Wife's Marital Dependency and Wife Abuse

Author(s): Debra S. Kalmuss and Murray A. Straus

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp. 277-286
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/351538
Accessed: 29-01-2017 00:21 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of Marriage and Family

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Wife's Marital Dependency and
Wife Abuse

DEBRA S. KALMUSS
The Johns Hopkins University
MURRAY A. STRAUS*
University qf New Hampshire

Data from a nationally representative sample of 2, 143 adult men & wom
used to explore the relationship between wives' dependency on marriage and
abuse. While family violence researchers have posited such a relationship
not been empirically demonstrated. The independent variables were ind
wives' objective (economic) and subjective (perceived) marital dependenc
dependent variables assessed the presence of acts of physical aggression
wives that carried a high risk of serious injury (severe violence) and those th
not carry such a risk (minor violence). Both dimensions of dependency were
tivelyv related to abuse. However, wives'subjective marital dependency was sig
cantly related to minor, but not severe violence, and wives' objective mar
pendencv tbllowed the opposite pattern. These results indicate that it is ec
and not psychological dependency which keeps women in severely abusiv
riages.

Systems of sex stratification typically foster husbands for financial support, status, and
women's economic and psychological depen- self-esteem than are other women. These
dency on marriage. Women's social status as individual differences in marital dependency
well as their access to various systems of are relevant to the study of wife abuse. This
resources are determined largely by their study focuses on the relationship between
relationships with men through marriage. women's dependency on marriage and violent
Within this overall pattern of subordination, abuse from their husbands.
however, there are individual differences in The literature on marital violence suggests
the level of women's marital dependency. a relationship between women's marital
Some women are less dependent on their dependency and wife abuse, but this
Paper read at the 1981 annual meeting of the American relationship has not been demonstrated
Sociological Association, Toronto, August 24, 1981. This empirically. Some work in the area provides a
paper is part of the Family Violence Research Program at basis for expecting dependency to be
the University of New Hampshire. The Program is sup- associated with high levels of abuse (Dobash
ported by NIMH grants T31 MH15161 and MH17557,
and Dobash, 1979; Marsden, 1978; Straus,
and by the University of New Hampshire. A list of Pro-
gram publications is available on request. 1976; Truninger, 1971; Walker, 1978), while
other work yields the opposite expectation
Department of Social Relations, Johns Hopkins Uni- (Allen and Straus, 1980; Brown, 1980;
versity, Baltimore, MD 21218. Goode, 1971; Whitehurst, 1974).
Those who suggest a positive relationship
*Family Violence Research Program and Department of
Sociology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH do not argue that women's marital depen-
03820. dency directly causes wife abuse. They

