Families, Systems, & Health

Using Complexity Science to Examine Three Dynamic

Patterns of Intimate Partner Violence
Sandra K. Burge, David A. Katerndahl, Robert C. Wood, Johanna Becho, Robert L. Ferrer, and
Melissa Talamantes
Online First Publication, November 30, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000170

CITATION
Burge, S. K., Katerndahl, D. A., Wood, R. C., Becho, J., Ferrer, R. L., & Talamantes, M. (2015,
November 30). Using Complexity Science to Examine Three Dynamic Patterns of Intimate
Partner Violence. Families, Systems, & Health. Advance online publication. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000170

Families, Systems, & Health

2015, Vol. 33, No. 4, 000

2015 American Psychological Association

1091-7527/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000170

Using Complexity Science to Examine Three Dynamic Patterns of

Intimate Partner Violence

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Sandra K. Burge, PhD,

David A. Katerndahl, MD, MA,
Robert C. Wood, DrPH,
Johanna Becho, BA,
and Robert L. Ferrer, MD, MPH

Melissa Talamantes, PhD

South Texas Veterans Health Care System,
San Antonio, Texas

University of Texas Health Science Center

at San Antonio

Introduction: The partner violence literature describes 3 dominant models of dynamics of

partner aggression: cycle of violence, family systems theory, and Duluth model (power and
control wheel). Complexity science describes 3 patterns of system dynamics: periodic,
chaotic, and random. Are these parallel patterns? In this analysis, investigators calculated
dynamic patterns (periodic, chaotic, and random) using 84 daily reports of male-to-female
aggression and assessed the fit between time-series-derived patterns of male partners
violent behaviors and literature-based models of violence dynamics. Method: Participants
were 200 women in moderately violent intimate relationships who completed a telephone
survey about their relationships every day for 12 weeks. They also completed baseline and
end-of-study surveys and maintained telephone contact with the study team weekly. Of 200
participants, 135 women provided enough data to be assigned to period, chaotic, or random
groups. Results: Group membership included 16 women in periodic, 40 in chaotic, and 79
in random groups. Consistent with the cycle of violence, periodic women found violence to
be predictable and controllable. Consistent with the Duluth model, women in the random
group found violence to be unpredictable and out of their control, occurring with high
frequency. The chaotic group had the lowest frequency and severity of violence, lowest
stress and arguments, and the highest marital satisfaction. Discussion: The most common
dynamic pattern in partner violence is random, which exhibits high frequency and unpredictability of aggression. Complexity science suggests interventions in random systems
have unpredictable outcomes, posing great challenges for clinicians who work with victims
of violence.
Keywords: spouse abuse, battered women, domestic violence, nonlinear dynamics, longitudinal
studies

In the United States, one in four women has

experienced severe abuse from their intimate
partners (Black et al., 2011). Capaldi and Kim

proposed a model to explain the etiology and

course of violence within couples (Capaldi &
Kim, 2007). Model inputs include personal

Sandra K. Burge, PhD, David A. Katerndahl, MD, MA,

Robert C. Wood, DrPH, Johanna Becho, BA, and Robert
L. Ferrer, MD, MPH, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center
at San Antonio; Melissa Talamantes, PhD, South Texas
Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas.
This study was funded with a grant from the Dynamics
of Human Behavior program, National Science Foundation, Award 0525026. Automated data collection was provided by the University of Colorado, Department of Family

Medicine Information Services group. We thank Stephanie

Mitchell, Kelli Giacomini, and Wilson Pace for their invaluable assistance with IVR. We also express appreciation
to Norma Cantu and Diandrea Garza for their commitment
to screening and enrolling women for this study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sandra K. Burge, PhD, Department of Family
and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health
Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive,
Mail Code 7795, San Antonio, TX 78229. E-mail:
burge@uthscsa.edu
1

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

BURGE ET AL.

and couple characteristics and risk factors that

partners bring to the relationship. The outputs, or impact of the violence, include injuries, substance abuse, psychological disorders,
and chronic somatic problems. At the models
center is the least studied componentthe violent incident itself. What are the dynamics of
aggression toward ones partner on any given
day or week? What drives its ebb and flow? We
embarked on a line of study to understand more
thoroughly how violent relationships operate.
Capaldi and Kim (2007, p. 262) proposed a
. . . need for a dynamic approach that conceptualizes the . . . process of social interaction of
two individuals, each with influence on the others behavior, embedded in interpersonal contextual influences that show changes over time.
Some have proposed using chaos theory or
complexity science to understand family dynamics (Btz, Chamberlain, & McCown, 1997;
Ward, 1995). From this view, families are seen
as complex adaptive systems (North American
Primary Care Research Group, 2009). Complexity is characterized by webs of family connections with ever-changing influences. Adaptive suggests the capacity to change, to learn
from experience, to self-organize. The family
system is a set of interdependent individuals
which is, in turn, connected to other interdependent complex systems.
How does complexity science apply to the
dynamics of intimate partner violence? Experts
in partner violence describe three dominant
models of couple dynamics: cycle of violence,
family systems theory, and the Duluth model
(power and control wheel). On the surface,
these models of violence dynamics appear to be
consistent with three mathematical models of
complex dynamic patterns: periodic, chaotic,
and random dynamics.
The Cycle of Violence
In this model (Walker, 1979), partner violence recurs in predictable cycles. The cycle
has three distinct phases. In the tension-building
Phase 1, verbal or minor physical abuse may
occur, and the woman alters her behavior to
keep the peace. Over time, tension builds, leading to an explosion. The acute battering incident
(Phase 2) is brief and brutal, characterized by
batterers lack of control. Following this explosion is the calm, loving respite (Phase 3), where

the batterer knows hes gone too far and compensates with loving behavior, apologies, and
requests for forgiveness. Over time, the batterer
is unable to sustain attentiveness; tension
builds, and the cycle repeats.
In periodic dynamics, actions occur on a regular, predictable basis. Events and outcomes are
strongly correlated. An example might be a
regular Friday night battle: a man gets paid each
Friday, goes out drinking with his buddies, realizes he just spent half his paycheck, then
comes home drunk and angry and ready for a
fight. The paycheck, the drinking, the overspending, and the anger all lead predictably to
violence. Complexity science explains repeating patterns with a concept called an attractor,
described metaphorically as a magnet exerting a
pull on the system (Ward, 1995). Periodic systems are stable over time and respond predictably to interventions. Small interventions in the
system (such as advice) will create small
changes in patterns of behaviors; large changes
(such as alcohol rehabilitation) will have a big
impact.
Family systems theory views partner violence
as an ongoing interaction pattern resistant to
change. In most couples, the first event of violence is unexpected, and the offender is contrite
(Giles-Sims, 1983). The victim generally interprets it as an isolated incident, and her acceptance of him despite this offense can strengthen
their commitment to each other. However, the
act of staying can increase the likelihood of a
recurrence of abuse. Over time, violence itself
becomes grounds for resentment and conflict,
creating a higher risk for more violence. This
view of violence dynamics differs from the cycle of violence in the emphasis on actions and
reactions, each predicting the next. External influences can affect the interaction pattern by
threatening the stability of the relationship or
reinforcing the violent behaviors.
In chaotic dynamics, the overall pattern of
behavior recurs but the specific path is unpredictable. Chaotic patterns result when actions
and outcomes are separated in time, and when
feedback within the system varies in strength,
direction, and source. Like periodic systems,
chaotic systems have attractors shaping their
behavior; one can recognize repeating interaction patterns. Unlike periodic systems, chaotic
systems are sensitive to small changes which
may alter the path they follow. The metaphor

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

THREE DYNAMIC PATTERNS OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

for this concept is the butterfly effect, referring to the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings
in India could affect weather patterns in Chicago. In couple dynamics, one wrong word
from the partner may send him into a fury, or
may go unnoticed. Chaotic systems do not respond predictably to interventions. Giles-Sims
emphasis on feedback, interdependent causal
factors, and stabilization of violence once established is consistent with chaotic dynamics
(Giles-Sims, 1983).
The Duluth model (power and control wheel)
posits that violence is one of several behaviors
used to control the partners actions. In contrast
to the cycle of violence, authors observe that
abuse is a constant force in battered womens
lives (Pence & Paymar, 1993). The power and
control wheel depicts eight nonphysical abusive
behaviors exhibited by men who batter: coercion, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation,
denying, using children, male privilege, and
economic control. It illustrates that physical violence is part of a continuous pattern of controlling behaviors, not simply isolated incidents
or cyclical explosions. Batterers use of physical assaults may be infrequent and random,
but assaults reinforce the power of other controlling tactics, which are constant (Pence &
Paymar, 1993).
Random Dynamics
One type of random dynamics (criticality) is
common in complex systems. Criticality results
from constant stress on a system which is com-

posed of interdependent components with varying predilections to respond. These conditions

yield a random pattern of responses of varying
intensity. Systems characterized by criticality
have no attractors shaping their behavior, and
may or may not be sensitive to small changes
(Morrison, 1991). These systems are unpredictable in behavior and in response to intervention.
Both chaotic and random dynamics are said to
be nonlinear because the output from such
systems is not proportional to the input and,
hence, unpredictable.
Although considerable research has examined intimate partner violence, we know little
about the day-to-day patterns of abuse. Three
descriptions of partner violence dynamics are
widely known, but no longitudinal data support
one over another or explain why different dynamics may occur (Ristock, 2003).
The purpose of this analysis was to identify
dynamic patterns in daily male-to-female violent events over a 12-week period (periodic,
chaotic, and random) and assess the fit between time-series-derived patterns of male partners violent behaviors and three models of
violence dynamics. Table 1 summarizes our
predictions of model fit.
1. Periodic patterns of violence in daily
reports will show consistency with the cycle of violence. Women will describe
male partners violence as predictable,
with a buildup of tension on days with
violence and days preceding violence; forgiveness, sought and given, representing

Table 1
Predictions of Model Fit

Appraisal Dimension Scale for

Violence (Vitaliano, 1985)
Abuse Behavior Inventory
(Pence & Paymar, 1993)
Abusive behaviors (daily
surveys) (Straus, 1987)
Time series:
Same day correlates
Time series:
Prior day predictors

Periodic

Chaotic

High predictability
High control

Causality by wife
Medium predictability

Low predictability
Low control
Causality by husband
More control strategies by husband

Higher wife violence

Higher frequency of husband violence

(constant efforts to control)

High stress
High hassles
Forgiveness
High stress
High hassles

Low closeness
High arguments
Mutual violence
Low closeness
High arguments
Mutual violence

Random

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

BURGE ET AL.

the calm loving respite, will be part of the

pattern.
2. Chaotic patterns of violence in daily reports will show consistency with family
systems theory. Women will describe the
violence as moderately predictable (indicating repeating interaction patterns), and
acknowledge a pattern of action-reaction,
claiming some responsibility for the cause
of the violence. Marital distance, female
partners violence, and arguments will occur on days of and days preceding male
partners violence, illustrating actionreaction in the family system.
3. Random patterns of violence in daily
reports will show consistency with the
Duluth model. Women will describe the
violence as unpredictable and uncontrollable, with more controlling behaviors by
male partners, and higher frequency of
low-severity violence (representing mens
efforts to control the female partner).
Method

telephoned a researcher to assess safety. At the

end of 12 weeks, participants completed an exit
survey, and 42 women participated in 60-min
qualitative interviews.
Measurement
Table 2 exhibits the schedule for measuring
study variables. Baseline Survey (Day 1) assessed personal characteristics and attitudinal
and clinical outcomes of intimate partner violence. End-of-study surveys addressed outcome
variables. In this analysis, we focused on baseline responses to the Appraisal Dimension Scale
for violence (Vitaliano, 1985) and the Abuse
Behavior Inventory (Pence & Paymar, 1993),
and the daily assessments of partner violence
and relationship dynamics.
Daily surveys assessed the severity of both
partners violence as well as time series predictors of violence: daily hassles, feelings of stress,
arguments, both partners alcohol intake, marital closeness, and forgiveness sought and given
(see Table 2).
Analysis

Sample
Investigators recruited 200 women from six
primary care clinics in San Antonio, Texas.
Eligible participants were women, married or
cohabiting with a man for one year or longer,
age 18 to 64, English- or Spanish-speaking,
with a recent history (past 30 days) of male-tofemale physical or verbal abuse. Women were
not approached for screening at all if a male
partner accompanied them to clinic that day.
Investigators excluded women if they were
pregnant, they planned to leave their partner
within the next 12 weeks, or study participation
would endanger their safety. The study was
approved by the Institutional Review Board of
the University of Texas Health Science Center
at San Antonio (for more details, see Burge et
al., 2014).
Procedure
Bilingual female researchers screened
women, obtained consent, enrolled participants,
and administered baseline surveys. Daily for 12
weeks, women telephoned an automated survey
and responded to study questions about the previous days experiences. Weekly, participants

To quantitatively assess dynamics, time series data must be complete. Women made daily
reports on a mean of 63.2 days (15.9 SD) out
of 84. Missing data were imputed using the
nstep procedure in the TISEAN software package to maintain nonlinear characteristics (Heggler, Kantz, & Schreiber, 1999).
Analytic Assessment of Dynamic Pattern
Using 84 days of data points, we estimated
the dynamic pattern (i.e., periodic, chaotic, random/criticality) in male partner violence for
each participant. Women were classified into
three groups: the periodic group demonstrated
linear (predictable) dynamics of violence with
evidence of an attractor (repeating behaviors),
the chaotic group reported nonlinear (unpredictable) dynamics of violence with an attractor
(repeating behaviors), and the random group
had nonlinear (unpredictable) dynamics of violence with no attractor. We used the time series
of daily reports of man-to-woman violence severity to determine group assignments. Lyapunov exponents assessed linearity/nonlinearity
of violence dynamics (Wolf, Swift, Swinney, &
Vastano, 1985), while saturated correlation di-

THREE DYNAMIC PATTERNS OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Table 2
Schedule of Study Measurements
Baseline
survey

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Variables
Background
Demographics
Relationship and violence history (Pence & Paymar, 1993)
Childhood abuse (Dube, Williamson, Thompson, Felitti, & Anda, 2004)
Relationship history
Relationship function (Siegel, 2006)
Psychiatric problems
Partners drug use (Bradley et al., 1998)
Wifes psychological problems (Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001;
Spitzer, Kroenke, & Williams, 1999; Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, &
Lwe, 2006)
Attitudinal, behavioral and health outcomes
Violence appraisal (Vitaliano, 1985)
Hope (Herth, 1992)
Readiness for change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1986)
Support/stress (Parkerson, Broadhead, & Tse, 1991)
Coping strategies (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989)
Health care utilization (Brown & Adams, 1992)
Functional status (McHorney, Ware, Rachel Lu, & Sherbourne, 1994)
Symptom burden (Katerndahl & Oyiriaru, 2007)
Daily violence and environment
Hassles (DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988)
Frequency of arguments (Coleman, Weinman, & Hsi, 1980)
Husbands/wifes alcohol intake (Bradley et al., 1998)
Stress
Marital harmony
Husband-to-wife violence (Straus, 1987)
Wife-to-husband violence (Straus, 1987)
Upset about violence
Forgiveness
Qualitative information
Important life events
Field notes
Qualitative interview (42 Ss)

mensions assessed the presence/absence of an

attractor. Prior analysis supports the validity of
this group assignment (Katerndahl, Burge, Ferrer, Becho, & Wood, 2014).

Daily
survey

Weekly
contact

End-of-study

frequency and severity of violence, mutuality of

violence, same-day predictors of violence, and
prior-day predictors of violence using vector
autoregression.

Model Fit
Results
How well do the dynamic groups (periodic,
chaotic, random) fit the models of violence dynamics (cycle of violence, family systems, Duluth model)? To answer this question, we analyzed group differences in the Violence
Appraisal (assessing control, predictability and
causality) and Abuse Behavior Inventory (assessing batterers controlling behaviors) using
analysis of variance. Second, we examined
daily surveys to determine: group differences in

Researchers screened 1,523 women over

two years and enrolled 200 women into the
study. Forty-seven withdrew from the study,
and 18 did not have enough daily data to determine the dynamic pattern. The 135 study completers provided 9,201 daily reports. They reported male partners verbal or physical
violence on 39% of days, and their own violence on 23% of days. Assessments of dynamic

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

BURGE ET AL.

patterns of male-to-female violence classified

womens experiences as periodic (16
women), chaotic (40 women), and random
(79 women).
Table 3 summarizes the demographic and
family history information for the 200 enrollees.
Participants were primarily Hispanic women,
middle-aged, with low income and long-term
intimate relationships. The 135 completers were
similar to the 65 noncompleters across all demographic characteristics except one: noncompleters were more likely to speak Spanish (16%
vs. 7%, p .05).
Violence Appraisal
Table 4 displays group differences in violence appraisal, reported at baseline. We predicted that the periodic group would report perceptions of high predictability, while the
random group would report low levels of personal control; these differences were in the expected direction (p .020). We also anticipated
that the chaotic group would attribute causation
to themselves, as a marker of action-reaction in

N (%)

34 (17%)
152 (76%)
30 (15%)
49 (25%)
64 (32%)
41 (21%)
90 (45%)
38.2 11.7
105 (53%)
24 (12%)
54 (27%)
85 (43%)
(Mean SD)

More relationship characteristics

Number of children
Duration of relationship
Duration of marriage
Duration of abuse
a

Missing data accounts for total 100%.

Mens Controlling Behaviors

The Abuse Behavior Inventory represents
male partners controlling behaviors as illustrated in the Duluth models power and control
wheel. We expected that the random group
would endorse these behaviors more than others. However, the periodic group reported the
highest levels of intimidation and minimization,
and the random group reported high scores on
Use of Children (not significant, Table 4).
Daily Household Environment
Table 4 describes the household environment
derived from womens daily reports. The chaotic group had the fewest arguments, the lowest
stress, and the lowest upset about partners
violent behaviors. The periodic group reported
the highest level of mens alcohol use (not significant).
Frequency and Severity of Violence

Table 3
Sample Description (N 200)
Individual characteristics
Race/ethnicity
White
Hispanic
Employment
Part-time
Full-time
Educationa
High school graduate
High school graduate
Some college
Age (Mean SD years)
Relationship characteristics
Family income $20,000 per year
Type of marriagea
Church
Civil
Common law

family system dynamics, but they did not. Instead, they were more likely to appraise violent
behavior as caused by the male partner (not
significant).

1.5 1.4
9.6 8.9
7.3 9.0
5.5 6.5

Table 5 displays violent behaviors of men

and women, derived from womens daily reports. We predicted that the random group
would report the highest frequency of male violence and this was supported, 48% of days
compared to 28% and 35% in chaotic and periodic groups. Furthermore, the random group
reported the highest frequency of male partners
yelling, insults, and throwing objects, supporting our prediction of high levels of controlling
behaviors.
We also predicted that women in the chaotic
group would be more likely to report personal
violence toward their male partners, but this
group had the lowest frequency of violence for
both women and men. Episode severity did not
differ significantly between the groups.
Same Day Correlates of Violent Behavior
On the days of mens violent behaviors,
nearly everything we measured in the household environment was significantly correlated
to his abuse (Table 6). We predicted that the
periodic group would show buildup of tension,

THREE DYNAMIC PATTERNS OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 4
Violence Appraisal, Abuse Behavior, and Household Environment by Dynamic Pattern

Violence Appraisal Scale (baseline survey)

Mean scores, wifes appraisal of husbands violence
In my control (on a 016 scale)
Other-caused (on a 016 scale)
Predictable (on a 016 scale)
Abuse Behavior Inventory (baseline survey)
Mean scores, wifes reports of husbands behaviors
Coercion (on a 08 scale)
Intimidation (on a 08 scale)
Emotional abuse (on a 04 scale)
Isolation (on a 016 scale)
Minimization (on a 012 scale)
Use of Children (on a 012 scale)
Male privilege (on a 012 scale)
Economic (on a 012 scale)
Daily household environment (daily reports)
(Mean scores)
Hassles score (on a 030 scale)
Argument frequency score (on a 04 scale)
Wifes alcohol consumption (drinks per day, 09)
Husbands alcohol consumption (drinks per day, 09)
Stress severity score (on a 06 scale)
Marital closeness score (on a 04 scale)
Emotional upset score (on a 04 scale)

p .05.

p .01.

p .005.

Periodic
(n 16)

Chaotic
(n 40)

Random
(n 79)

10.56
7.50
8.31

10.69
9.13
8.11

9.55
8.11
6.88

1.47
5.13
1.87
9.47
8.56
1.50
7.60
2.47

1.49
3.72
1.15
8.74
5.46
1.65
5.90
3.61

1.69
4.01
1.46
9.41
6.22
2.89
6.71
4.03

8.7
.9
.4
2.2
3.1
1.1
1.1

5.9
.5
.4
1.2
2.4
1.2
.5

7.7
.8
.5
1.5
3.0
1.1
1.0

p .001.

and we found that hassles, stress, and arguments

were correlated with mens violence. However,
this was also true for the chaotic and random
groups. We expected that forgiveness would be
evident in the periodic group, and the correlation between violence and forgiveness given
was strongest here. For the chaotic group, we
expected evidence of mutual violence, and
womens violence was significantly correlated
with mens violence for this groupand for the
others as well. We also expected that lack of
marital closeness would be related to mens
violence in the chaotic group; this was true for
all three groups.
Prior Day Predictors of Violent Behavior
What happened the day before a violent episode? Time series analysis showed significant
predictors primarily for the periodic group: his
violence, her violence, their arguments, and low
marital closeness predicted violent behaviors on
the following day. In the random group, her
alcohol use one day predicted her male partners
violence the next day (see Table 6).

Discussion
This study used baseline surveys and daily reports of intimate partner violence to assess the
fit between time-series derived dynamic patterns and three models of violence dynamics
found in the literature. Women in the periodic
group, consistent with the cycle of violence, found
violence to be predictable and controllable. They
reported high stress and arguments on violent days
and high arguments and violence preceding violent days, representing a buildup of tension. In
contrast, women in the random group found violence to be unpredictable and out of their control,
consistent with the Duluth model. Partners violent behavior, especially verbal abuse, was most
frequent in this group, occurring on nearly half the
days. Women in the chaotic group, on the day of
their partners violence, reported high stress and
hassles, low marital closeness and high womans
violence. This may suggest action-reaction in the
couple dynamic, consistent with family systems
theory. However, all groups reported this dynamic; it was not unique to the chaotic group.

BURGE ET AL.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 5
Frequency and Severity of Violence in 84 Daily Reports

Mean number of days of mens violence

Yelling
Insults
Threats
Throwing objects
Pushing/slapping
Hitting
Beating
Threaten with a weapon
Summariesmens violence
Proportion of days with any violence
Mean episode severity (on 08 scale)
Mean number of days of womens violence
Yelling/insults
Threats
Throwing objects
Pushing
Slapping
Hitting
Summarieswomens violence
Proportion of days with any violence
Mean episode severity (on 06 scale)

p .05.

p .01.

p .005.

These three models of violence dynamics,

cycle of violence, family systems theory, and
the Duluth model, were not originally conceived as distinct, mutually exclusive descriptions of partner violence. Walker (1979) suggested that different patterns in the cycle of
violence may emerge depending on stage-oflife and situation. Irregularity in this cycle
would be consistent with a chaotic pattern.
Giles-Sims (1983) suggested different dynamic
patterns may be related to the family systems
ability to adapt to outside influences. In a
closed system, we would expect to find highly
repetitive patterns of behavior, and a high degree of negative feedback to new behavior
(Giles-Sims, 1983, p. 11), suggesting a periodic
dynamic.
If we view these varying patterns with a
complexity science lens, we may posit that the
periodic group is in a steady state in their
relationship, where violent behavior is consistent and predictable. Even when our study perturbed the system by engaging the female partner in research, violence continued in a regular
way. In contrast, the other two groups, displaying nonlinear violence patterns, may be in

Periodic
(n 16)

Chaotic
(n 40)

Random
(n 79)

17.4
15.4
5.0
5.8
4.1
3.7
3.5
3.6

14.0
12.7
1.9
3.4
1.5
1.2
1.0
.9

24.9
23.4
4.8
8.0
4.3
1.4
1.0
.5

35%
2.87

28%
2.35

48%
2.55

12.6
3.7
5.8
4.4
4.1
3.6

8.8
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.1
1.1

17.2
3.1
3.5
2.8
1.7
.9

22%
1.97

15%
1.78

29%
1.86

p .001.

transformative states (Btz, Carlson, & Carlson, 1998) adapting to recent changes in the
system. Btz et al. (1998) observed that during
times of change, families operate at the edge of
chaos, randomly grasping for solutions to their
distress. Forces continually crushing the family
system would create unpredictable, nonlinear
interactions. In our study, women described internal stressors such as personal histories of
victimization, trauma, family conflict, illness,
and isolation, as well as external stressors related to poverty, unemployment, and partners
addiction.
The chaotic group was strikingly different
than the other groups; frequency and severity of
violence was lowest in this group, and marital
satisfaction was highest. Stress, arguments, and
drinking alcohol were lower. In this sample of
high-conflict couples, the chaotic group appeared to be the healthiest. They represented
couples with repeating but unpredictable interaction patterns; perhaps they were displaying
the adaptive side of complex adaptive systems, transitioning toward a healthier system.
The circumplex model of family systems,
particularly the concept of family flexibility,

THREE DYNAMIC PATTERNS OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 6
Time Series Predictors of Husbands Violence From Daily Surveys

Same day correlates (Pearsons r)

Wifes violence
Hassles
Arguments
Alcohol usehers
Alcohol usehis
Stress
Marital closeness
Forgiveness sought
Forgiveness given
Prior day predictors (beta [SE])
Husbands violence
Wifes violence
Hassles
Arguments
Alcohol usehers
Alcohol usehis
Stress
Marital closeness
Forgiveness sought
Forgiveness given

Periodic
(n 16)

Chaotic
(n 40)

Random
(n 79)

.705
.416
.676
.279
.427
.553
.279
.529
.528

.662
.493
.703
.150
.409
.511
.382
.551
.400

.682
.434
.722
.215
.420
.585
.492
.449
.317

.40 [.09]
.19 [.09]
.02 [.02]
.16 [.07]
.12 [.14]
.05 [.04]
.07 [.05]
.21 [.08]
.07 [.48]
.54 [.39]

.02 [.04]
.06 [.04]
.02 [.01]
.06 [.05]
.03 [.03]
.02 [.02]
.01 [.02]
.04 [.03]
.01 [.12]
.02 [.12]

.02 [.04]
.01 [.05]
.02 [.01]
.02 [.06]
.09 [.03]
.02 [.02]
.05 [.03]
.01 [.05]
.20 [.14]
.23 [.15]

p .05.

provides another lens through which to view the

three patterns (Olson & Gorall, 2002). On the
flexibility continuum, extreme values are considered unhealthy. Inflexible families are rigid
with strict rules and expectations for family
members; they are predictable and not adaptable
to change. In the periodic group, violence was
regular and severe. Strict rules may govern a
womans behavior and be reinforced with consistent harsh punishment if she strays from expectations, especially when his impulsivity is
enhanced by alcohol. In this group, his violence
correlated with his same-day alcohol consumption, which was high.
At the other end of the continuum are overly
flexible families who are erratic with no rules,
no clear roles, and no leadership; they grasp at
straws to gain control over a situation. Like
random dynamics, they are unpredictable and
unstable. Our study may have included male
partners who felt completely out of control, who
randomly tested strategies to establish personal
power (Ward, 1995).
In the center of the circumplex model are
flexible families, who balance stability and
change in a familys leadership, roles, and rules.
Chaotic systems behave in a nonlinear way,

exhibiting adaptable resistance to stressors that

disrupt their patterns (Olson & Gorall, 2002).
Chaotic systems also exhibit repeating interaction patterns, although the timing and path may
vary in nonlinear, unpredictable ways (Ward,
1995). The adaptive characteristics of these
couples, their capacity to change, to learn from
experience, to self-organize around the violence or despite the violencemay explain
why their levels of violence were lower.
Limitations
The number of data points is small for timeseries analysis, especially for determining dynamic patterns. But others have had successful
results with 30 to 100 data points (Cheng & Van
de Ven, 1996; Rosenstein, Collins, & De Luca,
1993; Yeragani, Pohl, Mallavarapu, & Balon,
2003; Zhang, Zhu, Thakor, & Wang, 1999). The
accuracy of womens daily reports of his and
her violence may be questioned. However,
Regan et al. (2006) found that violence reports
by male and female partners were highly correlated (Regan, Bartholomew, Kwong, Trinke, &
Henderson, 2006). Finally, the predominance of

10

BURGE ET AL.

Hispanic women in this sample may limit the

generalizability of the findings.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Conclusion
No single dynamic pattern describes couple
interactions in relationships with violence. Yet,
specific dynamic patterns correlate with different features of these relationships. These observations may explain why some efforts to intervene in violent relationships work, and some do
not. Complexity science suggests that periodic
dynamics respond in predictable ways to interventions, while random dynamics do not (Btz
et al., 1997; Katerndahl, 2009). If patients describe a repeating predictor of aggressive behaviorsuch as heavy drinking every Friday
night, this periodic pattern may be amenable to
an intervention directed toward the cause. On
the contrary, if patients describe partners aggression as frequent, controlling and random,
simple causes may be difficult to ascertain, and
simple interventions will not likely be effective.
In a random dynamic, the most successful remedy may be termination of the relationship. Alternatively, multifaceted interventions or the introduction of new agents (such as support
persons) into the patients life may be effective
in changing the dynamic and increasing her
safety.
References
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith,
S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens,
M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and
Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary
report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA.
Bradley, K. A., McDonell, M. B., Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., Diehr, P., & Fihn, S. D. (1998). AUDIT
alcohol consumption questions. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22, 18421849.
Brown, J. B., & Adams, M. E. (1992). Patients as
reliable reporters of medical care process. Medical
Care, 30, 400 411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
00005650-199205000-00003
Burge, S. K., Becho, J., Ferrer, R. L., Wood, R. C.,
Talamantes, M., & Katerndahl, D. A. (2014).
Safely examining complex dynamics of intimate
partner violence. Families, Systems, & Health, 32,
259 270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000013
Btz, M. R., Carlson, J. M., & Carlson, J. (1998).
Chaos theory: Self-organization and symbolic

representation in family systems. The Family

Journal, 6, 106 115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1066480798062005
Btz, M. R., Chamberlain, L. L., & McCown, W. G.
(1997). Strange attractors: Chaos, complexity, and
the art of family therapy. New York, NY: Wiley.
Capaldi, D. M., & Kim, H. K. (2007). Typological
approaches to violence in couples: A critique and
alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 253265. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.001
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K.
(1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56, 267283. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Cheng, Y., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1996). Learning the
innovation journey: Order out of chaos? Organization Science, 7, 593 614. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1287/orsc.7.6.593
Coleman, K. H., Weinman, M. L., & Hsi, B. P.
(1980). Factors affecting conjugal violence. The
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 105, 197202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00223980.1980.9915151
DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988).
The impact of daily stress on health and mood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
486 495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54
.3.486
Dube, S. R., Williamson, D. F., Thompson, T., Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2004). Assessing the
reliability of retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences among adult HMO members attending a primary care clinic. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 729 737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.chiabu.2003.08.009
Giles-Sims, J. (1983). Wife battering: A systems theory approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Heggler, R., Kantz, H., & Schreiber, T. (1999). Practical implementation of nonlinear time series methods: The TISEAN package. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 9, 413 435.
Herth, K. (1992). Abbreviated instrument to measure
hope: Development and psychometric evaluation.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 12511259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992
.tb01843.x
Katerndahl, D. A. (2009). Lessons from Jurassic
Park: Patients as complex adaptive systems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15, 755
760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009
.01228.x
Katerndahl, D., Burge, S., Ferrer, R., Becho, J., &
Wood, R. (2014). Dynamics of violence. Journal
of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20, 695702.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jep.12151

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

THREE DYNAMIC PATTERNS OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Katerndahl, D., & Oyiriaru, D. (2007). Assessing the

biopsychosociospiritual model in primary care:
Development of the Biopsychosociospiritual Inventory (BioPSSI). International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 37, 393 414. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2190/PM.37.4.d
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001).
The PHQ-9. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
16, 606 613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.15251497.2001.016009606.x
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., Rachel Lu, J. F., &
Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item
Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of
data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability
across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32,
40 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650199401000-00004
Morrison, F. (1991). Art of modeling dynamic systems. New York, NY: Wiley.
North American Primary Care Research Group.
(2009). Beginner complexity science module. Retrieved from North American Primary Care Research Group website: http://www.napcrg.org/
Portals/51/Documents/Beginner%20Complexity%
20Science%20Module.pdf
Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2002). Circumplex
model of marital and family systems. In F. Walsh
(Ed.), Normal family processes (3rd ed., pp. 515
547). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Parkerson, G. R., Jr., Broadhead, W. E., & Tse, C. K.
(1991). Validation of the Duke Social Support and
Stress Scale. Family Medicine, 23, 357360.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups
for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York,
NY: Springer.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of change. In W. R.
Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive
behaviors. New York, NY: Plenum Press. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2191-0_1
Regan, K. V., Bartholomew, K., Kwong, M. J.,
Trinke, S. J., & Henderson, A. J. Z. (2006). Relative severity of acts of physical violence in heterosexual relationships. Personal Relationships, 13,
3752.
Ristock, J. L. (2003). Exploring dynamics of abusive
lesbian relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 329 341.
Rosenstein, M., Collins, J., & De Luca, C. (1993).
Practical method of calculating largest Lyapunov

11

exponents from small data sets. Physica D. Nonlinear Phenomena, 65, 117134. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0167-2789(93)90009-P
Siegel, J. P. (2006). Dyadic splitting in partner relational disorders. Journal of Family Psychology,
20, 418 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200
.20.3.418
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., & Williams, J. B. (1999).
Validation and utility of a self-report version of
PRIME-MD: The PHQ Primary Care Study.
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 17371744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
jama.282.18.1737
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Lwe,
B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of
Internal Medicine, 166, 10921097. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
Straus, M. A. (1987). Conflict Tactics Scales. In N.
Fredman & R. Sherman (Eds.), Handbook of measurements for marriage and family therapy (pp.
159 163). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Vitaliano, P. P. (1985). Manual for Appraisal Dimension Scale and Revised Ways of Coping Checklist.
Seattle, WA: Department of Psychiatry, University
of Washington.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Ward, M. (1995). Butterflies and bifurcations: Can
chaos theory contribute to our understanding of
family systems? Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 57, 629 638. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
353918
Wolf, A., Swift, J. B., Swinney, H. L., & Vastano,
J. A. (1985). Determining Lyapunov exponents
from a time series. Physica, 16D, 285317.
Yeragani, V. K., Pohl, R., Mallavarapu, M., & Balon,
R. (2003). Approximate entropy of symptoms of
mood: An effective technique to quantify regularity of mood. Bipolar Disorders, 5, 279 286. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-5618.2003.00012.x
Zhang, X.-S., Zhu, Y.-S., Thakor, N. V., & Wang,
Z.-Z. (1999). Detecting ventricular tachycardia
and fibrillation by complexity measure. IEEE
Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering, 46,
548 555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/10.759055
Received March 30, 2015
Revision received September 13, 2015
Accepted September 25, 2015