This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Teresa H. Hendrix, M.S. *****
The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee: Approved by: Professor Nancy Ryan-Wenger, Adviser Professor Paula Renker Professor Linda Bernhard ____________________________________ Adviser College of Nursing Graduate Program
The military defines partner violence as violence or threats between marital partners. Some of the Armed Services have included emotional abuse. Official reports indicate a prevalence of partner violence between 8.0% and 10.5% of married military couples. When incidents in the military are reported in the media, the headlines invariably claim that the same culture which produces heroes is blamed for creating men who beat, abuse, and kill their wives. While there is anecdotal evidence, there is little empirical evidence addressing the role military culture and training have on perpetration of partner violence. This research was guided by an ecological framework. The aims of the study were to answer the following research questions: What are the relationships between hypermasculinity, salivary testosterone levels, attitudes toward intimate partner violence, group cohesion, and selected demographic variables? 2) What is the effect of 10 weeks of U. S. Army Basic Training on soldiers’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence, hypermasculinity characteristics, and testosterone levels compared to peers without 10 weeks of basic training and to peers not in the military? 3) What variables are most predictive of attitudes toward intimate partner violence? Study participants included young men, ages of 18 and 25 years. One group was attending army basic combat training (boot camp), another group was in the process of ii
Testosterone levels were measured using competitive immunoassay. but contrary to popular belief. Basic training appeared to increase hypermasculinity. pretest-posttest design was used. the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating (attitudes toward intimate violence). those attitudes become less tolerant of partner violence.enlisting in the army. The Group Environment Questionnaire (group cohesion). There was a significant change in attitudes toward intimate partner violence after basic training with the scores decreasing. the Auburn Differential Masculinity Inventory (hypermasculinity characteristics). iii . repeated measures ANOVA and regression indicated a relationship between hypermasculinity. and the short version of the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (alcohol use) were used to measure study variables. alcohol use and attitudes toward intimate partner violence. These instruments are widely used and demonstrate strong reliability and validity. and a third group were predominantly college students. A quasiexperimental. Correlations.
DEDICATION To the women and men who proudly serve in the United Stated Armed Forces iv .
I would like to thank Dr. I thank Dr. Fort Jackson. Director of Psychological Research at the Human Dimensions Lab. for supporting the involvement of new military recruits in this research. South Carolina. Ohio. and the Military Entrance Processing Station. I thank Dr. I thank my sisters of the Gamma Zeta chapter of Phi Mu Fraternity for their unending support and love. Linda Bernhard for sharing her outlook on feminist perspectives and providing a balance in the exploration of masculinity. Daniel Stanzck. support and instruction throughout my academic career. Fort Jackson.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to than my advisor. for her guidance. Wendy Blakely for her laboratory expertise and support. I thank the leaders of the 4th Combat Training Brigade. South P P Carolina. Columbus. Paula Renker for sharing her expert knowledge of women experiencing intimate partner violence and providing new ideas that assisted me with my research. v . I thank Dr. Dr. and for facilitating access to Fort Jackson. for his expertise in the use of the retrospective pretest method. Nancy Ryan-Wenger.
those processing to enter military service. vi . and those attending The Ohio State University who participated in this study.Thanks to the many young men at Basic Combat Training.
....................VITA January 30..... Tampa General Hospital................. St............... Florida 1986 – 1990.....Hospital Corpsman. Tampa..................................... United States Army Nurse Corps.....S........Registered Nurse...........Major..... B............................. Petersburg Junior College 1986...........A.......... Spokane..........................Registered Nurse............ Labor and Delivery........................ Korea 2000 – 2003.. Germany 1996 – 1998........ Bremerhaven.......... The Ohio State University vii ........... Pennsylvania 1985...... Certified Nurse Midwife.........M. United States Navy 1985 – 1986............ University of Texas Medical Branch 1977 – 1982.. Political Science. Neonatal Intensive Care...... Sacred Heart Hospital..B.............N.S...... Washington 1990 – 1992...Doctoral Student.. Landstuhl................. Honolulu................. Hawaii 2003 – present........ United States Army Nurse Corps................N......... University of South Florida 2000.....................Captain.N.... 1955...Born – Philadelphia... Nursing.... United States Army Nurse Corps....S........ Nursing........ Nursing.................. United States Army Nurse Corps............First Lieutenant.... Labor and Delivery............. Germany 1992 – 1995................................................... Seoul...............................A....Captain.......................................................
FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Nursing viii .
...................................1 2............................................................................................................................................. 46 U U U U U U 5...TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT......................... v TU UT VITA ......................................................... Intimate partner violence in the military from an ecological perspective ....................... vii TU UT LIST OF FIGURES .................... 59 U U U U U REFERENCES ................... Introduction................................. If I knew then what I know now: The retrospective pretest and its use in measuring the effect of military training on men’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence ................................................. 5 U U U U U 3............ Case study of a cluster of homicides at Fort Bragg........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 U U U U 4................................. Contributions of army basic training to men’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence................................. ii TU UT DEDICATION .................................................................... 112 U U ix ... iiv TU UT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................................. xi TU UT T Chapters 1............................................................................................. x TU UT LIST OF TABLES .................................................................... North Carolina in the context of the army as a gendered organization.................................................
...45 5................1 Ecological Framework for Intimate Partner Violence in the Military........1 Substantiated Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence in the Military.....................................................……..........LIST OF FIGURES Figure....................................4 1............1 Ecological Framework for Intimate Partner Violence in the Military………......................................................4 3.............79 x .2 Homicides Due to Intimate Partner Violence in the Military....... Page U U U 1...........
........................................................................... standard deviations............................ and t-tests for pretest................58 5....95 5...... 5..............................................................................99 5................. posttest and retrospective pretest scores..................................107 5....................................................10 Means and standard deviations of pretest....7 Analysis of variance for Group Environment Questionnaire and time.......................................... Page U U U U 4.............................................................................13 Predictors of attitudes toward intimate partner violence at pretest........91 5.....87 5............................................. retrospective-pretests and posttest scores.................................................................................................................108 5...............................80 5................................103 5.....6 Analysis of variance for testosterone and time...........................................110 xi .........................9 Analysis of variance for Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating......................................................................5 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for Basic group..106 ...................................................................................3 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for Civilian group.........................105 5................................1 Means.............................2 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for total sample........................LIST OF TABLES Table...........11 Analysis of variance for retrospective pretest for Auburn Differential Masculinity Index and time.....................4 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for Recruit group............................................................8 Analysis of variance for Auburn Differential Masculinity Index and time........................................................1 Demographic variables..........109 5.....................104 5...........................................12 Analysis of variance for retrospective pretest for Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating and time...........................................
...5.14 Predictors of attitudes toward intimate partner violence at posttest..111 xii ...................
1). While injury as the consequence of IPV is apparent. Dienemann. Korff & Bernstien. is predicted more strongly by abuse than by poverty (Sutherland. Koss. Walker. recent vaginal infections and sleep and eating disorders are more frequent in abused women than in women experiencing no abuse (Campbell. Chronic headaches. 2001). Gelfand. Katon. Dubnova & Joss. Stress. & Sullivan. muscle aches. 1997. 2001) (Figure 1. which accounts for 80% of indirect effects on women’s health. 2002.967 substantiated incidents of intimate partner abuse in the military (Figure 1. 1999). 2002). chronic. Bybee. & Kub. 1 . the long – term aftermath of these injuries and the fear and stress associated with having an abusive intimate partner result in less obvious. There are predictable and distinguishable medical and psychological sequelae of IPV with adverse health effects continuing throughout life. health problems (Campbell. In the period of time from 1995 to 2001 there were 217 homicides in military communities from IPV (Violence.2).CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Violence against women is a world – wide public health priority. abdominal pains. Jones. In Fiscal Year 2001 (FY 01) there were 10.
“if I Knew Then What I 2 . each a publishable manuscript focusing on elements of the dissertation research. Exploring attitudes of new soldiers and the negative effects that military training and a “warrior” culture may have on those attitudes will add to the body of knowledge of IPV and be better able to create and employ preventive and interventional strategies to decrease the incidents of IPV in the military. intimate partner violence. entitled “A Case Study of a Cluster of Homicides at Fort Bragg. and poor coping skills are contributors. poverty. Chapter 4. so prevention and intervention must be collaborative and thorough. and perpetration of. an increase in the quality of life for the military family. Chapter 3 entitled “Intimate Partner Violence from an Ecological Perspective” provides a theoretical model that may help to explain the role of military culture and training in the development of men’s attitudes toward IPV. drug use. Alcohol. decrease in health care expenditures. The causes are complex. This dissertation is presented in several chapters. frustration. This will lead to an improvement of women’s health. Each manuscript can stand alone and therefore some information may be redundant to the reader of the complete dissertation. entitled. Chapter 2. North Carolina in the Context of the Army as a Gendered Organization” provides the historical framework that is the basis for the hypothesis that military training and culture contributes to men’s attitudes toward. Men’s Attitudes play a large role in underlying causes of IPV. and a higher level of readiness of the fighting force.Intimate partner violence incidents may be triggered by stress of life changes.
Chapter 6 entitled “Contributions of Military Training on Men’s Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence” describes the dissertation study and results. Finally. 3 .Know There: The Retrospective Pretest and its Use in Measuring the effect of Military Training on Men’s Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence” describes the use of a technique to improve the reliability of research designed to determine the effect of military training and culture on attitudes toward violence and presents the results of its use in this research.
1 Substantiated Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence in the Military 250 200 150 FY 99 100 50 0 FY 95-99 Army Air Force Navy/USMC Total Figure 1.18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 Incidents Victim s Figure 1.2 Homicides Due to Intimate Partner Violence in the Military 4 .
NORTH CAROLINA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARMY AS A GENDERED ORGANIZATION The case In a 43 day period in June and July. North Carolina allegedly murdered their spouses. 2002. who had returned from Afghanistan the previous October. and then killed himself. the same day that Wright was arrested for murder. and buried her in a shallow grave. It was rumored that Floyd was a member of the super-secret Delta Force. Marilyn. Teresa. fatally shot his wife. On July 19. Sergeant Cedric Ramon Griffin. stabbed his wife. strangled his wife. Jennifer. a member of an engineering battalion. returned just two days earlier from Special Forces duty in Afghanistan. an elite unit specializing in assassination and covert hit and run operations. when Sergeant First Class Rigoberto Nieves. four active duty soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg.CHAPTER 2 CASE STUDY OF A CLUSTER OF HOMICIDES AT FORTBRAGG. Sergeant First Class Brandon Floyd shot his wife Andrea to death and then turned the gun on himself. 50 times and then set the house on fire on July 9. 5 . Master Sergeant William Wright. The string of homicides began June 11. taking his own life.
as well as questions about the impact of potential neuro-psychiatric side effects of the malaria prophylaxis drug Mefloquine (U. 2002). 2002). and the role of military institutional values (Lutz & Elliston. 2002) The EPICON team found that threatened marital separation or dissolution. Prominent in the news reports were postulated links to the stress of the soldiers’ deployments. the spillover on civilians from training military personnel to kill. the potential effects of their combat experiences. Questions were raised about the effect of war on the people who wage it. Army Surgeon General. the United States Army Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) chartered an Epidemiological Consult Team (EPICON) composed of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) intimate partner violence subject matter experts.S. and led to various media reported hypotheses about etiological factors that might be involved. cultural and resource limitation factors which might be related to the clustering of homicides as well as deployment related behavioral health issues (U. S. The Army’s analysis In response to the cluster of homicides. and perceived imminent familial loss were likely very important psychological etiologic 6 . The goal of this consult tema was to assess and provide recommendations to the OTSG to address potential systemic.The four homicides generated significant national and international news coverage. Army Surgeon General.
In addition. In today’s Army of 483. 2002). 2002). All of the wives had expressed a desire to leave their marriages. 262. the inconsistent screening of individuals who may be at increased risk for neuro-psychiatric side effects did not meet prescribing standards (U. Deployment driven disruption of marital/family dynamics has been a concern since the armed forces realized that the trend would continue toward being a married force (Britton & Williams. 2005). When women attempt to leave an abusive relationship. Mefloquine (Larium) was determined to be an unlikely cause. a situation that intimate partner violence workers have identified as the most dangerous time for women in abusive relationships (Lutz & Elliston. However. defined as the time an individual spends away from the home station (Garamone. 1995). focus groups and medical record reviews raised questions about inconsistency in medical documentation of the use of Larium. Marital discord was a major factor with the increased Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO).579 active duty solders.S. 7 .S. Army Surgeon General. more than most U. There was no evidence that two of the soldiers were ever prescribed the drug.factors in all four wife homicides. 1999). often with violence. 2002). the men’s control appears about to dissolve. and many reassert control in the home. being a contributor to marital discord and particularly in these four families (U. Army Surgeon General. Military personnel are controlled from above at work.463 (54%) are married (Office of Army Demographics. workers. S.
It continues to be a widely held belief in the military community that engaging such services is detrimental and often terminal to a soldier’s career. Family readiness. Although there was known marital distress in all of the Fort Bragg homicides. defined as families who are prepared and equipped with the skills and tools to successfully meet the challenges of the military lifestyle. where a significant number of soldiers are deploying simultaneously. is the responsibility of the unit’s commanding officer. provide support to the FRG leaders including providing monetary funding as available. establish a family readiness group (FRG). Unit commanders at all levels are responsible for providing an effective family readiness program that at minimum will provide an officer as a Family Readiness liaison. Soldier readiness. during deployment and postdeployment. the preparations for the active duty soldiers and the unit generally occur in a structured way. Resources often will differ depending on the base and location. 2002). being prepared to deploy and once deployed. the process and programs must be integrated into the unit’s deployment training across all phases of the deployment. can positively or adversely affect soldier readiness (Lee. To be most effective. ability to conduct the mission. 2002). there was no record that any of the soldiers or their wives had accessed the available behavioral health services or family support programs. to include pre-deployment.In a deployment. The unit commander is responsible to ensure that programs are available to help families attain and maintain optimal readiness (Lee. When behavioral services are sought they are confounded 8 .
2002). early care to prevent progression to more serious dysfunction be provided. 2002) recommended that marital discord be recognized as a pervasive factor in the perpetration of family violence and that safe. There was often a two to six month wait for the first available appointment (U. The EPICON Report (U. and consistency of resources. 1991). Commissioning of a systemic study of the impact of deployment operational frequency and intensity on the health and welfare of soldiers and their families was also recommended.by the inability to get timely appointments. Army Surgeon General. All cultures possess certain qualities. 2002). Gaps in the Army’s analysis Military Culture The in-depth inquiry by the EPICON is one in a long line of commissions established over the course of many gendered scandals in the military. effectiveness. Leaders were told to provide accessible and career safe behavioral health care to include mental health services and family advocacy services (U. 2) broadly shared by members.S. scrupulously avoiding the issue of gendered power in the military culture. culture is 1) learned from previous generations.S. 3) adaptive to the 9 . Army Surgeon General. Army Surgeon General.S. Commands were directed to reevaluate deployment support programs as to content. Culture is defined as a way of life that is learned and shared by human beings and is taught by one generation to the next (Levin. Specifically.
