Background
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent public health problem that affects millions of families. IPV increases the risk of myriad health conditions; for example, IPV-related illness and injury costs the health care system in the United States over $4.1 billion per year.
Much of what is known about IPV comes from quantitative studies that often "count" acts of IPV without exploring in depth the circumstances surrounding the violence, thereby leaving critical questions unanswered. For example, large quantitative surveys have found that women perpetrate at least as many acts of IPV as men. This finding has caused significant controversy, as the quantitative studies that report equal rates of aggression fail to provide information about the motivations or feelings associated with violent acts. Thus, some researchers have suggested that the high rate of female-perpetrated violence is due to the situational context of IPV in which women are afraid of their partners and primarily use aggression in self-defense, whereas men generally are not intimidated by women's use of IPV and use it themselves to control their partners.
Qualitative IPV studies initially focused solely on women's perspectives; this focus likely related to researchers' desire to bring attention to women's experiences with battering and the serious damage resulting from victimization, and to raise awareness about the magnitude and severity of the problem. One researcher summarized that these early qualitative studies about women's experiences with IPV demonstrated that "cultural constructions of romance and 'perfect love' serve the function of binding women in abusive relationships….[and that women] co-opted traditional gender narrative[s] by making excuses for their partners' violence and internalizing expectations that they should nurture their romantic partner" (p. 184). Although more recent studies have explored men's narratives about IPV events, few studies have examined the perceptions of both partners within a relationship. This omission hinders in-depth understanding of the greater context within which violent disagreements occur. Specifically, our literature search identified only a small number of studies which we feel are important to describe in detail to contextualize the current study, that used data from both partners to investigate the immediate triggers for violent episodes.
Boonzaier (2008) recruited from social service agencies in South Africa, interviewing 15 heterosexual couples who were involved in a relationship with IPV. Using a narrative approach informed by a feminist perspective, she described myriad underlying themes related to perceptions of self in the relationship, cycles of violence and use of power tactics. For example, she reported that the men often resisted the label of perpetrator and defended themselves as good people who had been wounded by their partners, whereas women portrayed themselves as victims and described loving their partners and hoping that the abuse would cease. Boonzaier concluded that couples often drew on gender norms to describe and contextualize their relationships, and that participants sought to construct some sense of order in discussions about their volatile relationships.
Nemeth (2012) analyzed recorded telephone conversations between men incarcerated for IPV and their romantic partners, and examined descriptions of triggers of violent episodes. Accusations about infidelity were the most common trigger for acutely violent interactions; these violent episodes often occurred when one or both partners were under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs. Given that the sample was incarcerated men, however, their acute triggers may differ from those occurring in a community based sample. In addition, neither Boonzaier nor Nemeth specifically recruited parents or investigated how both partners construct narratives related to their children's exposure to IPV, which may be an important omission.
Rates of IPV are disproportionately high in families with children, and IPV has well-documented adverse effects on child health. Although not well elucidated, the higher risk for IPV in families with children may be related to the negative impact of child rearing on couple harmony due to greater demands associated with parenting responsibilities and financial stresses. Parenting also may force couples to examine their gendered expectations about household responsibilities, including establishing which partner takes primary responsibility for child care. Effective interventions for families experiencing IPV are urgently needed, yet few programs have documented long term positive impact. The small number of effective interventions may be due in part to the lack of a deep empirical understanding about the complex dynamics involved in violent relationships amongst parents.
Therefore, using semi-structured interviews with couples who were parents and who reported recent IPV, the overarching objective of this study was to explore deeply what happens when these couples disagree, and particularly what happens when they used aggression.