Content uploaded by Silvia Straka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Silvia Straka on Apr 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is an original manuscript/ preprint of an article published by Taylor & Francis in
the Journal of Emotional Abuse in October 2008.
Straka, S., & Montminy, L. (2008). Family violence: Through the lens of power and
control. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(3), 255–279.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926790802262499
Page 1 of 37
Address correspondence to Silvia Straka, 201 Sherbourne St, Suite 1705, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5A 3X2. E-mail:
silvia.straka@gmail.com.
Silvia M. Straka, MSW, is a PhD candidate at the McGill University School of Social Work and a sessional instructor at
the Ryerson University School of Social Work. Lyse Montminy is the co-director of CRI-VIFF (an interdisciplinary
research centre on family violence) and an associate professor at the Université de Montréal School of Social Work
We are grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, who funded the study that inspired
this article. The writing of this article was funded by CSS Cavendish and CRI-VIFF. Thanks also to Danielle Riou, who
helped keep this article on track and gave useful feedback.
Family Violence: Through the Lens of Power and Control
Silvia M. Straka and Lyse Montminy
How to intervene in situations falling between the fields of child abuse, domestic violence, and elder
abuse? This literature review from a feminist perspective explores some theoretical issues, using the lens
of power and control. Common themes that emerged: the complexity of power dynamics, intrafamilial
patterns of abuse, and the role of psychological abuse. Practice recommendations were to: (a) distinguish
between "abuse" (with power dynamics) and "mistreatment" (without), (b) consider structural limitations
of practice, and (c) assess the role of perpetrator pathologies. More research is needed on psychological
abuse and the workings of power. We need integrative models of practice, supported by
screening/assessment tools and training.
family violence, domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse, power and control, psychological abuse,
feminist
Page 2 of 37
FAMILY VIOLENCE: THROUGH THE LENS OF POWER AND CONTROL
“Family violence” is an umbrella term for “violence occur[ing] in relationships of intimacy, kinship,
dependency, or trust” (Ristock, 1995, p. v). It consists of three major categories, each of which has
evolved as a separate field, beginning with child abuse in the 1960s, domestic violence in the 1970s,
and elder abuse in the 1980s. Although these are just different forms of the same larger problem,
there has been little overlap or dialogue across these three fields (Featherstone & Trinder, 1997, pp.
149-150; Heise, 1998, p. 262; O'Leary, 1993, p. 10). This can cause problems for practitioners
because real-life situations of abuse do not always fall neatly into one category. What happens when
workers encounter a situation that is abusive, but which spans more than one category, or which falls
into a gap between categories? What models are available to help practitioners understand these
kinds of situations and provide an adequate response?
These questions were raised by an elder abuse intervention team in a Quebec health and social
services agency. They asked us, as their research partners, to help them identify an intervention
model for domestic violence among older couples. The team was using a generic elder abuse
intervention model, with the most common interventions being: cognitive and functional assessment
of both partners, referral to medical services, provision of homemaker services, referral to respite
programs and day centers, organization of interim and long-term placements, and referral to legal
services (Lithwick, Beaulieu, Gravel, & Straka, 1999, pp. 102-104). However, this approach was not
adequate for the domestic violence situations they encountered1.
To respond to their need, we, together with the practitioners, initiated two similar research projects in
two different practice settings: homecare workers in CLSCs2 (the primary providers of elder abuse
intervention services) and women's shelter workers (the primary providers of domestic violence
interventions). The purpose of the research was to explore how these workers understand the
Page 3 of 37
problem of domestic violence against older women and how they had actually intervened in such
cases.
Our first step was a critical review of the practice literature (Straka & Montminy, 2006), which
brought us face-to-face with the fragmented nature of the problem of family violence. We found that
elder abuse and domestic violence interventions models had two separate models of practice, two
separate points of entry into the helping system, and two separate conceptual frameworks – no
wonder it was difficult for practitioners to help people whose situations fell between the two fields.
We realized that what we were encountering was a theoretical problem, since two different
understandings of a problem invariably lead to two different types of responses (Dell & Korotana,
2000, p. 287). It was essential to conceptually integrate elder abuse and domestic violence in order to
advance practice for cases falling “outside the box”.
In this article, we will examine some conceptual issues. By theoretically exploring the problem of
family violence using a wide-angle lens, we hope to uncover elements that can help develop a more
integrative approach to practice.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Our review of the family violence literature was partly guided by a social construction of social
problems perspective (Best, 1995). We were less interested in the "real" causes of family violence
than in looking at how certain key discourses have constructed different understandings of the
problem (Yllö, 1993, p. 48). As noted by Dell and Korotana (2000), "the ways we talk about (and
research) domestic violence are themselves powerful social practices that systematically constitute
our understandings of both domestic violence and the people involved" (p. 287). It follows that these
socially constructed understandings define the social responses to the problem. If we could arrive at a
more integrated understanding of family violence, perhaps we could also develop a more integrated
Page 4 of 37
response. In pursuing this goal, we were greatly indebted to Gelles and Loseke’s (1993) Current
Controversies on Family Violence, which used a social problems framework to situate key debates in
the family violence field3. In their introductory and concluding chapters, the editors highlighted the
complexity of the problem and the challenges of dealing with so many theoretical perspectives, each
looking at different aspects of the problem.
Our primary approach to the problem was defined by a feminist perspective (Bograd & Yllö, 1988;
Harbison, 1999a; Vinton, 1999; Yllö, 1993). Consequently, the notion of power was our primary
analytical concept. While recognizing that oppressive social power relations are not the sole
determinants of intimate violence, we also believed that any explanations ignoring social power
relations are not only inadequate, but potentially harmful to people who have been the targets of such
violence.
A second key concept in our literature review was that of harm, an important area of concern in all
three fields (Campbell, 1999; Hudson, 1991; Johnson & Bunge, 2001; Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006). As
we read through the literature, we learned that "harm" usually refers to visibly measurable harm that
provides evidence of abuse, i.e., physical harm such as bruises, broken bones. This central focus on
physical harm means that physical abuse has played a very important role in the social construction
of all three forms of family violence. Claims-makers used horrific images of physical abuse to get the
public's attention – first for child abuse then domestic violence, and more recently elder abuse
(Ashcraft, 2000). It was an effective strategy to achieve recognition of family violence as a social
problem (Loseke, 1992), but it has also become problematic for several reasons. For one thing, it
greatly constrains our understanding of abuse, limiting it to the physical dimension (Barnett, Miller-
Perrin, & Perrin, 2005, p. 12). In addition, individuals who are not severely physically battered often
do not identify themselves as abused, in part because they think they do not fit into the definition
(World Health Organisation, 2002, p. 9). Furthermore, the notion of harm becomes reduced to
Page 5 of 37
physical harm, which is inadequate and ignores important forms of longer-term trauma, e.g.,
posttraumatic stress disorder (Scott, 2007).
To go beyond this mostly physical understanding of abuse, we identified a third key concept:
psychological abuse4. We wanted to de-center the role of physical abuse and see what the literature
had to say about psychological abuse, which has been much more difficult to operationalize and
study (Hamarman, Pope, & Czaja, 2002).
A fourth concept we considered important was intentionality, more specifically, the lack of
intentionality5 (Hudson, 1991). Harm can and often does occur without intentionality. So if there is no
intentionality, is it really "abuse" or something else? For example, dementia could cause a man with
no past history of violence to become physically aggressive against his wife. Is that abuse? Our
practitioners did not think so (although they did see the need to intervene in the situation).
To have a manageable way of discussing the many perspectives on family violence, we broadly
grouped them into the three categories used by (Gelles & Loseke, 1993b, pp. 1-5):
· 1. Psychological perspectives (e.g., O'Leary, 1993) focus on the role of personality traits and
psychopathology.
·2. Sociological perspectives (e.g., Gelles, 1993), also known as the family violence perspective
(Kurz, 1989), are complicated theories that look at the role of social structural influences,
particularly the institution of the family, in encouraging family violence.
·3. Feminist perspectives (e.g., Yllö, 1993) focus on how gender inequalities shape our social
structures and make violence by men against women possible.
While not all-inclusive6, we found this grouping useful in talking about different approaches.
Finally, to aid our theoretical exploration, we found it helpful to visualize these three fields as three
baskets. The first step was to look into each basket, examining the types of situations in it and
identifying what they might have in common. What conceptual frameworks are used in each basket?
Page 6 of 37
What criteria are used to throw something into a given basket? Our second step was to conceptually
dump the contents of each basket into one big pile and try to group them differently – in a way that
might be useful for practitioners encountering situations that did not seem to otherwise fit into any
one basket. We hoped to end up with a more inclusive understanding of family violence that could
help us respond to situations falling between the fields and to thus make visible some of the presently
invisible situations.
Methods
We conducted a critical review of the literature in the field of domestic violence, elder abuse, and
child abuse. In our first (and most comprehensive) search, we used the PsycINFO and Social Works
Abstracts databases. One year later, we updated our review using the Scholars Portal Search, a
project of the Ontario Council of University Libraries. The Scholars Portal provides a single point of
access for searching over 50 major databases (including PsycINFO) containing more than 23 million
references7.
We read all the abstracts and selected articles we felt were most relevant to our review, based on the
concepts we had defined. This reading and selection of articles was an iterative process, as each
group of articles raised more questions, some of which we chose pursue further through narrower
searches.
WITHIN BASKETS: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ELDER ABUSE, AND CHILD ABUSE
In this section we will briefly review the literature found within each "basket", specifically referring
to the concepts of power, harm, psychological abuse, and (lack of) intentionality. We began with the
field of domestic violence for several reasons. First, it was one of the fields implicated in our practice
problem of domestic violence against older women. Second, we were already familiar with the
feminist literature in this field addressing the issue of power, so it seemed like a good starting point.
Page 7 of 37
And third, we suspected that this field would be somewhat less complex than the others, because it
involves only one type of relationship, the intimate partner dyad. After domestic violence, we looked
at elder abuse, which was also involved in our practice problem and which provided the practice
setting that initiated this study. Finally, we looked at the field of child abuse, to complete our review
of the family violence literature.
Domestic Violence
Feminist, psychological, and sociological perspectives.
Domestic violence was first identified as a problem by women, who conceptualized the problem and
its response from a feminist perspective. The central dynamic of intimate partner abuse is power and
control, in the context of a patriarchal society (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007). Men's
abuse of their female partners occurs they have the right to do so (Kurz, 1989, p. 494-497). Domestic
violence reflects men's need to have complete control over their female partners in particular and
social control over women in general (Dobash & Dobash; Shecter' as cited in Yllö, 1993). Feminists
thus believe that domestic violence is not a private problem, but rather a societal problem with
structural roots. Its epidemic prevalence in our society bears witness to this argument (Yllö, 1993;
Yllö & Bograd, 1988). Feminist perspectives have played a major role in the field since the early
1970s and have had a major impact on legislation, policy and practice (McPhail et al., 2007, p. 817).
However, early research in the field was dominated by psychological perspectives (O'Leary, 1993, p.
12; Yllö, 1993, p. 50). Examining the role of individual pathology and intrapersonal factors, studies
identified factors such as: poor impulse control, addictions, individual personality traits of both
perpetrator and victim, the dyadic interactions between partners, stress, ADHD, anxiety, depression,
and personality disorders (Brewster, 2002, p. 26; Geffner, 2005, p. 281; O'Leary, pp. 11-13; Yllö,
Page 8 of 37
2005, pp. 29-30). While these factors all can and do play a role in domestic violence, psychological
factors as a whole do not explain the problem of domestic violence 8. And although some of the
psychological research does look at the personal feelings of power or powerlessness, the notion of
power remains an issue of individual psychology, disconnected from larger social structures.
Sociological perspectives are a third major approach to domestic violence. Also known as the family
violence perspective (Kurz, 1989), this approach was pioneered by sociologists of the family such as
Gelles (Yllö, 1993, p. 50). Structural in nature, its core assumption is that "social structures affect
people and their behaviors", i.e., the social institution of the family promotes family violence (Gelles
& Loseke, 1993b, p. 1). However, this analysis is largely gender-neutral and places little emphasis on
the gendered nature of social structures (Gelles & Loseke, p. 2; Yllö, p. 50).
The debate about gender symmetry.
The feminist and family violence perspectives have two conceptually different views of violence:
as a means of exerting power and control or as a conflict strategy (Straus & Gelles; Straus; as
cited in Yllö, 1993, p. 51). This latter view led to the development of the Conflict Tactics Scale
(CTS; Straus, 1979), which has become the most widely used instrument in family violence
research (Yllö, 2005, p. 34), resulting in a very heated debate. Over 200 studies using this instrument
have reported gender symmetry in domestic violence (Straus, 2006). This is a serious challenge to the
feminist position, as it undermines the claim that unequal gender power relations are at the root of
domestic violence.
However, Johnson (1995), proposed an empirically-validated solution to this problem. Along with
other feminists, he critiqued the CTS as an instrument to measure family violence (versus family
conflict), because it looks at individual acts of violence without regard for the meaning and context
Page 9 of 37
of those acts (Johnson). He added some additional questions to the CTS, intended to capture the
meaning and context of reported violent acts.
The study's findings distinguished two major types of violence in intimate relationships: intimate (or
patriarchal) terrorism and common couple violence (Johnson, 1995). Intimate terrorism is when a
man systematically and regularly terrorizes his wife, his central motivation being to gain complete
control over “his” woman. Violence is almost always initiated by the man and the woman rarely
fights back, or if she does, it is in self-defense. Johnson used a feminist perspective to explain
intimate terrorism. Common couple violence (CCV), however, is a different phenomenon with
dynamics better described by the family violence tradition (Gelles, 1974; Straus, 1971). CCV does
not have a clear link to patriarchy and gender-power relations. Rather, it covers situations in which
"conflict occasionally gets 'out of hand,' leading usually to 'minor' and infrequent forms of violence"
(Johnson, p. 287). Johnson concluded that acts of physical violence can arise from different
motivations, contexts, and meanings. This study suggests that violence among intimate partners is
not necessarily the same as abuse. This is very a very important conceptual distinction, as it means
that violent interactions within couples can be attributed to quite different phenomena, thus requiring
two different approaches to intervention.
