Advertisement

Is Decision-Making of Women Concerning Their Violent Relationships Truly Nonlinear …and Why Is That?

  • David KaterndahlEmail author
  • Sandra Burge
  • Robert Ferrer
  • Johanna Becho
  • Robert Wood
  • Maria Del Pilar Montanez Villacampa
Chapter

Abstract

We understand little of women’s action-taking about their violent relationships other than it is qualitatively nonlinear. Nonlinearity could be due to: (1) nonlinearity of underlying violence, (2) the presence of multiple, interdependent predictors or (3) circularly-causal predictors, or (4) an underlying cusp catastrophic phenomenon where the relationship between violence burden and readiness-for-action is distorted by factors affecting the relationship. The purpose of this study was to determine whether women’s perceived needs-for-help, legal action, or leaving concerning her violent relationship very nonlinear and the source of that nonlinearity.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (#1260210).

References

  1. 1.
    Devries KM, Mak JYT, Garcia-Moreno C, Petzold M, Child JC, Falder G, Lim S, Bacchus LJ, Engell RE, Rosenfeld L, Pallitto C, Vos T, Abrahams N, Watts CH. Global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science. 2013;340:1527–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, Chen J, Stevens MR. The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coker AL, Smith PH, Bethea L, King MR, McKeown RE. Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:451–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roberts AL, Gillman SE, Breslau J, Breslau N, Koenen KC. Race/ethnic differences in exposure to traumatic events, development of posttraumatic stress disorder, and treatment-seeking for posttraumatic stress disorder in the United States. Psychol Med. 2011;41:71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Land B, Elias D. Measuring the “complexity” of a time series. 2005. Retrieved from http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/land/PROJECTS/Complexity/index.html.
  6. 6.
    Wolf A, Swift JB, Swinney HL, Vastano JA. Determining Lyapunov exponents from a time series. Physica. 1985;16D:285–317.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ziv J, Lempel A. Compression of individual sequences via variable-rate coding. IEEE Trans Inform Theory. 1978;IT-24:75.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pincus SM. Approximate entropy as a measure of irregularity for psychiatric serial metrics. Bipolar Disord. 2006;8:430–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katerndahl DA, Burge SK, Ferrer RL, Becho J, Wood R. Dynamics of violence. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20:695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morrison F. Art of modeling dynamic systems. New York: Wiley; 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burge SK, Katerndahl DA, Wood RC, Becho J, Ferrer RL, Talamantes M. Using complexity science to examine three dynamic patterns of intimate partner violence. Fam Syst Health. 2016;34(1):4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Umberson D, Anderson KL, Williams K, Chen MD. Relationship dynamics, emotion state, and domestic violence. J Marriage Fam. 2003;65:233–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ristock JL. Exploring dynamics of abusive lesbian relationships. Am J Commun Psychol. 2003;31:329–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higson P, Sturgess A. Uncommon leadership. New York: Kogan Page; 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson C. Evolving out of violence. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2003;17:225–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stork E. Understanding high-stakes decision making. J Fem Fam Ther. 2008;20:299–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landenburger KM. Dynamics of leaving and recovering from an abusive relationship. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1998;27:700–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merritt-Gray M, Wuest J. Counteracting abuse and breaking free. Health Care Women Int. 1995;16:399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bell ME, Goodman LA, Dutton MA. Dynamics of staying and leaving. J Fam Violence. 2007;22:413–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cattaneo LB, Stuewig J, Goodman LA, Kaltman S, Dutton MA. Longitudinal helpseeking patterns among victims of intimate partner violence. Am J Orthopsychiatr. 2007;77:467–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pijanowski JC. The role of learning theory in building effective college ethics curricula. J Coll Character. 2009;10(3):1–13.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McDonough TA. Policy capturing investigation of battered women’s decisions to stay in violent relationships. Violence Vict. 2010;25:165–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chabot HF, Tracy TL, Manning CA, Poisson CA. Sex, attribution, and severity influence intervention decisions of informal helpers in domestic violence. J Interpers Violence. 2009;24:1696–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Logan TK, Walker R, Shannon L, Cole J. Factors associated with separation and ongoing violence among women with civil protective orders. J Fam Violence. 2008;23:377–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim J, Gray KA. Leave or stay? J Interpers Violence. 2008;23:1465–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chang JC, Dado D, Hawker L, Cluss PA, Buranosky R, Slagel L, McNeil M, Scholle SH. Understanding turning points in intimate partner violence. J Women Health. 2010;19:251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ballantine MW. Decision-making processes of abused women. Diss Abstr Int A Humanit Soc Sci. 2005;65(11-A):4346.