1996). 1991). or loss of life. Members of the military profession are distinguished from other professions. It is symbolic in nature. Military objectives are often achieved with the sacrifice of soldiers’ lives. 1995. It adapts to changing conditions. The essential basis of military life is the ordered application of force under an unlimited liability. and 4) symbolic in nature – agreed upon symbols help people create order and make sense of their world (Levin.conditions in which people live. In 1869. formed to peculiar notions. governed by peculiar laws. The stark and brutal reality of these differences from normal society has traditionally been a distinguishing feature of military life. contributing to a sense of separateness and even superiority in relation to the civilian population (Hackett. William Windham described armed forces generally as “…a class of men set apart from the general mass of the community. Military culture is learned via socialization training such as boot camp. Although military culture is a unique way of life. trained to particular uses. It is broadly shared by its members. p. 10). which sets apart the man who embraces this life. It is the unlimited liability. it fits the definition of culture and possesses these four qualities. The military allows for the lawful killing of others in the performance of duty. Common to most modern military organizations is the notion of being different from the rest of society. marked by peculiar distinctions” (Grimshaw. 10 . 1963). Rank insignia and language jargon make sense only within a military context (Dunivan.
dominance. Fort Bragg is the home of the 82nd Airborne P P Division. and they are highly lethal once they hit the ground. They are typically referred to as Green Berets. Ma’am is not an equivalent term for female superiors because it is also traditionally used in addressing women regardless of their organizational status. The 82nd P P Airborne has one of the most prestigious histories as a fighting unit. The 82nd Airborne is recognized for their P P unmatched sense of pride and esprit de corps. and power are evident everywhere (Segal. This is the most elite group of soldiers in the world. This stratification system is ritualized through uniform insignia. It’s members are proud of the fact that they are the president’s 911. they can deploy rapidly to any spot in the world. In addition to the airborne division. and other Special Operations units. norms.Military organizational culture emphasizes hierarchy: status. Fort Bragg has a unique environment. A military base generally constitutes a relatively isolated and autonomous social and legal entity that produces and is governed by its own language. Army Special Operations Forces. Fort Bragg is the home for certain portions of the nation’s Special Operations Command. and addressing male superiors as sir. and laws. most notably its many combat parachute jumps during World War II. saluting. the XVIII airborne Corps. S. They are known as the U. Rank is paramount as a determinant of interpersonal interactions. 1999). who specialize in reconnaissance and unconventional warfare and are all trained with a specific geographic and linguistic 11 .
soldiers at Fort Bragg are held in the highest esteem by both members of the military and the civilian communities. perpetuates a culture that encourages and rewards hegemonic masculine behavior which is defined as the socially dominant. While the EPICON report (U. Supposedly” (Breed. as an institution. 2002). According to Connell (1995) masculinity is socially 12 . Popular media raised the question that there could always be a potential for domestic violence among special operations soldiers because the unwillingness to seek help is deeply ingrained. and desired behavior. 2002). wartime conditions and gendered violence. accepted. A newspaper article quoted her as saying. S. absent were any possible connections between militarized masculinity. The mother of one of the victims described the elite soldiers as ‘superhumans’. Army Surgeon General. they don’t have to have help. Hegemonic Masculinity The EPICON report (U. Army Surgeon General. “You have to remember. It is hypothesized that the army. 2002) and previous investigations have neither stemmed the problem of intimate partner violence in the military nor prompted the military to recognize the fundamental role of violent masculinity in crimes like the Fort Bragg murders (Lutz & Elliston.focus. S. Because of the history of the units and the type of warfare in which they engage. 2002) concluded that marital discord and family problems exacerbated by the stress of deployment were the main aggravating factors of the Fort Bragg cluster of murders.
and bloodthirsty. who are technically barred from serving in many combat specialties (Connell. Kronsell. 1995). construct different masculinities. Hegemonic masculinity refers to a particular set of masculine norms and practices that have become dominant in specific institutions of social control. the armed forces bestow status advantages to men as a group over women. The army perpetuates an almost mythological form of masculinity: the soldier is aggressive.constructed and exists in culture and institutions. 1987). It places those men who successfully accomplish military missions among the “select” and heroic in our society. This ideal provides status to the men who collaborate in its maintenance. 1995. 2005). Power relations among men with different patterns of personality development. Gender politics among men involve struggles to define the hegemonic or socially dominant form of masculinity (Connell. in personality and in the social definition and use of the body. Hegemonic 13 . This sustains the power relationship between men and women as groups. There is no one thing that is masculinity. To become hegemonic. Hence. above all other men who shun or shirk military duty (Britton & Williams. 1995. macho. hegemonic masculinity is a set of norms and practices associated with men in powerful social institutions (Connell. This image also guarantees a privileged status to all men vis-à-vis women. By institutionalizing this hegemonic masculinity. 2005). Masculinity is constructed within a gender order that defines masculinity in opposition to femininity. cultural norms must be supported by institutional power.
Special operations units are some of the last in the military to include women.masculinity is a central defining concept in the culture of the United States military. “These are the biggest. the very peak of the alpha in alpha male. One odd finding is that the norms associated with hypermasculinity in the military are contradicted by other military norms stressing duty. honor. and is reinforced in male-only social settings associated with the military. “It’s certainly a weird coincidence that these killings have largely involved troops where violence and aggression is encouraged” (Jonsson. 2003). This culture of hypermasculinity associated with military life includes the objectification and denigration of women (Rosen et al. The hegemonic masculine ideal perpetuated by the military is a meld of soldierliness. and discipline (Rosen et al. The hegemonic masculine image expected at Fort Bragg is a masculine warrior image. 1995).. good behavior. 2002). This is imparted during the informal socialization process. Kennedy Special Warfare School.” says James Morrison. 2003). 1976). Savage & Gabriel. Knudson.. This image is defended by the military culture as necessary because male bonding is the cornerstone of small unit cohesion (Rosen. a retired military sociologist who used to teach at Fort Bragg’s John F. masculinity and heterosexuality (Britton & Williams. They specialize in 14 . baddest bears in the forest. The bonding of men in male-only peer groups is often associated with hypermasculinity. & Fancher. 2003. The soldiers accused of murdering their wives during the summer of 2002 were part of the Special Forces and the Delta Force.
This process of military socialization is an actual change of identity during which the individual actually becomes a soldier. The rites of passage incorporated in basic training create desire to aspire to the hegemonic masculine ideal. “The Army will make a man out of you”. has grown more fervent since the war on terror began. 2003). “The Marines: A few good men” (Snyder. demonstrate the warrior ethos. The idea that the soldier makes an unrecompensable sacrifice creates a halo effect around 15 . provides a significant ingredient in the recipe for intimate partner violence (Lutz & Elliston. and physically fit soldiers who respond to leadership. and to being above the law. disciplined. Army. Recruitment advertising slogans include: “Join the Army. are focused on teamwork. Be a Man”. The claim to being the most male of the male. 2002). The cultural celebration of soldiers. S. and espouse the Army’s core values” (U. particularly that of the elite Special Forces and the Delta Force at Fort Bragg. Rule #2: Follow rule #1”.unconventional warfare. Basic Combat Training (boot camp) “…provides our Army with trained. men are not born warriors (Snyder. A sign in a Special Forces training area reads: “Rule #1: There are no rules. motivated. An intensive training process makes warriors. Men joined the army with the promises of becoming a man. Strong appeals to masculinity are often used in order to facilitate the change in identity. While there is a long-standing connection between soldiering and the masculine warrior. 2003). which is combat that often follows neither the letter nor the spirit of the rules of war. 2005).
these men. They are heroes who rate parades when they leave for combat and when they return. In this climate, the soldiers who murdered their wives could have turned to them and said, “The culture is worshiping me, why aren’t you?” (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). Gendered Organization Gender is the socially constructed range of roles, ideas, and behaviors that every society creates to distinguish between women and men and girls and boys. Gender is often thought of as something that individual people have. Gender is also embedded in social institutions. Governments, economic systems, and religious institutions are gendered. These institutions treat women and men differently and are treated by women and men differently. Theories of gender in organizations focus on the logic and processes that sustain the gender status quo (Connell, 2005). There are several interacting processes in which fender operates in organizations. There is construction of divisions along gender lines, the construction of symbols that reinforce those divisions, interactions between groups that produce gendered components of individual identity and of a gendered frame for understanding other social structures (Prokos & Padavic, 2002). These processes are all seen in the military culture. The military organization has long been seen as the symbol and training ground for traditional notions of masculinity (Karst, 1991). Many military policies, including the exclusion of women from combat roles, and policies and practices related to sexual
assault and harassment implicate questions of gender (Abrams, 1993). The military is a microcosm of patriarchal society, isolated from most of civilian society and community. Masculine identities in North American culture are founded on power (Kilmartin, 2000; Lorber, 1994; Lutze & Symons, 2003). Culturally, men are to be strong, independent, unemotional, and aggressive (Kilmartin, 2000). Women are defined in direct contrast to men as weak, dependent, emotional, and passive (Lutze & Symons, 2003). Men in patriarchal societies are granted inherent superiority over women and the power to both protect and discipline others. The inherent power embedded in masculinity, and the ability to formulate law, institutions, and policy from this position of power, translates into gendered institutions (Smart, 1995). The U. S. Army is undeniably a patriarchal institution. In a patriarchal system, the male perspective is favored. The military as an institution has been designed to protect male privilege within the patriarchal system (Lorber, 1994; Lutze & Symons, 2003; Muraskin, 2003). It has been a male privilege to use violence against women, in the name of discipline, for centuries (Lutze & Symons, 2003; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). It has been suggested that through marriage, women became men’s responsibility, and men had the right to assert their authority in the home in whatever manner necessary to achieve control (Lutze & Symons, 2003; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Wife beating is related to patriarchal ideology, particularly where there are higher levels of structural inequality between genders (Yllo & Straus, 1990). Women whose 17
partners adhere to a more traditional ideology of familial patriarchy are more likely to report being victimized (Smith, 1990). A common thread to the murders at Fort Bragg was that all of the women had expressed a desire to leave their marriages. This has been identified as the most dangerous time for women in abusive relationships. This has been identified as the most dangerous time for women in abusive relationships. That is when the male privilege and control bestowed by a patriarchal society appears about to dissolve. In the patriarchal institution of the military, it is not surprising that the soldiers will use violence to try to reinstate the control in their marriage. In the Pentagon’s approach to the problem of intimate partner violence, gender has been left hidden in plain sight. At Fort Bragg, perhaps to protect the accepted patriarchal institution, the soldiers who killed their wives were quickly redefined as victims. They were painted as the victims of the horrors of combat suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Soldiers belonging to the same units as the alleged perpetrators were reported to have great sympathy for them, considering them to be the victims and suggesting that the wives were to blame for starting the conflicts (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). Group Cohesion Primary group cohesion is based on peer bonding and is regarded as critical to the effective functioning of a small military unit under stressful conditions, such as combat. 18
bonding tends to occur around stereotypic masculine characteristics. This has grown more fervent since the war on terror began. anger alienation. The celebration of men as soldiers has stifled the recognition and the addressing of the epidemic problem 19 . Except for the time surrounding the Vietnam War. such as dominance. brotherhood. soldiers have been celebrated. Personal accounts are filled with glowing descriptions of camaraderie. risk taking. This kind of bonding and solidarity is encouraged by military leaders and is seen as essential in forging effective fighting units. They are defined in opposition to women. An examination of war narratives reveals the subjectively felt importance of peer bonding between soldiers. attitudes that favor sexual violence toward women and that reflect distrust.Morris (1996) suggested that military cohesion is associated with a culture of hypermasculinity and is evidenced through the consumption of pornography and the pervasive use of sexist language. aggressiveness. This appears to be true in the Special Forces units. 1995). has contributed to the perpetuation of the hegemonic masculinity myth surrounding the military. and the forging of universal bonds between men under the constant threat of death. These bonds are viable only in a highly gendered context (Britton & Williams. and resentment toward women. She suggested that in some military its. The armed forces and particularly the Special Forces are the last remaining refuges for the affirmation of solidarity between men. in addition to the military culture. Who is the Real Victim? The culture prevalent in United States’ society.
The Lautenberg Amendment The attitude of commanders when told of intimate partner violence incidents has tended to be. The military has been reluctant to treat intimate partner violence as a crime. Sudden changes or perceived challenges to the soldier’s authority or control could precipitate abuse or violence (Goff. 80% of civilian cases are referred for prosecution (Galdas. 1999. 2002). Cheater. Commanders are hesitant to investigate allegations against their men. the popular media reports describe unit leaders advising wives of men who were deployed into combat not to cut their hair.” rather than one of protecting the victim. It is not uncommon for commanders to ignore orders for anger management counseling when it conflicts with military assignments (Radutsky & Nelson. There is a belief that the soldier makes a significant sacrifice in service to country. In the weeks after the murders at Fort Bragg. “I’ll take care of it. Under this halo. 2004). for fear that their 20 . he’s my soldier. some of the media have posed the soldiers as victims and shown little attention to the women who they killed or the failures of the system to protect them (Lutz & Elliston. 2003). & Marshall. The military has handled most intimate partner violence incidents by administrative actions rather than by court martial. This advice blames the woman for the violence perpetrated upon her. and not to display the independence that was required of them while their husbands were away. 2002).of violent abuse of women within the military. In sharp contrast.
Under Department of Defense (DOD) policy. or having reason to believe. It does. DOD policy requires commanders to notify soldiers who are involved in a domestic violence incident that it is unlawful for them to possess firearms and ammunition. transport. they have convictions.units will be disrupted. or judgments that have been expunged or set aside. They are reluctant to involve the civilian authorities. major weapon systems and crew-served weapons such as tanks. The definitions of domestic violence and conviction are not always clear. The Amendment also makes it a felony for anyone to sell or issue a firearm or ammunition to a person with such a conviction. it is a felony for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to ship. apply to both military and privately owned firearms and ammunition. A soldier with a conviction for domestic violence is prohibited from deployments for missions requiring possession of firearms. Convictions do no include Article 15 (non-judicial punishment). possess. summary court-martial. however. from attending military schools where instruction in 21 . missiles. This includes commanders and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) who furnish weapons or ammunition to soldiers knowing. or receive firearms or ammunition (18 USC 922(d)(9)). deferred prosecution (or similar dispositions) in civilian courts. and aircraft are not covered by the Amendment. There is no exception for military personnel engaged in official duties. Under the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968. and assign them to duties not requiring the bearing of weapons.
The percentage of recruits entering the army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical pro lems has more than doubled since 2001 (Bowman. 1997 for armed forces personnel. 2005. 2006). A 1999 study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicated that people who enlisted in the military between 1990 and 1993 with “moral waivers” for misdemeanors.weapons is part of the curriculum. It prohibited any branch of the armed services from enlisting anyone convicted of a crime of domestic violence. shipping.C. felonies. it increasingly has enlisted recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes. the DOD adopted an interim policy on October 22.018 recruits. In response to the Lautenberg Amendment. As the army faces pressure to keep up recruiting levels during the Iraq war. 2006). This comprised 15% of those accepted into the service during that period compared to 12% of those joining the army during 2004 22 . The policy also generally prohibits assigning enlisted personnel with unexpunged domestic violence convictions to any position that includes duties covered by the Gun control Act (carrying. and from receiving assignments overseas. The conviction for a domestic violence incident disrupts unit readiness and affects the ability of a unit to successfully carry out its mission. and substance abuse showed they were more likely to be separated from the service for misconduct than those without such waivers (Bowman. In the 12 month period ending September 30. the army granted waivers to 11. This policy has not completely eliminated the recruitment and enlistment of everyone convicted of domestic violence.S. possessing.. § 922). or transporting firearms) (18 U.
23 . public drunkenness and contempt of court. Domestic violence charges are often reduced to other offenses. This category includes aggravated assault. up from 3. robbery. up from 650 the previous year. The largest increase in waivers was for recruits with misdemeanor convictions. The largest category of waivers was for medical conditions.667 in 2004.(Bowman. 2000). 2006). or plea arrangements are agreed to the do not reflect the actual crime. flat feet or some hearing loss.587 waivers granted in 2005. There were 4. There were 737 waivers for alcohol and illegal drugs. a number of waivers have been granted to individuals convicted of domestic violence-related charges (DTFDV. so will the enlistment of recruits with domestic violence histories (Bowman. Those waivers were for recruits who tested positive for amphetamines. marijuana or cocaine during the initial recruit processing.567 in 2004 (Bowman. 2006). Although the exact numbers are difficult to obtain. resisting arrest. from 408 in 2004. The category includes those with convictions for assault punishable by a fine of less than $500. There were 5. 2006). There was a significant increase in the number of recruits with “serious criminal misconduct” in their background. The number of recruits in that category increased to 630. such as asthma. As the number of waivers increases. receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.065 medical waivers in FY 2005 increased from the 4. and vehicular manslaughter.
They are trained to reject feminine characteristics of supportiveness. 1999). The masculine ethos of military life has 24 . Often military training is accompanied by explicit verbal abuse of women and the portrayal of women only as sex objects.Strategies for change The events at Fort Brag. Soldiers are trained to be violence. Modern military forces are overwhelmingly composed of men. All women. This happens without those in charge ever being aware of what this theory is or the implications of perpetuating the gender status quo. competitive. cooperativeness. Men in the military and particularly those assigned to elite units are conditioned and socialized to hegemonic masculinity. threaten the viability of this image when they successfully accomplish the feats defined as masculine. and the idea that seeking help is a sign of weakness increases the risk for violence in the home. and the EPICON analysis supports the theory that the culture in the military constructs and maintains a hegemonic masculinity by socializing soldiers through the training at boot camp and by rewarding conforming behaviors. tenderness and physical softness. in addition to marginalized males such as homosexual men. These are based on the organization’s desire to protect and project its masculine image. The organization and its rituals are devalued if women can do them. the public reaction. Sexism is a common part of military training and military life (Martin & Collinson. The glorification of killing. The military remains the most masculine occupation available. the denigration of women. tough and masculine.
corporations. including rape. 1999). with the immediate goal being to remove formal inequalities. prostitution and poor working conditions. In a social environment in which 25 . Fair representation of women within bureaucracies. political parties. have integrated farther into the fabric of the military organization and have demonstrated success in this male dominated arena. Military training and activity. 1999). and legal or quasi-legal avenues for redress are favored. Discrimination against women is strongly opposed. professions. trade unions and churches is sought. though still having emphasis on brutality and obedience. While the connections between the military and male domination are suggestive there is not a clearly defined link between the two. Women.much in common with the oppressive treatment of women in both military and civilian life. This strategy can weaken the existing power distribution by undercutting dominance of men over women within organizations. over time. is becoming more oriented to technical competence and bureaucratic performance (Martin & Collinson. In direct person to person violence it is primarily men who are the perpetrators (Martin & Collinson. Equality within the organization One basic tenet of the women’s movement has been to push for equality for women in society as it is presently organized. The link between overt sexism and the military is being attenuated as war becomes more bureaucratized and face to face combat is reduced in importance. battering.
overcome submissiveness. Women who succeed and move to the top levels will be conditioned by perspectives. and not the relations of power. 1999). the patriarchal culture of masculine militarism would itself change. if women had a bigger role in the military. status and knowledge (Martin & Collinson. the few women who infiltrate the military in positions of responsibility are acculturated to be even more brutal than their male counterparts in order to be accepted or respected in those jobs. powers and interactions at the top. particularly women. The strategy of promoting equality within an otherwise slow to change structure like the military has limitations. wealth. Only the gender composition of the personnel may be changed. 2005). However. learn new skills such as military job skills. and become essentially like other elites. the use of patriarchal inequality to bolster bureaucratic and other power structures is made more difficult. there is a subterranean assumption that. This strategy aims to increase assertiveness. As Ueno Chizuko (2005) points out. Individual change Another strategy is the changing of attitudes and experiences of individuals. The militarization of women happens much quicker than the feminization of the military (Chizuko. and generally build confidence and ability. Girls’ education and experiences in early life need to be changed to promote their skills and self-esteem. 26 .discrimination against women is illegitimate.
Individual confidence and skills may have little effect on the patriarchal structure of the military. As long as the structures remain they will provide a strong support for the masculine culture and help perpetuate the problems that result from that culture. strengthen state power by promoting the use of law and administrative intervention and sanctions. Direct challenges. such as those against sexual harassment. resistance to sexual harassment. and attacks on anti-women pornography. organized patterns of discrimination and oppression can continue to create and foster feelings of inferiority and inhibit development or use of skills (Martin. 27 .Individual change is limited as a means of challenging organizational structures that are in place. the organizational structures that support the practices are still in place. opposition to sexist language and behavior. Instead. however. only peripherally challenge the key large scale structures of the military bureaucracy. Direct challenges to the system A third strategy is to address the effects of the masculine culture of the military at the immediate level of individuals and the local community. 1990). women’s refuges. Addressing patriarchal domination in the civilian communities has led to the development of rape crisis centers. Some campaigns. While there can be beneficial short-term impact in restraining sexist practices. Challenging the treatment of women as sex objects can reduce the potential for mobilization of masculinity in military training.
New attitudes. This form of loyalty can lead to stonewalling and the refusal to give evidence or testimony against investigators. in turn. Combat readiness. responses and loyalties are instilled in the recruit. They enter a world where the institutional value of the group is supreme. S. Military ethos is shaped by the U. skills and values are learned through a socialization process that begins when a soldier enters basic training. As recruits begin to rely on each other. At Fort Bragg. defense of. Researchers began to notice the potential negative impact of strong bonding as early as the 1940’s. in the army. Army policy decisions to maintain unconventional combat forces.Conclusions and recommendations In the army. Brotz and Wilson (1946) observed that. Recruits begin as almost complete strangers to one another. Before entering basic training. the Special Forces and Delta Force soldiers have an ethos of cohesion. shapes the values and foals of 28 . recruits come from a civilian society that emphasizes individualism. strong bonds build. but within days. and loyalty sustained by cultural phenomena. Everyone is expected to be a team player or risk ostracism. This culture has a historical tradition rooted in the definition of the elite units’ unconventional combat forces. bonding was so strong that covering up for. and devotion to one’s buddy was expected. Group bonding also prevents individuals from speaking out against inappropriate behavior. teamwork. friendships develop and a new group is formed.
Primary group bonding is reinforced through formal and informal socialization. formal authority that is well articulated. The culture that results from the bonding and the socialization to elite military units contributes to specific attitudes and characterizations becoming shared truths. leadership and discipline provide the avenues to link the formal demands of the organization with the norms and sanctions of the small group itself. Without the military leadership acknowledging how pervasive such derogatory attitudes are and how many official and unofficial forms they can take the problem of intimate partner violence and violence against women by soldiers will be difficult to address more fully. At all levels. reinforcing primary group bonding in a gendered organization seen as a necessary component of combat effectiveness. Group loyalty can be a positive organizational characteristic within an environment of strong leadership and discipline. One of the ways that the negative affects of strong group bonds is to assure that the organization or unit has a strong. Group bonding prevents individuals from speaking out against inappropriate violent behavior of their fellow soldiers resulting in the behaviors going unchecked. 2004). The intense bonding deemed necessary for combat is a double edged sword.the organization. Often policies that are instituted to address the problems of violence against women conflict with other messages soldiers receive that women are not the equal of men. At the unit level. leaders need to continually reinforce personal discipline. self29 . The Chain of Command becomes short circuited by the strong affective ties which it encourages (Winslow.
Leaders are the primary agents by which an organization’s culture and role norms are modeled. transmitted and maintained (Schein. Military leaders hold the key to far more in our society than winning wars. 1985). Discipline and leadership are the best hope to offset the effects of a patriarchal institution that has historically required hegemonic masculinity that encourages violence against women. 30 . 2004). The cultivation of an organizational culture needs to be balanced with respect for military authority and the rule of law (Winslow.control and commitment to high standards of personal conduct. Institutional changes will come slowly as both the military and the society changes.
The literature often fails to recognize the multidimensional nature of the determinants of IPV. & Wiersema. 2003). it has been estimated $67 billion is the annual economic victim-related costs if intimate partner violence (IPV) (Miller. Yet in 2001.000 incidents of IPV were reported to the military services (Lloyd. IPV in the military community involves unique cultural aspects but this literature has not been integrated.CHAPTER 3 INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN THE MILITARY FROM AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE In the United States. more than 18. Some of these studies have indicated that the rate of IPV in the military community is higher than in the civilian community (Campbell. 1996). Cohen. These costs are associated with the severe and negative health and social consequences of violence to victims of IPV. The perpetrator was an active duty military member in 62% of the cases.000 of these reports were substantiated. Over the past twenty years there has been an increasing number of studies about IPV in the military community. Determinants and risks for IPV in the military can be organized using and ecological framework. The United States Armed Forces has had programs and policies in place to prevent and respond to family violence for 30 years. 2002). Most often the victim was a female. More than 10. Despite an awareness of this 31 .
2002. there has been little consensus in the military community on the etiology of gender based abuse. such as the clusters of homicides at Fort Campbell. 1999. Zimmerman. how to improve the military’s response. 2003. Orth. 2002. how to recognize early warning signs. Following these tragedies. 1998). 1996. identification of types of abusers. 1995). IPV in the military periodically attracts significant public attention following dramatic. 2002. the belief that “boys will be boys”. 2002) and at Fort Bragg. North Carolina in 2002 (Biank. Other anecdotal literature suggests a link between the culture of the military. Kentucky. 2002. 2003). 2000. and what factors associated with military culture contribute to IPV (Rosen & Hansen. the closed nature of the military and the use of the anti-malaria Larium (Maass. 1998b. Radutzky & Nelson. military training and IPV (DeKeseredy & Schwartz. tragic events. Varian. and differences and similarities concerning violence perpetrated by males and females. the role and definition of psychological abuse. in 1999 (Jowers. Morris. there is no consensus (Jasinski & Williams. 2003). identification of degrees of severity. Rosen & Hansen. Butterfield. Rosen & Hanson. national media outlets speculated that the causal factors for the homicides included the stress of combat and deployments. 1999.problem. There is little agreement on the causes of IPV in 32 . 2002). A review of literature of IPV in the military concluded that. Policy makers have asked how to prevent tragedies. regarding issues such as its definition and measurement. 1999.
The model is best visualized as four concentric. Prevention programs focus on the general population or high risk individuals before serious violence has occurred. represents 33 . how to prevent it. policies. nested circles. empirical studies of IPV associated with the military have focused on prevalence. and sociocultural factors that combine to cause abuse (Dutton. and programs (Heyman & Neidig. 1999) and the special characteristics.the military. Heise. the microsystem. The framework not only organizes multiple risk factors into meaningful categories. 1996. At the core of the model is the individual. 1995. demographics. An integrated. and childhood exposure to violence of military personnel and family members (Merrill et al. whereas treatment programs work with violent individuals to change negative behavior and reduce its effects. researchers are using an ecological framework to understand the interplay of person. An Ecological Framework What causes violence against women? Increasingly. Rosen & Martin. it also identifies potential intervention points. The innermost circle represents the biological and personal history that each individual brings to his or her behavior in relationships. ecological framework for violence against women is an appropriate framework to guide research on IPV in the military community. Cultural influences have not been examined. Around the individuals are their close relationships.. 1998). The second circle. While all of the military services have performed research or evaluation related to IPV since 1985. and what works to stop it. situational. 1998).
Many studies agree on several factors at each level of the framework that increase the likelihood of partner violence. Little & Kantor. 2002. 1996b). Demo. These structures include neighborhood. Rosen & Martin. Moreno. 1996a). 1996. Rosen & Martin. both formal and informal. The fourth. Hotaling & Sugarman. 1999. outermost circle. 1989. Ward.. the macrosystem. 1986. Oropesa. Marcy. 2004. 1995). 1992. including cultural norms. 2002). & Evans. & Winer. VanDerSpuy. Anglin. Frequently the family or other intimate or acquaintance relationships are included in the microsystem. the exosystem. 1999. and the legislative and policy framework which supports it (Heise. cross-cultural studies have cited male control of wealth and decision-making within the family (Levinson. in which relationships are embedded. McCauley et al. At the community level 34 . 1994. 1997. Lapesarde. 1998. Oropesa. 1997) and marital conflict as strong predictors of abuse (Hoffman. and peer groups. & Paul. The third circle. & Cummins. 1995. Krug. Tibbs. At the individual level. workplace. Parry. Bertrand. is the economic and social environment. 1998. having an absent or rejecting father (Dutton. these factors include being abused as a child or witnessing marital violence in the home (Hotaling & Sugarman. represents the institutions and social structures. 1990).the immediate context in which abuse takes place. The outer layer of the model represents the pervasive influences of a society. McCabe. social networks. and frequent use of alcohol (Bell & Hartford. Moreno. & Lozano. including cultural norms and values. At the level of the family and relationship. Dahlberg. Kyriacou.
Other cultural norms associated with abuse include tolerance of physical punishment of women and children. predict higher rates of violence (DeKeseredy & Schwartz. Snyder. 1998. It was originally based on a review of North American academic research on violence from the perspectives of anthropology. Parmley. Levinson. and sociology and from cross-cultural comparative studies that use statistical methods to analyze coded ethnographic studies (Counts et al. & Haaga. male honor. Orpinas. Kaminski. 1981). and the perception that men have ownership of women (Heise. Heise. 1998. 1989. Sanday. 1992. Knudson & Fancher.. acceptance of violence as a means to settle interpersonal disputes. 2003). 1999. Brown. 1999. Rosen. Hossain. 2000. studies around the world have found that violence against women is most common where gender roles are rigidly defined and enforced (Heise. Schwartz &DeKeseredy. & Campbell. 1989. 2003. Heise (1998) suggests that the framework should not be interpreted as definitive because the research base is incomplete. Ahmed. Sanday. psychology. Koenig. 1999. or dominance (Counts. Moreno. Levinson. 2000). together with male peer groups that condone and legitimize men’s violence. & DeKeseredy. Critical factors may be missing because the research has not yet been done 35 . 1992. Zimmerman. Morris. 1999. Schwartz. At the societal level. Godenzi. 1998a. 1998) and where the concept of masculinity is linked to toughness.women’s isolation and lack of social support. 1981. 2001. 1996. 1995). The ecological framework helps rationalize and integrate findings from the many disciplines that have theorized about the possible causes of gender-based abuse.
Individual level (Ontogenic) Some of the determinants associated with intimate partner violence at the individual level are biological sex. social economic status (SES). Biological sex is the primary risk factor for intimate partner violence. Other factors may prove to be correlates rather than true causal factors in abuse.7/1000 women in 1997 while there were 1. The dynamic interplay between factors operating at multiple levels is more important than the location of any single factor.to test their significance. and cultural identity. 2004). & Clark. Schafer. This nested ecological framework explicitly emphasized the interaction of these factors in the etiology of abuse. 2001. While an individual’s vulnerability to IPV can be traced to causes at the individual and interpersonal levels. age. 1998). Heise (1998) also suggests that the framework leaves considerable room for interpretation as to exactly where a particular factor most appropriately fits into the framework. these more immediate causes may in turn be traced to factors operating at the higher levels of institutions. Rennison & Welchans. Women are 5-8 times more likely to experience IPV than men (Rennison. and social policy (Oetzel & Duran. communities. Determinants and Risks Organized using the Ecological Framework The ecological framework has a foundational principle that the causes of intimate partner violence and outcomes reflect interplay of factors at multiple levels.5 male victims per 1000 that 36 . 2000. Women were victims of IPV at a rate of 7. Caetano. substance use.
2000). and income is a determinant of IPV (Oetzel & Duran. Additionally. Feldbau-Kohn. & 37 . Socio-economic status (SES). 2002. while less education is also a risk factor for physical abuse (Black.same year (Rennison & Welchans. 2000). Male-to-female violence has more serious consequences than female-to-male violence. education. & Harris. Being unemployed is a risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual and physical abuse for women. 2004). Schumacher. 2001). Another study addressing age and IPV in the military state that the highest rates for male active duty perpetrators were in the 18 to 21 year age group (Newby et al.. Shupe. 2001). Eighty-five percent of all IPV victims are women. Male-to-female violence is often repeated and is more likely to result in injury or death than female-to-male violence. The majority of perpetrators are enlisted men in the lower paygrades. The age range at highest risk for IPV for women in general in the United States is 16 to 24 years (Rennison. About 49% of the male perpetrators were under age 26. measured by employment. lower income and education are risk factors for being a perpetrator of intimate partner violence. Fifty seven percent were under age 26 and 18% between ages 16 and 20 years. Mollerstrom. while few are officers who are reported (Brewster. & Heyman. Milner. Most (85%) active duty personnel are male. A 1994 Department of Defense study revealed IPV victims in the military tend to be young mothers. Socio-economic status in the military can be measured by rank. Saha. 2001. Slep. Stacey.