May 1982 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 277

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
suggest, rather, that the relationship is positions. Husbands, in fact, may resort to
mediated by women's tolerance for physical violence if the struggle for sexual equality
abuse from their husbands. Women high in increases their wives' resource base and
marital dependency have (or perceive) few encourages women to question the power
viable alternatives to marriage, which forces relationships. (Marsden, 1978; Whitehurst,
them to be more tolerant of negative 1974). Violence may be used as the ultimate
treatment from their husbands, including resource by husbands to keep wives in their
physical abuse. Women who have children place (Allen and Straus, 1980; Brown, 1980;
and rely on their husbands for financial Goode, 1971). Thus, in the short run,
support cannot easily leave abusive mar- equality for women may increase rather than
riages, nor do they possess sufficient re- decrease conflict and violence within the
sources to negotiate changes in their family.
husbands' behavior. In a sense, marital This leads to the prediction that wife abuse
dependency traps women in abusive mar- is negatively related to marital dependency.
riages. Husbands of dependent wives can maintain
Indirect empirical support exists for the their dominant positions without resorting to
positive relationship between dependency and violence because their wives are in no position
abuse. Gelles (1976) found that women who to question their dominance. However, an
were unemployed and those who had a independent woman is in a better position to
relatively low educational level were less likely
challenge her husband's right to dominate.
to seek outside intervention (police, socialThe relative equality of resources between an
service agency, divorce, or separation) thanindependent wife and her husband under-
were women who were employed or hadmines his use of resource superiority as a
completed more schooling. Roy (1977) defense against such a challenge. Instead, he
reported that women's explanations for may use force to assert and maintain his
staying in abusive marriages included: dominance.
economic dependency, presence of young Indirect support for this relationship is
children, fear of living alone, and perceived found in the work of Allen and Straus (1980).
stigma of divorce. Although these studies did Their study of the relationship between the
not directly examine the relationship between distribution of power and resources between
dependency and abuse, they indicate that spouses and wife abuse indicated that in
factors reflecting high marital dependency blue-collar families, husbands who did not
among women are related to those reflecting possess clear resource superiority over their
a high tolerance for wife abuse. wives tended to use violence to maintain their
As previously mentioned, some studies power in the family more than husbands who
suggest the opposite: that high levels of possessed such resource superiority. Since
women's marital dependency are associated husbands' resource superiority should be
with low levels of wife abuse.' The apparent related to high marital dependency in wives,
contradiction between the two groups of their findings support a negative relationship
studies may be best explained by distinguish- between the women's marital dependency
ing between short-term and long-term effects. and wife abuse.
Family theorists generally agree that, in the Although these two competing hypotheses
long run, equality for women will yield a are suggested by the literature, they have not
decline in the rate of wife abuse by been examined empirically. Both hypotheses
decreasing: (a) men's perceived right to abuseare rooted in speculation as well as in studies
their wives, (b) women's lack of alternatives of the relationship between wife abuse and
to the victim's role, and (c) the unresponsive- variables associated with women's depen-
ness of social institutions to the problem of dence on marriage.
wife abuse. On the other hand, many of these
MARITAL DEPENDENCY
same theorists have suggested that, in the
short run, equality between the sexes may Perhaps because of the lack of research,
increase wife abuse.
marital dependency has not been clearly
Given that men benefit from the current defined in family or wife-abuse literature. Th
system of sex stratification, it is unlikely that
most common conception of marital depen-
they will voluntarily give up their dominant dency is economic. In fact, some theorists use

278 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY May 1982

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
the two terms interchangeably. The following discrimination, traditional husbands who do
statement by Kinsley is representative: not permit their wives to work). However,
given the wage differential between men and
women, being employed does not necessarily
"At the core of a wife's dependence on her hus- make a woman economically self-sufficient.
band is her inferior earning power. As long as she Employed wives whose husbands earn
is not able to get a job with pay and prestige at
considerably more than they do remain
least equivalent to that of her husband, she must
rely upon him to maintain her standard of living dependent on their spouses' incomes for their
and social status" (1977:80). current standard of living. Thus, a woman's
contribution to the total family income is a
necessary adjunct to her employment status
Many theorists add the presence of young and potential in determining her objective
children to their economic-based conceptions dependency on marriage.2
of marital dependency (Gelles, 1976; Prescott Women's subjective dependency on mar-
and Letko, 1977; Truninger, 1971). Young riage refers to how tied to the marital
children make it difficult for women to hold
relationship a woman perceives herself to be.
jobs outside of the home, thus reinforcing At this level, dependency is a psychological
their dependency on husbands and marriage. state that may or may not reflect objective
Finally, some theorists refer to women's conditions. Operationally, it is defined as
psychological or emotional dependency onwives' perceptions about whether they or their
marriage. However, this type of dependency husbands would be hurt more (financially,
is illusive and typically serves as a residual interpersonally, emotionally) if their mar-
category for women's intangible ties toriages were to break up. Only those women
marriage. Marsden (1978) defined such ties who consistently indicated that they would be
as a woman's investment in the ideals of
hurt more were considered subjectively
marriage and motherhood contrasted with
dependent.3
the alternative identities she has available to
her as lone mother or worker. Similarly,Since perceived ties to marriage are not
Straus (1976) emphasized forced dependence necessarily congruent with actual ties, we do
on the role of the wife as the basis for a not expect a perfect correlation between
respected position in society. While their wives' objective and subjective marital
dependency.
definitions are vague, these theorists at least While for some women, subjec-
have approached the definitional problem. tive dependency may be a direct function of
Many theorists use the notion of emotional objective
or dependency, for others it may not
psychological dependency on marriage be. Some women may feel strongly dependent
with-
on their marriages even though situational
out any attempts at definition. Still others
factors do not make them particularly
ignore the existence of noneconomic marital
dependency altogether. dependent. Others who are structurally
This study examines the relationship bound to the relationship because of
between two dimensions of women's marital economic ties may not perceive themselves to
dependency (objective and subjective) andbe dependent. As such, we expect the two
dimensions of marital dependency to be
violence toward wives. Objective dependency
is characterized by conditions that tie a related but nonetheless empirically distin-
woman to marriage, whether or not she is guishable.
aware of the ties. The key situational factors In short, this study explores the relation-
associated with objective marital dependency ship between women's objective and subjec-
are economic in nature. Married women who tive dependency on marriage, as well as the
do not work and thus have no potential relationship
for between these two dimensions of
economic self-sufficiency are objectivelydependency
de- and the extent to which
pendent on their husbands, even if theyhusbands are abuse their wives. It examines
not aware of that dependency. whether women's marital dependency is
Wives' objective marital dependency is
positively or negatively related to wife abuse
reinforced by factors that limit women's
Finally, it explores whether objective and
participation in the labor force (e.g., subjective dependency are differentially
presence of young children, occupational related to abuse.

