Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

By William D. Norwood, Ernest N. Jouriles, Renee McDonald, and Paul R. Swank

2004
NCJ 199713
William D. Norwood, Ph.D., is Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Houston and
Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Texas Health
Science Center at Houston. Ernest N. Jouriles, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology at Southern
Methodist University. Renee McDonald, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at
Southern Methodist University. Paul R. Swank, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Developmental
Pediatric Division of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science
Center at Houston.

This research was supported by grant number 98–WT–VX–0005 from the National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Findings and conclusions of the
research reported here are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

Theoretical Overview
Physical violence against women by their male intimate partners is a public health problem of
enormous importance. From infrequent slaps, pushes, grabs, or shoves to frequent and severe
life-threatening assaults, intimate violence in its various forms has significant individual and
social consequences. Fear, depression, intense anxiety, and social isolation are common among
battered women, and the collateral damage that follows from domestic violence extends beyond
the individual suffering of victims (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998; National Research Council,
1996; Stephens, McDonald, and Jouriles, 2000). For example, children of battered women are at
high risk for being victimized (Appel and Holden, 1998), suffering significant emotional and
behavioral maladjustment (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998; Jouriles et al., 2001; Ware et al.,
2001), and perpetuating violence in their interpersonal relationships (O’Leary, 1988).

At the community level, the burden occasioned by violence against women includes lost work
time and wages, reduced productivity, and costs associated with the provision of health care and
social services for victims and their families (National Research Council, 1996). In short, the
individual and social consequences of intimate partner violence are great. A better understanding
of the development of domestic violence and its causes and correlates should be a national
scientific and public policy priority.

Theories of the development of domestic violence differ in how they conceive of the relation
between domestic violence and “other forms of deviance.” (Such deviancy encompasses behavior
other than domestic violence, such as theft, fraud, violence toward nonfamily members, and
illicit substance use that is criminal, antisocial, or otherwise in violation of the prevailing
community norms.) Some theorists and researchers have speculated that men’s domestic violence
is but one expression of a general tendency to engage in deviant behavior (see Simons et al.,
1995). Rooted in general theories of crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990), this view maintains
that domestic violence, like other criminal or antisocial behavior, might best be explained by
theories that invoke general explanatory principles such as low self-control or antisocial behavior
traits. Such theories suggest that domestic violence and other forms of deviant behavior (though
not necessarily any specific form of deviant behavior) should be associated. Such an association
would be indicated by a greater prevalence of deviant behavior among men who engage in
domestic violence compared with those who do not.

This theoretical approach contrasts with the argument that domestic violence is a unique form of
deviance, distinct in cause and correlates from other forms of deviance, and thus requires its own
special theories for adequate explanation. According to proponents of this view, domestically
violent men are expected to differ from other men and from one another in a variety of important
ways (Gordon, 2000; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997). However, a tendency to engage in
criminal, antisocial, or other deviant behavior is not expected to be one of the ways that most
domestically violent men differ from nonviolent men. That is, men who engage in the most
common forms of domestic violence (relatively infrequent slaps, pushes, grabs, and shoves) are
expected to be indistinguishable from other men in terms of other deviant behavior (Holtzworth-
Munroe et al., 2000; Gordon, 2000). Those men who do engage in frequent and severe domestic
violence (who are often found in clinic or court-referred samples) also engage in high levels of

II–8–3
 Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

other deviant behavior. But these men constitute only a tiny proportion of all domestically violent
men and are thought to be very different from men who engage in the most common forms of
domestic violence (those men often found in representative community samples). Thus, the high
levels of other deviant behavior found among the subset of the most violent abusers are not
expected to characterize domestically violent men in general. In short, this theoretical approach
suggests that the prevalence of deviant behavior in a representative community sample of
domestically violent men should not differ from the prevalence of deviant behavior among men
who are not domestically violent.

Exploring the General Deviance Explanation

This research is the first step in an investigation to determine whether domestic violence, as it
most commonly occurs in community samples, and other forms of deviance are related in a
manner consistent with a general deviance explanation of domestic violence. Although the
findings of much previous research appear consistent with a general deviance explanation and
suggest that further study is warranted, existing research fails to address the issue directly for
several reasons: The nature of the samples selected, the range of deviant behaviors investigated,
and other methodological idiosyncrasies create interpretive ambiguity or limit generalization. It is
unclear, for example, whether the co-occurrence of domestic violence and other specific forms of
deviant behavior (e.g., violence toward strangers) found in clinic or court-referred samples (see
Gondolf, 1988; Shields, McCall, and Hanneke, 1988) is likely to be true for community samples
as well. It is also unclear whether the relations obtained for specific deviant behaviors are likely
to reflect the relation between domestic violence and deviant behavior in general. The few
studies that report an association between domestic violence and other forms of deviant behavior
in community samples correlate this association in a way that precludes determining the
comparative prevalence of deviant behavior among men who do or do not engage in domestic
violence (see Simons et al., 1995; Magdol et al., 1998).

The present research defines deviance broadly and examines the co-occurrence of domestic
violence and other forms of deviance, instead of analyzing the correlation between them. The
authors consider the occurrence of one or more of a wide variety of deviant acts rather than one
or two specific types, using a community sample of young men rather than a clinic or court-
referred sample, so that “typical” rather than extreme domestic violence can be investigated. A
longitudinal component is included that accounts for past deviant behavior as well as deviant
behavior that is concurrent with the domestic violence. Support for a general deviance
explanation of domestic violence as it occurs in the community would increase if the following
hypotheses were confirmed:

♦ Domestic violence and other forms of deviant behavior are associated concurrently, as
indicated by a higher concurrent prevalence rate of deviant behavior among men who engage
in domestic violence compared with men who do not.

♦ Domestic violence and other forms of deviant behavior are associated prospectively, as
indicated by differing past prevalence rates of deviant behavior. That is, men who have

II–8–4
 Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

engaged in domestic violence would be more likely to have engaged in deviant behavior in
the past than men who have not.

Methods
Data for this research was taken from the National Youth Survey (NYS) and consists of a
national probability sample of continental U.S. households that had a youth between the ages of
11 and 17 as of December 1976. This dataset has been widely researched, and the sample
characteristics and sampling strategy are presented in other reports (see Huizinga, 1978). This
study concentrates on just two of the multiple waves of data that were collected: Wave V (1980)
when the participants were between 15 and 21, and Wave VI (1983) when the participants were
between 18 and 24. More specifically, it focuses on Wave VI men who were married or
cohabiting with a partner of the opposite sex and who completed a measure of domestic violence
(n = 176).

Measures
Domestic Violence. Men’s violence toward their female partners was measured using the eight
physical aggression items from the Straus Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) (Straus, 1979). Men
who had engaged in one or more of these behaviors in the year prior to assessment were
classified as domestically violent; those who refrained from such behavior were classified as not
domestically violent.

Deviant Behavior. Men’s general deviance (defined as acts other than domestic violence) was
measured by participants’ responses to 44 items at Wave VI and 40 items at Wave V that
describe illegal or socially proscribed behavior. Items at both waves sampled a range of deviant
behavior, from relatively minor (e.g., stole something worth $5 or less) to more serious deviant
acts (e.g., set fire to a building, car, or other property). Most items, however, fell between these
extremes (e.g., snatched someone’s purse or wallet or picked someone’s pocket; stole money,
goods, or property from employer). Several of the deviance items differed at the two waves to
reflect the age differences of the groups, but most were the same. Illicit substance use was
included in this measure of deviance at both waves. Questions about the use of specific
substances (e.g., marijuana, cocaine, and heroin) were combined into a single item and scored
present (the use of at least one illicit substance) or absent (no report of illicit substance use).
Participants were classified according to the number of different types of deviant acts they had
engaged in (i.e., none, one or more, two or more, three or more). Deviance data were missing for
13 men at Wave V, reducing the sample size for analyses using Wave V to 163.

Findings
Domestic Violence
Of the 176 married or cohabiting men in the Wave VI sample, 66 (37.5 percent) reported
engaging in one or more acts of physical violence against a female partner (as measured by the
CTS) in the year prior to assessment. The 1-year prevalence rate for domestic violence (37.5
percent) is comparable to rates obtained from other large samples of young couples (see Magdol

II–8–5
 Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

et al., 1997; O’Leary et al., 1989). As expected, the levels of domestic violence in this sample
were relatively low, with the domestically violent men reporting, on average, three to four violent
acts (M = 3.7, SD = 3.67) in the year prior to assessment. This is comparable to the frequency of
husbands’ violent acts in other nationally representative community samples (see Straus, 1990).
The highest number of acts reported by any participant was 18.

These numbers contrast with the levels of violence typical of clinic, court-referred, or shelter
samples. Women in shelter samples, for example, typically report experiencing more than 60 acts
of husband-to-wife violence in a year, with the majority reporting severe violence such as
repeated beatings and threats with knives or guns (Jouriles et al., 1998; Jouriles et al., 2000).

Deviant Behavior
To measure the co-occurrence of domestic violence with other forms of deviant behavior, the
authors created a dichotomous variable to indicate whether the men reported engaging in one or
more deviant acts in the year prior to assessment. At Wave VI, 66 percent of the total sample
reported engaging in one or more deviant acts; at Wave V, conducted 3 years prior to Wave VI,
75 percent of the total sample reported engaging in one or more deviant acts.

