Partner abuse and general crime : how are they the same? How are they different? Moffitt, Terrie E.; Krueger, Robert F.; Caspi, Avshalom; Fagan, Jeffrey
Material type:
- 0011-1384
Criminology 38(1) February 2000 : 199-232
This study examines whether general crime and partner abuse are the same or distinct. In particular, the research sought to explore the overlap between partner abuse and general crime; whether personality characteristics that predict partner abuse and general crime are the same or different; and whether the same or different personality characteristics predict physical partner violence and violent criminal offending when the focus of abuse and crime are narrowed to include physical acts. Participants were a birth cohort of over 800 young adults studied extensively for over 20 years as part of the longitudinal Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. A personality model known to predict general crime was used to test whether it would also predict partner abuse. Personality data had been gathered at age 18, and self-reported partner abuse and general criminal offending were measured at age 21. The results from modelling latent constructs showed that partner abuse and general crime appear to be distinct, although moderately correlated. Group comparisons showed that many partner abusers, but not all, also engaged in violence against people who are not intimates. Analyses of personality characteristics showed that a trait called Negative Emotionality (when people describe themselves as nervous, vulnerable, prone to worry, fearful, and unable to cope with stress) predicts both partner abuse and general crime. Crime was related to low self-control, but partner abuse was not. All findings applied to both women and men. The authors suggest that the intra-personal features that motivate men's partner abuse may also motivate women's abuse. The uniqueness of partner violence relative to other crime and violence shown in this study is consistent with the theoretical and applied arguments in other research literature. The paper concludes with a discussion on the implications for intervention and research policy.
xxu