1
Trinidadian university students’ responses to a fictional domestic violence scenario: The role
of gender and study major.
It is only recently that intimate partner homicide has been considered a major social problem in
the Caribbean. When women are the victims of this violence they occasionally kill their intimate
partner during domestic disputes. These cases raise numerous psycho-legal challenges for
society and the legal system, and the response to these reveals much about societal beliefs about
gender roles, violence against women, and how it should be responded to. In an effort to
explicate these issues among a group of relevant future professionals, this study examined
university students’ (from law and psychology programs) responses to a fictional domestic
violence scenario. After presenting the fictional case, students were asked open ended questions
about their reactions and impressions, and were then asked to attribute blame to the various
parties. These results were then scrutinized for patterns according to respondent gender and
chosen area of study. The results reveal numerous trends that underline the need for particular
kinds of content to be incorporated into the training of these professional groups who are likely
to come into contact with domestic violence victims and perpetrators. Although aspects of
Caribbean law are changing with regards to domestic violence and gender stereotypes, it is
evident that these future professionals maintain some beliefs that are likely to have implications
for policy, practice, and client outcomes.
Homicide of an intimate partner is the most
common type of murder within the family in
the United States. (Jensen 2001). It is
homicide occurring between current or
former dating, cohabiting, common-law and
formally married heterosexual, gay and
lesbian couples (Browne, William & Dutton
1999). This type of homicide has been
recognized throughout the world as a major
social problem that has been linked to
domestic violence because abused women as
well as, abusive men often tend to kill their
intimate partner during domestic disputes
(Browne 1987; Pagelow 1992).
This realization of the serious implications
of intimate partner homicide resulted in a
number of scholars and practitioners
researching the prevalence of wife beating
and the homicides committed, not only by
male partners, but by female abused partners
(Browne 1987; Chimbos 1978; Walker
1989). These individuals noted that there
was a conspicuous lack of information in
this area and, as a result, their efforts to
gather data began (Stout & Brown 1995;
Chimbos 1978).
Recent research has placed emphasis on
highlighting instances of intimate partner
homicide committed by battered women
(Stout & Brown 1995). These women are
often not the main perpetrators or
precipitators of this category of homicide
and homicide in general since most
homicides are often committed by males
(Brown 1987; Stout 1991). Their homicidal
act however, is the least likely end result to a
domestic dispute (La Violette & Barnett
2000). Consequently, this act has been a
major concern to society, since it challenges
society’s view of women as caretakers and
nurturers who are expected to give
sustenance and love to those under their care
(La Violette & Barnett 2000; Busch 1999).
This phenomenon of domestic violence and
the homicides that occur as a result is
2
therefore a critical area for sustained
enquiry. As a result, the aim of the study is
to examine the relationship between
respondents’ gender, area of study and
responses towards a domestic violence
scenario. Further, the belief of respondents’
(law and psychology students) about
attributions of blame for the recurring
violence as well as the death of the
perpetrator will be explored since these
individuals may also hold views that may
prohibit them from interacting with or
intervening in the lives of domestic violence
victims who may eventually become their
clients.
This study therefore seeks to provide
additional data and further explore the
attitudes of law and psychology students
who are aspiring to become future
professionals. It also seeks to add to the
existing studies in this area because there is
a dearth of local research on intimate partner
abuse, and homicide that occurs between
intimate partners. There is a significant
association between participants’ area of
study and spontaneous labelling of the
situation as domestic violence. As a result,
the following hypotheses were framed; there
is a significant difference in male and
female students’ attribution of blame to the
victim for the recurring violence,
psychology rather than law students will less
likely blame the perpetrator for the violence,
law students will significantly more likely
blame the victim for the death of the
perpetrator and psychology students will
more likely believe that the victim should be
charged.
Domestic violence is the phrase used to
describe a variety of actions that occur in
family relationships (Machera 2000). It is
the term used generally to cover violence
that occurs between a victim and perpetrator
who has some form of personal and family
relationship or previous intimate relationship
(Davies 1994). It is defined as the abuse of
children, older people, spouses and others in
the home, by other members of the family or
other residents (Barker 2000). It is also
applied to violence between siblings, parent
and child or child to parent (James 1996)
and is defined in the Domestic Violence Act
of Trinidad and Tobago (1999) as physical,
sexual, emotional, psychological or financial
abuse committed by a person against a
spouse, child, or any other person who is a
member of the household or dependant. The
term is used to refer to any act of violence
that occurs in the context of marriage,
cohabitation, visiting type relationships, or
dating lesbian, gay or heterosexual couples
(Brown et al 1999; Mooney 2000).
In examining definitions of domestic
violence, it is evident that there is a lack of
consistency that exists between researchers
and policy makers, over what should be
included under this definition (Mooney
2000). Consequently, some acts committed
by intimate partners are often not considered
to be of a violent nature. This is apparent in
the various definitions that are used;
definitions that are often formulated with the
partial cultural and sub-cultural beliefs and
values of policy makers who are socialized
in a particular culture, where acceptance of
certain violent acts are the norm in any
relationship (Gelles 1997).
Some researchers have debated whether the
term domestic violence should be used at all
(De Keseredy & Hinch 1991; Kashani &
Allan 1998; Smaoun 2000). They argue that
it is essential to have a more specific
terminology and definition for violence that
occurs between intimate partners and across
a range of relationships (Mooney 2000;
Kashani & Allan 1998). As a result, various
researchers have preferred to use terms
which specifically identifies the abuse of a
woman by an intimate partner, such as ‘wife
battering’, ‘wife abuse’, ‘wife beating’,
3
‘woman abuse’.(James 1996; Flowers 2000;
De Keseredy & Hinch 1991). Other popular
terms used are ‘spouse abuse’, ‘intimate
partner abuse’ and ‘partner abuse’. This
they claim is necessary because only then
can there be recognition and rejection of
violent acts that were previously accepted as
normal. Additionally, it is indicated that
each type of relationship may involve
different
issues
which
can
be
comprehensively addressed by matching
them to specific policies that can better
address them (Mooney 2000).
The inconsistencies that exists regarding the
definition of domestic violence, together
with various difficulties in determining the
accuracy of prevalence rates makes it
difficult to estimate the actual occurrence of
violence between intimate partners (United
Nations 1995). This problem can also be
partly attributed to the low-level of reporting
by victims and perpetrators who are often
hesitant to disclose their experience of
violence within the relationship for reasons
such as fear, shame and lack of confidence
in the agencies that publicly state they
represent their cause (Kilpatrick 2004).
Additionally, the statistics gathered from
police records and other official sources
frequently under-represent this problem
because officials may fail to record the
incident in a way that is meaningful for
research purposes (United Nations 1995).
Self reporting surveys are also not void of
problems because the level of violence
women suffered may either be overestimated or under-estimated by them.
Telephone surveys repeatedly exclude
women who do not have access to a
telephone, whereas field surveys may be
hampered by methodological limitations
such as problems with sampling techniques
and sampling errors that are often not
representative of the entire population being
studied (United Nations 1995; West 2004).
Although these problems with determining
the accurate estimates of prevalence rates
exists, available statistics derived from
general or special population studies, and
based on reports by victims and/or
perpetrators still indicate that domestic
violence, especially violence against a
woman is a severe problem that is
widespread in many countries around the
world.
Several researchers, in an effort to
understand the causes of intimate partner
violence have focused on the personality
traits of the abuser and the abused victim in
explaining the dynamic that produce an
abusive situation (Flowers 2000; Smaoun
2000; Creque 1995; United Nations 1995).
Whereas, others may look at explanations
such as the use of alcohol and illicit drugs,
frustration, stress, the actions of the victim
and previous exposure to violence in
childhood (Flowers 2000, United Nations
1995). Another assumption of the cause of
domestic violence was postulated by Gelles
(1972) in his social structural theory which
revealed, that domestic violence is a direct
response to two main factors. For example,
structural stress (low income in the family
due to unemployment) or cultural values and
norms
that
sanctions
violence
in
relationships as a way of life. A final
explanation for the cause of domestic
violence is the power and control theory
which describes the violence existing
between intimates as a result of one person
exerting power and control over another
(Flowers 2000).
A popular public perception is the belief that
leaving an abusive relationship is an
effective solution for battered women.
People perceive that it is a guarantee that the
abuse will stop. As a result, they frequently
ask, ‘why didn’t they leave?’ or ‘why didn’t
they leave one day when their abuser was
away?’ These questions appear to place
4
responsibility for ending the violence on
women rather than on the batterers and they
imply that something is wrong with women
who do not leave abusive relationships
(Fiene 1995). They are also based on the
false notion that they don’t leave or don’t try
to leave. As a result, with or without the
knowledge of the intensity of the abuse, they
are frequently encouraged by members of
the community to remain and work it out or
they did not leave because they did not have
viable alternatives, such as, moving to
another town or secret refuge (LaViolette &
Barnett 2000).
These battered women are blamed or at least
harshly criticized by some members of the
community for not leaving the abusive
relationship and/or they are perceived to
have brought the problems of violence upon
themselves (LaViolette & Barnett 2000).
Additionally, their prior leaving is blamed
for the subsequent and intensified violence
of their abuser (LaViolette & Barnett 2000).
The batterers may also blame their victim
for the battering, claiming that their partner
set them up to be violent (Browne 1987).
At times, these women even begin to blame
themselves for the abuse, denying the
magnitude of the abusive events that
occurred, blaming themselves for tolerating
it or blaming themselves for being unable to
control its continuance (Gilbert & Webster
1982; Petretic-Jackson et al 2002). It is in
core of this dilemma that battered women
may respond in a violent manner to their
partner during a dispute.
Battered women kill during periods of
intense conflict such as physical fights,
arguments, confrontation, sexual and
emotional abuse which has escalated to the
point where they feel their life; the lives of
her children or significant other/s are in
danger (Jurik & Russ 1990). This risk of
homicide often increases with the most
recent abusive episode (O’Kane 2005).
As a result, over the last two decades a
number of legislators in various jurisdictions
have enacted innovative laws governing this
type of violence for example, laws that
authorize the court to prohibit marital rape
{example, the Trinidad and Tobago Sexual
Offences Act 1999; amemded). Other laws
have been passed to authorize law
enforcement officers to make an arrest in
cases of domestic violence; to make an
arrest without a warrant when there is a
violation of a protective order; to transport
the victim to the hospital; and/or to inform
the victim of legal options available
(Flowers 2000). Laws that sanction the court
to order a batterer to change his behaviour,
to evict him from the home shared with the
victim, or those that require the batterer to
pay compensation or impose a sentence for
the violation of a protection order have also
been enacted (example the Trinidad and
Tobago Domestic violence Act 2000;
amended; Flowers 2000).
