Domestic Violence - Dissertation Example

Full Submitted CHAPTER II Literature Review Domestic violence (DV) is truly a complex issue in terms of defining it – no single definition can be found, in terms of understanding its causality – some view it as a gender issue, others perceived it a socio-political issue, many consider it a criminal issue, and others treat it a psycho-social issue, in terms of its impact – its magnitude, effect and impact are far reaching and may last for a life time, in terms of its dynamics – its victims and perpetrators come from all demographic groups, and in terms of the effective intervention programs – intervention programs tend to focus on victimization when what could stop DV is no other than the perpetrator. Thus a study on the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs is of high relevance to help stop DV. However, literature notes that weak methodology in evaluating intervention programs both for victims and batterers provide mix results failing to establish the effectiveness of the intervention. As such the need to conduct a study investigating the effectiveness of Curriculum used in domestic violence batterer intervention programs is very relevant, especially so that stopping the batterer is critical in stopping the abusive relationship. Rationale DV is probably one of the social issues that have been meriting extensive studies due to its complex nature. What this plethora of studies tells though is the increasing attention and recognition that society renders to domestic violence – an issue, which was once perceived to be simply a private, family matter has now been treated to be a serious social and criminal issue with far-reaching repercussions that must be addressed. Moreover, literatures have also shown the complexity of DV making it difficult to be dealt with. Understanding the complex nature of DV and issues related to it through this literature review would help focus this study. Outline The literature review will cover the definition, impact, and dynamics of DV. Hence the outline is as follows: A. Explaining DV: This will tackle the definition of DV as to what constitute and what causes DV and also the history of DV. B. The Impact/Extent of DV in the US: This illustrates the degree of DV in the US in terms of prevalence, its perpetrators, and its effect on American families and the US society as a whole. C. The Dynamics of DV: This part attempts to understand victimization in and perpetration of DV. D. Types of DV Perpetrators: This part will try to understand the nature of DV perpetrators and how DV perpetrators are categorized. E. Domestic Violence and Children: This discusses the impact of DV on children. F. Evaluating and Enhancing the Effectiveness of Batterer Intervention Programs: This seeks to understand how existing batterer intervention programs are being viewed by various authors. A. Explaining Domestic Violence 1. Definition Reviewed literatures’ (Brewster 23-24; Davis 3; Hague, Mullender & Aris 1; McCue 2-4; Myers 735; Peters et al. 8; West 10) definition of domestic violence (DV) – also termed as intimate partner violence (IPV) – vary in terms of determining the acts and relationships that would qualify as such(Garner & Fagan 54, qtd. in Brewster 23). Among definitions, Oregon Domestic Violence Council’s (ODVC) is most explicit: “… a pattern of coercive behavior used by one person to control and subordinate another in an intimate relationship.” Here, acts defined as coercive/abusive “include physical, sexual, emotional, and economic,” to which others added psychological (Peters et al. 8); while the purpose of coercive acts is defined as that aims “to engender fear in the victim in order to enforce compliance.” (qtd. in McCue 3) With most DV incidents reportedly perpetrated against women often by their male intimate partners (Hague, Mullender & Aris 1), DV is often understood as male chauvinism at its worst form, picturing men as animals or beasts whose gratification is imposing their power on women. However, some literatures (Tjaden & Thonnes iii-v; Kelly 794) noted that even women batter and that, men themselves are actual victims of DV, though their number is much smaller compared with women victims (iii-v). While, Hague, Mullender and Aris show that DV is a problem not exclusive to heterosexual relationships but extends even to homosexual relationships with both men and women being either victims or perpetrators (1). Thus, DV disregards sexual orientation, ethnicity, social status and religion (Tjaden & Thonnes 25-32; Bullock 34). According to Davis, DV is an issue of economic and institutional power, which this patriarchal society has afforded to men (3). As such McCue defines DV as “a form of oppression that occurs within a social context that makes violence against an oppressed group possible and even acceptable.” And since society has not given women an equal power with men and an institutional power just like men, women are among the oppressed, exploited, and marginalized group, making them most vulnerable to DV. (5) Within this premise, Gelles and Strauss explain that if ever women have assaulted their husbands or intimate partners it must have been out of retaliation and self-defense (qtd. in McCue 34). Hence, DV – a universal reality that may happen anywhere, anytime, to anyone in any type of intimate relationships – can be understood as any form of abusive behavior willfully and systematically perpetrated against an intimate partner (victim) by another (perpetrator), causing physical injury, psychological trauma and death on the victim, purposely to ensure the perpetrator’s dominance and control over the victim and the relationship (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence 1). 2. Brief History DV is not a new phenomenon, nor an offspring of the modern era. To Myers’s account, DV can be traced back from ancient Rome when it was legal for husbands to punish and even sell or kill their wives believing that husbands, being masters of their households, had authority over their wives and children. The same principle, although moderated, was also applied in England’s old law, but had been questioned as early as Charles II’s (1660-1685) reign and that by late 17th century the husbands’ right to discipline their wives had been almost abandoned. Nonetheless, English colonizers had brought this belief and practice with them to their colonies, including North America (736). According to Johnson, during the American Colonial period, DV, unless extremely abusive according to the Rule of Thumb1, was a social norm on the similar premise that husbands being the providers of their families have every right to discipline their wives and children. There were efforts by political and legal activists to change this law but to no avail, until in the late 18th century when a powerful women’s rights movement that has fought for equal right to suffrage, education and employment, and an end to abuse from their husbands and fathers had eventually changed the US courts’ view of DV, making DV no longer a man’s right but a social taboo. Unfortunately, this did not stop the occurrence of DV (60). To Weissman’s description, although the US courts had prohibited DV, it did not question the patriarchal structure and culture that engenders men’s superiority over women within families. It was only in the 20th century that movements against DV have analyzed the problem from a socio-political framework, challenging patriarchal hierarchies, and once again, bringing forth the issue of DV as a national concern that must be condemned morally and legally. (387) 3. Causal Theories Various theories attempt to explain DV. Some theories, generally categorized under three perspectives – psychological, sociological, and feminist –attempt to explain why perpetrators commit DV; while other theories, such as cycle of violence, learned helplessness, battered woman syndrome, Stockholm syndrome, traumatic bonding theory, and psychological entrapment theory, attempt to explain why victims of DV remain with their abusive intimate partners despite the risks awaiting them. (Brewster 25-34) What drive partners to commit DV? Psychological theorists would attribute it to individual characteristics, such as personal experiences (e.g., victim of child abuse), personality traits (e.g., great desire for power), psychological disorders (e.g., post traumatic stress disorder), psychopathology, and others. (26) On the other hand, sociological theorists understand DV beyond individual factors attributing it to the existing social structure, power relations (Jenkins & Davidson 48) and violence-tolerant culture that dominates societies until today beginning at home to workplaces (Voigt & Thornton 104). Whereas, feminists view DV as a gender problem attributing it to gender roles and relations whereby women are left at the mercy of men, hence challenging the status quo (Jenkins & Davidson 48). Why do victims remain with their abusive partners? Walker’s cycle of violence – “(a) the tension-building phase, (b) the acute battering incident, and (c) the honeymoon phase” – implies it is an essential characteristic of DV (Peters 8). Advocates of learned helplessness attribute it to victims’ belief that nothing can be done to free themselves from their abusers; while advocates of battered woman syndrome attribute it to victims’ belief that they have no choice but to remain with their abuser (Brewster 32). On the other hand, the Stockholm syndrome or hostage syndrome explains that this is due to victims’ belief that their survival rests on their abuser (33). Whereas, the traumatic bonding theory attributes this on intimate partners’ strong yet unhealthy attachment to each other, that any hint of abandonment may result to violence in order to control the other (33). While, the psychological entrapment theory attributes this to the victims’ unwillingness to let go of the abusive relationship, as they value more the time, energy, and emotions they have invested to make the relationship work (34). B. The Impact/Extent of DV in the United States Attempts have been made to measure the extent of DV in the US; but due to the objective limitations of studies,2 what have been achieved at best are only estimates. Furthermore, since measurement approaches are largely determined by varying definition of DV, data also vary. Despite