2004). Another factor at the individual level is being abused as a child or witnessing marital violence in the home (Hotaling & Sugarman. 54% of women and 40% of men witnessed parental violence prior to enlistment (Merrill et al. A high percentage of military personnel have prior histories of domestic violence. 1998). Minorities are often concentrated in the lower rankd (Knouse. 1995). 2003). It is suspect that wives of officers underreport their abuse. 2004). 1987). male. 1990. 1996a) and having an absent or rejecting father (Dutton. 1991).. married. Rosen & Martin. Alcohol is often used by either perpetrators or victims in cases of IPV (Oetzel & Duran. Among Navy recruits. 1999. 1996). Women who have been abused by their military husbands often report that drugs and alcohol are commonly involved in the abuse (Erez. Violence among the lower ranks may also reflect demographic differences. 38 .Hazlewood. Research has found that enlisted. Their greater investment in their husband’s career may make them unwilling to jeopardize it by reporting abuse (West. army soldiers who drink heavily are more likely to abuse their spouses both when they are and when they are not drinking alcohol (Bell & Hartford. The overrepresentation of abusers among lower ranking service members may be explained by several factors. Moreno.
culturally contextualized. Oropesa. Gender roles are the social constructs of men’s and women’s social roles that are historically shaped. Young military families are often adjusting to new marriages and military life simultaneously. Being stationed away from 39 . Cross-cultural studies have cited male control of wealth and decision-making within the family (Levinson. which is reproduced through gender socialization (Hamby. 1990). 1989. 2000). 1994. 1980). Gender stereotyping has been defined as the belief that a set of traits and abilities is more likely to be found among one sex than the other. The goal of male batterers is to maintain male dominance. Oetzel & Duran. It is suggested that the primary cause of intimate partner violence is the gendered nature of power and control. The most violent husbands tended to make most of the decisions regarding family finances and strictly controlled when and where their wives could go (Frieze. 2004). 2000.Relationship/Situational level (Microsystem) Gender roles and family bonds are risk factors at the interpersonal level. 1997) and marital conflict as strong predictors of abuse (Hoffman et al. & Steinmetz. Hotaling & Sugarman. 1983. 1989).. Gelles. Decision-making in the family is highly related to a husband’s level of violence. and class specific (Hamby. The 1975 National Family Violence Survey found that wife abuse occurred in about 11% of couples with a clearly dominant husband as compared to only about 3% of couples where the woman had approximately equal influence in decision-making (Straus. Frieze & Browne.
home and extended family support networks often make the spouse psychologically dependent on the service member. Unemployment and underemployment of military spouses also creates financial dependence on the military spouse. The relationship between patriarchal family structure and violence are fueled, in part, by societal norms that approve of male dominance in the family (Yllo & Straus, 1990). The rate of wife beating in states with the most male-dominant norms was found to be double that in states with more egalitarian norms (Bogard, 1988). Men raised in patriarchal families are more likely to become violent adults, to rape women acquaintances, and to batter their intimate partners than are men raised in more egalitarian homes (Fagot, Loerber, & Reid, 1988; Friedrick, Beilke, & Urquiza, 1988; Gwartney-Gibbs, Stockard, & Bohmer, 1987; Riggs &O’Leary, 1989). Cross cultural literature suggests that one of the most lasting factors that promotes violence against women is a definition of anhood that is linked to dominance, toughness, or male honor (Counts et al., 1992; Sanday, 1981). Not all cultures define manhood in terms of dominance and aggression. Those that do have increased numbers of rape and sexual coercion (Sanday, 1981). The socialization of the hypermasculine man results in overvaluing of a masculinity as being tough, unfeeling, and violent (Heise, 1998; Mosher & Tomkins, 1988). The hypermasculine personality trait has been linked to rape, sexual coercion and force in dating situations (Mosher & Anderson, 1986). There is a culture of hypermasculinity associated with military life. It often includes the objectification and 40
denigration of women. While hypermasculinity in the military has been explored in relation to group cohesion (Rosen, Knudson, & Fancher, 2003) it has not been studied related to IPV. Community level (Exosystem) Formal and informal social structures are part of the community or exosystem level. Exosystem influences are often the byproducts of changes taking place in a large social milieu or social isolation stemming from increased migration in the population (Heise, 1998). One of the factors in the community level is isolation of the woman and the family. Social isolation is both a cause and a consequence of wife abuse (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Battered women are more isolated in terms of frequency of interaction with friends and neighbors, frequency of interaction with relatives, and participation in public activities (Nielson, Russell, & Ellington, 1992). Another factor is the association with delinquent peers. Particularly among adolescent males, an important role in encouraging sexual aggression is played by peer group behaviors and attitudes (Alder, 1985; DeKeseredy & Kelly, 1993). Sexual aggression is significantly related to desires to be held in high esteem by acquaintances (Heise, 1998; Petty & Dawson, 1989). DeKeseredy and Kelly (1993) also found that male peer support, or attachment to male peers who encourage and legitimate women abuse, is a statistically significant predictor of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse by men in college dating relationships. Patriarchal beliefs and attitudes, together with 41
male support measures explained approximately 21% of the variance in the types of woman abuse. The results of a study of peer group culture in an army division found the peer support among soldiers was not related to the severity or the frequency of intimate partner violence (Rosen et al., 2003). A study on sexual harassment and cohesion in the military provided validation for the concept of sexual harassment as a feature of the work climate (Rosen & Martin, 1997). The results of this study lend credence to the argument that sexual harassment is not just a matter of individual perception but of group perception. Societal level (Macrosystem) Societal level factors influence whether violence is encouraged or inhibited. Included at this level are economic and social policies that maintain socioeconomic inequalities between people, the availability of weapons, and social and cultural norms such as those around male dominance over woman, parental dominance over children and cultural norms that endorse violence as an acceptable method to resolve conflicts. Adherence to rigid gender roles, both at the societal or the individual level, increases the likelihood of violence against women. Gendered role rigidity was correlated with interpersonal violence in a sample of 17 cultures (McConahay & McConahay, 1977). Another study of six cultures found that when traditional genderbased task assignments are changed and boys perform domestic tasks, fender differences in aggression are reduced. Boys displayed less aggressive behavior. Gender differences 42
1973). Soldiers often hold strong traditional attitudes about women's inappropriateness for various army jobs (Kurpius & Lucart. currently prevalent within military organizations. rather than decrease. 2003). The military culture is a unique context that influences gender role beliefs. hostility toward women and acceptance of violence against women. S. 2000). the pattern of masculine stereotyping of the officer/leader role does not appear to decrease (Boyce & Herd. 2003). Norms. more men than women are perceived as having leadership potential and are given more opportunities to exhibit leadership (Norris & Wylie. In the army. Unlike civilian findings that indicate that managerial experience modified stereotypical perceptions. cadets at the U. 1995). such as hypermasculinity. when selecting or promoting soldiers to be leaders. have been found to be conducive to 43 . There is a stereotypical perception of leadership in the military that is masculine in nature.were also reduced when girls were freed from domestic chores and engaged in more masculine activities (Whiting & Edwards. service academies indicated that experience with leadership and seniority at the military academy is so strongly masculine that senior cadets perceive successful leadership characteristics to be masculine to a greater extent than the junior cadets (Boyce & Herd. Although increased experience and seniority in the military environment may increase. adversarial sexual beliefs. look for personal attributes thought to be more characteristic of men than women. promiscuity. Military leaders. rape myth acceptance.
The influence of societal or cultural norms in the military is the least researched area regarding intimate partner violence. and whether there needs to be a factor from each level present for violence to occur. focusing on the general population or at-risk individuals before serious violence has occurred are more effective in fostering successful families than criminal sanctions. whether factors must appear together or violence to result. not only provides guidance for future research. Prevention programs. 1996). 44 . The use of this framework could produce sensitive and responsive research in the area of IPV in the military communities. but also identifies potential intervention points.rape (Morris. Responses to intimate partner violence in the military can target multiple risk factors along the preventiontreatment continuum. which organized multiple risk factors into meaningful categories. Summary An ecological framework of intimate partner violence provides researchers and care providers with a way to understand the existing research and a tool for conceptualizing future research. Research questions can be asked about which factors are necessary condition for violence to occur. The ecological framework.
Hypertestosterone Relationship level (Microsystem) Society level (Macrosystem) Community level Exosystem) Individual level (Ontogenic) Construct: 1. Brain injury 4. Masculinity linked to aggression and dominance Construct: 1. Violence in family of origin 2. Group cohesion Figure 3. Delinquent peer group 3. Childhood abuse 3. Alcohol abuse 5. Male dominance 2. Economic background 2.1 Ecological Framework for Intimate Partner Violence in the Military 45 . Rigid gender roles 2. Acceptance of violence Construct: 1.Construct: 1.
B B B B B B B B The following are threats to the validity of the above assertion: • History – Between O1 and O2 many events may have occurred apart from X to produce the differences in outcomes. The longer the time lapse between O1 and O2. The most commonly used design is the quasiexperimental design with nonequivalent groups. Considerable attention has been devoted to the development of research designs which can be applied to a wide range of research problems (Campbell & Stanley. where the difference between O1 and O2 is explained by X. 1963). the more likely history becomes a threat 46 . treatment. An illustration of this design is R O1 X O2 . A typical approach has been to use a traditional pretest-posttest research design using self-report instruments to document program effectiveness or behavior change. or intervention causes some outcome or result.CHAPTER 4 IF I KNEW THEN WHAT I KNOW NOW: THE RETROSPECTIVE PRETEST AND ITS USE IN MEASURING THE EFFECT OF MILITARY TRAINING ON MEN’S ATTITUDES TOWARD INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Introduction Much of nursing research is devoted to examining whether a program.
interaction of testing and the experimental variable and the interaction of selection and the experimental variable are also threats to validity for this design. or scorers may produce changes in outcomes • Statistical regression – Regression toward the mean may occur. testing. The reactive effect occurs when the testing process itself leads to the change in behavior rather than it being a passive record of behavior • Instrumentation – The changes in the instrument. maturation. Those with extreme high scores appear to be decreasing their scores. If samples are selected according to their extreme characteristics or scores. observers. the tendency is to regress toward the mean. and those with extreme low scores appear to be increasing their scores • Others – History.• Maturation – Between O1 and O2 participants may have grown older or internal states may have changed and therefore the differences obtained would be attributable to these changes as opposed to X • Testing – the effect of giving the pretest itself may affect the outcomes of the second test. it has been known that the process of measuring may change that which is being measured. 47 . In the social sciences. instrumentation interaction of testing and maturation.
Dailey. 2005). 48 . Response shift bias is described as a change in the participant’s metric for answering questions from the pretest to the posttest due to a new understanding of a concept being taught” (Klatt & Taylor-Powell.Although these threats to the validity of the traditional pretest and posttest approach to evaluation were known to early evaluators. The response shift bias is the primary threat to validity to the pretest posttest method. & Maxwell. teaching (Bray & Howard. & Yeager. Self reported change scores measured from pretest to posttest appeared to indicate that participant performance decreased as a result of training. The difference is based on the assumption that both the measure and the participant’s way of interpreting it remain stable over the relevant interval (Golembiewski. 1980). program or intervention. Howard. & Struttmann. Howard first showed that average posttest skills in interviewing (Howard & Dailey. 1976. the difference between pretest and posttest scores has been used to estimate the direction and magnitude of change with respect to a treatment. 1980). and assertiveness (Howard. Terborg. Billingsley. Response Shift Bias Traditionally. & Gulanick. 1979). Kidd. Wojcik. Parshall. even though objective observers rated participants as having increased their skills. 1979) were significantly lower than the pretest. the identification of “response shift bias” by George Howard in 1979 illuminated the greatest weakness of this widely accepted research design. 2004. pre-intervention of the same characteristics.
where possible. a quasi-experimental design... 1979. was first described by Campbell and Stanley (1963) to be used when it was difficult or impossible to use more rigorous experimental designs. 1979. 2004) and their conceptualizations of constructs (Terborg et al. Howard. 1979). Caporaso. Schmeck et al.. and that this internalized standard will not differ from experimental to control group or change from a pretest to a posttest (Howard. The Retrospective Pretest The retrospective pretest (RPT).Researchers must be able to say that each particular score on the pretest set of scores is equivalent to the posttest set of scores. Ralph et al. 1970. measuring changes in participant’s internal standards of measurement (Howard & Dailey. Both Golumbiewski. Kidd et al. Howard.. 1980). Schmeck.. Researchers assume that the individuals evaluating themselves have an internalized standard for judging their level of functioning with regard to a given dimension. 1979). If the standard of measurement changes between the pretest and posttest. A common metric must exist between the two sets of scores. 1973. G. & Bray. Howard. G. Schmeck et al. 1963. Howard. They cited work done earlier using the RPT method from World War II in which behavioral scientists investigated the impact of mixed race and 49 . 1980. Howard and colleagues (1979) argued that adequate design and analytical approaches were necessary for identifying and. 1979. the two ratings will reflect this difference in addition to changes attributable to the experimental manipulation. Cronbach & Furby. Comparisons of the ratings will be invalid (Campbell & Stanley.
. & Katzev. Olson. McGuigan. A pretest was not obtained because the experimental military units did not exist at the beginning of the war. The RPT gave researchers the opportunity to test the hypothesis that exposure (in mixed race units) was related to formation of positive racial attitudes. 2000). Pratt.or under-estimate their knowledge. More recent research has covered the application of this method to testing the effectiveness of achieving program outcomes when interventions such as training programs are implemented (Bogenschneider. 1989). 1979. skills. skills. or understandings resulting in invalid high or low scores when compared to posttest scores. Participants answer questions about their understanding. or feelings NOW (after the workshop. 1980) . abilities. The reported effects of the intervention would be invalid. Pratt et al. treatment or intervention). 2000. 1980. Linney. treatment or intervention (Howard. 50 . Rockwell & Kohn. The RPT is administered at the same time as the posttest. 2000. They are then asked to reflect back and answer how they believe their understanding.single race infantry units on morale and attitudes (Mazur & Lamb. skills or feelings were BEFORE the workshop. & Mills. traditional pretest questions may be misunderstood. Schmeck et al. Mazur & Lamb. In research designs in which the response shift effect is likely to occur. The participants may over.. The posttest scores would show either little or great impact of the program or intervention.
Basic training often portrays women in negative terms. and consequently direct their aggression not only toward the enemy. but also toward female citizens or fellow female soldiers (Zimmerman. 2003). untrustworthy. This research seeks to measure attitudes toward 51 . Strong appeals to masculinity are often used in order to facilitate the change in identity (Snyder. 2003). Basic training as a test of manhood functions effectively in that it makes young males want to become soldiers. An individual’s attitude toward gender and sexuality are strongly influenced by the primary peer group. It also entails the denigration of women. 1996). S. In an environment that tolerates sexism soldiers can begin to link sexual aggression and violence with the denigration of women. Drill instructors routinely have referred to recruits as feminine in some way for the purpose of breaking them down and building them up. Army basic training on men’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence. 1995). even though these norms are not part of formal military training or socialization (Morris. passive.Empirical Example This quasi-experimental study explored the effects of 10 weeks of U. and in the case of the military it has been suggested that norms reflecting hypermasculinity and adversarial sexual beliefs are imparted to newcomers during the informal acculturation process. traditionally using them to signify the epitome of all that is cowardly. The primary purpose of army basic training is the transformation of an individual into a warrior ready for combat. unclean and undisciplined (Snyder. This process of military socialization is an actual change of identity.
with contemporary 52 . received no training and completed the retrospective pretest and posttest approximately 8 – 10 weeks after the pretest. This tool. The basic training group. Three groups of volunteers participated in the study. S. who were at a U. Army basic training base. The recruit group was in the process of entering military service when they completed the pretest. The civilian group. received no training and completed the retrospective pretest and the posttest approximately 8 – 10 weeks after the pretest. Each item on the posttest indicated that the participant should answer as to how he felt now (posttest). similarly completed the pretest. Each item was repeated immediately and the participant was instructed to answer as to how he felt 10 weeks ago (retrospective pretest) Measures Two measures were evaluated for response shift.hypermasculinity and acceptance of wife beating and to determine if these attitudes undergo changes during the intense initial military socialization process. The self-report posttest and the self-report retrospective pretest were identical to the pretest. Volunteers were administered an electronic survey using self-report instruments measuring characteristics of hypermasculinity and beliefs about wife beating. completed the pretest survey and then continued with basic training instruction and completed the retrospective pretest and the posttest at the end of training. The Auburn Differential Masculinity Index (ADMI-60) is a measure of hypermasculinity consisting of 60 randomly arranged items with an ordinal rating system.
all correlation = p<.62. Burkhart. 1987). Holding violent husbands responsible for their behavior: r = -0. Helping battered women: r = 0. & Sikorski. and devaluation of emotion) demonstrate reliability by coefficient alphas in two studies during the construction of the measure (α = . 2004).001)(Saunders & Lunch. A diverse sample and six measures with known acceptable validity 53 . punishing violent husbands.42. Observed convergent and discriminate validity with existing measures of the same construct support this instrument as a valid measure of the construct of hypermasculinity (Burk. The instrument is scored using a 5-point scale (1 = very much like me to 5 = not at all like me). sexual identity. wives gain from beating. dominance and aggression. and good construct and content validity (Burk.20. 1980) (Justifying wife beating: r = 0. Burkhart. Burkhart. The Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (IBAWB) includes content on the following beliefs: justifying wife beating. 1987). The score for the instrument is the totaled item score ranging from 60 to 300.25. & Sikorski. 2004). The five scales in the measure (hypermasculinity. Punishing violent husbands: r = -0.85) (Burk.56. Construct validity is supported by correlations of the five subscales with theoretically relevant constructs.language and item content. 2004). helping battered women. and holding violent husbands responsible for their behavior (Saunders & Lunch. Wives gain from beating: r =0. conservative masculinity.83 and . & Sikorski. Subscales were found to be multi-dimensional and to significantly correlate with the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Burt. has shown high internal reliability.
The mean scores on the retrospective pretest increased for both the Basic Group and the Recruit Group but decreased for the Civilian Group. Results Means and standard deviations of the three self-report measures are presented in Table 4. 4 = neither agree or disagree).tested the constructed validity.1). the retrospective pretest scores to the posttest scores. Paired t-tests compared the pretest scores to the posttest scores. The same was true for the Basic Group and the Civilian Group but was not true for the Recruit Group. The mean score on the retrospective pretest for the total sample for the Auburn Differential Masculinity Index was higher than the original pretest mean score.1. As was the case with previous studies of response shift bias. The instrument uses a 7 – point Likert scale (1 = Strongly agree to7 = Strongly disagree. establish the instrument’s known groups validity with the differences highly significant in the predicted direction on all subscales. Known groups of abusers and advocates. The Recruit Group showed an increase in the retrospective pretest mean score for the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating measure. and the pretest scores to the retrospective pretest scores (Table 4. the overall mean score for the retrospective-pretest on the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating measure was lower than the original pretest score for the total sample. 54 . with both males and females in the groups. The data indicate for the total sample the internal standard the participants used to evaluate themselves had changed from the pretest to the posttest. The score is the totaled item scale ranging from 7 to 217.
The scores of the pretest and the posttest would lead us to believe that it was possible that basic training influenced the attitudes toward wife beating for the basic training group. When comparing the scores of the retrospective pretest and the posttest none of the groups had a significant change. but there was a significant change in the standard for both the civilian and the recruit group. Relying only on the pretest – posttest changes would again lead us to falsely conclude that the experience of basic training did not have a significant effect on attitudes toward hypermasculinity. This would lead us to believe that there were some events apart from basic training for the civilians and the recruits that may have occurred to produce the differences in outcomes. The results indicate for the total sample there was no significant change in the internal standard the participants used to evaluate themselves from the ADMI pretest to the posttest. 55 . In evaluating the groups.Further analysis shows that the internal standard changed for the basic and the civilian groups but not for the recruit group. there was no significant change in the internal standard for the basic group. Relying on the gain score of the pretest to posttest alone would lead us to conclude that basic training had a greater impact on attitudes than it actually did. and that history had affected the attitudes of the civilian group.
1993. the purpose of U. Army basic training did not overtly include understanding or awareness of either of the variables. 2004) and educational psychology (Howard & Dailey.. The diffusion of these ideas to other disciplines has been slow (Tennis. The basic training curriculum does not provide any formal instruction related to partner violence. Ralph et al. Polit & 56 . Sprangers & Hoogstraten. Recently published nursing research texts completely lack index listings or references to response shift (Burns & Grove. there is little published in nursing literature. measurement and analysis of response shifts emerged over 30 years ago in the fields of organizational and personnel psychology (Golembiewski et al. 1989). Howard. 1979. S. 1991. Garssen. the potential for a response shift bias is greatest when the purpose of a treatment or intervention is to change the subject’s understanding or awareness of the variable being measured. Related to this study. Howard. Kidd et al.. While interest has been sparked in the response shift phenomena among health psychologists. research into response shifts had entered the realm of health psychology. There is also no formal instruction related to the achievement of a particular type of masculinity. as stated by Howard (1979). SchusterUitterhoeve. & deHaes. 1989). 1979. 1976. The literature on the nature.Discussion The purpose of this article was to highlight a potential source of invalidity. Smets.. 1980). The retrospective pretest. By the early 1990’s. 2001. 2005. primarily in work pertaining to health-related quality-of-life (Breetvelt & VanDam.
Given that nurse researchers have concerns with issues of health beliefs and changes in health behaviors.Beck. and the heavy reliance in nursing research on self-report measures it is difficult to understand the lack of attention being given to this phenomenon. 57 . 2004).
74 .07 .82 38.85 17.22 .78 109.59 10.42 53.28 SD 17.18 37.04 190.68 105.415 .60 19.97 2.96 37.112 .04 .55 13.003 2.21 190.01 .27 1.05 4.28 20.80 t p 3.44 -1. and t-tests for pretest.71 .005 .820 2.80 40.000 .33 182.66 33.21 .112 .475 -.37 37.64 156.1: Means.000 .01 .80 112.73 t 3.62 111.84 40.03 .000 3.013 .027 -2.79 17.19 2.18 15.24 S 21. posttest and retrospective posttest .45 28.03 174.01 2.037 Table 4.57 168.198 -.18 108.105 p Posttest _______________________________ Retro to Post ____________ M 105.04 SD 19.034 p .26 43.16 1. standard deviations.025 .22 182.25 43.08 159.822 .76 95.11 M 110.51 2.912 .Pretest ___________________________ Pre to Post ___________ Measure IBAWB Basic Civilians Recruits 58 ADMI Basic Civilians Recruits 170.58 t .78 112.239 .94 158.79 97.941 -.30 .00 22.26 .57 34.55 2.28 .41 23.188 -4.000 182.973 Retrospective-Pretest _______________________ Pre to Retro __________ M 105.14 .75 -2.00 182.58 -.90 1.01 115.
351 reported victims of intimate partner violence in the military. Until recently. 2002). a masculine role. Masculinity pervades military culture. The military rate of domestic violence was determined to be three times higher than civilian rates and one in three military spouses have been identified as a victim of partner violence (Heyman & Neidig.967 substantiated reports of intimate partner violence incidents. suggesting that victims were abused more than once and reported it. There were 10. 1999). The rationale for training soldiers in this manner is the belief that young male soldiers will be trained to desire combat instead of fear it. Using sexism during military training has been viewed as effective in creating male bonding. During fiscal year 2001 there were 9. is defined by society as men’s work. When used in an environment that tolerates 59 . 2001). cadence calls ranging from sexist to sexually aggressive to misogynistic were heard shouted by troops in formations. Sixty-two percent of the abusers were serving on active duty (Lloyd. Soldiering.CHAPTER 5 CONTRIBUTIONS OF ARMY BASIC TRAINING TO MEN’S ATTITUDES TOWARD INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Introduction Violence against women is a United States and world-wide public health priority (Campbell.
DeKeseredy. the tactic can also teach soldiers to link sexual aggression and violence with the denigration of women. reported that they were sexually assaulted. The military desires empirically based programs and policies dealing with partner violence (Lloyd. Five of the alleged offenders reportedly assaulted multiple victims (Funk. In the current conflicts (Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom) 243 service members. have been studied and the interaction between group members was found to promote violence toward women (Schwartz & DeKeseredy. 2000). Schwartz and Alvi (2000) and Morris (1996) provide the only literature that alludes to a link between cultures that value masculinity and partner violence. 2002). While all of the military services have performed research or evaluation related to partner violence since 1985. The effect of cultural and organizational norms is an area long neglected and in need of attention. Morris (1996) proposes that male bonding in the military is associated with abuse of women. 1995). effects and characteristics of the problem. Aggression is not only directed toward the enemy. Any link between culture and violence in the military is the least researched area of domestic violence. most often at the hands of American male troops. Primary groups that subscribe to masculine ideologies. the focus has been on documenting the size. most of them female active-duty members. 60 . but also toward female citizens or fellow soldiers (Zimmerman. such as male sports teams and college fraternities. 2004).sexism.
1992. Testosterone in animals is related to aggression. 1988). Boechler. Kirkpatrick. This framework demonstrates that violent behavior grows out of a complex interplay of individual. & McCaul. Gelfand. 1989). 1990). low education achievement (Dabbs. libido (Booth & Dabbs. dominance. the relationship. & Brender. Udry. Intimate partner violence is more complex with multiple factors within different spheres influencing a person’s attitudes. Ecological framework The Ecological Framework for Domestic Violence provides a framework for holistic analysis of the various factors that may contribute to a person’s decision to use violence (Heise. and sexual activity (Archer. 1987.1).Salivary testosterone represents an endocrine pathway having well-documented associations with interpersonal behavior and risk taking (Booth & Osgood. In human studies testosterone has been related to dominance (Gladue. drug abuse (Dabbs & Morris. and the societal (Figure 3. communal and societal dynamics. 1998). 1993). the community. 1993). Sherwin. sensation seeking (Daitzman & Zuckerman. & Daewood. 1991). 1993. 61 . aggression (Archer. 1985). 1993). The framework proposes that violence does not occur only as a result of one factor in one of the four spheres of influence – the individual. 1980). behavior and choices. Morris. and marital discord and divorce (Booth & Dabbs. Wharry & Rovinson. Kahn-Daewood. relational. All of these behaviors are also factors associated with perpetration of partner violence.
and selected demographic variables? 2. What variables are most predictive of attitudes toward intimate partner violence? 62 . Army Basic Combat Training on soldiers’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence. Research Questions 1. Basic training is a formal socialization process where a diverse group of volunteers are transformed into soldiers and become a part of a culture rich in cultural norms and tradition. attitudes toward partner violence. group cohesion. attitudes toward intimate partner violence. and testosterone levels compared to peers without 10 weeks of basic training and to peers not in the military? 3. Perception of masculinity characteristics. What is the effect of 10 weeks of U. What are the relationships between hypermasculinity. salivary testosterone levels. Army basic training affects perceptions of masculinity and attitudes toward intimate partner violence. hypermasculinity characteristics. and salivary testosterone levels will be measured before and after 10 weeks of basic training and compared to a sample of persons with similar demographic characteristics with no military training and to persons who are in the process of enlisting in the army but who have not yet left for basic training. S. S.Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine if U.
A retrospective pretest was used to determine if a response shift bias had occurred during the time between pretest and posttest (Howard.50 (Cohen. Setting and Sample Data were collected over a 7 month period in 2006.05. 1988). The basic training group consisted of young men between the ages of 18 – 25 years who had enlisted in the army and had arrived at their basic training site. An electronic survey was completed by the participants and a saliva sample was provided to determine testosterone levels. and the effect of army basic training on these variables. Schmeck et al. pretest-posttest design with a control group was used to determine relationships between hypermasculinity. The pretest was administered during the first 3 days after arriving for training and the posttest and retrospective pretest were administered during the final week of basic training. group cohesion. The recruit group consisted of young men similar in characteristics to the basic training group who were in the process of enlisting in the army but who had not yet left for basic training. attitudes toward intimate partner violence.. The civilian group consisted of young men similar in characteristics to 63 .80. power = . with alpha = . A sample of 180 (60 in each group) was required based on a power analysis for repeated measures ANOVA to compare means of the 3 groups. salivary testosterone levels.Design and Methods Design A quasi-experimental. and a moderate effect size of . 1979).
The posttest and retrospective pretest were administered to the recruit and civilian groups 10 weeks after the pretest. 64 .g. Methods/Instruments A socio-demographic questionnaire was used to obtain data for usual demographic information (e. 2 for having a head injury that required stitches but did not result in loss of consciousness. at the university gymnasium. Participants were recruited using signs and by work of mouth. Human subject approvals were obtained from a university review board. and 5 for a head injury with a loss of consciousness greater than 24 hours. Participants completed the electronic survey in a classroom at basic training. at fraternity houses for the civilian group and in the cafeteria of the military entrance processing station for the recruit group. The recruit and civilian groups did not receive an intervention (basic training). marital status) and the following study variables: Head injury was coded 1 for never having a head injury. Written informed consent was obtained after the study was explained to the participants. Army. S. participants’ education level.the basic training group who had no desire or intention to enlist in the U. 4 for a head injury with a loss of consciousness greater than 1 hour but less than 24 hours. and Department of Defense review board. 3 for a head injury with a loss of consciousness less than 1 hour. Items on the survey instruments were projected by PowerPoint. Data were collected on site by the principal investigator using electronic hand held transmitters.
It consists of 18 items and is scored using a 9-point ordinal rating scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 9 = Strongly agree). History of abuse was coded 1 for having parents that were violent to the participant and 2 for having parents not violent to the participant. The score for the instrument is the 65 . Carron. 2005). 2 for 1 to 5 friends arrested. Carron. & Brawley. Group Cohesion was measured by the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) (Widmeyer. & Carron. Membership in a delinquent peer group was coded as 1 for having no friends that had been arrested for crimes more serious than traffic violations.Witnessing violence in the home was coded 1 for having witnessed violence in the home and 2 for not witnessing violence in the home. & Widmeyer. Asian. The participants noted if they were Hispanic/Latino. Nickel. Spink. This instrument is based on a view that cohesion is a multidimensional construct consisting of several dimensions. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the GEQ possesses adequate factor validity and reliability (Alphas ranging from . 3 for 6 to 10 friends arrested. Brawley. American Indian/Alaska Native.63 to .81) as a measure of group cohesion (Brawley. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. 1996. Li & Harmer. Widmeyer. They also noted if they were Black or African American. 1985. Wilson. 1985). Race/Ethnicity of the participant was measured by self-report using the NIH categories. White. and 4 for more than 10 friends arrested. 1987. & Odnokon.
with contemporary language and item content. 2004). This tool. Observed convergent and discriminate validity with existing measures of the same construct support this instrument as a valid measure of the construct of hypermasculinity. The score for the instrument is the totaled item score ranging from 60 to 300.. helping battered women. punishing violent husbands. sexual identity. wives gain from beating. The instrument is scored using a 5-point scale (1 = very much like me to 5=not at all like me).. dominance and aggression. and devaluation of emotion) demonstrate reliability by coefficient alphas in two studies during the construction of the measure (α = . has shown high internal reliability. Subscales were found to be multi-dimensional and to significantly correlate with the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Burt. The five scales in the measure (hypermasculinity. Acceptance of violence toward women was measured by the Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (IBAWB) which includes content on the following beliefs: justifying wife beating. 2004). and good construct and content validity (Burk et al. ranging from 9 to 162 with higher scores reflecting stronger perceptions of cohesiveness. Characteristics of hypermasculinity was measured by the Auburn Differential Masculinity Index (ADMI-60) consisting of 60 randomly arranged items with an ordinal rating system. 1987).total item score. conservative masculinity. 1980) (Justifying wife beating: r = 66 .83 and . and holding violent husbands responsible for their behavior (Saunders & Lunch.85) (Burk et al.
A diverse sample and six measures with known acceptable validity tested the constructed validity.20. with correlations of . establish the instrument’s known groups validity with the differences highly significant in the predicted direction on all subscales.95. Punishing violent husbands: r = -0. Wives gain from beating: r =0. The score is the totaled item scale ranging from 7 to 217. Known groups of abusers and advocates. 67 .56. with both males and females in the groups. 1987).25.94 with clinician diagnoses of alcoholism.83 and .001)(Saunders & Lunch. 1975). Helping battered women: r = -0. and criterion validity. all correlation = p<. The instrument uses a 7 – point Likert scale (1 = Strongly agree to7 = Strongly disagree. Responses to 2 items in the direction of alcohol problems results in a classification as intermediate with respect to alcohol problems. Alcohol use was measured with the short version of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test.0. Holding violent husbands responsible for their behavior: r = 0. Participants responding to 3 or more items in the direction of alcohol problems are classified as high in alcohol problems (Selzer & Vinkur. This 13 item questionnaire for alcoholism screening shows good internal consistency reliability.42.62. 4 = neither agree or disagree). with a coefficient alpha of . Participants responding to 0 or 1 item in the direction of alcohol problems are classified as being low in alcohol problems. Construct validity is supported by correlations of the five subscales with theoretically relevant constructs.
The basic training group was comprised of 2 recruit companies.353). and the saliva-serum total testosterone correlation is reported as r (30) = 0.48).001.6% for low testosterone levels.001. The basic training group and the civilian group received the briefing and explanation in a large group setting.7% for high and low levels.93.3% and 6.85) than for females (r = 0. The score is the total points ranging from 0 to 10. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (Crowne & Marlow. This assay reports the average intra-assay coefficient of variation at 3. The scale reports good psychometric properties (internal consistency = 0. Potential volunteers were informed about the details of this study via a briefing enhanced by a power point presentation. Scores above 5 indicate an average level of social desirability.89). The average inter-assay coefficient of variation was 5. p < 0. One started training in Feb. A saliva-serum free testosterone correlation is reported as r (30) = 0. 1960) was used to measure the extent to which individuals exhibit desirability response tendencies. p. Desirability is defined as “the need of Ss to obtain approval by responding in a culturally appropriate and acceptable manner” (Crowne & Marlowe. 2006 and completed 68 . The sensitivity shows the minimal concentration of testosterone that can be distinguished from 0 is < 1. The 13 items are answered true or false. test-retest r = 0.5 pg/ml.80 to 0.88. For those items where a true answer is most likely an honest answer 1 point is given. p<0.929. The serum-saliva correlations are stronger for males (r = 0.38 to 0.1% for high and 9.Salivary testosterone levels were measured using competitive immunoassay. 1960.
