Boston, MA 02215

Email: [email protected]

Web:http:www.fortunecity.com/westwood/blumarine/56/wasabee.htmlhttp://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/blumarine/56/index.htm

Recent research on couple violence has indicated that violence is experienced by a large number of young adults in both dating and marital relationships. Sugarman and Hotaling (1989), for example, reported approximately 40% of female and 33% of male college students have used violence against their dating partners at some point during their dating relationships. Straus (1976, 1986) found about 16% of married couples have used some form of violence against their partner within the period of a year. In addition to estimating frequencies of violent behaviors, some studies looked at the acceptability of abusive behaviors in intimate relationships. Briere (1987), for example, found that violence against wives has become an acceptable social behavior in American society. He also found that college students who viewed violence as acceptable would be willing to hit their wives under certain circumstances. Furthermore, Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, and Ryan (1992) found that in college males, greater acceptance of violence was associated with actual use of violence in dating relationships. Gender differences in judgements of abuse have also been found. Makepeace (1986) found that although males and females reported about equal frequencies of initiating, committing and sustaining courtship violence, females viewed the violence being done to them as more serious than males did. Similarly, Miller and Simpson (1991) found gender differences in some perceptions of formal and informal sanctions against domestic violence. Although some studies have started giving attention to the issue of violence among African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians (e.g., Ho, 1990; Dorezotes & Snowden, 1990; Gray & Cosgrove, 1985), the focus has mainly been on individuals within the United States. Therefore, most studies have identified a general pattern of characteristics that are associated with use or receipt of violence within the context of a Western culture. In studies that have examined ethnic differences, Asian participants are usually grouped together, despite the fact that there are important differences within Asians from different cultures. For example, the Korean and Japanese cultures have been characterized as collectivistic, while Singaporeans come from a more multi-cultural society (Ho, 1990). Culture is likely to have a great influence on both perceptions and levels of violence. Thus, it is important to understand the cultural context of courtship violence in order to understand how young adults experience violence and how they differ in attitudes and behavior relevant to violence in dating relationships. The present study was designed to examine judgments of the typicality and abusiveness of dating violence from a cross-cultural perspective. We focused on three different cultural groups: American, Asian/Asian American, and Singaporean. The Asian/Asian American group included Asians who grew up in the United States, and foreign Asian students that were studying in the United States.

Previous research demonstrates clearly that gender should be considered when one is studying perceptions of abuse in both victims and perpetrators. Thus, in addition to examining whether American, Asian American, and Singaporean students differ in their judgments of the typicality and abusiveness of violence in dating relationships, we also examined gender differences in the perceptions of both victims and perpetrators.

Method

The sample consisted of 356 participants recruited in Boston from a large urban university, cultural societies, and the larger community. Participants were 37.6% Caucasians (N=134), 21.3% Asian/Asian Americans (N=76), 30.1% Singaporeans (N=107) and 11% Others (N=39). The Asian/Asian American group included Asians who grew up in the United States, and foreign Asian students that were studying in the United States. Descriptive statistics for this sample are shown in Table 1.

All participants completed a 28-item Typicality Scale in addition to a demographics questionnaire. The Malley-Morrison couple-conflict research team at Boston University developed the 48-item, 7 point (Likert) typicality scale in 1994. Malley-Morrison et al. (1994) took behavioral items from Straus's Conflict Tactics Scale and other abuse scales such as the Shepard and Campbell Abusive Behavior Inventory and presented them in the context of stressful situations. Items were counterbalanced by sex of perpetrator. This version of the Typicality Scale has separate subscales for psychological and physical abuse perpetrated by a wife against a husband and a husband against a wife. Respondents were asked to judge both the typicality and abusiveness of those behaviors within a husband and wife relationship. The response alternatives range from 0 (not at all typical/abusive) to 6 (extremely abusive). Examples of items are shown in Table 2.

Dependent variables investigated in this study included total scores on judgement of typicality and total scores on judgment of abusiveness. In addition, scores on judgments of both typicality, and abusiveness of female perpetrated, and male perpetrated behaviors, scores on judgements of physical abuse and psychological abuse were also included. Independent variables investigated included gender and ethnicity (Caucasian, Asian American and Singaporean).

Pearson correlations were calculated separately for the three ethnic groups. In addition, multivariate and follow up univariate analyses of variance were conducted for both ethnicity and gender. Furthermore, post hoc tests using Bronferroni were performed to test for significant difference between means.

Results

Pearson correlations among all subscale scores were calculated separately within the three ethnic groups. As can be seen in Table 3, all abusiveness scores were significantly positively correlated in all three ethnic groups, as were all typicality scores--providing evidence as to the reliability of the abusiveness and typicality scales. On the other hand, there were small but statistically significant positive correlations between judgments of the abusiveness of physically abusive behaviors and judgments of the typicality of those behaviors in the Caucasians only. In contrast, judgments of abusiveness of psychological behaviors were significantly correlated weakly with all judgments of typicality in the positive direction for Singaporeans only. Correlations between judgments of abusiveness and judgments of typicality varied somewhat by gender-of-perpetrator as well as by ethnicity.

