance and marital satisfaction.” (Olson p. 219). In other words, couples who share power and communicate well can have a relatively happy marriage, despite the flare-ups of violence and aggression that may occur. In examining the relationship between Hedda and Joel, one could predict that their relationship would not be happy. It was marked by an extreme power imbalance, and, although it is unclear how the two communicated, it can be deduced that their communication with each other was not exemplary. Their control patterns were not flexible nor complementary, and the dominance was not shared, but was the province of Joel alone. But this was not necessarily so. It was an interesting dynamic. Hedda was brainwashed, believing that Joel was almost god-like, and that he was a healer and had magical powers. (Larry King Live p. 5). However, she also described herself as a “zombie,” quoting a Harvard Medical School professor that stated that her body probably secreted something called endogenous opioids, and these serve to numb the pain and terror endured by abused women. (Larry King Live p. 7). She ended up in a psychiatric hospital for a time, after Lisas murder and before the trial. During this period of time, she still felt love for Joel. Then, one night, she had an epiphany of all that he had put her through. She could not sleep that night, and started journaling and she finally “saw him for who he really is.” (Larry King Live p. 11). She wrote her in her journal “Look what you did to me. You humiliated me. You kept me a prisoner. You beat me, all in front of our child. You tortured her too by doing that, you sick piece of shit. Youre so cheap, you deprived her of the normal pleasures of childhood.” (Larry King Live p. 11). In other words, Hedda probably did not feel unhappy on the surface, because she was being brainwashed, and was in in a zombie-like state. Nevertheless, the relationship was so unhealthy that it could not have been functional in the strictest sense of the word. Hedda was very unhappy underneath the surface, but this was blocked out by Joels mind control and the endogeous opioids that were apparently in her system to block out the pain and terror of her daily life. She did not tap into her feelings until she had been away from Joel for a period of time, then she had her epiphany and the words came tumbling out into her journal. And the fact that she was in a mental hospital speaks volumes about her state, but she probably ended up in a mental hospital primarily because of what happened to Lisa and secondarily because she had a mental breakdown caused by Joel. Therefore, Olsons theory that a relationship that has aggressive tendencies would be unhappy if the couple is unable to communicate well is borne out with Hedda and Joel. Olsons last piece of the puzzle, as far as her relational control-motivated aggression theory is putting all the previous pieces of the puzzle together to form cohesive clusters of couple types. The first couple type are the abusives. The abusive couple type is where violence is severe, and is“individual, stable and systemic.” (Olson p. 221). It is individual, because only one member of the couple has all the power. It is stable, in that that power is never transferred to the other partner. And it is systemic in that the control permeates throughout the entire relationship, and is not confined to just the aggressive incidents. (Olson p. 221). The mutually abusive couple type, on the other hand is systemic, stable and dyadic. The control permeates throughout the relationship, and is stable in that one person has the power over the relationship, but it is dyadic. Each person fights to be the one who has that power. These relationships are “very violent, as the individuals vie for power over the other.” (Olson p. 221). The next cluster are the violents. Like the abusives, there are two kinds of violents – the violent couple and the mutually violent couple. The violent couple is characterized by “high levels and bimonthly frequency of aggression and patterns of control that are systemic, individual and fluid.” (Olson p. 222). Similar to the abusive couple, one person has the power, and this power permeates throughout the relationship. However, the power is fluid, in that it flows from one person to the other, and the violence is not as severe as with the abusives and not as frequent. One of the partners is dominant, but the other partner challenges the dominant partner. The submissive partner tends to challenge the dominant partner because there is a “difference in traditional gender role ideologies or a resistance on the part of the submissive partner to accept the dominant partners belief system.” (Olson p. 222). In other words, these violent couples often feature a masculine man and a woman who is perhaps not traditional and not willing to accept his male-chauvinist attitudes. This dynamic makes the violence level “quite high.” (Olson p. 222). The other kind of violent couple is the mutually violent couple. Like the violent couple, the violence is high and bimonthly, and the power is systemic and fluid. However, the power is dyadic, or shared by both. (Olson p. 222). Each partner is trying to fight for control, and this makes for “explosive” encounters. (Olson p. 222). Thus, aggression is done with “great force.” (Olson p. 222). Because it is dyadic, it is posited that each member of the couple does not subscribe to typical gender ideologies or roles. Each has strong beliefs in their right to control their partner, “irrespective of gender.” (Olson p. 222). Each of the above couples are characterized by “struggles for control that permeate the entire relationship, making their everyday interactions problematic and unhealthy.” (Olson p. 222). The couples resort to violence due to their belief that is their right to control the other partner, and that violence is an acceptable means to gain this control. Their satisfaction with the relationship is probably very low, and their relationship is very unhealthy. (Olson p. 222). Gender roles and ideology play an important part in the dynamics of the aggression and violence, at least with heterosexual couples. While the previous couples are marked by control that permeates the entire relationship, the next cluster of