Relational Control: Motivated Aggression - Book Report/Review Example

CHAPTER 2 RELATIONAL CONTROL-MOTIVATED AGGRESSION A Theoretical Framework for identifying Various Types of Violent Couples Loreen N. Olson POINTERS: Plate 1 [1] background and findings of earlier studies on violent couple relationships -27- The stereotypical and most-studied violent relationship typically contains a male and female romantic dyad in which the male beats the woman severely and regularly leaving her isolated and frightened for life --- this warrants intervention and demands society’s attention. Resultantly, more is known about the psychological, sociological, communicative, clinical, legal, and public policy elements of relational violence. Promising area --- distinction among types of intimate relationships characterized by violence. Extant literature has demonstrated important distinctions between, for example, various forms of violence against women; different types of batterers, couples who are martially violent/distressed, nonviolent/distressed, and nonviolent/nondistressed; -28- And men who are sexually violent only (as compared to those who are physically violent More specifically, through a series of studies, Holtzworth-Munroe and colleagues have identified a tripartite typology of men who are maritally violent and found important differences between them --- distinction appear to vary along two continua: antisociality and borderline personality. The types of men have been labeled family-only batterers, dysphoric/borderline batterers, and generally violent/anti-social batterers. These typologies are not meant to be an exhaustive review of literature on the topic. Instead they are intended to provide a partial glimpse into the type of work being done. While these and other typologies have made a tremendous impact on the study of intimate partner violence, many of them are limited in their theoretical scope because they tend to define violent relationships primarily by the presence of physical aggression; to focus extensively on males’ use of aggression against their female partners (even more specifically on married men’s use of aggression), to highlight the role of the batterer’s psychopathology while downplaying some of the more situational, cultural, interactional, and dyadic processes; and to limit their theoretical positioning of control, a construct often acknowledged as being at the heart of enactment of violence on relationships. Thus, a broader, more comprehensive, and inclusive theory is needed in hopes of providing both a deeper and broader understanding of violent romantic relationships. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize a new theory called “relational control-motivated aggression. This theory and its corresponding violent couple typology were empirically derived as a result of the aforementioned limitations in the extant typological theorizing and out of efforts to make sense of the interplay between control and aggression. Intimate Partner Violence: A Case for Multiple Perspectives Early Frameworks Michael Johnson (1995) the first to articulate a dual perspective approach to the study of intimate partner Plate 2 -29- violence as a way of making sense out of the contradictory findings within the literature at that point in time. His work has laid the groundwork for the important recognition of variability within relationships characterized by aggression. Summary of his arguments: Feminist Perspective: women are the primary victims of frequent, escalating and severe violence Type of violence: Patriarchal Terrorism (PT) or Intimate Terrorism (IT) Root: PT is “a product of patriarchal traditions of men’s right to control their women [and] is a form of terroristic control of wives by their husbands that involves the systematic use of not only violence, but economic subordination, threats, isolation, and other control tactics” (p.284). Family Violence perspective: men and women equally engage in “occasional” acts of violence that do not escalate or become more severe over time. Type of violence: Common Couple Violence (CCV) – defined as the “dynamic in which conflict occasionally gets ‘out of hand’, leading usually to ‘minor’ forms of violence, and more rarely escalating into serious sometimes even life-threatening, forms of violence” (Johnson, 1995, p. 285) – changed to “situational couple violence” (Johnson, 2003). The net result of these different views of DV is how their interpretive lens affects how power and control are managed within violent relationships. The two perspectives are tapping into different types of power and control found within violent behavior. CCV portrays a less systematic and pervasive pattern of control and is more indicative of a conflict that erupted – meaning, the violence is the result of incompetent communication or conflict that has gotten out of hand. PT whose motivation is to control “their” wives by any -30- means necessary Current Framework Johnson (2001, 2006) identified four couple types: intimate terrorism – relationships in which one partner is violent and controlling but the other is not. violent resistant – where the partner is both violent and controlling and the “focal spouse” (research participant) is violent but not controlling. mutual violent control – where both partners are violent and controlling situational couple violence – noncontrolling violence where neither spouse is violent and controlling. Control dynamics constitute core features of these couples the “distinction [between couples] lies in the degree of control present” (p.1006) relational violence can or cannot be controlling and can be used by one or both partners. Relational Control-Motivated Aggression Theory And Corresponding Typology of Violent Couples Theoretical Principles RCMA theory is grounded in three primary principles: 1. Relational control dynamics are the core reasons why partners use aggression. 2. The construct of control is seen as multidimensional and enacted relationally. 