Given the high rates of deviant behavior that were reported using this arguably liberal
operationalization of deviance, two additional variables were created: one to reflect whether or
not the men reported engaging in two or more deviant acts in the past year; the other to reflect
whether or not the men reported engaging in three or more deviant acts in the past year. Sixty
percent of the Wave V sample and 54 percent of the Wave VI sample reported two or more acts.
Three or more acts were reported by 48 percent of the Wave V sample and 38 percent of the
Wave VI sample. The authors examined the co-occurrence of domestic violence and other acts of
deviance using each of these increasingly conservative operationalizations of deviance.

Exhibit 1. Co-occurrence of Domestic Violence and Concurrent Deviant Behavior (Wave VI)

Prevalence of Deviant Behavior

Number Engaging Domestically Not Domestically
Conceptualization of in Deviant Acts Violent Violent
2
Deviant Behavior (n = 176) (n = 66) (n = 110) χ
> 1 act 116 (66%) 76% 60% 4.56*
> 2 acts 95 (54%) 65% 47% 5.31*
> 3 acts 66 (38%) 53% 28% 10.87*
* p < .05

The co-occurrence of domestic violence with current deviant behavior (based on the Wave VI
sample) is presented in exhibit 1. Seventy-six percent of domestically violent men reported
engaging in one or more concurrent deviant acts. Chi-square analyses indicate that a greater
proportion of domestically violent men engaged in other deviant behavior than men who were
not domestically violent, χ2 (1, n = 176) = 4.56, p < .05, φ = .16. This was also true for the more
conservative definitions of deviance: two or more acts, χ2 (1, n = 176) = 5.31, p < .01, φ = .17;
and three or more acts, χ2 (1, n = 176) = 10.87, p < .01, φ = .25.

II–8–6
 Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

The co-occurrence of domestic violence with past deviant behavior (based on the Wave V
sample) is presented in exhibit 2. Eighty-nine percent of domestically violent men reported
engaging in one or more deviant acts at the Wave V assessment. Chi-square analyses indicated
that domestic violence at Wave VI was predicted by deviant behavior at Wave V, χ2 (1, n = 163)
= 10.21, p < .01, φ = .25. This was also true for the more conservative definitions of deviance:
two or more acts, χ2 (1, n = 163) = 8.95, p < .01, φ = .23; and three or more acts, χ2 (1, n = 163)
= 12.50, p < .01, φ = .28.

Exhibit 2. Co-occurrence of Domestic Violence and Past Deviant Behavior (Wave V)

Prevalence of Deviant Behavior

Number Engaging Domestically Not Domestically
Conceptualization of in Deviant Acts Violent Violent
2
Deviant Behavior (n = 163) (n = 62) (n = 101) χ
> 1 act 122 (75%) 89% 66% 10.21*
> 2 acts 97 (60%) 74% 50% 8.95*
> 3 acts 79 (48%) 66% 38% 12.50*
* p < .05

Discussion
This research investigated whether domestic violence as it typically occurs in the community is
associated with other acts of deviance in a way that is consistent with a general deviance
explanation of domestic violence. Results indicate that most of the men who had engaged in
domestic violence (76 percent) also reported engaging in one or more other deviant acts
concurrently. An even larger proportion (89 percent) reported a history of deviant behavior 3
years earlier. Although the rates of deviant behavior among men who were not domestically
violent were also high (60 percent and 66 percent, respectively), the rates for men who had
engaged in domestic violence were significantly higher.

The high base rates (concurrent and past) reported for deviant behavior across the entire sample
indicate that deviance is rather common during adolescence and young adulthood. To determine
whether the relationship between domestic violence and other deviant behavior would hold under
more stringent definitions of deviance, the authors reanalyzed the data with increasingly
conservative operationalizations of deviance: two or more deviant acts in the past year, and three
or more deviant acts in the past year. The pattern of results, however, did not change. Domestic
violence and other deviant behavior were associated both concurrently and prospectively,
regardless of the operationalization of deviance used.

Implications for Researchers

These findings are consistent with a general deviance explanation of domestic violence and
suggest a potentially fruitful area of future study. These preliminary but provocative results
underscore the need for further investigation of potential developmental antecedents of the most

II–8–7
 Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

common forms of domestic violence. The authors intend to follow up these preliminary analyses
to clarify the relation between domestic violence and other acts of deviance.

Implications for Practitioners

The nature of the relation between domestic violence and other acts of deviance, and the
developmental model of domestic violence this relation may suggest, has important policy and
practice implications. If a general tendency to engage in deviant behavior accounts for a
significant proportion of domestic violence as it typically occurs in the community, interventions
designed to prevent or reduce deviant behavior in general may similarly prevent or reduce
domestic violence. However, if the general deviance explanation does not account for a
significant proportion of domestic violence as it typically occurs in the community, interventions
designed to address other distinguishing characteristics of men who engage in this form of
domestic violence—perhaps with greater attention to the unique context of intimate partner
violence—may be more effective.

References
Appel, A.E., and Holden, G.W. (1998). “The Co-Occurrence of Spouse and Physical Child
Abuse: A Review and Appraisal.” Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 578–599.

Gondolf, E.W. (1988). “Who Are Those Guys? Toward a Behavioral Typology of Batterers.”
Violence and Victims, 3(3), 187–203.

Gordon, M. (2000). “Definitional Issues in Violence Against Women: Surveillance and Research
From a Violence Research Perspective.” Violence Against Women, 6(7), 747–783.

Gottfredson, M.R., and Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., and Sandin, E. (1997). “A Brief Review of the
Research on Husband Violence: Part 1: Maritally Violent Versus Nonviolent Men.” Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 2(1), 65–99.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Jouriles, E. N., Smutzler, N., and Norwood, W. (1998). “Victims of
Domestic Violence.” In A.S. Bellack, and M. Hersen, (eds.), Comprehensive Clinical
Psychology. Oxford: Pergamon.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. and Stuart, G.L. (1994). “Typologies of Male Batterers: Three Subtypes
and the Differences Among Them.” Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 476–497.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J.C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., and Stuart, G.L. (2000).
“Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) Batterer Typology.” Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 1000–1019.

II–8–8
 Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

Huizinga, D. (1978). “Description of the National Youth Sample.” The National Youth Survey
Project, Report No. 2. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.

Jouriles, E.N., McDonald, R., Norwood, W.D., Ware, H.S., Spiller, L.C. and Swank, P.R. (1998).
“Knives, Guns, and Interparent Violence: Relations With Child Behavior Problems.” Journal of
Family Psychology, 12, 178–194.

Jouriles, E.N., Norwood, W.D., McDonald, R., and Peters, B. (2001). “Domestic Violence and
Child Adjustment.” In J. Grych and F. Fincham (eds.), Interparental Conflict and Child
Development: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
315–336.

Jouriles, E.N., Spiller, L.C., Stephens, N., McDonald, R. and Swank, P. (2000). “Variability in
Adjustment of Children of Battered Women: The Role of Child Appraisals of Interparent
Conflict.” Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 233–249.

Magdol, L., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Newman, D.L., Fagan J.A., and Silva, P.A. (1997). “Gender
Differences in Partner Violence in a Birth Cohort of 21-Year-Olds: Bridging the Gap Between
Clinical and Epidemiological Approaches.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65,
68–78.

Magdol, L., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., and Silva, P.A. (1998). “Developmental Antecedents of
Partner Abuse: A Prospective-Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 375–
389.

National Research Council. (1996). Understanding Violence Against Women. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

O’Leary, K.D. (1988). “Physical Aggression Between Spouses: A Social Learning Theory
Perspective.” In V.B. Van Hasselt et al., (eds.), Handbook of Family Violence. New York:
Plenum Press, 31–55.

O’Leary, K.D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., and Tyree, A. (1989).
“Prevalence and Stability of Physical Aggression Between Spouses: A Longitudinal Analysis.”
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263–268.

Shields, N.M., McCall, G.J., and Hanneke, C.R. (1988). “Patterns of Family and Nonfamily
Violence: Violent Husbands and Violent Men.” Violence and Victims, 3(2), 83–97.

Simons, R.L., Wu, C., Johnson, C., and Conger, R.D. (1995). “A Test of Various Perspectives on
the Intergenerational Transmission of Domestic Violence.” Criminology, 33, 141–171.

Stephens, N., McDonald, R., and Jouriles, E.N. (2000). “Helping Children in Shelters for Abused
Women: Lessons Learned.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 3, 147–160.

II–8–9
 Domestic Violence and Deviant Behavior

Straus, M.A. (1979). “Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)
Scales.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88.

———. (1990). “Injury and Frequency of Assault and the ‘Representative Sample Fallacy’ in
Measuring Wife Beating and Child Abuse.” In M.A. Straus and R.J. Gelles (eds.), Physical
Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 75–91.

Ware, H.S., Jouriles, E.N., Spiller, L.C., McDonald, R., Swank, P.R., and Norwood, W.D.
(2001). “Conduct Problems Among Children at Battered Women’s Shelters: Prevalence and
Stability of Maternal Reports.” Journal of Family Violence, 16(3), 291–307.

II–8–10