The Levels of Perceived Emotional Abuse among Pakistani Husbands and Wives

A B S T R A C T

Emotional abuse in marital or committed couples has been reported differently in literature. There has been a traditional theme that husbands are significantly more emotionally abusive toward their wives. This trend, however, has been changing due to the social participation and educational uplift of women. The current study intended to explore the prevalence and levels of emotional abuse among husbands and wives. The study involved 177 husbands and 139 wives and administered the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse to assess the levels of emotional abuse among the respondents. The findings revealed that husbands felt significantly more emotional abuse from wives.

Keywords

Emotional abuse, marital abuse, psychological abuse, couples

Introduction

The term ‘abuse’ refers to the destruction of one’s self-esteem or sense of safety occurring within relationships in which power dynamics are different [1]. Abuse may include ‘physical’ aspects involving physical acts to intentionally harm someone; ‘sexual’ aspects to exploit another person through sexual activities; ‘emotional’ or ‘psychological’ aspects to devalue the targeted person emotionally [2-4]. ‘Neglect’ is another form of abuse in which a person withdraws from the caretaking of a dependent [5]. Emotional abuse, defined briefly, can be any non-physical behaviour or attitude intended to control, intimidate, subjugate, demean, punish, or isolate another person for the sake of gaining power over another person [6, 7]. In marital or committed intimate relationships, emotional abuse can take forms of humiliation, degradation, negating, criticizing, accusing, blaming, unreasonable expectations, withholding of attention or affection, disapproving, threatening, etc. [6]. Emotional abuse is generally more prevalent than physical or sexual abuse [8]. Emotional abuse has a significant potential to be converted in physical abuse and has negative psychological effects on the victim e.g. depression, low self-esteem, sense of failure, hopelessness, self-blame and self-destructiveness [6, 9]. The current study intended to explore the prevalence and levels of emotional abuse among husbands and wives.

Methods

I Participants

The study involved 316 conveniently selected married individuals including both husbands (n=177) and wives (n=139).

II The Instruments

Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse, a well-utilized measure to assess the levels of emotional abuse among couples, was used in the study [10]. The measure comprises of 28 items with an 8-point Likert scale. It also includes four sub-scales namely Restrictive Engulfment, Denigration, Hostile Withdrawal, and Dominance Intimidation. The scale claims to be highly reliable and valid by the authors. The same was re-confirmed by doing a confirmatory factor analysis of the scale in the current study (Tables 1 & 2) and the analysis revealed high levels of reliability and validity of the scale and its sub-scales.

Table 1: Reliability and data accuracy of multidimensional measure of emotional abuse (N=316).

N

α

KMO

BTS

Components Extracted

Variance Explained (%)

28

.951

.902

6464.92*

4

63.20

N: Number of items; a: Cronbach’s Alpha; KMO: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sample Adequacy; BTS: Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity; *P: .000


Table 2: Descriptive statistics and reliability of multidimensional measure of emotional abuse (N=316).

Variable

 

Range

 

Items

α

M

SD

%

Potential

Actual

Skewness

Kurtosis

MDMEB

28

.951

46.46

37.93

23.70

0-196

0-195

1.116

.947

RE

7

.833

13.53

10.74

27.61

0-49

0-48

.775

.012

D

7

.904

9.93

11.56

20.26

0-49

0-49

1.428

1.333

HW

7

.866

15.00

11.16

30.61

0-49

0-49

.458

-.704

DI

7

.917

7.98

10.56

16.28

0-49

0-49

1.483

1.419

α: Cronbach’s Alpha; M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; MDMEB: Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse; RE: Restrictive Engulfment subscale; D: Denigration subscale; HW: Hostile Withdrawal subscale; DI: Dominance/Intimidation subscale.


III Procedure

Upon the approval of the study by the Departmental Ethics Review Committee, the researcher approached the participants in different public offices and educational institutions. The participants were informed about the purpose of the study and their consent to take part in the study was obtained. The data collected was analysed in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

Results

Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse was found highly reliable through the Cronbach’s alpha values i.e. .951 for the overall scale and .833, .904, .866, and .917 for its sub-scales (Table 2). The confirmatory factor analysis of the scale confirmed the validity of the scale and its four sub-scales (Table 1; KMO=.902; P=.000 in Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity; 4 factors extracted; and 63.20% variance explained). The findings revealed that husbands felt significantly more emotional abuse from wives (Table 3; M=51.24 vs 40.37; p=0.01).

Table 3: Differences in the levels of husbands and wives for their perceptions of being emotionally abused.

 

Husbands (n = 177)

 

Wives (n=139)

 

 

95% CI

Variable

M

SD

%

M

SD

%

t

p

LL

UL

Emotional Abuse

51.24

39.64

26.24

40.37

34.85

20.59

2.55

0.011

2.48

19.25

Restrictive Engulfment

15.80

11.18

32.24

10.63

9.41

21.69

4.37

0.000

2.84

7.50

Denigration

10.53

11.72

21.49

9.17

11.34

18.71

1.03

0.301

1.22

3.93

Hostile Withdrawal

16.37

11.30

33.41

13.25

10.76

27.04

2.49

0.013

0.65

5.59

Dominance Intimidation

8.51

10.84

17.37

7.30

10.19

14.90

1.01

0.313

1.14

3.56

CI: Confidence Interval, LL: Lower Limit, UL: Upper Limit.


Discussion

Emotional abuse in marital or committed couples has been reported differently in literature. There has been a traditional theme that husbands are significantly more emotionally abusive toward their wives [11]. Husbands and wives have also been found to be equally abusive toward each other [12]. There are, however, plenty of studies that have been reflecting a trend of women being more emotionally abusive toward their husbands [13-17]. The current study also reflected more emotional abuse from wives toward husbands.