Johnson’s (1995) research thus gives us a way to group situations in the domestic violence basket
into two categories: violence with and violence without dynamics of power and control. The
situations we are most interested in are those identified as intimate terrorism, where a male abuser’s
goal is to exert power and control over his female partner through violence. As we go on to review
the areas of elder abuse and child abuse, we wonder if we will find similar distinctions between
patterns of violence with and without power and control.
Page 10 of 37
Psychological abuse.
The domestic violence literature provided some important insight about how power and control
dynamics play out in intimate relationships. While men use various strategies to gain power and
control over their female partners, this often occurs through psychological abuse (Dobash & Dobash,
1979; Montminy, 2000). In fact, Johnson (1995) suggested that if men are able to successfully
achieve control through psychological abuse, they may not even need to progress to physical
violence. Psychological abuse uses a wide range of control tactics, such as coercion and threats,
minimizing and blaming, putting her down, playing mind games, and so on (Dobash & Dobash;
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, n.d.; Montminy, 2000; Schwartz, Andersen, Strasser, &
Boulette, 2000). Older women interviewed about their experiences of psychological violence
identified similar tactics (Montminy, 2005). Such psychological abuse usually begins in small ways
and escalates. Over time, it effectively destroys a woman's self-esteem and self-confidence (Aguilar
& Nightingale, 1994).
Psychological abuse has serious negative outcomes, even if there are no other accompanying forms
of abuse (Street & Arias, 2001). It negatively impacts women's general functioning and physical
health and is also associated with depression and problem drinking (Arias, Street, & Body; Marshall;
Toman & Bhosley; as cited by Street & Arias). Physically abused women often report a more severe
impact from psychological abuse than from physical abuse (Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, &
Polek, 1990; Walker, 1979). In Follingstad et al.’s study, 71% of women reported that the
psychological abuse was worse than the physical abuse. These women did not differ from the rest of
the sample by the severity or frequency of physical abuse.
Psychological abuse is closely connected to all other kinds of abuse. Most experts agree that it
precedes, predicts, and co-exists with physical abuse and virtually all other forms of abuse. For
example, Schwartz et al. (2000) argued that “although psychological abuse may be present in
Page 11 of 37
intimate relations when physical violence is not, psychological abuse may be construed as a risk
factor for, and in many cases the precursor to, violent behavior in any couple” (p. 350). Tolman
(1999) also believed psychological abuse to be an important predictor of subsequent physical
violence, citing Murphy and O'Leary findings, which reported that men’s psychological aggression
18 months after marriage significantly predicted physical aggression one year later. The evidence
thus suggests that psychological abuse is an important means by which abusers gain power and
control over their intimate partners.
Summary of findings.
What we found in looking at the role of power in intimate partner violence was that acts of violence
between intimate partners occur in different context and have different meanings, in particular,
Johnson’s (1995) distinction between intimate terrorism, characterized by power and control
dynamics, and common couple violence, best described as a conflict issue. In beginning to construct
our conceptual framework, we would view the former as “abuse” and the latter as violence that is not
abuse, based on the presence or absence of power dynamics. Our second major finding was that
psychological abuse is an important means by which abusers gain power and control.
Elder Abuse
Elder abuse was first identified by health professionals working in geriatric and homecare services
(Biggs, 1996; Harbison, 1999b, p. 3) and covers a much wider range than domestic violence.
Perpetrators are often family members -- not only spouses (as in domestic violence), but also adult
children, grandchildren, or other relatives. They can also be neighbors, friends, acquaintances, paid
caregivers, or strangers. Furthermore, elder abuse covers a wider range of behaviors than domestic
Page 12 of 37
violence. It includes physical abuse, sexual violence, and psychological abuse (similar to domestic
violence), but it may also include a variety of other things such as neglect, over- or under-medication,
fraud, and even self-neglect (Bennett, Kingston, & Penhale, 1997; Glendenning, 1997; Hudson &
Carlson, 1998; Kozak, Elmslie, & Verdon, 1995).
The caregiver stress perspective.
Elder abuse is primarily concerned with risk and vulnerability related to impairments in the victim's
cognitive and physical functioning (McDonald & Collins, 2000; Pillemer, 1993). It is often believed
to be caused by caregiver stress. Such a perspective is not surprising, considering that elder abuse
developed within a predominantly medical model and a protectionist response (Harbison, 1999b).
The research has been largely shaped by legal definitions of elder abuse, rather than by theoretical
considerations. This makes sense considering that health care professionals have initiated much of
this research. Samples were often taken from agency case files, representing a relatively small
subgroup of the older population -- those with cognitive and functional dependencies. This is a far
cry from studying abused older adults in the general population, which would include those who are
healthy and independent.
Feminist perspectives.
Although existing only sparsely in the elder abuse literature, certain feminist researchers have argued
for the importance of understanding dynamics of power and control (Brandl, 2000; Harbison, 1999a;
Whittaker, 1996). A feminist perspective on elder abuse views the so-called sub-type of "spousal
violence" in older couples as domestic violence, although it not been named or conceptualized as
such in the past9 (Brandl; Harbison; Whittaker). Viewing such elder abuse as domestic violence is
Page 13 of 37
supported by studies such as Gravel et al.'s (1997) analysis of 128 elder abuse cases in the province
of Quebec, Canada. Of the 32 lucid couples in the study, the majority (70%) had a longstanding
history of domestic violence, often for over 40 years. Furthermore, as predicted by a feminist
analysis, women were the primary victims, representing over three-quarters of this sub-sample.
The elder abuse literature offers some insights into how dynamics of power and control can evolve
over a couple's lifetime. Gravel et al. (1997) found that spousal abuse could become aggravated in
cases where husbands became physically and psychologically dependent on their wives. These men
had been socialized to be strong, independent, and in control of their environments. It was extremely
difficult for them to accept their present dependency on their wives, which had created a role reversal
and a power shift. While physical limitations sometimes caused male physical violence to decrease, it
sometimes also escalated as dependency increased. However, as Gravel et al. pointed out, there was
no constraint on the continuation and escalation of psychological violence, which does not require
physical strength.
Power and control dynamics are not limited to violence among aged couples, but can be found in
almost all forms of elder abuse (Brandl, 2000; Peake, Oelschlager, & Kearns, 2000; Tueth, 2000).
Feminist researchers caution that failing to understand power and control dynamics can result in
victim-blaming, misunderstanding the causes of the problem, making inappropriate interventions,
and possibly leaving the victim in a dangerous situation (Kinnon, 2001, p. 40).
Psychological abuse.
