Soc 695 Family Violence Research In World Perspective
Murray A. Straus
THE INTERNATIONAL
DATING VIOLENCE STUDY (IDVS)*
A STUDY OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
IN 32 COUNTRIES
•The work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant
T32MH15161 and the University of New Hampshire.
•
IDV study
1
OBJECTIVES TODAY
AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY
You will be using this data for lab projects all semester
UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF THEORY AND HOW IT APPLIES TO THE
STUDY OF FAMILY VIOLENCE
UNDERSTAND HOW THE CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES MEASURES
FAMILY VIOLENCE
* Shows the importance of measurement in science
* Illustrates some aspects of the sociology of science
IDV study
2
IDV study
3
MAIN PURPOSES OF THE IDVS
PURPOSE 1: ESTIMATE THE PREVALENCE OF
KINDS OF PARTNER “VIOLENCE”
* PHYSICAL ASSAULT
* INJURY FROM ASSAULT
* SEXUAL COERCION
* PSYCHOLGICAL AGGRESSION
FOR EACH TYPE
 PREVALENCE (%)
 SEVERITY
 CHRONICITY (How often)
IDV study
4
PURPOSE 2: TEST THEORIES ABOUT THE CAUSES OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST PARTNERS
WHAT IS A THEORY?
For purposes of this course:
* An explanation of why something is the way it is.
* Can be: 1. As yet untested – a set of ideas
2. Tested but not yet widely accepted
3. Conclusive in the sense of the evidence is
accepted by almost all scientists in that filed
But even category 3 is always open to question
Example of theory to be tested in the next two labs:
* Spanking is part of the explanation of violence
* Falls in category 2
IDV study
5
SOCIAL INTEGRATION
OF MEXICAN AMERICAN AND NON-MEXICAN WHITE STUDENTS
AND ASSAULTS ON DATING PARTNERS
ANOTHER
EXAMPLE
Ignacio Luis Ramirez
Texas Technological University
0.35
* WHAT ARE
TWO THEORIES
OF DATING
VIOLENCE THAT
YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SEE
TESTED?
IDV study
Non-Mexican
Mexican American
0.3
Probability of Assault
* WHAT IS THE
THEORY
TESTED FOR
THIS GRAPH?
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Social Integration Score
6
OTHER EXAMPLES OF THEORIES THAT CAN BE TESTED WITH
INTERNATIOAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY DATA
ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
ALCOHOL ABUSE
ANGER MANAGEMENT SKILL
DOMINANCE OF ONE PARTNER
COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS
CRIMINALITY
GENDER HOSTILITY
GENDER INEQUALITY
SELF-CONTROL
SOCIAL INTEGRATION
SOCIAL STRESS
VIOLENT CHILD REARING
VIOLENT CULTURAL NORMS
IDV study
7
IDV study
8
THE CONCEPT OF A “RISK FACTOR”
“RISK FACTOR” IS A SYNONYM FOR THE INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE WHEN IT REFERS TO
•A CONDITION WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH AND INCREASED
PROBABILITY OF A DISEASE OR PROBLEM
• EXAMPLES:
–SMOKING AND DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE
(33% chance)
–MALE DOMINANCE AND WIFE BEATING
(20% chance - 7 fold increase)
–SPANKING AND DELINQUENCY
(24% chance - 5 fold increase)
–BINGE DRINKING AND WIFE BEATING
(19% chance - 3 fold increase)
IDV study
9
SOME ILLUSTRATIVE FINDINGS
* RATES OF ASSAULT AND INJURY
* TESTS OF THEORIES ABOUT THE CAUSES
IDV study
10
PHYSICAL ASSAULT SCALE OF THE CTS2
MINOR PHYSICAL ASSAULT
•
•
•
•
•
Slapped my partner
Grabbed my partner
Threw something at my partner that could hurt
Twisted my partner’s arm or hair
Pushed or shoved my partner
SEVERE PHYSICAL ASSAULT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt
Kicked my partner
Slammed my partner against a wall
Choked my partner
Beat up my partner
Burned or scalded my partner
Used knife or gun on my partner
IDV study
11
PHYSICAL ASSAULT RATES
Table 4A. Overall Assault Perpetration (%)
Table 4B. Severe Assault Perpetration (%)
SITE
TOTAL
(MALE FEMALE)
FEM/MALE%
USA-LOUISIAN
44.7
(38.1 48.2)
126.5%
MEX-JUAREZ
42.0
(30.8 44.3)
143.8%
IND-PUNE
39.0
(33.3 41.2)
123.7%
CAN-LONDON
36.3
(25.9 44.2)
170.7%
USA-MISSISSP
34.5
(24.0 35.7)
148.8%
KOR-PUSAN
33.7
(24.7 39.4)
159.5%
USA-INDIANA
33.5
(39.0 31.5)
80.8%
USA-TX-MEX
33.1
(34.0 32.4)
95.3%
USA-TX NCDCHS
31.3
(42.4 26.8)
63.2%
BEL-FLEMISH
31.0
(26.0 32.5)
125.0%
CAN-TORONTO
30.6
(23.8 34.2)
143.7%
USA-TX-N MEX
30.6
(31.1 30.2)
97.1%
NDL-AMSTRDAM
30.2
(31.4 29.7)
94.6%
DEU-FREIBURG
29.5
(37.1 24.0)
64.7%
CAN-WINNIPEG
29.0
(38.5 27.7)
71.9%
HKG-HONGKONG
28.6
(19.5 34.6)
177.4%
USA-NH 1
28.5
(24.7 30.2)
122.3%
NZL-CHRISTCH
26.6
(16.7 29.2)
174.9%
USA-NH 2
26.5
(26.1 26.6)
101.9%
CHE-FRENCH
24.5
(30.2 22.5)
74.5%
USA-CINCINN
24.5
(22.8 26.1)
114.5%
CHE-GERMAN
23.9
(18.5 25.2)
136.2%
BRA-SAOPAULO
23.3
(22.4 23.8)
106.3%
CAN-HAMILTON
23.0
(13.5 24.5)
181.5%
CAN-MONTREAL
22.8
(20.6 23.4)
113.6%
SGP-SINGAPORE
22.7
(11.6 27.8)
239.7%
USA-PENNSLVNA
21.9
(14.0 24.3)
173.6%
AUS-ADELAIDE
21.3
(19.1 21.8)
114.1%
ISR-EMEKZYRL
20.8
(22.6 20.4)
90.3%
USA-UTAH
17.7
(16.4 18.4)
112.2%
PRT-BRAGA
17.1
(17.4 16.7)
96.0%
IDV study
R: Tot-Male
= 0.67, Tot-Female = 0.93, Male-Fem = 0.39
SITE
TOTAL
(MALE FEMALE)
FEM/MALE%
IND-PUNE
22.2
(12.5 25.8)
206.4%
USA-LOUISIAN
21.0
