A Risk Marker Analysis of Wife Assault in Latino Families

http://vaw.sagepub.com/Violence Against Women

http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/8/4/429The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/107780120200800403

2002 8: 429Violence Against WomenEtiony Aldarondo, Glenda Kaufman Kantor and Jana L. Jasinski

A Risk Marker Analysis of Wife Assault in Latino Families

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Violence Against WomenAdditional services and information for

http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://vaw.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/8/4/429.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 1, 2002Version of Record >>

at CARLETON UNIV on November 29, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from at CARLETON UNIV on November 29, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://vaw.sagepub.com/

http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/8/4/429

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://vaw.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/8/4/429.refs.html

http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/8/4/429.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / April 2002Aldarondo et al. / WIFE ASSAULT IN LATINO FAMILIES

A Risk Marker Analysis of WifeAssault in Latino Families

ETIONY ALDARONDOBoston College

GLENDA KAUFMAN KANTORUniversity of New Hampshire

JANA L. JASINSKIUniversity of Central Florida

This study used national survey data to assess the utility of commonly recognized riskmarkers for wife assault to predict violence against women in various ethnic groups ofLatino families (i.e., Mexican, Mexican American, Puerto Rican). The authors identifiedvarious combinations of factors affecting violence risk within different ethnic groups.Level of conflict emerged as the strongest and most stable factor across ethnic group andgender of respondent. Generic risk markers did not adequately account for the observedbetween-group variability. The results highlight the need to investigate both generic andculture-specific variables associated with an increased risk for wife assault.

In the past two decades, a considerable effort has been made to iden-tify individual, relationship, and social factors associated with anincreased risk for violence against women in intimate heterosex-ual relationships. Among the most consistent findings in this liter-ature are that young men, men who drink alcohol excessively,men who have low occupational status, and men who have wit-nessed and/or experienced parental violence in their family oforigin are at greater risk of assaulting their female partners thanmen without these attributes (Kaufman Kantor & Jasinski, 1998).Wife assault has also been found to be more prevalent in cohabit-ing relationships, in male dominant relationships, and in relation-ships with high levels of conflict and verbal aggression than in

429

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Data used in this study were supported by Research Grant no.RO1AA09070 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authorswish to thank the generous contribution concerning data analysis made by Eugenio J. Gon-zalez, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Vol. 8 No. 4, April 2002 429-454© 2002 Sage Publications

at CARLETON UNIV on November 29, 2014vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from


intimate relationships without these indicators (Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Bates, 1998; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986).

To date, however, the bulk of this work has largely ignored eth-nic differences among perpetrators of domestic violence (Carrillo& Tello, 1998; Jasinski & Williams, 1998). In fact, in a recent reviewof the domestic violence literature, Hage (2000) reported findingonly 15 published articles over the past 20 years focusing specifi-cally on ethnic minority populations. As a result, there is only lim-ited evidence that the emerging knowledge base in domestic vio-lence research is truly relevant to understanding wife assaultacross ethnic groups. The de facto assumption in the field appearsto be that a common set of risk factors affects all groups equally.From a multicultural perspective (e.g., Helms & Cook, 1999),however, it is reasonable to assume variability in the conditionsassociated with wife assault in ethnic minority families; what isimportant for the occurrence of wife assault in one ethnic groupmay be irrelevant for others.

The aim of this study is twofold. First, the study aims to evalu-ate the utility of commonly recognized risk markers of wifeassault to predict violence against women among various ethnicgroups of Latino families. Specifically, we ask (a) Will the presenceof particular individual, social, and relationship risk markers con-tribute uniquely to the prediction of wife assault across ethnicgroups? and (b) Will the combined presence of these factors con-tribute uniquely to the prediction of wife assault in different eth-nic groups?

Our second goal is to help fill the gap in the wife assault litera-ture with regard to Latino groups. As reviewed in the next section,very little research has focused on these populations, and theresearch that does exist has generally examined just one Latinogroup. We use data from the National Alcohol and Family Vio-lence Survey (NAFVS) (Kaufman Kantor & Asdigian, 1997; KaufmanKantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994) to compare Mexican, Mexi-can American, Puerto Rican, and Anglo-American families on 11risk markers at the bivariate and multivariate levels. Because theliterature has largely shown that characteristics of men are moreimportant risk factors for intimate violence compared to those forwomen, we use only data about men that were obtained frommale and female respondents.

430 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / April 2002



WIFE ASSAULT IN LATINO FAMILIES

In recent years, investigators have begun to examine the ratesof wife assault in Latino communities. An evaluation of thesestudies reveals some uniform findings and some inconsistencies.Straus and Smith’s (1990) analysis of the 1985 National FamilyViolence Survey found Hispanic families to be at greater risk forwife assault than non-Hispanic White families. However, this dif-ference dissipated after accounting for the effects of urbanicity,age of respondent, and family income. Similarly, in a study con-ducted in Texas, investigators found that the higher risk of wifeassault in Mexican American families than in Anglo-Americanfamilies dissipated after accounting for the effects of financialresources (Neff, Holamon, & Schluter, 1995). Kaufman Kantoret al.’s (1994) national study found Mexican and Puerto Ricanfamilies to be at greater risk of wife assault than their Anglo-American counterparts, and the differential violence risk wasaccounted for by the effects of age, approval of violence, and eco-nomic stress. A recent study also found that childhood experi-ences of violence increase the risk of wife assault in Hispanic fami-lies (Caetano, Schafer, Clark, Cunradi, & Raspberry, 2000).

Other studies suggest that Hispanic and Anglo-American fam-ilies may not be considerably different in their risk for wifeassault. Sorenson and Telles’s (1991) study of domestic violence inLos Angeles found the risk for wife assault among MexicanAmerican and non-Hispanic Whites to be nearly equivalent. Rela-tive equivalence in risk level for wife assault between Hispanicsand other racial and ethnic groups has also been reported in stud-ies using shelter and small community samples (Gondolf, Fisher,& McFerron, 1988; O’Keefe, 1994; Torres, 1991). At least one study(Sorenson, 1996) reported lower levels of wife assault among His-panics than among non-Hispanic Whites. Previous analyses basedon data from the NAFVS (Kaufman Kantor & Asdigian, 1997;Kaufman Kantor et al., 1994) found that the incidence rates of inti-mate partner violence (based on the combined reports of male andfemale respondents) differed across ethnic groups. Rates of wifebeating in Puerto Rican American families (20.4%) were morethan double those reported in Anglo families (9.9%). Assault ratesin Mexican American families were almost equally as high (17.9%).Rates of wife assault by less acculturated Mexican men (10.5%)were virtually the same as those of Anglo-American men.

Aldarondo et al. / WIFE ASSAULT IN LATINO FAMILIES 431



Husband-to-wife assaults were rarely reported in Cuban Ameri-can families (2.5%).

This literature suggests that factors such as age, socioeconomicstress, and approval of violence may increase the risk of wifeassault in various ethnic groups of Latino families. The presentstudy builds on our prior examination of data from the NAFVS bysystematically examining the effects of the latter factors in combi-nation with other commonly recognized individual and relation-ship risk markers for wife assault in a sample of Mexican, MexicanAmerican, Puerto Rican, and Anglo-American families.

METHOD

NATIONAL ALCOHOL AND FAMILYVIOLENCE SURVEY (NAFVS)

The NAFVS consisted of face-to-face interviews with a nationalprobability sample of married or cohabiting heterosexual cou-ples, including an oversample of 846 Latino couples. One memberof each household, either the husband or the wife, was randomlyselected and interviewed. Therefore, information relevant to abusewas obtained from only one individual in any specific household.Interviews lasted 56 minutes on average for the English versionand 67 minutes on average for the Spanish version. To ensure aLatino sample of sufficient size, oversampling was conducted inareas with high concentrations of Latino residents according tocensus data.

The Spanish translation of the survey questions was accom-plished by a back translation method. That is, the interview waswritten in English, translated into Spanish, and then translatedagain from Spanish into English. In addition, the survey questionswere reviewed and pretested with members of various Latinogroups to ensure a consensus of understanding. Bilingual inter-viewers were used in oversampled areas, and respondents hadthe choice of doing the interview in English or Spanish. If theinterviewer was not fluent in Spanish and that was the languagepreferred by the respondent, another interviewer was assigned tocomplete the interview. Sixty-four percent of Latinos chose to takethe Spanish language version of the interview. The overall response




rate for all eligible individuals was 75.4%. The response rate forLatinos in oversampled areas was 80.3%.

SAMPLE

Among the original total sample from which the analyticalsample was drawn, the mean ages for male and female respon-dents were 45.3 (SD = 15.3) and 42.6 (SD = 15.0), respectively. Ofthe respondents, 52% were White, 43% Latino, 4% African Ameri-can, and the remaining 1% were either from other ethnic groups ordid not identify their ethnic background. The median familyincome fell in the range of $25,000 to $29,000 annually.

This analysis includes data from 1,193 respondents (653 femaleand 539 male) from the original sample of 1,970 who completedthe NAFVS. This article includes data from the three largestLatino groups in the United States and data from Anglo families.Although analyses on wife assault patterns among all ethnicgroupings would be of interest, data from all other non-Latinoethnic family groups are excluded because the number of familiesis too few to permit reliable analyses. Data from Cuban Americanfamilies are excluded because the low reporting rates for maleviolence preclude reliable multivariate analyses.

