Interesting! When I did my research on Family Violence, I found there was a correlation between the incident rate per 1,000 of family violence and occupation of the abuser. These are my findings: highest abusers by occupation are:
1. ministers and religious parents;
The lowest of abusers by occupation were:
5. Orchestra conductors.
In my study, occupations that required "right and wrong" thinking, referral to a higher authority, willing to use whatever instrumental behavior is necessary to achieve a goal had higher violent incidents in their families.
The surprise was the orchestra conductors. It seems they have the cooperative behavior of their members and need only use their little finger to make changes in sound, tempo, volume.
There was no significant difference by education, wealth, and social class. Well-educated, wealthy and upper class had incident rates of violence that outnumbered uneducated, poor, and lower class when counted per 1,000 of each occupation.
"A new study examined aggressive behavior between subjects playing games cooperatively, competitively and by themselves. It seems playing video games cooperatively with others can lead to widespread benefits by making players think helpful behaviors are valuable and commonplace."
Thanks for that information Joan. Do you have percentage or numbers of abusers per 1000 for each occupation?
Is there a mistake in one of these two sentences? They appear to be contradictory: "There was no significant difference by education, wealth, and social class. Well-educated, wealthy and upper class had incident rates of violence that outnumbered uneducated, poor, and lower class when counted per 1,000 of each occupation."
I gave all my copies of my dissertation away, and there is none left in the library where the college once had one. I did not publish my findings because my committee judged my research as "biased". I had the numbers by 1,000 in an occupation and I can't remember them. This was 1979
I had so many notes and scraps of paper and 3/5 cards, I buried them in my compost as a celebration of having completed the research. I didn't get a PhD .
Doing a Google search just now to answer your question, I did not find research on the incident rate of family violence by occupation. In fact, I couldn't find many of my references used to support my findings. I am getting old! Jeez! I did find Diane Baumrind, but none of her earlier work in which she, too, found a correlation between occupation and incident rate of family violence.
This is research I found:
"Domestic violence is a much more complex issue than the stereotype you hear about the blue-collar guy who beats his wife," "...men need to handle their stress in ways that do not endanger their partners."
"overall work experiences were significantly associated with wife abuse. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) showed that only the occurrence of stressful work events and their negative impact were significantly associated with wife abuse."
"This research examines the relationship between violence exposure and domestic violence among police officers. Factors of burnout, authoritarian spillover, alcohol use, and department withdrawal were addressed. The most powerful of these was burnout and authoritarian spillover. Suggestions for future research include understanding violence in the context of unique workplace cultures, classifying violence type, and clarifying how this population defined violence and control."
""We need . . . to begin articulating a faith that will provide women with resources for strength rather than resources for endurance. We must articulate a theology of empowerment rather than a theology of passive endurance" (p. 65).
~ Bussert, Joy (1986). Battered Women: From a Theology of Suffering to an Ethic of Empowerment
Spud, I am glad you asked me your question, however, I am puzzled about the inconsistency you found. Can you clarify that for me? 'Thanks, dear friend.
I will try to clarify. You said:
"There was no significant difference by education, wealth, and social class"
Right after that, you said:
"Well-educated, wealthy and upper class had incident rates of violence that outnumbered uneducated, poor, and lower class when counted per 1,000 of each occupation."
I made bold the words that seem contradictory to me.
So it's really sensible to be careful with judgmental people! That matches my experiences. And it's very telling to watch people play videogames - some are so unwilling to share something with another player that they'd rather lose.
Spud, your comment caused me to rethink that episode in my life. My goodness, that was so many years ago and the writer of that dissertation was freshly out of an abusive marriage that had been held together by sick psychology and demonic theology.
I didn't get my PhD because I didn't deserve to. I did not do a good job of constructing my doctoral dissertation, and I read and read, and asked questions, and talked to people and gained a thorough education about religion and family violence. I am grateful for the experience but wish I had been more disciplined in my research. It would have been a groundbreaking research project if I had not done it in a Roman Catholic institution, and I had not put so much of my heart and soul into it. It clearly was biased. That bias was in response to religion, gender roles and marriage. I was learning how to be a human being, not a female or a wife. I am glad I took back my maiden name. Joan Denoo feels a whole lot better than Joan Denoo Smith.
Oh! Those were hard years. and I SURVIVED AND THRIVED1
This is a general comment, NOT on your specific research.
We need to be careful with sociological studies, because there are many confounding factors including how the sample group was selected, what definitions were used to categorize, what assumptions and extrapolations were made.
As an example, there was a commonly repeated study that claimed that some large percentage of teenagers had been propositioned online. Further examination revealed that they were counting sexual overtures made by other teenagers, often ones they knew. Not the image of some creepy middle aged pervert that was implied.
Any type of behavior that includes crimes that may not have been reported has some correction based on extrapolation. Too often, the amount of extrapolation can vary from reasonable to wildly unbelievable, particularly if the researcher has a political axe to grind.
Jay H, I appreciate your comment, and you are exactly on target as far as my research was concerned. My first mistake was in the people I chose to interview, the service providers. As it turns out, I was on to something that I could have ferreted out if I had done a proper job. Another mistake I made was to do the research at a Roman Catholic university. I was biased, and so were the priests who were my committee. My original question was "what is the role of religion in maintaining and perpetuating family violence?"
I was freshly out of a violent family situation, still hurting from divorcing and having to face raising three ten-year-old children as a single parent. I was angry and clearly biased. I wanted to figure out how this happened to us. I completed a B.A. and a master’s degree and working on a doctorate. During the defense of my dissertation I was denied a PhD because of my obvious bias.
I was tentative, thinking I handled the abuse of my kids and myself poorly. I had not yet realized that the damage comes from the one who abuses. No child is guilty of behavior that was so bad as to require broken bones. My part of the damage to the children was in allowing the abuse to go on for so many years.
I wondered why my religious commitment kept me bound and the institution of religion was the source of my thinking. We were a military family and lived in five different places. In each place I was told what I now call "The Passive Gospel: wives, yield, pray, obey, turn the other cheek, as an abused wife I was living in imitation of the crucified christ and of all women I was most blessed."
When I later heard Mother Teresa spout the same thing I realized how sick it was psychologically, and how unsound it was theologically. Just because it was traditional it was not healthy. Just because it was normal it was not supporting flourishing.