Violence Against Women: An Application

Violence Against Women: An Application of Theory

The question of gender violence in relationships, particularly violent crimes perpetrated against females, has been the focus of media as well as criminological and psychological investigation in recent years. Various theoretical trajectories have been put forward with the aim of understanding and thereby preventing the occurrences of this type of crime. The application of social learning theory has been shown to provide invaluable insight into the deeper causative structure of these crimes. This paper investigates a single, severe example of this type of crime and analyses it in terms of social learning theory. This analysis indicates that this theory not only provides a useful understanding of the causes of the crime but is also beneficial in terms of remedial work and rehabilitation.

Introduction

The problem of violence against women is one that has become a pervasive and disturbing issue in contemporary society. There are increasing studies and reports of violent crimes perpetrated against women in many societies, including developed countries like the United States. A study by Lawson (2003) states that national surveys in the United States indicates that eleven to sixteen percent of women in the U.S. reported violent aggression by their partners, with estimates ranging from 3.4 to 8.7 million cases of partner violence each year. (Lawson, 2003). Furthermore, it has also been found that "...male-on-female violence results in greater negative outcomes than other types of relational violence..." (Lawson, 2003). This study also indicates that Male-to-female violence often results in more health problems, stress, depression, and psychosomatic symptoms. (Lawson, 2003). Even more alarming than this are the statistics that indicate that 1,300 women are killed each year by partners. (Lawson, 2003

This issue is exacerbated by allegations of sexism and gender prejudice, which are in contradiction to the values and ideals democratic equality in the modern world. However, while many experts and commentators ascribe the cause of these violent acts against women to purely social and class issues, there are many theories that attempt to understand these acts of violence from a psychological perspective.

There are a wide array of psychological, psycho-sociological and criminological theories that see the causative factors of this phenomenon as a result of the way in which society constructs and maintains gender differences. In other words, many theories suggest that there are indications that crimes and violent acts against women have their root causes in the way males learn or perceive women in society. This aspect will be a central area of discussion in this paper

This study will attempt to ascertain the way that a certain theory can be used to understand and elucidate the causes of a specific type of crime against women. An example of the extreme form of violence, murder, will be used as case study and reference point in this paper. The theory that will be used to describe and discuss this crime will be social learning theory. This well accepted, albeit controversial, theory will be explored in order to shed light on the reasons and the causative facets that underlie severe forms of violence against women.

A further component of this paper will discuss within the ambit of the theory under discussion, are the ways in which an understanding of this theory can be used to prevent future occurrence of this crime as well as its efficacy in the rehabilitation process of convicted offenders.

2. Case study

The case study or the example of violence against women that will be referred to is the infamous case of the murder of Bonny Woodring by her husband John Raymond "Woody" Woodring. While there are many sources online about this case, a comprehensive site that covers the details is the TRUE STORY of JOHN RAYMOND "WOODY" WOODRING. (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/john_woodring/1_index.html).This site was used to glean the basic details of the case.

Before discussing the case in detail, it is important to note certain statistics that shed light on the case. For example, it has been found that it is primarily men who tend to terrorize and inflict harm on their partners. These acts of violence and abuse are often seen as a means of control - an aspect that tends to conform to the case under discussion. As Lawson (2003) notes "Thus, this behavior is not simply the use of violence but often the calculated use of violence to dominate" (Lawson, 2003)

On Sept. 18, 2006, John Raymond "Woody" Woodring gunned down his wife, Bonnie Woodring. The events leading to this murder are extensive and complex and relate to a series of failed relationships and marriages in John Woodring's life. All of these relationships prior to his marriage to Bonnie were characterized by abuse and violence, which often resulted in court actions and legal restrictions. When Bonnie Woodring was killed by her husband, she had in fact fled to a shelter, as she was scared of him in spite of the fact that there were restraining orders out on his movements.

The little we know about his early year and background are important to understand in order to analyze his motivations. John Raymond "Woody" Woodring was born in Port Matilda, Pa., on July 2, 1971. There are many indications of an unsettled and possibly abused childhood. Woodring's father left the family before he was born. When he was eleven years of age, he was taken into the custody of his grandparents, Raymond and Irene Woodring. Tragedy and unhappiness tended to dog his early years and when he was thirteen his grandfather died. The events were to lead to deviant behavior and crime.

This tragedy plus the abusive childhood that Woody had survived had caused him to come apart at the seams. Woody was arrested several times for underage drinking, assault, disorderly conduct, and only by the sake of a miracle, Woody was able to graduate from Tyrone Area High School in 1989.

The Early Years)

Woodring enlisted in the United States Marine Corps after school. However, this period of his life was also apparently unhappy and unstable and there are many reports of his altercations with the authorities and jail time spent in the military prison. What also becomes clear is that there was a sense of inadequacy and a possible lack of self- worth in his character, which could be ascribed to his childhood.

The story of his relationships with women is alarming and are in fact a record of failed and abusive encounters He was married a number of times before his relationship with Bonny and in each of these relationships there was evidence of abuse and violence - a fact that Bonnie Woodring was unaware even after she married John. For example,

Woodring had married his second wife at the Qualla Boundary Cherokee Reservation, where she was a tribal member. In September 1997, just one month after the couple was married, his wife filed for a restraining order. In a statement he made, filed with his wife's restraining order request, Woodring said he pushed her around and threatened to hit her during an argument "over differences" on Sept. 16.

The Early Years)

In a similar vein, his relationship with his last wife also steadily deteriorated into violence and abuse. The following is a transcript of a complaint and application for a domestic violence protective order that Bonnie Woodring filed with the police on June 9, 2006. It expresses the extent of the violence and abuse in the relationship.

From the beginning, our relationship has been rocky, riddled with jealous rages, intimidation, pushing me down, threatening to kill me if I ever left him anytime we fought over the last year. [He] degrades and cusses at me and my child. Last July [he] assaulted my daughter and her boyfriend visiting from Texas. (Trasnformatons)

An analysis of this quotation reveals jealousy and a sense of inadequacy, which possibly exacerbated the need for control that John Woodring expressed in his violent and murderous action.

3.2. Social learning theory

One of the most accepted theories for explaining the type of crime described above and for all types of partner abuse has been social learning theory (Lawson, 2003). The theory was developed in the 1950s. Some of the important originating figures in the creation of the theory are Rotter, Bandura and Mischel. (Hogben & Dyrne, 1998) in a historical context, social learning theory has precedents in behaviorism and classical and operant conditioning theories of sexual behavior. (Hogben & Dyrne, 1998)

This theory is also extremely useful in understanding the causative facets as well as the remedial and intervention opportunities in this form of crime against women. It should be noted at the outset that understanding and being able to identify the causative element is crucial to creating ways and means of preventing future occurrences of this type of crime. Intervention and remediation of the criminal can only occur once the foundational causes and underlying reasons for his or her behavior are identified and understood. Social learning theory attempts to do just his and to provide a framework of understanding that can lead to and assist prevention and correction.

There are a variety of theoretical explanations that have been put forward to explain female abuse and violent crimes against women. These include feminist and gender theories and extend to theories of genetic pathology.

However, in the criminological literature a distinction is made between two categories of explanation. On the one hand, there are theories that tend to focus on individual pathology and forms of deviance that can lead to these crimes. On the other hand, the more socially inclined theorists tend to focus on the common patterns between individuals and the social milieu and its influences. The promoters of social control and other socially based theories argue that social factors rather then individual differences are the most suitable explanatory factors for these crimes. Social control theories argue, for example, that, the importance of social factors over and above individual stability" Juvenile recidivism: criminal propensity, social control and social learning theories" (Delfabbro, Paul, 2004).

Social learning theory on the other hand tends to combine these two aspects of the social and the individual causative factors for deviant and criminal behavior. As Bandura (1977) states, "...Social learning theory, in contrast to theories of criminal propensity and social control theory, include both individual and social factors" (Delfabbro, Paul).

A second aspect that is important is that social behavior is dependent on rewards and the perception of rewards. These rewards or the perception thereof are in turn determined by the essential criterion of learning history as well as attitude that have developed in terms of antisocial norms and other social factors. These can include the way that the individual is rewarded from family and peers. (Delfabbro, Paul)

Essentially, social learning theory is a theory that is used to explain, among others, the origins of aggressive behavior in society. In terms of this theoretical perspective, the view that forms of aggression are innate to the individual is contrasted with the view that these aggressive tendencies have social origins. Violence is therefore not something that occurs of its own. The important emphasis in this theory is that aggressive behavior and violent attitudes are learnt rather then being biologically structured. "The theory has focused mainly on the issue of how aggression is learned, and especially on observational learning." (Fry & Bjrkqvist, 1997, p. 32)

Another central facet to be considered in this theory is that aggressive behavior is conditioned by sociological and socio-psychological factors and variables. This conditioning may be either direct or vicarious. It is direct when the individual learns that this form of aggression has positive outcomes for that individual, or "...when the individual learns that aggression pays, by a kind of trial-and-error strategy, or through instrumental conditioning." (Fry & Bjrkqvist, 1997, p. 32)

Vicarious learning refers to learning that occurs through the imitation of others. In the context of the present study, this would mean the aggressive behavior that is learnt by watching the way that others attain goals and achieve satisfaction through aggressive means of behavior patterns. This theory therefore goes a long way to answering the question of why men, or women, who are abused in their youth or childhood become abusers in later lifer. Men who grow up in a violent and abusive family or social milieus often tend to become abusive and violent in their actions later in their lives.

When this pattern of vicarious imitation of behavior relates to male - on - female violence and the abuse of females, then the male who observes this behavior is likely to imitate these actions in his own relationships. In the case of John "Woody" Raymond Woodring discussed above, this theory can be applied to a large extent. As will be discussed in more detail in the next section of this study, there are clear indications that Woodring had a traumatic and violent childhood. This could be a main reason and contributing factor for his treatment of women and could be the central inner psychological rationale for the murder of his wife.

An understanding of the theory of social learning in terms of deviance and criminal behavior should take into account some foundational issues and presuppositions. First and foremost, theorists in this field assume that people are primarily social beings and are aware and cognizant of the environment and milieu in which they live. Secondly, is also assumed that in all instances people respond and react to the social environment. The assumptions are important for this theory in that they lead to the primary assumption that behavior can be learned or taught- especially behavior that relates to sexual behaviors in society. (Hogben & Dyrne, 1998)

Form a wider theoretical standpoint, theorists such as Vygotsky contend that "... learning and development are intertwined from the first day of life" (Constructivism) Furthermore, this theorist contends that learning is related to the " zone of proximal development." (Constructivism) This zone refers to that area of development space where development and psychosocial growth is influenced by family, peers and teachers. As Vygotsky states ".... In our conception, the true direction of the development of thinking is not from the individual to the socialized, but from the social to the individual. (Vygotsky, 1988, p. 32)

Bandura adds to this view by stressing the importance of the imitation of parents, as well as seeking membership of groups and various other social goals. The discussion of the character and early life development of John "Woody" Raymond Woodring also reveals his need for social acceptance from peers and society.

Vygotsky (1988) also make an important point that is pertinent to this case. He states that, it would be impossible for children to "generate, demonstrate, and exhibit" without first imitating. Imitation is a necessary prerequisite for ultimate, deep understanding. Children imitate their parents, siblings, playmates, characters on television, and peer models.... The child's language, articulation, pronunciation and regional accent, style of dress, expressions, and political and religious attitudes are all initiated and reinforced by imitation.

Vygotsky, 1988, p. 32

Albert Bandura also suggests that the process of learning stereotypical behavior begins with the way children imitate their parents. (Media and Girls, 2004)

Children begin to learn personality and behavior patterns by observing and imitating their parents. Further research indicates that children are more likely to imitate same-sex role models - boys choose to mirror their fathers, while girls look to their mothers (Media and Girls, 2004)

This important aspect in social learning can also be gleaned from an example from one of Bandera's studies. This refers to the well-known "Bobo Doll" example. In this experiment, children were exposed to a man acting in a loud and aggressive manner to a Bobo doll. It was found that, "The children who observed the adult were more likely to be aggressive toward the Bobo doll at a later time than those children who did not observe the adult or who saw an adult interact with the Bobo doll in a nonaggressive manner." (Hogben & Dyrne, 1998) This experience applies to development and learning through imitation. As Hogben and Dyrne (1998) state,

In a similar scenario with another man's unpunished aggressive behavior toward a potential sexual partner, we could hypothesize that observers of the aggressive behavior would show an increase in aggressive behavior (via imitation) even without viewing an outcome such as sexual intercourse. (Hogben & Dyrne, 1998)

In addition, Bandura and other theorists are aware that reward tends to strengthen learned or imitated behavior patterns. In this regard it is important to note that this behavior can occur in the absence of quantifiable reward "...by making inferences about cognitions involving either expected rewards or task efficacy" (Hogben & Dyrne, 1998).

An important contemporary theorist in this field is Ronald Ackers. Ackers developed his theory of social learning from ideas that were developed by Edwin Sutherland and his views on Differential Association. He also used ideas form George Herbert Mead's theory of symbolic interactionism; as well as from B.F Skinner' Behavioral Theory.

Acker states that the centre or "heart" of this theory and the principle of differential association is that "...one becomes criminal because his accepted definitions of the law as something to violate are in 'excess' of his accepted definitions of the law as something that can, must, or should be obeyed" (Akers 1973, 39).

Symbolic interactionism was one of the foundations of this theory and Ackers was of the view that this aspect played a role in the process of cognitive learning. Symbolic interactionism refers to, "...the exchange between individuals using meanings and symbols; in order to understand themselves" (Stansups). This also plays a role in the understanding of the concept of "differential association," which is "...the process whereby one is exposed to normative definitions favorable or unfavorable to illegal or law-abiding behavior" (Akers 1999, p. 64). Simply stated, it is through the interaction in social setting and environment that people tend to learn to imitate one another.

Acker also explains deviation as the process that occurs when this form of behavior becomes dominant over confirmative behavior because of differential reinforcement. (Stansups).

Therefore, to summarize, according to Ronald Akers, social behavior is shaped by:

Differential association (relative influence)

Differential reinforcement (punishment)

Cognitive definitions (self schema)

Bachar K.)

From his perspective, Ackers sees differential reinforcement as a central aspect of the theory of social learning. Differential Reinforcement refers to the fact that Learning involves the application of rewards and punishments. "We tend to associate with groups or individuals who reward our behavior. Individuals engage in behavior, receive rewards and then repeat behavior. We learn to define those behaviors which are rewarded as positive" (Social Learning Theories)

In his view of social learning theory, sexual and gender aggression are not an inevitable fact in society. Rather, this form of behavior is learnt and shaped by society and will continue if it is positively reinforced. "According to SLT male violence against women endures because...It is modeled at the individual & societal levels" (Bachar K.).

Akers also notes n an important aspect that can also be seen to shed light on the case of the Woodring. He states that social learning is largely dependent on the ability to process or understand social information correctly. "One way social learning occurs is through social information processing " (Bachar K.).

This involves a process of decision making about the social information that is received, leading to a response and judgment of the effect of the response. If this process of decoding and responding to social cues and information is not adequate or is misinterpreted, this may result in inappropriate behavior. Simply stated, "Violent men may be deficient in skill needed to decode messages from women" (Bachar K.).

The above perception provides an important clue to the possible reasons for the actions and the abusive response that Woodring and others like him have towards women. In other words, a failure in the understanding and processing of social information and "code" may lead to misinterpretation and subsequent aggressive responses. What is of extreme importance in this regard is that an understanding of this process can be an invaluable aid in preventing future occurrences of this type of crime. For example, if those individuals convicted of this type of crime and abuse of women undergo therapy and are taught to respond correctly to social stimuli and information, this problem may be alleviated and this could form part of intervention strategies for couples who have communication or abuse issues.

Another factor that will be elaborated in the following section is the important aspect of self-efficacy. The case of John Woodring clearly shows that he had a problem with his one self - image and perception of personal self-efficacy. Reports and commentary from his wives and friends continually refer to the fact that he seemed obsessed with himself and to the fact that he even carried around and displayed images of himself. This seemingly narcissist impulse can be related to a possible lack of self-worth and self- efficacy, which can also be seen as a major contributing factor in the aggressive behavior that he showed towards women.

4. The application of social learning theory

In the case of Woodring the pattern of abuse can be traced to his early youth, which in turn can be linked to the abuse that he heaped on his wives. The references to his early life are peppered with anecdotal and personal references, which indicate that he led a "rough" life when he was young. These references are also indicative of the possibly that he may have suffered both psychological as well as physical abuse as a child. This pattern tends to conform to the tenets of the theory under discussion, in terms of imitation and the process of symbolic interactionism with parents and peers.

There have been various studies on the effectiveness of social learning theory in the understanding of cases of abuse and even murder. A study entitled, Social Learning Theory Model of Marital Violence (1997) by Mihalic and Elliott states that, " a social learning theory model of minor and severe marital violence offending and victimization among males and females was tested.... Results support social learning as an important perspective in marital violence" (Mihalic and Elliott, 1997).

In terms of the theory of social learning, Woodring therefore can be seen to have developed his early responses and aggressive stance towards women from imitation and symbolic interaction with family or peers. The theory also supports this view in that his socialization may have been deficient in providing him with the appropriate mores and norms that could control his aggressive impulses towards women. This can also be related in theoretical terms to Vygotsky's contention that learning is related to the "zone of proximal development." (Constructivism) This refers to the social environment that has the most influence and which provides the most reward for certain behavior.

In this context, it is highly likely that violence, neglect or other forms of abuse in the family were the originating factors for the social learning process that led to the failed relationships and the final tragedy in Woodring's life. "Research suggests that exposure to violence in the family of origin increases the likelihood of involvement in a violent relationship later in life" (Fox et al., 2005)

This aspect has broad implications for preventative and remedial aspect of this type of crime. As Aker (1973) states, "... sexual socialization may be conducted in such a way and certain institutions may be so arranged as to enhance rather than restrict the chances that some people will learn sexual deviance" (p. 149). Social institutions and environments therefore can sometimes encourage attitudes, stereotypes and norms that promote or 'enhance' gender rand criminal deviance. Conversely, this means that social institutions and related learning processes can be developed in society that can take cognizance of this deviant behavior and help to prevent its occurrence.