ETHNIC GROUP MEMBERSHIP

The ethnicity of respondents and partners was determined byasking, “Which of these racial and ethnic groups do you consideryourself (your partner): Pacific Islander, Asian, Native Americanor Alaskan Native, White but not Latino, Black but not Latino,Latino or Hispanic, or some other group?” Those individuals whoanswered Latino or Hispanic were also asked, “Which of thesegroups best describes your own (your partner’s) ethnic identifica-tion: Puerto Rican, Mexican, Mexican American, Cuban, CubanAmerican, Dominican, Central American, South American, orsome other group?” Thus, the designations, for example Mexicanversus Mexican American, that are used throughout the articlerefer to the manner in which individuals defined themselves orwere defined by their partner. In virtually all (96.4%) of the Latinocouples, the partners were of the same ethnicity.




In this study, we use the term Anglo-American to refer to respon-dents or partners described as “White but not Latino” as a singleentity. Thus, we do not attempt to capture the diversity of Anglo-American ethnic identification. Groups other than Anglo-Americans and Latinos (e.g., Asians, African Americans, NativeAmericans) are not examined in this article. This article also con-fines the analysis of Latinos to the three largest groups in this sam-ple (Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Mexican Americans).

VIOLENCE MEASURE

The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) was the measure of wife assaultused in this study (Straus, 1990). This is the most widely usedmeasure of physical violence among cohabiting and married cou-ples. The scale is composed of 19 items that assess tactics used ininterpersonal conflicts. The items are presented on a continuumfrom nonviolent to severely violent tactics. Examples of violenceitems are “threw something at partner,” “slapped,” “kicked, bit,or hit with a fist,” and “used a knife or fired a gun.” Respondentsare asked to indicate how many times in the past 12 months theyand their partners had used the various tactics. Responses weredichotomized so that 0 represented those families in which nomale violence was reported and 1 represented those in which anymale violence, minor or severe, was reported.

The CTS has two stable factors, physical aggression and verbalaggression (Barling, O’Leary, Jouriles, Vivian, & MacEwen, 1987).A large body of evidence indicates reliability and validity of thismeasure (Grotevant & Carlson, 1989; Straus, 1990). The most fre-quent criticism of this version of the CTS is that it measures onlythe frequency and severity of physical attacks, not the context inwhich the violence occurs and extent of injury resulting fromthose attacks (e.g., DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Dobash, Dobash,Cavanagh, & Lewis, 1998).

OPERATIONALIZATION OF RISK MARKERS

The NAFVS data have the advantage of including informationon numerous individual, relationship, and social characteristicsknown to increase the risk of violent behavior by men against




their female partners. Given the lack of consistent risk markersthat primarily focus on victims themselves (Campbell, Miller,Cardwell, & Belknap, 1994; Margolin, John, & Foo, 1998; Sugarman& Hotaling, 1990), this study was limited to specific characteris-tics of men and their intimate relationships. Eleven risk markerswere included in the analysis.

INDIVIDUAL RISK MARKERS

Age

Respondents were asked to provide their age and the age oftheir partners. Age is included in the analyses because violencehas been found to decline across the life course (Suitor, Pillemer, &Straus, 1990).

Violence Approval

The men’s approval of violence was measured by asking them,“Are there situations that you can imagine in which you wouldapprove of a husband slapping his wife’s face?” Responses werecoded 0 for no and 1 for yes.

Alcohol Consumption

A drinking index was constructed that grouped respondentsand partners according to six categories of frequency and con-sumption ranging from abstinence to high-volume binge drink-ing (Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987). Previous evaluations of therelationship between wife assault and alcohol consumption sup-port the construct validity of this measure (e.g., Kaufman Kantor,1990; Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987, 1989). Only data concern-ing men’s use of alcohol were included in this study.

Verbal Aggression

Verbal aggression was measured by using the verbal aggres-sion index of the CTS. The items included in the index are “insultedor swore at her,” “sulked and/or refused to talk,” “stomped out ofthe room/house,” “did or said something to spite her,” and




“threw, smashed, hit, or kicked something.” The response catego-ries, derived from the original subscale of the CTS (Straus, 1990),were none, once, twice, 3 to 5 times, 6 to 10 times, 11 to 19 times,and 20 or more times. In turn, these were coded using the mid-points of the response categories, and the verbal aggression indexwas obtained by adding the coded responses of the six items.Higher scores represent greater levels of verbal aggression.

Violence in Family of Origin

Two measures of violence in the family of origin were used.“Experiencing” physical violence from parents was measured byasking respondents how often during their teenage years theywere physically punished (i.e., slapped) by each parent. Responseswere coded 0 for none and 1 for one or more times. “Witnessing”spousal violence was measured by asking respondents if theyremembered times during their teenage years when either parenthit or threw something at the other parent. The responses werecoded 0 for no and 1 for yes.

