Department of Applied Psychology, University of Cumbria, Carlisle, Cumbria, United Kingdom.
Aggress Behav. 2014 Jan;40(1):42-55. doi: 10.1002/ab.21499. Epub 2013 Jul 22.
The aim of this study was to test predictions from the male control theory of intimate partner violence (IPV) and Johnson's [Johnson, M. P. (1995). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 282-294] typology. A student sample (N = 1,104) reported on their use of physical aggression and controlling behavior, to partners and to same-sex non-intimates. Contrary to the male control theory, women were found to be more physically aggressive to their partners than men were, and the reverse pattern was found for aggression to same-sex non-intimates. Furthermore, there were no substantial sex differences in controlling behavior, which significantly predicted physical aggression in both sexes. IPV was found to be associated with physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates, thereby demonstrating a link with aggression outside the family. Using Johnson's typology, women were more likely than men to be classed as "intimate terrorists," which was counter to earlier findings. Overall, these results do not support the male control theory of IPV. Instead, they fit the view that IPV does not have a special etiology, and is better studied within the context of other forms of aggression.
本研究旨在检验亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)男性控制理论和约翰逊的理论预测[Johnson, M. P. (1995). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 282-294]。学生样本(N=1104)报告了他们对伴侣和同性非熟人的身体攻击和控制行为。与男性控制理论相反,女性对伴侣的身体攻击比男性更为常见,而对同性非熟人的攻击则呈现相反的模式。此外,在控制行为方面,两性之间没有实质性的性别差异,而控制行为对两性的身体攻击都有显著的预测作用。IPV 与对同性非熟人的身体攻击有关,从而证明了与家庭外的攻击有关。使用约翰逊的分类法,女性比男性更有可能被归类为“亲密恐怖分子”,这与早期的发现相悖。总的来说,这些结果不支持 IPV 的男性控制理论。相反,它们符合这样一种观点,即 IPV 没有特殊的病因,在其他形式的攻击的背景下研究它更为合适。