AIMS: The purpose of this study was to analyze prevalence levels of
aggression in dating relationships and to compare this by country of
origin. The study also seeks more understanding of the violence
experienced by men in these countries. METHOD: A convenience sample was
used; study participants were 194 females and 168 males ranging in age
from 18 to 72. The measure analyzed was the Conflict Tactics
Scale-Partner. Results of this scale were compared by country of origin.
These included the U.S. and those in East Asia and Eastern Europe.
Prevalence levels of aggression were also compared by gender. RESULTS:
Participants born in Eastern Europe reported more violence than those in
the U.S. and East Asia. Males born in the U.S. reported being the
recipients of physical violence significantly more than women in the
U.S. Also, females born in East Asia reported significantly more
perpetrating of violence than males. In Eastern European countries of
origin, females reported significantly more usage of negotiation in
romantic relationships than males. CONCLUSION: Although some significant
differences were found within countries, the differences are not enough
to assert that any of the countries of origin experience more overall
dating violence than the others.
Introduction
Aggression in dating relationships (domestic violence) is a serious
problem in any country, however it is not always clear what cultural
phenomena underlie this behavior. Individuals who reside in the United
States but were born in another country might have difficulty adjusting
to different cultural and societal norms. As stated by Hussey, Chang and
Kotch (2006), "migration and the process of adaptation to American
society place unique strains on immigrant parents and their
children." Perhaps if we better understand the norms of the
countries where these individuals come from, we can develop more
successful methods of dealing with domestic violence here in the U.S.
For example, the traditional family structure in China is such that the
husband makes all decisions and wives are inferior (Xu, Zhu,
O'Campo, Koenig, Mock, & Campbell, 2005). Chinese households
are hierarchical and it is generally expected that women remain
obedient. This may explain the relatively large prevalence rate of
lifetime intimate partner violence experienced by women in China, which
is about 43% (Xu et al., 2005). Cultural norms are similar in Vietnam,
where families are also patriarchal (Nguyen, Krantz, & Ostergren,
2008). In a study conducted by Nguyen et al. (2008) it was found that
approximately 31% of women had experienced some sort of physical
violence in their lifetime. Another 55.4% had experienced psychological
abuse in their lifetime (Nguyen et al., 2008). In India, the prevalence
of any form of violence experienced by women in their lifetime is 56%
(Babu & Kar, 2009). Babu and Kar (2009) explain that inadequate and
failure of timely payment of dowry is a significant reason for domestic
violence in India. Another reason may be poor performance of duties
expected of women (Babu & Kar, 2009). Like China and Vietnam,
India's social system is patriarchal and women are socialized to be
subordinate and believe that men have a tight to control them (Babu
& Kar, 2009). This leads individuals to condone the violence
experienced by women and perpetuates it by expecting women to be
helpless. In both Vietnam and India it was found that domestic violence
experienced by women was persistent across all social strata (Nguyen et
al., 2008; Babu & Kar, 2009). Turkey also displays a patriarchal
social system where men make all of the family-related decisions and
have more of an influence over their wives' personal lives
(Hortacsu, Kalaycioglu, & Rittersberger-Tilic, 2003). Women in
Turkey are perceived as lower than men, having very little power and
requiring supervision (Hortacsu et al., 2003). Justifications for this
include gender stereotypes and religious beliefs which assume women to
be passive victims (Hortacsu et al., 2003). A multi-country study by the
World Health Organization found the following lifetime prevalence rates
of physical violence experienced by women: 42% in Bangladesh, 13% in
Japan City, 23% in Serbia and Montenegro, and 34% in Thailand province
(Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006). These
statistics support an earlier review study of 35 countries which found
that 10-52% of women reported being physically abused by an intimate
partner in their life-time (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999).
Understanding the cultural and societal norms and expectations that
underlie domestic violence in other countries can help us attempt to
reduce it in different cultural populations in the United States. What
we must also keep in mind is that domestic violence is a great concern
in the U.S. as well. Approximately two to four million American women
are physically abused each year, and domestic violence occurs in about
one in four families (Wenzel, Monson, & Johnson, 2004). Similar to
other countries, this abuse affects women similarly across social strata
(Wenzel et al., 2004). In a study conducted by Wenzel et al. (2004), it
was found that 48% of surveyed women reported at least one incidence of
domestic violence in their lifetime. A major gap in the literature is
information about the prevalence rates of domestic violence experienced
by men. The current study aims to shed some light on that query in
addition to gaining more knowledge about the prevalence of aggression or
domestic violence in dating relationships among individuals from
differing countries of origin.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were 194 females and 168 males ranging
in age from 18 to 72. Approximately 20% of the sample consisted of
college students completing a psychology research methods course at a
large urban university in the Northeast. In order to generate a data set
for class research projects, these students completed a set of
self-report measures assessing personality constructs and interpersonal
attitudes and behaviors. In addition, each student was expected to
recruit an additional male and female volunteer to contribute to the
class data set. APA ethical guidelines were followed throughout this
process.
Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample.
As can be seen, the average respondent was Caucasian, born in the U.S.,
a student with some college education, in the upper middle class and
single.
For the purposes of the present study, only one of the measures
included in the questionnaire packet was analyzed, the Partner RCTS. The
Partner RCTS is a 48-item measure designed to assess the level of
aggression perpetrated and received in romantic relationships. The
measure determines this level by asking participants to indicate how
many times a particular event or behavior occurred in the past year. The
participant selects a number ranging from 0-7, 0 being never, 6 being
more than twenty times, and 7 being none in the past year, but some in
previous years.
Data Analysis
Tests used to analyze the data included frequency analysis for
descriptive statistics on the entire sample, as well as Independent
Samples T-Tests to determine the descriptive statistics for the study
variables. T tests were conducted to determine whether there were gender
differences on any variable. Crohnbach's Alpha was conducted to
determine the reliability of the Partner RCTS measure.
Results
Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for all the major study
variables, separately by country of origin. T tests were run to
determine whether there were differences on any of these variables
depending on country of origin. These analyses revealed that
participants born in the United States reported significantly more
psychological and physical violence received than participants born in
East Asia. Also, participants born in Eastern Europe reported
significantly more psychological violence received and more physical
violence perpetrated than participants born in the United States.
Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide descriptive statistics for the study
variables separately by country of origin and gender. As can be seen,
males born in the United States reported being the recipients of
physical violence significantly more than women born in the United
States. Also, females born in East Asia reported significantly more
perpetrating of psychological and physical violence than males born in
East Asia. In Eastern European countries of origin, females reported
significantly more usage of negotiation in romantic relationships than
males born in Eastern Europe.
Discussion
In general, the sample does not show a high level of aggression in
romantic relationships. However, not every subject was in a romantic
relationship at the time of study and therefore this conclusion is not
necessarily valid. The study revealed no significant gender differences
on levels of psychological or physical violence in participants born in
Eastern Europe. Although there are some significant differences between
countries of origin as well as gender within those countries, these
differences are not enough to assert that any one of the countries of
origin exhibit more overall dating violence than the others. This may
have an impact on future attempts to address domestic violence in the
U.S. It is important to note that it may not be the amount of violence
that separates individuals from different countries, but rather the
cultural phenomena behind the abuse. When these underlying phenomena can
be captured and understood, individuals working with domestic violence
victims will be better able to address the problem.
One particular fallback of this study was that the sample was
comprised mostly of college students, and not all of these participants
were in dating relationships at the time. In order to gain better
perspective, it would be useful in the future to give the measures used
to only those participants who are in romantic relationships. By doing
this, the study would gain a greater number of relevant participants.
Also, country of origin was clearly skewed towards the United States.
Perhaps a future study could target participants from more varying
countries of origin so that the results would be more substantial.
* This research was conducted as part of fulfilling the
requirements of a research methods course under the supervision of
Kathie Malley-Morrision, EdD at Boston University in December 2006.
References
Babu, B .V. & Kar, S.K. (2009). Domestic violence against women
in eastern India: a population-based study on prevalence and related
issues. BMC Public Health, 9(1), 129.
Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., &
Watts, C. H. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings
from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic
violence. Lancet 368(9543), 1260-9.
Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. Ending violence
against women. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Hortacsu, N. Kalaycioglu, S. & Rittersberger-Tilic, H. (2003).
Intrafamily aggression in Turkey: frequency, instigation, and
acceptance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(2), 163.
Hussey, J. M., Chang, J., & Kotch, J. (2006). Child
maltreatment in the United States: prevalence, risk factors, and
adolescent health consequences. Pediatrics, 118(3), 933.
Nguyen, D. V., Krantz, G. & Ostergren, P.O. (2008). Intimate
partner violence against women in rural Vietnam--different
socio-demographic factors are associated with different forms of
violence: need for new intervention guidelines? BMC Public Health 8, 55.
Wenzel, J. D., Monson, C. L. & Johnson, S.M. (2004). Domestic
violence: prevalence and detection in a family medicine residency
clinic. J Am Osteopath Assoc 104(6), 233-9.
Xu, X., Zhu, F., O'Campo, P., Koenig, M.A., Mock, V., &
Campbell, J. (2005). Prevalence of and risk factors for intimate partner
violence in China. American journal of public health, 95(1), 78-85.
ANTONIA SELIGOWSKI, BA
DOE WEST, PHD
Boston University
Table 1
Frequencies and Percentages of Demographic Characteristics of Sample
by Gender
Demographic Males Females Total
Characteristics N % N % N %
Ethnic Background
Caucasian 99 58.9 121 62.4 222 60.8
African/African 3 1.8 8 4.1 11 3.0
American
Asian/Asian 26 15.5 38 19.6 64 17.5
American
Latin/Hispanic/ 10 6.0 10 5.2 20 5.5
Central American
Indian Peninsula 8 4.8 1 .5 9 2.5
Native/Aboriginal 2 1.2 0 0 2 .5
American
Middle Eastern 2 1.2 0 0 2 .5
Country of Origin
U.S. 139 82.7 154 79.4 296 81.1
Canada/U.K./Western 2 1.2 5 2.6 7 1.9
Europe
Central/South America 3 1.8 9 4.6 12 3.3
East Asia/Asian Pacific 8 4.8 14 7.2 22 6.0
Russia/Eastern European 11 6.5 10 5.2 21 5.8
Middle Eastern Country 2 1.2 0 0 2 .5
Indian Peninsula 2 1.2 0 0 2 .5
African 1 .6 0 0 1 .3
Education
High School Grad 17 10.1 20 10.3 37 10.1
Some College 109 64.9 150 77.3 262 71.8
Associates 6 3.6 4 2.1 10 2.7
Bachelors 24 14.3 15 7.7 39 10.7
Masters 4 2.4 4 2.1 8 2.2
Professional/Doctoral 2 1.2 0 0 2 .5
Some Grad Training/ 6 3.6 0 0 6 1.6
No Degree
Trade/Technical School 0 0 1 .5 1 .3
Employment
Student 110 65.5 150 77.3 262 71.8
Part-Time 18 10.7 20 10.3 39 10.7
Full-Time 30 17.9 16 8.2 46 12.6
Unemployed/Not 8 4.8 3 1.5 11 3.0
Student
Retired 0 0 3 1.5 3 .8
Other 2 1.2 2 1.0 4 1.1
Social Class
Upper 13 7.7 7 3.6 20 5.5
Upper Middle 66 39.3 92 47.4 158 43.3
Middle 63 37.5 68 35.1 134 36.7
Working 21 12.50 23 11.90 44 12.1
Lower 4 2.4 0 0 4 1.10
Marital Status
Single 160 95.2 178 91.8 341 93.4
Married 8 4.80 11 5.7 19 5.20
Divorced 0 0 3 1.5 3 .80
Widowed 0 0 1 0.5 1 .30
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics & T Test Results by Country of Origin
U.S. East Asia
M SD M SD t
ctsngop 18.24 9.15 17.05 8.93
ctsngor 17.33 9.09 16.00 8.68
ctspsyp 6.16 6.21 4.60 6.78
ctspsyr 5.66 6.52 2.85 3.88 1.90 (^)
ctspsyp 1.61 4.32 1.10 2.49
ctspsyr 1.55 4.43 .35 .99 3.43 **
U.S. East Europe
M SD M SD t
ctsngop 18.24 9.15 19.33 11.42
ctsngor 17.33 9.09 18.11 9.75
ctspsyp 6.16 6.21 7.94 10.28
ctspsyr 5.66 6.52 8.70 10.60 -1.78 (^)
ctspsyp 1.61 4.32 4.18 10.08 -2.12 *
ctspsyr 1.55 4.43 2.88 8.03
(^) = .051 < p < .10
* = p < 05
** = p = .001
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics & T Test Results by Gender for Participants
Born in the U.S.
Females Males
M SD M SD t
ctsngop 17.74 8.48 18.75 9.90
ctsngor 17.17 8.55 17.46 9.75
ctspsyp 6.04 5.42 6.21 6.94
ctspsyr 5.08 5.57 6.33 7.48
ctsphyp 1.48 3.98 1.72 4.70
ctsphyr .97 2.45 2.24 5.95 -2.19 *
* = p < .05
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics & T Test Results by Gender for Participants
Born in East Asia
Females Males
M SD M SD t
ctsngop 18.15 9.86 15.00 7.12
ctsngor 17.31 9.50 13.57 6.90
ctspsyp 6.15 7.95 1.71 2.06 1.90 (^)
ctspsyr 3.15 4.24 2.28 335
ctsphyp 1.69 2.95 .00 .00 2.06 (^)
ctsphyr .54 1.20 .00 .00
(^) = .051 < p < .10
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics & T Test Results by Gender for Participants
Born in East Europe
Gender
Females Males
M SD M SD t
ctsngop 25.00 8.83 15.73 11.75 1.90 (^)
ctsngor 24.57 6.37 14.00 9.46 2.83 *
ctspsyp 10.57 12.31 6.10 8.81
ctspsyr 8.86 13.02 8.60 9.31
ctsphyp 4.00 6.83 4.30 12.23
ctsphyr 1.43 3.78 3.90 10.11
(^) = .051 < p < .10
* = p < .05
Table 6
Crohnbach's Alpha: .823 Number of Items: 6