At the completion of the posttest. Paired sample t-tests were performed to examine differences between pretest and retrospective pretest scores. The second company started training in June 2006. Because of army regulations prohibiting direct payment to active duty soldiers for participating in research. the recruit group and the civilian group received $5. each volunteer received a prepaid telephone card. The posttest was administered 8-10 weeks later. The recruit group received the briefing and explanation either individually. the recruit group and the civilian group received $10. A donation of $10. Pearson’s Product Moment 69 . A Power Point presentation was used to present the survey items. The pretest was conducted in February. ANOVA was used to examine differences between the groups on demographic characteristics. After completing the pretest survey and providing a saliva sample. 2006 and the posttest 10 weeks later.00 cash for their participation. The civilian group was comprised of 3 fraternities and 1 student organization. and the participants used handheld electronic transmitters to provide their answers. Most of the participants were taking the posttest on the day that they were leaving for basic training.training 10 weeks later.00 per completed survey by the basic training group was also made to the Army Emergency Relief Fund in the name of the participating basic training companies. or in groups of up to 8 persons. Results Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 14).00 and the basic training group received a second prepaid telephone card.
posttest) on testosterone level. alcohol use and witnessing violence in the home for the civilian group (Table 5. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the three groups (basic training.3).2. group cohesion.1 lists the demographic characteristics of the sample. alcohol abuse. and had more violent homes and less alcohol problems than the civilian group. received more government aid in both childhood and adolescence. education level. history of violence in the home. history of head injury.Correlations were used to determine the relationships of testosterone levels. and association with delinquent peer groups. masculinity. Characteristics of the Sample Table 5. Attitudes toward intimate partner violence were related to parental education and head 70 . had parents with less education. and acceptance of wife beating and group cohesion. acceptance of wife beating. suffered less severe head injuries. masculinity characteristics. history of experiencing abuse. A relationship was found for group cohesion with attitudes toward intimate violence. receiving government financial aid as a child and after childhood. hypermasculinity characteristics. The basic training group was significantly younger. Results for the total sample are summarized in Table 5. civilian. parent’s education level. recruits) over time (pretest. age. Relationships of variables Data were analyzed using Pearson Product Moment Coefficient for significant relationships. Other demographic characteristics were not significantly different. and less educated.
Testosterone levels (Table 5. Witnessing violence in the home was related to delinquent peer group and experiencing violence in the home for the basic group. The basic group had lower levels than the civilian and the recruit group. Effects of basic training Repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare the three groups across two measurements of time. head injury and experiencing violence in the home for the recruit group. Testosterone level was related to delinquent peer group. Group cohesion (Table 5.5) and to education level for the civilian and recruit group. Age was related to experiencing violence in the home for the basic group (Table 5. to alcohol use for the recruit group (Table 5. alcohol use for the recruit group and the civilian group and experiencing violence in the home for all three groups. Masculinity is related to age for the recruit group. Alcohol use was related to age for the civilian group and with parental education. The groups did not have a significant change from 71 .7) showed the groups were significantly different.4). and to masculinity for all three groups. Education was related to parental education and head injury for the civilian group.injury for the civilian group. witnessing violence in the home. Head injury was related to delinquent peer group for the civilian group and to experiencing violence in the home for the basic group. There was a significant change over time (all groups decreased). education level and parental education level for the basic group.6) showed a significant difference at pretest with the recruit group higher than both the basic group and the civilian group.
10).pretest to posttest. On the posttest there was significant change with the scores becoming closer to one another. the retrospective pretest scores for those instruments to the posttest scores. There was a significant change over time with all groups scoring lower than on the pretest. and the pretest scores of those instruments to the retrospective pretest scores (Table 5. Attitudes toward intimate partner violence (Table 5. The data indicate that for the total sample the internal standard the participants used to evaluate themselves had changed from the pretest to the posttest. Response shift bias Paired t-tests compared the pretest scores to the posttest scores for the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating and for the Auburn Differential Masculinity Index. Further analysis shows that the internal standard changed for the basic and the civilian groups but not for the recruit group. When comparing the scores of the retrospective pretest and the posttest. none of the groups had a significant change.9) showed a significant difference between the groups with the basic group less than the civilian group and the recruit group. The basic training and recruit groups increased their scores while the civilian group showed a decrease.8) showed that the groups were significantly different on the pretest with the basic training group scoring lower than civilians and recruits and recruits scoring lower than civilians. Masculinity (Table 5. The results indicate for the total sample there was no significant change in the internal standard the participants used to evaluate themselves from the ADMI pretest to 72 .
73 . testosterone level. government aid in childhood and adolescence. with no other variables being significant (Table 5. parent’s education level. In the posttest 74.5%) (Table 5.the posttest.7%).3%) and alcohol use (39.9% of the variance in attitudes toward intimate partner violence was accounted for by hypermasculinity characteristics (19. education level (29. In evaluating the groups. This would suggest that the tendency to respond in socially approved ways did not have a significant impact on the variance in the variables examined in this study.14). but there was a significant change in the standard for both the civilian and the recruit group. education level. there was no significant change in the internal standard for the basic group.13). alcohol use. hypermasculinity. No other variables were significant.3% of the variance in attitudes toward intimate partner violence was accounted for by hypermasculinity (33.6%) and group cohesion (40. and delinquent peer association as independent variables for both pretest and posttest data. Social Desirability The means for the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale showed moderate amounts of social desirability for the overall sample and for each group.1%). In the pretest 87. Regression on Attitudes toward Partner Violence The stepwise method of multiple regression analysis was performed for Attitudes toward intimate partner violence as the dependent variable with group cohesion. head injury.
The related emotion surrounding this event may have affected their scores.Discussion The results of this study provide empirical data about the influence of military training and culture related to intimate partner violence. the young men experiencing basic training increased in their hypermasculinity characteristics. 1987). The more dramatic result was the significant increase for the recruit group. The results both supported and contradicted reported findings in both academia and popular reports. Also surprising were the results for the variable group cohesion. The purpose of basic training is to strip the new soldier of individuality and create a team. it was expected that the basic training group would show a significant increase in group cohesion which it did 74 . Therefore. Haj-Yahia. The results of this study strongly support the results of previous studies showing that displaying characteristics of hypermasculinity is related to beliefs about wife beating (Finn. It attempted to add a new layer to our understanding of factors that contribute to male perpetrated intimated partner violence in the military. the basic training company. It is believed that group cohesion is the key to military success. Saunders & Lunch. 1986. Guided by the ecological model for partner violence the study examined factors in all levels of the model specifically factors associated with the cultural environment of a small military group. 2003. This may be explained by the fact that the majority of the recruits were administered the posttest on the day that they were leaving for basic training. As expected.
These data support previous work relating peer group support and violence against women (DeKeseredy & Schwartz.not. 2001. 2000).. They learn to work together to accomplish the tasks required to successfully complete basic training but may not develop the bonds of friendship and cohesion. Group cohesion was also significantly related to attitudes toward IPV and to hypermasculinity. While the trainees live together for boot camp they are not given very much opportunity to interact with each other and develop friendships without being under the watchful eyes of their drill sergeants. This result may show that the time spent in basic training is not long enough to develop strong bonds. 1998a. The brothers in the fraternities chose to be a part of the group and have been a cohesive group for a longer period of time than the participants in basic training. It is not surprising that the civilian group showed more group cohesion than the basic training group on the pretest since the soldiers had had little opportunity to create bonds with each other. The group showing the highest level of group cohesion on the pretest was the civilian group. The majority of this group consisted of subgroups from 3 fraternities where bonding and brotherhood is stressed. Surprising was the fact that there was no significant increase in group cohesion at the completion of basic training. Godenzi et al. Schwartz & DeKeseredy. The significant decrease of scores on the attitudes toward partner violence measure at the posttest supports the claims of the military that military training and culture instills desirable values in its members and does not create men who are 75 .
the decreased scores for the two other groups could refute this claim. The most important goal of this research was to determine whether there was an unintended change in attitudes toward intimate partner violence during army basic training. Army trains men and women together at 3 of the 4 basic training sites. S. 2000). Other studies have associated military training or combat experiences with partner violence (Allen. there may be other dimensions of culture within the same groups that support positive views of women. the expected increase in scores did not occur. Although basic training curriculum is standardized throughout the army. only men were enrolled. future research should examine all sites for differences. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine the results after additional training and 76 . However. Military training does not stop at the completion of basic training. In this data set. Data collection was limited to one of five sites for army basic training. and the presence of women in the training companies may have been a confounding factor. The U. In this study. Training continues throughout an entire military career. This study was not without limitations.perpetrators of intimate partner violence. The change was opposite of what was expected with attitudes decreasing in the acceptance of intimate partner violence for those in basic training. This would also suggest that even though a culture of hypermasculinity may include negative or sexualized stereotypes of women. The basic training companies that participated in this study attended were coed.
and do their attitudes change during basic training? Longitudinal studies should include women. It is not assumed that attitudes about intimate partner violence translate to perpetration of IPV. in both the enlisted and officer ranks. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine is there is a link between these attitudes and actual violent incidents in the military population. 2004) and Rosen (L. Recommendations for Future Research This research should be replicated with some changes in recruitment methods. random assignment to the recruit group and the basic group should be considered. N. 77 . Data collected from multiple sites would strengthen the study design. 2002). and at what point does that occur.. A longitudinal design should also be considered to determine if attitudes actually translate to behavior. Although random assignment to all comparison groups would not be possible. Rosen et al. Other recommendations include determining what attitudes other members of the military hold. Do women in basic training have similar attitudes as men in basic training.provide additional support to studies by Ganster (Ganster. The study should be expanded to include the other basic training sites and more Military Entrance Processing Stations. officers and military leaders. A longitudinal design should be considered to determine if attitudes toward intimate partner violence change in the course of a military enlistment or career and in what context changes occur.
It is hoped that others can be guided by this research and expand the body of knowledge with the goal of decreasing incidents of intimate partner violence in military communities.The results of this study are important in that it is one of the few that offers empirical data related to military culture and training and intimate partner violence. and improving the quality of life for military members and their families. 78 .
Alcohol abuse 10. Hypertestosterone Relationship level (Microsystem) Society level (Macrosystem) Community level Exosystem) Individual level (Ontogenic) Construct: 3. Male dominance 4. Masculinity linked to aggression and dominance Construct: 6. Acceptance of violence Construct: 4. Violence in family of origin 7.Construct: 3. Economic background 5.1 Ecological Framework for Intimate Partner Violence in the Military 79 . Childhood abuse 8. Delinquent peer group 6. Brain injury 9. Rigid gender roles 4. Group cohesion Figure 5.
0 1 2.7 3.5 1.0 50 1 1.6 1.0 13 26.1 17.6 15.0 24 48.1 3.Variable U Total n % U U Basic n % U U Recruit n % U U Civilian n % Age 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Your Education 1st – 6th grade 7th – 9th grade 10th – 12th grade some college college graduate some grad school graduate degree Total P P P P P P P P P P P P 46 38 46 53 27 14 4 9 237 19.0 1 1.4 11.4 13 5 8 15 3 2 2 4 52 25.7 18.4 28.1 87 89.0 2 2.3 3.3 71 30.0 5.0 40 44.8 28.0 19.1 4 4.0 1 1.1 80 2 .0 19.4 5.0 3 6.0 237 0 0.8 7.5 12.4 16.1: Demographic Variables .4 5 2.4 0 0.0 3 6.1 45 50.4 24 17 20 11 8 5 1 3 89 27.1 9 3.7 9 16 18 27 16 7 1 2 96 9.7 2 2.9 1.0 97 (continued) Table 5.0 97 1 2.0 0 0.4 9.0 9.0 2.4 4 4.8 3.7 6.1 0 0.8 3 1.1 22.0 5 10.0 140 59.4 22.8 5.4 16.1 0 0.
1 6 11.4 20.1 51 21.7 1 1 1 1 0 5 8 29 33 19 98 1.4 5 5.7 19.1 0 0.4 81 8 15.9 4 7.0 (continued) .9 3 18 88 3.0 5.9 0 0.1 3 3.8 2 .8 49 20.4 18 20.0 1.6 33.5 14 15.5 19 35.1 (continued) Parents’ Education 1st-2nd grade 3rd-4th grade 5th-6th grade 7th-8th grade 9th-10th grade 11th-12th grade high school 13th-14th grade some college 15th-16th grade college degree 17th-18th grade graduate school 19 or more doctorate Total P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 13 5.0 1.2 29.1 9 3.8 3 5.6 37 15.8 5 2.5 11 20.5 29 12.0 1.5 239 1 1.0 0.Table 5.0 1 1.8 1 1.7 25 28.4 2 .2 0 53 0.0 1 1.1 8.3 42 17.
0 3 5.1 (continued) Marital status Single 188 77.9 0 0.2 42 77 79.6 206 72 75.4 20 20.Table 5.1 13 13.4 63 30.3 1 1.0 9 17.6 71 (continued) 82 .6 0 0.0 0 0.2 Divorced 2 .4 1 1.8 11 26.0 0 0.7 95 67 69.6 Total 244 Full time job Yes No Total 143 69.4 26 36.0 97 45 63.1 1 1.8 52 31 73.8 Separated 1 .0 93 39 75.4 Living with someone 16 6.0 Married 37 15.1 26 28.8 8 8.
8 166 89.6 97 3 5.5 21 21.8 11 11.0 100 42.4 54 (continued) 2 2.0 38 90.9 40 17.6 .8 2 .4 2 2.4 85.4 0 0.8 26 51.Table 5.1 17 17.5 42 14.0 17 19.6 51 94.6 235 20 10.3 0 0.3 46 47.1 (continued) Head Injury Unconscious <1 hour Unconscious >1 hour but < 24 hr Unconscious > 24 hr Not unconscious/had bump or stitches Never had head injury Total 83 Ethnic Background Hispanic non-Hispanic Total 30 12.9 15 29.2 186 15 17.0 51 4 7.2 4 7.5 53 87 13 77 90 60.0 6 11.8 63 26.
3 15 6.4 5 5.0 7 13.6 4 4.5 52 0.1 5 9.9 80 94.6 Total 35.2 5.5 4 7.5 64.3 (continued) .7 63.1 51 21.6 2.6 69.6 96 26 59 85 30.3 12 239 5.0 Witness Partner Violence in the home Yes 62 25.1 (continued) Racial Identity American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Total 84 14 5.6 11.9 5 2 5 10 90 33 60 93 5.5 9 9.Table 5.8 42 43.7 No 179 74.1 85 18 31 36.2 0 97 20 38.7 2 52 3.3 Total Experienced violence in the home Yes 49 22.3 6 6.4 No 170 77.4 87 90.5 32 61.
2 26 57 3 86 30.9 69 74.2 85 87.2 66.2 30 63.4 83.6 17 36.4 22 74 1 97 22.5 8 8.2 Total 23 59 2 84 27.5 4.8 11 No 155 74.0 11 22 37 74 2 4 50 85 Have you ever been arrested for offenses other than traffic violations? Yes 52 25.8 47 continued .7 76.7 75.2 2.3 1.6 4 4.1 (continued) Received Gov’t aid in childhood Yes 46 No 176 Don’t know 11 Total 19.8 Don’t know 5 2.3 3.2 No 170 73.1 97 12 34 4 50 24 68 8 Received Gov’t aid after childhood Yes 56 24.2 56 Total 93 67 16.4 70.1 24 25.Table 5.
8 48.1 24 50.8 7.4 51.1 (continued) Number of friends arrested none 1-5 6-10 > 10 Total 50 121 35 28 21.2 18.4 10.4 13 27.8 16.0 7 14.4 13.6 4 8.0 55.7 18 44 12 17 91 19.7 19 53 16 7 95 20.3 48 86 .Table 5.7 13.
2: Intercorrelations for Variable Measures and Demographic Variables for Total Sample continued .347** 87 6. 4.064 .040 .140* - . 2.059 -. Testosterone1 GEQ1 IBAWB1 ADMI1 sMAST Age Education - - -.060 .038 . 5. 9.049 - .031 .069 -.090 .157* - .132* .Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.039 . Violence in home Table 5.421** - .305** .165* .283** - 0. 8. 3.064 .034 . Parent’s Education Head Injury 10.195** . 7.
023 -.179* .255** .2 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 12 1.032 . sMAST -.104 .294** .030 -.115 . Head Injury 10.161* .043 -.102 88 6.040 - .262** .069 -.216** .140 .165* . ADMI 5.072 .161* .165* . Age 7.100 .071 -.069 -.013 .063 .050 -. Parent’s Education 9.Table 5.147 -.116 -. Testosterone 2. Education 8.106 -.006 -.432** -. GEQ 3. IBAWB 4.284** .123 - .082 .115 .060 -. Witnessing partner violence in home (continued) .108 .119 .007 .230** .039 .208** -.136* .
Experiencing violence in the home 12.2 (continued) Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11.Table 5.Delinquent peer group continued 89 .
Table 5.2 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 - 12 -.095 11. Experiencing violence in the home 12. Delinquent peer group - 90 .
281** 91 6 Age 7 Education 8 Parent’s Education 9 Head Injury 10 Witnessing partner violence in home Table 5.036 .319** - -.158 -.008 -.Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Testosterone 2 GEQ 3 IBAWB 4 ADMI 5 sMAST - -.094 -.176 .064 -.018 .385** .225* -.061 .236 - .3 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for Civilian group (continued) .009 -.036 .212* - .078 .489** - .044 .040 .372** - -.
