The purpose of the current ongoing study was to explore possible gender and cultural differences in attitudes towards psychological and physical abuse in the context of a close relationship.

There have been relatively few cross cultural studies of interpersonal violence (Ember & Ember, 1995); relevant studies include Gondolf & Shestakov, 1997; Kruttschnitt, 1995; Stalans & Lurigio, 1995; Perilla, Bakeman, & Norris, 1994; Dwyer, 1995; Tsytsarev & Callahan, 1995. Research has generally focused on European participants. Gondolf, and Shestako (1997) for example, compared Russia and the United States on spousal homicide and found Russia to have a higher spousal homicide rate, more female victims and fewer shootings than in the United States. Nisbett, Polly and Lang (1995) found rates of homicide for white non Hispanics to be higher in the south than in the rest of the Unites states, even after controlling for poverty, population density, city, size and demographic characteristics. On the other hand, Dwyer (1995) found similar prevalence rate of domestic violence between the United States and Britain.

Most research on violence and abuse has focused mainly on Western sample. In studies that have examined ethnic differences between Asians and Westerners, one major problem with the approach is that Asian participants are usually grouped together. There are important differences between 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, 1992). In the current study, separated Singaporeans from other Asians.

METHOD

The total sample consisted of 347 participants (219 females,128 males) which were used when comparing gender differences. A sub sample 257 students (166 females, 91 males; 126 Caucasians, 65 Asian Americans(this includes Asians born in the United States and Asians Studying in the United States) , and 65 Singaporeans) were used to explore ethnic differences. Participants were asked to complete self-report questionnaires including a demographics measure and a qualitative measure on attitudes towards psychological and physical abuse. Descriptive statistics for this sample are shown in Table 1.

The qualitative measure on attitudes included several components. The first component asks participants to choose a close relationship such as "best friend", "family member", and "boy/girlfriend". In addition, participants were asked to put down what culture they felt they belong in. The second component included three physical (beating, hitting and pushing) and four psychological (criticizing, name-calling/swearing, sulking and threatening) abuse items. Participants were asked to describe the circumstances under which they as individuals consider each behavior to be normal, justifiable, and abusive within a close relationship (e.g. courtship, best friend, family and marriage). They were also asked to describe circumstances under which members of their culture (in general) would consider each behavior normal, justifiable and abusive. The third component asked participants to define what "normal", " justifiable" and "abusive" means to themselves and in their culture. Figure 1 provides an example of an Asian female's response to sample psychological and physical abuse behaviors. Answers for the judgments of "normality", "justifiability" and "abusiveness" of the seven abusive behaviors coded into the categories of "never", "always" or sometimes", which were further collapsed into two groups, reflecting either no tolerance for violence or some tolerance. Specifically, for responses on judgments of "normality" and "justifiability" of the abusive behaviors, "never" answers were placed in one group, while "sometimes" and "always" responses were comprised the other group. On the other hand, for judgments of abusiveness of these seven abusive behaviors, both "sometimes" and "never" responses were collapsed into one group, while "always" answers comprised the other group.

Dependent variables investigated in this study included both cultural and personal judgments of the normality, justifiability and abusiveness of each of the 4 psychological and 3 physical abuse items (42 variables). (For ease of communication, we label judgments ascribed to respondents' cultures as "cultural judgments." When we speak of judgments of normality, abusiveness and justifiability in a particular culture, we are always referring to respondents' views of the general attitudes within their culture).

Chi square analyses were conducted to investigate whether judgments of the normality, justifiability and abusiveness of the behaviors vary by ethnicity and /or gender.

RESULTS

Chi square analyses reveal significance differences in frequencies of normality, justifiability and abusiveness of judgments by both gender and ethnicity.

Specifically, only one cultural judgment was found to differ significantly between females and males, while five personal judgments differed significantly. Significant differences for gender were found for cultural judgment of the abusiveness of criticizing ( X2(1, N=253)= 4.58, p<.05)). Males were significantly more likely to perceive criticizing as more abusive in their culture then females. This may be due to the stereotype of women as naggy. Another possible explanation for this may be the age of the male participants, that is given their age young men's view on criticizing mat still be very associated with their experiences of their own mothers as well as media stereotypes.

On the other hand, personal judgments of abusiveness of hitting (X2 (1, N=287)=6.91, p<.01) and threatening (X2(1, N=292)=4.87, p<.05), personal judgment of the justifiability of threatening (X2 (1, N=290)=6.78, p<.01), and personal judgments of normality of threatening (X2(1, N=291)=4.01, p<.05) were found to be significantly different between genders. (Table 2) females were found to be more likely to personally view the above variables as more abusive, less normal and less justifiable than males. Females are usually the recipient of violence ( Marshall, 1992), in addition, Makepeace (1986) found females view the violence being done to them as more serous than males do. It is therefore not surprising that they are personally less accepting of such abuse.

Eleven variables were found to differ between Caucasians, Asian Americans, and Singaporeans, three of which were cultural views and eight were personal views.

Caucasians were found to personally view beating (X2(2, N=246)=9.97, p<.01), hitting (X2(2, N=252)=8.38, p<.05)and threatening (X2(2, N=254)=10.34, p<.01)as more abusive, than Singaporeans and Asian Americans. Similarly, Caucasians were more likely to personally view threatening as less justifiable (X2(2, N=257)=7.99, p<.05)and normal (X2(2, N=257)=9.47, p<.01)then Asian Americans and Singaporeans. Furthermore, Caucasians were also more likely to personally view hitting (X2(2, N=249)=12.78, p<.005)as less normal, culturally view hitting as more abusive (X2(2, N=240)=10.59, p<.005), and personally view beating as less justifiable (X2(2, N=242)=10.92, p<.005), than by Asian Americans and Singaporeans.

On the other hand, Singaporeans were found to be more likely to personally view name calling as more abusive(X2(2, N=250)=6.38, p<.05), and perceive hitting to be culturally viewed as less normal(X2(2, N=240)=9.38, p<.01) by Caucasians and then Asian Americans. In addition, they were also more likely to perceive name-calling to be culturally viewed as most abusive (X2(2, N=238)=6.43, p<.05), than Asian Americans and Caucasians.

How are we to understand these cross-cultural differences in judgments? Threatening and hitting are all severely physical and psychological abusive items. There is greater sensitivity, exposure and education concerning violence in the United States compared to the Asian groups. This general awareness, education and public exposure (though the media) may cause students to become less tolerant of such abuse.

On the other hand, the two Asian groups are less likely to be personally exposed to such severe abuse since such behaviors are culturally condemned. Furthermore, Singapore has very strict media censorship on physical violence, verbal vulgarities and sexuality. This censorship coupled with the high value placed on children as future protectors and caretakers of parents, could have led Singaporeans personally to underestimate the normality, justifiability and abusiveness of these severe physical and psychological abuse items. Asian Americans were found to be the most tolerant in this study. One explanation may stem from these students' differential exposure to such abuse. It is likely that foreign Asian students are more exposed to violence culturally in the United States compared to in their home country, while Asian Americans have differential experiences to violence in their homes as compared with the larger society.

Asian Americans viewed name calling as less abusive than Singaporeans due to the frequent public and personal usage of such language, which is probably a different experience for them, making them view this behavior personally as less abusive. In this case, Singapore's unique history has probably more to do with this cultural difference in acceptability of name-calling. Singapore is made up of three major races, the Chinese, Malays and Indians (in descending order of population majority). The Singaporean participants in this study were all Chinese and the Chinese traditional value places great emphasis on respect. In addition, since the 1980s, the government has actively promoted the "courtesy" campaign, to get people to be more polite. This emphasis on respect coupled strict media censorship makes it unsurprising that Singaporeans would personally view name calling as more abusive since it is condemned in society and viewed as a great dis respect.

As we can see, there are significant differences in both gender and ethnicity for some of the variables inve stigated. In particular significant differences in the frequency of judgements of level of normality, justifiability and abusiveness were found generally on severely physical and psychological abuse variables. It is important to note the different levels of frequencies on tolerance judgments for different variables between the different ethnic groups. Furthermore, most of the significant differences both between genders and ethnic groups concerned personal views rather than participants' perception of their cultural views. Clearly, the issue of culture is very complex and there are differences both within different Asian groups and between Asians and Caucasians. Greater sensitivity and accuracy in assessing ethnic differences should be exercised.

Future analyses should focus on a more careful examination of the specific circumstances identified by Caucasian and Asian participants as relevant to the judgments of normality, justifiability and abusiveness of psychologically and physically abusive behaviors.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

TABLE 2: Sample female Asian participant's judgements on a psychological and physical abuse item.

NORMALITY, JUSTIFIABILITY, ABUSIVENESS EXCERCISE

For each of the behaviors listed below, indicate under what circumstances a) you would consider each to be normal, justifiable, and to be abusive; b) your culture considers each to be normal, justifiable, and to be abusive, when used in the context of a close relationship (be it courtship, family member, best friend)

Type of relationship chosen: _courtship___________________

What culture do you consider yourself to belong to:________asian_______

___________________________________________________

1. Name calling or swearing

a.i)This behavior would be normal to you when:

never ( coded in the `never' category)

a.11) This behavior would be normal in your culture when:

in private ( coded in the `sometimes' category)

b.i)This behavior would be justifiable to you when:

not done often ( coded in the `sometimes' category)

b.11) this behavior would be justifiable in your culture when:

when there's reason ( coded in the `sometimes' category)

c.i)This behavior would be abusive to you when:

it's done all the time constantly ( coded in the `sometimes' category)

c.ii) this behavior would be abusive in your culture when:

when there's no reason

____________________________________________

) hitting

a.i)This behavior would be normal to you when:

never

a.ii) this behavior would be normal in your culture when:

never

b.i)This behavior would be justifiable to you when:

in self-defense ( coded in the `sometimes' category)

b.ii) this behavior would be justifiable in your culture when:

in private ( coded in the `sometimes' category)

c.i)This behavior would be abusive to you when:

always

c.ii) this behavior would be abusive in your culture when:

done for no reason

Table 3: Significant Chi-squares for gender

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.005; ***p<.001

Table 4: Significant Chi-squares for ethnicity

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.005; ****p<.001

REFERENCES

Derezotes, D. S., & Snowden, L. R. (1990). Cultural Factors in the Intervention of Child Maltreatment. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 1 61-175.

Dwyer, D.C. (1995) Response to the victims of domestic violence: analysis and implications of the British experience. Crime and Delinquency, 41(4), 527-540.

Ember, C.R., & Ember, M. (1995) Issues in cross-cultural studies interpersonal violence. In, Ruback, R. B., & Weiner, N.A., (Eds.). Interpersonal violent behaviors: social and cultural aspects, 25-42. New York: Springers.

Gondolf, E. W., & Shestakov. D. (1997) Spousal homicide in Russia versus the United States: preliminary findings and implications. Journal o f Family Violence, 12(1), 63-74.

Gray, E., & Cosgrove, J. (1985). Ethnocentric Perception of Chi ldrearing 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.

Kruttschnitt, C. (1995) Violence by and against women: a comparative and cross-cultural analysis. In, Ruback, R.B., & Weiner,N.A., (Eds.). Interpersonal violent behaviors: social and cultural aspects, 25-42. New York:Springers.

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

Marshall, L (1992)Development of Severity of violence against women scales. Journal of Family violence, 7, 291-305.

Perilla, J.L., Bakeman, R., & Norris, F.H. (1994) Culture and domestic violence: the ecology of abused Latinas. Violence and Victims, 9(4), 325-339.

Stalans, L.J., & Lurigio, A.J. (1995) responding to domestic violence against women. Crime and Delinquency, 41(4),