these problems, available data are revealing as these have indicated a high prevalence rate (Brewster 25) and a shocking magnitude of DV in the US (Summers & Hoffman 172) with DV described as a daily horrible national reality (West 10) and an enormous problem in this most powerful nation (Salber & Taliaferro 8) that prides itself of virtues of liberty and equality – the very virtues that DV blatantly tramples upon. The pervasiveness of DV in the US, as described in reviewed literatures, can be characterized as follows: 1. A significant number of American couples have experienced DV with 28% of them at some time in their relationships, while 16% of them in a given year (Straus & Gilles, qtd. in Umberto et al. 442); 2. DV in the US has been fatal, causing 9% of murders (Summers & Hoffman 173) and 70-80% homicide nationwide (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence [NCADV] 1), and leaving hundreds of American women dead every year (Fox & Zawitz, Rennison, qtd. in Bullock 34); 3. Millions of intimate partner rape and physical assault cases occur every year (Tjaden & Thoennes vi), from which women typically suffer from head and spinal injuries, sometimes leaving them medically untreated due to financial constraints, oftentimes resulting to their permanent physical injury and adversely affecting them psychologically (Murphy 1993, qtd. in Summers & Hoffman 173); 4. DV occur at varying degrees in heterosexual and homosexual relationships with women in heterosexual intimate relationships being subjected to more chronic and physical assaults compared with women in homosexual relationships, and with men in homosexual intimate relationships experiencing more intimate partner violence than those men in heterosexual intimate relationships(Tjaden & Thoennes iv); 5. DV victimizes both women and men, but with women at far greater risk than men (Summers & Hoffman 173; Hague, Mullender & Aris 1): a. A great majority (85%) of DV victims in the US are women (NACDV 1); b. Data trending shows that one in every four women will be more likely to go through DV in their lifetime (NACDV 1); c. More women die from domestic violence: 8 out of 10 violent crimes involve women as victims (Summers & Hoffman 173); 42% of murdered women are killed by their intimate male partners (Correia 32); d. More women are being subjected to DV more frequently: 6M women are being beaten in their homes by their intimate partners every year (Summers & Hoffman 173); every nine seconds, a woman is subjected to DV (Correia 32); e. A greater ratio of women (1:6) than men (1:33) have been raped or have been attempted to be raped and 7.8M women have been raped by their intimate partners sometime in their lives (NCADV 1); f. A greater ratio of women (1: 12) than men (1: 45) have experienced being stalked by their current or former intimate partners with 81% of stalked women being physically abused and 31% of stalked women being sexually abused by their stalkers (NCADV 1); g. DV victimizes American women more often than any physical crimes like burglary and muggings (Correia 32); 6. Women victims of DV also vary, with younger women (16-24 years old) experiencing the highest risk rate, with African American women more vulnerable than whites, with poor women experiencing more non-lethal intimate partner violence compared with rich ones, and with women living in urban areas experiencing more non-lethal intimate partner violence compared with those living in rural areas (Summers & Hoffman 173); 7. DV adversely affect the victim’s mental health state, resulting to “more than 18.5 million mental health care visits each year” (NACDV 1). Evidently so, DV is not only a social problem, but also a crime (Summers & Hoffman 174), which consequences can persist through generations and could even last a lifetime (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence 1). Moreover, its impact is far-reaching, affecting not only peace and order but even the nation’s health and labor productivity, costing US citizens $5.8B annually and denying them 8M days of paid work (NACDV 1). C. The Dynamics of Domestic Violence DV is a form of family violence, but its dynamics is unique and complex, which, the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence [MCADSV] explains, can be best understood on the distinct nature of couple relationships compared with other family relationships (e.g. parent-to-child relationship, sibling-to-sibling relationship). What differentiates DV violence from other forms of family violence (e.g. child abuse, elder abuse, sibling violence, child-to-parent violence) is its total disregard of the very foundation of couple relationship, which is mutual respect and shared responsibility. In DV, this premise is totally negated with one of the couple (abuser) wanting to control the other (victim) and the relationship through coercion and intimidation. Thus forms of control are by nature abusive whether they are subtle or blatant. DV is inflicted in many ways which could either be acts of commission (e.g. assault) or acts of omission (e.g. neglect) (Bifulco & Moran, qtd. in Sanderson 22). These forms of abuse which can be generally categorized as physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological and emotional abuse, and financial or economic abuse are used by the abuser/perpetrator in combined form and in varying degrees and frequency for effective control of the victim (MCADSV 4; Sanderson 22; Shipway 1). Physical abuse, mainly characterized by physical assault, is the easiest to recognize (MCADSV 4) as this leaves marks of abuse (bruises, broken bones, burns) on victims (Sanderson 23). Sexual abuse, which combined with physical abuse is intended to inflict psychological and emotional abuse, is the hardest for victims to reveal due to the manner by which the abuse is inflicted on the victim ((MCADSV 4) – Sexual abuse may include rape; sexual assault using implements; sex with others, enforced prostitution or forcing acts of pornography; unsafe sex; being forced to perform degrading and humiliating sexual acts including anal, vaginal and oral penetration; urinating on the partner; forced tying-up of the partner (Sanderson 25; Shipway 24). Psychological and emotional abuse, which is inflicted either verbally or non-verbally, and explicitly or implicitly, is the hardest to recognize, yet it is decisive in ascertaining coercive control, because this type of abuse relentlessly ruins the victim’s self-esteem, self-confidence and self-worth, putting victims’ mental and emotional state at worse (Maiuro & O’Leary xi; Sanderson 24; UNICEF, “Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls,” 4), as they may suffer from a wide range of psychological difficulties shame, low self-esteem, depression, suicidality, anxiety and dissociation, and substance abuse (Sanderson 25; Stephens & McDonald 82; Johnson & Ferraro, qtd. in Brewster 36). Hence Sanderson furthers that unlike physical abuse and sexual abuse, which at times can be impulsively inflicted, psychological abuse is premeditated, deliberate and calculating (25), and worst, any form of DV is almost always effecting psychological abuse (Bickerstaff 16). Financial or economic abuse, which denies the victim of access to any money, disallows the victim’s participation in financial decisions (Salber & Taliaferro 4; Sanderson 26) or prohibits the victim to further education or to be employed for the victim to be totally dependent on the abuser for material survival; this oftentimes is one of the main reasons victims cannot leave their abuser, especially when victims have nowhere to go (Bickerstaff 16). Though statistics show that DV victimizes both women and men (Kelly 792) within all types of intimate partner relationships (McCue 35; Sanderson 30), the fact remains that majority of DV victims are women, majority of abusers are men, and that men abusers are more severe than women abusers (McCue 30; Sanderson 30; Tjaden & Thoennes iii-iv; Stephens & McDonald 78). This can be attributed to the unequal power relations between men and women inside and outside the homes (Women Aid, qtd. in Sanderson 22; UNICEF, “Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls,” 7-8). The coercive controlling nature of men is more pronounced with data on DV victims in homosexual relations – Women in lesbian relationships experience less domestic abuse than those in heterogeneous relationship; while men in gay relationships experience more domestic abuse than those in heterogeneous relationship (Tjaden & Thoennes v). Hence, DV, although multi-faceted, emphasizes control and power. How do victims view their abusers’ controlling tactic and how do they cope with this? Most reviewed DV literatures (Bickerstaff; Brewster; MCADSV; Shipway; Stephens & McDonald) deal with women victimization. Two extreme reactions are noted. On one extreme is women victims’ complete obedience on the abuser; on the other extreme, which occurs when the act becomes too menacing, is the victims’ desire to get out of the relationship. But since the abuser would not free the victim, desperate women victims either commit suicide, turn to vices (alcohol and drug use), or get back at their abuser. What literatures emphasize though is that women victims of DV go through a dilemma on how to deal with the abusive relationship. Meaning, leaving the abusive relationship is not an automatic solution to them due to varied factors that has to be considered which bottom line is the victims’ survival. D. Types of Domestic Violence Perpetrators If review of DV victimization literature deals far more with women victimization, a review of typology research literature shows more of classifications of male batterers (Gondolf 1988, Gottman et al. 1995, Hamberger et al. 1996, Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart 1994, Johnson 1995, qtd. in Cavanaugh & Gelles 159; MCADSV 12-15; Umberson et al. 442). Literatures dealing with men batterers generally assert that men’s abusive behavior in intimate relationship is an instituted social behavior perpetrated through culture-building institutions. Thus this problem can be rooted out from the patriarchal view of society and that DV is an act of men’s re-imposition of their perceived lost control over their environment. Very few of literatures reviewed (Nauert; Stimel; Potter-Efron) have attempted to characterize DV perpetrators whether they are men or women. Observably, their typology is more personality-based. Stimel, for instance, has tried to understand the mind of a batterer by giving due consideration on the differences in traits of men and women. Some of her descriptions useful in describing both men and women batterers are: Men domestic batterers, unlike women, tend to abuse even their children; DV perpetrators are prone to excessive alcohol use; Domestic abusers do not come from a single demographic group but from all demographic groups; Profiling domestic abusers is not easy because there is no psychological profile that would fit to all of them; Abusers are usually laden with power and control problems and are historically themselves victims of physical or sexual abuse, or may have been threatened with abuse. (3) On the other hand, Nauert has presented Walsh and colleagues typology of violent men in which female perpetrators could be similarly categorized: (a) “Antisocial perpetrators” – with “high level of psychopathic personality traits” and are often violent even outside the relationship (b) “Dysphoric perpetrators” – with high levels of mental illness, particularly anxiety and depression; and (c) “Low Pathology perpetrators” – generally with normal personality and rarely commit violence outside the relationship (par. 7). Whereas, Potter-Efron presented four types of male domestic abusers which according to him can also be fitting to female domestic abusers: (a) “relatively normal” – not very aggressive and seemingly no serious mental illness; (b) “excessively needy” – aggression is driven by inferiority complex and can be characterized of borderline personality disorder; (c) “particularly oppositional” – possesses a wide range of antisocial personality structure; and (d) primary physical or psychological impairment driven aggression – with dementia, paranoid schizophrenia, and other related physical or psychological condition. To deal with these specific types of batterers, Potter-Efron suggests family counseling or structured couple education for the first group, individualized treatment for the second group, education with criminal justice monitoring for the third group, and treatment of the health issue before domestic abuse treatment for the fourth group. (448) Stimel and Potter-Efron similarly pointed out the difficulty in categorizing domestic abusers. But among them, Potter-Efron’s typology is more studied. E. Domestic Violence and Children The impact of DV on children is far reaching and troubling not only because children themselves have been victims of DV, but more so because of the long-term adverse effect DV does on children. According to Summers and Hoffman, with the prevalence of DV in American homes, American children are no longer safe even in their own homes with 70% of male domestic abusers also abusing children; with boys oftentimes ending-up either killed for protecting their mothers from being battered or incarcerated for having killed their mother’s abusive partner (174). From another point of view, according to UNICEF, children who have witnessed or have experienced DV usually develop health problems (e.g. weight loss, loss of appetite, or difficulty of sleep) and behavior disorders (e.g. anxiety, PTSD, suicidal tendency) (“Domestic Violence against Women and Girls,” 9-12). Furthermore, Johnson states that children who grow up in domestically violent family are far more likely to become hardened criminals, as evidenced by studies of prison inmates showing a strong correlation between criminals and their domestically violent family backgrounds. This criminal breeding impact of domestic violence has radically transformed the view of the US criminal justice on DV. Today, the American people perceive DV as a violent crime with far-reaching adverse consequences. (60) To sum-up, children who grow up in a home marred with DV confront challenges and risks that can persist a lifetime: Children are at high risk of becoming victims of DV, too; The physical, emotional and social development of the child is most likely to be harmed; and Violence is most likely to persist through generations. (UNICEF, “Behind Closed Doors,” 6) F. Evaluating and Enhancing the Effectiveness of Batterer Intervention Programs Having proven to be tragic and costly, domestic violence has been increasingly taking serious attention in the US with “more accurate methods of measuring its incidence hav[ing] been developed, new laws hav[ing] been enacted, and a plethora of agencies hav[ing] been established to not only support victims but also prevent its occurrence” (Summers & Hoffman 170). Brewster’s discussion on treatment programs for cases of DV shows that interventions address both victims and batterers. Treatment programs for victims mainly focus on providing sheltering, health care and economic assistance to help them be back on their feet and live a normal life again. On the other hand, intervention programs for batterers mainly focus on understanding the cause of the aggression and anger management. Furthermore, Brewster notes some of the problems in determining the effectiveness of the existing intervention programs: (a) only few of the many existing programs for DV victims have been evaluated; (b) evaluations conducted are weak methodologically that results are mixed thus failing to establish the effectiveness of the intervention program; (c) and only few batterer treatment programs have been evaluated similarly producing mixed results. (38-41). Hence the need to conduct further study on the effectiveness of DV intervention programs, most especially on batterers, simply because who can stop DV is primarily the abuser. Works Cited Bickerstaff, Linda. Violence against Women: Public Health and Human Rights. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2010. Brewster, Mary P. “Domestic Violence Theories, Research, and Practice Implications.” Ed.Albert R. Roberts. Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal Remedies, 23-44. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Bullock, Cathy Ferrand. “Framing Domestic Violence Fatalities: Coverage by Utah Newspapers.” Women's Studies in Communication 30 (2007): 34+. Cavanaugh, Mary M. and Gelles, Richard J. “The Utility of Male Domestic Violence Offender Typologies: New Directions for Research, Policy and Practice.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20 (February 2005): 155-166. Correia, Felicia Collins. “Domestic Violence Can Be Cured.” USA Today 126 (November 1997): 32+. Davis, Richard L. Domestic Violence: Facts and Fallacies. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998. Hague, Gill, Mullender, Audrey and Aris, Rosemary. Is Anyone Listening? Accountability and Women Survivors of Domestic Violence. London: Routledge, 2003. Jenkins, Pamela and Davidson, Barbara Parmer. Stopping Domestic Violence: How a Community Can Prevent Spousal Abuse. US: Springer, 2001. Johnson, Richard. “Changing Attitudes about Domestic Violence.” Law & Order 50 (2002): 60+. Kelly, Linda. “Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State.” Florida State University Law Review 30 (2003): 791-855. Maiuro, Roland D. and O’Leary, K. Daniel (Eds). “Preface.” Psychological Abuse in Violent Domestic Relations, ix-xx. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2001. McCue, Margi Laird. Domestic Violence: A Reference Handbook. Sta. Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. A Framework for Understanding the Nature and Dynamics of Domestic Violence, Revised edition. September 2006. 8 October 2011 . Myers, John E.B. Myers on evidence in child, domestic, and elder abuse cases, Vol. 1. US: Aspen Publishers, 2005. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV). Domestic Violence Facts. (July 2007): 1-2. 8 October 2011 . Nauert, Rick. “Personality Types in Domestic Violence Cases.” Psych Central. 13 August 2010. 9 October 2011 . Peters, Scott W., Trepal, Heather C., De Vries, Sabina M., Day, Sally W. and Leeth, Christopher. “Victims of Domestic Violence and Front-Line Workers: A Helping Paradigm.” Michigan Journal of Counseling 36 (2009): 8+. Potter-Efron, Ronald T. “Anger, Agrression, Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse.” Eds. Hamel, John and Nicholls, Tonia L. Family Intervention in Domestic Violence: A Handbook of Gender-Inclusive Theory and Treatment, 437-456. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2007. Salber, Patricia R. and Taliaferro, Ellen H. The Physician’s Guide to Domestic Violence: How to ask the right questions and recognize abuse – Another way to save life. US: Volcano Press, 1995. Sanderson, Christiane. Counselling Survivors of Domestic Abuse. London, UK and Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2008. Shipway, Lyn. Domestic Violence: A Handbook for Health Professionals. London: Routledge, 2004. Stephens, Nanette and McDonald, Renee. “Assessment of Women Who Seek Shelter from Abusing Partners.” Eds. Vincent, John P. and Jouriles, Ernest N. Domestic Violence: Guidelines for Research-Informed Practice, 78-101. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000. Stimel, Carolyn. “The Mind of a Batterer.” A Self-Study Course. Tallahassee, FL: The Floreida Psychological Association. Summers, Randal W. and Hoffman, Allan M. “United States.” Ed. Summers, Randal W. Domestic Violence: A Global View, 169-194. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Tjaden, Patricia and Thoennes, Nancy. Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, July 2000. 3 October 2011 . Umberson, Debra, Anderson, Kristin, Glick, Jennifer and Shapiro, Adam. “Domestic Violence, Personal Control and Gender.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (1998): 442+. UNICEF. Behind Closed Doors: The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children. 3 October 2011 . UNICEF. “Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls.” Innocenti Digest 6 (June 2000): 1-19. Voigt, Lydia and Thornton, William E. “Russia.” Ed. Summers, Randal W. Domestic Violence: A Global View, 97-110. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002. Weissman, Deborah M. “The Personal Is Political-and Economic: Rethinking Domestic Violence.” Brigham Young University Law Review 2007 (2007): 387+. West, Marty. “Non-traditional Strategies for Domestic Violence.” Law & Order 53 (September 2005): 10. Read More