May 1982 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 279

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 METHODS Violence toward wives. For the purposes
Sample
of this study, violence was defined as an act
The data are based on interviews con- carried out with the intention of physically
ducted with a national area probability injuring another person. Violence toward
sample of 2,143 adults in January and wives was assessed by Straus's Conflict
February of 1976. Eligibility for inclusion in Tactics Scales which were designed to
the sample was contingent upon cohabitation measure different techniques used by family
with a member of the opposite sex. Interviews members to resolve intrafamily conflict
were conducted with husbands in a randomly (Schulman, 1979; Straus, 1979a; Straus et
selected half of the families and with wives in
al., 1980; Yllo, 1980). The items ranged from
the other half. This analysis focuses on the "discussed the issue calmly" to "used a knife
sample of 1183 women. The nature of the or gun," forming dimensions of rational
sample permits investigation of wife abuse discussion or reasoning, verbal aggression,
among a fairly large and representative group and physical violence. In this study we
of women. This differs from most previous focused solely on the physical violence
work which focused on smaller and more dimension which included: threw something
specialized groups of women (e.g., women at wife;
in pushed grabbed or shoved wife;
wife-abuse shelters, women seeking divorce slapped wife; kicked, bit or hit wife with fist;
or who had sought social service or police hit or tried to hit wife with something; beat
intervention). Further details on the sample wife up; threatened wife with a knife or gun,
are presented in Straus et al. (1980). and used a knife or gun. For a more extensive
discussion of the Conflict Tactics Scale, see
Measures
Straus (1979b).
Objective marital dependency. The index Given the range of items included in the
of wives' objective dependency is the sum physical
of violence scale, we developed two
scores on three dichotomous variables: violence measures: minor and severe. The
whether the woman worked, whether measure
she hadof minor violence contained those
itemsand
children age five or younger at home, that did not carry a high risk of serious
whether her husband earned 75% or more of injury ("threw something at wife" to
"slapped wife") and the measure of severe
the couple's income.4 The value of the index
ranged from 0 (low objective dependency) toviolence
3 contained the remaining items, all of
(high dependency) and the internal consis- which carried the risk of serious injury. The
tency of the index, measured by Cronbach's two scales were constructed as dichotomous
alpha coefficient of reliability, was .59variables with 1 indicating the presence of
(Cronbach, 1949). one or more acts of violence and 0 indicating
Subjective marital dependency. The sub- the absence of violence. Eleven percent of the
women interviewed reported experiencing at
jective dependency index is the sum of scores
least some minor violence, and 4% reported
on five variables assessing perceptions about
severe
whether the respondent or her husband violence.6
would be hurt more in each of five areas if
their marriage were to break up. The specific
areas were: financial, sexual, loss of friends,
Data Analysis
angry relatives, and loneliness. The response
categories included: respondent would beLog-linear techniques were used to exa-
hurt more, husband would be hurt more,
mine the patterns suggested in the contin-
both would be hurt equally, and neither gency tables. The approach was selected over
would be hurt. Dummy variables were regression because the dependent variables
constructed with 1 equal to "respondent were dichotomous. Goodman's ECTA pro-
would be hurt more" and 0 equal to any other gram (Goodman, 1978) was used to identify
response. The range of the index was 0 to 5; the model which best fit the data (i.e., the
however, since only 6% of all female model with expected cell frequencies closest
respondents scored 4 or higher, scores ofto 3 those obtained in the data.) (See Table 1
and above were combined. The alpha for the cell frequencies that were the input for
coefficient of reliability was .35. 5 the ECTA program.)

280 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY May 1982

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TABLE 1. OBSERVED CELL FREQUENCIES: CROSS TABULATIONS WITH MINOR AND SEVERE
VIOLENCE

Experienced Level of Subjective Level of Objective Dependency

Violence Dependence Low High
No Very low 114 (118) 63 (63)
Yes Very low 6 (2) 4 (4)
No Low 144 (163) 130 (139)
Yes Low 21 (1) 21 (10)
No High 107 (116) 105 (116)
Yes High 17 (6) 21 (9)
No Very high 59 (63) 81 (91)
Yes Very high 8 (3) 16 (6)
Note: Severe violence in parenth

RESULTS
A of Table 2. Both relationships are positive:
the rate of minor violence increases as wives'
Objective and Subjective
Marital Dependency marital dependency increases. This suggests
that both objectively and subjectively depen-
The correlation of .147 between wives' dent wives tolerate more minor abuse than
"non-dependent" wives, perhaps because
subjective and objective marital dependency
indicates a weak but significant relationship
they have (or perceive) fewer viable alterna-
(p = .001). This provides the first empirical
tives to marriage. This interpretation does
not assume that violence against wives is
indication of the importance of distinguishing
between the two dimensions of marital directly "caused" by dependency. Our
dependency. While the two are positivelyposition is that such violence is rooted in
related, it appears that women are able manyto factors, including male-dominant
family relationships, the level of conflict
perceive themselves as tied to their marriages
in the absence of situational factors that between the spouses, role models for marital
objectively create such ties. Similarly, violence
they provided by the husband having
may not recognize marital dependencyobservedthat his father hit his mother, implicit
exists at the objective level. The weak cultural norms tolerating such violence, etc.
relationship between objective and subjective
(Straus et al., 1980:Chapter 9). Whatever the
marital dependency suggests that they, in causal matrix, women in unbalanced rela-
fact, may be differentially related to wifetionships are more likely to tolerate wife
abuse. abuse than women in relationships where the
resources and outside options are more
The Bivariate Relationships Between
equally balanced between husband and wife.
Minor Violence and Marital Dependency
While both objective and subjective
The bivariate relationships between minor dependency are positively related to minor
violence toward wives and the two dimensions violence, the strength of the relationship
of marital dependency are presented in Partdiffers. Subjective dependency appears to

TABLE 2. MARITAL VIOLENCE RATES BY WIVES' OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE MARITAL

DEPENDENCY

Level of Marital Dependency

Type of Dependency Very Low Low High Very High
A. Minor Violence
Objective Dependencya 10.5% 10.6% 12.0% 17.5%
Subjective Dependencyb 5.3 12.3 13.6 13.5
B. Severe Violence
Objective Dependencyc 2.4 2.5 6.7 6.5
Subjective Dependencyd 3.1 3.3 5.9 4.7
ax2 = 5.39, p = .146, N = 973.
bx2 = 12.17, p = .03, N = 1081.
cx2 = 10.08, p = .018, N = 966.
dx2 = 4.59, p = .468, N = 1072.

May 1982 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 281

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
have a stronger relationship to minor violence ages, so that among women very low on both
than does objective dependency. The former dependency dimensions, 5% experienced
relationship is statistically significant, while minor violence.
the latter is not. Moreover, the rate of minor These data support the conclusions drawn
violence among women who score very high in from the bivariate relationships. Subjective
subjective dependency is almost triple that of dependency has a stronger relationship to
women who score very low on that minor violence than does objective depen-
dependency dimension; whereas, the dency. Within categories of subjective
differ-
ence in minor violence between the extreme dependency, the rates of minor violence are
categories of objective dependency is less similar whether a woman is high or low in
than
twofold. objective marital dependency. At no point is
the rate of minor violence among women high
The Bivariate Relationships Between
in objective dependency twice that of women
Severe Violence and Marital Dependency low in objective dependency. On the other
Part B of Table 2 shows that the bivariate hand, within categories of objective depen-
relationships between severe violence toward dency, the rate of minor violence almost
wives and the two dependency dimensions are triples as subjective dependency increases
positive. The rate of severe violence increases(5% vs. 14%). Moreover, the rate of minor
as wives' marital dependency increases. violence is higher among women high in
Once again, the magnitude of the two subjective but low in objective dependency
relationships differ. Subjective dependency (14%) than among those high on both
appears to have little effect on the rate of dimensions (10%). Finally, although the rate
severe violence, while the relationship of minor violence is highest (16%) among
between such violence and wives' objective women high on objective and very high on
marital dependency is strong. The rate of subjective dependency, those low on objective
severe violence is almost three times higher and high on subjective dependency report a
among women high than among those very minor violence rate almost as high (14%). In
low in objective dependency. The increment summary, once subjective dependency is
in severe violence between the parallel levels taken into account, objective dependency
of subjective dependency is only twofold. does not add much to the prediction of minor
In summary, subjective but not objective violence against wives.
marital dependency is significantly related to
minor violence toward wives, while the The Multivariate Relationships Between
Severe Violence and Marital Dependency
reverse is true for severe violence. To explore
these differential patterns further, we The multivariate relationships between the
examined the multivariate relationships dependency dimensions and severe violence
between the two dependency dimensions andagainst wives follow the opposite pattern. The
the measures of violence toward wives. relationship between severe violence and
objective dependency is stronger than that
The Multivariate Relationships Between
between such violence and subjective depen-
Minor Violence and Marital Dependency
dency. These relationships are presented in
The multivariate relationships betweenTable 4.
minor violence and the two dependency Among women low in objective depen-
dimensions are presented in Table 3. Thedency, the rate of severe violence increases as
subjective dependency increases. However,
figures in that table are within-cell percent-

TABLE 3. MINOR VIOLENCE RATE AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE

MARITAL DEPENDENCY

Subjective Dependency
Objective Dependency Very Low Low High Very High
Low 5%a 13% 14% 12%
High 6% 14% 10% 16%
aThe percentage in each cell
marital dependency.

282 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY May 1982

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 TABLE 4. SEVERE VIOLENCE RATE AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE
MARITAL DEPENDENCY

Subjective Dependency
Objective Dependency Very Low Low High Very High
Low 2%a 6% 5% 5%
High 6% 7% 8% 7%
aThe percentage in each
marital dependency.

once effects in the models selected. We depe

objective assessed
the fit of the model that
dependency contained all effects
has vi
violence in the
rate.
selected model other than Whe
the one being
high, the rate
tested. If of
the simpler model had a significantse
high at all
chi-square, levels
we concluded that removal of the o
On the effect
other han
in question left us with a poorly fitting
subjective depend
model which, therefore, was rejected. On the
violenceother hand, tends
if the simpler model had a t
dependency increa
nonsignificant chi-square, then we concluded
violence, knowled
that the simpler model could be retained.
objective depend
Minor violence. Results of the log-linear
appears to
analysis be
presented in Table a bet
5 support
her husband seve
patterns of association suggested by the
knowledge of
contingency tables. The the
optimal model
dependency. includes two-way effects between minor
violence and subjective dependency (AB) and
Log-Linear Analysis of the
between subjective and objective dependency
Dependency- Violence Relationships
(BC). This model fits the observed frequen-
The final stage of analysis involved the use cies with a likelihood chi-square ratio of 1.23
of log-linear techniques to test the differential (df -= 4, p = .5). Tests of the individual
relationships between the dependency dimen- terms showed them to be significant.
sions and the violence measures suggested by In short, subjective dependency is signifi-
the raw data. The procedure for selecting a cantly related to minor violence while
model began with the saturated or perfect-fit objective dependency is not. Moreover, there
model and, through systematic elimination of is no significant interaction between the
individual terms (effects), tested progressively dependency dimensions and minor violence
simpler models. The optimal model was one toward wives. Thus, the relationship between
that was most parsimonious and could not be subjective dependency and minor violence is
rejected statistically at the .10 level.7 essentially the same among women high and
A procedure suggested by Davis (1974) was those low in objective dependency. Finally,
used to test the significance of individual there is a significant positive relationship

TABLE 5. LOG-LINEAR MODELS FOR MINOR VIOLENCE

Chi-square Degrees of Significance

Model Statistic Freedom Level Effect Tested
ABC 0.00 0
AB AC BC .20 3 > .5
AB BC 1.23 4 > .5a
AC BC 11.67 6 .070
AB AC 19.02 6 .004
AB C 21.06 7 .004 BCb
BC A 13.71 7 .056 ABb
AC B 31.49 9 .000

Note: A = minor violence t

dependency.
aThis is the optimal (best-fitting model).
bThese effects (from the optimal model) are statistically significant.

May 1982 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 283

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TABLE 6. LOG-LINEAR MODELS FOR SEVERE VIOLENCE

Chi-square Degrees of Significance

Model Statistic Freedom Level Effect Tested
ABC 0.00 0
AB AC BC 4.39 3 .221
AB BC 11.15 4 .018
AC BC 6.63 6 .356a
AB AC 23.96 6 .001
AB C 32.27 7 .000 BCb
BC A 14.93 7 .037 ABb
AC B 27.04 9 .002

Note: A = severe violen

aThis is the optimal (bes
bThese effects (from th

between wives' objective and subjective negotiate changes in their husbands' be-
marital dependency. havior. Thus, marital dependency reinforces
Severe violence. The log-linear results forthe likelihood that women will tolerate
severe violence also support our previous physical abuse from their husbands.
findings. Table 6 indicates that for severe The results also indicate that while the
violence the best-fitting model contains marriage license may be considered a license
two-way effects between violence and objective for husbands to abuse their wives, there are
marital dependency and between the two limits on that license. The wives in our
dependency dimensions (AC, BC). Once sample reported far more minor than severe
again, the tests of these two individual effects abuse. While some of this differential may be
show them to be significant. Thus, wives' due to respondents' greater willingness to
objective but not subjective marital depen- report minor than severe acts of violence, it
dency is significantly related to severe also is possible that women's tolerance of
violence and there is no significant inter- violence by their husbands decreases with its
action between the dependency dimensions severity. The literature on wife abuse has
and violence. documented the pervasive economic, legal,
social, and psychological obstacles that
DISCUSSION women face in attempting to terminate
abusive relationships. Perhaps the threat or
The results of this study indicate that of violent acts carrying a high risk
experience
women whose dependency on marriage of serious is
injury (severe violence) provides an
high tend to experience more physical abuse
impetus for confronting those obstacles that
from their husbands than women whose is absent when the violence does not carry
dependency is low. Although the causal such a risk (minor violence). Wives' greater
tolerance for minor than for severe violence is
dynamic between wives' marital dependency
and abuse is not addressed by our data, we
consistent with previous research which
can indicate at least a plausible scenario.
showsWethat severity of the abuse is one of the
primary factors associated with whether
suggest that dependency is a mediating rather
than a direct causal variable. As noted earlier
women seek outside intervention (and thus
in the paper, violence by husbands arises out exhibit low tolerance) for physical violence
of multiple causes, including the use of forcefrom their husbands (Bowker and Mac-
as a means of maintaining a dominant power Callum, 1980; Gelles, 1976).
position. Whatever the specific causes of theThe tendency to tolerate violence up to, but
violence, we suggest that wives who are highlynot beyond, a certain point is supported by
dependent on marriage are less able to our findings that subjective but not objective
discourage, avoid, or put an end to abuse dependency is significantly related to minor
than are women in marriages where the
violence and that the reverse is true for severe
balance of resources between husbands and violence. Subjectively dependent women, like
wives is more nearly equal. Dependent wives
women in general, tend to tolerate minor but
have fewer alternatives to marriage and fewer
not severe violence. The primary group of
resources within marriage with which womento who tolerate severe violence are those