Although psychological abuse has been virtually ignored in elder abuse research (except for
Montminy, 2000), prevalence studies have shown it co-exists with many other forms of elder abuse
(Pillemer & Finkelhor, 1988; Podnieks, Pillemer, Nicholson, Shillington, & Frizzell, 1990). Gravel et
al's (1997) study revealed that psychological abuse was virtually always found in cases involving
cognitively lucid couples (97%, n = 32). Finkelhor and Pillemer (as cited in Vinton, 1991, p. 12)
Page 14 of 37
explored the relationship between elder abuse and other forms of family violence, finding that
victims of any age “almost always undergo psychological abuse and exploitation in addition to
physical injury. This is because perpetrators use their power and family connection to control and
manipulate the victim's perception of reality”. Other researchers have also noted the similarity of
power dynamics in abusive families, regardless of the type of family violence (Brandl, 2000;
Whittaker, 1996).
Very few studies have directly asked older adults themselves about their experiences of abuse.
Among these, Nandlal and Wood (1997) interviewed eight older people to explore their experiences
of elder abuse, which almost always involved verbal abuse (a form of psychological abuse).
Similarly, in Kozak and Lukawiecki’s (2001) Canada-wide study on elder abuse in nursing homes,
residents talked about how being infantilized and at the receiving end of degrading remarks affected
their well-being. In fact, they said such comments and attitudes were the most painful forms of abuse.
These findings about the damaging nature of psychological abuse are similar to those in the domestic
violence research.
Lack of intentionality.
It is clear that some cases of elder abuse lack dynamics of power and control (e.g., aggression due to
dementia, self-neglect) and it is equally clear that other cases have dynamics of power and control
(e.g., longstanding domestic violence, "payback" abuse and neglect). We are uncertain about the
relationship between intentionality and power dynamics, but what we do know is that if there is no
intentionality, there are no dynamics of power and control.
This lack of intentionality is somewhat reflected in the distinction between active and passive neglect
(Wolf & Pillemer, 1989). An example of active neglect would be a husband who has physically
abused his wife for many decades, but then has a stroke and becomes dependent on her. This can
Page 15 of 37
cause a shift in power relations within the couple (Gravel et al., 1997), with the wife deciding it is
time for "payback". She does so by actively choosing to withhold care (Kosberg, 1998). Passive
neglect, in contrast, usually involves an overwhelmed, under-educated, impoverished, ill, depressed,
or otherwise incapable caregiver (Wolf & Pillemer). One study revealed that social workers had great
difficulty in labeling such cases "elder abuse" (Lithwick et al., 1999), which may result in some cases
falling between the cracks.
Vulnerability.
In most domestic violence, women are able to exercise their agency and make choices about their
situation. But the elder abuse literature reminds us about the vulnerability of certain types of victims.
Not all older adults can exercise such agency due to their physical and cognitive impairments. In fact,
this is also true for younger women, although rarely mentioned: women with disabilities are more at
risk for domestic violence than women without disabilities (Rajan, 2004). It is much more difficult
for them to exercise their agency when they are dependent on their abuser and in some cases, they
may also have severe cognitive limitations. So vulnerability and lack of mental competency are
important concepts, because the more these are present, the more important the notion of harm takes
priority.
Summary of findings.
Elder abuse appears to be a more complex problem than domestic violence: It covers a wider range
of problems, it can occur in many different types of perpetrator-victim relationships, and the power
and control dynamics can shift over time. The predominant explanation for elder abuse is caregiver
stress, which focuses on risk and vulnerability rather than power and control. However, emerging
Page 16 of 37
feminist perspectives show that power and control dynamics are at work in many cases of elder
abuse. Some important exceptions are passive neglect or dementia-caused aggression, which clearly
lack intentionality, making it difficult to view these as "abuse".
To help conceptually distinguish situations with and without power and control, we propose assigning
different meanings to two terms presently considered synonymous: "elder abuse" should be used for
situations with power and control dynamics and "elder mistreatment" for situations without. This
distinction recognizes that not everything that is called abuse is necessarily "abuse".
Child Abuse
Child abuse was also first identified by the medical profession (Kempe, Silverman, Steele,
Droegemueller, & Silver, 1962). While practice is still influenced by the medical model (D'Cruz,
2004), the child abuse literature is an extremely large and well-developed body of literature with
many different theoretical perspectives. These include psychological, sociological, feminist, and
biological perspectives, among others. We felt that the literature in this field was more complex,
more fragmented, and contained a wider range of theoretical perspectives than either of the other two
categories. We also noticed that the child abuse research does not appear to be as strongly influenced
by practice definitions (i.e., legal) as the elder abuse research 10. Nonetheless, legal definitions are an
extremely important part of the discourse and remain the focus of considerable claims-making
activities (Campbell, 1999).
Sexual abuse: Feminist perspectives.
The issue of child sexual abuse was first brought to public attention by feminists (Lancaster & Lumb,
1999; Scott, 2001), who viewed it as a “ social issue implicating masculinity and male power” (Scott,
Page 17 of 37
p. 352). This analysis was supported by the fact that most child sexual abuse victims are girls,
perpetrators are overwhelmingly men, and biological fathers are the most common offenders
(Solomon, 1992, p. 474). The social construction of masculinity was also identified as part of the
problem, as it is characterized by sexual aggression and conquest, in addition to power and
dominance (Seymour, 1998, p. 416; Solomon, p. 477). Incest and rape are some of the practices used
by men to control women (Scott, p. 351; Seymour, p. 416); made possible in a patriarchal society that
views a man’s women and children as his possessions (Solomon, p. 276).
While most the feminist analysis of sexual abuse has mostly focused on gender power relations,
some studies have explored other types of power relations. For example, Durham’s (2003) study
interviewed men who had been sexually abused between ages 15 and 24. Maintaining a feminist
perspective, he found that the sexual abuse of these boys had occurred in the context of "normal"
adult-child power relationships (e.g., teacher-student, stepfather-child). The abusers had manipulated
the children in very purposeful and premeditated ways to coerce them into sexual relations and
ensure their silence, with some abusers using threats and physical violence (Durham; Ganzevoort,
2002). These tactics worked, because fear of reprisals prevented many of the children from
disclosing the sexual abuse (Durham, p. 317). Furthermore, homophobia was identified as an
additional dimension of oppression (Durham, pp. 318-319). The sexual abuse research thus supports
the abuse-power link quite clearly. However, the relationship is less clear when looking at the
physical abuse research.
Physical child abuse.
Feminists have encountered difficulties in theorizing the physical abuse of children, particularly
because of the prevalence of maternal abuse (Featherstone & Trinder, 1997, p. 422).
Page 18 of 37
…Yet the abusers and neglecters of children are often women. Indeed, child abuse becomes the
more interesting and challenging to a feminist because in it we meet women's rage and abuses
of power. Furthermore, child abuse is a gendered phenomenon, related to the oppression of
women, whether men or women are the culprits, because it reflects the sexual division of the
labour of reproduction. Rage against children is never abstract but is produced by specific,
gendered expectations of how they should behave and what the caretaker expects of her/himself
(Gordon, as cited in Featherstone & Trinder, 1997, p. 427).
Feminists have attempted to explain maternal violence by pointing to the oppressive conditions under
which women mother. They have also argued that men's violence against women is an important
factor in violence against children, regardless of who the perpetrator is (Featherstone & Trinder, p.
427). However, Featherstone and Trinder believe that this is not sufficient to explain women's abuse
of children. In particular, they question women's responsibility, autonomy, and agency in such
situations and feel it is too simplistic to directly translate men's power in society to the overall
problem of child physical abuse (p. 427). While not denying the presence of power relations in child
abuse, Featherstone and Trinder's work implies that feminist theory appears to do a better job
explaining domestic violence than it does child abuse.
Psychological perspectives on power and control.
The psychological perspective offers some additional insights on the complex power relations at
work in child abuse. Drawing on social psychology research on social power, Bugental observed that
“an anomalous finding within the area of social power has always been the exaggerated exercise or
attempts at power usage by those who perceive themselves as having the least power” (Bugental,
1993, p. 289; Bugental & Shennum, 2002). Applying this notion to her child abuse research,
Page 19 of 37
Bugental found that physically abusive parents are often in a reversed power relationship with their
children: the parents feel they have less power and control than their children and even feel
“victimized” by their children’s “intentional and controllable actions” (Bugental, 1993, p. 292). They
perceive their children as presenting a threat against which they must act quickly to defend
themselves – resulting in physical abuse (Bugental, 1993). A later study suggested a possible gender
difference. Abused girls, who saw themselves as powerless against their parents, grew up to be
women who viewed themselves as having less power than their own dependant children. In contrast,
abused boys tended to become men who perceived themselves as having very high levels of power
(Bugental & Shennum, 2002, p. 61). These findings, although somewhat tenuous, may provide a
possible explanation for certain kinds of maternal abuse.
Psychological abuse.
As in domestic violence, the psychological abuse of children "has been called 'the most elusive and
damaging of all types of maltreatment for a child' and represents 'the core issue and most destructive
factor across all types of child abuse and neglect'" (Pearl, as cited in Loue, 2005, p. 311). Once again,
researchers argue that psychological abuse is "an inherent part of all forms of abuse and it is hard to
imagine physical, sexual abuse or neglect without there being an emotional component"(Boulton &
Hindle, 2000, p. 441).
Many are concerned that psychological abuse has been inadequate considered in both research and
practice (Hamarman et al., 2002, p. 303; Loue, 2005). There are no DSM diagnostic criteria for
psychological abuse, unlike for physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect, and it is also often not
included in legal definitions (Hamarman & Bernet, 2000; Hamarman et al., 2002, p. 303). All this is
particularly concerning when considering the damaging effects of psychological abuse, e.g., post-
traumatic stress disorder, low self-esteem, shame, social isolation, attachment problems, intellectual
Page 20 of 37
deficits, affective-behavior problems, chronic emotional inhibitions in adulthood, anxiety, depression,
and suicidality (Loue, p. 318; Twaite & Rodriguez-Srednicki, 2004, pp. 455-456). Psychological
abuse also causes the child to be more impaired in their development and adulthood than physical
abuse (Glaser, 2002).
Summary of findings.
The child abuse literature helped us understand the complexity of family violence –
how abuse is manifested throughout the family system and the complicated role of power
relations. The radical feminist perspective, while still relatively prominent in the domestic
violence literature, has been unable to convincingly account for fact that it is often mothers
who abuse their children. Postmodern feminists offer some alternatives, as do certain
psychology researchers such as Bugental. What is clear is that: (a) power and control plays
an important role in virtually all forms of child abuse, (b) a unidimensional analysis of
power is inadequate to explain child abuse, and (c) psychological abuse plays a key a role in
child abuse.
CONVERGENCES ACROSS BASKETS
The Complexity of Power Dynamics
Our understanding of power dynamics shifted as we moved from the domestic violence literature to
the elder abuse literature to the child abuse literature. First we encountered perspectives originated by
the radical feminists of the 1970s -- the first analyses of domestic violence centering on the notion of
Page 21 of 37
power. According to this view, a patriarchal society gives men power over women, including the
right to exert this control by violence. This explanation was rather quickly challenged by
marginalized women, who argued that patriarchy results in a panoply of intersecting oppressions in
addition to gender (e.g., race, social class, age, sexual orientation, religion, and so on). In the elder
abuse literature, we realized that we also need to account for the dimension of age in addition to
gender. In the child abuse literature, we encountered postmodernist researchers, who critique such
unitary concepts of power. According to their understanding, power is more relational, situational,
and shifting than radical feminists understand it to be (Featherstone & Trinder, 1997; Lancaster &
Lumb, 1999). Neither are men a homogenous group possessing a universal type of power (Lancaster
& Lumb). These more nuanced understandings of power relations are needed to explain all the varied
dynamics of family violence, which become more evident in the child abuse research.
Intrafamilial Patterns of Abuse
Within all three bodies of literature, we found evidence of interfamilial patterns of abuse, although
much of this research is relatively recent. In the 1990s, feminist discourses on domestic violence
were just beginning to explore certain commonalities between intimate partner abuse and child abuse
(Featherstone & Trinder, 1997, p. 150). Interest focused on the overlap, partly because of studies
showing the high co-occurrence rate (around 40%) of physical child abuse and domestic violence
(Appel & Holden, 1998). Researchers are still trying to understand these patterns, proposing a variety
of causal hypotheses and links (Appel & Holden; Slep & O'Leary, 2001). These findings suggest that
the couple’s power and control dynamics may have consequences throughout the family hierarchy.
A further link was established between domestic and child abuse: Children who are exposed to
interparental violence are now viewed as victims of child abuse, even if no violence has been directly
perpetrated against the child (Rivett & Kelly, 2006). A recent study found this was second most
Page 22 of 37
common category of substantiated child maltreatment reported by child welfare systems across
Canada (excluding Quebec), at 28% of all cases, more frequent than physical abuse at 24% of cases
(Trocmé et al., 2005). Children exposed to domestic violence suffer a wide range of adjustment
problems, similar to those of physically abused children (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003;
Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003). The child welfare system is now recognizing
that men’s violence against their female partners harms children as well as the women themselves
(Featherstone & Trinder, 1997).
The elder abuse literature provides a similar view of this issue. To understand the current situation of
violence, practitioners often need to look at the family's history. Often adult children exposed to
interparental violence or parental abuse in their childhood end up abusing their parents decades later,
when they are old and frail Thus we can see entire families infected with abuse, with patterns that
shift over time as the relative power of family members changes ((Montminy, 2000).
Psychological Abuse as a Means to Gain Power and Control
The family violence literature in all three fields shows that psychological abuse precedes and co-
exists with virtually all other forms of abuse. Furthermore, psychological abuse appears to be an
important means used by abusers to gain power and control (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Johnson,
1995; Montminy, 2000). If this is indeed true, then we need to de-center physical abuse and place
psychological abuse more at the center of the discourse. However, the amount of literature is still
very limited, for several reasons: (a) psychological abuse is rarely defined by law as a reason for
protective intervention; (b) there is no consensus on a definition; (c) it is a very difficult concept to
operationalize for research; and (d) its effects are much longer-lasting and more difficult to detect
than physical abuse. It remains an under-studied form of abuse, despite evidence that it is more
damaging than physical abuse.