IBAWB 4.098 -.034 -.214* .022 .113 .326* -. Age 7.92 -.039 .271** .238 -.227* .113 . Education 8.111 -.099 -. Parent’s Education 9.114 -.223* .209* -. ADMI 5.070 -. Witnessing partner violence in home continued .070 -.017 .243* -.059 .010 -.324** -.122 -.189 .048 92 6. GEQ 3.035 .026 -.190 .075 -. sMAST .116 - .114 .100 - -.264** .053 .168 -.085 .Table 5.003 -.007 .103 .115 -.043 -.3 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 12 1.037 . Testosterone 2. Head Injury 10.
Table 5. Delinquent peer group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Continued 93 .3 (continued) Measure 11. Experiencing violence in home 12.
3 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 12 -.Table 5.162 11. Delinquent peer group - 94 . Experiencing violence in home 12.
081 .010 .157 .016 - .042 .048 -.127 - .123 .279* - -.127 -.106 -.287* .459** - 95 6 Age 7 Education 8 Parent’s Education 9 Head Injury 10 Witnessing partner violence in home Table 5.Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Testosterone 2 GEQ 3 IBAWB 4 ADMI 5 sMAST - .479* -.008 .251 -.114 -.210 -.4: Intercorrelations for Variable Measures and Demographic Variables for Recruit Group (continued) .439** - .100 .086 - .
068 96 8. Age 7.333* . Testosterone 2.365* .003 .197 .119 -.276 .323* .512** - .168 -.178 -.006 -.214 .467** -.4 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 12 1.143 -.085 . Education -.168 -.005 .031 -.224 .116 .500** -.061 - . Violence in home continued .104 -.245 .196 . sMAST 6.231 -.026 .052 . Parent’s Education 9.041 -. Head Injury 10.089 . IBAWB 4.106 .043 .213 -. GEQ 3.001 -.212 .057 -.Table 5.111 -. ADMI 5.630** .085 .390** .184 .139 .062 -.
Table 5.4 (continued) Measure 11Experiencing violence in home 12Delinquent peer group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 continued 97 .
Experiencing violence in home 12. Delinquent peer group - 98 .4 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 - 12 .Table 5.010 11.
077 .Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Testosterone1 2 GEQ1 3 IBAWB1 4 ADMI1 5 sMAST 6 Age 7 Education 8 Parent’s Education 9 Head Injury 10 Violence in home - -.069 .194 99 Table 5.250* -.187 - .020 .206 - -.5: Intercorrelations for Variable Measures and Demographic Variables for Basic Group (continued) .167 .158 - .181 .123 .199 -.159 .048 -.326** - .028 -.121 .101 -.189 - .057 .075 .
265* 100 5.429** -. Testosterone 2. Head Injury 10.054 .147 .190 -.049 - .155 .078 -.121 .283** -.063 .052 -.036 -.169 .263* .034 -.176 -.5 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 12 1.044 . Education 8.160 - .128 -. GEQ 3.077 .232* . Age 7.Table 5.241* .054 -.209 -.148 .063 . Witnessing partner violence in home continued .106 .225* .029 .136 -.167 -.117 .173 . ADMI . IBAWB 4.209 -. sMAST 6.060 -.077 -.127 -.009 .128 -.165 .123 .252* .246* . Parent’s Education 9.
Delinquent peer group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 continued 101 .Table 5. Experiencing violence in the home 12.5 (continued) Measure 11.
5 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 12 11Experiencing violence in the home - -.105 12.Table 5. Delinquent peer group 102 .
041 4.041 .341 η² = partial eta squared (effect size) Table 5.023 .Measure Group Time Group X Time error df 2 1 2 179 F 30.000 .802 η² .238 1.012 p .251 .6: Analysis of Variance for Testosterone and Time 103 .
688 .225 2.070 η² = partial eta squared (effect size) Table 5.374 .692 η² .029 p .Measure Group Time Group X Time error df 2 1 2 180 F 53.636 .001 .000 .7: Analysis of Variance for Group Environment Questionnaire and Time 104 .
667 9.000 .283 7.164 .8: Analysis of Variance for Auburn Differential Masculinity Index and Time 105 .003 .077 p .001 error 180 η² = partial eta squared (effect size) Table 5.474 η² .Measure Group Time Group X Time df 2 1 2 F 17.049 .
9: Analysis of Variance for Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating and Time 106 .399 .203 η² .989 .13.013 p .980 1.000 .303 η² = partial eta squared (effect size) Table 5.073 .000 .Measure Group Time Group X Time error df 2 1 2 178 F 19.
034 p .78 112.105 p Posttest _______________________________ Retro to Post ____________ M 105.04 .18 15.76 95.04 190.03 174.18 37.00 22. posttest and retrospective posttest .44 -1. standard deviations.74 .027 -2.24 S 21.66 33.79 97.01 .42 53.037 Table 4.58 t .80 40.198 -.000 182.1: Means.07 .41 23.30 .415 .94 158.60 19.80 112.97 2.27 1.04 SD 19.68 105.005 .82 38.239 .57 34.973 Retrospective-Pretest _______________________ Pre to Retro __________ M 105.84 40.51 2.000 .112 .85 17.22 182.01 115.59 10.37 37.000 .475 -.55 13.112 .26 .822 .73 t 3.941 -.80 t p 3.58 -.820 2.03 .25 43.71 .05 4.21 190.16 1.003 2.00 182.26 43.21 .188 -4.01 .64 156.33 182.96 37.78 109.45 28.62 111.28 SD 17.01 2.14 .Pretest ___________________________ Pre to Post ___________ Measure IBAWB Basic Civilians Recruits 107 ADMI Basic Civilians Recruits 170.90 1. and t-tests for pretest.79 17.000 3.18 108.75 -2.025 .11 M 110.19 2.57 168.55 2.013 .912 .22 .28 .28 20.08 159.
212 .859 Table 5.152 η² .083 .11: Analysis of Variance for Retrospective Pretest Auburn Differential Masculinity Index and Time .16 16.002 p .963 .000 .Measure Group Time Group X Time error 108 df 2 1 2 180 F 4661.000 .
Measure Group Time Group X Time error 109
df 2 1 2 179
F 12.090 .007 .792
η² .119 .000 .009
p .000 .933 .454
Table 5.12: Analysis of Variance for Retrospective Pretest Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating and Time
Variable Constant Hypermasculinity Education level Alcohol use 110 Total *Significance at p < .05
Significance .000* .000* .000* .001*
.191 .293 .395 .879
.181 .276 .372 .829
.134 6.136 -2.115
Table 5.13: Predictors of Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence at Pretest
Variable Constant Hypermasculinity Group Cohesion Total 111 Significant at p < .05
Significance .002* .000* .004*
.336 .407 .743
.327 .391 .718
Table 5.14: Predictors of Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence at Posttest
p. (1992). (2004). Connecting research and policy making: Implications for theory and practice from the Family Impact Seminars. International Quarterly of Community Health Education. J. Archer... 1-28. Army Soldiers. Linney.... Ward. (2002. Mercier & J. 28(12). (2000). 82. T. Allen. The influence of testosterone on human aggression. 56(4). Bell. 49. 31. 327-339. & Hartford. (1985). (1993). 306-331. & Pauc. Bogenschneider. 1890-1897. (1991). Family Relations. IL: Thomas Publishers. T. J. The Behavioral Biology of Aggression. Slep. Series of slayings shakes military community. 6. L. D. Aggression and Violent Behavior. Bertrand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A. H. T. Olson. Black. Battle Cries on the Home Front: Violence in the military family. Crime and Delinquency. 265-282. 112 . S. Fayetteville Observer. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Gender in the Military: Androcentrism and Institutional Reform. Mercier (Eds. Springfield. (1988). July 26). The influence of military training and combat experience on domestic violence. J. K. 269-280. K.). & Mills. Law and Contemporary Problems. F. 1.REFERENCES Abrams. British Journal of Psychology. V.. 12(4). F. In P. (2001). Biank. J. 217-241. Alder. Risk factors for male-to female partner sexual abuse. J. R. An exploration of self-reported sexually aggressive behavior. N. C. Sexual practices among the Quichespeaking Mayan population of Guatemala.. K. Archer. D. (2000). C. Drinking and Spouse Abuse Among U.
(2002). & J. p. M. 981-987. Social Forces. Boyce. Evaluation of spouse abuse treatment: Description and evaluation of the Air Force family advocacy programs for spouse physical abuse. B. W. (2002. 464-469. February 14). W. T.. 93-117. 62-70. In K. J. Mollerstrom. 30(1). J. A. (1987). (1993). Milner. L... 31. A.. I. Journal of Educational Psychology. & Harris. (1980). Social Science and Medicine. 9. 72(1). Bray. L. 49(7/8). (1995). & Williams. pp. Yllo & M.. A. Britton. The influence of testosterone on deviance in adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship. W. L. "Don't ask. don't tell. Booth. Journal of homosexuality. 1-21. (2006. Bograd (Eds. 365-378. Booth. F. San Diego Union Tribune. J. & Osgood. (1993).. 11-26). L. 113 . Breed. Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. 167(6). 72. Carron. Breetvelt. Testosterone and men's marriages. G. The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics. & Herd. (1991). & Howard. D.. & VanDam. S. W. don't pursue": Military policy and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. R. Saha. C... CA: Sage. Army accepts crime in recruits. Sex Roles. 1-4. Journal of Sport Psychology. Underreporting by cancer patients: The case of response shift. Wife slayings at Fort Bragg lead to worries that crimes may be product of 'military culture'. T. A. M. Bowman. September 2). (1988). Baltimore Sun. A. D. N. Methodological considerations in the evaluation of a teacher-training program. 2. M.. 463-477. Military Medicine. Brewster.. Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire. V. N. & Widmeyer.Bograd.). 32(9). Criminology. (2003). Dabbs. A. Brawley. Newbury Park. Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 275-294. A..
). Chizuko. N. B. (2004). Caporase & L. & Grove. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. & Kub. 11(4). Campbell. A. M.). Construction and preliminary validation of the Auburn Differential Masculinity Inventory. Dienemann. Burt. and utilization (4th Ed. S. Burkhart. The practice of nursing research: Conduct. (2001). 381-387. L. F. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire.. J. C.Burk. Campbell. 38. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. T. Archives of Internal Medicine. Burns. A. F. The practice of nursing research: Conduct. & Stanley. (1980). 5(1). (1963)... Roos (Eds. 11. U. Quasi-experimental approaches: Testing theory and evaluating policy. N. Paper presented at the Women's Worlds Conference. Korea. (2005). critique. Widmeyer. July 29). critique. (1973).. S. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Cultural myths and support for rape. & Brawley. The Militarization of Women. & Sikorski. Philadelphia: W. D. p. 4-17. and utilization (4th ed. L.. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. 1. B. Saunders. J. Campbell. Seoul. Domestic violence as a women's health issue: Issues for health care. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Journal of Sport Psychology. Caporaso. In J.. (1985).). J. J. S. J. (2002.. 133-159. (2002). Women's Health Issues. (2005). J. Carron. V. 162. R. R. Burns.. Butterfield. R. 11571163. & Grove. N.. 217-230. Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. J. Wife killing at fort reflect growing problem in military. St Louis: Elsevier/Saunders. W. The New York Times. Quasi-experimental approaches to social science: Perspectives and problems. (2001). Jones. 114 . A.
J. L. J. CO: Westview Press.Cohen. (1960). Cronbach. 1. W. & Zuckerman. (1992). (Eds. & Campbell. W. Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. September 2005: Defense Manpower Data Center. M. & Marlow. and antisocial behavior in a sample of 4462 men. How should we measure "change". Personality and Individual Difference. J. R. Hillsdale. L. Stanford. D. D.. Dabbs.). J. social class. Social Forces. gender. and gonadal hormones. Connell. education and age profile of the active duty force. Berkeley. 349-354. (1980). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed. Connell. Masculinities. A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology. (2005). W. Connell. Washington. marital. Boulder.. Disinhibitory sensation seeking. Testosterone. R. Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence second annual report. 70. Brown. R.or should we? Psychological Bulletin. (2005). J. 209-211. A. Daitzman. Gender and Power. (2001). & Furby. Berkeley: University of California Press. CA: University of California Press. (1987). J. (1992). 24(4).. CA: Stanford University Press. Washington. Assigned strength. Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. Journal of Consulting Psychology. (1990).. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. Dabbs.). Masculinities (2nd ed. 103-110. Publishers.. race-ethnic. Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence initial report.). Crowne. Testosterone and occupational achievement. 68-80. R. DC: Author. 74. D. P. (2002). 1. personality. Counts. & Morris. (1995). (1970). 813824. Sanctions and Sanctuary: Cultural Perspectives on the Beating of Wives. (1988). DC: Author 115 . Defense Manpower Data Center. R. Psychological Science.
M. & Kelly. 9(0). DeKeseredy. The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives. K. W. I. Woman Abuse on Campus: Results from the Canadian National Survey. assessment and rehabilitation. G. from http://www. E. E. K. Violence Against Women. 116 . domestic violence. Department of Defense. Immigration. S. Bossier City.. Erez. Dubnova. W. W. 1093-1117. & Schwartz. and the military. M. Military culture: A paradigm shift (No. Retrieved August 21. New York: The Free Press. R. (1998a). Woman abuse in university and college dating relationships: The contribution of the ideology of familial patriarchy. Journal of Human Justice. Issues in intimate violence. D.. & Joss. Bergen (Ed. health consequences and intervention strategies. S. Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. Dunivan. Thousand Oaks: Sage. FY 2004 Applicants for active component enlistment. (2003). Vancouver. (1992) DOD Directive 6400. (1997). (1993). BC: University of British Colombia Press.. AL: Maxwell Air Force Base. & Schwartz. (1996). AU/AWC/RWPO79/9604). O.didnuk/prhome/poprep2004/html/appendixa/a_04. D. Male peer support and woman abuse in postsecondary school courtship.. R. 9. DC: Author. 4(2). K.DeKeseredy. (1979).html Dobash. Family Advocacy Program (FAP). & Dobash. (2004). In R. Dutton.1. (1998b). 2006.. Department of Defense. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 79-88. Washington. 25-52. D.). D. DeKeseredy. Women and domestic violence: global dimensions. Work: A Journal of prevention. (1995).
Investigating the causes and consequences of marital rape. 49(6). A. 1-16. In L. (1999). Developmental determinants of male to female aggression. W. Critical Criminology. 163-218). & Urquiza. Military combat training and aggressive conflict resolution tactics in the marital relationships of enlisted male military members. A. & McCaul.. Chicago. (2004). (1989).. Behavior problems in young sexually abused boys. P. & Dekeseredy. (1989). M. F.). C. Signs. & Browne. Optempo. Friedrich. Godenzi..). Retrieved November 28. I. Journal of Advanced Nursing. Aggressive Behavior. (1986). 8. S.Fagot. October 4). J. 1-12. A. D. Cheater. American Forces Information Service News Articles. W. J. Violence in Intimate relationships (pp. A. Costa Mesa: PMA. D. (1983). (1988). 409-422.freedomroad.. 2003. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Galdas. J. J. M. Loerber. Ohlin & M. Toward a gendered social bond/male peer support theory of university woman abuse. (1988). 10. Violence in marriage. The Army Times. Men and health help-seeking behaviour: literature review. 235-244. M. Finn.org/milmatters-18-sex H H 117 .. & Reid. The relationship between sex role attitudes and attitudes supporting marital violence. R. B. Let's talk about sex. S. Funk. Gladue.. 532-553. 14.. 91105). A. Garamone. Goff. Perstempo: What They Mean. I. Deployed troops continue to report sexual assaults. Tonry (Eds. Beilke. L. (2003). Boechler. (2004. from www. In G. P. Russell (Ed.. Hormonal response to competition in human males.. 616-623. (2004). K. (2001). W. Frieze. M. B. 3. Ganster.. Sex Roles. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Frieze.. Walden University. R. 15. & Marshall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Family Violence (pp. Schwartz.
Demo. 67(2). (1998). American Journal of Community Psychology. Hamby.. Gwartney-Gibbs. 262-290. Journal of Family Violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family. D. 28. D. (2000). Violence Against Women. Billingsley. L. & Sugarman. Hotaling. S. E. Learning courtship aggression: The influence of parents. Haj-Yahia. (1986). DC. & Neidig.Golembiewski. & Edwards. 35.. S. 133-157. Violence Against Women: An Integrated. & Yeager. An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. (1987). Violence Against Women. H. Washington. R. Hoffman. (2003). Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Family Relations. G. K. R. K. Hackett. (1994). The Profession of Arms. L. Ethical Tensions for Senior Leaders in the Canadian Forces. A. P. (1999). Grimshaw. 276-282. Heise. 56. 1. P. L. S. (1963). Heyman. L. 12. B. 118 . The importance of community in a feminist analysis of domestic violence among American Indians.. 101124. 649-669. M. M. 193-206. Paper presented at the JSCOPE XVII. Beliefs About Wife Beating Among Arab Men From Israel: The Influence of Their Patriarchal Ideology. Army and Civilian Representative Samples. Stockard. (1995.. 239-242. 18(4). J. & Bohmer.. (1976). 131-146. N. January). T... Ecological Framework. A Comparison of Spousal Aggression Prevalence Rates in U. peers and personal experiences. 4(3). London: Times. Physical wife abuse in a nonwestern society: An integrated theoretical approach. J. H. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.. J. Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. S.
. 38. Wojcik. N. Jowers. 64.. The war at home: For military spouses who endure abuse. Karst. & Sugarman. 93-106. 1-13. Partner Violence: a Comprehensive Review of 20 Years of Research. S.. 16. C.Hotaling. Assessing recalibration as a response-shift phenomenon. 7-9. & Gerber. Response-shift bias: A problem in measuring pretest-posttest change in self-reports. 3. (1979). (1979). A risk marker analysis of assaulted wives. Howard. Maxwell. Jasinski. B. Jonsson. Kilmartin. 53(2). (1979). (1991).. M. 119 . J. & Gulanick. The Masculine Self (2nd ed.. T. Gulanick. Applied Psychological Measurement. 144-150. P. May 10). Schmeck. L. Ralph.. G. (1990).. (1979). G.. G. August 5). P. 3(4).. 1. The Christian science monitor. S. S. G. (2004). Journal of Family Violence. R. Parshall. & Dailey. G.. Howard. 130-135. K. 129-135. L. & Bray. 4. The pursuit of manhood and the desegregation of the armed forces. 481494. Nursing Research. & Williams. (1999. 1-23. (2002. Howard. Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a reevaluation of retrospective pretests. Army Times. (1998). Journal of Educational Measurement. The feasibility of informed pretests in attenuating response-shift bias. & Struttmann. Boston: McGraw Hill. J. (1980). New York: Sage... 499. P. M.. getting help-and justice-can be a nightmare as real as the violence itself. Evaluation Review. UCLA Law Review.. K. D. Dailey. Internal invalidity in studies employing self-report instruments: A suggested remedy. T. p. Journal of Applied Psychology. Kidd. Applied Psychological Measurement. G. P. 5(1). Killing by elite soldiers hits home. Nance. N. S. (2000).). K. Howard. Howard. D. Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of selfreport measures..
World report on violence and health. (2005). 120 . Gendered practices in institutions of hegemonic masculinity. Synthesis of literature relative to retrospective pretest design. Belmont. Levinson. Military and Civilian Undergraduates: Attitudes Toward Women. International Feminist Journal of Politics. WP-99-04). Lee. D.. A. D. E. Physiology and Behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. & Rovinson. & Winer. (2002). CA: Sage. D. (1993). Texas: Texas Cooperative Extension of the Texas A&M University System.. S. J. Toronto. Hossain. M. Klatt. L. (1991). S. 31(4). Lapesarde. 427-444. S.. M. Mercy. Masculinity. Sex roles.. Levin... Kyriacou. Koenig. L. Dahlberg.. 53. Kurpius. S. Newbury Park. Anglin.. College Station. (1991). C. Department of Population and Family Health. G. Violence in Cross Cultural Perspective. Krug. J. Emergency department-based study of risk factors for acute injury from domestic violence against women. Sociological ideas. N. W.. 583-586. Paper presented at the Joint CES/AEA Conference. K. 502-506. A. 7(2). The Army Leaders' Desk Reference for Soldier/Family Readiness. B. R. M. 255-265. S. S. & Taylor-Powell. Individual and communitylevel determinants of domestic violence in rural Bangladesh (No. 43(3/4).. & Lucart. Geneva: World Health Organization. Social support for Hispanics in the military. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. R. R. 280-298. (1998)... McCabe. Wharry. K. (1999). Ahmed. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Saliva testosterone in children with and without learning disabilities. & Haaga. P. F. R. (2002).. E. (2000). Knouse. C. (1989). Annals of Emergency Medicine. and Authoritarianism. (2005).. & Lozano. Kronsell. J..Kirkpatrick. 15.
52-57. In M. (2003). J.). from STAMP. The "battering syndrome": Prevalence and clinical characteristics of domestic violence in primary health care internal medicine practices. pp. and violence across cultures. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Group Environment Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. 236-246. (1996). 2003. B. E. & Lamb. (1995). A. Thousand Oaks. (1977). D. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. CA: Sage. 319-328. Journal of Community Health Nursing. M. (1999). 19(3). A. Little. Maass. D... in human males. Lorber & B.. McConahay. L. F. 134-143.Li. Testosterone. sex-role rigidity. L. Kolodner.. P.. Journal of Social Issues. Kern. status and mood. (1994). The bulletproof mind.. Lorber. & Symons. 49-63... 14. (2002). Dechant. L. 737-746. Hormones and Behavior. D. 2003. F. et al. Welcome Remarks.. Revisioning Gender (pp. Gender and sexuality in organizations. J. Lutze. Retrieved November 29. Crystal City. (1980). & McConahay. M.. 2(2). Using ecological theory to understand intimate partner violence and child maltreatment. Martin.. & Harmer. P. 123(10). Paper presented at the Department of Defense Symposium on Domestic Violence Prevention Research. J.. C. (2002). G. The evolution of domestic violence policy through masculine institutions: From discipline to protection to collaborative empowerment. New Haven: Yale UP. 18. 133-145. P. & Elliston. Lutz. (2002). The New York Times Magazine. Paradoxes of Gender. A. J. Sexual permissiveness. S. J. Mazur. J. Y. Annals of Internal Medicine. Criminology and Public Policy. 33. D. K. Ferree. Domestic Terror. 285-310). Schroeder. McCauley. 121 . F. Lloyd. Hess (Eds. & Kantor. Dill. VA. T. (2002). K. & Collinson..
Morris. J. Newby. (1999). 27-37. 199-207. Muraskin. Journal of Family Violence.. C. Katzenstein & J. war. N. R. L. war. S. M. & Ursano.. L. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. (1996). Mosher. J. (1999). sexual aggression. S. 16. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Udry. 25(1). Mosher.... F. Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination in Military Culture. 122 . and other crimes against women. 20(2). and military culture. 60-84. Morris. Journal of Research in Personality. & Daewood.)...). Maltreatment histories of U. F. D. NHRC Report No.. and military culture. S. (2003). L. D. In war and peace: Incidence and implications of rape by military personnel. R. prostitution. (1987). Fullerton. S. J.. By force of arms: Rape.. Norwood. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Morris. (2000). (1986).Merrill. (1996). L. & Tomkins. M. D. It's a Crime: women and Justice. S. Hervig. R. San Diego: Naval Health Research Center. 15(2). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine socialization and enculturation. Macho personality. M. 245-258. Marital sex frequency and midcycle female testosterone. Duke Law Journal. In M. Moreno. Barstow (Ed.). A. & Anderson. Booth-Kewley.. L. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica. Navy basic trainees: Prevalence of abusive behaviors for the 4th quarter of 1994 and the 2nd quarter of 1996 (No. (2000). 97-2). Milner. & Gilman. In war and peace: Rape. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Reppy (Eds. The Journal of Sex Research. Intimate Partner Violence. Morris. McCarroll. M. M. (1988). 651-781. In A. (Ed. War's dirty secret: Rape. 5(4/5). and reactions to guided imagery of realistic rape. Army. Kahn-Daewood. Patriarca. 77-94.. L. R. Thayer. Spouse abuse by black and white offenders in the U. J. 45.
(2000). Russell. A. Vanity Fair. Oropesa. Petty. McGuigan. W.). 21(3). R. & Katzev. B. (1999). 222-240. (1995). Pratt.. G. Oetzel. 167-181. Intimate partner violence in American Indian and/or Alaska Native communities: A social ecological framework of determinants and interventions. & Wylie. M. and personality characteristics. & Beck. (2002. December). Group and Organization Management. Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Alcohol attributable fractions for trauma in South Africa.. A. 123 . DC: Hemisphere. Washington. Orpinas. Parry. Development and marital power in Mexico.. Norris. Who is violent? Factors associated with aggressive behaviors in Latin America and Spain. 49-68. Polit. J. Personality and Individual Differences.. beliefs. M.Nielson.. J. & Duran. Nursing research: Principles and methods (7th ed. 1291-1317. American Journal of Evaluation. E. 355362. Curationis. 75(4). 10. 19(1). Pan American Journal of Public Health. Viano (Ed. E. P.. & Dawson. Orth. 232243. (2004). C. & Cummins. S. 16. J. & Ellington. (2004).. G.). VanDerSpuy. Sexual aggression in normal men: Incidence. 5(4/5). In E. Tibbs. B. C. (1989). American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National Center. 341349.. Gender stereotyping of the managerial role among students in Canada and the United States.. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Fort Bragg's deadly summer. B... (1997). (1996). (1992). M. J. Social isolation and wife abuse: A research report. Social Forces. Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. D. 11(3). C.
D. C.. Rosen. & Fancher..Prokos. & Fancher. 9(4). L. & Kohn. Hewitt (Producer). Gender. E. Knudson. (Writer) (2002). S. C. DOJ (Ed. L. & O'Leary. 1045-1071. M.): BJS. J. Armed Forces and Society.. Intimate partner violence and age of victim. Pirog-Good & J. A. Post-Then-Pre-Evaluation. M. K. In D. P. L. Rosen. In M. Rosen. K. & Hansen.. Radutzky. 1-7.. Army units. T. Stets (Eds. A theoretical model of courtship aggression. N. (2003). S. 1039-1044. M. (2003). and Combat Readiness in U. T. H. Sexual Harassment. Intimate Partner Violence. & Martin. & Nelson. 53-71). 221-244. 'There oughtta be a law against bitches': Masculinity lessons in police academy training. 9(9).. 24(2). S. DC: US Department of Justice. L. 325-351. Army Support Units. (1989). D. Riggs. P. (2001). 27(2). Violence in Dating Relationships (pp. Armed Forces & Society. Rosen. S.. S. (2000).. Parmley. & Welchans.. USA: Columbia Broadcasting System. Sixty Minutes. 9(9). A. and Organization. Kaminski. Journal of Extension. Knudson. Rennison. & Nelson.. Guest Editors' Introduction. Hewitt (Producer). Work. The war at home [Television broadcast].. Violence Against Women. The effects of peer group climate on intimate partner violence among married male U. (1989). Radutzky.. (Writer) (1999). S. Washington. Rennison. USA: Columbia Broadcasting System. The war at home [Television broadcast].. C. L. Cohesion and the culture of hypermasculinity in U.. 29(3). In U. & Padavic. (2003). Violence Against Women. Cohesion. Rockwell. H. 124 . S. Army soldiers.). Sixty Minutes. (2002). 439459. 1993-1999. New York: Praeger. K. In D. (1997). t. I.
P. & Lunch. A. 325351. 281-352. G. Army soldiers in Alaska: A comparison of reported rates and survey results. Cohesion and Disintegration in the American Army: An Alternative Perspective. S. Military Medicine. (1996b). R. Fancher. L. Rosen. Saunders. N. (1998). R. Impact of childhood abuse history on psychological symptoms among male and female soldiers in the U. Army. P. E. L. L. J. Killgore. 1149-1160. (1985). P. The measurement of childhood trauma among male and female soldiers in the U. (1981). 125 . (2003). 5-27. & Heyman. E. N.. Sanday. 2(1). Slep. Armed Forces and Society.. S. N. Schein. Rosen. N.. 39-55. Military Medicine. J. R. 4(4). S. 1702-1704. K. (1996a). Caetano. R. & Gabriel. The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross cultural study. 6. Rosen. G.. & Barasich. 37(4). Schafer. Intimate partner violence among U. 2(3). Predictors of tolerance of sexual harassment among male U. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Knudson. S. K.S.. (1987). Child Abuse and Neglect. (2002). L. L. 29(3).Rosen... (1976). Cohesion and the Culture of Hypermasculinity in U. Army. D. L. & Martin... G. Journal of Social Issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 342-345. Violence Against Women.. 88. (2001). B. Rosen. T. P. 340-376. C. 161(6). Feldbau-Kohn. Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. Brannen. Risk factors for maleto-female partner physical abuse. N. 167(8). The Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating: The Construction and Initial Validation of a Measure of Beliefs and Attitudes. A. & Martin.. L. & Clark.. Savage. 20(12). & Martin. J. Knudson. L. Schumacher... H. S. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers... Armed Forces and Society.. Army soldiers. & Fancher. 688691. S. (1998). 491-504. Violence and Victims. American Journal of Public Health. Army Units. H.
. Small Group Research. Aggregation bias and woman abuse: Variations by male peer support. S. S. Military.. K. 220-224. Stacey. Smart. 29(2). 126 . 539-554. M. Journal of Studies on Alcohol.Schwartz. region. and Sexuality: Essays in Feminism. W. W. M. The Citizen-Soldier Tradition and Gender Integration of the U. M. A self-administered short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (sMAST). 257-273. F. British Journal of Cancer. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Lexington. Selzer. S. W. crossover study of sex steroid administration in the surgical menopause. & Brender. (1990). C.. Smith. (1999). language. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 117-126. M. The Citizen-Soldier Tradition and Gender Integration of the U. Armed Forces and Society. P. Shupe. K. Military.. 339-351.. (1975). Garssen. & Odnokon. (2003). B. (2003). 36(5). W.. Thousand Oaks: Sage. & DeKeseredy. Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis. (2005). Military culture and military families. 185-204. R.. 555-565.. Sherwin. R. Nickel. Segal. 185-204. A.. Spink. & Vinkur.. & deHaes.). M. Snyder. A. Gelfand. 4. Violence and Victims. A. D. 47. Wilson. (1995). violent couples: The dynamics of domestic violence. D. J. C. L. Psychosomatic Medicine. 29(2). In M. (1987). Armed Forces and Society. Law.. Snyder. E. MA: Lexington Books. Androgen enhances sexual motivation in females: A prospective. Fatigue in cancer patients. Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination in Military Culture. Katzenstein & J. Schuster-Uitterhoeve. Smets. B. Reppy (Eds. (2000). (1993). Crime. 15. and school type. 68(2). & Hazlewood. (1985).. 36(1). Using a multilevel approach to examine the relationship between task cohesion and team task satisfaction in elite ice hockey players. Violent men.
. A. 74(2). & Edwards. Terborg. (2002. M. B. New York: Doubleday. C. 29. beta. Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. E.. 109-121... et al. W. beta. (2002). M. 531-543.. Army.. 265-272. Varian. & Steinmetz. J. gamma change typology: Cultural resistance to change. 314. 609-636. 134-149. 288-291. & Pleck. Academy of Management Review. R. K. American Journal of Community Psychology. The structure of male role norms. Korff. (2002). Koss. 319.. E. 107(4). October). D. Thompson. 5.Sprangers. C. Bernstien. Bybee. Gelles. (1999). Retrieved August 15. Gelfand. American Behavioral Scientist.goarmy. U. Pretesting effects in retrospective pretestposttest designs. N. 2006 from http://www.. J. Evaluating planned organizational change: A method for assessing alpha.. Soldier Life: Living the Army Values. S. Group and Organizational Studies. (1973). A. (1986).jsp. Sutherland. Washington. Fort Bragg epidemiological consultation report. Walker. S.. C. Howard. 332-339. & Sullivan. Tennis. 127 . 14. J. & Hoogstraten. Did the military let this woman die? Glamour. 30(5). 322. 100. 171-188. Army surgeon General.. A. I. American Journal of Medicine. J. (1989). Katon. (1980). (1980). M. (2005). U. A cross cultural analysis of sex differences in the behavior of children aged three through eleven.. S. D. Straus. Whiting. Journal of Social Psychology. Responses to the alpha.com/life/living_the_army_values.. 91. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1989). G. and gamma change... & Maxwell. C. S. M. Beyond bruises and broken bones: The joint effects of stress and injuries on battered women's health. P. M. V. DC: Department of Defense. A. Adult health status of women with histories of childhood abuse and neglect.
V. Winslow. Straus & R. D. & Carron. K. Gelles (Eds. J. Ontario: Sports Dynamics. (1990). Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. (2004).145 families. A. & Straus. (1995)... J. London. Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative factors. In M.Widmeyer. A. Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations in 8. Yllo.).. A. Brawley. New Brunswick. (1985). W. Tailspin: Women at War in the Wake of Tailhook. 6(3). L. M. N. The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Zimmerman. New York: Doubleday. 128 . Misplaced loyalties: The role of military culture in the breakdown of discipline in two peace operations. NJ: Transaction. R.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?