(18.0 22.5)
125.0%
USA-MISSISSP
20.5
(20.0 20.6)
103.0%
KOR-PUSAN
17.4
(9.9 22.2)
224.2%
CAN-LONDON
15.6
(13.8 16.9)
122.5%
MEX-JUAREZ
15.4
(12.8 15.9)
124.2%
USA-INDIANA
13.4
(18.6 11.5)
61.8%
CAN-TORONTO
12.4
(8.5 14.4)
169.4%
USA-TX-N MEX
12.3
(11.8 12.8)
108.5%
HKG-HONGKONG
11.4
(5.8 15.0)
258.6%
USA-CINCINN
11.3
(12.1 10.5)
86.8%
NZL-CHRISTCH
10.6
(4.2 12.4)
295.2%
USA-TX NCDCHS
10.4
(21.2
6.1)
28.8%
CAN-HAMILTON
9.6
(5.4 10.3)
190.7%
USA-TX-MEX
9.6
(10.8
8.9)
82.4%
ISR-EMEKZYRL
9.4
(9.7
9.4)
96.9%
AUS-ADELAIDE
9.2
(9.5
9.1)
95.8%
USA-NH 2
9.0
(9.0
9.1)
101.1%
CAN-WINNIPEG
8.9
(16.7
8.0)
47.9%
CAN-MONTREAL
8.8
(7.9
9.1)
115.2%
CHE-GERMAN
8.7
(7.4
9.0)
121.6%
USA-NH 1
8.2
(4.3 10.0)
232.6%
BEL-FLEMISH
8.1
(6.0
8.7)
145.0%
PRT-BRAGA
7.6
(9.4
5.0)
53.2%
DEU-FREIBURG
7.3
(10.3
5.2)
50.5%
BRA-SAOPAULO
6.8
(8.4
6.1)
72.6%
USA-UTAH
6.1
(4.5
7.0)
155.6%
SGP-SINGAPORE
5.0
(1.5
6.6)
440.0%
USA-PENNSLVNA
4.9
(4.7
5.0)
106.4%
CHE-FRENCH
4.5
(8.0
3.3)
41.3%
NDL-AMSTRDAM
4.4
(8.6
3.0)
34.9%
12 = 0.37
R: Tot-Male = 0.61, Tot-Female = 0.96, Male-Fem
CTS2
IDV study
13
TOTAL INJURY
SITE
TOTAL (MALE,FEMALE)
IND-PUNE
20.0
(13.0
CAN-LONDON
19.3
(13.8
USA-LOUISIAN
18.0
(17.1
USA-INDIANA
14.8
(25.4
USA-WASH DC
12.1
(15.4
USA-TX-N MEX
11.5
(9.9
MEX-NORTHERN
10.4
(7.9
KOR-PUSAN
10.1
(8.9
USA-TX NCDCHS
9.7
(19.4
CAN-TORONTO
9.5
(8.6
USA-CINCINN
9.3
(12.7
USA-MISSISSP
9.3
(16.0
GBR-SCOTLAND
8.0
(5.9
CAN-HAMILTON
7.8
(5.4
USA-TX-MEX
7.6
(8.8
NZL-CHRISTCH
7.1
(8.3
BEL-FLEMISH
6.7
(5.0
CAN-MANITOBA
6.5
(6.3
USA-NH 2
6.3
(7.5
ISR-EMEKZYRL
5.9
(8.1
HKG-HONGKONG
5.5
(5.8
DEU-FREIBURG
5.4
(8.6
USA-NH 1
5.0
(3.9
CAN-MONTREAL
4.8
(9.5
BRA-SAOPAULO
4.2
(3.6
SGP-SINGAPORE
3.6
(4.4
PRT-BRAGA
3.5
(5.9
USA-PENNSLVNA
3.2
(7.6
CHE-GERMAN
3.1
(0.0
AUS-ADELAIDE
2.9
(0.0
NDL-AMSTRDAM
2.2
(8.6
USA-UTAH
2.2
(3.0
IDV study
CHE-FRENCH
1.5
(2.0
R: Tot-Male= .73, Tot-Female=.96,
FEM/MALE%
22.4)
171.7%
23.4)
169.5%
18.5)
108.5%
10.8)
42.3%
11.4)
74.3%
12.8)
129.3%
10.9)
138.7%
10.9)
123.5%
6.1)
31.5%
10.0)
115.7%
6.1)
48.2%
8.5)
53.1%
8.4)
142.5%
8.2)
150.6%
6.9)
77.9%
6.7)
80.9%
7.3)
145.0%
6.5)
104.0%
5.9)
79.2%
5.4)
66.7%
5.3)
91.5%
3.1)
36.5%
5.5)
140.8%
3.5)
36.3%
4.4)
123.8%
3.3)
76.1%
0.0)
0.0%
1.8)
24.4%
3.9)
0.0%
3.6)
0.0%
0.0)
0.0%
1.8)
58.5%
1.3)
67.3%
Male-Female=.53
SEVERE INJURY
SITE
TOTAL
(MALE, FEMALE) FEM/MALE %
IND-PUNE
12.5
CAN-LONDON
8.9
USA-LOUISIAN
7.6
USA-INDIANA
7.4
USA-TX NCDCHS
5.3
USA-CINCINN
5.0
USA-WASH DC
4.9
KOR-PUSAN
4.4
USA-MISSISSP
3.9
CAN-TORONTO
3.3
USA-TX-N MEX
3.1
CAN-HAMILTON
3.0
ISR-EMEKZYRL
2.7
USA-TX-MEX
2.5
DEU-FREIBURG
2.4
HKG-HONGKONG
2.3
USA-NH 2
2.1
BRA-SAOPAULO
1.9
USA-PENNSLVNA
1.9
MEX-NORTHERN
1.8
CHE-GERMAN
1.6
GBR-SCOTLAND
0.9
USA-NH 1
0.8
CAN-MANITOBA
0.7
CAN-MONTREAL
0.7
CHE-FRENCH
0.5
SGP-SINGAPORE
0.5
BEL-FLEMISH
0.5
AUS-ADELAIDE
0.4
NDL-AMSTRDAM
0.0
NZL-CHRISTCH
0.0
PRT-BRAGA
0.0
USA-UTAH
0.0
R: Tot-Male= .76, Tot-Female=
(8.7 13.9)
159.2%
(10.3 7.8)
75.3%
(15.4 3.8)
24.7%
(13.6 5.1)
37.6%
(9.7 3.7)
37.8%
(9.0 1.2)
13.7%
(0.0 5.8)
0.0%
(2.5 5.6)
219.8%
(8.3 3.4)
40.2%
(3.7 3.1)
84.6%
(5.0 1.6)
32.5%
(5.4 2.6)
47.9%
(3.2 2.5)
78.3%
(6.6 0.0)
0.0%
(4.4 1.0)
23.6%
(5.8 0.0)
0.0%
(3.1 1.8)
59.1%
(2.4 1.7)
69.7%
(5.7 0.6)
10.8%
(2.6 1.6)
60.5%
(0.0 2.0)
0.0%
(0.0 1.1)
0.0%
(0.4 1.0)
227.9%
(0.0 0.8)
0.0%
(1.6 0.4)
26.7%
(2.0 0.0)
0.0%
(1.5 0.0)
0.0%
(2.0 0.0)
0.0%
(0.0 0.5)
0.0%
(0.0 0.0)
0.0%
(0.0 0.0)
0.0%
(0.0 0.0) 14
0.0%
(0.0 0.0)
0.0%
.91, Male-Female= .49
FIGURE 1. THE HIGHER THE PERCENT WHO SEVERELY ASSAULTED A PARTNER,
THE MORE PARTNERS WHO WERE INJURED (TOTAL)
SCATTER PLOT EXAMPLE
25%
r = 0.85
IND-PUNE
20%
CAN-LOND
USA-LOUI
USA-INDI
15%
USA-TX-N M
MEX-JUAR
USA-TX-NC
CAN-TORO
USA-CINC
10%
KOR-PUSA
USA-MISS
CAN-HAMI
USA-TX-M
CAN-WINN NZL-CHRI
BEL-FLEM
USA-NH 2
ISR-EMEK
HKG-HONG
DEU-FREIUSA-NH 1
CAN-MONT
BRA-SAOP
SGP-SING
PRT-BRAG
CHE-GERM
AUS-ADEL
USA-PENN
NDL-AMST USA-UTAH
CHE-FREN
5%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
Assault Severe Perpetration
IDV study
15
CTS2
IDV study
16
CONCLUSIONS
• HIGH RATES OF ASSAULT AND INJURY IN ALL COUNTRIES
• RATES OF PERPETRATION BY WOMEN AND MEN ARE SIMILAR,
EXCEPT MEN CAUSE MORE INJURY
• THE INJURY DATA SHOWS THAT MANY ASSAULTS ARE NOT TRIVIAL
• RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER STUDIES OF STUDENTS
• THERE ARE LARGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.
– Presumably these are because of cultural and social organizational
differences between the national contexts
– We will test that theory in the lab projects
IDV study
17
STRENGTHS OF THE IDV STUDY
 Well-validated instrument to measure partner violence – the Conflict Tctics
Scales or CTS. Used in over 40 countries with respondents of all
socioeconomic levels, including low education rural and urban populations
and university students.
 Unusually wide range of risk factors. The personal and relationships profile
or PRP measure 23 variables associated with partner violence
 Procedures were tested with more than 1,000 students at three different
universities in the USA and in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico.