SOCIAL RISK MARKERS

Family Income

Annual family income was measured by asking respondents toidentify the appropriate interval ranging from $0-$15,000, to $40,000or more. In this analysis, we followed the poverty criteria speci-fied by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992) of $15,000 to create adichotomous family income category (low income coded as 0 andabove low income coded as 1).

Employment

Men’s employment status was obtained by asking respondentswhether they (or their partners in the case of female respondents)were employed full-time, part-time, or were unemployed, retired,a student, housekeeper, or something else. These responses weredichotomized according to whether, 1, or not, 0, the men wereemployed full-time.




Occupation

Occupational status was measured by asking respondents todescribe the kind of work they did and that of their partners. Thisinformation was coded using the Bureau of Labor Statistics revisedOccupational Classification System into either blue-collar (coded1) or white-collar (coded 2) in accord with a procedure proposedby Rice (see Straus & Gelles, 1990).

RELATIONSHIP RISK MARKERS

Marital Status

Marital status information was obtained by asking respon-dents to indicate if at the time of the interview they were married(coded 1) or living with but not married to a partner (coded 2).

Relationship Conflict

The level of conflict in the relationship was measured by askingrespondents how often in the past year they agreed with theirpartner on several relationship and household issues (Straus,Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Specifically, these included “managingthe money,” “cooking, cleaning, or repairing the house,” “socialactivities and entertaining,” “affection and sex relations,” and“amount of time spent together.” Their response choices rangedfrom “always agreed” (coded 1) to “never agreed” (coded 5). Thearithmetic average was used as an index of conflict in the relation-ship. Previous analyses have found satisfactory reliability scoresin the range of α = .87.

Data Analytic Strategy

The analysis of data was done in three steps. First, chi-squaretests and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used todescribe the ethnic groups and to compare them across the preva-lence of husband-wife violence and across risk markers. Second,given that many risk markers are highly correlated with eachother (e.g., age and alcohol consumption, witnessing and




experiencing violence in the family of origin, occupational statusand family income), a principal components factor analysis withVarimax rotation was completed to identify a smaller number ofuncorrelated latent variables and to compute orthogonal factorscores. An eigenvalue of 1.0 was used as the criterion for factorextraction. A conservative factor loading cutoff (i.e., absolutevalue of .45) was used to denote a risk marker’s loading on a par-ticular latent construct. Then, logistic regression was used to eval-uate the effects of the orthogonal factors on the probability of wifeassault within each ethnic group. Data based on men’sself-reports and women’s reports on intimate male partners wereanalyzed separately. This strategy permits the evaluation ofresults from the perspectives of the victims and the perpetratorsof violence.

RESULTS

BIVARIATE ANALYSIS

Wife Assault Prevalence

As shown in Table 1, we first examined differences betweengroups with respect to the outcome of interest (i.e., wife assaults).Table 1 shows that rates of assaults on wives as reported by malesare highest among Mexican American families, followed byPuerto Rican, Mexican, and Anglo-American families, χ2 = 12.06,df = 3, p = .007. When women report on the incidence of assaults bypartners, the highest rates are seen in Puerto Rican families, fol-lowed by Mexican American, Mexican, and Anglo-Americanfamilies, χ2 = 6.76, df = 3, p = .080. Comparing the reports of womento those of men shows that Puerto Rican and Anglo-Americanwomen report higher rates of wife assault. However, the ratesreported by Mexican American and Mexican women are lowerthan those reported by men. This discrepancy is particularly nota-ble in the 10% difference in male and female reports among Mexi-can American families.




ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS RISK MARKERS

Male Respondents

Table 2 presents one-way ANOVAs of several risk markers formale and female respondents, separately.1 Considering analysisof male respondents’ data, significant differences were found inthe men’s age and the reported levels of conflict and verbalaggression. Tukey’s tests revealed that Mexican men were signifi-cantly younger than Anglo-American men and reported signifi-cantly lower levels of verbal aggression than Anglo-Americanand Mexican American men. In terms of relationship conflict, themean score for Anglo-American men was significantly greaterthan the scores for Mexican and Puerto Rican men. No significantgroup differences were found in the reported levels of alcoholconsumption by men in this sample.

Female Respondents

Analysis for female respondents shown in Table 2 demon-strated significant differences in all four factors. Tukey’s testsrevealed that Mexican male partners were younger and less ver-bally aggressive than their Anglo-American counterparts. In addi-tion, Anglo-American women reported significantly higher lev-els of conflict in their relationships than Mexican women. Con-cerning alcohol consumption, Mexican American male partners’score was significantly higher than the score for the remaininggroups.


TABLE 1Husband to Wife Violence by Gender and Ethnicity of Respondent

Male Respondents Female Respondents

N = 539 N = 653

% Puerto Rican 21.9 25.7% Mexican 17.6 13.4% Mexican American 26.0 16.7% Anglo-American 10.6 11.3% total sample 14.1 13.2χ2 12.06** 6.76

**p < .01.



TABLE 2Group Means (and Standard Deviations) on Risk Markers in the Anglo-American,Mexican, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican Groups by Gender of Respondent


AA M MA PR AA M MA PRRisk Marker n = 349 n =108 n = 50 n = 32 Overall F n = 394 n =147 n = 72 n = 35 Overall F

Age of husband 41.6 36.6 39.9 40.2 5.3*** 41.2 36.6 39.5 38.2 7.2***(11.7) (9.9) (10.1) (10.8) (10.7) (9.7) (11.5) (9.7)

Alcohol consumption 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.1 1.8 2.0 2.6 1.6 7.6***(1.3) (1.6) (1.6) (1.7) (1.3) (1.7) (1.5) (1.8)

Conflict 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.9 20.7*** 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.9 8.5***(.65) (.73) (.82) (.72) (.70) (.81) (.91) (.86)

Verbal aggression 5.4 3.2 7.3 5.9 7.8*** 6.4 4.6 6.2 6.8 3.5*(4.9) (5.1) (7.7) (6.8) (6.0) (6.4) (6.0) (7.2)

NOTE: AA= Anglo-American; M = Mexican; MA= Mexican American; PR = Puerto Rican. The overall F tests for male respondents were evaluated using3, 535 degrees of freedom. The overall F tests for female respondents were evaluated using 3, 649 degrees of freedom.*p < .05. ***p < .001.

440

at CA

RLE

TO

N U

NIV

on Novem

ber 29, 2014vaw

.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


ANALYSIS OF CATEGORICAL RISK MARKERS

Male Respondents

Table 3 shows significant group differences in men’s reports offamily income, employment, occupational status, and history ofviolence in their family of origin. Evaluation of standardizedresiduals indicated that a smaller than expected percentage ofPuerto Rican men were not married; that a higher than expectedpercentage of Puerto Rican and Mexican men were unemployed;that a higher than expected number of Mexican men had blue-collar jobs; that a higher than expected number of Anglo-Americanmen had white-collar jobs; and that a higher than expected per-centage of Mexican men earned less than $15,000 a year. Concern-ing male respondents’ history of physical violence in their fami-lies of origin, a larger than expected percentage of Mexican menwitnessed their fathers hit their mothers than men in other groups.In addition, a higher than expected number of Puerto Rican menand a lower than expected number of Mexican men reported wit-nessing their mothers hit their fathers.

Female Respondents

Table 3 also shows significant group differences in women’sreports of family income and their partners’ employment andoccupational status. Analysis of standardized residuals found thatMexican families had unexpectedly low levels of family incomeand higher than expected percentages of unemployed and blue-collar male partners. On the other hand, Anglo-American familieswere overrepresented among those with an annual income ofmore than $15,000 and had an unexpectedly high number of white-collar working men.

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF RISK MARKERS

Male Respondents

As previously indicated, a principal components factor analy-sis with Varimax rotation was used to evaluate the redundancy ofthe 11 variables used as risk markers. When data from male




TABLE 3Analysis of Categorical Risk Markers for Male and Female Respondents by Ethnic Group

Male Respondents Female Respondents2(3, N = 539) 2(3, N = 648)

Description AA M MA PR 2 p AA M MA PR 2 p

% income < $15,000 6.6 43.5 24.0 12.5 88.91 .00*** 8.1 51 31.9 28.6 124.65 .00***% married 91.7 88.0 84.0 78.1 8.24 .04* 90.9 83.2 86.1 80.0 8.85 .03*% men approving violence 14.9 11.1 6.0 9.4 1.3 .26 — — — — —% men unemployed 7.7 23.1 16.0 25.0 24.71 .00*** 8.3 20.8 16.7 14.3 17.11 .00***% men blue-collar jobs 46.4 88.0 74.0 59.4 65.02 .00*** 48.9 85.9 79.2 85.7 83.01 .00***% men hit as teen by

father 36.7 31.5 36.0 34.4 78 .80 — — — — —mother 33.2 27.8 38.0 43.8 3.71 .31 — — — — —

% men witnessedfather hit mother 10.0 19.4 8.0 15.6 7.87 .04* — — — — —mother hit father 9.2 2.8 10.0 28.1 19.4 .00*** — — — — —

n 349 108 50 32 397 149 72 35

NOTE: AA = Anglo-American; M = Mexican; MA = Mexican American; PR = Puerto Rican.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

442

at CA

RLE

TO

N U

NIV

on Novem

ber 29, 2014vaw

.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


respondents were used, this procedure resulted in five latent vari-ables presented in Table 4. Afactor score for each of the latent vari-ables was computed.