Ethics Statement

The ethical approval was granted by the departmental review committee at the Department of Humanities, COMSATS University Islamabad, Pakistan. All the procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Funding

None.

Data Availability

The data related to this paper is available on demand.

Article Info

Article Type
Research Article
Publication history
Received: Mon 22, Jun 2020
Accepted: Thu 30, Jul 2020
Published: Mon 17, Aug 2020
Copyright
© 2023 Waqar Husain Sukoon. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.GDT.2020.01.05

Author Info

Corresponding Author
Waqar Husain Sukoon
Department of Humanities, COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Figures & Tables

Table 1: Reliability and data accuracy of multidimensional measure of emotional abuse (N=316).

N

α

KMO

BTS

Components Extracted

Variance Explained (%)

28

.951

.902

6464.92*

4

63.20

N: Number of items; a: Cronbach’s Alpha; KMO: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sample Adequacy; BTS: Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity; *P: .000


Table 2: Descriptive statistics and reliability of multidimensional measure of emotional abuse (N=316).

Variable

 

Range

 

Items

α

M

SD

%

Potential

Actual

Skewness

Kurtosis

MDMEB

28

.951

46.46

37.93

23.70

0-196

0-195

1.116

.947

RE

7

.833

13.53

10.74

27.61

0-49

0-48

.775

.012

D

7

.904

9.93

11.56

20.26

0-49

0-49

1.428

1.333

HW

7

.866

15.00

11.16

30.61

0-49

0-49

.458

-.704

DI

7

.917

7.98

10.56

16.28

0-49

0-49

1.483

1.419

α: Cronbach’s Alpha; M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation; MDMEB: Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse; RE: Restrictive Engulfment subscale; D: Denigration subscale; HW: Hostile Withdrawal subscale; DI: Dominance/Intimidation subscale.


Table 3: Differences in the levels of husbands and wives for their perceptions of being emotionally abused.

 

Husbands (n = 177)

 

Wives (n=139)

 

 

95% CI

Variable

M

SD

%

M

SD

%

t

p

LL

UL

Emotional Abuse

51.24

39.64

26.24

40.37

34.85

20.59

2.55

0.011

2.48

19.25

Restrictive Engulfment

15.80

11.18

32.24

10.63

9.41

21.69

4.37

0.000

2.84

7.50

Denigration

10.53

11.72

21.49

9.17

11.34

18.71

1.03

0.301

1.22

3.93

Hostile Withdrawal

16.37

11.30

33.41

13.25

10.76

27.04

2.49

0.013

0.65

5.59

Dominance Intimidation

8.51

10.84

17.37

7.30

10.19

14.90

1.01

0.313

1.14

3.56

CI: Confidence Interval, LL: Lower Limit, UL: Upper Limit.


References

  1. Diane R Follingstad, Dana D DeHart (2000) Defining psychological abuse of husbands toward wives: Contexts, behaviors, and typologies. J Interpers Viol 15: 891-920.
  2. Murray A Straus, Richard J Gelles (1986) Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. J Marr Family 48: 465-478.
  3. Wendy Maltz (2002) Treating the sexual intimacy concerns of sexual abuse survivors. Sex Relat Ther 17: 321-327.
  4. M R Brassard, S N Hart, D B Hardy (1993) The Psychological Maltreatment Rating Scales. Child Abuse Negl 17: 715-729. [Crossref]
  5. D H Skuse (1989) ABC of child abuse. Emotional abuse and neglect. BMJ 298: 1692-1694. [Crossref]
  6. Beverly Engel (2002) The emotionally abusive relationship: How to stop being abused and how to stop abusing. John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Marianne Lammers, Jane Ritchie, Neville Robertson (2005) Women's experience of emotional abuse in intimate relationships: A qualitative study. J Emotion Abuse 5: 29-64.
  8. Beth Raymond, Irene Gillman Bruschi (1989) Psychological abuse among college women in dating relationships. Percep Mot Skills 69: 1283-1297.
  9. Edward W Gondolf, D Alex Heckert, Chad M Kimmel (2002) Nonphysical abuse among batterer program participants. J Fam Viol 17: 293-314.
  10. C M Murphy, S A Hoover (1999) Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence Vict 14: 39-53. [Crossref]
  11. Gretchen R Chiu, Karen E Lutfey, Heather J Litman, Carol L Link, Susan A Hall et al. (2013) Prevalance and overlap of childhood and adult physical, sexual and emotional abuse: A descriptive analysis of results from the Boston Area Community Health (BACH) survey. Violence Vict 28: 381-402. [Crossref]
  12. M Jill Rogers, Diane Follingstad (2011) Gender differences in reporting psychological abuse in a national sample. J Aggr Maltreat Trauma 20: 471-502.
  13. Ann L Coker, Keith E Davis, Ileana Arias, Sujata Desai, Maureen Sanderson et al. (2002) Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. Am J Prev Med 23: 260-268. [Crossref]
  14. Heather M Foran, Amy M Smith Slep, Richard E Heyman (2011) Prevalences of intimate partner violence in a representative Air Force sample. J Consult Clin Psychol 79: 391-397. [Crossref]
  15. M S Harned (2001) Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence Vict 16: 269-285. [Crossref]
  16. Denise A Hines, Kathleen Malley Morrison (2001) Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: A neglected area of research. Psychol Men Masc 2: 75-85.
  17. Maureen C McHugh, Samantha Rakowski, Catherine Swiderski (2013) Men’s experience of psychological abuse: conceptualization and measurement issues. Sex Roles 69: 168-181.