However, despite these legislative remedies,
domestic violence continues to be a social
problem. In a number of cases, victims
realized that their abusive domestic situation
did not stop, even when they attempted to
seek legal remedies. Consequently, some
women without the adequate support of
formal agencies and in an effort to defend
themselves or their loved ones during a
conflict killed their intimate partner.
Numerous lawyers, throughout history,
attempting to effectively represent ‘these
women’, had previously concealed the abuse
fearing that it will be used against them in
the court of law (Stark 1990). This was done
because battered women’s actions regularly
did not fit the requirements for the law of
self defense (Bannister 1991). The law
allows a person to use reasonable force
5
against another person when the individual
believes that he or she is in imminent danger
of bodily harm. However, the force used by
battered women to defend themselves may
exceed the force used by their partner
(Bannister 1993). As a result, the use of self
defense laws for battered women who killed
their abusive partner, did not reflect the
reality of the abuse they experienced (Stout
1991). Consequently, many women who
killed their partner had been charged and
sentenced for murder or manslaughter. As a
result of this, many lawyers discovered that
they needed to find a good justification
defense to successfully defend their battered
clients.
The defense was eventually provided
through the use of a justification defense
called the battered woman’s syndrome
which is a sub-category of Post-traumatic
Stress Disorder that is characterized by a
distinct pattern of psychological and
physical abuse inflicted by an abusive
partner (Walker 1987; Walker 1992). It
explains what happens in a violent intimate
relationship, why battered women stay and
why it is reasonable for them to feel danger
outside the state of imminent harm (Downs
1996). The degree of abuse they experienced
is highlighted in the testimonies of many
expert
witnesses
(example,
learned
helplessness) who give support to the
perception that the woman’s life was in
danger at the time of the homicidal act
(Wilson 1993). The utilization of this
defense often grants battered women a fair
trial (Walker 1992). As a result of this
syndrome, legal practitioners may frequently
appeal for leniency in the penalties that may
be levied to the battered women they
represent. This however, does not provide a
guarantee for battered women who kill
because although the concept has been
accepted by the courts, the legal
understanding of battered woman has been
tremendously whittled since only a few
women fit the description. Most women who
are battered therefore do not qualify as
helpless and often face severe penalties as a
result (Jones 1994).
In more recent history, members of the legal
and judicial systems have been required to
play a more active role in responding to
domestic violence situations (Buwaza &
Buwaza
1990).
Although
their
responsibilities are often outlined in the law,
police officers’ continue to be reluctant to
respond to domestic violence reports, which
has led to the under enforcement of the law
and the failure of the legal system to provide
adequate protection for the victim and to
prosecute the offender (Edwards 1989). This
reluctance may be due to some police
officers’ personal experience with domestic
violence incidents as an abuser, victim or
witnesses and their own beliefs surrounding
the abuse of intimate partners (Jenkins and
Davidson 2001). Alternatively, it may be
due to the lack of follow through by many
victims (Bachman 1994; LaViolette and
Barnett 2000). Additionally, police officers’
belief that intimate partner violence is a
situation that is best handled within the
home (Erez and Belklap; 1995) resulted in
these officers attaching a low level of
priority to these incidents (Edwards 1989).
Further, they often delayed responding to
such calls in a timely fashion (Buwaza and
Buwaza 1990; (Edwards 1989).
Buwaza and Buwaza (1990) noted that the
judicial system also offers little assistance in
bringing a resolve to domestic violence
disputes. As a result, members of the
judiciary convey a message to both the
victim and the offender that they will do
nothing to stop the violence that occurs in
intimate relationships (Roberts and KurstSwanger (2002). This response by judicial
officers, indirectly give support to the
patriarchal structure of the family, which
perpetrates the use and acceptance of abuse
6
in relationships from one generation to the
next (Buwaza and Buwaza 1990).
In circumstances where women sought to
legally defend themselves against their
batterer, judges tended to be more
sympathetic to perpetrators despite their
bullying and violent behaviour (Buwaza &
Buwaza 1996). They often ruled in favour of
perpetrators, thus minimizing the violent
behavior against them and blame the victims
for the abuse (Buwaza & Buwaza 1996;
Edwards 1989). They further victimized
these victims by asking them what they did
to provoke the violence (Roberts & KurstSwanger 2002). Consequently, battered
women’s trust in relying on the justice
system for safety diminished (Buzawa &
Buzawa 1990).
Attribution theory provides the theoretical
framework for this study. It was first
written by Fritz Heider in his book “The
Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships
(Heider 1958; Aronson et al 2003) which
played an important role in the origination
and definition of attribution theory. This
theory is concerned with how individuals
interpret events and how this relates to their
thinking and behavior (Jones et al 1972). It
assumes that people try to determine why
people do what they do, i.e., attribute causes
to behavior. Thus, a person seeking to
understand why another person did
something may attribute one or more causes
to that behaviour (example, (1) the person
must perceive or observe the behavior, (2)
the person must believe that the behavior
was intentionally performed, and (3) then
the person must determine if they believe
the other person was forced to perform the
behavior (in which case the cause is
attributed to the situation) or not (in which
case the cause is attributed to the other
person) (Jones et al 1972).
Our attributions are also driven by our
emotional and motivational drives. As such,
very real self serving attributions involve
blaming other people and avoiding personal
accusation (Weiner 1986). Attributions are
also made to defend what we perceive as
attacks which often results in us pointing to
injustices in the world (Harvey and Weary
1985). Additionally, we often seek to
distance ourselves from thoughts of
suffering the same plight by blaming victims
(those persons victimized by us and those
victimized by others) for their fate and also
tend to ascribe less variability to other
people than ourselves, seeing ourselves as
more multifaceted and less predictable than
others. This may take place because we can
see more of what is within us (and spend
more time doing this) (Harvey and Weary
1985).
METHODOLOGY
The sample consisted of students in the third
year of either psychology or law. The area
of study (either psychology or law) and the
year of study were the main requirements
for their participation. These specific
requirements were necessary to ensure that
these future professionals would have
already been exposed to specific domestic
violence terminology and would have been
aware of the phenomenon of domestic
violence.
Out of the 100 questionnaires that were
distributed to students, 95 were returned
completed. This yielded an overall response
rate of 95% with the rate of response for
each area of study ranging from 100% (for
psychology students) and 90% (for law
students). The ages of the participants
ranged from 20 years to 47 years with 89%
between the ages of 20 -29 years, 7.7%
between 30 – 39 and 3.3% forty years and
over. Male respondents represented 21% of
the sample and female respondents 79% of
7
the respondents. Participants represented
the following ethnicities 32% African, 45%
Indian, 20% Mixed and 1% Other and 1%
did not respond to this question. Law
students make up 47% and psychology
students 52% of the sample. Respondents
were also asked to specify whether they had
any other university qualifications, only 6 %
of all respondents indicated that they had
such qualifications. This question was asked
because no psychology student had law or
no law student has psychology as an
additional qualification.
outlined the aims of the study, and gave
information about confidentiality and
anonymity. This statement also gave details
about the need for individuals to participate
in the study. Added to this each eligible
member was provided with a copy of the
study questionnaire. The questionnaire
consisted of three sections, demographics
(gender, age, and ethnicity.) Additionally,
respondents were asked to identify their
primary area of study or major and whether
they
had
any
other
University
qualifications).
Table 1
An account of a hypothetical domestic
violence scenario (section two), and
questions examining the attitudes of
respondents in relation to the individuals and
circumstances described in the scenario
(section three).
Age categories of law and psychology
students
Age
categories
Law
students
Psychology
students
Overall
number of
students
per
category
20 – 29
42
39
81
30 – 39
3
4
7
40 – 49
0
3
3
No response
Minimum age
4
20
20
Maximum
age (years)
36
47
Average age
21.6
27.6
(years)
(years)
Materials
Respondents were provided with a copy of
the statement of intent of the study which
Procedure
Initially, the version of the questionnaire
was created by this researcher and research
supervisor. The questions were informed by
the literature as a means of exploring the
issues presented in the hypothetical
domestic violence scenario. Questions were
also developed to explore participants’
beliefs about this prevalent societal problem.
Upon completion, a pilot survey was
conducted with a clerical worker at the
Faculty of Social Science, University of the
West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago. Relevant
changes were made to the questionnaire
based on the responses provided and the
identification of any typing errors or
ambiguous questions that may not have been
recognized prior to the pilot.
Immediately following the pilot stage, the
researcher identified the group of students
considered eligible for the study. As
discussed previously, the study was
conducted over a two day period for
psychology students and a three day period
for law students. This was due to the number
8
of students enrolled in each class and the
schedule of classes for both 3rd year students
who are majoring in either law or
psychology. Permission was obtained from
the Head of the Psychology Unit at the
University of the West Indies who
introduced the researcher to a lecturer of two
third year courses. Arrangements were then
made to conduct the survey with the
students in those classes.
Further,
permission was obtained from the
Administrator of the Institute of Law and
Academic Studies who allowed a field
officer to conduct the survey at their school.
At both Institutions, the survey was
conducted during the break period of each
class.
All participants received a copy of the
statement of intent of the study and the
study’s questionnaire. Participants were also
told that the survey was examining their
views and the findings would be presented
in aggregate form and would be used to
inform this research paper. Participants were
also informed of the measures utilized to
maintain their anonymity and were asked to
immediately return the questionnaire upon
its completion. The return of the completed
questionnaire which was done in class and
handed to this researcher (psychology
students) and a field officer (law students)
signified their consent to participate in the
study. An equal number of questionnaires
were distributed to both groups of students
to ensure that approximately the same
number of students completed the
questionnaires.
A total of fifty questionnaires were
personally distributed by this researcher to
third year psychology students of two
separate psychology classes at the
University of the West Indies, St. Augustine,
Trinidad. This process of distribution was
done over a two day period. Another fifty
questionnaires were distributed over a three
day period by a field officer to 3rd year law
students of the Institute of Law and
Academic Studies located at Chaguanas, a
central region in Trinidad. The distribution
of questionnaires depended on the number
of students enrolled in each class and the
days these classes were scheduled (every
day or every other day).