3. The multidimensional properties of control become a mechanism for differentiating violent couples from one Plate 3 -31- another. General Classification Scheme: Type and Frequency of Aggression Most research on DV has tended to focus primarily on relationships characterized by physical aggression. Communication scholars have added verbal aggression to the study of these relationships, but many of these studies continue to sample abused/abusive individuals and, therefore, have examined the use of verbal aggression within relationships characterized by physical violence. Although abundant, the research on physically violent relationships has not made many attempts to theoretically account for differences in the type or frequency of the physical violence. Studies that examine other forms of abuse, such as emotional, psychological, and verbal, have tended to study these types of violence in isolation from one another or as a part of physically violent relationships. – little is known about how all of these types of violence may coexist in a violent relationship or how they may serve to define relationships as violent in and of themselves (without the coexistence of physical aggression). RCMA attempts to take multiple types and varying frequencies of aggression into account. Theoretical structure begins with a type and frequency of aggression hierarchical classification system Acknowledge that various forms and frequencies of violence exist and become useful ways of differentiating violent couples from one another. Types of Aggression Low Aggression – includes “acts such as yelling, crying, refusing to talk, or stomping out of the room” (Olson 2004, p.214) Moderate Aggression – includes more psychologically harmful acts of verbal aggression -32- insulting and swearing at the other partner) and noncontact displays of physical aggression (e.g. kicking or throwing objects) High Aggression – includes even more severe psychologically harmful verbal aggression (e.g. belittling, personal attacks, condemnations of the others selfhood) and contact forms of physical aggression (e.g., pushing, shoving) Severe Aggression – takes into account acts of severe verbal abuse (e.g. threats to the safety of the partner, children, or pets) and more harmful forms of physical violence (e.g., kicking, biting, raping, using a weapon, beating). Frequency of Aggression Annual – one to two acts a year Monthly – one act a month or 3-12 acts per year Bimonthly – 2 acts/month or 13 to 24 acts/year Weekly – one that includes aggressive acts that occur as frequently as one per week or at minimum 25 incidents per year. By combining type and frequency, the RCMA theory identifies four general violent couple types: Combative relationships – contain low level of aggression and annual frequency Aggressive relationships – include moderate levels and monthly frequency Violent couples – experience high levels and bimonthly frequency Abusive relationships – experience extreme levels and weekly frequency of aggression. Properties and Dimensions of Control Issues of power, control and domination are inherent in many definitions of family or couple violence. Interpersonal violence is -33- “[t]he ability to impose one’s will (i.e. wants, needs, or desires) on another person through the use of verbal or nonverbal acts or both, done in a way that violates socially acceptable standards and carried out with the intention or the perceived intention of inflicting physical or psychological pain, injury or suffering or both (Cahn, 1996, p. 6). -34- Scholars and practitioners acknowledge the key role that control plays in IPV, much of the academic literature on this topic has viewed the construct as unidimensional. RCMA begins with the position that control is indeed, at the heart of these types of relationships, however, Olson also argues that control is best viewed as a construct that contains three specific properties and corresponding dimensions Property of Ownership (according to RCMA) Control is something that can be owned by individuals in the relationship. Two dimensions of the ownership property exist: individual and dyadic – in other words, one individual in the relationship can possess the control, or both partners can. Thus, the relationship is considered symmetrical when both partners use control and complementary when only one person does. Property of Movement The RCMA theory also posits that control can be seen as a dynamic construct that contains movement. The movement can happen in a couple of different ways (dimensions). First, the control could be fluid, alternating back and forth between partners, or it could be stable, remaining relatively unchanged relationally. Property of Location The final property recognized by the RCMA theory views control as something that consumes physical space as if it could assume an actual place or location within the relationship. Two location dimensions: Systemic control includes instances when control is pervasive, seeping into all aspects of the couple’s interactional lives. Episodic control is contained within the boundaries of specific types of interactions (aka episodes), such as conflict “episodes” Typology of Violent Intimate Relationships (see illustration on page 33) plate 0005 -35- When the Fight for Control is Pervasive: The Abusives and the Violents The Abusive couples: two forms captured by the typology -36- Abusive relationships will contain a pattern of control that is individual (ownership), stable (movement), and systemic (location) – this is believed closest to Johnson’s (2001, 2006) notion of an IT hereby one partner has gained power over the other person in the relationship and exerts that power by controlling the submissive partner’s every move. Mutually abusive will also be stable and systemic but dyadic – with both partners asserting themselves in a symmetrical fashion as they attempt to dominate the other. -37- The violents The two couple types within this category, violent and mutually violent are hypothesized to experience high levels and bimonthly frequency of violence (Olson, 2004) The control within the Violent couple type, specifically, is individual, fluid and systemic, making it a complementary type of relationship. -38- Mutually Violent relationships are characterized by fluid and systemic patterns of control, but rather than one person possessing the control, the ownership is dyadic, whereby both partners attempt to dominate the other’s every move in fluid, inconsistent, but symmetrical ways. These relationships are believed to be quite similar to the Abusives in that the fight for control seeps into all aspects of the romantic relationship (systemic), beyond particular conflict episodes. In addition to slightly less severe forms and lower amounts of aggression, however, these couples differ from Abusives with regards to how much the control fluctuates between partners. Specifically, the fluid nature of the control within these relationships makes them extremely volatile. As such, it is hypothesized that these relationships will be characterized by various forms of domineering and dominant patterns of communication, such as competitive symmetry and redundant control patterns. -39- In sum, Violent relationships are characterized by high levels of violence and bimonthly frequency. The fight for control for Violents (complementary relationships), specifically, is individual, fluid, and systemic. Individuals in this type of relationships both want and attempt to control the other in all that they do, making the fight for control rather fluid since both parties are fighting for it. Mutually Violents (symmetrical relationships) are similar except both individuals exercise their individual desire for control. Abusive and Violent couples experience severe and frequent forms of aggression. Moreover, one or both partners seek to dominate and control all of the everyday actions of the other partner. Thus, the systemic nature of the control within these relationships is believed to represent a belief in the right to control another person and therefore viewed as a psychological construct that is more individual than relational or interaction based. As such, these forms of relationships are considered emotionally (and physically) dangerous to the individuals involved. Professional intervention is needed to -40- eliminate the violence and better manage the relationships. In contrast, the next four violent couples represent categories which the use of aggression is seen more as an inability to handle conflict constructively. When the Fight for Control is Contained within Conflict Episodes: The Aggressives and Combatives The Aggressives The RCMA theory postulates that the pattern of control within the complementary Aggressive couple type will be individual, fluid and episodic. Once again, the only difference for the mutually Aggressive type is that control is believed to be dyadic rather than individual, thereby making the latter a symmetrical relationship form. The aggression in these relationships is much less severe and less frequent than that occurring within the Abusive and Violent categories – specifically, moderate levels and monthly frequency are anticipated. It is believed that the aggression used in these relationships is the result of the mounting frustration built during a conflict that has gotten out of hand. Thus, the individuals in these relationships are more likely to be unable to successfully manage conflict than possess a general belief in the right to control another. It is hypothesized that the individuals in Aggressive and Mutually Aggressive relationships will possess relatively healthy communication climates over all. The conflict, however, is expected to reflect unhealthy patterns such as distributive conflict styles and face-threatening compliance-gaining strategies. As a result of the individual partners’ inability to manage conflicts and the fluid nature of the control, these relationships will be chaotic at times – especially during conflict episodes. Hence the aggression expressed can be rather intense (e.g. insults, swearing) and happen rather frequently (e.g. once per month). Hearther’s relationship is an example of this couple type, namely, the Mutually Aggressive relationship that illustrates the dyadic struggle for control and the symmetrical escalating nature of their conflicts. -41- Combatives: Combative (complementary relationship) and mutually Combative (symmetrical relationship) The aggression is the lowest of all of the couple types with low levels and year frequency anticipated. Control for both couples has stabilized, reflecting a stable property of movement and is either individual (combative) or dyadic (mutually combative). Similar to the Aggressives, the control dynamics are also mostly negotiated within conflict episodes, hence the episodic dimension of the location property. The minor forms of aggression used by individuals within these relationships are expected to be the exception to the rule, rather than the norm. In fact their communication will reflect general healthy patterns. Likewise their conflicts for the most part, will also be well managed. On occasion, however, one or both partner will use some aggression to win his/her point. However, one or both partners will use some aggression to win his/her point. Thus, some unhealthy forms of conflict resolution are expected to be used by these relational partners every once and a while. -42- -43- -44- In sum, the Violent Couple Typology accounts for eight types of couples who experience various levels and frequencies of aggression. In addition to the aggression, the couples are differentiated from one another by their use of control – namely, who owns it (ownership property), how much it fluctuates (movement property), and where it is often enacted (location property). Communication patterns used by the individuals serve to both define the relationship type and reinforce the patterns of control contained within each type. As such, communication becomes an important vehicle for assessing the type of violent couple. What’s Next for the Relational Control-Motivated Theory of Aggression? Now that a preliminary typology of violent couples has been inductively identified (via data from couples experiencing violence), testing its proposition (see Olson, 2004 for a formal set of propositions posed) and corresponding theoretical structure is paramount. At this point in time, support for the classification system is more than anecdotal as it is the original result of extensive qualitative data analysis. However in attempt to further test the theory’s formal propositions, a team of us is currently working on devising a valid reliable measure that captures the various control dynamics of relationships. Once such a measure is created, the next step will be to test it on couples with a history of violence. The ultimate goal of this line of research is to theoretically and pragmatically identify various forms of violent couples in order to intervene appropriately. In order for relational aggression to truly be reduced, academics and mental health care providers must work together to tailor these interventions to the specific needs of the couples seeking assistance. A one-size fits all approach toward eradicating intimate partner violence is outdated. Read More