 Includes a scale to control for reluctance to disclose socially undesirable
behavior such as PV (Social Desirability scale)
 30 nations provide the opportunity to examine the effect of socio-cultural
differences on risk factors for dating-violence, including sites in all major
world regions.
 Locally salient issues for each site. Example: El Paso Texas site -- level of
acculturation for a predominantly Mexican American sample.
IDV study
18
LIMITATIONS OF THE IDVS
•
NOT A RANDOM SAMPLE OF ANY SPECIFIC UNIVERSE
“Random”
“Universe”
Implications
•
NO ASSURANCE THAT TRANSLATIONS WERE DONE CORRECTLY
•
EVEN IF TRANSLATED CORRECTLY, CONCEPT MAY NOT BE MEANINGFUL IN ALL
CULTURAL CONTEXTS
•
PROCEDURES WERE BIZARRE FOR STUDENTS IN SOME COUNTRIES
•
WEAK OR NO EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY FOR MOST OF THE MEASURES OF RISK
FACTORS
•
NOT ENOUGH CASES IN A FEW COUNTRIES
•
OTHER?
IDV study
19
WHY THE IDVS IS WORTH DOING
DESPITE THE LIMITATIONS
• NO OTHER DATA ON PV THAT IS COMPARABLE INTERNATIONALLY
• PERMITS TESTS OF MANY THEORIES
IDV study
20
POINTS TO BE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND
• THE TWO MAIN PURPOSES OF THE IDVS AND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS
• AN EXAMPLE OF A RESULT FROM EACH PURPOSE
• WHAT A SCATTER PLOT AND REGRESSION LINE ARE (WILL BE CLEAR WHEN
WE DO LAB C)
• THE CONCEPT OF “RISK FACTOR” AND AN EXAMPLE
• THE CONCEPT OF A “SOCIAL CAUSE”
• THE CONCEPT OF MULTIPLE CAUSATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
• LIMITATIONS OF THE IDVS
• WHY THE STUDY IS WORTH DOING DESPITE THOSE LIMITATIONS
IDV study
21
END FOR SOC 695 (2007)
IDV study
22
SOME FINDINGS ON RISK FACTORS FOR
VIOLENCE AGAINST A DATING PARTNER
Each Tests A Theory About What Is Related To Or Causes
Partner Violence
 Data On Risk Factors Is From The Personal And Relationships
Profile
IDV study
23
THE PERSONAL AND RELATIONSHIPS PROFILE (PRP)
PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK FACTORS
ASP ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY
BOR BORDERLINE PERSONALITY
CH
CRIMINAL HISTORY
DEP DEPRESSION
GHM GENDER HOSTILITY TO MEN
GHW GENDER HOSTILITY TO WOMEN
NH
NEGLECT HISTORY
PTS POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
SC
SELF-CONTROL
SD
SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS
SI
SOCIAL INTEGRATION
SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE
STR STRESSFUL CONDITIONS
SAH SEXUAL ABUSE HISTORY
VA
VIOLENCE APPROVAL
VS
VIOLENT SOCIALIZATION
SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP RISK FACTORS
(BEHAVIOR TOWARDS OR BELIEFS ABOUT THE PARTNER)
AM
ANGER MANAGEMENT
CP
COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS
CON CONFLICT
DOM DOMINANCE
JEL
JEALOUSY
NA
NEGATIVE ATTRIBUTION
RC
RELATIONSHIP COMMITMENT
RD
RELATIONSHIP DISTRESS
IDV study
24
DOES LOW SOCIAL INTEGRATION INCREASE THE
RISK OF HITTING A PARTNER?
SOCIAL INTEGRATION SCALE ITEMS
Commitment
I have goals in life that I try to reach
I give up easily on difficult projects (R)
Criminal Beliefs
It’s all right to break the law as long as you don’t get hurt (R)
To get ahead, I have done some things which are not right (R)
Delinquent Peers
I spend time with friends who have been in trouble with the law.(R)
I have friends who have committed crimes (R)
Involvement
I attend a church, synagogue, or mosque once a month or more
I rarely have anything to do with religious activities (R)
Kin Network Availability
I have family members who would help me out if I had a problem
I share my thoughts with a family member
IDV study
25
SOCIAL INTEGRATION
OF MEXICAN AMERICAN AND NON-MEXICAN WHITE STUDENTS
AND ASSAULTS ON DATING PARTNERS
Ignacio Luis Ramirez
Texas Technological University
0.35
Non-Mexican
Mexican American
Probability of Assault
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Social Integration Score
IDV study
26
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCALE ITEMS
PROPERTY CRIME
EARLY
ONSET
CRIME
Before age 15, I stole or tried
to steal something worth
more than $50.00
Before age 15, I stole money
(from anyone, including
family)
LATER
CRIME
IDV study
VIOLENT CRIME
Before age 15, I physically
attacked someone with the
idea of seriously hurting
them
Before age 15, I hit or
threatened to hit my
parents
Since age 15, I have stolen or Since age 15, I physically
tried to steal something
attacked someone with the
worth more than $50.00
idea of seriously hurting
them
Since age 15, I have stolen
Since age 15, I hit or
money (from anyone,
threatened to hit someone
including family)
who is not a member of
my family.
27
IDV study
28
ARE COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS
PART OF THE PROBLEM?`
IDV study
29
E
IDV study
30
RISK FACTORS FOR
PSYSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION
(VERBAL ATTACKS)
* RISK FACTORS ARE SIMILAR TO RISK
FACTORS FOR PHYSICAL ASSAULT
* PROBABLY BECAUSE PSYCHOLGICAL AND
PHYSICAL ATTACKS ARE HIGHLY
CORRELATED
IDV study
31
CTS2
IDV study
32
THE LONGER THE RELATIONSHIP, THE
GREATER THE PROBABILITY OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION
Predicted Probability Psych Aggr Total
0.30
0.25
0.20
Females
0.15
Males
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
IDV study
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Relationship Length (in months )
30.00
33
THE PREVIOUS FOUR GRAPHS ILLUSTRATE
TESTS OF FOUR THEORIES
•
•
•
•
SOCIAL INTEGRATION
CRIMINAL HISTORY
COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS
LENGTH OF THE RELATIONSHIP
ALSO ILLUSTRATES THE INTER-RELATION OF THE SOCIAL AND
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES
IDV study
34
WHAT IS A THEORY
For Purposes Of This Course
* AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY SOMETHING EXISTS, OCCURS, OR CHANGES
* “PROVEN” OR ESTABLISHED THEORY VERSUS HYPOTHESIZED THEORY
• Proven means that the accumulated the evidence has reached the point
where there is a concensus among scientists that the theory is correct.
Examples: Heliocentric theory of the solar system
Evolution
Birds descended from dinasors now proven
* ANY THEORY ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR THAT IDENTIFIES ONLY ONE
CASUSE IS PROBABLY WRONG
In the sense of incomplete because almost all behavior has multiple
causes. Examples:
Drinking problems
Male dominance
Social learning
IDV study
35
THE CONCEPT OF A “RISK FACTOR”
“RISK FACTOR” IS A SYNONYM FOR THE INDEPENDENT
VARIABLE WHEN IT REFERS TO
•A CONDITION WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH AND INCREASED
PROBABILITY OF A DISEASE OR PROBLEM
• EXAMPLES:
–SMOKING AND DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE
(33% chance)
–MALE DOMINANCE AND WIFE BEATING
(20% chance - 7 fold increase)
–SPANKING AND DELINQUENCY
(24% chance - 5 fold increase)
–BINGE DRINKING AND WIFE BEATING
(19% chance - 3 fold increase)
IDV study
36
IDV study
37
CONCLUSIONS
•VIOLENCE AGAINST DATING PARTNERS HAS MANY
“CAUSES” (“RISK FACTORS”)
•THE “CAUSES” OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PARTNERS ARE
SIMILAR FOR MEN AND WOMEN
•EACH ADDITONAL RISK FACTOR INCREASE THE
PROBABILITY OF VIOLENCE, BUT NONE GUARANTEE
VIOLENCE
•MOST OF THE RISK FACTORS ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE
CHANGED. SO PREVENTION OF FAMILY VIOLENCE IS A
REALISTIC SOCIAL POLICY GOAL
IDV study
38