Judgements of typicality of female perpetrated behaviors were significantly positively correlated with all the abusive subscale scores except female-perpetrated behaviors in Asian Americans. Thus, in the Asian American sample, the more typical they view female perpetrated abusive behaviors to be, the more abusiveness they consider male perpetrated abusive behaviors, and physical abusive and psychological abusive behaviors in general, to be.

Analysis of variance with gender of respondent as the independent variable revealed that total scores on judgements of abusiveness (F(1,305)=4.44, p<0.05), as well as judgments of abusiveness of female perpetrated abuse behaviors (F(1,304)=10.14, p<0.005) and judgments of abusiveness of psychological (F(1, 304)=7.15, p<0.01) abuse differed significantly by gender (Table 4). Specifically, males had higher scores than females on all three variables. Overall, males judged the abusive behaviors as more abusive than females did. In addition, males viewed the abusiveness of psychological and female perpetrated-behaviors as more abusive than females did.

Analyses of variance with ethnicity as the independent variable revealed that judgments of typicality of psychological abuse (F(2,308)=7.87,p<0.001), physical abuse (F(2,308)=4.46, p<0.05), and female-perpetrated abuse (F(2,304)=3.20, p<0.05) differed significantly by ethnicity. Follow up post hoc tests using Bronferroni revealed Caucasians scored significantly higher than Asian Americans on judgements of typicality of female-perpetrated abusive behaviors, typicality of physical abuse behaviors and typicality of psychological abuse behaviors. In addition, Caucasians also scored significantly higher than Singaporeans did in judgments of typicality of female-perpetrated abuse behaviors and psychological abuse behaviors. No significant differences were found in mean scores between Asian Americans and Singaporeans. (Table 5).

Discussion

Gender differences found in this study all comes from judgments of abusiveness. In particular, males found female perpetrated abuse behaviors and psychological abuse behaviors to be significantly more abusive than females did. The above gender differences seem to reflect females and males as more tolerant of male abuse behaviors in general. In addition, males seem to be less tolerant of female abuse behaviors than females are.

The results above showed significant ethnic differences on judgments of the typicality of abusive behaviors, while significant gender differences were found on judgments of the abusiveness of those behaviors. Caucasians in this sample saw female perpetrated abuse behaviors and psychological abuse behaviors as significantly more typical than Asian Americans and Singaporeans did. In addition, Caucasians also saw physical abuse behaviors as significantly more typical than Asian Americans did. This probably reflected greater societal exposure to physical and psychological abuse behaviors in Caucasians through the media and news. Lesser public exposure to abusive behaviors with females as perpetrators in addition to cultural ideals of females in Asian cultures overall probably contributed to lower typicality scores for both the Asian Americans and Singaporeans.

One limitation of this study was that ethnicity was not further broken down by gender due to the inadequate sample sizes. Another limitation was that female and male perpetrated abusive behaviors were not further divided into physical and psychological abuse behaviors. The issue of culture is very complex with particular historical and contextual factors playing important components in affecting judgments on abusive behaviors. In future research, different Asian ethnic groups should be analyzed separately to investigate similarities and differences among them.

References

Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., & Ryan, K. (1992) Predictors of Dating Violence: A Multivariate Analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311.

Briere, J. (1987). Predicting Self-Reported Likelihood of Battering: Attitudes and Childhood Experiences. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 61-69.

Derezotes, D. S., & Snowden, L. R. (1990). Cultural Factors in the Intervention of Child Maltreatment. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 161-175.

Gray, E., & Cosgrove, J. (1985). Ethnocentric Perception of Childrearing Practices in Protective Services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9, 389-396.

Ho, C. (1990). An Analysis of Domestic Violence in Asian American Communities: A Multicultural Approach to Counseling. In L.S. Brown & M.P.P.Root. (Eds.), Diversity and Complexity in Feminist Therapy (pp.129-149). New York: Harrington Park Press.

Makepeace, J. M. (1986) Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388.

Miller, S. L., & Simpson, S. S. (1991) Courtship Violence and social control: does gender matter? Law and Society Review, 25(2), 335-365.

Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 5, 881-893.

Stonequist, E. V. (1935). The problem of marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 7, 1-12.

Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In Pirog-Good, M. A., & Stets, J. E. (Eds.), Violence in Dating Relationships. New York: Praeger.

Table 1 : Descriptive statistics for Caucasian, Asian American and Singaporeans

Table 2: Example of Malley-Morrison et. al (1994) Typicality Scale.

__________________________________________________________________

Typicality Scale

For each of the following scenarios, indicate on seven-point scales first how typical you think such an occurrence is in your culture (ranging from 0 meaning not at all typical to 6 meaning extremely typical), and then how abusive you think it is (ranging from 0 meaning not at all typical to 6 meaning extremely typical).