Page 23 of 37
Summary
Our review of the literature identified three major themes that the "baskets" had in common. First,
power and control plays a major role in abuse. This has been best addressed by feminist perspectives,
however, the radical feminist analysis characterizing the domestic violence literature proves to be
inadequate for explaining elder abuse or child abuse. A different conceptualization of power is
needed, such as postmodern feminism. It offers a more contextualized and individual analysis of
power, while still viewing gender as an important category of analysis. Second, abuse reverberates
throughout the entire family structure. For example, domestic violence often co-exists with child
abuse. Elder abuse is often preceded by other family violence, such as child abuse or domestic
violence. New research is showing that the different fields of abuse are more connected than we
previously realized. This makes the lack of dialogue across fields especially problematic. Third, as a
theoretical focus, psychological abuse is more important than physical abuse: It causes more severe
and longer-lasting harm and it precedes and co-exists with most other forms of abuse. In fact,
psychological abuse is an important strategy used by abusers to gain power and control.
It is impossible to reduce the complexity of family violence to a few factors. However, we believe
that our critical review of the literature allows us to make a few suggestions for a more integrated
theory and practice.
TOWARDS A MORE INTEGRATED MODEL
We now ask: What have we gained by this exercise? Has it helped us understand abuse in a way that
allows us to better respond to people who do not fit into any of the baskets?
Page 24 of 37
When Should Harmful Behaviors be Considered Abuse?
Our initial idea that dynamics of power and control are an important element of abuse was
supported by the literature. In fact, we believe that this is what differentiates abuse from other types
of harmful behaviors. In all three fields, we found evidence to support this notion.
In the domestic violence literature, Johnston's (1995) research revealed that there are at least two
different types of intimate partner violence, each of which has different motivations, contexts, and
meanings. The first is common couple violence, which is best described as "conflict gone too far". It
is not characterized by dynamics of power and control, the level of violence is relatively minor, and it
is well explained by the family violence perspective. The second is intimate terrorism, which is all
about power and control and is well explained by feminist perspectives. This kind of violence may be
more severe and may escalate over time. Correspondingly, we believe that intimate terrorism is abuse
and common couple violence is not. This is not to say that common couple violence is not a problem,
but it becomes a different type of problem with a different type of solution.
We also found distinctions in the child abuse and elder abuse fields, both of which have protection
laws. In these "baskets" there were numerous situations that were difficult to label as "abuse" because
of an obvious lack of intentionality. For example, an older person may become aggressive due to a
condition such as Alzheimer's disease. A severe and persistent mental illness may cause a parent to be
violent or neglectful towards a child. An overwhelmed and depressed caregiver may be neglectful.
We would not consider any of these situations to be abuse. Rather, we suggest using the term
"mistreatment". All other situations, characterized by dynamics of power and control, should be
named "abuse". It is important to note that "mistreatment" is not necessarily less severe than "abuse"
– both can be fatal and both can cause severe harm. However, these are, once again, different types of
problems requiring different types of solutions.
Page 25 of 37
Structural Limitations in Practice
Some of our suggestions require an expansion of existing practice and existing definitions. However,
this may be difficult because many of these interventions are performed in legislatively structured
and restricted practice settings (i.e., child abuse, elder abuse). And women’s shelters are also
restricted practice settings, accepting only women. Furthermore, most do not intervene with other
forms of violence against women, such as sibling abuse or elder abuse. Moving towards a more
integrative practice may thus require new services and new community resources to bridge the
structural boundaries of the three fields.
Psychological Abuse
Psychological abuse accompanies virtually all other abuse and it functions as a strategy to gain power
and control. Let us remember that psychological abuse alone has serious consequences and is
considered by victims to be the most damaging form of abuse. This has important implications for
practice.
One such issue is detection. If psychological abuse is occurring, then it is very possible that the
person is also suffering from other forms of abuse. It is also quite possible that the person's family
unit contains other abusive relationships. So the presence of psychological abuse should be a signal
to practitioners to look deeper. We would no longer wait until physical violence occurs because we
would understand the gravity of psychological abuse and take action at that point.
Understanding psychological abuse as a key marker of abuse means that screening methods are
needed. This, in turn, requires more research on psychological abuse and an awareness of the
limitations of quantitative methods in such projects (Follingstad, 2007). Perhaps traditional screening
tools are not the answer, but methods need to be developed to detect psychological abuse.
Page 26 of 37
Finally, practitioners need to become more aware of the severe impacts of psychological abuse on
health. They should also be aware of the potential dangers of joint counseling11 for abuser and
abused, because counseling can become an occasion to re-abuse. All family violence training should
include an emphasis on psychological abuse and its relationship to other forms of violence.
Perpetrator Pathology
Individual pathology may be the cause of violent behavior or it may only be a predisposing factor.
For example, illnesses such as organic brain syndrome, cognitive impairments, and certain
psychiatric illnesses can cause violent behavior. Such situations would thus fall under our category of
mistreatment, not abuse. Other psychopathologies, however, may increase the likelihood of abusive
behavior, but are not the sole cause, e.g., addictions, ADHD, and impulse control problems (O'Leary,
1993, pp. 11-13). Despite predisposing factors, such situations are nonetheless characterized by
dynamics of power and control and should be considered as abuse. Treating the pathology should be
part of the intervention, but should not replace anti-violence interventions, such as groups for violent
men.
Other Recommendations for Future Research
Bridging the gap between research and practice requires finding approaches and models suited for
integrative research. These would ideally involve practitioners as full partners in the research. More
qualitative research is also needed, to more deeply explore the perspectives of those who have
experienced abuse. Feminist and action research methodologies may offer approaches that could
support more integrative research. Structures are also needed to facilitate discussion across
disciplines and sectors, and between researchers and practitioners.
Page 27 of 37
In terms of specific research topics, more research is needed on how power works in abusive
relationships. Postmodern feminism could provide a useful theoretical framework to guide such
research. Further study is also needed on psychological abuse, especially using qualitative
methodologies. It is hoped that methods of screening and detecting psychological abuse may develop
from such research.
CONCLUSION
Practitioners need a broader understanding of the dynamics of abuse, how to detect abuse and
intervene earlier, and how to keep clients safe. While progress has been made within each basket, we
need to learn about situations beyond their boundaries. A focus on power and control dynamics in all
relationships can help us to do so.
Page 28 of 37
FOOTNOTES
1. For a detailed review of the inadequacy of the generic elder abuse intervention model for domestic violence
situations, see Straka and Montminy (2006).
2. CLSCs are publicly-funded local health and social services agencies in Quebec.
3. Although originally published 15 years ago, the books framework and its “current controversies” remain very
relevant today. A second, revised edition was published in 2004.
4. The term "psychological abuse" includes the notion of "emotional abuse", since the literature often uses these terms
interchangeably (Glaser, 2002; Loue, 2005, p. 311).
5. Attempting to define and theorize intentionality is well beyond our scope here – we were only interested in its
absence, since there are situations where it is evident that there was a lack of intentionality.
6. For example, biological, ecological, and postmodern perspectives are not included in these categories. We did touch
on biological perspectives at times, but tended to group them with psychological explanations of individual pathology. The
ecological perspective provides a very interesting framework for mapping the different theories, but was beyond the scope
of this article. Postmodern perspectives emerged from our review of the literature and appear later in this article.
7. More specifically, we searched for elder abuse and child abuse by subject heading. Multiple subject headings were
identified for domestic violence, including intimate partner violence, partner abuse, and battered females. We searched
each field separately by subject heading, performing the following keyword searches: (a) theor* or conceptualization* or
causes or explanations (b) psychological abuse or emotional abuse, (c) power or "abuse of power". In addition, we also
searched for "child abuse" AND "sexual abuse", as well as "elder abuse" AND "domestic violence" (and all its variants).
8. For example, the psychological model developed by O'Leary and colleagues accounts for only 18% of the variation
in physical aggression of men towards their wives (O'Leary, 1995, p. 13).
9. For example, Pillemer and Finkelhor (1988) found that 58% of elder abuse was committed by spouses.
10. This could be because child abuse has been researched since the 1960s and elder abuse research began in the 1980s.
11. Researchers in the family violence tradition (e.g., Geffner & Mantooth, 2000; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt,
2004)) believe that certain situations may be effectively treated with joint counseling, as long as there is a careful
screening process. In our view, common couple violence may be a candidate for joint counseling, but not intimate
terrorism.
Page 29 of 37
REFERENCES
Aguilar, R., & Nightingale, N. (1994). The impact of specific battering experiences on the self-esteem of abused women.
Journal of Family Violence, 9, 35-45.
Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal.
Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4), 578-599.
Ashcraft, C. (2000). Naming knowledge: A language for reconstructing domestic violence and systemic gender inequity.
Women and Language, 23(1), 3-10.
Barnett, O., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (Eds.). (2005). Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bennett, G., Kingston, P., & Penhale, B. (1997). The dimensions of elder abuse: Perspectives for practitioners. London:
MacMillan.
Best, J. (Ed.). (1995). Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems (2nd ed.). New York: A. De Gruyter.
Biggs, S. (1996). A family concern: Elder abuse in British social policy. Critical Social Policy, 16(2), 63-88.
Bograd, M. L., & Yllö, K. (Eds.). (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Boulton, S., & Hindle, D. (2000). Emotional abuse: The work of a multidisciplinary consultation group in a child
psychiatric service. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 5(3), 439-452.
Brandl, B. (2000). Power and control: Understanding domestic abuse in later life. Generations, 24(2), 39-45.
Brewster, M. P. (2002). Domestic violence theories, research, and practice implications. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Handbook
of domestic violence intervention strategies: Policies, programs, and legal remedies (pp. 23-48). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bugental, D. B. (1993). Communication in abusive relationships: Cognitive constructions of interpersonal power.
American Behavioral Scientist, 36(3), 288-308.
Bugental, D. B., & Shennum, W. (2002). Gender, power, and violence in the family. Child Maltreatment, 7(1), 56-64.
Campbell, R. E. (1999). Constructing child abuse: The beliefs of reported parents, exemplary parents, and child welfare
agents. (PhD, University of Guelph). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (10), 5220B. (Publication No. AAT
NQ43250)
Page 30 of 37
D'Cruz, H. (2004). The social construction of child maltreatment: The role of medical practitioners. Journal of Social
Work, 4(1), 99-123.
Dell, P., & Korotana, O. (2000). Accounting for domestic violence: A Q methodological study. Violence Against Women,
6(3), 286-310.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. (n.d.). Duluth power and control wheel. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from
http://www.duluth-model.org/documents/PhyVio.pdf
Durham, A. (2003). Young men living through and with child sexual abuse: A practitioner research study. British Journal
of Social Work, 33, 309-323.
Featherstone, B., & Trinder, L. (1997). Familiar subjects: Domestic violence and child welfare. Child and Family Social
Work, 2(3), 147-160.
Follingstad, D. R. (2007). Rethinking current approaches to psychological abuse: Conceptual and methodological issues.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(4), 439-458.
Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., & Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in
physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 107-120.
Ganzevoort, R. R. (2002). Common themes and structures in male victims' stories of religion and sexual abuse. Mental
Health, Religion & Culture, 5(3), 313-325.
Geffner, R. (2005). Looking toward the future. In O. Barnett, C. L. Miller-Perrin & R. D. Perrin (Eds.), Family violence
across the lifespan: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 275-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Geffner, R., & Mantooth, C. (2000). Ending spouse/partner abuse: A psychoeducational approach for individuals and
couples. New York: Springer Publishing Co.
Gelles, R. J. (1993). Through a sociological lens: Social structure and family violence. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke
(Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 31-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gelles, R. J., & Loseke, D. R. (Eds.). (1993a). Current controversies on family violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gelles, R. J., & Loseke, D. R. (1993b). Issues in conceptualization. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current
controversies on family violence (pp. 1-5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gelles, R. J. (1974). The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and wives. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Page 31 of 37
Glaser, D. (2002). Emotional abuse and neglect (psychological maltreatment): A conceptual framework. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 26, 697-714.
Glendenning, F. (1997). What is elder abuse and neglect? In P. Decalmer, & F. Glendenning (Eds.), The mistreatment of
elderly people (2nd ed., pp. 13-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gravel, S., Beaulieu, M., & Lithwick, M. (1997). Quand vieillir ensemble fait mal: Les mauvais traitements entre
conjoints âgés [When growing old together hurts: Abuse between older spouses]. Criminologie, 30(2), 67-85.
Hamarman, S., & Bernet, W. (2000). Evaluating and reporting emotional abuse in children: Parent-based, action-based
focus aids in clinical decision-making. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(7),
928-930.
Hamarman, S., Pope, K. H., & Czaja, S. J. (2002). Emotional abuse in children: Variations in legal definitions and rates
across the United States. Child Maltreatment, 7(4), 303-311.
Harbison, J. (1999a). The changing career of "elder abuse and neglect" as a social problem in Canada: Learning from
feminist frameworks? Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 11(4), 59-80.
Harbison, J. (1999b). Models of intervention for "elder abuse and neglect": A Canadian perspective on ageism,
participation, and empowerment. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 10(3-4), 1-17.
Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262-
290.
Hudson, M. F. (1991). Elder mistreatment: A taxonomy with definitions by Delphi. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect,
3(2), 1-20.
Hudson, M. F., & Carlson, J. R. (1998). Elder abuse: Expert and public perspectives on its meaning. Journal of Elder
Abuse & Neglect, 9(4), 77-97.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283-294.
Johnson, H., & Bunge, V. P. (2001). Prevalence and consequences of spousal assault in Canada. Canadian Journal of
Criminology, 43(1), 27-45.
Kempe, C. H., Silverman, F. N., Steele, B. F., Droegemueller, W., & Silver, H. K. (1962). The battered child syndrome.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 181, 17.
Kinnon, D. (2001). Community awareness and response: Abuse and neglect of older adults (No. H39-262/2001E). Ottawa,
Page 32 of 37
ON: Family Violence Prevention Unit, Health Canada.
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 339-352.
Kosberg, J. I. (1998). The abuse of elderly men. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 9(3), 69-88.
Kozak, J., Elmslie, T., & Verdon, J. (1995). Epidemiology of the abuse and neglect of seniors in Canada: A review of the
national and international research literature. In M. MacLean (Ed.), Abuse and neglect of older Canadians: Strategies
for change (2nd ed., pp. 129-142). Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing Inc.
Kozak, J., & Lukawiecki, T. (2001). When home is not a home: Abuse and neglect in long term care -- a resident's
perspective (No. H72-21/176-2000E). Ottawa, ON: Family Violence Prevention Division, Health Canada.
Kurz, D. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender & Society, 3(4),
489-505.
Lancaster, E., & Lumb, J. (1999). Bridging the gap: Feminist theory and practice reality in
work with the perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 119-129.
Lithwick, M., Beaulieu, M., Gravel, S., & Straka, S. (1999). The mistreatment of older adults: Perpetrator-victim
relationships and interventions. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 11(4), 95-112.
Loseke, D. (1992). The battered woman and shelters: The social construction of wife abuse. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Loue, S. (2005). Redefining the emotional and psychological abuse and maltreatment of children: Legal implications. The
Journal of Legal Medicine, 26, 311-337.
McDonald, L., & Collins, A. (2000). Abuse and neglect of older adults: A discussion paper (No. H72-21/162-1998E).
Ottawa, ON: Family Violence Prevention Division, Health Canada.
McPhail, B. A., Busch, N. B., Kulkarni, S., & Rice, G. (2007). An integrative feminist model: The evolving feminist
perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 817-841.
Montminy, L. (2000). Les representations sociales de la violence psychologique vecue par des conjointes agées [social
representations of psychological violence experienced by older wives]. (PhD, Universite Laval). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 62 (01), 331A. (Publication No. AAT NQ56446).
Montminy, L. (2005). Older women’s experiences of psychological violence in their marital relationships. Journal of
Gerontological Social Work, 46(2), 3-22.
Page 33 of 37
Nandlal, J. M., & Wood, L. A. (1997). Older people's understandings of verbal abuse. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect,
9(1), 17-31.
O'Leary, K. D. (1993). Through a psychological lens: Personality traits, personality disorders, and levels of violence. In R.
J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 7-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peake, T. H., Oelschlager, J. R., & Kearns, D. F. (2000). Elder abuse: Families, systems, causes, and interventions. In F.
W. Kaslow (Ed.), Handbook of couple and family forensics: A sourcebook for mental health and legal professionals
(pp. 400-425). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pico-Alfonso, M. A., Garcia-Linares, M. I., Celda-Navarro, N., Blasco-Ros, C., Echeburúa, E., & Martinez, M. (2006).
The impact of physical, psychological, and sexual intimate male partner violence on women's mental health:
Depressive symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, state anxiety, and suicide. Journal of Women's Health, 15(5), 599-
611.
Pillemer, K. (1993). The abused offspring are dependent: Abuse is caused by the deviance and dependence of abusive
caregivers. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 7-29). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pillemer, K., & Finkelhor, D. (1988). The prevalence of elder abuse: A random sample survey. Gerontologist, 28(1), 51-
57.
Podnieks, E., Pillemer, K. A., Nicholson, J., Shillington, J., & Frizzell, A. (1990). National survey on abuse of the elderly
in Canada. Toronto, ON: Office of Research and Innovation, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute.
Rajan, D. (2004). Violence against women with disabilities (No. H72-22/9-2004E). Ottawa, ON: Family Violence
Prevention Unit, Health Canada.
Ristock, J. L. (1995). The impact of violence on mental health: A guide to the literature (No. H39-292/3-1995E). Ottawa,
ON: Family Violence Prevention Division, Health Canada.
Rivett, M., & Kelly, S. (2006). 'From awareness to practice': Children, domestic violence and child welfare. Child Abuse
Review, 15(4), 224-242.
Schwartz, A. H., Andersen, S. M., Strasser, T. J., & Boulette, T. R. (2000). Psychological maltreatment of partners. In R.
T. Ammerman, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Case studies in family violence (2nd ed., pp. 349-373). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scott, S. (2001). Feminism and contemporary discourses of child sexual abuse. Feminist Theory, 2(3), 349-361.
Page 34 of 37
Scott, S. T. (2007). Multiple traumatic experiences and the development of posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 22(7), 932-938.
Seymour, A. (1998). Aetiology of the sexual abuse of children: An extended feminist perspective. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 21(4), 415-427.
Slep, A. M. S., & O'Leary, S. G. (2001). Examining partner and child abuse: Are we ready for a more integrated approach
to family violence? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4(2), 87-107.
Solomon, J. C. (1992). Child sexual abuse by family members: A radical feminist perspective. Sex Roles, 27(9-10), 473-
485.
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and
victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65-98.
Straka, S., & Montminy, L. (2006). Responding to the needs of older women experiencing domestic violence. Violence
Against Women, 12(3), 251-267.
Straus, M. A. (1971). Some social antecedents of physical punishment: A linkage theory interpretation. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 33, 659-663.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage
& the Family, 41(1), 75-88.
Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in physical assaults on partners. Violence Against Women,
12(11), 1086-1097.
Street, A. E., & Arias, I. (2001). Psychological abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder in battered women: Examining the
roles of shame and guilt. Violence and Victims, 16(1), 65-78.
Tolman, R. (1999). The validation of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory. Violence and Victims, 14, 25-
37.
Trocmé, N. M., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T., et al. (2005). Canadian incidence study of
reported child abuse and neglect, 2003: Major findings. Ottawa, ON: Public Health Agency of Canada.
Tueth, M. J. (2000). Exposing financial exploitation of impaired elderly persons. American Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 8(2), 104-111.
Twaite, J. A., & Rodriguez-Srednicki, O. (2004). Childhood sexual and physical abuse and adult vulnerability to PTSD:
The mediating effects of attachment and dissociation. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(1), 17-38.
Page 35 of 37
Vinton, L. (1991). Abused older women: Battered women or abused elders? Journal of Women & Aging, 3(3), 5-19.
Vinton, L. (1999). Working with abused older women from a feminist perspective. Journal of Women & Aging, 11(2-3),
85-100.
Walker, L. (1979). Battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Whittaker, T. (1996). Violence, gender and elder abuse. In B. Fawcett, B. Featherstone, J. Hearn & C. Toft (Eds.),
Violence and gender relations: Theories and interventions (pp. 147-160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolf, R. S., & Pillemer, K. A. (1989). Helping elderly victims: The reality of elder abuse. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of children's exposure to
domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 171-187.
World Health Organisation. (2002). Missing voices: Views of older persons on elder abuse (No. WHO/NMH/VIP/02.1).
Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Yllö, K. (2005). Theories and methodology. In O. Barnett, C. L. Miller-Perrin & R. D. Perrin (Eds.), Family violence
across the lifespan: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 21-38). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yllö, K. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current
controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Yllö, K., & Bograd, M. L. (Eds.). (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
