THE EFFECTS OF MILITARY TRAINING ON MENS ATTITUDES TOWARD INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Teresa H. Hendrix, M.S. *****

The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee: Approved by: Professor Nancy Ryan-Wenger, Adviser Professor Paula Renker Professor Linda Bernhard ____________________________________ Adviser College of Nursing Graduate Program

ABSTRACT

The military defines partner violence as violence or threats between marital partners. Some of the Armed Services have included emotional abuse. Official reports indicate a prevalence of partner violence between 8.0% and 10.5% of married military couples. When incidents in the military are reported in the media, the headlines invariably claim that the same culture which produces heroes is blamed for creating men who beat, abuse, and kill their wives. While there is anecdotal evidence, there is little empirical evidence addressing the role military culture and training have on perpetration of partner violence. This research was guided by an ecological framework. The aims of the study were to answer the following research questions: What are the relationships between hypermasculinity, salivary testosterone levels, attitudes toward intimate partner violence, group cohesion, and selected demographic variables? 2) What is the effect of 10 weeks of U. S. Army Basic Training on soldiers attitudes toward intimate partner violence, hypermasculinity characteristics, and testosterone levels compared to peers without 10 weeks of basic training and to peers not in the military? 3) What variables are most predictive of attitudes toward intimate partner violence? Study participants included young men, ages of 18 and 25 years. One group was attending army basic combat training (boot camp), another group was in the process of ii

enlisting in the army, and a third group were predominantly college students. A quasiexperimental, pretest-posttest design was used. The Group Environment Questionnaire (group cohesion), the Auburn Differential Masculinity Inventory (hypermasculinity characteristics), the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating (attitudes toward intimate violence), and the short version of the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (alcohol use) were used to measure study variables. These instruments are widely used and demonstrate strong reliability and validity. Testosterone levels were measured using competitive immunoassay. Correlations, repeated measures ANOVA and regression indicated a relationship between hypermasculinity, alcohol use and attitudes toward intimate partner violence. There was a significant change in attitudes toward intimate partner violence after basic training with the scores decreasing. Basic training appeared to increase hypermasculinity, but contrary to popular belief, those attitudes become less tolerant of partner violence.

iii

DEDICATION

To the women and men who proudly serve in the United Stated Armed Forces

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to than my advisor, Dr. Nancy Ryan-Wenger, for her guidance, support and instruction throughout my academic career. I would like to thank Dr. Paula Renker for sharing her expert knowledge of women experiencing intimate partner violence and providing new ideas that assisted me with my research. I thank Dr. Linda Bernhard for sharing her outlook on feminist perspectives and providing a balance in the exploration of masculinity. I thank Dr. Wendy Blakely for her laboratory expertise and support. I thank Dr. Daniel Stanzck, Director of Psychological Research at the Human Dimensions Lab, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, for his expertise in the use of the retrospective pretest method, and for facilitating access to Fort Jackson. I thank the leaders of the 4th Combat Training Brigade, Fort Jackson, South
P P

Carolina, and the Military Entrance Processing Station, Columbus, Ohio, for supporting the involvement of new military recruits in this research. I thank my sisters of the Gamma Zeta chapter of Phi Mu Fraternity for their unending support and love.

Thanks to the many young men at Basic Combat Training, those processing to enter military service, and those attending The Ohio State University who participated in this study.

vi

VITA

January 30, 1955.........................................Born Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1985............................................................A.S.N. Nursing, St. Petersburg Junior College 1986............................................................B.S.N. Nursing, B.A. Political Science, University of South Florida 2000............................................................M.S.N. Nursing, University of Texas Medical Branch 1977 1982................................................Hospital Corpsman, United States Navy 1985 1986................................................Registered Nurse, Labor and Delivery, Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, Florida 1986 1990................................................Registered Nurse, Labor and Delivery, Neonatal Intensive Care, Sacred Heart Hospital, Spokane, Washington 1990 1992................................................First Lieutenant, United States Army Nurse Corps, Bremerhaven, Germany 1992 1995................................................Captain, United States Army Nurse Corps, Landstuhl, Germany 1996 1998................................................Captain, United States Army Nurse Corps, Seoul, Korea 2000 2003.................................................Major, United States Army Nurse Corps, Certified Nurse Midwife, Honolulu, Hawaii 2003 present..............................................Doctoral Student, The Ohio State University

vii

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Nursing

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ ii
TU UT

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. iiv

TU UT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. v
TU UT

VITA ................................................................................................................................. vii

TU UT

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x

TU UT

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi

TU UT T

Chapters 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 2. Case study of a cluster of homicides at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in the context of the army as a gendered organization.................................................. 5
U U U U U

3. Intimate partner violence in the military from an ecological perspective ................... 31

U U U U

4. If I knew then what I know now: The retrospective pretest and its use in measuring the effect of military training on mens attitudes toward intimate partner violence ................................................................................. 46
U U U U U U

5. Contributions of army basic training to mens attitudes toward intimate partner violence........................................................................................................... 59
U U U U U

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 112

U U

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure............................................................................................................................. Page

U U U

1.1 Substantiated Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence in the Military...........................4 1.2 Homicides Due to Intimate Partner Violence in the Military.......................................4 3.1 Ecological Framework for Intimate Partner Violence in the Military........................45 5.1 Ecological Framework for Intimate Partner Violence in the Military....79

LIST OF TABLES Table............................................................................................................................... Page

U U U U

4.1 Means, standard deviations, and t-tests for pretest, posttest and retrospective pretest scores................................................................................................58 5.1 Demographic variables...............................................................................................80 5.2 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for total sample................................................................................................................................87 5.3 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for Civilian group....................................................................................................................91 5.4 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for Recruit group.....................................................................................................................95 5.5 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for Basic group........................................................................................................................99 5.6 Analysis of variance for testosterone and time.........................................................103 5.7 Analysis of variance for Group Environment Questionnaire and time.....................104 5.8 Analysis of variance for Auburn Differential Masculinity Index and time..............105 5.9 Analysis of variance for Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating..........................106 . 5.10 Means and standard deviations of pretest, retrospective-pretests and posttest scores..................................................................................................................107 5.11 Analysis of variance for retrospective pretest for Auburn Differential Masculinity Index and time.............................................................................................108 5.12 Analysis of variance for retrospective pretest for Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating and time.....................................................................................................109 5.13 Predictors of attitudes toward intimate partner violence at pretest.........................110 xi

5.14 Predictors of attitudes toward intimate partner violence at posttest.......................111

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Violence against women is a world wide public health priority. In Fiscal Year 2001 (FY 01) there were 10,967 substantiated incidents of intimate partner abuse in the military (Figure 1.1). In the period of time from 1995 to 2001 there were 217 homicides in military communities from IPV (Violence, 2001) (Figure 1.2). There are predictable and distinguishable medical and psychological sequelae of IPV with adverse health effects continuing throughout life. While injury as the consequence of IPV is apparent, the long term aftermath of these injuries and the fear and stress associated with having an abusive intimate partner result in less obvious, chronic, health problems (Campbell, 2001). Stress, which accounts for 80% of indirect effects on womens health, is predicted more strongly by abuse than by poverty (Sutherland, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2002). Chronic headaches, abdominal pains, muscle aches, recent vaginal infections and sleep and eating disorders are more frequent in abused women than in women experiencing no abuse (Campbell, Jones, Dienemann, & Kub, 2002; Dubnova & Joss, 1997; Walker, Gelfand, Katon, Koss, Korff & Bernstien, 1999).

Intimate partner violence incidents may be triggered by stress of life changes. Alcohol, drug use, frustration, poverty, and poor coping skills are contributors. Mens Attitudes play a large role in underlying causes of IPV. The causes are complex, so prevention and intervention must be collaborative and thorough. Exploring attitudes of new soldiers and the negative effects that military training and a warrior culture may have on those attitudes will add to the body of knowledge of IPV and be better able to create and employ preventive and interventional strategies to decrease the incidents of IPV in the military. This will lead to an improvement of womens health, an increase in the quality of life for the military family, decrease in health care expenditures, and a higher level of readiness of the fighting force. This dissertation is presented in several chapters, each a publishable manuscript focusing on elements of the dissertation research. Each manuscript can stand alone and therefore some information may be redundant to the reader of the complete dissertation. Chapter 2, entitled A Case Study of a Cluster of Homicides at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in the Context of the Army as a Gendered Organization provides the historical framework that is the basis for the hypothesis that military training and culture contributes to mens attitudes toward, and perpetration of, intimate partner violence. Chapter 3 entitled Intimate Partner Violence from an Ecological Perspective provides a theoretical model that may help to explain the role of military culture and training in the development of mens attitudes toward IPV. Chapter 4, entitled, if I Knew Then What I 2

Know There: The Retrospective Pretest and its Use in Measuring the effect of Military Training on Mens Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence describes the use of a technique to improve the reliability of research designed to determine the effect of military training and culture on attitudes toward violence and presents the results of its use in this research. Finally, Chapter 6 entitled Contributions of Military Training on Mens Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence describes the dissertation study and results.

18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Incidents Victim s

Figure 1.1 Substantiated Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence in the Military

250 200 150

FY 99
100 50 0

FY 95-99

Army

Air Force Navy/USMC

Total

Figure 1.2 Homicides Due to Intimate Partner Violence in the Military

CHAPTER 2

CASE STUDY OF A CLUSTER OF HOMICIDES AT FORTBRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ARMY AS A GENDERED ORGANIZATION

The case In a 43 day period in June and July, 2002, four active duty soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina allegedly murdered their spouses. The string of homicides began June 11, when Sergeant First Class Rigoberto Nieves, returned just two days earlier from Special Forces duty in Afghanistan, fatally shot his wife, Teresa, and then killed himself. Master Sergeant William Wright, strangled his wife, Jennifer, and buried her in a shallow grave. Sergeant Cedric Ramon Griffin, a member of an engineering battalion, stabbed his wife, Marilyn, 50 times and then set the house on fire on July 9. On July 19, the same day that Wright was arrested for murder, Sergeant First Class Brandon Floyd shot his wife Andrea to death and then turned the gun on himself, taking his own life. It was rumored that Floyd was a member of the super-secret Delta Force, an elite unit specializing in assassination and covert hit and run operations, who had returned from Afghanistan the previous October.

The four homicides generated significant national and international news coverage, and led to various media reported hypotheses about etiological factors that might be involved. Prominent in the news reports were postulated links to the stress of the soldiers deployments, the potential effects of their combat experiences, as well as questions about the impact of potential neuro-psychiatric side effects of the malaria prophylaxis drug Mefloquine (U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2002). Questions were raised about the effect of war on the people who wage it, the spillover on civilians from training military personnel to kill, and the role of military institutional values (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). The Armys analysis In response to the cluster of homicides, the United States Army Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) chartered an Epidemiological Consult Team (EPICON) composed of the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) intimate partner violence subject matter experts. The goal of this consult tema was to assess and provide recommendations to the OTSG to address potential systemic, cultural and resource limitation factors which might be related to the clustering of homicides as well as deployment related behavioral health issues (U. S. Army Surgeon General, 2002) The EPICON team found that threatened marital separation or dissolution, and perceived imminent familial loss were likely very important psychological etiologic 6

factors in all four wife homicides. All of the wives had expressed a desire to leave their marriages, a situation that intimate partner violence workers have identified as the most dangerous time for women in abusive relationships (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). When women attempt to leave an abusive relationship, the mens control appears about to dissolve. Military personnel are controlled from above at work, more than most U. S. workers, and many reassert control in the home, often with violence. Mefloquine (Larium) was determined to be an unlikely cause. There was no evidence that two of the soldiers were ever prescribed the drug. However, focus groups and medical record reviews raised questions about inconsistency in medical documentation of the use of Larium. In addition, the inconsistent screening of individuals who may be at increased risk for neuro-psychiatric side effects did not meet prescribing standards (U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2002). Marital discord was a major factor with the increased Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO), defined as the time an individual spends away from the home station (Garamone, 1999), being a contributor to marital discord and particularly in these four families (U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2002). In todays Army of 483,579 active duty solders, 262,463 (54%) are married (Office of Army Demographics, 2005). Deployment driven disruption of marital/family dynamics has been a concern since the armed forces realized that the trend would continue toward being a married force (Britton & Williams, 1995). 7

In a deployment, where a significant number of soldiers are deploying simultaneously, the preparations for the active duty soldiers and the unit generally occur in a structured way. Soldier readiness, being prepared to deploy and once deployed, ability to conduct the mission, is the responsibility of the units commanding officer. Family readiness, defined as families who are prepared and equipped with the skills and tools to successfully meet the challenges of the military lifestyle, can positively or adversely affect soldier readiness (Lee, 2002). Unit commanders at all levels are responsible for providing an effective family readiness program that at minimum will provide an officer as a Family Readiness liaison, establish a family readiness group (FRG), provide support to the FRG leaders including providing monetary funding as available. The unit commander is responsible to ensure that programs are available to help families attain and maintain optimal readiness (Lee, 2002). To be most effective, the process and programs must be integrated into the units deployment training across all phases of the deployment, to include pre-deployment, during deployment and postdeployment. Resources often will differ depending on the base and location. Although there was known marital distress in all of the Fort Bragg homicides, there was no record that any of the soldiers or their wives had accessed the available behavioral health services or family support programs. It continues to be a widely held belief in the military community that engaging such services is detrimental and often terminal to a soldiers career. When behavioral services are sought they are confounded 8

by the inability to get timely appointments. There was often a two to six month wait for the first available appointment (U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2002). The EPICON Report (U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2002) recommended that marital discord be recognized as a pervasive factor in the perpetration of family violence and that safe, early care to prevent progression to more serious dysfunction be provided. Commissioning of a systemic study of the impact of deployment operational frequency and intensity on the health and welfare of soldiers and their families was also recommended. Commands were directed to reevaluate deployment support programs as to content, effectiveness, and consistency of resources. Leaders were told to provide accessible and career safe behavioral health care to include mental health services and family advocacy services (U.S. Army Surgeon General, 2002). Gaps in the Armys analysis Military Culture The in-depth inquiry by the EPICON is one in a long line of commissions established over the course of many gendered scandals in the military, scrupulously avoiding the issue of gendered power in the military culture. Culture is defined as a way of life that is learned and shared by human beings and is taught by one generation to the next (Levin, 1991). All cultures possess certain qualities. Specifically, culture is 1) learned from previous generations; 2) broadly shared by members; 3) adaptive to the

conditions in which people live; and 4) symbolic in nature agreed upon symbols help people create order and make sense of their world (Levin, 1991). Although military culture is a unique way of life, it fits the definition of culture and possesses these four qualities. Military culture is learned via socialization training such as boot camp. It is broadly shared by its members. It adapts to changing conditions. It is symbolic in nature. Rank insignia and language jargon make sense only within a military context (Dunivan, 1996). Common to most modern military organizations is the notion of being different from the rest of society. In 1869, William Windham described armed forces generally as a class of men set apart from the general mass of the community, trained to particular uses, formed to peculiar notions, governed by peculiar laws, marked by peculiar distinctions (Grimshaw, 1995, p. 10). Members of the military profession are distinguished from other professions. The essential basis of military life is the ordered application of force under an unlimited liability. It is the unlimited liability, or loss of life, which sets apart the man who embraces this life. The military allows for the lawful killing of others in the performance of duty. Military objectives are often achieved with the sacrifice of soldiers lives. The stark and brutal reality of these differences from normal society has traditionally been a distinguishing feature of military life, contributing to a sense of separateness and even superiority in relation to the civilian population (Hackett, 1963). 10

Military organizational culture emphasizes hierarchy: status, dominance, and power are evident everywhere (Segal, 1999). Rank is paramount as a determinant of interpersonal interactions. This stratification system is ritualized through uniform insignia, saluting, and addressing male superiors as sir. Maam is not an equivalent term for female superiors because it is also traditionally used in addressing women regardless of their organizational status. Fort Bragg has a unique environment. A military base generally constitutes a relatively isolated and autonomous social and legal entity that produces and is governed by its own language, norms, and laws. Fort Bragg is the home of the 82nd Airborne
P P

Division, the XVIII airborne Corps, and other Special Operations units. The 82nd
P P

Airborne has one of the most prestigious histories as a fighting unit, most notably its many combat parachute jumps during World War II. Its members are proud of the fact that they are the presidents 911; they can deploy rapidly to any spot in the world, and they are highly lethal once they hit the ground. The 82nd Airborne is recognized for their
P P

unmatched sense of pride and esprit de corps. In addition to the airborne division, Fort Bragg is the home for certain portions of the nations Special Operations Command. They are known as the U. S. Army Special Operations Forces. This is the most elite group of soldiers in the world. They are typically referred to as Green Berets, who specialize in reconnaissance and unconventional warfare and are all trained with a specific geographic and linguistic 11

focus. Because of the history of the units and the type of warfare in which they engage, soldiers at Fort Bragg are held in the highest esteem by both members of the military and the civilian communities. While the EPICON report (U. S. Army Surgeon General, 2002) concluded that marital discord and family problems exacerbated by the stress of deployment were the main aggravating factors of the Fort Bragg cluster of murders, absent were any possible connections between militarized masculinity, wartime conditions and gendered violence. Popular media raised the question that there could always be a potential for domestic violence among special operations soldiers because the unwillingness to seek help is deeply ingrained. The mother of one of the victims described the elite soldiers as superhumans. A newspaper article quoted her as saying, You have to remember, they dont have to have help. Supposedly (Breed, 2002). Hegemonic Masculinity The EPICON report (U. S. Army Surgeon General, 2002) and previous investigations have neither stemmed the problem of intimate partner violence in the military nor prompted the military to recognize the fundamental role of violent masculinity in crimes like the Fort Bragg murders (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). It is hypothesized that the army, as an institution, perpetuates a culture that encourages and rewards hegemonic masculine behavior which is defined as the socially dominant, accepted, and desired behavior. According to Connell (1995) masculinity is socially 12

constructed and exists in culture and institutions, in personality and in the social definition and use of the body. Masculinity is constructed within a gender order that defines masculinity in opposition to femininity. This sustains the power relationship between men and women as groups. There is no one thing that is masculinity. Power relations among men with different patterns of personality development, construct different masculinities. Gender politics among men involve struggles to define the hegemonic or socially dominant form of masculinity (Connell, 1995, 2005). Hegemonic masculinity refers to a particular set of masculine norms and practices that have become dominant in specific institutions of social control. To become hegemonic, cultural norms must be supported by institutional power. Hence, hegemonic masculinity is a set of norms and practices associated with men in powerful social institutions (Connell, 1995; Kronsell, 2005). By institutionalizing this hegemonic masculinity, the armed forces bestow status advantages to men as a group over women. The army perpetuates an almost mythological form of masculinity: the soldier is aggressive, macho, and bloodthirsty. This ideal provides status to the men who collaborate in its maintenance. It places those men who successfully accomplish military missions among the select and heroic in our society, above all other men who shun or shirk military duty (Britton & Williams, 1995). This image also guarantees a privileged status to all men vis--vis women, who are technically barred from serving in many combat specialties (Connell, 1987). Hegemonic 13

masculinity is a central defining concept in the culture of the United States military. The hegemonic masculine ideal perpetuated by the military is a meld of soldierliness, masculinity and heterosexuality (Britton & Williams, 1995). The hegemonic masculine image expected at Fort Bragg is a masculine warrior image. This image is defended by the military culture as necessary because male bonding is the cornerstone of small unit cohesion (Rosen, Knudson, & Fancher, 2003; Savage & Gabriel, 1976). The bonding of men in male-only peer groups is often associated with hypermasculinity. This culture of hypermasculinity associated with military life includes the objectification and denigration of women (Rosen et al., 2003). This is imparted during the informal socialization process, and is reinforced in male-only social settings associated with the military. One odd finding is that the norms associated with hypermasculinity in the military are contradicted by other military norms stressing duty, honor, good behavior, and discipline (Rosen et al., 2003). The soldiers accused of murdering their wives during the summer of 2002 were part of the Special Forces and the Delta Force, the very peak of the alpha in alpha male. These are the biggest, baddest bears in the forest, says James Morrison, a retired military sociologist who used to teach at Fort Braggs John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School. Its certainly a weird coincidence that these killings have largely involved troops where violence and aggression is encouraged (Jonsson, 2002). Special operations units are some of the last in the military to include women. They specialize in 14

unconventional warfare, which is combat that often follows neither the letter nor the spirit of the rules of war. A sign in a Special Forces training area reads: Rule #1: There are no rules; Rule #2: Follow rule #1. The claim to being the most male of the male, and to being above the law, provides a significant ingredient in the recipe for intimate partner violence (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). While there is a long-standing connection between soldiering and the masculine warrior, men are not born warriors (Snyder, 2003). Recruitment advertising slogans include: Join the Army, Be a Man; The Army will make a man out of you; The Marines: A few good men (Snyder, 2003). An intensive training process makes warriors. Basic Combat Training (boot camp) provides our Army with trained, disciplined, motivated, and physically fit soldiers who respond to leadership, are focused on teamwork, demonstrate the warrior ethos, and espouse the Armys core values (U. S. Army, 2005). This process of military socialization is an actual change of identity during which the individual actually becomes a soldier. Strong appeals to masculinity are often used in order to facilitate the change in identity. Men joined the army with the promises of becoming a man. The rites of passage incorporated in basic training create desire to aspire to the hegemonic masculine ideal. The cultural celebration of soldiers, particularly that of the elite Special Forces and the Delta Force at Fort Bragg, has grown more fervent since the war on terror began. The idea that the soldier makes an unrecompensable sacrifice creates a halo effect around 15

these men. They are heroes who rate parades when they leave for combat and when they return. In this climate, the soldiers who murdered their wives could have turned to them and said, The culture is worshiping me, why arent you? (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). Gendered Organization Gender is the socially constructed range of roles, ideas, and behaviors that every society creates to distinguish between women and men and girls and boys. Gender is often thought of as something that individual people have. Gender is also embedded in social institutions. Governments, economic systems, and religious institutions are gendered. These institutions treat women and men differently and are treated by women and men differently. Theories of gender in organizations focus on the logic and processes that sustain the gender status quo (Connell, 2005). There are several interacting processes in which fender operates in organizations. There is construction of divisions along gender lines, the construction of symbols that reinforce those divisions, interactions between groups that produce gendered components of individual identity and of a gendered frame for understanding other social structures (Prokos & Padavic, 2002). These processes are all seen in the military culture. The military organization has long been seen as the symbol and training ground for traditional notions of masculinity (Karst, 1991). Many military policies, including the exclusion of women from combat roles, and policies and practices related to sexual

16

assault and harassment implicate questions of gender (Abrams, 1993). The military is a microcosm of patriarchal society, isolated from most of civilian society and community. Masculine identities in North American culture are founded on power (Kilmartin, 2000; Lorber, 1994; Lutze & Symons, 2003). Culturally, men are to be strong, independent, unemotional, and aggressive (Kilmartin, 2000). Women are defined in direct contrast to men as weak, dependent, emotional, and passive (Lutze & Symons, 2003). Men in patriarchal societies are granted inherent superiority over women and the power to both protect and discipline others. The inherent power embedded in masculinity, and the ability to formulate law, institutions, and policy from this position of power, translates into gendered institutions (Smart, 1995). The U. S. Army is undeniably a patriarchal institution. In a patriarchal system, the male perspective is favored. The military as an institution has been designed to protect male privilege within the patriarchal system (Lorber, 1994; Lutze & Symons, 2003; Muraskin, 2003). It has been a male privilege to use violence against women, in the name of discipline, for centuries (Lutze & Symons, 2003; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). It has been suggested that through marriage, women became mens responsibility, and men had the right to assert their authority in the home in whatever manner necessary to achieve control (Lutze & Symons, 2003; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Wife beating is related to patriarchal ideology, particularly where there are higher levels of structural inequality between genders (Yllo & Straus, 1990). Women whose 17

partners adhere to a more traditional ideology of familial patriarchy are more likely to report being victimized (Smith, 1990). A common thread to the murders at Fort Bragg was that all of the women had expressed a desire to leave their marriages. This has been identified as the most dangerous time for women in abusive relationships. This has been identified as the most dangerous time for women in abusive relationships. That is when the male privilege and control bestowed by a patriarchal society appears about to dissolve. In the patriarchal institution of the military, it is not surprising that the soldiers will use violence to try to reinstate the control in their marriage. In the Pentagons approach to the problem of intimate partner violence, gender has been left hidden in plain sight. At Fort Bragg, perhaps to protect the accepted patriarchal institution, the soldiers who killed their wives were quickly redefined as victims. They were painted as the victims of the horrors of combat suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Soldiers belonging to the same units as the alleged perpetrators were reported to have great sympathy for them, considering them to be the victims and suggesting that the wives were to blame for starting the conflicts (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). Group Cohesion Primary group cohesion is based on peer bonding and is regarded as critical to the effective functioning of a small military unit under stressful conditions, such as combat. 18

Morris (1996) suggested that military cohesion is associated with a culture of hypermasculinity and is evidenced through the consumption of pornography and the pervasive use of sexist language. She suggested that in some military its, bonding tends to occur around stereotypic masculine characteristics, such as dominance, aggressiveness, risk taking, attitudes that favor sexual violence toward women and that reflect distrust, anger alienation, and resentment toward women. This appears to be true in the Special Forces units. An examination of war narratives reveals the subjectively felt importance of peer bonding between soldiers. Personal accounts are filled with glowing descriptions of camaraderie, brotherhood, and the forging of universal bonds between men under the constant threat of death. This kind of bonding and solidarity is encouraged by military leaders and is seen as essential in forging effective fighting units. These bonds are viable only in a highly gendered context (Britton & Williams, 1995). They are defined in opposition to women. The armed forces and particularly the Special Forces are the last remaining refuges for the affirmation of solidarity between men. Who is the Real Victim? The culture prevalent in United States society, in addition to the military culture, has contributed to the perpetuation of the hegemonic masculinity myth surrounding the military. Except for the time surrounding the Vietnam War, soldiers have been celebrated. This has grown more fervent since the war on terror began. The celebration of men as soldiers has stifled the recognition and the addressing of the epidemic problem 19

of violent abuse of women within the military. There is a belief that the soldier makes a significant sacrifice in service to country. Under this halo, some of the media have posed the soldiers as victims and shown little attention to the women who they killed or the failures of the system to protect them (Lutz & Elliston, 2002). In the weeks after the murders at Fort Bragg, the popular media reports describe unit leaders advising wives of men who were deployed into combat not to cut their hair, and not to display the independence that was required of them while their husbands were away. Sudden changes or perceived challenges to the soldiers authority or control could precipitate abuse or violence (Goff, 2003). This advice blames the woman for the violence perpetrated upon her. The Lautenberg Amendment The attitude of commanders when told of intimate partner violence incidents has tended to be, Ill take care of it, hes my soldier, rather than one of protecting the victim. It is not uncommon for commanders to ignore orders for anger management counseling when it conflicts with military assignments (Radutsky & Nelson, 1999, 2002). The military has handled most intimate partner violence incidents by administrative actions rather than by court martial. In sharp contrast, 80% of civilian cases are referred for prosecution (Galdas, Cheater, & Marshall, 2004). The military has been reluctant to treat intimate partner violence as a crime. Commanders are hesitant to investigate allegations against their men; for fear that their 20

units will be disrupted. They are reluctant to involve the civilian authorities. Under the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, it is a felony for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition (18 USC 922(d)(9)). There is no exception for military personnel engaged in official duties. The Amendment also makes it a felony for anyone to sell or issue a firearm or ammunition to a person with such a conviction. This includes commanders and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) who furnish weapons or ammunition to soldiers knowing, or having reason to believe, they have convictions. The definitions of domestic violence and conviction are not always clear. Convictions do no include Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), summary court-martial, deferred prosecution (or similar dispositions) in civilian courts, or judgments that have been expunged or set aside. Under Department of Defense (DOD) policy, major weapon systems and crew-served weapons such as tanks, missiles, and aircraft are not covered by the Amendment. It does, however, apply to both military and privately owned firearms and ammunition. DOD policy requires commanders to notify soldiers who are involved in a domestic violence incident that it is unlawful for them to possess firearms and ammunition, and assign them to duties not requiring the bearing of weapons. A soldier with a conviction for domestic violence is prohibited from deployments for missions requiring possession of firearms, from attending military schools where instruction in 21

weapons is part of the curriculum, and from receiving assignments overseas. The conviction for a domestic violence incident disrupts unit readiness and affects the ability of a unit to successfully carry out its mission. In response to the Lautenberg Amendment, the DOD adopted an interim policy on October 22, 1997 for armed forces personnel. It prohibited any branch of the armed services from enlisting anyone convicted of a crime of domestic violence. The policy also generally prohibits assigning enlisted personnel with unexpunged domestic violence convictions to any position that includes duties covered by the Gun control Act (carrying, possessing, shipping, or transporting firearms) (18 U.S.C., 922). This policy has not completely eliminated the recruitment and enlistment of everyone convicted of domestic violence. As the army faces pressure to keep up recruiting levels during the Iraq war, it increasingly has enlisted recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes. The percentage of recruits entering the army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical pro lems has more than doubled since 2001 (Bowman, 2006). A 1999 study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicated that people who enlisted in the military between 1990 and 1993 with moral waivers for misdemeanors, felonies, and substance abuse showed they were more likely to be separated from the service for misconduct than those without such waivers (Bowman, 2006). In the 12 month period ending September 30, 2005, the army granted waivers to 11,018 recruits. This comprised 15% of those accepted into the service during that period compared to 12% of those joining the army during 2004 22

(Bowman, 2006). There was a significant increase in the number of recruits with serious criminal misconduct in their background. This category includes aggravated assault, robbery, and vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats. The number of recruits in that category increased to 630, from 408 in 2004. The largest increase in waivers was for recruits with misdemeanor convictions. There were 4,587 waivers granted in 2005, up from 3,667 in 2004. The category includes those with convictions for assault punishable by a fine of less than $500, resisting arrest, public drunkenness and contempt of court. There were 737 waivers for alcohol and illegal drugs, up from 650 the previous year. Those waivers were for recruits who tested positive for amphetamines, marijuana or cocaine during the initial recruit processing. The largest category of waivers was for medical conditions, such as asthma, flat feet or some hearing loss. There were 5,065 medical waivers in FY 2005 increased from the 4,567 in 2004 (Bowman, 2006). Although the exact numbers are difficult to obtain, a number of waivers have been granted to individuals convicted of domestic violence-related charges (DTFDV, 2000). Domestic violence charges are often reduced to other offenses, or plea arrangements are agreed to the do not reflect the actual crime. As the number of waivers increases, so will the enlistment of recruits with domestic violence histories (Bowman, 2006).

23

Strategies for change The events at Fort Brag, the public reaction, and the EPICON analysis supports the theory that the culture in the military constructs and maintains a hegemonic masculinity by socializing soldiers through the training at boot camp and by rewarding conforming behaviors. The military remains the most masculine occupation available. These are based on the organizations desire to protect and project its masculine image. All women, in addition to marginalized males such as homosexual men, threaten the viability of this image when they successfully accomplish the feats defined as masculine. The organization and its rituals are devalued if women can do them. Men in the military and particularly those assigned to elite units are conditioned and socialized to hegemonic masculinity. This happens without those in charge ever being aware of what this theory is or the implications of perpetuating the gender status quo. The glorification of killing, the denigration of women, and the idea that seeking help is a sign of weakness increases the risk for violence in the home. Modern military forces are overwhelmingly composed of men. Sexism is a common part of military training and military life (Martin & Collinson, 1999). Soldiers are trained to be violence, competitive, tough and masculine. They are trained to reject feminine characteristics of supportiveness, cooperativeness, tenderness and physical softness. Often military training is accompanied by explicit verbal abuse of women and the portrayal of women only as sex objects. The masculine ethos of military life has 24

much in common with the oppressive treatment of women in both military and civilian life, including rape, battering, prostitution and poor working conditions. In direct person to person violence it is primarily men who are the perpetrators (Martin & Collinson, 1999). While the connections between the military and male domination are suggestive there is not a clearly defined link between the two. The link between overt sexism and the military is being attenuated as war becomes more bureaucratized and face to face combat is reduced in importance. Military training and activity, though still having emphasis on brutality and obedience, is becoming more oriented to technical competence and bureaucratic performance (Martin & Collinson, 1999). Women, over time, have integrated farther into the fabric of the military organization and have demonstrated success in this male dominated arena. Equality within the organization One basic tenet of the womens movement has been to push for equality for women in society as it is presently organized, with the immediate goal being to remove formal inequalities. Discrimination against women is strongly opposed, and legal or quasi-legal avenues for redress are favored. Fair representation of women within bureaucracies, professions, corporations, political parties, trade unions and churches is sought. This strategy can weaken the existing power distribution by undercutting dominance of men over women within organizations. In a social environment in which 25

discrimination against women is illegitimate, the use of patriarchal inequality to bolster bureaucratic and other power structures is made more difficult. The strategy of promoting equality within an otherwise slow to change structure like the military has limitations. Women who succeed and move to the top levels will be conditioned by perspectives, powers and interactions at the top, and become essentially like other elites. Only the gender composition of the personnel may be changed, and not the relations of power, wealth, status and knowledge (Martin & Collinson, 1999). As Ueno Chizuko (2005) points out, there is a subterranean assumption that, if women had a bigger role in the military, the patriarchal culture of masculine militarism would itself change. However, the few women who infiltrate the military in positions of responsibility are acculturated to be even more brutal than their male counterparts in order to be accepted or respected in those jobs. The militarization of women happens much quicker than the feminization of the military (Chizuko, 2005). Individual change Another strategy is the changing of attitudes and experiences of individuals, particularly women. This strategy aims to increase assertiveness, overcome submissiveness, learn new skills such as military job skills, and generally build confidence and ability. Girls education and experiences in early life need to be changed to promote their skills and self-esteem.

26

Individual change is limited as a means of challenging organizational structures that are in place. Individual confidence and skills may have little effect on the patriarchal structure of the military. Instead, organized patterns of discrimination and oppression can continue to create and foster feelings of inferiority and inhibit development or use of skills (Martin, 1990). Direct challenges to the system A third strategy is to address the effects of the masculine culture of the military at the immediate level of individuals and the local community. Addressing patriarchal domination in the civilian communities has led to the development of rape crisis centers, womens refuges, opposition to sexist language and behavior, resistance to sexual harassment, and attacks on anti-women pornography. Challenging the treatment of women as sex objects can reduce the potential for mobilization of masculinity in military training. Direct challenges, however, only peripherally challenge the key large scale structures of the military bureaucracy. Some campaigns, such as those against sexual harassment, strengthen state power by promoting the use of law and administrative intervention and sanctions. While there can be beneficial short-term impact in restraining sexist practices, the organizational structures that support the practices are still in place. As long as the structures remain they will provide a strong support for the masculine culture and help perpetuate the problems that result from that culture. 27

Conclusions and recommendations In the army, skills and values are learned through a socialization process that begins when a soldier enters basic training. New attitudes, responses and loyalties are instilled in the recruit. Recruits begin as almost complete strangers to one another, but within days, friendships develop and a new group is formed. As recruits begin to rely on each other, strong bonds build. Before entering basic training, recruits come from a civilian society that emphasizes individualism. They enter a world where the institutional value of the group is supreme. Everyone is expected to be a team player or risk ostracism. Researchers began to notice the potential negative impact of strong bonding as early as the 1940s. Brotz and Wilson (1946) observed that, in the army, bonding was so strong that covering up for, defense of, and devotion to ones buddy was expected. This form of loyalty can lead to stonewalling and the refusal to give evidence or testimony against investigators. Group bonding also prevents individuals from speaking out against inappropriate behavior. At Fort Bragg, the Special Forces and Delta Force soldiers have an ethos of cohesion, teamwork, and loyalty sustained by cultural phenomena. This culture has a historical tradition rooted in the definition of the elite units unconventional combat forces. Military ethos is shaped by the U. S. Army policy decisions to maintain unconventional combat forces. Combat readiness, in turn, shapes the values and foals of 28

the organization, reinforcing primary group bonding in a gendered organization seen as a necessary component of combat effectiveness. Primary group bonding is reinforced through formal and informal socialization. The culture that results from the bonding and the socialization to elite military units contributes to specific attitudes and characterizations becoming shared truths. Often policies that are instituted to address the problems of violence against women conflict with other messages soldiers receive that women are not the equal of men. The intense bonding deemed necessary for combat is a double edged sword. Group bonding prevents individuals from speaking out against inappropriate violent behavior of their fellow soldiers resulting in the behaviors going unchecked. The Chain of Command becomes short circuited by the strong affective ties which it encourages (Winslow, 2004). Without the military leadership acknowledging how pervasive such derogatory attitudes are and how many official and unofficial forms they can take the problem of intimate partner violence and violence against women by soldiers will be difficult to address more fully. One of the ways that the negative affects of strong group bonds is to assure that the organization or unit has a strong, formal authority that is well articulated. Group loyalty can be a positive organizational characteristic within an environment of strong leadership and discipline. At the unit level, leadership and discipline provide the avenues to link the formal demands of the organization with the norms and sanctions of the small group itself. At all levels, leaders need to continually reinforce personal discipline, self29

control and commitment to high standards of personal conduct. The cultivation of an organizational culture needs to be balanced with respect for military authority and the rule of law (Winslow, 2004). Institutional changes will come slowly as both the military and the society changes. Discipline and leadership are the best hope to offset the effects of a patriarchal institution that has historically required hegemonic masculinity that encourages violence against women. Leaders are the primary agents by which an organizations culture and role norms are modeled, transmitted and maintained (Schein, 1985). Military leaders hold the key to far more in our society than winning wars.

30

CHAPTER 3

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN THE MILITARY FROM AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

In the United States, it has been estimated $67 billion is the annual economic victim-related costs if intimate partner violence (IPV) (Miller, Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996). These costs are associated with the severe and negative health and social consequences of violence to victims of IPV. Over the past twenty years there has been an increasing number of studies about IPV in the military community. Some of these studies have indicated that the rate of IPV in the military community is higher than in the civilian community (Campbell, 2003). IPV in the military community involves unique cultural aspects but this literature has not been integrated. The literature often fails to recognize the multidimensional nature of the determinants of IPV. Determinants and risks for IPV in the military can be organized using and ecological framework. The United States Armed Forces has had programs and policies in place to prevent and respond to family violence for 30 years. Yet in 2001, more than 18,000 incidents of IPV were reported to the military services (Lloyd, 2002). More than 10,000 of these reports were substantiated. The perpetrator was an active duty military member in 62% of the cases. Most often the victim was a female. Despite an awareness of this 31

problem, there has been little consensus in the military community on the etiology of gender based abuse. IPV in the military periodically attracts significant public attention following dramatic, tragic events, such as the clusters of homicides at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in 1999 (Jowers, 1999; Radutzky & Nelson, 1999, 2002) and at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in 2002 (Biank, 2002; Butterfield, 2002; Rosen & Hansen, 2003). Following these tragedies, national media outlets speculated that the causal factors for the homicides included the stress of combat and deployments, the belief that boys will be boys, the closed nature of the military and the use of the anti-malaria Larium (Maass, 2002; Orth, 2002; Rosen & Hanson, 2003; Varian, 2002). Policy makers have asked how to prevent tragedies, how to recognize early warning signs, how to improve the militarys response, and what factors associated with military culture contribute to IPV (Rosen & Hansen, 2003). Other anecdotal literature suggests a link between the culture of the military, military training and IPV (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998b; Morris, 1996, 1999, 2000; Zimmerman, 1995). A review of literature of IPV in the military concluded that, regarding issues such as its definition and measurement, the role and definition of psychological abuse, identification of types of abusers, identification of degrees of severity, and differences and similarities concerning violence perpetrated by males and females, there is no consensus (Jasinski & Williams, 1998). There is little agreement on the causes of IPV in 32

the military, how to prevent it, and what works to stop it. While all of the military services have performed research or evaluation related to IPV since 1985, empirical studies of IPV associated with the military have focused on prevalence, policies, and programs (Heyman & Neidig, 1999) and the special characteristics, demographics, and childhood exposure to violence of military personnel and family members (Merrill et al., 1996; Rosen & Martin, 1998). Cultural influences have not been examined. An Ecological Framework What causes violence against women? Increasingly, researchers are using an ecological framework to understand the interplay of person, situational, and sociocultural factors that combine to cause abuse (Dutton, 1995; Heise, 1998). An integrated, ecological framework for violence against women is an appropriate framework to guide research on IPV in the military community. The framework not only organizes multiple risk factors into meaningful categories, it also identifies potential intervention points. Prevention programs focus on the general population or high risk individuals before serious violence has occurred, whereas treatment programs work with violent individuals to change negative behavior and reduce its effects. The model is best visualized as four concentric, nested circles. At the core of the model is the individual. The innermost circle represents the biological and personal history that each individual brings to his or her behavior in relationships. Around the individuals are their close relationships. The second circle, the microsystem, represents 33

the immediate context in which abuse takes place. Frequently the family or other intimate or acquaintance relationships are included in the microsystem. The third circle, the exosystem, represents the institutions and social structures, both formal and informal, in which relationships are embedded. These structures include neighborhood, workplace, social networks, and peer groups. The fourth, outermost circle, the macrosystem, is the economic and social environment, including cultural norms. The outer layer of the model represents the pervasive influences of a society, including cultural norms and values, and the legislative and policy framework which supports it (Heise, 1998; Krug, Dahlberg, Marcy, & Lozano, 2002; Little & Kantor, 2002). Many studies agree on several factors at each level of the framework that increase the likelihood of partner violence. At the individual level, these factors include being abused as a child or witnessing marital violence in the home (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Moreno, 1999; Rosen & Martin, 1996a), having an absent or rejecting father (Dutton, 1995), and frequent use of alcohol (Bell & Hartford, 2004; Bertrand, Ward, & Paul, 1992; Kyriacou, McCabe, Anglin, Lapesarde, & Winer, 1998; McCauley et al., 1995; Moreno, 1999; Oropesa, 1997; Parry, Tibbs, VanDerSpuy, & Cummins, 1996; Rosen & Martin, 1996b). At the level of the family and relationship, cross-cultural studies have cited male control of wealth and decision-making within the family (Levinson, 1989; Oropesa, 1997) and marital conflict as strong predictors of abuse (Hoffman, Demo, & Evans, 1994; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990). At the community level 34

womens isolation and lack of social support, together with male peer groups that condone and legitimize mens violence, predict higher rates of violence (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998a; Godenzi, Schwartz, & DeKeseredy, 2001; Koenig, Hossain, Ahmed, & Haaga, 1999; Rosen, Kaminski, Parmley, Knudson & Fancher, 2003; Schwartz &DeKeseredy, 2000). At the societal level, studies around the world have found that violence against women is most common where gender roles are rigidly defined and enforced (Heise, 1998) and where the concept of masculinity is linked to toughness, male honor, or dominance (Counts, Brown, & Campbell, 1992; Morris, 1996, 1999, 2000; Sanday, 1981; Zimmerman, 1995). Other cultural norms associated with abuse include tolerance of physical punishment of women and children, acceptance of violence as a means to settle interpersonal disputes, and the perception that men have ownership of women (Heise, 1998; Levinson, 1989; Moreno, 1999; Orpinas, 1999; Snyder, 2003). The ecological framework helps rationalize and integrate findings from the many disciplines that have theorized about the possible causes of gender-based abuse. It was originally based on a review of North American academic research on violence from the perspectives of anthropology, psychology, and sociology and from cross-cultural comparative studies that use statistical methods to analyze coded ethnographic studies (Counts et al., 1992; Heise, 1998; Levinson, 1989; Sanday, 1981). Heise (1998) suggests that the framework should not be interpreted as definitive because the research base is incomplete. Critical factors may be missing because the research has not yet been done 35

to test their significance. Other factors may prove to be correlates rather than true causal factors in abuse. Heise (1998) also suggests that the framework leaves considerable room for interpretation as to exactly where a particular factor most appropriately fits into the framework. The dynamic interplay between factors operating at multiple levels is more important than the location of any single factor. This nested ecological framework explicitly emphasized the interaction of these factors in the etiology of abuse. Determinants and Risks Organized using the Ecological Framework The ecological framework has a foundational principle that the causes of intimate partner violence and outcomes reflect interplay of factors at multiple levels. While an individuals vulnerability to IPV can be traced to causes at the individual and interpersonal levels, these more immediate causes may in turn be traced to factors operating at the higher levels of institutions, communities, and social policy (Oetzel & Duran, 2004). Individual level (Ontogenic) Some of the determinants associated with intimate partner violence at the individual level are biological sex, age, social economic status (SES), substance use, and cultural identity. Biological sex is the primary risk factor for intimate partner violence. Women are 5-8 times more likely to experience IPV than men (Rennison, 2001; Rennison & Welchans, 2000; Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998). Women were victims of IPV at a rate of 7.7/1000 women in 1997 while there were 1.5 male victims per 1000 that 36

same year (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Eighty-five percent of all IPV victims are women. Male-to-female violence has more serious consequences than female-to-male violence. Male-to-female violence is often repeated and is more likely to result in injury or death than female-to-male violence. Most (85%) active duty personnel are male. The age range at highest risk for IPV for women in general in the United States is 16 to 24 years (Rennison, 2001). A 1994 Department of Defense study revealed IPV victims in the military tend to be young mothers. Fifty seven percent were under age 26 and 18% between ages 16 and 20 years. About 49% of the male perpetrators were under age 26. Another study addressing age and IPV in the military state that the highest rates for male active duty perpetrators were in the 18 to 21 year age group (Newby et al., 2000). Socio-economic status (SES), measured by employment, education, and income is a determinant of IPV (Oetzel & Duran, 2004). Being unemployed is a risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual and physical abuse for women, while less education is also a risk factor for physical abuse (Black, 2001; Schumacher, Feldbau-Kohn, Slep, & Heyman, 2001). Additionally, lower income and education are risk factors for being a perpetrator of intimate partner violence. Socio-economic status in the military can be measured by rank. The majority of perpetrators are enlisted men in the lower paygrades, while few are officers who are reported (Brewster, Milner, Mollerstrom, Saha, & Harris, 2002; Shupe, Stacey, & 37

Hazlewood, 1987). The overrepresentation of abusers among lower ranking service members may be explained by several factors. It is suspect that wives of officers underreport their abuse. Their greater investment in their husbands career may make them unwilling to jeopardize it by reporting abuse (West, 1998). Violence among the lower ranks may also reflect demographic differences. Minorities are often concentrated in the lower rankd (Knouse, 1991). Alcohol is often used by either perpetrators or victims in cases of IPV (Oetzel & Duran, 2004). Research has found that enlisted, married, male, army soldiers who drink heavily are more likely to abuse their spouses both when they are and when they are not drinking alcohol (Bell & Hartford, 2004). Women who have been abused by their military husbands often report that drugs and alcohol are commonly involved in the abuse (Erez, 2003). Another factor at the individual level is being abused as a child or witnessing marital violence in the home (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Moreno, 1999; Rosen & Martin, 1996a) and having an absent or rejecting father (Dutton, 1995). A high percentage of military personnel have prior histories of domestic violence. Among Navy recruits, 54% of women and 40% of men witnessed parental violence prior to enlistment (Merrill et al., 1996).

38

Relationship/Situational level (Microsystem) Gender roles and family bonds are risk factors at the interpersonal level. Gender roles are the social constructs of mens and womens social roles that are historically shaped, culturally contextualized, and class specific (Hamby, 2000; Oetzel & Duran, 2004). It is suggested that the primary cause of intimate partner violence is the gendered nature of power and control. The goal of male batterers is to maintain male dominance, which is reproduced through gender socialization (Hamby, 2000). Gender stereotyping has been defined as the belief that a set of traits and abilities is more likely to be found among one sex than the other. Cross-cultural studies have cited male control of wealth and decision-making within the family (Levinson, 1989; Oropesa, 1997) and marital conflict as strong predictors of abuse (Hoffman et al., 1994; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990). The 1975 National Family Violence Survey found that wife abuse occurred in about 11% of couples with a clearly dominant husband as compared to only about 3% of couples where the woman had approximately equal influence in decision-making (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Decision-making in the family is highly related to a husbands level of violence. The most violent husbands tended to make most of the decisions regarding family finances and strictly controlled when and where their wives could go (Frieze, 1983; Frieze & Browne, 1989). Young military families are often adjusting to new marriages and military life simultaneously. Being stationed away from 39

home and extended family support networks often make the spouse psychologically dependent on the service member. Unemployment and underemployment of military spouses also creates financial dependence on the military spouse. The relationship between patriarchal family structure and violence are fueled, in part, by societal norms that approve of male dominance in the family (Yllo & Straus, 1990). The rate of wife beating in states with the most male-dominant norms was found to be double that in states with more egalitarian norms (Bogard, 1988). Men raised in patriarchal families are more likely to become violent adults, to rape women acquaintances, and to batter their intimate partners than are men raised in more egalitarian homes (Fagot, Loerber, & Reid, 1988; Friedrick, Beilke, & Urquiza, 1988; Gwartney-Gibbs, Stockard, & Bohmer, 1987; Riggs &OLeary, 1989). Cross cultural literature suggests that one of the most lasting factors that promotes violence against women is a definition of anhood that is linked to dominance, toughness, or male honor (Counts et al., 1992; Sanday, 1981). Not all cultures define manhood in terms of dominance and aggression. Those that do have increased numbers of rape and sexual coercion (Sanday, 1981). The socialization of the hypermasculine man results in overvaluing of a masculinity as being tough, unfeeling, and violent (Heise, 1998; Mosher & Tomkins, 1988). The hypermasculine personality trait has been linked to rape, sexual coercion and force in dating situations (Mosher & Anderson, 1986). There is a culture of hypermasculinity associated with military life. It often includes the objectification and 40

denigration of women. While hypermasculinity in the military has been explored in relation to group cohesion (Rosen, Knudson, & Fancher, 2003) it has not been studied related to IPV. Community level (Exosystem) Formal and informal social structures are part of the community or exosystem level. Exosystem influences are often the byproducts of changes taking place in a large social milieu or social isolation stemming from increased migration in the population (Heise, 1998). One of the factors in the community level is isolation of the woman and the family. Social isolation is both a cause and a consequence of wife abuse (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Battered women are more isolated in terms of frequency of interaction with friends and neighbors, frequency of interaction with relatives, and participation in public activities (Nielson, Russell, & Ellington, 1992). Another factor is the association with delinquent peers. Particularly among adolescent males, an important role in encouraging sexual aggression is played by peer group behaviors and attitudes (Alder, 1985; DeKeseredy & Kelly, 1993). Sexual aggression is significantly related to desires to be held in high esteem by acquaintances (Heise, 1998; Petty & Dawson, 1989). DeKeseredy and Kelly (1993) also found that male peer support, or attachment to male peers who encourage and legitimate women abuse, is a statistically significant predictor of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse by men in college dating relationships. Patriarchal beliefs and attitudes, together with 41

male support measures explained approximately 21% of the variance in the types of woman abuse. The results of a study of peer group culture in an army division found the peer support among soldiers was not related to the severity or the frequency of intimate partner violence (Rosen et al., 2003). A study on sexual harassment and cohesion in the military provided validation for the concept of sexual harassment as a feature of the work climate (Rosen & Martin, 1997). The results of this study lend credence to the argument that sexual harassment is not just a matter of individual perception but of group perception. Societal level (Macrosystem) Societal level factors influence whether violence is encouraged or inhibited. Included at this level are economic and social policies that maintain socioeconomic inequalities between people, the availability of weapons, and social and cultural norms such as those around male dominance over woman, parental dominance over children and cultural norms that endorse violence as an acceptable method to resolve conflicts. Adherence to rigid gender roles, both at the societal or the individual level, increases the likelihood of violence against women. Gendered role rigidity was correlated with interpersonal violence in a sample of 17 cultures (McConahay & McConahay, 1977). Another study of six cultures found that when traditional genderbased task assignments are changed and boys perform domestic tasks, fender differences in aggression are reduced. Boys displayed less aggressive behavior. Gender differences 42

were also reduced when girls were freed from domestic chores and engaged in more masculine activities (Whiting & Edwards, 1973). The military culture is a unique context that influences gender role beliefs. There is a stereotypical perception of leadership in the military that is masculine in nature. Soldiers often hold strong traditional attitudes about women's inappropriateness for various army jobs (Kurpius & Lucart, 2000). Military leaders, when selecting or promoting soldiers to be leaders, look for personal attributes thought to be more characteristic of men than women. In the army, more men than women are perceived as having leadership potential and are given more opportunities to exhibit leadership (Norris & Wylie, 1995). Although increased experience and seniority in the military environment may increase, rather than decrease, the pattern of masculine stereotyping of the officer/leader role does not appear to decrease (Boyce & Herd, 2003). Unlike civilian findings that indicate that managerial experience modified stereotypical perceptions, cadets at the U. S. service academies indicated that experience with leadership and seniority at the military academy is so strongly masculine that senior cadets perceive successful leadership characteristics to be masculine to a greater extent than the junior cadets (Boyce & Herd, 2003). Norms, such as hypermasculinity, adversarial sexual beliefs, promiscuity, rape myth acceptance, hostility toward women and acceptance of violence against women, currently prevalent within military organizations, have been found to be conducive to 43

rape (Morris, 1996). The influence of societal or cultural norms in the military is the least researched area regarding intimate partner violence. Summary An ecological framework of intimate partner violence provides researchers and care providers with a way to understand the existing research and a tool for conceptualizing future research. The use of this framework could produce sensitive and responsive research in the area of IPV in the military communities. Research questions can be asked about which factors are necessary condition for violence to occur, whether factors must appear together or violence to result, and whether there needs to be a factor from each level present for violence to occur. The ecological framework, which organized multiple risk factors into meaningful categories, not only provides guidance for future research, but also identifies potential intervention points. Responses to intimate partner violence in the military can target multiple risk factors along the preventiontreatment continuum. Prevention programs, focusing on the general population or at-risk individuals before serious violence has occurred are more effective in fostering successful families than criminal sanctions.

44

Construct: 1. Male dominance 2. Masculinity linked to aggression and dominance

Construct: 1. Violence in family of origin 2. Childhood abuse 3. Brain injury 4. Alcohol abuse 5. Hypertestosterone

Relationship level (Microsystem) Society level (Macrosystem) Community level Exosystem)

Individual level (Ontogenic)

Construct: 1. Rigid gender roles 2. Acceptance of violence

Construct: 1. Economic background 2. Delinquent peer group 3. Group cohesion

Figure 3.1 Ecological Framework for Intimate Partner Violence in the Military 45

CHAPTER 4

IF I KNEW THEN WHAT I KNOW NOW: THE RETROSPECTIVE PRETEST AND ITS USE IN MEASURING THE EFFECT OF MILITARY TRAINING ON MENS ATTITUDES TOWARD INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Introduction

Much of nursing research is devoted to examining whether a program, treatment, or intervention causes some outcome or result. Considerable attention has been devoted to the development of research designs which can be applied to a wide range of research problems (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The most commonly used design is the quasiexperimental design with nonequivalent groups. A typical approach has been to use a traditional pretest-posttest research design using self-report instruments to document program effectiveness or behavior change. An illustration of this design is R O1 X O2 , where the difference between O1 and O2 is explained by X.
B B B B B B B B

The following are threats to the validity of the above assertion: History Between O1 and O2 many events may have occurred apart from X to produce the differences in outcomes. The longer the time lapse between O1 and O2, the more likely history becomes a threat

46

Maturation Between O1 and O2 participants may have grown older or internal states may have changed and therefore the differences obtained would be attributable to these changes as opposed to X

Testing the effect of giving the pretest itself may affect the outcomes of the second test. In the social sciences, it has been known that the process of measuring may change that which is being measured. The reactive effect occurs when the testing process itself leads to the change in behavior rather than it being a passive record of behavior

Instrumentation The changes in the instrument, observers, or scorers may produce changes in outcomes

Statistical regression Regression toward the mean may occur. If samples are selected according to their extreme characteristics or scores, the tendency is to regress toward the mean. Those with extreme high scores appear to be decreasing their scores, and those with extreme low scores appear to be increasing their scores

Others History, maturation, testing, instrumentation interaction of testing and maturation, interaction of testing and the experimental variable and the interaction of selection and the experimental variable are also threats to validity for this design.

47

Although these threats to the validity of the traditional pretest and posttest approach to evaluation were known to early evaluators, the identification of response shift bias by George Howard in 1979 illuminated the greatest weakness of this widely accepted research design. The response shift bias is the primary threat to validity to the pretest posttest method. Response shift bias is described as a change in the participants metric for answering questions from the pretest to the posttest due to a new understanding of a concept being taught (Klatt & Taylor-Powell, 2005). Response Shift Bias Traditionally, the difference between pretest and posttest scores has been used to estimate the direction and magnitude of change with respect to a treatment, program or intervention. The difference is based on the assumption that both the measure and the participants way of interpreting it remain stable over the relevant interval (Golembiewski, Billingsley, & Yeager, 1976; Kidd, Parshall, Wojcik, & Struttmann, 2004; Terborg, Howard, & Maxwell, 1980). Howard first showed that average posttest skills in interviewing (Howard & Dailey, 1979), teaching (Bray & Howard, 1980), and assertiveness (Howard, Dailey, & Gulanick, 1979) were significantly lower than the pretest, pre-intervention of the same characteristics. Self reported change scores measured from pretest to posttest appeared to indicate that participant performance decreased as a result of training, even though objective observers rated participants as having increased their skills. 48

Researchers must be able to say that each particular score on the pretest set of scores is equivalent to the posttest set of scores. A common metric must exist between the two sets of scores. If the standard of measurement changes between the pretest and posttest, the two ratings will reflect this difference in addition to changes attributable to the experimental manipulation. Comparisons of the ratings will be invalid (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Caporaso, 1973; Cronbach & Furby, 1970; G. Howard, Schmeck, & Bray, 1979). Researchers assume that the individuals evaluating themselves have an internalized standard for judging their level of functioning with regard to a given dimension, and that this internalized standard will not differ from experimental to control group or change from a pretest to a posttest (Howard, Schmeck et al., 1979). Both Golumbiewski, Howard and colleagues (1979) argued that adequate design and analytical approaches were necessary for identifying and, where possible, measuring changes in participants internal standards of measurement (Howard & Dailey, 1979; G. Howard, Ralph et al., 1979; Howard, Schmeck et al., 1979; Howard, 1980; Kidd et al., 2004) and their conceptualizations of constructs (Terborg et al., 1980). The Retrospective Pretest The retrospective pretest (RPT), a quasi-experimental design, was first described by Campbell and Stanley (1963) to be used when it was difficult or impossible to use more rigorous experimental designs. They cited work done earlier using the RPT method from World War II in which behavioral scientists investigated the impact of mixed race and 49

single race infantry units on morale and attitudes (Mazur & Lamb, 1980) . A pretest was not obtained because the experimental military units did not exist at the beginning of the war. The RPT gave researchers the opportunity to test the hypothesis that exposure (in mixed race units) was related to formation of positive racial attitudes. More recent research has covered the application of this method to testing the effectiveness of achieving program outcomes when interventions such as training programs are implemented (Bogenschneider, Olson, Linney, & Mills, 2000; Mazur & Lamb, 1980; Pratt, McGuigan, & Katzev, 2000; Rockwell & Kohn, 1989). The RPT is administered at the same time as the posttest. Participants answer questions about their understanding, skills, or feelings NOW (after the workshop, treatment or intervention). They are then asked to reflect back and answer how they believe their understanding, skills or feelings were BEFORE the workshop, treatment or intervention (Howard, Schmeck et al., 1979; Pratt et al., 2000). In research designs in which the response shift effect is likely to occur, traditional pretest questions may be misunderstood. The participants may over- or under-estimate their knowledge, skills, abilities, or understandings resulting in invalid high or low scores when compared to posttest scores. The posttest scores would show either little or great impact of the program or intervention. The reported effects of the intervention would be invalid.

50

Empirical Example This quasi-experimental study explored the effects of 10 weeks of U. S. Army basic training on mens attitudes toward intimate partner violence. An individuals attitude toward gender and sexuality are strongly influenced by the primary peer group, and in the case of the military it has been suggested that norms reflecting hypermasculinity and adversarial sexual beliefs are imparted to newcomers during the informal acculturation process, even though these norms are not part of formal military training or socialization (Morris, 1996). The primary purpose of army basic training is the transformation of an individual into a warrior ready for combat. This process of military socialization is an actual change of identity. Strong appeals to masculinity are often used in order to facilitate the change in identity (Snyder, 2003). Basic training as a test of manhood functions effectively in that it makes young males want to become soldiers. It also entails the denigration of women. Drill instructors routinely have referred to recruits as feminine in some way for the purpose of breaking them down and building them up. Basic training often portrays women in negative terms, traditionally using them to signify the epitome of all that is cowardly, passive, untrustworthy, unclean and undisciplined (Snyder, 2003). In an environment that tolerates sexism soldiers can begin to link sexual aggression and violence with the denigration of women, and consequently direct their aggression not only toward the enemy, but also toward female citizens or fellow female soldiers (Zimmerman, 1995). This research seeks to measure attitudes toward 51

hypermasculinity and acceptance of wife beating and to determine if these attitudes undergo changes during the intense initial military socialization process. Volunteers were administered an electronic survey using self-report instruments measuring characteristics of hypermasculinity and beliefs about wife beating. Three groups of volunteers participated in the study. The basic training group, who were at a U. S. Army basic training base, completed the pretest survey and then continued with basic training instruction and completed the retrospective pretest and the posttest at the end of training. The recruit group was in the process of entering military service when they completed the pretest, received no training and completed the retrospective pretest and the posttest approximately 8 10 weeks after the pretest. The civilian group, similarly completed the pretest, received no training and completed the retrospective pretest and posttest approximately 8 10 weeks after the pretest. The self-report posttest and the self-report retrospective pretest were identical to the pretest. Each item on the posttest indicated that the participant should answer as to how he felt now (posttest). Each item was repeated immediately and the participant was instructed to answer as to how he felt 10 weeks ago (retrospective pretest) Measures Two measures were evaluated for response shift. The Auburn Differential Masculinity Index (ADMI-60) is a measure of hypermasculinity consisting of 60 randomly arranged items with an ordinal rating system. This tool, with contemporary 52

language and item content, has shown high internal reliability, and good construct and content validity (Burk, Burkhart, & Sikorski, 2004). The five scales in the measure (hypermasculinity, sexual identity, dominance and aggression, conservative masculinity, and devaluation of emotion) demonstrate reliability by coefficient alphas in two studies during the construction of the measure ( = .83 and .85) (Burk, Burkhart, & Sikorski, 2004). Observed convergent and discriminate validity with existing measures of the same construct support this instrument as a valid measure of the construct of hypermasculinity (Burk, Burkhart, & Sikorski, 2004). The instrument is scored using a 5-point scale (1 = very much like me to 5 = not at all like me). The score for the instrument is the totaled item score ranging from 60 to 300. The Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (IBAWB) includes content on the following beliefs: justifying wife beating, wives gain from beating, helping battered women, punishing violent husbands, and holding violent husbands responsible for their behavior (Saunders & Lunch, 1987). Subscales were found to be multi-dimensional and to significantly correlate with the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Burt, 1980) (Justifying wife beating: r = 0.56; Wives gain from beating: r =0.62; Helping battered women: r = 0.42; Punishing violent husbands: r = -0.20; Holding violent husbands responsible for their behavior: r = -0.25; all correlation = p<.001)(Saunders & Lunch, 1987). Construct validity is supported by correlations of the five subscales with theoretically relevant constructs. A diverse sample and six measures with known acceptable validity 53

tested the constructed validity. Known groups of abusers and advocates, with both males and females in the groups, establish the instruments known groups validity with the differences highly significant in the predicted direction on all subscales. The instrument uses a 7 point Likert scale (1 = Strongly agree to7 = Strongly disagree; 4 = neither agree or disagree). The score is the totaled item scale ranging from 7 to 217. Results Means and standard deviations of the three self-report measures are presented in Table 4.1. As was the case with previous studies of response shift bias, the overall mean score for the retrospective-pretest on the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating measure was lower than the original pretest score for the total sample. The same was true for the Basic Group and the Civilian Group but was not true for the Recruit Group. The Recruit Group showed an increase in the retrospective pretest mean score for the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating measure. The mean score on the retrospective pretest for the total sample for the Auburn Differential Masculinity Index was higher than the original pretest mean score. The mean scores on the retrospective pretest increased for both the Basic Group and the Recruit Group but decreased for the Civilian Group. Paired t-tests compared the pretest scores to the posttest scores, the retrospective pretest scores to the posttest scores, and the pretest scores to the retrospective pretest scores (Table 4.1). The data indicate for the total sample the internal standard the participants used to evaluate themselves had changed from the pretest to the posttest. 54

Further analysis shows that the internal standard changed for the basic and the civilian groups but not for the recruit group. The scores of the pretest and the posttest would lead us to believe that it was possible that basic training influenced the attitudes toward wife beating for the basic training group, and that history had affected the attitudes of the civilian group. When comparing the scores of the retrospective pretest and the posttest none of the groups had a significant change. Relying on the gain score of the pretest to posttest alone would lead us to conclude that basic training had a greater impact on attitudes than it actually did. The results indicate for the total sample there was no significant change in the internal standard the participants used to evaluate themselves from the ADMI pretest to the posttest. In evaluating the groups, there was no significant change in the internal standard for the basic group, but there was a significant change in the standard for both the civilian and the recruit group. This would lead us to believe that there were some events apart from basic training for the civilians and the recruits that may have occurred to produce the differences in outcomes. Relying only on the pretest posttest changes would again lead us to falsely conclude that the experience of basic training did not have a significant effect on attitudes toward hypermasculinity.

55

Discussion The purpose of this article was to highlight a potential source of invalidity. The retrospective pretest, as stated by Howard (1979), the potential for a response shift bias is greatest when the purpose of a treatment or intervention is to change the subjects understanding or awareness of the variable being measured. Related to this study, the purpose of U. S. Army basic training did not overtly include understanding or awareness of either of the variables. The basic training curriculum does not provide any formal instruction related to partner violence. There is also no formal instruction related to the achievement of a particular type of masculinity. The literature on the nature, measurement and analysis of response shifts emerged over 30 years ago in the fields of organizational and personnel psychology (Golembiewski et al., 1976; Kidd et al., 2004) and educational psychology (Howard & Dailey, 1979; Howard, Ralph et al., 1979; Howard, 1980). The diffusion of these ideas to other disciplines has been slow (Tennis, 1989). By the early 1990s, research into response shifts had entered the realm of health psychology, primarily in work pertaining to health-related quality-of-life (Breetvelt & VanDam, 1991; Smets, Garssen, SchusterUitterhoeve, & deHaes, 1993; Sprangers & Hoogstraten, 1989). While interest has been sparked in the response shift phenomena among health psychologists, there is little published in nursing literature. Recently published nursing research texts completely lack index listings or references to response shift (Burns & Grove, 2001, 2005; Polit & 56

Beck, 2004). Given that nurse researchers have concerns with issues of health beliefs and changes in health behaviors, and the heavy reliance in nursing research on self-report measures it is difficult to understand the lack of attention being given to this phenomenon.

57

Pretest ___________________________ Pre to Post ___________ Measure IBAWB Basic Civilians Recruits 58 ADMI Basic Civilians Recruits 170.94 158.04 190.64 156.26 43.57 34.37 37.42 53.75 -2.44 -1.16 1.188 -4.11 M 110.68 105.01 115.62 111.28 SD 17.60 19.55 13.85 17.73 t 3.97 2.55 2.90 1.105 p

Posttest _______________________________ Retro to Post ____________ M 105.79 97.18 108.80 112.04 SD 19.41 23.79 17.59 10.58 t .034 p .973

Retrospective-Pretest _______________________ Pre to Retro __________ M 105.76 95.78 109.78 112.24 S 21.00 22.28 20.18 15.80 t p 3.74 .000 3.04 .003 2.28 .025 .822 .415

.000 .013 .005 .27

1.30 .198 -.71 .475 -.112 .912

.01 .112 .239 .000

182.57 168.22 182.21 190.96

37.25 43.66 33.45 28.05

4.01 2.51 2.19 2.21

.000 .01 .03 .03

174.84 40.08 159.82 38.00 182.80 40.33 182.18 37.58

-.07 .941 -.22 .820 2.26 .027 -2.14 .037

Table 4.1: Means, standard deviations, and t-tests for pretest, posttest and retrospective posttest

CHAPTER 5

CONTRIBUTIONS OF ARMY BASIC TRAINING TO MENS ATTITUDES TOWARD INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Introduction Violence against women is a United States and world-wide public health priority (Campbell, 2001). During fiscal year 2001 there were 9,351 reported victims of intimate partner violence in the military. There were 10,967 substantiated reports of intimate partner violence incidents, suggesting that victims were abused more than once and reported it. Sixty-two percent of the abusers were serving on active duty (Lloyd, 2002). The military rate of domestic violence was determined to be three times higher than civilian rates and one in three military spouses have been identified as a victim of partner violence (Heyman & Neidig, 1999). Soldiering, a masculine role, is defined by society as mens work. Masculinity pervades military culture. Using sexism during military training has been viewed as effective in creating male bonding. Until recently, cadence calls ranging from sexist to sexually aggressive to misogynistic were heard shouted by troops in formations. The rationale for training soldiers in this manner is the belief that young male soldiers will be trained to desire combat instead of fear it. When used in an environment that tolerates 59

sexism, the tactic can also teach soldiers to link sexual aggression and violence with the denigration of women. Aggression is not only directed toward the enemy, but also toward female citizens or fellow soldiers (Zimmerman, 1995). In the current conflicts (Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom) 243 service members, most of them female active-duty members, reported that they were sexually assaulted, most often at the hands of American male troops. Five of the alleged offenders reportedly assaulted multiple victims (Funk, 2004). Primary groups that subscribe to masculine ideologies, such as male sports teams and college fraternities, have been studied and the interaction between group members was found to promote violence toward women (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 2000). DeKeseredy, Schwartz and Alvi (2000) and Morris (1996) provide the only literature that alludes to a link between cultures that value masculinity and partner violence. Morris (1996) proposes that male bonding in the military is associated with abuse of women. Any link between culture and violence in the military is the least researched area of domestic violence. While all of the military services have performed research or evaluation related to partner violence since 1985, the focus has been on documenting the size, effects and characteristics of the problem. The military desires empirically based programs and policies dealing with partner violence (Lloyd, 2002). The effect of cultural and organizational norms is an area long neglected and in need of attention.

60

Salivary testosterone represents an endocrine pathway having well-documented associations with interpersonal behavior and risk taking (Booth & Osgood, 1993). Testosterone in animals is related to aggression, dominance, and sexual activity (Archer, 1988). In human studies testosterone has been related to dominance (Gladue, Boechler, & McCaul, 1989), aggression (Archer, 1991), libido (Booth & Dabbs, 1993; Morris, Udry, Kahn-Daewood, & Daewood, 1987; Sherwin, Gelfand, & Brender, 1985), sensation seeking (Daitzman & Zuckerman, 1980), drug abuse (Dabbs & Morris, 1990), low education achievement (Dabbs, 1992; Kirkpatrick, Wharry & Rovinson, 1993), and marital discord and divorce (Booth & Dabbs, 1993). All of these behaviors are also factors associated with perpetration of partner violence. Ecological framework The Ecological Framework for Domestic Violence provides a framework for holistic analysis of the various factors that may contribute to a persons decision to use violence (Heise, 1998). The framework proposes that violence does not occur only as a result of one factor in one of the four spheres of influence the individual, the relationship, the community, and the societal (Figure 3.1). Intimate partner violence is more complex with multiple factors within different spheres influencing a persons attitudes, behavior and choices. This framework demonstrates that violent behavior grows out of a complex interplay of individual, relational, communal and societal dynamics. 61

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine if U. S. Army basic training affects perceptions of masculinity and attitudes toward intimate partner violence. Basic training is a formal socialization process where a diverse group of volunteers are transformed into soldiers and become a part of a culture rich in cultural norms and tradition. Perception of masculinity characteristics, attitudes toward partner violence, and salivary testosterone levels will be measured before and after 10 weeks of basic training and compared to a sample of persons with similar demographic characteristics with no military training and to persons who are in the process of enlisting in the army but who have not yet left for basic training. Research Questions 1. What are the relationships between hypermasculinity, salivary testosterone levels, attitudes toward intimate partner violence, group cohesion, and selected demographic variables? 2. What is the effect of 10 weeks of U. S. Army Basic Combat Training on soldiers attitudes toward intimate partner violence, hypermasculinity characteristics, and testosterone levels compared to peers without 10 weeks of basic training and to peers not in the military? 3. What variables are most predictive of attitudes toward intimate partner violence?

62

Design and Methods Design A quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design with a control group was used to determine relationships between hypermasculinity, salivary testosterone levels, attitudes toward intimate partner violence, group cohesion, and the effect of army basic training on these variables. A retrospective pretest was used to determine if a response shift bias had occurred during the time between pretest and posttest (Howard, Schmeck et al., 1979). An electronic survey was completed by the participants and a saliva sample was provided to determine testosterone levels. Setting and Sample Data were collected over a 7 month period in 2006. A sample of 180 (60 in each group) was required based on a power analysis for repeated measures ANOVA to compare means of the 3 groups, with alpha = .05, power = .80, and a moderate effect size of .50 (Cohen, 1988). The basic training group consisted of young men between the ages of 18 25 years who had enlisted in the army and had arrived at their basic training site. The pretest was administered during the first 3 days after arriving for training and the posttest and retrospective pretest were administered during the final week of basic training. The recruit group consisted of young men similar in characteristics to the basic training group who were in the process of enlisting in the army but who had not yet left for basic training. The civilian group consisted of young men similar in characteristics to 63

the basic training group who had no desire or intention to enlist in the U. S. Army. The recruit and civilian groups did not receive an intervention (basic training). The posttest and retrospective pretest were administered to the recruit and civilian groups 10 weeks after the pretest. Human subject approvals were obtained from a university review board, and Department of Defense review board. Written informed consent was obtained after the study was explained to the participants. Data were collected on site by the principal investigator using electronic hand held transmitters. Items on the survey instruments were projected by PowerPoint. Participants were recruited using signs and by work of mouth. Participants completed the electronic survey in a classroom at basic training, at the university gymnasium, at fraternity houses for the civilian group and in the cafeteria of the military entrance processing station for the recruit group. Methods/Instruments A socio-demographic questionnaire was used to obtain data for usual demographic information (e.g. participants education level, marital status) and the following study variables: Head injury was coded 1 for never having a head injury, 2 for having a head injury that required stitches but did not result in loss of consciousness, 3 for a head injury with a loss of consciousness less than 1 hour, 4 for a head injury with a loss of consciousness greater than 1 hour but less than 24 hours, and 5 for a head injury with a loss of consciousness greater than 24 hours. 64

Witnessing violence in the home was coded 1 for having witnessed violence in the home and 2 for not witnessing violence in the home. History of abuse was coded 1 for having parents that were violent to the participant and 2 for having parents not violent to the participant. Membership in a delinquent peer group was coded as 1 for having no friends that had been arrested for crimes more serious than traffic violations, 2 for 1 to 5 friends arrested, 3 for 6 to 10 friends arrested, and 4 for more than 10 friends arrested. Race/Ethnicity of the participant was measured by self-report using the NIH categories. The participants noted if they were Hispanic/Latino. They also noted if they were Black or African American, White, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Group Cohesion was measured by the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) (Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron, 1985). This instrument is based on a view that cohesion is a multidimensional construct consisting of several dimensions. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the GEQ possesses adequate factor validity and reliability (Alphas ranging from .63 to .81) as a measure of group cohesion (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1987; Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985; Li & Harmer, 1996; Spink, Nickel, Wilson, & Odnokon, 2005). It consists of 18 items and is scored using a 9-point ordinal rating scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 9 = Strongly agree). The score for the instrument is the

65

total item score, ranging from 9 to 162 with higher scores reflecting stronger perceptions of cohesiveness. Characteristics of hypermasculinity was measured by the Auburn Differential Masculinity Index (ADMI-60) consisting of 60 randomly arranged items with an ordinal rating system. This tool, with contemporary language and item content, has shown high internal reliability, and good construct and content validity (Burk et al., 2004). The five scales in the measure (hypermasculinity, sexual identity, dominance and aggression, conservative masculinity, and devaluation of emotion) demonstrate reliability by coefficient alphas in two studies during the construction of the measure ( = .83 and .85) (Burk et al., 2004). Observed convergent and discriminate validity with existing measures of the same construct support this instrument as a valid measure of the construct of hypermasculinity. The instrument is scored using a 5-point scale (1 = very much like me to 5=not at all like me). The score for the instrument is the totaled item score ranging from 60 to 300. Acceptance of violence toward women was measured by the Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (IBAWB) which includes content on the following beliefs: justifying wife beating, wives gain from beating, helping battered women, punishing violent husbands, and holding violent husbands responsible for their behavior (Saunders & Lunch, 1987). Subscales were found to be multi-dimensional and to significantly correlate with the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Burt, 1980) (Justifying wife beating: r = 66

0.56; Wives gain from beating: r =0.62; Helping battered women: r = -0.42; Punishing violent husbands: r = -0.20; Holding violent husbands responsible for their behavior: r = 0.25; all correlation = p<.001)(Saunders & Lunch, 1987). Construct validity is supported by correlations of the five subscales with theoretically relevant constructs. A diverse sample and six measures with known acceptable validity tested the constructed validity. Known groups of abusers and advocates, with both males and females in the groups, establish the instruments known groups validity with the differences highly significant in the predicted direction on all subscales. The instrument uses a 7 point Likert scale (1 = Strongly agree to7 = Strongly disagree; 4 = neither agree or disagree). The score is the totaled item scale ranging from 7 to 217. Alcohol use was measured with the short version of the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test. This 13 item questionnaire for alcoholism screening shows good internal consistency reliability, with a coefficient alpha of .95, and criterion validity, with correlations of .83 and .94 with clinician diagnoses of alcoholism. Participants responding to 0 or 1 item in the direction of alcohol problems are classified as being low in alcohol problems. Responses to 2 items in the direction of alcohol problems results in a classification as intermediate with respect to alcohol problems. Participants responding to 3 or more items in the direction of alcohol problems are classified as high in alcohol problems (Selzer & Vinkur, 1975). 67

Salivary testosterone levels were measured using competitive immunoassay. This assay reports the average intra-assay coefficient of variation at 3.3% and 6.7% for high and low levels. The average inter-assay coefficient of variation was 5.1% for high and 9.6% for low testosterone levels. The sensitivity shows the minimal concentration of testosterone that can be distinguished from 0 is < 1.5 pg/ml. A saliva-serum free testosterone correlation is reported as r (30) = 0.93, p < 0.001, and the saliva-serum total testosterone correlation is reported as r (30) = 0.929, p<0.001. The serum-saliva correlations are stronger for males (r = 0.80 to 0.85) than for females (r = 0.38 to 0.48). The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (Crowne & Marlow, 1960) was used to measure the extent to which individuals exhibit desirability response tendencies. Desirability is defined as the need of Ss to obtain approval by responding in a culturally appropriate and acceptable manner (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, p.353). The scale reports good psychometric properties (internal consistency = 0.88, test-retest r = 0.89). The 13 items are answered true or false. For those items where a true answer is most likely an honest answer 1 point is given. The score is the total points ranging from 0 to 10. Scores above 5 indicate an average level of social desirability. Potential volunteers were informed about the details of this study via a briefing enhanced by a power point presentation. The basic training group and the civilian group received the briefing and explanation in a large group setting. The basic training group was comprised of 2 recruit companies. One started training in Feb, 2006 and completed 68

training 10 weeks later. The second company started training in June 2006. The civilian group was comprised of 3 fraternities and 1 student organization. The pretest was conducted in February, 2006 and the posttest 10 weeks later. The recruit group received the briefing and explanation either individually, or in groups of up to 8 persons. The posttest was administered 8-10 weeks later. Most of the participants were taking the posttest on the day that they were leaving for basic training. A Power Point presentation was used to present the survey items, and the participants used handheld electronic transmitters to provide their answers. After completing the pretest survey and providing a saliva sample, the recruit group and the civilian group received $5.00 cash for their participation. Because of army regulations prohibiting direct payment to active duty soldiers for participating in research, each volunteer received a prepaid telephone card. At the completion of the posttest, the recruit group and the civilian group received $10.00 and the basic training group received a second prepaid telephone card. A donation of $10.00 per completed survey by the basic training group was also made to the Army Emergency Relief Fund in the name of the participating basic training companies. Results Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 14). ANOVA was used to examine differences between the groups on demographic characteristics. Paired sample t-tests were performed to examine differences between pretest and retrospective pretest scores. Pearsons Product Moment 69

Correlations were used to determine the relationships of testosterone levels, group cohesion, acceptance of wife beating, masculinity characteristics, alcohol abuse, age, education level, parents education level, history of head injury, history of violence in the home, history of experiencing abuse, receiving government financial aid as a child and after childhood, and association with delinquent peer groups. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare the three groups (basic training, civilian, recruits) over time (pretest, posttest) on testosterone level, hypermasculinity characteristics, and acceptance of wife beating and group cohesion. Characteristics of the Sample Table 5.1 lists the demographic characteristics of the sample. The basic training group was significantly younger, and less educated, had parents with less education, suffered less severe head injuries, received more government aid in both childhood and adolescence, and had more violent homes and less alcohol problems than the civilian group. Other demographic characteristics were not significantly different. Relationships of variables Data were analyzed using Pearson Product Moment Coefficient for significant relationships. Results for the total sample are summarized in Table 5.2. A relationship was found for group cohesion with attitudes toward intimate violence, masculinity, alcohol use and witnessing violence in the home for the civilian group (Table 5.3). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence were related to parental education and head 70

injury for the civilian group, to alcohol use for the recruit group (Table 5.4), and to masculinity for all three groups. Masculinity is related to age for the recruit group, alcohol use for the recruit group and the civilian group and experiencing violence in the home for all three groups. Alcohol use was related to age for the civilian group and with parental education, head injury and experiencing violence in the home for the recruit group. Age was related to experiencing violence in the home for the basic group (Table 5.5) and to education level for the civilian and recruit group. Education was related to parental education and head injury for the civilian group. Head injury was related to delinquent peer group for the civilian group and to experiencing violence in the home for the basic group. Testosterone level was related to delinquent peer group, witnessing violence in the home, education level and parental education level for the basic group. Witnessing violence in the home was related to delinquent peer group and experiencing violence in the home for the basic group. Effects of basic training Repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare the three groups across two measurements of time. Testosterone levels (Table 5.6) showed a significant difference at pretest with the recruit group higher than both the basic group and the civilian group. There was a significant change over time (all groups decreased). Group cohesion (Table 5.7) showed the groups were significantly different. The basic group had lower levels than the civilian and the recruit group. The groups did not have a significant change from 71

pretest to posttest. Masculinity (Table 5.8) showed that the groups were significantly different on the pretest with the basic training group scoring lower than civilians and recruits and recruits scoring lower than civilians. On the posttest there was significant change with the scores becoming closer to one another. The basic training and recruit groups increased their scores while the civilian group showed a decrease. Attitudes toward intimate partner violence (Table 5.9) showed a significant difference between the groups with the basic group less than the civilian group and the recruit group. There was a significant change over time with all groups scoring lower than on the pretest. Response shift bias Paired t-tests compared the pretest scores to the posttest scores for the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating and for the Auburn Differential Masculinity Index, the retrospective pretest scores for those instruments to the posttest scores, and the pretest scores of those instruments to the retrospective pretest scores (Table 5.10). The data indicate that for the total sample the internal standard the participants used to evaluate themselves had changed from the pretest to the posttest. Further analysis shows that the internal standard changed for the basic and the civilian groups but not for the recruit group. When comparing the scores of the retrospective pretest and the posttest, none of the groups had a significant change. The results indicate for the total sample there was no significant change in the internal standard the participants used to evaluate themselves from the ADMI pretest to 72

the posttest. In evaluating the groups, there was no significant change in the internal standard for the basic group, but there was a significant change in the standard for both the civilian and the recruit group. Regression on Attitudes toward Partner Violence The stepwise method of multiple regression analysis was performed for Attitudes toward intimate partner violence as the dependent variable with group cohesion, hypermasculinity, testosterone level, education level, alcohol use, parents education level, head injury, government aid in childhood and adolescence, and delinquent peer association as independent variables for both pretest and posttest data. In the pretest 87.9% of the variance in attitudes toward intimate partner violence was accounted for by hypermasculinity characteristics (19.1%), education level (29.3%) and alcohol use (39.5%) (Table 5.13). No other variables were significant. In the posttest 74.3% of the variance in attitudes toward intimate partner violence was accounted for by hypermasculinity (33.6%) and group cohesion (40.7%), with no other variables being significant (Table 5.14). Social Desirability The means for the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale showed moderate amounts of social desirability for the overall sample and for each group. This would suggest that the tendency to respond in socially approved ways did not have a significant impact on the variance in the variables examined in this study. 73

Discussion The results of this study provide empirical data about the influence of military training and culture related to intimate partner violence. It attempted to add a new layer to our understanding of factors that contribute to male perpetrated intimated partner violence in the military. Guided by the ecological model for partner violence the study examined factors in all levels of the model specifically factors associated with the cultural environment of a small military group, the basic training company. The results both supported and contradicted reported findings in both academia and popular reports. The results of this study strongly support the results of previous studies showing that displaying characteristics of hypermasculinity is related to beliefs about wife beating (Finn, 1986; Haj-Yahia, 2003; Saunders & Lunch, 1987). As expected, the young men experiencing basic training increased in their hypermasculinity characteristics. The more dramatic result was the significant increase for the recruit group. This may be explained by the fact that the majority of the recruits were administered the posttest on the day that they were leaving for basic training. The related emotion surrounding this event may have affected their scores. Also surprising were the results for the variable group cohesion. The purpose of basic training is to strip the new soldier of individuality and create a team. It is believed that group cohesion is the key to military success. Therefore, it was expected that the basic training group would show a significant increase in group cohesion which it did 74

not. Surprising was the fact that there was no significant increase in group cohesion at the completion of basic training. This result may show that the time spent in basic training is not long enough to develop strong bonds. While the trainees live together for boot camp they are not given very much opportunity to interact with each other and develop friendships without being under the watchful eyes of their drill sergeants. They learn to work together to accomplish the tasks required to successfully complete basic training but may not develop the bonds of friendship and cohesion. The group showing the highest level of group cohesion on the pretest was the civilian group. The majority of this group consisted of subgroups from 3 fraternities where bonding and brotherhood is stressed. The brothers in the fraternities chose to be a part of the group and have been a cohesive group for a longer period of time than the participants in basic training. Group cohesion was also significantly related to attitudes toward IPV and to hypermasculinity. These data support previous work relating peer group support and violence against women (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998a; Godenzi et al., 2001; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 2000). It is not surprising that the civilian group showed more group cohesion than the basic training group on the pretest since the soldiers had had little opportunity to create bonds with each other. The significant decrease of scores on the attitudes toward partner violence measure at the posttest supports the claims of the military that military training and culture instills desirable values in its members and does not create men who are 75

perpetrators of intimate partner violence. However, the decreased scores for the two other groups could refute this claim. The most important goal of this research was to determine whether there was an unintended change in attitudes toward intimate partner violence during army basic training. In this data set, the expected increase in scores did not occur. The change was opposite of what was expected with attitudes decreasing in the acceptance of intimate partner violence for those in basic training. This would also suggest that even though a culture of hypermasculinity may include negative or sexualized stereotypes of women, there may be other dimensions of culture within the same groups that support positive views of women. This study was not without limitations. Data collection was limited to one of five sites for army basic training. Although basic training curriculum is standardized throughout the army, future research should examine all sites for differences. In this study, only men were enrolled. The U. S. Army trains men and women together at 3 of the 4 basic training sites. The basic training companies that participated in this study attended were coed, and the presence of women in the training companies may have been a confounding factor. Military training does not stop at the completion of basic training. Training continues throughout an entire military career. Other studies have associated military training or combat experiences with partner violence (Allen, 2000). Longitudinal studies are needed to examine the results after additional training and 76

provide additional support to studies by Ganster (Ganster, 2004) and Rosen (L. N. Rosen et al., 2002). It is not assumed that attitudes about intimate partner violence translate to perpetration of IPV. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine is there is a link between these attitudes and actual violent incidents in the military population. Recommendations for Future Research This research should be replicated with some changes in recruitment methods. Although random assignment to all comparison groups would not be possible, random assignment to the recruit group and the basic group should be considered. The study should be expanded to include the other basic training sites and more Military Entrance Processing Stations. Data collected from multiple sites would strengthen the study design. A longitudinal design should be considered to determine if attitudes toward intimate partner violence change in the course of a military enlistment or career and in what context changes occur. A longitudinal design should also be considered to determine if attitudes actually translate to behavior, and at what point does that occur. Other recommendations include determining what attitudes other members of the military hold. Do women in basic training have similar attitudes as men in basic training, and do their attitudes change during basic training? Longitudinal studies should include women, officers and military leaders, in both the enlisted and officer ranks.

77

The results of this study are important in that it is one of the few that offers empirical data related to military culture and training and intimate partner violence. It is hoped that others can be guided by this research and expand the body of knowledge with the goal of decreasing incidents of intimate partner violence in military communities, and improving the quality of life for military members and their families.

78

Construct: 3. Male dominance 4. Masculinity linked to aggression and dominance

Construct: 6. Violence in family of origin 7. Childhood abuse 8. Brain injury 9. Alcohol abuse 10. Hypertestosterone

Relationship level (Microsystem) Society level (Macrosystem) Community level Exosystem)

Individual level (Ontogenic)

Construct: 3. Rigid gender roles 4. Acceptance of violence

Construct: 4. Economic background 5. Delinquent peer group 6. Group cohesion

Figure 5.1 Ecological Framework for Intimate Partner Violence in the Military 79

Variable
U

Total n %
U U

Basic n %
U U

Recruit n %
U U

Civilian n %

Age 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Your Education 1st 6th grade 7th 9th grade 10th 12th grade some college college graduate some grad school graduate degree Total
P P P P P P P P P P P P

46 38 46 53 27 14 4 9 237

19.4 16.0 19.4 22.4 11.4 5.9 1.7 3.4

24 17 20 11 8 5 1 3 89

27.0 19.1 22.5 12.4 9.0 5.6 1.1 3.4

13 5 8 15 3 2 2 4 52

25.0 9.6 15.4 28.8 5.3 3.8 3.8 7.7

9 16 18 27 16 7 1 2 96

9.4 16.7 18.8 28.1 17.7 6.5 1.0 2.1

80

2 .8 3 1.3 71 30.0 140 59.1 9 3.4 5 2.1 0 0.0 237

0 0.0 1 1.1 45 50.0 40 44.4 4 4.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 97

1 2.0 1 2.0 24 48.0 13 26.0 3 6.0 3 6.0 5 10.0 50

1 1.0 1 1.0 2 2.1 87 89.7 2 2.1 4 4.1 0 0.0 97 (continued)

Table 5.1: Demographic Variables

Table 5.1 (continued)

Parents Education 1st-2nd grade 3rd-4th grade 5th-6th grade 7th-8th grade 9th-10th grade 11th-12th grade high school 13th-14th grade some college 15th-16th grade college degree 17th-18th grade graduate school 19 or more doctorate Total
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

13 5.4 2 .8 2 .8 5 2.1 9 3.8 49 20.5 29 12.1 51 21.3 42 17.6 37 15.5 239

1 1.1 0 0.0 1 1.1 3 3.4 5 5.7 25 28.4 18 20.5 14 15.9 3 18 88 3.4 20.5

11 20.8 1 1.9 0 0.0 1 1.9 4 7.5 19 35.8 3 5.7

1 1 1 1 0 5 8 29 33 19 98

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.1 8.2 29.6 33.7 19.4

81

8 15.1 6 11.2 0 53 0.0

(continued)

Table 5.1 (continued)

Marital status Single 188 77.0 Married 37 15.2 Divorced 2 .8 Separated 1 .4 Living with someone 16 6.6 Total 244 Full time job Yes No Total 143 69.4 63 30.6 206

72 75.8 8 8.4 1 1.1 1 1.1 13 13.7 95 67 69.1 26 28.0 93

39 75.0 9 17.3 1 1.9 0 0.0 3 5.8 52 31 73.8 11 26.2 42

77 79.4 20 20.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 97 45 63.4 26 36.6 71 (continued)

82

Table 5.1 (continued)

Head Injury Unconscious <1 hour Unconscious >1 hour but < 24 hr Unconscious > 24 hr Not unconscious/had bump or stitches Never had head injury Total 83 Ethnic Background Hispanic non-Hispanic Total

30 12.8 63 26.8 2 .9 40 17.0 100 42.6 235 20 10.8 166 89.2 186

15

17.2

7.8

11 11.3 46 47.4 2 2.1 17 17.5 21 21.6 97 3 5.6 51 94.4 54 (continued)

2 2.3 0 0.0 17 19.5 53 87 13 77 90 60.9

15 29.4 0 0.0 6 11.8 26 51.0 51 4 7.0 38 90.5 42

14.4 85.6

Table 5.1 (continued)

Racial Identity American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian/ Pacific islander Total 84

14

5.9

5 2 5 10 90 33 60 93

5.6 2.2 5.6 11.1

9.6

4.1

51 21.3 15 6.3 12 239 5.0

7 13.5 4 7.7 2 52 3.8

42 43.3 6 6.2 0 97 20 38.5 32 61.5 52 0.0

Witness Partner Violence in the home Yes 62 25.7 No 179 74.3 Total Experienced violence in the home Yes 49 22.4 No 170 77.6 Total

35.5 64.5

9 9.4 87 90.6 96

26 59 85

30.6 69.4

5 5.9 80 94.1 85

18 31

36.7 63.3

(continued)

Table 5.1 (continued) Received Govt aid in childhood Yes 46 No 176 Dont know 11 Total

19.7 75.5 4.2

26 57 3 86

30.2 66.3 3.5

8 8.2 85 87.6 4 4.1 97

12 34 4 50

24 68 8

Received Govt aid after childhood Yes 56 24.2 No 170 73.8 Dont know 5 2.2 Total

23 59 2 84

27.4 70.2 2.4

22 74 1 97

22.7 76.3 1.0

11 22 37 74 2 4 50

85

Have you ever been arrested for offenses other than traffic violations? Yes 52 25.1 24 25.8 11 No 155 74.9 69 74.2 56 Total 93 67

16.4 83.6

17 36.2 30 63.8 47 continued

Table 5.1 (continued)

Number of friends arrested none 1-5 6-10 > 10 Total

50 121 35 28

21.4 51.7 13.4 10.7

18 44 12 17 91

19.8 48.4 13.2 18.7

19 53 16 7 95

20.0 55.8 16.8 7.4

13 27.1 24 50.0 7 14.6 4 8.3 48

86

Measure

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Testosterone1 GEQ1 IBAWB1 ADMI1 sMAST Age Education -

-.049 -

.034 .283** -

0.040 .305** .421** -

.031 .069 -.090 .140* -

.039 .132* .059 -.064 .157* -

.165* .060 .195** .064 .038 .347**

87

6. 7.

8. 9.

Parents Education Head Injury

10. Violence in home

Table 5.2: Intercorrelations for Variable Measures and Demographic Variables for Total Sample

continued

Table 5.2 (continued)

Measure

10

11

12

1. Testosterone 2. GEQ 3. IBAWB 4. ADMI 5. sMAST

-.140 .161* .108 .208** -.165* .116 -.013

.072 .063 .262** .165* .284** .082 .216** .040 -

.039 .255** .115 .106 -.115 .104 .032 .294** .123 -

.007 .179* .069 -.043 -.161* .119 .136* .230** .100 .432**

-.147 -.069 -.050 -.023 -.006 -.060 -,071 -.030 -.102

88

6. Age 7. Education

8. Parents Education 9. Head Injury

10. Witnessing partner violence in home

(continued)

Table 5.2 (continued)

Measure

11. Experiencing violence in the home 12.Delinquent peer group

continued

89

Table 5.2 (continued)

Measure

10

11 -

12 -.095

11. Experiencing violence in the home 12. Delinquent peer group

90

Measure

1 Testosterone 2 GEQ 3 IBAWB 4 ADMI 5 sMAST

-.236 -

.018 .372** -

-.044 .385** .489** -

.036 .040 .061 .319** -

-.064 -.225* -.009 -.036 .212* -

.094 -.078 .008 -.158 -.176 .281**

91

6 Age 7 Education 8 Parents Education 9 Head Injury 10 Witnessing partner violence in home

Table 5.3 Intercorrelations for variable measures and demographic variables for Civilian group

(continued)

Table 5.3 (continued)

Measure

10

11

12

1. Testosterone 2. GEQ 3. IBAWB 4. ADMI 5. sMAST

.113 .037 .209* -.070 -.114 ,035 .264**

.326* -.190 .223* .022 .189 .070 -.271** .100 -

-.085 .227* .113 .010 -.114 -.103 .017 .099 -.116 -

.238 -.122 -.111 -.243* -.324** -.053 .026 -.007 .034 -.075

-.059 .043 -.168 -.098 -.115 -.92 -.039 .003 -.214* .048

92

6. Age 7. Education

8. Parents Education 9. Head Injury 10. Witnessing partner violence in home

continued

Table 5.3 (continued)

Measure 11. Experiencing violence in home 12. Delinquent peer group

Continued

93

Table 5.3 (continued) Measure 8 9 10 11 12 -.162

11. Experiencing violence in home 12. Delinquent peer group

94

Measure

1 Testosterone 2 GEQ 3 IBAWB 4 ADMI 5 sMAST

.127 -

.127 -.016 -

.010 .081 .279* -

-.048 -.210 -.479* -.439** -

.008 .157 .114 -.287* .086 -

.106 -.042 .251 -.100 .123 .459** -

95

6 Age 7 Education 8 Parents Education 9 Head Injury 10 Witnessing partner violence in home

Table 5.4: Intercorrelations for Variable Measures and Demographic Variables for Recruit Group

(continued)

Table 5.4 (continued)

Measure

10

11

12

1. Testosterone 2. GEQ 3. IBAWB 4. ADMI 5. sMAST 6. Age 7. Education

-.184 .212 .106 .168 -.630** .111 -.333*

.057 -.139 .119 -.196 .390** .052 .500** -.512** -

.043 .245 .178 -.031 -.365* .104 -.197 .323* .061 -

.116 .214 .213 -.168 -.231 -.003 .085 .089 .085 .467**

-.006 -.276 .143 -.224 .026 .001 -.005 .062 -.041 -.068

96

8. Parents Education 9. Head Injury 10. Violence in home

continued

Table 5.4 (continued) Measure 11Experiencing violence in home 12Delinquent peer group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

continued

97

Table 5.4 (continued)

Measure

10

11 -

12 .010

11. Experiencing violence in home 12. Delinquent peer group

98

Measure

1 Testosterone1 2 GEQ1 3 IBAWB1 4 ADMI1 5 sMAST 6 Age 7 Education 8 Parents Education 9 Head Injury 10 Violence in home

-.206 -

-.069 .187 -

.159 .181 .326** -

.101 -.028 -.167 .158 -

.077 .199 -.048 -.121 .189 -

.250* -.057 .075 .123 .020 .194

99

Table 5.5: Intercorrelations for Variable Measures and Demographic Variables for Basic Group

(continued)

Table 5.5 (continued)

Measure

10

11

12

1. Testosterone 2. GEQ 3. IBAWB 4. ADMI

.252* .167 -.117 .063 .054 .169 .127

-.036 -.063 .121 .106 .078 -.128 -.044 .160 -

.241* .136 -.060 -.034 -.123 .148 .173 .165 .049 -

.029 .176 -.190 -.283** -.147 .225* .077 .128 -.232* .429**

-.263* .054 -.009 .246* .209 -.209 -.077 -.155 .052 -.265*

100

5. sMAST 6. Age 7. Education

8. Parents Education 9. Head Injury 10. Witnessing partner violence in home

continued

Table 5.5 (continued)

Measure 11. Experiencing violence in the home 12. Delinquent peer group

continued

101

Table 5.5 (continued) Measure

10

11

12

11Experiencing violence in the home

-.105

12. Delinquent peer group

102

Measure Group Time Group X Time error

df 2 1 2 179

F 30.041 4.238 1.802

.251 .023 .012

p .000 .041 .341

= partial eta squared (effect size)

Table 5.6: Analysis of Variance for Testosterone and Time

103

Measure Group Time Group X Time error

df 2 1 2 180

F 53.688 .225 2.692

.374 .001 .029

p .000 .636 .070

= partial eta squared (effect size)

Table 5.7: Analysis of Variance for Group Environment Questionnaire and Time

104

Measure Group Time Group X Time

df 2 1 2

F 17.667 9.283 7.474

.164 .049 .077

p .000 .003 .001

error 180 = partial eta squared (effect size)

Table 5.8: Analysis of Variance for Auburn Differential Masculinity Index and Time

105

Measure Group Time Group X Time error

df 2 1 2 178

F 19.399 .13.980 1.203

.989 .073 .013

p .000 .000 .303

= partial eta squared (effect size)

Table 5.9: Analysis of Variance for Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating and Time

106

Pretest ___________________________ Pre to Post ___________ Measure IBAWB Basic Civilians Recruits 107 ADMI Basic Civilians Recruits 170.94 158.04 190.64 156.26 43.57 34.37 37.42 53.75 -2.44 -1.16 1.188 -4.11 M 110.68 105.01 115.62 111.28 SD 17.60 19.55 13.85 17.73 t 3.97 2.55 2.90 1.105 p

Posttest _______________________________ Retro to Post ____________ M 105.79 97.18 108.80 112.04 SD 19.41 23.79 17.59 10.58 t .034 p .973

Retrospective-Pretest _______________________ Pre to Retro __________ M 105.76 95.78 109.78 112.24 S 21.00 22.28 20.18 15.80 t p 3.74 .000 3.04 .003 2.28 .025 .822 .415

.000 .013 .005 .27

1.30 .198 -.71 .475 -.112 .912

.01 .112 .239 .000

182.57 168.22 182.21 190.96

37.25 43.66 33.45 28.05

4.01 2.51 2.19 2.21

.000 .01 .03 .03

174.84 40.08 159.82 38.00 182.80 40.33 182.18 37.58

-.07 .941 -.22 .820 2.26 .027 -2.14 .037

Table 4.1: Means, standard deviations, and t-tests for pretest, posttest and retrospective posttest

Measure Group Time Group X Time error 108

df 2 1 2 180

F 4661.16 16.212 .152

.963 .083 .002

p .000 .000 .859

Table 5.11: Analysis of Variance for Retrospective Pretest Auburn Differential Masculinity Index and Time

Measure Group Time Group X Time error 109

df 2 1 2 179

F 12.090 .007 .792

.119 .000 .009

p .000 .933 .454

Table 5.12: Analysis of Variance for Retrospective Pretest Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating and Time

Variable Constant Hypermasculinity Education level Alcohol use 110 Total *Significance at p < .05

R2
P P

Adjusted R2
P P

B 72.325

Significance .000* .000* .000* .001*

.191 .293 .395 .879

.181 .276 .372 .829

.134 6.136 -2.115

Table 5.13: Predictors of Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence at Pretest

Variable Constant Hypermasculinity Group Cohesion Total 111 Significant at p < .05

R2
P P

Adjusted R2
P P

B 33.199

Significance .002* .000* .004*

.336 .407 .743

.327 .391 .718

.282 .212

Table 5.14: Predictors of Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence at Posttest

REFERENCES

Abrams, K. (1993). Gender in the Military: Androcentrism and Institutional Reform. Law and Contemporary Problems, 56(4), 217-241. Alder, C. (1985). An exploration of self-reported sexually aggressive behavior. Crime and Delinquency, 31, 306-331. Allen, L. C. (2000). The influence of military training and combat experience on domestic violence. In P. J. Mercier & J. D. Mercier (Eds.), Battle Cries on the Home Front: Violence in the military family. Springfield, IL: Thomas Publishers. Archer, J. (1988). The Behavioral Biology of Aggression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, J. (1991). The influence of testosterone on human aggression. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 1-28. Bell, N., & Hartford, T. (2004). Drinking and Spouse Abuse Among U. S. Army Soldiers. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 28(12), 1890-1897. Bertrand, J. T., Ward, V., & Pauc, F. (1992). Sexual practices among the Quichespeaking Mayan population of Guatemala. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 12(4), 265-282. Biank, T. (2002, July 26). Series of slayings shakes military community. Fayetteville Observer, p. 1. Black, D. H., R. Slep, A. (2001). Risk factors for male-to female partner sexual abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 269-280. Bogenschneider, K., Olson, F., Linney, K., & Mills, J. (2000). Connecting research and policy making: Implications for theory and practice from the Family Impact Seminars. Family Relations, 49, 327-339.

112

Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 11-26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Booth, A., & J. M. Dabbs, J. (1993). Testosterone and men's marriages. Social Forces, 72, 463-477. Booth, A., & Osgood, D. W. (1993). The influence of testosterone on deviance in adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship. Criminology, 31, 93-117. Bowman, T. (2006, February 14). Army accepts crime in recruits. Baltimore Sun, pp. 1-4. Boyce, L. A., & Herd, A. M. (2003). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles, 49(7/8), 365-378. Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, N. W. (1987). Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 275-294. Bray, J., & Howard, G. (1980). Methodological considerations in the evaluation of a teacher-training program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1), 62-70. Breed, A. (2002, September 2). Wife slayings at Fort Bragg lead to worries that crimes may be product of 'military culture'. San Diego Union Tribune, p. 2. Breetvelt, I., & VanDam, F. (1991). Underreporting by cancer patients: The case of response shift. Social Science and Medicine, 32(9), 981-987. Brewster, A. L., Milner, J. S., Mollerstrom, W. W., Saha, B. T., & Harris, N. (2002). Evaluation of spouse abuse treatment: Description and evaluation of the Air Force family advocacy programs for spouse physical abuse. Military Medicine, 167(6), 464-469. Britton, D., & Williams, C. L. (1995). "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue": Military policy and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. Journal of homosexuality, 30(1), 1-21.

113

Burk, L. R., Burkhart, B. R., & Sikorski, J. F. (2004). Construction and preliminary validation of the Auburn Differential Masculinity Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(1), 4-17. Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2001). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, and utilization (4th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2005). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, and utilization (4th Ed.). St Louis: Elsevier/Saunders. Burt, M. A. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230. Butterfield, F. (2002, July 29). Wife killing at fort reflect growing problem in military. The New York Times, p. 1. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Campbell, J. (2001). Domestic violence as a women's health issue: Issues for health care. Women's Health Issues, 11(4), 381-387. Campbell, J., Jones, A. S., Dienemann, J., & Kub, J. (2002). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 11571163. Caporaso, J. (1973). Quasi-experimental approaches to social science: Perspectives and problems. In J. Caporase & L. Roos (Eds.), Quasi-experimental approaches: Testing theory and evaluating policy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 11, 133-159. Chizuko, U. (2005). The Militarization of Women. Paper presented at the Women's Worlds Conference, Seoul, Korea.

114

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Counts, D. A., Brown, J., & Campbell, J. (Eds.). (1992). Sanctions and Sanctuary: Cultural Perspectives on the Beating of Wives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cronbach, L., & Furby, L. (1970). How should we measure "change"- or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68-80. Crowne, D. P., & Marlow, D. (1960). A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354. Dabbs, J. (1992). Testosterone and occupational achievement. Social Forces, 70, 813824. Dabbs, J. J., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone, social class, and antisocial behavior in a sample of 4462 men. Psychological Science, 1, 209-211. Daitzman, R., & Zuckerman, M. (1980). Disinhibitory sensation seeking, personality, and gonadal hormones. Personality and Individual Difference, 1, 103-110. Defense Manpower Data Center. (2005). Assigned strength, gender, race-ethnic, marital, education and age profile of the active duty force, September 2005: Defense Manpower Data Center. Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. (2001). Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence initial report. Washington, DC: Author. Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. (2002). Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence second annual report. Washington, DC: Author

115

DeKeseredy, W., & Kelly, K. (1993). Woman abuse in university and college dating relationships: The contribution of the ideology of familial patriarchy. Journal of Human Justice, 4(2), 25-52.

DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998a). Male peer support and woman abuse in postsecondary school courtship. In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998b). Woman Abuse on Campus: Results from the Canadian National Survey. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Department of Defense. (1992) DOD Directive 6400.1. Family Advocacy Program (FAP). Washington, DC: Author. Department of Defense. (2004). FY 2004 Applicants for active component enlistment. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from http://www.didnuk/prhome/poprep2004/html/appendixa/a_04.html Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: The Free Press. Dubnova, I., & Joss, D. (1997). Women and domestic violence: global dimensions, health consequences and intervention strategies. Work: A Journal of prevention, assessment and rehabilitation, 9, 79-88. Dunivan, K. O. (1996). Military culture: A paradigm shift (No. AU/AWC/RWPO79/9604). Bossier City, AL: Maxwell Air Force Base. Dutton, D. G. (1995). The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives. Vancouver, BC: University of British Colombia Press. Erez, E. (2003). Immigration, domestic violence, and the military. Violence Against Women, 9(0), 1093-1117.

116

Fagot, B., Loerber, R., & Reid, J. (1988). Developmental determinants of male to female aggression. In G. W. Russell (Ed.), Violence in Intimate relationships (pp. 91105). Costa Mesa: PMA. Finn, J. (1986). The relationship between sex role attitudes and attitudes supporting marital violence. Sex Roles, 14, 235-244. Friedrich, W. M., Beilke, R. L., & Urquiza, A. J. (1988). Behavior problems in young sexually abused boys. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 1-12. Frieze, I. (1983). Investigating the causes and consequences of marital rape. Signs, 8, 532-553. Frieze, I., & Browne, A. (1989). Violence in marriage. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry (Eds.), Family Violence (pp. 163-218). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Funk, D. (2004, October 4). Deployed troops continue to report sexual assaults. The Army Times. Galdas, P. M., Cheater, F., & Marshall, P. (2004). Men and health help-seeking behaviour: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(6), 616-623. Ganster, C. A. (2004). Military combat training and aggressive conflict resolution tactics in the marital relationships of enlisted male military members. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University, Chicago. Garamone, J. (1999). Optempo, Perstempo: What They Mean, American Forces Information Service News Articles. Gladue, B. A., Boechler, M., & McCaul, K. (1989). Hormonal response to competition in human males. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 409-422. Godenzi, A., Schwartz, M. D., & Dekeseredy, W. S. (2001). Toward a gendered social bond/male peer support theory of university woman abuse. Critical Criminology, 10, 1-16. Goff, S. (2003). Let's talk about sex. Retrieved November 28, 2003, from www.freedomroad.org/milmatters-18-sex
H H

117

Golembiewski, R., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133-157. Grimshaw, L. (1995, January). Ethical Tensions for Senior Leaders in the Canadian Forces. Paper presented at the JSCOPE XVII, Washington, DC. Gwartney-Gibbs, P. A., Stockard, J., & Bohmer, S. (1987). Learning courtship aggression: The influence of parents, peers and personal experiences. Family Relations, 35, 276-282. Hackett, J. (1963). The Profession of Arms. London: Times. Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2003). Beliefs About Wife Beating Among Arab Men From Israel: The Influence of Their Patriarchal Ideology. Journal of Family Violence, 18(4), 193-206. Hamby, S. (2000). The importance of community in a feminist analysis of domestic violence among American Indians. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 649-669. Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence Against Women: An Integrated, Ecological Framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262-290. Heyman, R. E., & Neidig, P. H. (1999). A Comparison of Spousal Aggression Prevalence Rates in U. S. Army and Civilian Representative Samples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 239-242. Hoffman, K. L., Demo, D. H., & Edwards, J. N. (1994). Physical wife abuse in a nonwestern society: An integrated theoretical approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 131-146. Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence Against Women, 1, 101124.

118

Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1990). A risk marker analysis of assaulted wives. Journal of Family Violence, 5(1), 1-13. Howard, G., & Dailey, P. (1979). Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of selfreport measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 144-150. Howard, G., Dailey, P., & Gulanick, N. (1979). The feasibility of informed pretests in attenuating response-shift bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(4), 481494. Howard, G., Ralph, K., Gulanick, N., Maxwell, S., Nance, D., & Gerber, S. (1979). Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a reevaluation of retrospective pretests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 1-23. Howard, G., Schmeck, R., & Bray, J. (1979). Internal invalidity in studies employing self-report instruments: A suggested remedy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 129-135. Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in measuring pretest-posttest change in self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4, 93-106. Jasinski, J. L., & Williams, L. M. (1998). Partner Violence: a Comprehensive Review of 20 Years of Research. New York: Sage. Jonsson, P. (2002, August 5). Killing by elite soldiers hits home. The Christian science monitor, 7-9. Jowers, K. (1999, May 10). The war at home: For military spouses who endure abuse, getting help-and justice-can be a nightmare as real as the violence itself. Army Times, p. 1. Karst, K. (1991). The pursuit of manhood and the desegregation of the armed forces. UCLA Law Review, 38, 499. Kidd, P., Parshall, M., Wojcik, S., & Struttmann, T. (2004). Assessing recalibration as a response-shift phenomenon. Nursing Research, 53(2), 130-135. Kilmartin, C. (2000). The Masculine Self (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. 119

Kirkpatrick, S., P, C., Wharry, R., & Rovinson, S. (1993). Saliva testosterone in children with and without learning disabilities. Physiology and Behavior, 53, 583-586. Klatt, J., & Taylor-Powell, E. (2005). Synthesis of literature relative to retrospective pretest design. Paper presented at the Joint CES/AEA Conference, Toronto. Knouse, S. (1991). Social support for Hispanics in the military. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 427-444. Koenig, M., Hossain, M. B., Ahmed, S., & Haaga, J. (1999). Individual and communitylevel determinants of domestic violence in rural Bangladesh (No. WP-99-04). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Department of Population and Family Health. Kronsell, A. (2005). Gendered practices in institutions of hegemonic masculinity. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(2), 280-298. Krug, K. G., Dahlberg, L., Mercy, J., & Lozano, R. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Kurpius, S. E. R., & Lucart, A. L. (2000). Military and Civilian Undergraduates: Attitudes Toward Women, Masculinity, and Authoritarianism. Sex roles, 43(3/4), 255-265. Kyriacou, D. N., McCabe, F., Anglin, D., Lapesarde, K., & Winer, M. R. (1998). Emergency department-based study of risk factors for acute injury from domestic violence against women. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 31(4), 502-506. Lee, S. (2002). The Army Leaders' Desk Reference for Soldier/Family Readiness. College Station, Texas: Texas Cooperative Extension of the Texas A&M University System. Levin, W. C. (1991). Sociological ideas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Levinson, D. (1989). Violence in Cross Cultural Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

120

Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Group Environment Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 49-63. Little, L., & Kantor, G. K. (2002). Using ecological theory to understand intimate partner violence and child maltreatment. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 19(3), 133-145. Lloyd, D. (2002). Welcome Remarks. Paper presented at the Department of Defense Symposium on Domestic Violence Prevention Research, Crystal City, VA. Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale UP. Lutz, C., & Elliston, J. (2002). Domestic Terror. Retrieved November 29, 2003, 2003, from STAMP. Lutze, F., & Symons, M. (2003). The evolution of domestic violence policy through masculine institutions: From discipline to protection to collaborative empowerment. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(2), 319-328. Maass, P. (2002). The bulletproof mind. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 52-57. Martin, P. Y., & Collinson, D. L. (1999). Gender and sexuality in organizations. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning Gender (pp. 285-310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mazur, A., & Lamb, T. A. (1980). Testosterone, status and mood, in human males. Hormones and Behavior, 14, 236-246. McCauley, J., Kern, D. E., Kolodner, D., Dill, L., Schroeder, A. F., Dechant, J. K., et al. (1995). The "battering syndrome": Prevalence and clinical characteristics of domestic violence in primary health care internal medicine practices. Annals of Internal Medicine, 123(10), 737-746. McConahay, S., & McConahay, J. (1977). Sexual permissiveness, sex-role rigidity, and violence across cultures. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 134-143.

121

Merrill, L. L., Hervig, Milner, J. S., Booth-Kewley, Patriarca, & Gilman. (1996). Maltreatment histories of U. S. Navy basic trainees: Prevalence of abusive behaviors for the 4th quarter of 1994 and the 2nd quarter of 1996 (No. NHRC Report No. 97-2). San Diego: Naval Health Research Center. Moreno, M. R. (1999). Intimate Partner Violence. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica, 5(4/5), 245-258. Morris, M. (1996). By force of arms: Rape, war, and military culture. Duke Law Journal, 45, 651-781. Morris, M. (1999). In war and peace: Incidence and implications of rape by military personnel. In M. F. Katzenstein & J. Reppy (Eds.), Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination in Military Culture. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Morris, M. (2000). In war and peace: Rape, war, and military culture. In A. L. Barstow (Ed.), War's dirty secret: Rape, prostitution, and other crimes against women. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. Morris, N., Udry, J., Kahn-Daewood, F., & Daewood, M. (1987). Marital sex frequency and midcycle female testosterone. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 27-37. Mosher, D. L., & Anderson, R. D. (1986). Macho personality, sexual aggression, and reactions to guided imagery of realistic rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 20(2), 77-94. Mosher, D. L., & Tomkins, S. S. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine socialization and enculturation. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 60-84. Muraskin, R. (Ed.). (2003). It's a Crime: women and Justice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. Newby, J., McCarroll, J., Thayer, L., Norwood, A., Fullerton, C., & Ursano, R. (2000). Spouse abuse by black and white offenders in the U. S. Army. Journal of Family Violence, 15(2), 199-207.

122

Nielson, E., Russell, E., & Ellington, B. (1992). Social isolation and wife abuse: A research report. In E. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Norris, J. M., & Wylie, A. M. (1995). Gender stereotyping of the managerial role among students in Canada and the United States. Group and Organization Management, 16, 167-181. Oetzel, J., & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate partner violence in American Indian and/or Alaska Native communities: A social ecological framework of determinants and interventions. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National Center, 11(3), 49-68. Oropesa, R. S. (1997). Development and marital power in Mexico. Social Forces, 75(4), 1291-1317. Orpinas, P. (1999). Who is violent? Factors associated with aggressive behaviors in Latin America and Spain. Pan American Journal of Public Health, 5(4/5), 232243. Orth, M. (2002, December). Fort Bragg's deadly summer. Vanity Fair, 222-240. Parry, C., Tibbs, J., VanDerSpuy, J., & Cummins, G. (1996). Alcohol attributable fractions for trauma in South Africa. Curationis, 19(1). Petty, G., & Dawson, B. (1989). Sexual aggression in normal men: Incidence, beliefs, and personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 355362. Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods (7th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Pratt, C., McGuigan, W., & Katzev, A. (2000). Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 341349.

123

Prokos, A., & Padavic, I. (2002). 'There oughtta be a law against bitches': Masculinity lessons in police academy training. Gender, Work, and Organization, 9(4), 439459. Radutzky, M., & Nelson, T. (Writer) (1999). The war at home [Television broadcast]. In D. Hewitt (Producer), Sixty Minutes. USA: Columbia Broadcasting System. Radutzky, M., & Nelson, T. (Writer) (2002). The war at home [Television broadcast]. In D. Hewitt (Producer), Sixty Minutes. USA: Columbia Broadcasting System. Rennison, C. (2001). Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-1999. In U. S. DOJ (Ed.): BJS. Rennison, C., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate Partner Violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Riggs, D. S., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). A theoretical model of courtship aggression. In M. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in Dating Relationships (pp. 53-71). New York: Praeger. Rockwell, S., & Kohn, H. (1989). Post-Then-Pre-Evaluation. Journal of Extension, 27(2), 1-7. Rosen, L., Kaminski, t. J., Parmley, A. M., Knudson, K. H., & Fancher, P. (2003). The effects of peer group climate on intimate partner violence among married male U. S. Army soldiers. Violence Against Women, 9(9), 1045-1071. Rosen, L., Knudson, K., & Fancher, P. (2003). Cohesion and the culture of hypermasculinity in U. S. Army units. Armed Forces and Society, 29(3), 325-351. Rosen, L., & Martin, L. (1997). Sexual Harassment, Cohesion, and Combat Readiness in U. S. Army Support Units. Armed Forces & Society, 24(2), 221-244. Rosen, L. N., & Hansen, C. (2003). Guest Editors' Introduction. Violence Against Women, 9(9), 1039-1044.

124

Rosen, L. N., Knudson, K. H., Brannen, S. J., Fancher, P., Killgore, T. E., & Barasich, G. G. (2002). Intimate partner violence among U. S. Army soldiers in Alaska: A comparison of reported rates and survey results. Military Medicine, 167(8), 688691. Rosen, L. N., Knudson, K. H., & Fancher, P. (2003). Cohesion and the Culture of Hypermasculinity in U.S. Army Units. Armed Forces and Society, 29(3), 325351. Rosen, L. N., & Martin, L. (1996a). Impact of childhood abuse history on psychological symptoms among male and female soldiers in the U. S. Army. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(12), 1149-1160.

Rosen, L. N., & Martin, L. (1996b). The measurement of childhood trauma among male and female soldiers in the U. S. Army. Military Medicine, 161(6), 342-345. Rosen, L. N., & Martin, L. (1998). Predictors of tolerance of sexual harassment among male U. S. Army soldiers. Violence Against Women, 4(4), 491-504. Sanday, P. R. (1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross cultural study. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 5-27. Saunders, D. G., & Lunch, A. B. (1987). The Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating: The Construction and Initial Validation of a Measure of Beliefs and Attitudes. Violence and Victims, 2(1), 39-55. Savage, P., & Gabriel, R. (1976). Cohesion and Disintegration in the American Army: An Alternative Perspective. Armed Forces and Society, 2(3), 340-376. Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1702-1704. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schumacher, J., Feldbau-Kohn, S., Slep, A., & Heyman, R. (2001). Risk factors for maleto-female partner physical abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 281-352.

125

Schwartz, M. D., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (2000). Aggregation bias and woman abuse: Variations by male peer support, region, language, and school type. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 555-565. Segal, M. W. (1999). Military culture and military families. In M. F. Katzenstein & J. Reppy (Eds.), Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination in Military Culture. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Selzer, M., & Vinkur, A. (1975). A self-administered short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (sMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36(1), 117-126. Sherwin, B., Gelfand, M., & Brender, W. (1985). Androgen enhances sexual motivation in females: A prospective, crossover study of sex steroid administration in the surgical menopause. Psychosomatic Medicine, 47, 339-351.

Shupe, A., Stacey, W., & Hazlewood, L. (1987). Violent men, violent couples: The dynamics of domestic violence. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Smart, C. (1995). Law, Crime, and Sexuality: Essays in Feminism. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Smets, E., Garssen, B., Schuster-Uitterhoeve, A., & deHaes, J. (1993). Fatigue in cancer patients. British Journal of Cancer, 68(2), 220-224. Smith, M. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 4, 257-273. Snyder, R. (2003). The Citizen-Soldier Tradition and Gender Integration of the U. S. Military. Armed Forces and Society, 29(2), 185-204. Snyder, R. C. (2003). The Citizen-Soldier Tradition and Gender Integration of the U. S. Military. Armed Forces and Society, 29(2), 185-204. Spink, K., Nickel, D., Wilson, K., & Odnokon, P. (2005). Using a multilevel approach to examine the relationship between task cohesion and team task satisfaction in elite ice hockey players. Small Group Research, 36(5), 539-554. 126

Sprangers, M., & Hoogstraten, J. (1989). Pretesting effects in retrospective pretestposttest designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 265-272. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family. New York: Doubleday. Sutherland, C. A., Bybee, D. I., & Sullivan, C. M. (2002). Beyond bruises and broken bones: The joint effects of stress and injuries on battered women's health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(5), 609-636. Tennis, C. (1989). Responses to the alpha, beta, gamma change typology: Cultural resistance to change. Group and Organizational Studies, 14, 134-149. Terborg, J., Howard, G., & Maxwell, S. (1980). Evaluating planned organizational change: A method for assessing alpha, beta, and gamma change. Academy of Management Review, 5, 109-121. Thompson, E., & Pleck, J. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531-543. U. S. Army. (2005). Soldier Life: Living the Army Values. Retrieved August 15, 2006 from http://www.goarmy.com/life/living_the_army_values.jsp. U. S. Army surgeon General. (2002). Fort Bragg epidemiological consultation report. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Varian, N. (2002, October). Did the military let this woman die? Glamour, 100, 288-291, 314, 319, 322. Walker, E. A., Gelfand, A., Katon, W., Koss, M. P., Korff, M. V., Bernstien, D., et al. (1999). Adult health status of women with histories of childhood abuse and neglect. American Journal of Medicine, 107(4), 332-339. Whiting, B., & Edwards, C. (1973). A cross cultural analysis of sex differences in the behavior of children aged three through eleven. Journal of Social Psychology, 91, 171-188.

127

Widmeyer, N. W., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics. Winslow, D. (2004). Misplaced loyalties: The role of military culture in the breakdown of discipline in two peace operations. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 6(3). Yllo, K., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative factors. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Zimmerman, J. (1995). Tailspin: Women at War in the Wake of Tailhook. New York: Doubleday.

128