couples are characterized by control that is not systemic, but limited to the violent interaction. In other words, these couples do not know how to fight properly, but their relationship is likelier to be much healthier than the couples mentioned above. They are also more likely to have a more equal relationship than the above couples and more role equity. Neither partner believes in the right to control the other, and neither partner is likely to have stereotypical views on the others gender. (Olson p. 223). Moreover, the following couples are likely to display female aggression, due to the overall gender equality, and the fact that the level of aggression is lower than with the previous couples and “more in line with the kind purportedly used more frequently by women.” (Olson p. 223). In other words, the abusive and violent couple types are more in line with Johnsons “patriarchal dominance” relationships, whereas the following the couple types, the aggressives and the combatives are more in line with Johnsons “common couple violence” types, as characterized above. The first of these types are the aggressives. The first sub-type of the aggressives is the aggressive couple. These couples are characterized by moderate levels and monthly frequency of violence, with control patterns being “individual, fluid and episodic.” (Olson p. 223). One partner is dominant, but his or her control is “contained within the conflict episodes,” as opposed to permeating the entire relationship. In other words, during conflicts, one of the partners “seeks to win.” (Olson p. 223). The aggressives are also characterized by fluid power, in that the submissive partner also seeks to win, on occasion, and this causes aggression. (Olson p. 223). Moreover, the woman may be the dominant partner. (Olson p. 224). The second sub-type of the aggressive couple is the mutually aggressive couple. Like the aggressive couple, these couples experience moderate levels of monthly aggression, and the control is fluid and episodic. Unlike the aggressive couple, the power is dyadic, which means that each partner tries to dominate, and their “satisfaction and overall adjustment will not be high,” however will be higher than the abusive and violent couples because of the “mutuality of control.” (Olson p. 224). The final cluster are the combatives. The first sub-type is the combative couple, with low levels of yearly aggression, and the control patterns are “episodic, individual and stable.” (Olson p. 224). One couple dominates, and the aggressive interactions likely happen because the more submissive partner attempts to control the argument. These relationships are likely to be more democratic than the abusive and violent relationship, with less subscription to traditional gender roles. Female-initiated aggression is also likely. The second sub-type is the mutually combative couple, which is characterized by “low levels of yearly frequency of aggression and patterns of control, that are episodic, stable and dyadic.” (Olson p. 225). This is like the combative couples, except that no one partner dominates, and each member of the couple tries to gain control during arguments. These individuals have a high ability to communicate, and aggression is an “unfortunate, but sometimes unavoidable, aspect of heated dispute between intimates.” (Olson p. 225). Of these couple types, Hedda and Joels relationship would definitely qualify as abusive. Joels use of aggression against Hedda was severe, it happened quite frequently, and Joels control over Hedda permeated their entire relationship. Moreover, Hedda appeared to not fight back, which makes the use of aggression both individual and stable. CONCLUSION Olsons theory could make an excellent prediction on the nature of Hedda and Joels relationship. Joel started out controlling, and Hedda was shy and reserved, a part of the wallpaper, as she put it. The vestiges of control started out with Joel demanding to see Hedda every night, and eventually showed itself by other actions, such as forcing her to eat hot peppers to get her to drink more water, and putting her into ice-cold baths when she needed to be “disciplined”. Therefore, the control was systemic and Joel saw violence as a proper means of keeping this control. It is therefore not at all surprising that the relationship was abusive. Moreover, this abusive relationship kept Hedda fearful of Joel, so it is also not surprising that Hedda basically allowed Lisa to die, as opposed to getting help for the little girl. She was completely under Joels thumb, so to speak. As far as future applications of this theory, it would behoove individuals to not get involved with a controlling man. This is a path that will lead to great heartache, as was experienced by Hedda first hand. This kind of abusive relationship will not get better, it will only get worse, as the use of the theory will predict, because if one person has all the power and feels that it is his right to control the other person, then situations like Heddas will result, and more women and innocent children, such as Lisa might die. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chambers, J. Typical feminine and masculine traits. Retrieved from: http://coefaculty.csus.edu/chambersj/assets/043.gender.pdf Gado, M. The killing of Lisa Steinberg. Retrieved from: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/lisa_steinberg/1.html Graham-Kevan, N. & Archer, J. (2005) Using Johnsons domestic violence typology to classify men and women in a non-selected sample (Paper presented at the 9th Annual Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH), 1-45. Retrieved from: http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/Graham_Kevan.ArcherJohnsonstudy.pdf Johnson, M.P. (1995) Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294. Larry King Live (2003) Interview with Hedda Nussbaum, 1-15. Retrieved from: http://www.rickross.com/reference/abusive/abusive1.html Olson, L. (2004) Relational control-motivated aggression: A theoretically-based typology of intimate violence. The Journal of Family Communication, 4(3&4), 209-233. Twenge, J. (2006) Generation me: Why todays young americans are more confident, assertive, entitled – and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Read More