For this paper, I focus on two theoretical approaches to explain domestic violence. More specifically, I evaluate how social learning and social disorganization theories explain the subsection of domestic violence known as intimate partner violence(IPV). Intimate partner violence specifically concentrates on abuse between current or former partners or spouses. The Department of Justice(2016) defines domestic violence as, “A pattern of abusive behavior that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person.”(N.P).
In 2010, an average of 24 people per minute were …show more content…
Studies show that for both men and women repeat victimization is highest among those who perceive the rewards of tolerating abuse as greater than the cost of leaving, with women also increasing the likelihood of victimization by associating with others that have been victimized (Cochran et al., 2011). Through reinforcement and associations, victims view shelter for themselves and children, financial support, the need to be wanted and ‘loved’,or preservation of one’s reputation, as rewards that often outweigh the cost of increased frequency or severity of abuse that result from trying to leave(Cochran et al., 2011). Critics, however, point to the fact that not all men and women who witness or associate with family and friends that are involved in IPV are perpetrators or victims themselves (Cochran et al., 2011). Researchers explain this variation by stating the frequency, duration, priority(seniority) and the importance of a relationship/event all contribute to the effect it has on someone(Wareham et al., 2009a). SLT theorists would argue those who didn’t engage in or become a victim of IPV, but associated with people involved in it, did not have, or lacked in, these elements within their …show more content…
With SDT, the focus is placed on a collection of neighborhood factors including disadvantage, defined by the amount of poor, single-parent, unemployed minorities living there, as well as a neighborhood’s level of collective efficacy measured by cohesion among residents and their willingness to intervene(Siegel, 2014). Not surprisingly, neighborhoods with high disadvantage have routinely been found to be at high risk of IPV According to Miles-Doan (as cited in Pinchevsk et al., 2012) IPV was six times higher in areas of high disadvantage compared to non-disorganized neighborhoods. This is due to the fact that disadvantage within a neighborhood has the ability to affect several other neighborhood factors. Disadvantage limits social ties and increases social isolation, consequently increasing a victim’s dependence on their aggressor while reducing collective efficacy and decreasing the probability of neighbor intervention and suppression of violence(Pinchevsk et al., 2012). In addition, economic disadvantage increases the levels of stress, and thus increases the likelihood that a partner will resort to violence(Pinchevsk et al., 2012). Collective efficacy, on the other hand, serves as a protector against crime. Browning(as cited in Pinchevsk et al., 2012)
In 2010, an average of 24 people per minute were …show more content…
Studies show that for both men and women repeat victimization is highest among those who perceive the rewards of tolerating abuse as greater than the cost of leaving, with women also increasing the likelihood of victimization by associating with others that have been victimized (Cochran et al., 2011). Through reinforcement and associations, victims view shelter for themselves and children, financial support, the need to be wanted and ‘loved’,or preservation of one’s reputation, as rewards that often outweigh the cost of increased frequency or severity of abuse that result from trying to leave(Cochran et al., 2011). Critics, however, point to the fact that not all men and women who witness or associate with family and friends that are involved in IPV are perpetrators or victims themselves (Cochran et al., 2011). Researchers explain this variation by stating the frequency, duration, priority(seniority) and the importance of a relationship/event all contribute to the effect it has on someone(Wareham et al., 2009a). SLT theorists would argue those who didn’t engage in or become a victim of IPV, but associated with people involved in it, did not have, or lacked in, these elements within their …show more content…
With SDT, the focus is placed on a collection of neighborhood factors including disadvantage, defined by the amount of poor, single-parent, unemployed minorities living there, as well as a neighborhood’s level of collective efficacy measured by cohesion among residents and their willingness to intervene(Siegel, 2014). Not surprisingly, neighborhoods with high disadvantage have routinely been found to be at high risk of IPV According to Miles-Doan (as cited in Pinchevsk et al., 2012) IPV was six times higher in areas of high disadvantage compared to non-disorganized neighborhoods. This is due to the fact that disadvantage within a neighborhood has the ability to affect several other neighborhood factors. Disadvantage limits social ties and increases social isolation, consequently increasing a victim’s dependence on their aggressor while reducing collective efficacy and decreasing the probability of neighbor intervention and suppression of violence(Pinchevsk et al., 2012). In addition, economic disadvantage increases the levels of stress, and thus increases the likelihood that a partner will resort to violence(Pinchevsk et al., 2012). Collective efficacy, on the other hand, serves as a protector against crime. Browning(as cited in Pinchevsk et al., 2012)