Upon completion of the data collection
stage, the responses on the questionnaires
were coded and recorded for subsequent
analysis and interpretation. Qualitative data
were transcribed into a Microsoft Word
Document as a verbatim full text record of
each participant’s responses. This procedure
allowed the researcher to identify frequent
themes or categories in the responses of
participant. Once the common categories
were identified, this information was entered
into the SPSS 12.0 for Windows program as
a series of dummy variables. This allowed
patterns in the qualitative data to be linked
to other variables. Responses to other items
were entered as continuous data.
Further, the researcher sought to validate the
inter-coder or inter-rater reliability of the
qualitative data coding. Assistance was
provided by the research supervisor for this
process. The research supervisor was
provided with a data file containing the
responses of the participants together with
the sample of response categories previously
developed by the researcher. The categories
were reviewed by my Supervisor who
sought to see whether the responses placed
under a given category were accurate.
Response categories were then revised by
this researcher because initially they were
too broad and relevant data for analysis
would have been lost. The revised categories
were examined by my Supervisor who
approved it and returned it to me. The
purpose of this process was to examine the
reliability of the response categories. Upon
9
examination of the categories an agreement
between the raters was reached.
HYPOTHESIS 1: There is a significant
association between participants’ area of
study and spontaneous labeling of the
situation as domestic violence.
Students’ reaction to Domestic Violence on
the basis of area of study
_____________________________________________________
Law
Psychology
N = 45
N = 50
Interpretive Comment
Emotional Response
49%
40%
Emotional Response
Interpretive Comment
35%
34%
Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence
27%
18%
Incidence
Incidence
9%
12%
______________________________________________________
Note: Since participants were able to include more than one
reason for their response, so any column % may exceed 100%
comparable in their description of the
situation as domestic violence; they were
also not evenly likely to rate the situation
emotionally (35% as compared to 40%) (χ²
(df = 1; N = 95) = .199; p = .656). Further,
they were not evenly comparable in their
indication of the incidence of the situation
(9% as compared to 12%) (χ² (df = 1; N =
95) = ; p = .66) as well as not comparable in
their ratings for applying their own
interpretations to the situation (49% as
compared to 34%) (χ² (df = 1; N = 95) =
2.170; p = .66).
Chi-square analyses revealed that there was
no significant association between these
factors (χ² (df = 1; N = 95) = 1.0; p = .30).
Although there is no significant association,
it is not significant enough to warrant
discarding one variable. It is however; close
enough to warrant an analysis of row
proportion.
Overall,
these
results
demonstrated that when violence occurs in a
relationship both law and psychology
respondents are not evenly likely to label the
situation in similar ways.
HYPOTHESIS 2: There is no significant
difference in male and female students’
attribution of blame to the victim and the
perpetrator for the recurring violence.
Mean Scores of the participants’ attribution
of blame to the Victim and Perpetrator
______________________________________________________
M
SD
Analysis of row percentages revealed that
law and psychology students were not
evenly likely to rate the scenario as
domestic violence
(27% compared to
18%) (χ² (df = 1; N = 95) = 1.033; p .309).
Law and psychology students’ description of
the situation indicated that both groups of
participants were not evenly likely to be
______________________________________________________
Blame victim for recurring violence
24.3
5.3
Blame perpetrator for recurring violence
56
21.5
10
An examination of the average level of
blame to the victim and the perpetrator for
the recurring violence reveals that there is a
significant difference in the attribution of
blame to both individuals for the recurring
violence.
Victim’s actions are in self defense
Victim does not end
27%
the relationship
A oneway Anova analyses was conducted to
assess if there was a difference in the
average blame scores attributed to the victim
on the basis of gender. There was however,
no statistically significant difference
between the average level of blame ascribed
to the victim for the recurring violence by
law and psychology students in the sample
(F (df = 1, n = 92) = .58; p =.45).
Victim retaliates to partner’s abuse
Victim retaliates t
20%
partner’s abuse
Oneway Anova analyses assessment of the
average blame scores ascribed to the victim
for the recurring violence revealed there
were no statistically significant difference
between the attributions of blame to the
victim for the recurring violence by male
and female students in the sample(F (df = 1,
n = 90) = .58; p = .19).
Oneway Anova analyses - assessment of the
average blame scores ascribed to the
perpetrator for the recurring violence - no
statistically significant difference between
the average level of blame to the perpetrator
for the recurring violence, by male and
female students in the sample (F (df = 1, n =
92) = .768; p =.383).
HYPOTHESIS 3: Psychology rather than law
students will less likely blame the perpetrator for
the recurring violence.
Students’ attribution of blame to the perpetrator
for recurring violence on the basis of area of
study
______________________________________________________
Law
Psychology
N = 45
N = 50
or seek assistance
27%
14%
Victim does not end the relationship
Victim’s actions are
or seek assistance
in self defense
15%
12%
Note: Since participants were able to include more than one
reason for their response, the column % may exceed 100%
Psychology students were more likely to
blame the perpetrator’s jealousy, resentment
/ insecurity as a reason for the recurrent
violence in the relationship (12% compares
to 9%) (χ ² (df = 1; N = 95) = .24; p = .66).
Psychology respondents were more likely
ascribe blame to the perpetrator’s for not
leaving or seeking assistance since they
believed this was a cause of the continuous
violence (18.0% compared to 9%) (χ ² (df =
1; N = 95) = 2.757; p = .097).
Both law and psychology respondents were
less likely to attribute blame to the
perpetrator’s violent behaviour for the
recurring violence (24% compared to 28%)
(χ ² (1; N = 95) = .15; p = .69). In the chisquare analyses of the data there were no
significant associations between the
qualitative response categories and area of
study.
11
HYPOTHESIS 4: Law and Psychology
students will more likely blame the victim
for the death of the perpetrator.
Students’ attribution of blame to the victim
for the perpetrator’s death on the basis of
area of study
Law students were more likely to blame the
victim’s retaliation to the perpetrator’s abuse
as a cause of the death (20% compared to
14%) (χ ² (df = 1; N = 95) = .18; p = .67).
Law
Psychology
HYPOTHESIS 5: Psychology students will
more likely believe that the victim should be
charged.
N = 45
N = 50
Students’ beliefs about charging the victim
Victim’s actions are in self defense
Victim does not end
27%
the relationship or
seek assistance
______________________________________________________
Charge
victim for
the offence
27%
Gender/study
Victim retaliates to partner’s abuse
Victim retaliates to
20%
partner’s abuse
14%
M / LAW
44%
F / LAW
58%
M / PSYC
25%
F / PSYC
46%
Victim does not end the relationship
Victim’s actions are
or seek assistance
in self defense
M = Male, F = Female; PSYC = Psychology
15%
12%
Female law and female psychology students
were more likely to believe that the victim
should be charged when compared to their
male counterparts.
Note: Since participants were able to include more than one
reason for their response, the column % may exceed 100%
Psychology students were not comparably
likely to attribute blame to the victim’s act
of self defense as a cause of the perpetrator’s
death (27% compared to 12%) (χ ² (df = 1;
N = 95) = 1.554; p = .07).
Law students were not equally likely to
attribute blame to victim for the
perpetrator’s death because of not ending the
relationship or seek assistance (15%
compared to 26%) (χ ² (df = 1; N = 95) =
1.55; p = .21).
LIMITATIONS
The inadequate pre-testing of the research
questionnaire using one member of the
university suggests that items that may have
been ambiguous may not have been
adequately extracted. Therefore the internal
validity of the vignette and the questionnaire
may not have been enhanced. There was
also an unequal ratio of males and females
in the sample. This was mainly attributed to
the number of males compared to females
12
pursing the fields of study that were
sampled. This may impact upon the
representativeness of the sample and may
also affect external validity of the findings.
IMPLICATIONS
Need for domestic violence education of
individuals in their field of study to help
them understand the issue as well as help
them to respond to victims and perpetrators
in a more empathetic way.
Provide these future professionals with the
opportunity to work with victims and
perpetrators prior to them entering the field
of work.

Will help enhance their knowledge
and skills about domestic violence
clients.

May result in them having more
positive attitudes towards these
clients.

May dispel myths associated with
blaming the victim for the violence.
FUTURE RESEARCH
More research is need in the area of
domestic violence and homicides which
occurs in domestic disputes between
intimate partners.
Once done it will effectively inform policy
and practice in the fields of law and
psychology.
REFERENCES
Bachman, R. 1995. Violence Against Women.
Washington D.C: Department of Justice.
Bannister, S. A. 1993. Battered Women Who
Kill Their Abusers: Their Courtroom Battles in
It’s a Crime: Women and Justice, edited by
Roslyn Muraskin and Ted Alleman, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bannister, S. A. 1991. The Criminalization of
Women Fighting Back Against Male Abuse:
Improisioned Battered as Political Prisoners.
Humanity and Society 15:400-416.
Benn, M. Coote, A. Gill, T. 1986. The Rape
Controversy. London: National Council for Civil
Liberties.
Belknap, J. 1995. Law and Enforcement
Officers’ Attitudes About the Appropriate
Responses to Woman Battering. International
Journal of Victimology 4:47-62.
Blinder, M. 1985. Lovers, Killers, Husbands and
Wives. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Bogard, M. 1988. Feminist Perspectives in Wife
Abuse: an introduction, in K. Yllo, & M. Bogard
(eds.) Feminist Perspectives in Wife Abuse,
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Brookman, F. (2005). Understanding Homicide.
London: Sage Publications.
Browne, A. William, K. and Dutton, D. 1999.
Homicide Between Intimate Partners in
Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research,
edited by M. Smith and M. Zahn. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Browne, A. 1987. When Battered Women Kill.
New York: The Free Press.
Busch, A. L. 1999. Finding their Voices:
Listening to Battered Women Who Killed. New
York: Kroshka Books.
Buzawa, E. S. and C. G. Buzawa. 1990.
Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice
Response. California: Sage Publications.
13
Campbell, J. C. 1995. Prediction of Homicide of
and by Battered Women in Assessing
Dangerousness: Violence by Sexual Offenders,
Batterers, and Child Abusers, edited by
Jacqueline C. Campbell. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Dobash, R and E.Dobash. 1979. Violence
against wives. New York: The Free Press.
Chan, W. 2001. Women, Murder and Justice.
London: Palgrave.
Donoghue, E. R. 2001. Domestic Violence:
Predicting Fatal Outcomes. Chicago Medicine
104: 4-5.
Cascardi, M and K. D. O''Leary. 1992.
Depressive Symptomatology, Self-esteem, and
Self-blame in Battered Women. Journal of
Family Violence, 7 (4): 249-259
Chimbos, P.D. 1978. Marital Violence: A Study
of Interpersonal Homicide. San Francisco: R &
E Research Associates.
Clarke R. 1998. Violence Against Women in the
Caribbean: State and Non-State Responses.
USA: United Nations Development Fund for
Women.
Creque, M. 1995. A Study of the Incidence of
Domestic Violence in Trinidad and Tobago:
From 1991 to 1993. Port of Spain: Shelter for
Battered Women and Trinidad and Tobago
Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Dann, G. K. and B. S. Parsad. 1989: Domestic
Violence in the Caribbean: A Guyana case
study. Trinidad: University of the West Indies.
Davies, J., E. Lyon and D. Monti-Catania. 1988.
Safety Planning with Battered Women.
California: Sage Publications.
Dobash, R and E. Dobash. 1992. Women,
Violence and Social Change. London:
Routledge.
Downs, D. A. 1996. More than Victims:
Battered Women, the Syndrome and the Law.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Edwards, S. 1989. Policing ‘Domestic
Violence’: Women, the Law and the State.
London: Sage Publications.
Erez, E. & Belklap, J. 1995. Policing Domestic
Violence, in a Enclycopedia of Police Science
edited by W. Bailey. New York: Garland
Publications.
Ewing, C. P.1987. Battered Women Who Kill.
USA: Lexington Books.
Ewing, C. P. 1990. Psychological Self Defense:
A Proposed Justification for Battered Women
Who Kill. Law and Human Behaviour 14:579594.
Fiene, J. I. 1995. Battered Women: Keeping the
Secret. Affilia Journal of Women and Social
Work 10 (1):179-193.
Davies, M. (ed.), 1994. Women and Violence:
Realities and Responses Worldwide. London:
Zed Books.
Flowers, B. R. 2000. Domestic Crimes, Family
Violence and Child Abuse: A Study of
Contemporary American Society. North
Carolina: Mc Farland and Company.
De Keseredy, W. & R. Hinch. 1991. Woman
Abuse: Sociological Perspectives. Ontario:
Thompson.
Gelles, R.J. 1972. The Violent Home: A Study of
the Physical Aggression between Husbands and
Wives. California: Sage Publications.
14
Gelles, R.J. 1995. Spouse Abuse and Neglect in
Enclycopedia of Marriage and the Family (eds).
D. Levinson. New York: Macmillain.
Gelles, R. 1997. Intimate Violence in Families
(3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.
Gilbert, L. and P. Webster. 1989. Bound by
Love, the sweet trap of daughterhood. Boston:
Beacon.
Gillespie, C. K. 1989. Justifiable Homicide:
Battered Women, Self defense and the Law.
Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Gopaul, R., P. Morgan, and R. Reddock. 1996.
Women, Family and Family Violence in the
Caribbean: The Historical and Contemporary
Experience with Special Reference to Trinidad
and Tobago. University of the West Indies, St.
Augustine:
Women
and
Development
Group/Centre for Gender and Development
Studies.
Haniff, N. Z. 1995. Male Violence Against
Women and Men in the Caribbean: the case of
Jamaica. St. Michael Barbados: Women and
Development Unit (WAND). School of
Continuing Studies, University of the West
Indies.
Hardwerker, P. 1993. Power, Gender Violence
and High-risk Sexual Behaviour, in Violence
Against Women: The Hidden Health Burden by
L. Heise, Pitanguy J. and Germaine A.
Washington: The World Bank.
Harvey, J.H. and G. Weary. 1985. Attribution:
Basic Issues and Applications. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology
Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
of
Humphreys, Cathy and Thiara, Ravi 2003.
Mental Health and Domestic Violence. The
British Journal of Social Work. 33:209-226.
James, J. 1996. Understanding Domestic
Violence: A Training and Information Manual
for Community Educators. St Vincent and the
Grenadines: Women Affairs Department.
Jenkins, P. J. and B. Parmer Davidson. 2001.
Stopping Domestic Violence: How a Community
Can Prevent Spousal Abuse. New York: Kluwer
Academic.
Jensen, V. 2001. Why Women Kill; Homicide
and Gender Equality. London: Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
Jewkes, Y. 2004. Media and Crime. London:
Sage.
Johann, S. L. and F. Osanka. 1989. Introduction
in Representing … Battered Women Who Kill,
edited by Sara Lee and Frank Osanka
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Jones, A. 1994. Next Time She’ll Be Dead:
Battering and How to Stop It. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Jones, E. E, D.E. Kannouse, H.H Kelley, R.E.
Nesbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner, (eds). 1972.
Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour.
New Jersey: General Learning Press.
Kashani, J & W. Allan. 1998. The Impact of
Family Violence on Children and Adolescents.
London: Sage.
Kaufman Kantor, G. & M.A. Straus. 1987. The
Drunken Bum Thoery of Wife Beating. Social
Problems, 34: 213-230.
Koenig, M.A, T. Lutalo, F. Zhao, F. Nalugoda,
F. Wabwire-Mangen, N. Kiwanuka, J. Wagman,
D. Serwadda, M. Wawer & R. Gray. 1987.
Domestic Violence in Rural Uganda: Evidence
of a Community-based Study, in Bulletin of the
World Health Organization. 2003; 81:53-60.
15
LaBell, L. 1979. Wife Abuse: a sociological
study of battered women and their mates.
Victimology: An International Journal, 4.
Ptacek, J. 1999. Battered Women in the
Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
LaViolette, A. D. and O. W. Barnett, 2000. It
Could Happen To Anyone: Why Battered
Women Stay. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Quaid, Sheila and Itzin, Catherine (2000). The
Criminal Justice Response to Women Who Kill:
An Interview with Helena Kennedy in Home
Truths About Domestic Violence: Feminist
influences on policy and practice edited by J.
Hanmer and C. Itzin with S. Quaid and D.
Wigglesworth – A reader, 153-166. London:
Routledge.
Machera, M. 2000. Domestic Violence in Kenya:
A Survey of Newspaper Reports in Men, Women
and Violence by Felicia Oyekanmi. Senegal:
Council for the Development of Research in
Africa.
Men Against Violence Against Women. 2002.
Domestic Violence Handbook. Trinidad: Men
Against Violence Against Women.
Mooney, J. 2000. Gender, Violence and the
Social Order. New York: Palgrave Publishers.
Morrissey, B. 2003. When Women Kill:
Questions about Agency and Subjectivity.
London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
O’Kane, J. 2005. Murder in America, Wicked
Deeds. London: Transaction Publishers.
O’Keefe, M. 1997. Incarcerated Battered
Women: A Comparison of Battered Women who
Kill their Abusers and those Incarcerated for
Other Offences. Journal of Family Violence
12(1): 1-18
Reiner, R. 1985. The Politics of the Police.
Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
Roberts, A. and K. Kurst-Swanger 2002. Police
Responses to Battered Women: Past, Present,
and Future in Handbook of Domestic Violence
Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and
Legal Remedies, edited by Albert Roberts, 101126. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, A. and K. Kurst-Swanger 2002. Court
Responses to Battered Women and their
Children in Handbook of Domestic Violence
Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and
Legal Remedies, edited by Albert Roberts, 127146. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shainess, N. 1984. Sweet Suffering: Woman as
Victim. New York: Pocket Books.
Pagelow, M.D. 1992. Adult Victims of Domestic
Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
7:87-120.
Smaoun, S. 2000. Violence Against Women in
Urban Areas: An Analysis of the Problem from a
Gender Perspective. Kenya: Urban Management
Programme.
Petretic-Jackson, P.A. Tricia H. White &
Thomas L. Jackson. 2002. Battered Women:
Treatment Goals and Treatment Planning in
Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention
Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal
Remedies, edited by Albert Roberts, 127-146.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Sporakowski, M.J, A. J. McKeel & D. MaddenDerdich. 1993. Attributions Related to Wife
Abuse: A Comparison of the Perceptions of
Volunteer Advocate-counselors and Marriage
and Family Therapists. Contemporary Family
Therapy Volume 15(6): 485-499.
16
Stark, E. 1990. Rethinking Homicide: Violence,
Race and the Politics of Gender. International
Journal of Health Services 20:3-26.
Walter, L.E. 1989. Police in the Middle: A Study
of Small Police Intervention in Domestic
Disputes. Journal of Police Science and
Administration 9 (3): 243-260.
Steffensmeier, D and E. Allan, 1996. Gender
and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of
Female Offending. Annual Review of Sociology
22:459-487.
Weiner, B. 1974. Achievement, Motivation and
Attribution Theory. New Jersey: General
Learning Press.
Stout, K.D. 1991. Intimate Femicide. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 6:476-485.
Weiner, B. 1980. Human Motivation. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Stout, K. D. (1991). Women Who Kill:
Offenders or Defenders. Affilia Journal of
Women and Social Work 6 (1):8-22.
Weiner, B. 1986. An Attributional Theory of
Motivation and Emotion. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Stout, K. D. and P. Brown. 1995. Legal and
Social Differences Between Men and Women
Who Kill Intimate Partners. Affilia Journal of
Women and Social Work.
Wilson, N. K. 1993. Gendered Interaction in
Criminal Homicide in Homicide the VictimOffender Connection, edited by Anna Victoria
Wilson. Cincinnati: Anderson.
10 (1):195-205.
World Health Organization, World Report on
Violence and Health, Geneva, 2000.
Trinidad and Tobago Domestic Violence Act
No. 27 of 1999. An Act to amend the Domestic
Violence Act of 1991.
Trinidad and Tobago Sexual Offences Act No.
31 of 2000. An Act to amend the Sexual
Offences Act of 1986.
Walker, L. 1984. The Battered Woman
Syndrome. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.
Walker, L. 1989. Terrifying Love: Why Battered
Women Kill and How Society Responds. New
York: Harper and Row.
Walker, L. 1992. Battered Woman Syndrome
and Self Defense. Notre Dame Journal of Law,
Ethics and Public Policy 6: 321-334.
United Nations General Assembly. 1993.
Declaration on the Elimination Against Women.
United Nations.
United
Nations.
1995.
Strategies
for
Confronting Domestic Violence: A Resource
Manual. Vienna: United Nations Publications.