Prevalence of psychological and physical intimate partner aggression in Madrid (Spain)a dyadic analysis

  1. Graña Gómez, José Luis
  2. Cuenca Montesino, María Luisa
Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 26

Número: 3

Páginas: 343-348

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

Antecedentes: el presente estudio tiene por objetivo analizar las prevalencias de agresión bidireccional psicológica y física en las relaciones íntimas de pareja mediante la Escala de Tácticas para el Conflicto (CTS-2) y determinar la influencia de las variables edad y tiempo de relación. Método: los participantes fueron 3.578 parejas heterosexuales pertenecientes a la Comunidad de Madrid. Resultados: la agresión bidireccional fue el patrón de agresión más frecuente en los tipos diádicos de agresión examinados, siendo analizadas las prevalencias de agresión mutua psicológica (46%) y física (4%), recíproca psicológica (41%) y física (3%) y la bidireccional psicológica (80%) y física (25%). Las variables edad y tiempo de relación fueron predictores significativos de la agresión bidireccional física y psicológica, siendo las parejas más jóvenes y las que llevan menos años de relación las que más agreden. Conclusiones: estos datos ofrecen una imagen objetiva sobre la agresión bidireccional en parejas españolas y sirven como punto de referencia para desarrollar programas de prevención, intervención e informes periciales.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Anderson, K.L. (2002). Perpetrator or Victim? Relationships between Intimate Partner Violence and Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 851-863.
  • Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651.
  • Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Field, C.A. (2005). Unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Violence and Victims, 20(4), 393-406.
  • Caetano, R., Vaeth, P.A., & Ramisetty-Mikler, S. (2008). Intimate partner violence victim and perpetrator characteristics among couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 23(6), 507-518.
  • Capaldi, D.M., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2012). Informing intimate partner violence prevention efforts: Dyadic, developmental, and contextual considerations. Prevention Science, 13(4), 323-328.
  • Desmarais, S.L., Reeves, K.A., Nicholls, T.L., Telford, R.P., & Fiebert, M.S. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 170-198.
  • Esquivel-Santoveña, E.E., & Dixon, L. (2012). Investigating the true rate of physical intimate partner violence: A review of nationally representative surveys. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(3), 208-219.
  • Graña, J.L., Andreu J.M., Peña, M.E., & Rodríguez M.J. (2013). Validez factorial y fiabilidad de la "Escala de tácticas para el conflicto revisada" (Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS2) en población adulta española [Factor validity and reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) in Spanish adult population]. Behavioral Psychology, 21(3), 525-543.
  • Instituto de Estadística de la Comunidad de Madrid. Censo de Población y Viviendas 2001. Revisión de las proyecciones de población de la Comunidad de Madrid 1996-2011. Datos provisionales [Population Census. Review of population projections for the Community of Madrid 1996-2011. Provisional data]. Instituto Nacional de Estadística.
  • Johnson, M.P., & Leone, J.M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence findings from the national violence against women survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322-349.
  • Johnson, M.P. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 289-296.
  • Jose, A., & O'Leary, K.D. (2009). Prevalence of partner aggression in representative and clinical samples. In K.D. O'Leary & E.M. Woodin (Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions (pp. 15-35). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
  • Kar, H.L., & O'Leary, K.D. (2010). Gender symmetry or asymmetry in intimate partner victimization? Not an either/or answer. Partner Abuse, 1(2), 152-168.
  • Kelly, J.B., & Johnson, M.P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476-499.
  • Kimmel, M.S. (2002). "Gender Symmetry" in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence against Women, 8(11), 1332-1363.
  • Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M.L. (2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199-230.
  • McKinney, C.M., & Caetano, R. (Eds.) (2010). Intimate partner violence: Aggression at close quarters. In Impulse Control Disorders (pp. 240-254). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Melander, L.A., Noel, H., & Tyler, K.A. (2010). Bidirectional, unidirectional, and nonviolence: A comparison of the predictors among partnered young adults. Violence and Victims, 25(5), 617-630.
  • O'Leary, K.D., & Williams, M.C. (2006). Agreement about acts of physical aggression in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 656-662.
  • Panuzio, J., & DiLillo, D. (2010). Physical, psychological, and sexual intimate partner aggression among newlywed couples: Longitudinal prediction of marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 25(7), 689-699.
  • Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and aggression: The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
  • Straus, M.A. (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407-432.
  • Straus, M.A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.
  • Straus, M.A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: The methodological, theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(5), 538-556.
  • Straus, M.A., & Douglas, E.M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507-520.
  • Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D.B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283-316.
  • Straus, M.A., & Ramírez, I.L. (2007). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33(4), 281-290.
  • Taft, C.T., Torres, S.E., Panuzio, J., Murphy, M., O'Farrell, T.J., Monson, C.M., et al. (2006). Examining the correlates of psychological aggression among a community sample of couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(4), 581-588.
  • Whitaker, D.J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L.S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97(5), 941-947.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet