process of wife assault were psychiatric or psychodynamic; these models held that in general the abuse process arose form individual psychopathology (see: Faulk, 1994). As the models were refined over time, social and feminist elements were incorporated. In this regard, Bograd (1988) stated that the social/feminist perspective argued that wife abuse arises, at least in part, from a social structure that devalues women's worth and seeks to dominate them. In other words, society is a pivotal agent fostering abuse.
Also incorporating a societal component was the social learning model of wife assault. This model, Ganley (1988) reported, characterized wife assault as violence learned as a response to stress (e.g. children see their father beat their mother as they grow up whenever the father feels "under pressure."). The learned response is then said to be supported by immediate, external, environmental reinforcement.
Although these early models attempted to provide comprehensive explanations of wife assault, Dutton (1995a, 1995b) reported that they suffer from several failings. In this regard, he noted that the psychiatric models were based on findings collected form small incarcerated samples composed solely of only the most heinous abusers and most probably do not generalize beyond this population. Moreover, Dutton pointed out that the psychiatric models do not provide complete explanations of the etiology of the behavior; rather, they just "explain" by using a psychiatric diagnosis or label.
The social feminist models were also problematic. According to Dutton (1995a, 1995b), the most serious failing of this model was its inability to explain several empirical findings including the facts that: (1) partner assault is more frequent in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships; and (2) wife abuse is actually lower in patriarchal cultures than in many non-patriarchal cultures. Further, the model does not ...