284 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY May 1982

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
highest in objective dependency. For such husbands and challenge their power within th
women it is not a question of necessary family.

motivation to overcome the obstacles keeping

2. Many theorists have ignored employed women's
them in abusive marriages, because, in a contribution to the family income as a factor con-
sense, the obstacles for them are insurmount- tributing to their economic dependency. They im-
able. They have virtually no alternatives to plicitly assume that employment yields independent
their marriages and, therefore, "must" economic resources and thus economic independence
tolerate the conditions of those marriages. for women. See for example Brown (1980).
These findings suggest that reducing
3. The measure of wives' subjective marital dependency
subjective dependency will only affect the actually assessed their dependency relative to that of
level of mild violence toward wives. When
their husbands. Women who felt that they would
wife abuse is severe, it does not matter howexperience more hurt than their husbands by the
dependent on marriage a woman perceives breakup of their marriage, were coded as highly sub-
jectively dependent even if their absolute level of hurt
herself to be. As long as situational factors
keep her objectively tied to marriage, shewasislow. This questions the meaning of high subjec-
tive dependency. However, in the aggregate, we ex-
almost as likely to be a victim of severe abuse
pect a strong correlation between relative and abso-
if she is high than if she is low in subjective
lute marital dependency. Moreover, as is common in
dependency. Thus, decreasing women'ssecondary analysis, this was the best available mea-
tolerance for severe violence requiressurea of subjective dependency.
change in the structural conditions that tie
4. Missing values on variables included in both depen-
them to marriage. This may be partially
dency scales were replaced by the mean scores on
accomplished by fundamental changes such those variables. However, to be conservative, substi-
as, universal child care services, reduced tution only occurred if there were missing data on no
occupational discrimination against women, more than one of the variables in the index. Using
and an end to sex-based wage differentials. this substitution procedure, the sample size was 993
Therapeutic, educational, and support ser- women for the objective dependency scale and 1101
vices designed to deal with wife abuse by for the subjective dependency scale. The results of the
analyses were the same with and without substitution
building women's self-confidence, indepen- of missing data.
dence, and belief that they can survive
outside of marriage will not be successful 5. The relatively low interitem reliability is not uncom-
unless supplemented by programs and mon with social psychological scales. Moreover,
policies that reduce women's objective factor analysis of all the dependency items produced
two dimensions corresponding to our subjective and
dependency on marriage.
A final contribution of this research is the objective dependency scales. The only exception was
that the financial item in the subjective dependency
evidence that both marital dependency and scale loaded on the objective dependency dimension.
violence are multidimensional concepts. However, on a conceptual level, the item measured
Specifically, the results suggest that it is perceived rather than actual economic dependency.
important to distinguish between subjective Morover, analyses comparing the subjective depen-
dency scale with and without the financial item
and objective dependency, and between showed minimal differences.
minor and severe violence. If these distinc-
tions are incorporated into future theoretical 6. While these percentages may seem low, when pro-
and empirical analyses, it is likely that we will jected to population figures they take on more mean-
achieve a better understanding of the system ing. They indicate that in 1975, 3,590,000 or one out
of sexual stratification which keeps women of every nine married women in the United States
dependent on their male partners and of the experienced some minor acts of violence by her hus-
band and 940,000 women experienced abuse carrying
system of violence which is an integral part of a high risk of physical injury. Given the sensitive
the male-dominant family system. nature of violence within the family it is highly prob-
able that these rates of wife abuse are underestimates.
In addition, it is possible that women' who
FOOTNOTES experienced high rates of physical violence from their
husbands were systematically excluded from the sam-
1. The negative relationship between maritalpledepen-
because they were separated or divorced. For a
more complete discussion of underreporting in the
dency and wife abuse is not portrayed as mediated
through women's tolerance of abuse. Instead, low
data, see Straus et al. (1980).
levels of marital dependency are said to directly cause
relatively high levels of physical abuse toward
7. Thewives
chi-square test typically assesses the probability of
because "independent" wives are threatening to their
making an error by rejecting the simple hypothesis of

May 1982 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 285

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 no association between two variables (and thus ac- Goodman, L.
cepting the alternate hypothesis that the two variables 1978 Analyzing Qualitative/Categorical Data. Cam-
are related). Generally, low significance levels (e.g., bridge, MA:Abt Associates.
.05) are selected to make rejection of the simple and Kinsley, S.
acceptance of the research hypothesis difficult. In log- 1977 "Women's dependency and federal programs."
linear analysis, chi-square tests assess the fit of vari- Pp. 79-91 in J. R. Chapman and M. Gates
ous models, of which the model of no association is (Eds.), Women Into Wives: The Legal and
just one (See Table 2). In such analyses the simple Economic Impact of Marriage. Beverly Hills:
hypothesis also is the research hypothesis (i.e., that a Sage.
set of parameters specified by a particular model Marsden, D.
accurately predicts the obtained cell frequencies). As 1978 "Sociological perspectives on family violence."
such, a low significance level would not have a con- In J. P. Martin (Ed.), Violence and the Family.
servative effect, but would make it relatively difficult New York: Wiley.
to reject the alternate hypothesis. A higher level re- Prescott, S. and Letko, C.
duces the probability of accepting a false alternate 1977 "Battered women: a social psychological per-
hypothesis and, thus, is desirable in log-linear anal- spective." Pp. 71-96 in M. Roy (Ed.), Battered
ysis. Women: A Social Psychological Study of Dom-
estic Violence. New York:Van Nostrand Rein-
hold.
REFERENCES Roy, M.
1977 "A current survey of 150 cases." Pp. 15-44 in
Allen, C. and Straus, M. M. Roy (Ed.). Battered Women. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
1980 "Resources, power and husband-wife vio-
Schulman,
lence." Pp. 188-208 in M. Straus and G. Hota- M.
ling (Eds.), The Social Causes of Husband-
1979 A Survey of Spousal Violence Against Women
wife Violence. Minneapolis: University ofin Kentucky. Washington:Law Enforcement
Minnesota Press. Assistance Commission.
Bowker, L. and MacCallum, K. Straus, M.
1980 "Women who have beaten wife-beating." 1976 "Sexual inequality, cultural norms and wife-
Unpublished manuscript, School of Social beating." Victimology 1:54-76.
Welfare, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 1979a "Social stress and marital violence in a national
Brown, B. sample of American families." Annals of the
1980 "Wife-employment, marital equality and New York Academy of Sciences 347:119-150.
husband-wife violence." Pp. 176-187 in M. 1979b "Measuring intrafamily conflct and violence:
Straus and G. Hotaling (Eds.), The Social the Conflict Tactics (CT) scales." Journal of
Causes of Husband-wife Violence. Minneapo- Marriage and the Family 41:75-88.
lis:University of Minnesota Press. Straus, M., Gelles, R. and Steinmetz, S.
Cronbach, L. 1980 Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the Ameri-
1949 Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: can Family. New York:Anchor.
Harpers. Truninger, E.
Davis, J. 1971 "Marital violence: the legal solutions." Hast-
1974 "Hierarchical models for significance tests in ings Law Review 13:159-176.
multivariate contingency tables." Pp. 189-231 Walker, L.
in H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological Method- 1978 "Treatment alternatives for battered women."
ology 1973-1974. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Pp. 143-174 in J. R. Chapman and M. Gates
Dobash, R. E. and Dobash, R. (Eds.), The Victimization of Women. Beverly
1978 "Wives: the 'appropriate' victims of marital Hills:Sage.
violence." Victimology 1 (3-4):416-441. Whitehurst, R.
1979 Violence Against Wives. New York:Free Press. 1974 "Violence in the husband-wife interaction."
Gelles, R. Pp. 75-81 in S. Steinmetz and M. Straus
1974 The Violent Home: A Study of Physical Ag- (Eds.), Violence in the Family. New York:
gression Between Husbands and Wives. Beverly Harper and Row.
Hills: Sage. Yllo, K.
1976 "Abused wives: why do they stay?" Journal of 1980 The Status of Women and Wife-beating in the
Marriage and the Family 38:659-668. U.S. Unpublished dissertation, Department of
Goode, W. Sociology, University of New Hampshire.
1971 "Force and violence in the family." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 33:614-636.

286 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY May 1982

This content downloaded from 148.88.67.84 on Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:21:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms