723744

research-article2017
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260517723744Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceAizpurua et al.

Article
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
1­–24
Controlling Behaviors © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
and Intimate Partner sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260517723744
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723744
Violence Among Women journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

in Spain: An Examination
of Individual, Partner,
and Relationship Risk
Factors for Physical and
Psychological Abuse

Eva Aizpurua,1 Jennifer Copp,2 Jorge J. Ricarte,3

and David Vázquez3

Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been linked to a broad range of negative
consequences. Thus, early detection and prevention of behaviors associated
with IPV is necessary to combat this global public health problem. Controlling
behaviors (CBs) within the intimate context, including acts to constrain free
mobility or access to friends and relatives, have been characterized as a
moderate form of violence and may be an indicator of more severe IPV.
Previous research in this field, however, has been primarily conducted in the
United States. Accordingly, we lack knowledge of similar findings in other
countries to draw more general conclusions about observed associations
between these variables, and to identify underlying mechanisms. The current
study analyzes the role of control within the Spanish context by examining

1University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, USA

2FloridaState University, Tallahassee, USA
3University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain

Corresponding Author:
Eva Aizpurua, Center for Social and Behavioral Research, University of Northern Iowa,
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0402, USA.
Email: aizpurue@uni.edu
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

its correlates, as well as the role and impact of CBs on psychological and
physical violence. To achieve these objectives, we use data from the Spanish
sample of the Violence Against Women Survey carried out by the European
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (N = 1,520 adult women). The results
indicated that young women, women with a previous history of physical/
sexual abuse during childhood, and women who have resided in Spain for
fewer years are at greater risk of experiencing control within the context
of an ongoing relationship. Partner risk factors included frequent episodes
of drunkenness and general violence (i.e., violence outside of the home). In
addition, control was more frequently reported among couples where the
man was older than the woman. As hypothesized, women who reported CB
by their partners were more likely to experience psychological and physical
violence. These findings emphasize the importance of preventing CBs to
avert the most severe forms of violence, and provides relevant information
about the groups that could most benefit from these efforts.

Keywords
intimate partner violence, domestic violence, coercive control, criminology,
cultural contexts

Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been recognized as an important social
and public health problem with serious consequences for victims’ physical
and mental well-being (e.g., Ansara & Hindin, 2011; Eshelman & Levendosky,
2012; R. Walker, Shannon, & Logan, 2011). IPV is defined as an act of vio-
lence committed against a partner and perpetrated by a current or former
spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner (Fawson, 2015). According to
recent estimates, one in three women globally experience physical and/or
sexual IPV at some point in their lives (Devries et al., 2013). Over the past
several decades, there has been a rapid expansion in the IPV literature includ-
ing studies focused on establishing prevalence rates, documenting key cor-
relates, and developing theory (e.g., Breiding, Chen, & Black, 2014; Capaldi,
Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; L. A. Walker, 2006; Widom & Wilson, 2015).
Much of this work, however, has been conducted using U.S. samples.
Although existing research has provided important evidence for the develop-
ment of prevention and intervention efforts in the United States, it is unclear
whether the etiology of IPV is similar across other cultural contexts.
International research has shed light on the prevalence of IPV against women;
however, additional work is needed to determine the extent to which estab-
lished risk factors apply outside of the United States.
Aizpurua et al. 3

Prior feminist research on the etiology of IPV has emphasized the distin-
guishing features of this form of violence, focusing considerable attention
on the role of coercive control. According to a feminist perspective, vio-
lence against women can be understood as a means of maintaining control
over female partners (M. P. Johnson, 2008). Examples of coercive control
include damage to property, social isolation, monitoring whereabouts, and
economic deprivation among others (e.g., Johnson, 1995, 2006; Pence &
Paymar, 1993; see Rodríguez-Carballeira, Porrúa-García, Escartín, Martin-
Peña, & Almendros, 2014, for a review). Etiological factors identified in
prior work include family background factors (i.e., exposure to violence in
the family of origin) and sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., age, minor-
ity status, and education level). In addition, recent work has developed a
more dyadic framework, directing attention to the individual characteristics
of both members of the couple, as well as features of the broader relation-
ship (e.g., Giordano, Copp, Longmore, & Manning, 2015; Shortt et al.,
2012; Stets, 1992).
In the current investigation, we use data from the Spanish sample of
the Violence Against Women Survey carried out by the European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to examine risk factors for physi-
cal and psychological IPV among women in Spain. Given that IPV was a
particular focus of the FRA survey, the protocols include a broad range of
items capturing physical and psychological victimization based on defini-
tions from the World Health Organization (WHO), which include psycho-
logical acts such as humiliation, intimidation, and belittling, as well as
more physical forms of violence (e.g., slapping, kicking, strangling, etc.).
In particular, we examine the role of controlling behaviors (CBs) in IPV,
as such behaviors have been central to both IPV theory and research based
primarily on research findings from the United States. In addition, we
examine whether a number of established risk factors, including individ-
ual, partner, and relationship characteristics, are associated with psycho-
logical and physical IPV among women in Spain, and furthermore,
whether such factors are associated with the use of CBs in their own right.
Findings from this research will help determine whether the etiology of
IPV against women in Spain accords with prior research conducted in
other cultural contexts. Moreover, this investigation will shed light on key
focal areas for prevention and intervention of psychological and physical
forms of abuse, as well as CBs, within the Spanish context. This is key as
most prior research has focused on identifying risk factors for IPV; how-
ever, CBs are also serious and unhealthy relationship dynamics, and thus
it is important to determine their causes in order to inform programmatic
efforts.
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Coercive Control and IPV

Feminist theorizing has been integral to the field of IPV research, and has
drawn particular attention to the unique dynamics involved in male-female
relationships. Traditional feminist perspectives focus heavily on the dynam-
ics of power and control (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Yllo, 1993), and view
IPV as a manifestation of men’s active attempts to maintain a position of
dominance over their female partners (Anderson, 1997; 2005). Indeed, the
use of control within the couple context has formed the basis of typological
approaches to intimate partner violence, including attempts to distinguish
between the types of violence observed in more general surveys of the popu-
lation (situational couple violence) as compared to agency/shelter samples
(intimate terrorism) (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson, 2006). In particular,
Johnson (2008) argued that control is a defining characteristic of intimate
terrorism, a type of violence that is rooted in patriarchal traditions of male
dominance. Although the idea of a general need for dominance/control is not
reflective of the majority of IPV cases, many scholars have demonstrated that
control tactics are commonly reported in large, broadly representative sam-
ples (e.g., Bates, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2014; Giordano, Copp,
Longmore, & Manning, 2016; Stets & Hammons, 2002). In addition, recent
discussions of the dynamics involved in situational couple violence have
highlighted that the use of violence toward an intimate partner is often moti-
vated by efforts at control (see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Misra,
2012 for a review). Thus, it is important that researchers continue to investi-
gate the role of control in IPV using community-based samples, as it appears
to be a more pervasive feature of relationships in which violence is present
than has been suggested by earlier theoretical accounts.
CBs are highly characteristic of coercive controlling abuse (Myhill,
2015) and intimate terrorism (Johnson, Leone, & Xu, 2014), as well as
more common forms of relationship violence, and are also considered a
form of psychological aggression (Henning & Klesges, 2003). CBs are
characterized by the efforts of one partner to systematically control the
other partner’s actions, relationships, and activities (Krantz & Dang Vung,
2009). The use of CBs within the romantic context establishes a rigid
behavioral pattern where the victim is punished when he or she fails to fol-
low the rules established by the coercive party (Kelly & Johnson, 2008).
This control is exerted by the perpetrator through acts of physical abuse,
intimidation, or through verbal threats of serious aggression (Tanha, Beck,
Figueredo, & Raghavan, 2010).
The consequences of CBs vary, but can be quite severe. Notably, it is gener-
ally accepted that the psychological impact of CBs is worse than the physical
Aizpurua et al. 5

effects. The primary psychological effects reported include fear, anxiety, loss of
self-esteem, depression, and posttraumatic stress (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). The
experience of CBs within the context of an ongoing relationship is also signifi-
cantly associated with suicidal thoughts (Saeed Ali, Abbas, & Ather, 2014).
This chronic psychological threat negatively affects victims’ social networks,
family, and children (e.g., Rivara et al., 2007). Although IPV is considered a
very important public health problem worldwide (García-Moreno, Jansen,
Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006), our understanding of its underlying mecha-
nisms remains relatively limited. Given the severity and scope of this social and
public health problem internationally, it is important to further investigate
whether key risk factors are similarly associated with IPV across contexts to
develop appropriate prevention and/or intervention programming.
Importantly, from a perspective of prevention and/or early intervention,
CBs, which are grave enough themselves, may be also predictive of more
severe forms of aggression. Furthermore, the presence of CBs may help
identify those at risk of experiencing violence. In this vein, Beck and
Raghavan (2010) note the following: “Absence of reports of physical abuse
does not necessarily signal that a woman is safe, but a measure of control
may be able to assess risk, particularly during the period of separation” (p.
556). Accordingly, researchers have established that the risk of homicide
increases for women after separation from their abusers, particularly when
the abuser is highly controlling (J. C. Campbell et al., 2003). As many have
noted, there is a high degree of co-occurrence between physical and psy-
chological IPV, and CBs are commonplace in violent relationships. A high
percentage of women (80%) entering the criminal justice system after an
incident of IPV experienced prior psychological abuse (Henning & Klesges,
2003). Physical and/or sexual violence during the past 12 months was asso-
ciated with one or more controlling tactics by their partner (Krantz & Dang
Vung, 2009). Highly CBs can increase victims’ risk of fatality 9 times (J. C.
Campbell, Sharps, & Glass, 2000). Furthermore, coercive control may be
more central to understanding the dynamics of intimate relationships than
other types of abuse and likely requires intervention at multiple levels
(Beck & Raghavan, 2010). Thus, planned interventions should consider the
role of a range of CBs to further elucidate the different outcomes of IPV
(Frye, Manganello, Campbell, & Wilt, 2006).

Risk Factors for CBs and IPV: A Review of Prior

Research
Traditionally, research on IPV has developed a portrait of women as vic-
tims and men as perpetrators of relationship violence. Although those roles
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

are interchangeable, there is some research to suggest that CBs are more
frequently reported by women than men, and moreover, that control tactics
are more closely linked to women’s victimization (Tanha et al., 2010).
Relatedly, researchers have suggested that women are just as likely to
exert control; however, they are less likely to use violent means to estab-
lish a position of dominance within the relationship (Frye et al., 2006).
Somewhat surprisingly, despite active campaigns and policies to discour-
age relationship violence in certain parts of the world, including Spain,
research suggests that the demographic group most at risk of experiencing
CBs are young women between the ages of 16 and 24 (e.g., Gobierno de
España, 2015). Taking these gender differences into account, it is impor-
tant to consider the characteristics of both members of the couple, as well
as key features of the relationship, as such factors are likely associated
with the use of control within the relationship context.
Regarding controlling men, they are characterized by prior criminal
arrests for violent and nonviolent offenses (Henning & Klesges, 2003),
alcohol abuse (Foran & O’Leary, 2008) and lower levels of education
(Krantz & Dang Vung, 2009). With respect to relationship characteristics,
research has focused recent attention on employment, economic and educa-
tional status similarities/discrepancies in the couple. Findings from this
work indicate that physical violence risk increases when women do not
have the economic resources to leave the relationship (i.e., lower income
and lower job status than husband; Antai, 2011). In instances where the
woman earns more than her male partner, research has identified a greater
likelihood of male aggression in general, and sexual aggression in particu-
lar (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Lang, 2005). Nevertheless, the association
between income discrepancies, CBs, and psychological and physical forms
of IPV remains undetermined. With respect to employment status, research
suggests that the greatest risk of IPV occurs when neither member of the
couple is employed (Alvira-Hammond, Longmore, Manning, & Giordano,
2014), followed by instances where only the woman is employed; the risk
of violence is considerably lower among couples where both members are
employed (Franklin & Menaker, 2014). The findings are less clear with
respect to educational discrepancies. Although some early studies con-
ducted in the 1970s found that women with higher levels of education than
their male partners were at greater risk of IPV victimization (e.g., O’Brien,
1971), more recent research has failed to find a significant association
between educational discrepancies and IPV (Franklin & Menaker, 2014;
Rodríguez-Menés & Safranoff, 2012). The current research explores the
impact of income and educational discrepancies within the couple on CBs
and physical and psychological IPV.
Aizpurua et al. 7

IPV Among Spanish Women: Key Contextual

Considerations
In Spain, violence within the intimate context is especially problematic, both
in terms of its magnitude and seriousness, and primarily affects women.
During 2014, 83% of all intimate partner homicides (53 in total) were commit-
ted by men against their female partners, whereas the remaining 17% were
committed by women against their male partners (Consejo General del Poder
Judicial, 2016). At the same time, one in 10 women residing in Spain (10.4%)
reported having suffered physical violence at the hands of a romantic partner,
and 8.1% reported having experienced sexual coercion. These figures increase
considerably for psychological violence, including CBs (25.4%) and emo-
tional forms of abuse (21.9%; Gobierno de España, 2015). There is less infor-
mation about male victimization within the Spanish context, and thus it is
impossible to provide a comparison of victimization experiences by gender.
Over the past 40 years, Spain has experienced an impressive degree of
social change, the most important of which was the transition from a dictator-
ship to a democracy. Prior to this regime change, violence against women
within the domestic sphere was considered a private matter, and therefore,
did not require official intervention. Efforts to increase the awareness of
Spanish society toward violence against women were slow-starting, but
remained constant until such violence was understood to present a serious
social problem. Subsequently, a number of legislative changes were made,
including the addition of spousal/intimate partner abuse to the penal code and
the promulgation of a law specifically targeting gender-based violence (i.e.,
Ley Organica de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de
Género). These changes were reflective of Spain’s formal acknowledgment
of the gravity of violence against women, and provided clear-cut guidelines
for its legal ramifications, including sentencing (Ferrer & Bosch, 2006).
Nevertheless, despite low levels of endorsement of more severe forms of
violence against women (i.e., physical and sexual forms of abuse), there
remains broad acceptance of certain CBs which, as highlighted above, are
astonishingly prevalent. More specifically, 31% of Spaniards endorse the use
of certain forms of control within the couple context, and 14% are accepting
of placing restrictions on an intimate partner (Centro de Investigaciones
Sociológicas, 2012).

The Current Study

The objective of the current investigation is to corroborate the results of prior
research conducted in other countries on CBs and IPV. In particular, we
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

examine associations between a broad range of CBs and physical and psy-
chological forms of IPV. In this way, we are able to examine the predictive
value of CBs, as well as further develop our understanding of control as a risk
factor for certain types of abuse. In addition, drawing on prior research, we
control for the effects of both individual and partner characteristics, as well
as features of the romantic relationship. At the same time, this study attempts
to evaluate the extent to which individual, partner, and relationship character-
istics contribute to our understanding of CBs by examining correlates of CBs
in predictive models. Findings will contribute to our understanding of factors
associated with the use of control to inform programmatic efforts and poten-
tially dismantle such behaviors before they become more firmly cemented,
and before they escalate to more severe forms of abuse.

Data and Method

Sample
The data analyzed in this study come from the Spanish sample (n = 1,520
women above 18 years of age) of the Violence Against Women Survey, car-
ried out by the FRA in 2012. Respondents were selected using a random
probability methodology and were interviewed face-to-face by female inter-
viewers. According to the definitions recommended by the American
Association for Public Opinion Research (2011), the response rate (RR3) for
the survey was 31.1%.1 The analytic sample consisted of all respondents
reporting on a current relationship with valid responses on the outcome vari-
ables (n = 1,161). Missing covariate information was preserved using multi-
ple imputation techniques in Stata 14.

Dependent Variables
CBs in the current relationship.  The first dependent variable in the analysis was
controlling behaviors in the current relationship. This measure was assessed
by asking respondents how often their current partners (a) try to keep them
from seeing their friends, (b) try to restrict their contact with their families or
relatives, (c) insist on knowing where they are in a way that goes beyond
general concern, (d) get angry if they speak with another man, (e) become
suspicious that they are unfaithful, (f) prevent them from making decisions
about family finances and from shopping independently, (g) forbid them to
work outside the home, and (h) forbid them to leave the house. Items were
rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always). To
create a composite index, responses were summed, with higher scores
Aizpurua et al. 9

indicating greater severity of CBs (range = 0-16). The interitem correlation

for these items ranged from .44 to .71, and the alpha coefficient was high
(Cronbach’s α = .84). This measure was also examined as an independent
variable in models predicting physical and psychological IPV.

IPV in the current relationship.  In accordance with previous research (D. W.

Campbell, Campbell, King, Parker, & Ryan, 1994; Sierra, Monge, Santos-
Iglesias, Bermúdez, & Salinas, 2011, among others), we assessed IPV by mea-
suring psychological and physical violence. Psychological violence was
measured with eight questions that ask respondents how often they experience
acts of humiliation, intimidation, and belittling (e.g., “my current partner
threats to hurt my children”). The 4-point scales were first dichotomized (by
coding sometimes, often, and all the time as 1, and never as 0), and then
summed (Cronbach’s α = .77). To differentiate between victims and nonvic-
tims, this variable was transformed into a dummy variable, coded 1 if the
respondent had experienced at least one incident of psychological violence,
and 0 otherwise. Physical violence was measured using 14 questions assessing
physical and sexual abuse. These include threatening, pushing, slapping, beat-
ing, grabbing, kicking, burning, strangling, stabbing, and forcing sexual acts.
To compute the index, all the variables were first dichotomized (affirmative
responses were coded as 1) and then summed (Cronbach’s α = .77). As in the
case of psychological violence, this variable was dichotomized distinguishing
between victims of physical violence (coded as 1) and nonvictims of physical
violence (those who responded affirmatively to any of the 14 questions).

Independent Variables
To address the issue of spuriousness, the analyses accounted for several vari-
ables that have been identified as correlates of the dependent variables in prior
work. These controls were grouped into three main categories: (a) individual
characteristics, (b) partner characteristics, and (c) relationship characteristics.

Individual characteristics.  Women’s personal characteristics included age (18-

24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60 years and above), education,
employment status (currently employed = 1), immigrant minority status
(minority = 1), whether the respondent had ever resided outside of Spain (1=
yes), and whether the respondent had children (children = 1). Education was
measured with seven categories ranging from less than primary school (1) to
postgraduate studies (7). We also controlled for previous experiences of vio-
lence by including self-reported physical and sexual abuse during childhood
(childhood physical/sexual abuse= 1).
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Partner characteristics.  In addition to individual characteristics, several char-

acteristics of the partner were included in the models. These included age
(15-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39,40-49, 50-59, 60 years and above), education
(ordinal variable ranging from less than primary school (1) to postgraduate
studies (7)), employment status (currently employed = 1), alcohol consump-
tion (“consumption with no episodes of drunkenness,” “one or less episodes
of drunkenness a month,” and “more than one episodes of drunkenness a
month”), and a dichotomous variable indicating whether the focal partner had
engaged in violence outside the family (1= yes).

Relationship characteristics.  We included a number of relationship consider-

ations including marital status (married or in a civil partnership = 1), rela-
tionship duration (less than 1 year, 1 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years, more than 20
years), and presence of children in the household (1 = yes). Material hardship
was taken from the following single item: “Which of the descriptions on this
card comes closest to how you feel about your household’s income nowa-
days?” (responses ranged from 1 = “living comfortably on present income”
to 4 = “finding it very difficult on present income”).

Analytic Strategy
First, we examined descriptive statistics for the key dependent and indepen-
dent variables included in this investigation (Table 1). Next, we used ordi-
nary least squares (OLS) regression to predict CB in the current relationship
(Table 2). Variance inflation factors (VIF) were less than 2.50, indicating
that multicollinearity was not an issue in the models.
Finally, logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of
psychological and physical victimization (Table 3). In these models, CBs in
the current relationship was used as an independent variable while adjusting
for the controls described above.

Results
Descriptive Results
Table 1 showed the means/percentages, standard deviations, and ranges of all
variables used in the analyses. Nearly 9% of the sample self-reported psycho-
logical IPV victimization, and roughly 4% reported physical IPV victimiza-
tion. Although these figures are lower than other estimates, including those
from U.S. samples (Montgomery et al., 2015), it is important to note that the
current investigation focuses on violence in the context of a current
Aizpurua et al. 11

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (n = 1,161).

M/% SD Range
Dependent variables
  Current controlling behavior 0.39 0.04 0-16
  Psychological intimate partner violence 8.53%  
  Physical intimate partner violence 3.70%  
Independent variables
  Women’s age 4.91 0.05 1-7
  Women’s education 3.74 0.04 1-7
  Women’s employment status 36.42%  
  Belong to an immigrant minority 3.01%  
  Resided outside of Spain 21.02%  
 Children 81.57%  
  Childhood physical/sexual abuse 10.68%  
  Partner’s age 5.20 0.05 1-7
  Partner’s education 3.76 0.04 1-7
  Partner’s employment status 54.04%  
Alcohol consumption
(Never drink/no episodes of drunkenness)
   One or less episodes of drunkenness a month 12.14%  
   One or more episodes of drunkenness a month 4.74%  
  Violence outside the family 5.19%  
  Economic hardship 2.03 0.03 1-4
  Relationship length 3.84 0.05 1-7
  Children living in the household 47.59%  
 Married 88.72%  
Income discrepancy
(Partner earns less than the respondent)
   Both earn roughly the same 16.80%  
   Partner earns more than the respondent 74.59%  
Educational discrepancy
(Partner less educated than the respondent)
   Both equally educated 48.66%  
   Partner more educated than the respondent 27.65%  

relationship as opposed to lifetime estimates. Average levels of controlling

behaviors were 0.39, suggesting that the experience of control tactics within
the context of a current relationship were relatively infrequent. Similarly,
reports of partners’ involvement in violence outside of the family were low, at
just over 5%, and less than one-fifth of the sample reported that their partners
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Table 2.  OLS Regression Coefficients for the Association Between Individual,
Partner, and Relationship Characteristics and Controlling Behaviors in the Current
Relationship (n = 1,161).

Zero Order Model 1

Variables b SE b SE
Women’s age −0.053* 0.03 −0.131* 0.07
Women’s education −0.025 0.03 −0.00 0.09
Women’s employment status 0.060 0.09 0.116 0.10
Belong to an immigrant minority 0.752** 0.25 0.097 0.26
Resided outside of Spain 0.613*** 0.11 0.491*** 0.11
Children −0.055 0.11 0.138 0.15
Childhood physical/sexual abuse 0.562*** 0.14 0.290* 0.14
Partner’s age −0.032 0.03 0.132* 0.06
Partner’s education −0.027 0.03 −0.011 0.08
Partner’s employment status −0.040 0.09 −0.089 0.10
Alcohol consumptiona
  One or less episodes of 0.244 0.13 0.127 0.13
drunkenness a month
  More than one episodes of 1.421*** 0.20 1.126*** 0.20
drunkenness a month
Violence outside the family 1.415*** 0.19 1.161*** 0.19
Economic hardship 0.100* 0.05 0.046 0.05
Relationship length −0.048 0.03 0.011 0.05
Children living in the household 0.006 0.09 −0.026 0.11
Married −0.409** 0.14 −0.350* 0.16
Income discrepancyb
  Both earn roughly the same −0.224 0.18 −0.105 0.18
  Partner earns more than the −0.050 0.16 0.017 0.16
respondent
Educational discrepancyb
  Both equally educated −0.055 0.11 −0.001 0.16
  Partner more educated 0.016 0.12 0.117 0.26
Constant 0.175 0.37
R2 .116

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares; b = unstandardized OLS coefficient; SE= standard error.
aReference category for alcohol consumption is no consumption/consumption with no

episodes of drunkenness.
bReference categories for income inconsistency and education inconsistency are respondent

earns more than her partner, and respondent more educated.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Aizpurua et al. 13

Table 3.  Odds Ratios for the Association Between Individual, Partner, and
Relationship Characteristics and Psychological and Physical Intimate Partner
Violence (n = 1,161).
Model 1 Psychological IPV Model 2 Physical IPV

Variables OR SE OR SE

Current controlling behavior 2.878*** 0.35 2.035*** 0.20

Women’s age 1.821* 0.45 2.068* 0.74
Women’s education 0.731 0.19 0.811 0.32
Women’s employment status 1.572 0.54 0.895 0.49
Belong to an immigrant minority 1.463 1.09 6.884* 5.64
Resided outside of Spain 1.036 0.39 0.885 0.50
Children 1.604 0.95 1.238 1.24
Childhood physical/sexual abuse 1.398 0.58 2.579† 1.33
Partner’s age 0.703 0.16 0.705 0.24
Partner’s education 1.412 0.36 0.780 0.30
Partner’s employment status 1.195 0.42 2.405† 1.26
Alcohol consumptiona
  One or less episodes of 1.400 0.59 1.498 0.90
drunkenness a month
  More than one episodes of 3.307* 1.69 1.416 1.01
drunkenness a month
Violence outside the family 3.951** 1.73 6.100*** 3.17
Economic hardship 1.030 0.18 1.011 0.26
Relationship length 1.028 0.18 1.052 0.28
Children living in the household 0.795 0.31 0.664 0.40
Married 0.852 0.49 1.139 1.00
Income discrepancyb
  Both earn roughly the same 2.827 1.99 1.014 1.02
  Partner earns more than the 3.025† 1.95 1.145 0.96
respondent
Educational discrepancyb
  Both equally educated 0.461 0.23 0.520 0.40
  Partner more educated 0.281 0.24 0.601 0.76
Constant 0.003*** 0.00 0.003** 0.01
Pseudo-R2 .408 .473

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error.

aReference category for alcohol consumption is no consumption/consumption with no episodes of

drunkenness.
bReference categories for income inconsistency and education inconsistency are respondent earns more

than her partner, and respondent more educated.

†p ≤ .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

consumed elevated levels of alcohol. The majority of women were aged 35 or

older and had at least a secondary education. Approximately two-fifths of the
sample was employed, as were just over half of the respondents’ partners
(54%). The vast majority of women had children (82%), however, less than
half resided with their children in the same household. This is likely due to the
broad age distribution of the sample, and the large number of women partici-
pants with adult children. In terms of educational and income discrepancies,
women and their partners generally had similar levels of education, however,
women participants typically earned less than their male partners.

Risk Factors for CBs

Results from our OLS regression model are presented in Table 2. The first
column presents the zero-order relationships between the study variables and
reports of CBs. At the bivariate level, women’s age and marital status were
negatively associated with CBs such that younger women and women in non-
marital relationships reported experiencing higher levels of controlling
behaviors from their partners. In addition, belonging to an immigrant minor-
ity and having resided outside of Spain were positively associated to suffer-
ing CBs at the zero order. Finally, early childhood abuse, partner alcohol
consumption, violence outside the family, and economic hardship were asso-
ciated with greater exposure to CBs.
In the second column (Model 1), we present findings from a full model
which includes the complete range of individual, partner, and relationship
characteristics described in this study. With regard to individual characteris-
tics, younger women (b = −0.131, p = .046,) and those who had resided out-
side of Spain (b = 0.491, p < .001) were more likely to experience controlling
behaviors by their partners. Consistent with prior research, women with a per-
sonal history of abuse during childhood indicated higher levels of CBs from
their partners in their relationships (b = 0.29, p = .036). Regarding the part-
ner’s characteristics, age, and violence outside the family had a positive effect
on the dependent variable (b = 0.132, p = .036; b = 1.161, p < .001, respec-
tively). In addition, women reported higher CBs from their partner when their
partner engaged in more than one episodes of drunkenness a month (b = 1.126,
p < .001). Only one of the relationship characteristics emerged as significant,
such that CBs were less severe among married couples (b = −0.350, p = .033).

Risk Factors for Psychological and Physical Abuse

The logistic models examining associations between current CB and psy-
chological and physical violence are presented in Table 3. The first model
Aizpurua et al. 15

assessed the odds of psychological violence (Model 1). For each one-unit
increase in the CB scale, the odds of victimization increased by 2.88 times
(odds ratio [OR] = 2.878, p < .001). In addition, three of the controls
emerged as significant predictors. More specifically, older women were
more likely to experience psychological violence as compared with younger
women (OR = 1.821, p = .015). Women whose partners are violent outside
the family are about 4 times more likely to experience psychological vio-
lence in their relationships than their peers (OR = 3.951, p = .002). Similarly,
women whose partners are heavy drinkers are more likely to experience
psychological violence (OR = 3.307, p = .020). Finally, women whose part-
ners earn more money are more likely to experience psychological violence
in their current relationship, although this association is marginally signifi-
cant (OR = 3.025, p = .086).
Model 2 (Table 3) presents the results of the logistic regression examining
associations between physical violence and CB, which explained approximately
47% of the variance in physical violence. Based on the ORs, a one-unit increase
on the CB scale was associated with an increase of 104% in the odds of physical
violence (OR = 2.035, p < .001). Women belonging to an immigrant minority
were more likely to report physical violence than those who did not (OR = 6.884,
p = .019). With respect to partners’ characteristics, being violent outside the fam-
ily increased the odds of physical violence by 6 times (OR = 6.100, p < .001).
Two additional variables were marginally significant in this model: childhood
physical/sexual abuse and partner’s employment status. In this regard, findings
indicated that physical IPV was more likely to occur when women had experi-
enced abuse in their family of origin (OR = 2.579, p = .066), and when their
partners were currently employed (OR = 2.405, p = .094).
As hypothesized, CBs were strongly associated with a higher likelihood of
psychological and physical violence. Moreover, these relationships remained
statistically significant after controlling for important respondent, partner,
and relationship characteristics.

Discussion
While numerous studies have examined risk factors for psychological and
physical IPV in the United States, the current study contributes beyond prior
work by considering whether established risk factors are similarly associated
with IPV among women in Spain. Using data from the Violence Against
Women Survey conducted by the FRA, this study adds to our understanding
of the etiology of IPV. These data are particularly well-suited for these analy-
ses as they include key risk factors for IPV identified in prior work, including
a range of individual, partner, and relationship characteristics. Furthermore,
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

the data provide information on various CBs, as well as measures of psycho-

logical and physical forms of abuse. Recognizing the centrality of CBs to
theoretical and etiological discussions of partner violence, the current investi-
gation examines the role of control within the Spanish context by examining
its correlates, as well as its influence on psychological and physical violence.
Analyses focused on determining correlates of CBs revealed that young
women, and women who have resided outside of Spain, are at greatest risk of
experiencing control within the context of an ongoing relationship. These
findings align with recent research which indicated that the highest preva-
lence of CBs was among adolescents (M age = 15.7; Fawson, 2015). That
women who are not lifelong residents of Spain are at greater risk suggests a
potential link between immigrant status and IPV, which may be a function of
social isolation and a more limited social network observed among immi-
grant women (Rodríguez-Menés & Safranoff, 2012). It is important to further
investigate this potential link as the current investigation used an imprecise
measure of immigrant status, which captured all participants who had previ-
ously resided outside of Spain. Still, preventive measures targeting the use of
control within the romantic context may find utility in focusing specific
attention on this demographic group. From an intervention/prevention per-
spective, these findings further highlight the importance of increasing efforts
to eradicate physical/sexual abuse during childhood. Our results showed a
strong association between a history of abuse and the presence of CBs in the
current relationship. Furthermore, childhood experiences of abuse/neglect
have been identified as among the most salient predictors of subsequent IPV
(Whitfield, Anda, Shanta, & Felitti, 2003; Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2014).
Attention to partner characteristics associated with CBs provided an emer-
gent profile of men who engage in control tactics which included men with
frequent episodes of drunkenness, as well as men who frequently engage in
violence outside of the home. Therefore, the early prevention of excessive
alcohol consumption and violence in male adolescents may help deter the use
of CBs in future relationships. Targeting such behaviors early on may also
promote healthier adolescent relationships, and may deter the use of control,
as well as more serious forms of abuse, in subsequent relationships. With
respect to discrepancies in couple-level income and education, we found no
significant associations with CBs. However, women involved with older men,
and women in nonmarital relationships, reported experiencing greater levels
of CBs from their partners. Future work should continue to explore status
discrepancies and the context within which CBs typically emerge within
young couples characterized by relationship discrepancies, as our findings
may be indicative of the persistence of traditional gender norms within young
couples and among individuals who are involved with older men.
Aizpurua et al. 17

In addition to models examining associations between individual, partner,

and relationship characteristics and control in predictive models, we also esti-
mated models predicting psychological and physical IPV against women.
CBs have been a key focus of IPV researchers for the past few decades, and
the findings of the current investigation provide further evidence of the
impact of CBs on psychological and physical violence (accounting for 41%
and 47% of the explained variance, respectively). These findings coincide
with prior research conducted in other European (e.g., Graham-Kevan &
Archer, 2008) and North American countries (e.g., Kelly & Johnson, 2008)
suggesting that, independent of the prevalence of violence in the countries
examined, CBs similarly contributed to the observed variability in violence
across contexts. This finding also brings to light the relevance of taking pre-
ventive measures or intervening when CBs are observed and not only in
response to physical injuries. In fact, the experiences of CBs are more com-
mon than that of repeated abuse among women who survived an attempted
homicide by their male partner (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Furthermore, many
scholars have suggested that acts of physical aggression toward a romantic
partner are often provoked by a control motive (e.g., Felson & Messner,
2000). Thus, eliminating this desire to control may lead to reductions in the
use of physical aggression. Some researchers have attempted to identify a
concrete number of CBs to establish risk for physical aggression. For exam-
ple, Frye and colleagues (2006) found that 50% of the women that had been
physically assaulted had experienced three or more CBs in their relation-
ships. Future research should further consider the amount and types of con-
trol that most closely predict physical and psychological violence to facilitate
the prevention of violent perpetration and victimization.
The significant associations between control and psychological and
physical violence persisted controlling for a roster of individual, partner,
and relationship characteristics. Of the controls, our findings indicate that
there is a greater probability of psychological and physical aggression
among older women. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the experience of
CBs was more common among younger women. Although these results
may appear somewhat surprising, particularly in a country where the pre-
vention of CBs appears in national publicity campaigns, recent studies in
Spain have revealed that one third of young people between the ages of 15
and 29 accept certain types of CBs (i.e., controlling partners’ schedules,
prohibiting partners from seeing friends or family, forbidding the partner to
study or work) as inevitable in romantic relationships (De Miguel, 2015).
Future work should consider the use of longitudinal data to analyze the
underlying mechanisms linking control to subsequent psychological and
physical aggression.
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Similar to the models predicting CBs, our analyses of psychological and

physical violence indicated that men who exhibit more episodes of drunken-
ness are more likely to engage in psychological violence in their romantic
relationships. Furthermore, violence outside the family was associated with
reports of both psychological and physical violence. It is on the basis of simi-
lar findings that IPV intervention programs have included a heavy focus on
psychological factors such as emotional decoding and regulation, perspective
taking, and empathy, along with attention to alcohol consumption. Although
the precise link between alcohol abuse and IPV is unclear, there is some
research to suggest that alcohol abuse mediates the association between tes-
tosterone/cortisol ratio and anger expression in IPV perpetrators (Romero,
Lila, & Moya-Albiol, 2015). However, given that existing treatment pro-
grams based on traditional models of IPV and focused exclusively on men’s
behavior have shown little signs of success, it is important that future data
collection efforts provide a more comprehensive view of relationships char-
acterized by IPV by including attention to individual, partner, and relational
sources of risk.
This research builds on existing work by providing an empirical exami-
nation of risk factors for IPV among women in Spain. Although the research
findings contribute in many ways to our understanding of the etiology of
IPV against women, there are a few limitations. First, the data used in the
current investigation are cross-sectional. Prior research and theorizing sug-
gest that control and other key risk factors precede the experience of rela-
tionship violence; however, we were unable to establish a precise causal
order. Future research should examine these associations longitudinally to
address issues of causal ordering and examine the potential for reciprocal
effects. Second, the current investigation focuses specifically on male-to-
female IPV. This is important as numerous studies have established the more
severe physical and mental health consequences of IPV against women.
However, future research should examine a similar set of risk factors among
both men and women in Spain. Finally, although these data allowed for
examination of important partner and relationship characteristics, they do
not provide a window on the nature and dynamics of relationships character-
ized by psychological and physical abuse. Future work should move beyond
individual sources of risk to consider risk factors from a dyadic perspective
to shed light on concrete mechanisms driving the use of control, as well as
psychological and physical violence.
In summary, our results are consistent with the findings of previous U.S.-
based research and demonstrate that CBs significantly increase the likelihood
of experiencing psychological and physical violence among adult women in
Spain. This finding emphasizes the utility of focusing on such behaviors in
Aizpurua et al. 19

both prevention and intervention settings, as attention to CBs may help indi-
viduals move away from violent relationships, as well as nonviolent but
potentially high-risk relationships. Furthermore, given our finding that CBs
are more prevalent among young couples, future prevention efforts may want
to focus additional efforts on identifying and encouraging healthy relation-
ship behaviors among this demographic group. It is also important to empha-
size the vulnerability of immigrant women to CBs, as they are frequently
excluded from existing prevention programs. In addition to examining asso-
ciations between CBs and physical and psychological forms of abuse, the
current study sought to identify predictors of CBs in their own right. We
focused particular attention on characteristics at the individual, partner, and
relationship level, and found a number of potential risk factors including—
but not limited to—age, and years living in Spain. Future work should con-
sider a broader range of factors to further elucidate the processes or
mechanisms that contribute to the use of control within the intimate context.

Authors’ Note
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2015). European Union Agency
for Fundamental Rights: Violence Against Women Survey, 2012: Special License
Access. [Data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 7730. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7730-1

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Note
1. For more details about response rate calculations, see http://www.aapor.org/
Standards-Ethics/Standard-Definitions-(1).aspx

References
Alvira-Hammond, M., Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., & Giordano, P. C. (2014).
Gainful activity and intimate partner aggression in emerging adulthood. Emerging
Adulthood, 2, 116-127. doi:10.1177/2167696813512305
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2011). Standard defini-
tions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (7th ed.).
Deerfield, IL: Author.
20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of

feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3),
655-669.
Anderson, K. L. (2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex
Roles, 52(11-12), 853-865. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4204-x
Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. (2011). Psychosocial consequences of intimate partner
violence form women and men in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26,
1628-1645. doi:10.1177/0886260510370600
Antai, D. (2011). Controlling behavior, power relations with intimate relationships
and intimate partner physical and sexual violence against women in Nigeria.
BMC Public Health, 11(1), Article 511. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-511
Atkinson, M. P., Greenstein, T. N., & Lang, M. M. (2005). For women, breadwinning
can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67, 1137-1148. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00206.x
Bates, E. A., Grahan-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2014). Testing predictions from the
male control theory of men’s partner violence. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 42-55.
doi: 10.1002/ab.21499
Beck, C. J. A., & Raghavan, C. (2010). Intimate partner abuse screening in custody
mediation: The importance of assessing coercive control. Family Court Review,
48, 555-565. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01329.x
Breiding, M. J., Chen, J., & Black, M. C. (2014). Intimate partner violence in the
United States—2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Campbell, D. W., Campbell, J., King, C., Parker, B., & Ryan, J. (1994). The reli-
ability and factor structure of the Index of Spouse Abuse with African-American
women. Violence and Victims, 9, 259-274.
Campbell, J. C., Sharps, P., & Glass, N. E. (2000). Risk assessment for intimate part-
ner violence. In G. F. Pinard & L. Pagani (Eds.), Clinical assessment of dan-
gerousness: Empirical contributions (pp. 136-157). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, D., .
. . Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results
from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1089-
1097. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089
Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic
review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280.
doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231
Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. (2012). Barómetro de noviembre. Estudio nº
2968 [Barometer of November. Study No. 2968]. Retrieved from http://www.cis.
es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Marginales/2960_2979/2968/es2968mar.
pdf
Consejo General del Poder Judicial. (2016). Análisis de las sentencias dictadas por
los tribunales del jurado y por las audiencias provinciales en el año 2014, rela-
tivas a homicidios y/o asesinatos consumados entre los miembros de la pareja
o ex pareja y menores a manos de sus progenitores [Analysis of the sentences
Aizpurua et al. 21

issued by jury tribunals and the provincial courts in the year 2014, relative to
homicides and/or murders committed by members of a couple or a former couple
and minors at the hands by their parents]. Retrieved from http://www.poderju-
dicial.es/cgpj/es/Temas/Violencia-domestica-y-de-genero/Grupos-de-expertos/
Analisis-de-las-sentencias-dictadas-por-los-Tribunales-del-Jurado-y-por-las-
Audiencias-Provinciales-en-el-ano-2011–relativas-a-homicidios-y-o-asesinatos-
consumados-entre-los-miembros-de-la-pareja-o-ex-pareja
De Miguel, V. (2015). Percepción de la violencia de género en la adolescencia y la
juventud [Perceptions of gender-based violence among adolescents and youth].
Madrid: MSSSI. Retrieved from http://www.observatoriodelainfancia.es/oia/esp/
descargar.aspx?id=4483&tipo=documento
Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y. T., Garcia-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child, J. C., Falder,
G., . . . Watts, C. H. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence
against women. Science, 340, 1527-1528. doi:10.1126/science.1240937
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patri-
archy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Eshelman, L., & Levendosky, A. A. (2012). Dating violence: Mental health
consequences based on type of abuse. Violence and Victims, 27, 215-228.
doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.2.215
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2015). European Union Agency
for Fundamental Rights: Violence Against Women Survey, 2012: Special License
Access. [Data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 7730. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7730-1
Fawson, P. R. (2015). Controlling behaviors as predictor of partner violence among
heterosexual female and male adolescents. Partner Abuse, 6, 217-229.
Felson, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (2000). The control motive in intimate partner vio-
lence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 86-94. doi:10.2307/2695883
Ferrer, V. A., & Bosch, E. (2006). El papel del movimiento feminista en la consid-
eración social de la violencia contra las mujeres: el caso de España [The role of
the feminist movement in society’s view of violence against women: the case of
Spain]. Revista Labrys, 10, 1-20.
Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A
meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1222-1234. doi:10.1016/j.
cpr.2008.05.001
Franklin, C. A., & Menaker, T. A. (2014). Feminism, status inconsistency, and
women’s intimate partner victimization in heterosexual relationships. Violence
Against Women, 20, 825-845. doi:10.1177/1077801214543385
Frye, V., Manganello, J., Campbell, J. C., & Wilt, S. (2006). The distribution of and
factors associated with intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among
a population-based sample of urban women in the United States. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1286-1313. doi:10.1177/0886260506291658
García-Moreno, C., Jansen, H., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, T. H. (2006).
Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country
study on women’s health and domestic violence. The Lancet, 368, 1260-1289.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69523-8
22 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Giordano, P. C., Copp, J. E., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2015). Contested
domains, verbal “amplifiers,” and intimate partner violence in young adulthood.
Social Forces, 94, 923-951. doi:10.1093/sf/sov055
Giordano, P. C., Copp, J. E., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2016). Anger,
control, and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Journal of Family
Violence, 31(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s10896-015-9753-3
Gobierno de España. (2015). Macroencuesta Violencia contra la Mujer [Violence
against Women Macrosurvey]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales
e Igualdad. Delegación del Gobierno para la Violencia de Género.
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical
aggression and violence to partners? Journal of Family Violence, 23, 539-548.
doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9162-y
Henning, K., & Klesges, L. M. (2003). Prevalence and characteristics of psychologi-
cal abuse reported by court-involved battered women. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 18, 857-871. doi:10.1177/0886260503253878
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two
forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283-294.
doi:10.2307/353683
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic
violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1-16. doi:10.1177/1077801206293328
Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent
resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University
Press.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s:
Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 948-963. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x
Johnson, M. P., Leone, J. M., & Xu, Y. (2014). Intimate terrorism and situational cou-
ple violence in general surveys: Ex-spouses required. Violence Against Women,
20, 186-207. doi:10.1177/1077801214521324
Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate part-
ner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court
Review, 46, 476-499. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x
Krantz, G., & Dang Vung, N. (2009). The role of controlling behaviour in the intimate
partner violence and health effects: A population based study from rural Vietnam.
BCM Public Health, 9(1), 1-10. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-143
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., McCullars, A., & Misra, T. A. (2012). Motivations for
men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive
review. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 429-468. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429
Montgomery, B. E. E., Rompalo, A., Hughes, J., Wang, J., Haley, D., Soto-Torres, L.,
. . . Hodder, S., (2015). Violence against women in selected areas of the United
States. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), 2156-2166. doi: 10.2105/
AJPH.2014.302430
Myhill, A. (2015). Measuring coercive control: What can we learn from national population
surveys? Violence Against Women, 21, 355-375. doi:10.1177/1077801214568032
Aizpurua et al. 23

O’Brien, J. (1971). Violence in divorce prone families. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 33, 692-698.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth
model. New York, NY: Springer.
Rivara, F. P., Anderson, M. L., Fishman, P., Bonomi, A. E., Reid, R. J., Carrell, D., &
Thompson, R. S. (2007). Intimate partner violence and health care costs and uti-
lization for children living in the home. Pediatrics, 120, 1270-1277. doi:10.1542/
peds.2007-1148
Rodríguez-Carballeira, Á., Porrúa-García, C., Escartín, J., Martin-Peña, J., &
Almendros, C. (2014). Taxonomy and hierarchy of psychological abuse strategies
in intimate partner relationships. Anales de Psicologia, 30, 916-926. doi:10.6918/
analesps.30.3.154001
Rodríguez-Menés, J., & Safranoff, A. (2012). Violence against women in intimate
relations: A contrast of five theories. European Journal of Criminology, 9, 584-
602. doi:10.1177370812453410
Romero, A., Lila, M., & Moya-Albiol, L. (2015). Alcohol abuse mediates the associa-
tion between baseline T/C ratio and anger expression in intimate partner violence
perpetrators. Behavioral Sciences, 5, 113-120. doi:10.3390/bs5010113
Saeed Ali, T., Abbas, A., & Ather, F. (2014). Associations of controlling behavior,
physical and sexual violence with health symptoms. Journal of Women’s Health
Care, 3(6), 1-6. doi:10.4172/2167-0420.1000202
Shortt, J. W., Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., Kerr, D. C. R., Owen, L. D., & Feingold,
A. (2012). Stability of intimate partner violence by men across 12 years in young
adulthood: Effects of relationship transitions. Prevention Science, 13, 360-369.
doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0202-0
Sierra, J. C., Monge, F. S., Santos-Iglesias, P., Bermúdez, M. P., & Salinas, J. M.
(2011). Validation of a reduced Spanish version of the Index of Spouse Abuse.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11, 363-383.
Stets, J. A. (1992). Interactive processes in dating aggression: A national study.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 165-177. doi:10.2307/353284
Stets, J. E., & Hammons, S. A. (2002). Gender, control, and marital commitment.
Journal of Family Issues, 23(1), 3-25. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023001001
Tanha, M., Beck, C. J. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Raghavan, C. (2010). Sex differences in
intimate partner violence and the use of coercive control as a motivational factor
for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1836-1854.
doi:10.1177/0886260509354501
Walker, L. A. (2006). Battered woman syndrome: Empirical findings. Annals of New
York Academy of Sciences, 1087, 142-157. doi:10.1196/annals.1385.023
Walker, R., Shannon, L., & Logan, T. K. (2011). Sleep loss and partner vio-
lence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2004-2024.
doi:10.1177/0886260510372932
Whitfield, C. I., Anda, R. F., Shanta, R. D., & Felitti, V. J. (2003). Violent child-
hood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 18, 166-185. doi:10.1177/0886260502238733
24 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Widom, C. S., Czaja, S., & Dutton, M. A. (2014). Child abuse and neglect and inti-
mate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investiga-
tion. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 650-663. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.11.004
Widom, C. S., & Wilson, H. W. (2015). Intergenerational transmission of violence. In
J. Lindert & I. Levav (Eds.), Violence and mental health: Its manifold faces (pp.
27-45). New York, NY: Springer.
World Health Organization (2002). World report on violence and health. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
Yllo, 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, CA: Sage.

Author Biographies
Eva Aizpurua received her PhD in criminology from the University of Castilla-La
Mancha in Spain in January 2016. Following the award of her doctorate, she contin-
ued her work at the University as a postdoctoral fellow for several months before
joining the Center for Social and Behavioral Research at the University of Northern
Iowa in October 2016. Her research interests include public opinion on crime and
criminal justice, survey research methods, questionnaire design, and intimate partner
violence (IPV).
Jennifer Copp, PhD, is an assistant professor in the College of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Her research focuses on crime and other
problem behaviors during adolescence and young adulthood, with a particular empha-
sis on IPV.
Jorge J. Ricarte, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology and
the Criminology Research Centre of the University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. His
research focuses on cognitive variables related to mental health and aggressive behav-
ior, with a particular interest on the role of autobiographical memories processing in
developmental violence.
David Vázquez works as a researcher in the Criminology Research Centre, at the
University of Castilla-La Mancha, in Spain. His current research focuses on the social
legitimacy of legal authority.