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Duterte EE, Bonomi AE, Kernic MA, Schiff MA, Thompson RS, Rivara FP. Correlates of medical and legal help seeking among women reporting intimate partner violence. J Women Health. 2008;17:85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barrett BJ, St. Pierre M. Variations in help seeking in response to intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women. 2011;17:47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burton SJ. To go or not to go. Diss Abstr Int B Sci Eng. 2004;64(9-B):4605.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koepsell JK, Kernic MA, Holt VL. Factors that influence battered women to leave their abusive relationships. Violence Vict. 2006;21:131–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gordon KC, Burton S, Porter L. Predicting the intentions of women in domestic violence shelters to return to partners. J Fam Psychol. 2004;18:331–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stork EP. Analyzing decision making. Diss Abstr Int A Humanit Soc Sci. 2005;65(10-A):3994.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rhodes KV, Cerulli C, Dichter ME, Kothari CL, Barg FK. I didn’t want to put them through that. J Fam Violence. 2010;25:485–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Burke JG, Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, O’Campo P, Maman S. Process of ending abuse in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women. 2001;7:1144–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Toward a comprehensive model of change. In: Miller WR, Heather N, editors. Treating addictive behaviors. New York: Plenum Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Burke JG, Denison JA, Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, O’Campo P. Ending intimate partner violence. Am J Health Behav. 2004;28:122–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wright CV, Johnson DM. Correlates for legal help-seeking. Violence Vict. 2009;24:771–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilcox P. Me mother’s bank and me nanan’s, you know, support! Women’s Stud Int Forum. 2000;23:35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liang B, Goodman L, Tummala-Narra P, Weintraub S. Theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking processes among survivors of intimate partner violence. Am J Community Psychol. 2005;36:71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Erdi P. Complexity explained. Berlin: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burge SK, Becho J, Ferrer RL, Wood RC, Talamantes M, Katerndahl DA. Safely examining complex dynamics of intimate partner violence. Fam Syst Health. 2014;32:259–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Katerndahl DA, Burge SK, Ferrer RL, Becho J, Wood R. Effects of religious and spiritual variables on outcomes in violent relationships. Int J Psychiatr Med. 2015;49:249–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Katerndahl DA, Burge SK, Ferrer RL, Becho J, Wood R. Do violence dynamics matter? J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20:719–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kreindler DM, Lumsden CJ. Effects of the irregular sample and missing data in time series analysis. NDPLS. 2006;10:187–214.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Greenland S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol Rev. 1987;9:1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Clair S. Cusp catastrophe model for adolescent alcohol use. NDPLS. 1998;2:217–41.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Katerndahl DA, Burge SK, Ferrer RL, Becho J, Wood R. Predictors of perceived need for and actual action taking among women in violent relationships. J Interpers Violence. 2016;September issue:1–28. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516669543.
  49. 49.
    Guastello SJ. Self-complexity and the interpretation of entropy and information statistics. Soc Chaos Theory Psychol Life Sci Newsl. 2012;19(2):5–10.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Katerndahl DA, Burge SK, Ferrer RL, Becho J, Wood R. Is perceived need for action among women in violent relationships nonlinear and, if so, why? J Interpers Violence. 2017;August issue. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517727495.
  51. 51.
    Katerndahl DA, Burge SK, Ferrer RL, Becho J, Wood R. Is readiness to take action among women in violent relationships a catastrophic phenomenon? J Interpers Violence. 2017;March issue:1–25. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517698280.
  52. 52.
    Feder GS, Hutson M, Ramsay J, Taket AR. Women exposed to intimate partner violence. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kedin T, Shoemaker P, Spetzler C. Decision quality. Palo Alto: Decision Education Foundation; 2009.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Islam N. Exploring the development of psychological empowerment among survivors of intimate partner violence. Diss Abstr Int A Humanit Soc Sci. 2010;70(8-A):3190.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Katerndahl DA, Burge SK, Ferrer RL, Wood R, Becho J. Decision dynamics among victims of violence (Final Report). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation; 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Katerndahl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandra Burge
    • 1
  • Robert Ferrer
    • 1
  • Johanna Becho
    • 2
  • Robert Wood
    • 1
  • Maria Del Pilar Montanez Villacampa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Family and Community MedicineUniversity of Texas Health Science Center San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Texas Health Science Center San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations