Domestic violence has been a frequent theme in scientific studies and public policy. To clarify, there is a gender perspective, in which the man is placed in the role of aggressor and the woman is the victim (Miranda, De Paula & Bordin, 2010; Santos & Moré, 2011; Gomes, Carvalho, Couto & Diniz, 2013).

The actions against domestic violence are based primarily on punishing the aggressor and interventions for victim support, such as women’s shelters or support groups (Oliveira, 2011). However, the literature has also highlighted the understanding of the phenomenon as capable of occurrence, bidirectionally ie, perpetrated by both the husband and the wife (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010; Straus, 2011 Lovestad & Krantz, 2012). There are studies that show women as the main victims (Leite, Figueiredo, Dias, Vieira & Mendes, 2014; Santos et al., 2014), others that indicate a symmetry between the sexes (Straus, 2008; Straus, 2011) and even studies that show women perpetrating higher levels than men (Lawrence & Bradbury, 2007; Williams & Frieze, 2005).

Among the manifestations of violence, physical violence is in more studies due to its high prevalence in marital relationships (Gama, Bezerra-Filho, Silva, Vieira & Parente, 2014). It could be understood as any aggression that generates damage to the integrity or health of the subject (Santos et al. 2014), for example, harming their partner with slaps, punches, pushing, use of non-lethal weapons and fire.

Assessing the physical violence from a gender perspective, a study by Moura et al. (2013) analyzed 89 records of women who reported having suffered abuse in a Pacifying Police Unit of Rio de Janeiro. Out of 48 complaints, they found that the perpetrator was the current intimate partner and that physical violence was the prevailing manifestation, in 29 of records, and there were other four in which physical and psychological violence occurred simultaneously. This study was conducted based on formal complaints and that is probably why physical violence was the more recurrent manifestation, since the damage is more noticeable. However, studies on domestic violence often highlight that cases are under reported, considering that many never get to be reported (Falcke, Oliveira, Rosa & Bentancur, 2009).

The perception of man as a victim of domestic violence is still insignificant in national studies, however, it appears to be getting more attention lately in international studies. Lovestad and Krantz (2012) conducted a cross-sectional population based study with a random sample of 173 swedish men and 251 women, aged between 19 and 65 years and found that 11% of men compared to 8% of women had suffered physical violence from the intimate partner in the year preceding the survey. With this, it becomes clear that the victimization data was different from what is commonly expected and known by the society, which brings us to a need for more studies on the role of each partner in the perpetration of domestic violence.

Some variables have been related to the occurrence of domestic violence, such as the experiences in the family of origin (Marasca; Colossi & Falcke, 2013; Metz & Razon, 2014), the maladaptive initial regimens (Paim, Madalena & Falcke, 2012), psychopathologies (Thornton, Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2010), alcohol consumption and drug use (Oliveira, Lima, Simon, Cavariani, Tucci & Corrêa, 2009; Alves & Diniz, 2005), jealousy (Baptista, 2012; Dias, Machado, Gonçalves & Manita, 2012) and the dynamics of marital functioning (Dias & Neves, 2014; Rosa & Falcke, 2014). The transgenerational perspective states that the experiences in the family (especially, neglect, physical and sexual abuse and caregivers’ psychological maladjustment) impact the development of the subject and their future relationships (Silva, Valadares & Souza, 2013; Baker, Bucher-Maluschke, Almeida & DeSouza, 2009; Falcke et al, 2009).

Part of this impact can be perceived in the early maladaptive schemes (Young, 2003), acting as rigid, comprehensive and lasting interpretive frameworks that bring functional damage to individuals, especially in interpersonal relationships. In the case of domestic violence, the literature points out the schemes of the first domain as the most associated (Paim, Madalena & Falcke, 2012).

Beyond the early experiences, the characteristics of the current relationship, especially the patterns of affection, have been considered predictors of violence. Researches show that love is an important component in the marital relationship and is strongly connected to the resources that a couple has to resolve their conflicts (Narciso & Costa, 1996). Assessed from the combinations of passion, intimacy and decision/commitment (Stenberg, 1989), love contributes to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction in relationships. The literature suggests association between marital dissatisfaction and manifestations of violence in romantic relationships (Razera, Mosmann, & Falcke, 2016), raising the need to evaluate different dimensions of the family atmosphere in the contexts permeated by violence.

In this sense, it is clear that violence must be understood through its multitude of factors, such as biological, emotional, social, cognitive, behavioral and familial, not as if there was a single generator. However, there is the need to identify predictors of domestic violence, planning preventive interventions of its occurrence. On the impact and consequences of the phenomenon of physical violence exercised in the context of individual and collective health, one realizes the importance of developing research on the subject (Bhona, Lourenço & Brum, 2011).

The objective of this study was to assess the predictive power of the experiences in the family of origin, maladaptive initial regimens, love, marital adjustment and family atmosphere for the occurrence of physical violence. Thus offering subsidies for recognizing violence and helping to train professionals who work in caring for victims of violence and managing interventions with couples.

The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive power of experiences in the family of origin, maladaptive initial regimens, love, marital adjustment and family atmosphere for the occurrence of physical violence. The results revealed that physical violence was committed by 26.6% of male participants and 23.1% of women, as seen in the chart below:

There were no significant statistical differences between the sexes for the perpetration of physical violence (χ²=0.582, df=1, p=0.446). Even comparisons considering the intensity of violence, made with the continuous variable showed no differences between sexes (minor physical violence: t=0.463, p=0.643; severe physical violence: t=-0.358, p=0.721).

Figure 1

The correlations between the variables family of origin, schemes, love, marital adjustment and family atmosphere with physical violence perpetrated by men and women are shown in Table 2. Various correlations can be seen, drawing special attention to the experiences in the family of origin, the dimensions of physical abuse suffered in childhood and parental psychological adjustment which clearly show a gender correspondence. Physical abuse and maternal psychological adjustment was associated to the experience of women as the physical abuse and fatherly psychological adjustment were associated with violence committed by men. In addition, all of the first schemes were associated with physical violence. On love, the amount of Passion was the only one which did not associate with violence, as well as cohesion of marital adjustment and support of the family atmosphere.

Table 2

Instrument	Dimensions	Women	Men
FBQ	Physical abuse (father)	-.114	-.200**
	Physical abuse (mother)	-.166*	-.150
	Sexual abuse	.258**	.147
	Physical negligence	.009	-.175*
	Substance abuse (father)	.034	-.085
	Substance abuse (mother)	-.173	-.030
	Psychological adjustment (father)	-.174	-.307**
	Psychological adjustment (mother)	-.220**	-.164
	Parental coalition	-.233**	-.012
YSQ	Emotional deprivation	.268**	.323**
	Abandonment	.137	.293**
	Mistrust/abuse	.328**	.239**
	Social isolation	.232**	.337**
	Deffectiveness	.341**	.488**
TLS	Intimacy	-.173*	-.228**
	Passion	-.048	-.070
	Commitment decision	-.101	-.268**
DAS	Consensus	-.231**	-.257**
	Satisfaction	-.389**	-.465**
	Cohesion	-.116	-.112
	Affection	-.237**	-.178*
FCI	Support	-.035	-.039
	Hierarchy	.371**	.257**
	Cohesion	-.073	-.093
	Conflict	.362**	.437**

* p<0.05 ** p<0.001.

Considering the various correlations presented above, we sought to analyze the predictive power of the variables through a regression analysis, which showed the conflict (FCI) and sexual abuse (FBQ) as predictors of physical violence committed by women, as shown below in figure 2. The procedure provided a variance explained coefficient (R²) of 0.582 which shows that these variables explain 58.2% of the occurrence of physical violence.

Figure 2

In addition, a regression analysis showed the marital satisfaction (DAS) as a predictor of physical violence committed by men (Figure 2). With a coefficient of variance explained (R²) of 0.360 which determines that it explains 36% of the physical violence.

These models highlight which variables, among all the examined, had a higher power to predict violence. They showed that the violence perpetrated by the wife could be predicted by the sexual abuse suffered in childhood and the perception of conflict in family relationships, while for men, it was related to marital dissatisfaction.

The results support the view that transgenerational aspects involved in the life history, the individual development and the subjectivity of the spouses are triggering factors of physical violence (Silva, Valadares & Souza, 2013; Barreto, Bucher-Maluschke, Almeida, & DeSouza, 2009; Falcke et al., 2009). The primary relationships, especially those experienced in the family of origin, are fundamental to a person’s constitution and their interpersonal pattern in adulthood (Marasca, Colossi & Falcke, 2013; Lopes, 2008; Metz & Razon, 2014).

Abusive experiences in the childhood were associated with maintaining violent marital relationships. One might think that the choice of partner and the type of relationship established with them can be influenced by the relationship model experienced in both families of origin (Mendlowicz & Figueira, 2007), serving as a way of repeating a known pattern.

Among the experiences in the family of origin that have more impact on domestic violence, this study specifically highlights the impact of sexual abuse for women as an experience that needs to be analyzed for its long-term impact on their lives. Experiences of abuse in childhood can contribute to the development of Early Maladaptive Schemas - YSQ (Young, 2003). In this study, all the schemes of the first domain have been associated with perpetration of spousal abuse, corroborating previous studies (Paim, Madalena & Falcke, 2012).

Disconnection and Rejection, the first domain schemes are linked to the lack of a secure and stable environment in childhood, which causes people who grew up in these environments to believe that their stability needs, safety, care, love and belonging will not be met, and it’s common that they have negative social experiences such as abuse, coldness, rejection or social isolation (Young, 2003). In this sense, the association between the activation of these schemes and the perpetration of physical violence is confirmed. Couples with dysfunctional schemas often feel more attracted to partners that enable a nuclear scheme, being known “schema chemistry”, leading to dysfunctional relationships (Young 2003; Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2008). In addition to the early experiences, these findings extend the discussion on the variables that can explain the phenomenon of domestic violence, strengthening the importance of assessing other experiences related to the marital dynamics in a situation of domestic violence.

Couples with violent interactions commonly justify not separating saying it’s because they love very much (Blay, 2003; Grossi, 1998). This finding is contradicted in this study, which showed no association between passion and the perpetration of spousal abuse. One may question, in this case, what would be the subjective evaluation of passion for these couples, which may differ from the construct measured by the instrument.

Considering the other dimensions of love proposed by Stenberg (1989), the results indicate that the higher the perpetration of violence by spouses, the lower is the perception of intimacy. Even with men, the greater the commitment to the relationship, the lower the use of violence. One can think in this sense that violence generates emotional distancing in the relationship and can compromise the perception of commitment to the future of the relationship.

In regard to how the couple operates, the literature suggests that couples with low marital adjustment levels can adopt violent strategies to resolve their conflicts (DeMaris, 2000; Williams & Frieze, 2005). The survey results show that the greater the consensus and satisfaction with the relationship, the lowest is the occurrence of physical violence, which is consistent with other researches (Lauer, Lauer & Kerr, 1990; Notarius & Markman, 1993; Gottman, 1994 ) that emphasize the importance of couples having consensus on many issues, being valued, being committed to the partner and the relationship, having sense of humor, having goals and life projects in common.

The family atmosphere, defined as how family members perceive various features of the relationship inside the family, is how the relationships within the family are evaluated and understood (Teodoro et al, 2009). The results of this study point to a relationship between conflict and violence, which were already expected since violence can be understood by the spouses as a strategy of conflict resolution (Falcke, Boeckel, Arpini & Madalena, 2015).

Corroborating the existing literature, we observed that the higher the hierarchy in the family, the larger is the perpetration of violence by spouses. This can be explained to the extent that there is a power relationship in which each partner seeks to exercise greater control and have greater decision-making power, often claiming this status through violence (De Antoni, Martins-Teodoro & Koller, 2009).

Among all these examined factors, we found that the variables that have greater explanatory power of violence committed by the wife was sexual abuse in childhood and the perception of conflict in family relationships. Experiencing sexual abuse in childhood often has an impact on adult life and can trigger problems in cognitive, affective and social development of the victim and still stands out as a risk factor for developing various psychopathologies (Borges & Dell’Aglio, 2008; Habigzang, Koller, Azevedo & Machado, 2005).

Sant’Anna and Baima (2008) observed in their study, with medical records of women victims of childhood sexual abuse, a characteristic symptomatology related to social and affective adaptation issues such as guilt, low self-esteem, anxiety, suicidal ideation, difficulty in making decisions, feelings of incapacity and failure, depression, insecurity and difficulty in trusting people. The authors also point out that maintaining the secret keeps the victim of abuse in vulnerability and coercion, since they do not ask for and therefore receive no help, which may be related to affective and adaptive issues, characterized especially by anxiety, insecurity, lack of trust in others and aggressiveness. This aggressiveness can lead to the perpetration of conjugal violence, when there conflict in the conjugal and family relationship.

How the family resolves their conflicts will provide relational patterns that can lead to new conflicts or new resolution strategies. Perceiving family conflicts is associated with the occurrence of emotional problems especially in childhood and adolescence (Cummings & Davies, 2002; Wamboldt & Wamboldt, 2000). In a study by Guimarães and Campos to approach the perception of violence of adolescents that study in public schools in Goiânia, they verified that the speeches of female adolescents is more permeated by the violence in family relations, while the male speech is more directed to a social view of violence. In this way, they report that difficulties on reflecting and dialoguing in the resolution of conflicts are factors that contribute to the use of violence, allowing the repetition of the early experiences of abuse and violence experienced in the family of origin.

For men, the greatest predictor of violence perpetrated by them was marital dissatisfaction. Unsatisfactory marital relationships can lead to divorce or separation and increase the risk of developing psychopathologies, being involved in car accidents, exposure to physical illness, attempted suicide, homicide or acts of violence (Braz, Dessen & Silva, 2005). So the data from the present study corroborate previous research that associates dissatisfaction in the marital relationship with the occurrence of violence (DeMaris, 2000; Williams & Frieze, 2005), in this case in the male population.

Although the data indicate that there was no significant difference in the perpetration of violence according to gender, the predictive variables of violence perpetrated by women seem to indicate a context of violence in a more situational way, in which, faced with a situation of conflict, they lean to the aggressive relationship model experienced in childhood. On the other hand, for men, violence seems to result from a more global dissatisfaction with the relationship as a whole, emerging as an ineffective strategy for resolving dissatisfaction.

This study not only confirmed the association between different variables and conjugal violence that had already examined in previous studies, but also allowed us to identify those that had the greatest power for predicting its occurrence. Thus, we could verify how the phenomenon of violence in intimate relationships is complex and multidetermined, allowing us to reflect on the need for health professionals to have a comprehensive understanding, when working in the systems which attend to those who have experienced violence in childhood and can focus on intervention, helping to break the cycle of family violence.

Although the outline was broadened, considering a larger sum of interacting variables, the fact we had to leave out a series of other variables certainly limited the study. In any case, we believe that the more complex the models of interaction between variables, the greater will be the understanding on the phenomenon of conjugal violence In this sense,we suggest that future studies be carried out with the intention of testing theoretical models of interaction between the studied constructs, through modeling of structural equations, for example.