I came across an excellent article in the November issue of O: The Oprah Magazine. (In fact, I came across several interesting articles and am actually considering subscribing, if you can believe it. Thanks to whoever left a copy of the magazine in the lobby of my building!). In "'He Seemed Like Such a Puppy Dog: The Shock of Domestic Violence", Amanda Robb asks how we can miss the tell-tale warning signs of people who end up murdering their husbands, wives, or children. The problem, we learn, is that many people who commit these crimes actually look like ordinary, healthy, sane people. It's not until we witness what happens in the home that we realise what they're really like. But why does it happen? As Robb points out, we all have homicidal feelings when we're infuriated with other people—especially our spouses—but few of us actually carry through with those thoughts. What makes these murderers different from everyone else?

Well, the answer lies in trying to understand the dynamics of abusive relationships more generally. Physical abuse in relationships lies along a continuum of severity, and along that continuum lie different kinds of abusers (and also different kinds of victims). I'd like to use this diary entry to briefly describe what motivates some people to raise arms against their family members—and, in some cases, to kill them in cold blood.

Let's start by looking at some of the factors which make people violent more generally—but not necessarily homicidal.

Some violent people don't know any better

Children raised in violent homes often don't know how to resolve fights. Most people in an argument will yell, scream, hurl plates against walls, or otherwise storm out of the room when they're having an argument with their spouse or children. In fact, as Robb points, "storming out is physiological brilliance. Time apart gives both brains and bodies time to recover their equilibrium; it allows you to resume your argument with more tact than Neanderthals used to confront woolly mammoths." Some people, however, never learned this kind of "withdrawal ritual"—a ritual which gives two people enough time to cool off so that they can solve their problem, kiss, make up, and, in the process, develop a deeper bond with one another. What they learned, instead, is that winning an argument isn't about making up and bonding but, rather, about destroying the enemy—even if it's someone very close to them. People who lack this kind of "withdrawal ritual" are at increased risk of being violent.

More generally, people having grown up in violent households (where they either received abuse or merely witnessed it) come to learn that violence is an acceptable means of dealing with conflict.

Deficits in emotional regulation due to maladaptive parenting

Children who have experienced responsive caregiving grow up to believe that their emotional needs will be adequately met in their adult relationships. They also know how to deal with negative emotions (in part because they realise a parent's anger or rejection is usually temporary and not a sign that their love is being withdrawn or that they are not worthy of love). Children who have experienced maladaptive parenting feel unsure that their emotional needs will be met in relationships. As a consequence, they:

1. Anxiously anticipate rejection
2. See hostile intent where there often is none
3. Resort to violence as a means of ensuring that their intimates will provide them with the kind of consistent care they want (and, as humans, naturally need).

The first two factors may increase the risk of family violence, but are not by themselves necessary ingredients. What seems more important is a parenting history that is generally hostile and/or unduly authoritarian, coercive, or physically abusive (not merely unresponsive or maladaptive).

History of insecure attachment

Maladaptive parenting (and especially abusive parenting) can lead to insecure attachment patterns (for background on attachment theory, see http://attachment.adoption.com and my diary entry of 5 September 5 2003). These attachment patterns later generalise to adult relationships. Insecurely attached children come to develop either or both of the following views:

1. The world is generally an unsafe, unstable place in which I do not receive care when I need it (e.g., when I am scared or am in danger).
2. I am a bad person who does not deserve to receive care when I need it.

Depending on the particular combination of the above two perceptions, individuals can develop particular ways of interacting with and meeting their emotional needs in adult relationships. For some individuals (especially those with a "preoccupied attachment style"), violence (especially in the form of verbal abuse, spitting, slapping, pushing, and shoving) is one of the only means they know of by which to ensure that they are not abandoned by their partners (and, hence, robbed of the emotional care they need). In fact, such individuals are more likely than others to constantly have these kinds of abandonment fears and will, therefore, be angrier and more suspicious with their intimates than people who had a more "secure" attachment history with their parents. For more information on the relationship between attachment style and partner violence, see research by Kim Bartholomew.

Unfortunately, it takes "two to tango"

Contrary to popular belief, violence in most abusive relationships is not unidirectional (i.e., one partner is the bully and the other the passive victim of violence). In fact, in most abusive relationships (heterosexual and homosexual), both partners instigate violent acts in the same proportion (again, I refer you to research by Kim Bartholomew and colleagues). Naturally, men's violence will be more severe physically because they are generally stronger than women, but violence is violence. Whether it's mere slapping or more severe beating, violence of any sort causes tremendous emotional scars. Why is violence mutual? The answer lies in attachment styles. It's a general fact that like attracts like, and that people with insecure attachment histories are drawn to each other. Some reasons for this:

1. Healthy (i.e., securely attached individuals) do not want to enter relationships with unhealthy people. Not only are they emotionally strong enough to know that being with an unhealthy person is bad for them, they are also able to spot these people. Furthermore, because they have the greatest pick of partners from the mating pool, they have greater access to other healthy individuals than do unhealthy individuals. Insecurely attached people are sometimes quite unattractive to others because they are clingy, overly anxious, and excessively jealous (or, if they have a "fearful" attachment style, they have low self esteem, are excessively timid, unsure of themselves, and otherwise negative about both themselves and the world around them).
2. Insecurely attached people (particularly those with the preoccupied attachment style) tend to strenuously "pursue" other people because people do not naturally gravitate towards them. The easiest person to pursue is another insecurely attached person—especially the fearfully attached person who is too scared of others to put himself out in the world and meet people. Such a person cannot help but be attracted to someone who showers him with attention.
3. Unhealthy, insecurely attached people often don't feel that they deserve a good person in their lives. In fact, people in general don't like to partner with those who disconfirm how they feel about themselves (namely because this causes an uncomfortable confusion called "cognitive dissonance"). Thus, they end up partnering with people who treat them badly (and people who treat others badly are often insecurely attached themselves). How does this happen?
    
   1.  
4. Insecurely attached people probably had insecurely attached parents. By witnessing the kind of relationship their parents had, they came to develop a model of what a "typical" and healthy relationship looks like: one in which two unhealthy people (who they actually perceive as healthy) pair up.

The severity of relationship violence can be linked to the kind of attachment history each partner has:

1. In the majority of violent relationships, both partners have a preoccupied attachment style. Because they both constantly fear that love and emotional support may not be continually available, they resort to violence to:
    
   1. express their anger and hostility
   2. intimidate the other partner so that s/he will not withdraw love/support (not realising, of course, that violence doesn't entice one to be loving or supportive)
   3. make each other feel weak, stupid, and unlovable so that each partner will come to think that nobody else will love them—that only the partner would put up with them
2. In the most violent relationships, the female partner is preoccupied and the male partner is fearful. The female partner uses low-level physical abuse to ensure continuity of love and support, but the fearful man is too scared to retaliate. The abuse continually increases because as the preoccupied partner tries to get a response from the fearful partner, the fearful partner retreats further and further from the relationship, prompting the preoccupied person to become even more abusive. The fearful person tolerates the abuse for quite a long time. However, a boiling point reaches. He can tolerate only so much before he "snaps" and reacts in a severely violent way against the woman. (The same is applicable to gay relationships). Note that this in no way excuses such behaviour; the reason I'm mentioning this is to draw attention to the unhealthy dynamics existing in abusive relationships.
3. In the kind of violent relationships we typically see on television and in the movies, the man is preoccupied and the woman is fearful. This kind of pattern fits the stereotype of the bullying husband who abuses the helpless wife. However, even in this pattern, the abuse did not develop in a vacuum. The fearful partner, as described earlier, was drawn to the preoccupied partner for a reason. (The same is applicable in same-sex relationships). Again, this in no way excuses violent behaviour and is certainly not meant to suggest that anyone deserves abuse or somehow "asks for it".

Conduct disorder

In both sexes, a childhood history of conduct disorder puts one at increased risk of partner violence. Conduct disorder is a repetitive and persistent pattern in which children violate the basic rights of others and basically acceptable societal norms. Children with conduct disorder often: steal; vandalise; deceive others; bully, threaten, and intimidate people; initiate physical fights; are physically cruel to people and/or animals; force others into sexual activity; or use weapons to harm others. Why do some children develop this pattern of behaviour?

1. Reaction to problems at home (including, possibly, difficulties in attachment, coercive parenting, and the other parenting-related reasons mentioned above).
2. Neurological damage/deficits.
3. Drug and/or alcohol abuse (which may be both a cause and a consequence of conduct disorder).
4. Learning maladaptive relational patterns from parents and/or friends.

Children with conduct and other behavioural disorders are more likely than others to be rejected by peers. Such rejection makes them more likely to interpret hostile intent where there is none and, hence, be even more belligerent towards others. This kind of behaviour can continue on into adulthood and generalise to romantic and other family relationships.

Violent youth gravitate towards deviant and aggressive peer groups

Because youth with conduct disorder are often rejected by their peers, they gravitate towards deviant, aggressive peer groups. They may end up choosing romantic partners from among these peers. The results:

1. To be continued...