Cited by 323Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Status Relationships in Marriage: Risk Factors in Spouse Abuse

Hornung, Carlton A., McCullough, B. Claire, Sugimoto, Taichi·1981·Journal of Marriage and the Family

Abstract

This paperpresents a theoretical perspective that integrates elements ofsocial structural and social psychological explanations of spouse abuse. In particular, the relationships between the educational and occupational attainments of individuals and marital partners are examined as risk factors in abusive behavior. Status inconsistency ofeitherpartner and status incompatibility between partners are hypothesized to be associated with an increased risk of abusive behavior within the couple. A modification of the Conflict Tactics Scale is used to measure the incidence and 1year period prevalence of three levels of spouse abuse: psychological abuse, physical aggression, and life-threatening violence. The data are drawn from a random survey qf Kentucky women who were 18 years of age or older and were married or had been living with a male partner during the study period. The results show that, in general, both status inconsistency and status incompatibility are associated with an increased risk of psychological abuse, an even greater increased risk of physical aggression, and a still greater increased risk of life-threatening violence. Certain types qfstatus inconsistency (i.e., under-achievement in occupation by the husband) and certain types qfstatus incompatibility (i.e., when the woman is high in occupation relative to her husband) involve very high risks of spouse abuse, particularly lifethreatening violence. Other types of inconsistency (i.e., over achievement in occupation by the husband) seem to protect couples from abusive behavior. These findings are discussed in detail and promising areas of future analyses are noted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/351768

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Intimate partner violence is more likely when actors fail to meet narcissistic status demands, such as male perpetrators earning less than their wife.

    “For example, intimate partner violence is more likely when actors fail to meet narcissistic status demands (e.g., male perpetrators who earn less than their wife; Hornung, McCullough, & Sugimoto, 1981).”

    From The "Why" and "How" of Narcissism: A Process Model of Narcissistic Status Pursuit (2020) · cites this paper as Hornung, McCullough, & Sugimoto, 1981

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hornung, C. A., McCullough, B. C., & Sugimoto, T.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
Journal of Marriage and the Family
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1981-08
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
675
ISSN
0022-2445 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063554321
Cited by
323
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
14.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Marriage and the Family (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
marital violence, risk factors, educational attainment, occupational attainment, psychological violence, physical aggression, Conflict Tactics Scale, married women, gender differences in abuse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review