Individual learns the negative and positive outcomes behaviour

One of the biggest concerns for the literature that has been reviewed is the fact that most of them focus on a specific gender rather than keeping it gender neutral. Largely in society, and in the feminist theoretical work, men are the antagonists while women are the sufferers of violence. By honing in on specifically men as the aggressors in society creates a void in all the empirical research by failing to study women as aggressors. A need for a gender neutral assessment of intimate partner violence is essential for filling the current void in the literature and understanding “why” partners become violent (Bell, 2008). Keeping this study gender neutral will be essential due to simple fact that it will be one of a few studies that is completely gender neutral and does not place labels on either man as the abuser or females as the victims, it leaves the roles completely open to either sex. For example, another study that has kept it gender neutral examined prevalence data from a large youth violence survey and found that perpetration to peers was more prevalent for men than for women and that IPV was more prevalent for women than for men (Bossarta, 2008). A similar pattern was found in a large US representative sample of adults by Klevens, Simon, and Chen (2012): whereby men were more likely than women to physically aggress to a friend or to a stranger, women were more likely than men to physically aggress to a partner. These two studies have kept it gender neutral and analyzed both sides of Intimate Partner Violence which is key to get the best understanding of this phenomenon.

Literature Review:

Differential Association: Originally introduced by Edwin Sutherland, Differential Association, one of the first elements of Social Learning Theory, says that different groups like family, friends, and peers shape and form the behaviours of an individual. Sutherland went on to argue that learning takes place primarily in intimate personal groups and includes not only the techniques of committing crime but the motives, rationalizations, and attitudes which accompany crime. It could be assumed that at this stage, a lack of appropriate teaching by the family may explain why some individuals view physical violence as an acceptable behaviour in a relationship (Bell, 2008). For example, a number of researchers have identified a correlation in the viewing of violent acts by children to the acceptance of violent acts while approaching adulthood ((Feerick & Haugaard, 1999; Koverola & Heger, 2003; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997; Reitzel-Jaffe & Wolfe, 2001; Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998).

It is also important to keep in mind the roles that peers play during the adolescent years. This is where children will learn good and bad behaviours that will help shape them in their years to come. These behaviours can range anywhere from sharing toys and learning how to help their peers to bullying and acting out in class. Through Differential Association, an individual learns the negative and positive outcomes of behaviour. If he is not punished by family, the first group he interacts with, for his violent tendencies, he sees it as acceptable behaviour. If his peers and friends, too, who will influence his life as he grows up, are unable to punish him or support his violence with their own examples of abusive relationships, it will further reinforce his tendencies. (Sellers et al. 2005).

Some of the power control variables found associated with domestic violence on college campuses include controlling behaviours, jealousy, threats, and humiliation (Gage & Hutchinson, 2006; Hadjar, Baier, Boehnke, & Hagan; Harper & Voigt, 2007; Miller, 2006; Raynor, Riow, Cantin, Drouin, & Dube, 2004).

DeKeseredy (2000) stated preventive measures like stronger parenting could reduce the tendencies for violence among men. Keith Bell found that this `significantly correlated with the independent variables of differential association and reinforcement’ presented by `lack of parenting, lack of positive reinforcement by parents.’’

Theory:

In the literature reviewed on the topic, four theories have stood out as the strongest reasons for intimate partner violence. These theories are male peer support theory, (DeKeseredy, 1988), which argues that certain all-male peer groups encourage, justify, and support the abuse of women, the social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) which holds that labeling someone an abuser leads to increased criminal behavior and the intergenerational transmission theory (Egeland, 1993) which argues that kids who experience violence at the hands of parents and/or witness parents’ violence toward one another will learn that violence is appropriate in interpersonal settings and will imitate these early childhood lessons in their adult relationships. The fourth being social control theory which he states, “intimate partner violence occurs in the absence of social controls which would bond people to the social order and negatively sanction family members for acts of violence’’ (p. 157). He goes on to say that three points of the combined exchange/social control theory are applied to examining causes of family violence: (1) family violence will occur when rewards outweigh costs; (2) lack of effective social controls in the family decreases costs and, therefore, makes violence more likely; and (3) family and social structures, including inequality, privacy norms of the family, and perceptions of masculinity reduce the costs and thereby increase the rewards of using violence. The point that Gelles is trying to get across is that to decrease violence in intimate partners, rewards must be decreased and the costs of committing these violent acts must be increased.

The increased likelihood of victimization of violence as the result of one’s own perpetration of violence, or increased association with violent peers and family, has been significantly correlated with physical perpetration and victimization of violence in intimate relationships. Therefore, it is hypothesized that children who witness abuse in a parental relationship will more likely recognize violence as an acceptable course of action in dating relationships (Bell, 2008). Individuals who take on this belief will open them up themselves and make themselves more vulnerable to be victims of IPV. If boys and girls growing up in this world continuously witness spousal abuse and abuse within their friends circle, they will perceive it as a normal action for dating relationships and the cycle of IPV will inevitably continue.

xThis research will seek out determine if there is a correlation between becoming a perpetrator of violence and/or becoming a victim of violence and witnessing intimate partner violence between peers and parents. By comparing the independent variables, defined as the differential association and the dependent variables physical and psychological victimization to determine the strongest correlation between learning violence and with whom one associates.