Factor I appears to represent a quality of relationship factorwith high loadings on the men’s use of verbal aggression, level ofconflict, and alcohol consumption. High factor scores on thislatent variable denote conflictual relationships. The high positiveloadings on men’s age and occupational status, and the high neg-ative loading on marital status in Factor II, suggest a maturationfactor. Thus, the higher the factor score, the older and more stablethe men are in their work and relationships. Factor III includes thehighest loadings for experiencing violence in the family of originand witnessing violence in the family of origin. High scores onthese factors indicate a greater exposure to physical violenceamong male respondents’ parents and greater experience of physi-cal violence by their parents. Factor V taps into variables related tothe men’s economic resources (i.e., employment and family income);the higher the factor score, the higher the economic resources.

Female Respondents

Analysis of data from female respondents shown in Table 4yielded similar latent variables to those generated by male respon-dents. Factor I reflects a quality of relationship variable with highloadings on verbal aggression and level of conflict. The greater thescore in this factor, the higher the level of conflict and hostility inthe relationship. Factor II looks like a maturation variable withhigh positive loadings on marital status and alcohol consump-tion, and high negative loadings on men’s age. The higher the fac-tor II score, the younger and less stable the men are in their rela-tionships. The high loadings on men’s employment, family income,and occupational status suggest an economic resources factor.High scores on this factor (III) indicate more economic resources.

ANALYSIS OF FACTOR SCORES

Male Respondents

A one-way ANOVA was completed on all orthogonal factorscores comparing Anglo-American, Mexican, Mexican American,




and Puerto Rican men. The mean factor scores, standard devia-tions, and F ratios are presented in Table 5. Based on data frommale respondents, significant group differences were found in thequality of relationship, age, and economic resources factor scores.Tukey’s tests showed that Mexican families had significantly lessconflicted relationships (i.e., lower score) than Anglo-Americanand Mexican American families, that Puerto Rican men had sig-nificantly lower age factor scores than the remaining groups, andthat Anglo-American families had significantly greater economicresources factor scores than any group. In terms of violence in thefamily of origin, no significant group differences in the factorscores for either experiencing or witnessing violence were found.

Female Respondents

Table 5 also shows that according to female respondents, thegroups were significantly different in all three orthogonal factorscores. Tukey’s tests revealed that Mexican families had signifi-cantly less conflict in their relationships than Anglo-American


TABLE 4Varimax-Rotated Principal Components Factor

Analysis of Risk Markers by Gender


Risk Marker I II III IV V I II III

Verbal aggression .74 –.02 .31 .11 –.03 .83 .19 –.03Conflict .66 .25 .25 –.10 .19 .85 .02 .06Alcohol consumption .58 –.30 –.16 .02 –.08 .13 .52 .01Men’s age –.23 .71 –.07 –.15 –.07 –.11 –.70 .08Men’s occupational status .17 .65 –.09 .21 –.01 .02 –.20 .59Marital status .27 –.40 –.05 .35 –.23 –.03 .68 –.15Hit as teen by a

father .12 –.01 .75 .16 –.01 — — —mother .16 –.12 .73 .18 .06 — — —

Approval of violencea .32 .01 –.39 .32 .19 — — —Witnessed violencea

father hit mother –.07 –.03 .13 .76 –.05 — — —mother hit father .07 .03 .16 .72 .00 — — —

Men’s employment status –.03 –.13 .02 –.02 .90 –.16 –.27 .75Family income .13 .46 –.03 –.06 .55 .16 –.20 .70Eigenvalue 2.29 1.65 1.25 1.14 1.02 1.74 1.49 1.17Percentage of variance 17.7 12.7 9.6 8.8 7.8 21.8 18.6 14.7

a. These indicators were not included in the analysis of the women’s data.



TABLE 5One-Way Analysis of Variance of Mean Factor Scores for Men and Women Across Ethnic Groups


Latent Factor AA M MA PR F AA M MA PR F

I. Relationship conflict .13 –.44 .09 –.09 9.49*** .14 –.37 –.00 –.08 9.80***(.94) (.96) (1.14) (1.13) (.92) (1.04) (1.05) (1.16)

II. Maturation .27 –.73 –.27 –.01 33.83*** –.16 .29 .22 .16 9.50***(.95) (.81) (1.0) (.75) (.94) (1.04) (1.02) (1.07)

III. Men’s experiencing violence at home .01 –.14 .17 .10 1.29 — — — —(1.01) (.96) (.97) (1.05)

IV. Men witnessing violence at home –.02 –.02 –.14 .47 2.81 — — — —(.99) (.93) (.90) (1.35)

V. Economic resources .20 –.47 –.22 .30 15.68*** .33 –.66 –.31 –.33 47.87***(.78) (1.27) (1.10) (1.27) (.83) (1.00) (1.06) (.95)

n 349 108 50 32 394 147 72 35

NOTE: AA = Anglo-American; M = Mexican; MA = Mexican American; PR = Puerto Rican. Standard deviations are in parentheses.*** p < .001.

445

at CA

RLE

TO

N U

NIV

on Novem

ber 29, 2014vaw

.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


families, that Anglo-American men were significantly older thanMexican and Mexican American men, and that Anglo-Americanfamilies had significantly greater economic resources factor scoresthan the remaining groups.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Male Respondents

Logistic regression analysis was completed to assess the effectsof all latent factors in the risk of wife assault for each ethnic group.Table 6 shows the regression coefficients, standard error, the oddsratios, and the probabilities obtained in the logistic regressionanalyses for male respondents. This analysis shows that the rela-tionship conflict factor has a significant positive association withthe likelihood of wife assault in the Anglo-American, Mexican,and Mexican American groups. Experiencing violence in the fam-ily of origin has a significant positive association with the risk ofassault by Mexican men. Witnessing parental violence in the fam-ily of origin was positively associated with an increased probabil-ity of assault by Anglo-American men. The age factor and eco-nomic resources factor failed to significantly increase the likeli-hood of wife assault across groups.

Female Respondents

Table 7 shows the results of the logistic regression analyses forfemale respondents in each ethnic group. The relationship conflictfactor has a significant positive association with the risk of victim-ization for women in all ethnic groups. The age factor has a signifi-cant positive association with the likelihood of victimization forwomen with Anglo-American male partners. No significant asso-ciations were found between the economic resources factor andthe probability of women’s victimization across groups.

Male and Female Respondents

In terms of the relative strengths of the factors to affect the like-lihood of wife assault, the large odds ratio values in the relation-ship conflict factor for both male and female respondents suggestthat increases in the levels of conflict in the relationship increases




TABLE 6Logistic Regression of Wife Assault for Male Respondents by Ethnic Group

Independent Anglo-American Mexican Mexican American Puerto Rican

Variable B SE Odds p B SE Odds p B SE Odds p B SE Odds p

Relationshipconflict 1.09 .21 2.98 .00** .82 .32 2.28 .00** 1.02 .40 2.78 .00** 1.26 .76 3.52 .09

Maturation –.11 .19 .90 .58 .14 .37 1.15 .70 –.37 .39 .69 .34 –.85 .76 .43 .26Experienced

violence .33 .17 1.39 .06 .78 .30 2.19 .00** .14 .42 1.16 .73 .72 .60 2.06 .23Witnessed

violence .53 .16 1.69 .00** .32 .28 1.38 .25 –.05 .42 .95 .90 .12 .41 1.14 .76Economic

resources –.22 .21 .80 .31 –.33 .22 .72 .12 –.41 .33 .67 .21 .47 .46 1.60 .31–2 log

likelihood 190.64 77.09 43.00 24.87Model χ2 45.35 23.39 14.31 8.75% correct

Predictionviolence 18.92 26.32 46.15 42.86

% correctPredictionoverall 90.83 85.19 72.0 84.38

n 349 108 50 32

**p < .01.

447

at CA

RLE

TO

N U

NIV

on Novem

ber 29, 2014vaw

.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


TABLE 7Logistic Regression of Wife Assault for Female Respondents by Ethnic Group

Independent Anglo-American Mexican Mexican American Puerto Rican

Variable B SE Odds p B SE Odds p B SE Odds p B SE Odds p

Relationshipconflict 1.26 .20 3.5 .00** 1.03 .25 2.8 .00** 1.26 .40 3.51 .00** 1.86 .81 6.45 .02*

Maturation .79 .20 2.2 .00** .46 .27 1.6 .09 .63 .38 1.87 .10 .87 .52 2.39 .09Economic

resources –.08 .22 .93 .72 .16 .27 1.2 .56 –.56 .32 .57 .08 1.04 .76 2.83 .17–2 log

likelihood 205.96 92.28 48.16 22.76Model χ2 69.84 24.65 16.72 17.14% correct

Predictionviolence 18.18 10.00 33.33 55.56

% correctPredictionoverall 89.59 85.71 86.11 82.86

n 394 147 72 35

*p < .05. **p < .01.

448

at CA

RLE

TO

N U

NIV

on Novem

ber 29, 2014vaw

.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


the risk of assault more than changes in any other factor includedin this analysis. Concerning the predictive value of the five-factorregression model, Tables 5 and 6 show that although the regres-sion model correctly classified most of the cases across groups andgender of respondent, the model predicted nonviolence muchbetter than violence. Moreover, the percentage of correctly pre-dicted violent cases varied considerably across ethnic groups.

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to evaluate the utility of commonlyrecognized risk markers of wife assault to predict violence againstwomen in Mexican, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican fami-lies. A group of Anglo-American families was used for compari-son. In particular, we set out to investigate, first, whether or notthe presence of particular individual, social, and relationship riskmarkers would contribute uniquely to the prediction of wifeassault across ethnic groups and, second, whether the combinedpresence of these factors contributes uniquely to the prediction ofwife assault in different ethnic groups.

Consistent with other evaluations of NAFVS data (KaufmanKantor, Aldarondo, & Jasinski, in press), wife assault prevalencerates were higher among Mexican American and Puerto Ricanfamilies than among Mexican and Anglo-American families. Wealso found that Mexican and, in particular, Mexican Americanwomen reported lower violence rates than did men from the sameethnic groups. This reporting difference may speak to a height-ened personal vulnerability and mistrust of official intrusions infamily life experienced by immigrant women in the United States.Physically abusive men who are undocumented can be deportedon arrest; those who have residency status face deportation whenthey are prosecuted and convicted. Domestic violence clinicianshave noted that these issues make spouses of immigrant menreluctant to tell others there has been violence and to seek helpfrom official sources (Aldarondo & Mederos, in press). In addi-tion, researchers have found discrimination, fear of deportation,dedication to the children and family unity, and shame related tothe abuse to be important barriers to public disclosure andhelp-seeking behavior of abused immigrant women (Bauer,Rodriguez, Quiroga, & Flores-Ortiz, 1999).




Bivariate analyses of male and female respondents’ data showedconsiderable variability in the extent to which various risk mark-ers for wife assault are present across ethnic groups in this sample.Although no dominant patterns emerged from these analyses,Mexican men were found to be younger and less verbally aggres-sive relative to other men, in particular Anglo-American men. Itshould also be noted that our findings on age differences by eth-nicity are consistent with U.S. census data (U.S. Bureau of the Cen-sus, 1993) documenting the greater youthfulness of Hispanicscompared to other ethnic groups.

Factor analyses of male and female data yielded a similar latentstructure. Three of these factors—specifically, relationship con-flict, men’s age, and economic resources—were found to discrimi-nate between the different ethnic groups. The analysis showedthat, compared to the other ethnic groups in this sample, Mexicanfamilies reported relatively low levels of conflict in their intimaterelationships.

Logistic regression analyses showed that various combinationsof factors affect the risk of wife assault within ethnic groups. Mex-ican men reporting high levels of conflict and experiencing vio-lence in their family of origin were at greater risk of using physicalviolence against their female partners than those who did not. Therisk of wife assault in Mexican American families was signifi-cantly increased by relationship conflict and lack of economicresources. Relationship conflict and witnessing violence in thefamily of origin significantly increased the risk of wife assault inAnglo-American families. Only women’s reports of relationshipconflict were found to significantly increase the risk of wifeassault in Puerto Rican families.

In accord with previous multivariate analyses of risk markers(e.g., Aldarondo & Sugarman, 1996), this study indicates that anincreased likelihood of wife assault is associated with the level ofconflict in the relationship. Moreover, relationship conflict wasfound to be the strongest and most stable contributor to the riskfor wife assault across ethnic group and gender of respondent.Given that respondents told us about the use of violence withinthe context of strategies used to solve conflicts in their intimaterelationships, it would appear to be the case that violence againstwomen has instrumental significance as a tactic of conflict resolu-tion for men of different ethnic backgrounds.




Domestic violence researchers consistently report men’s youth-fulness, experience of violence in the family of origin, and socio-economic resources as important contributors to the risk of vio-lence against women. In this study, men’s age made a significantcontribution to the prediction of violence by men against womenin Anglo-American families and only when reported by women.Similarly, witnessing and experiencing violence in the family oforigin made significant contributions to the prediction of violencein Anglo-American and Mexican families, respectively. Socioeco-nomic resources did not make a significant contribution to the riskof wife assault in any group. Thus, it appears that the unique con-tribution of these factors in the prediction of violence is greatlyreduced when ethnic differences are taken into consideration.

Although such findings are interesting, there are limitations tothe conclusions that can be dawn from this study. First, this is across-sectional study and thus we must be cautious in inferringcausal direction from these findings. Second, this study reliedexclusively on self-report data, which are vulnerable to the effectsof social desirability. Finally, the relatively small sample size insome of our cells invites caution in the interpretation of ourmultivariate analyses.

The results of this study highlight the need for domestic vio-lence researchers to investigate both generic and culture-specificvariables associated with the risk of wife assault. Our existinggeneric models are minimally adequate to accurately predict theoccurrence of violence against women in intimate relationshipswithin various ethnic groups. To improve our culture-specificunderstanding of wife assault, it is necessary to identify andassess those aspects of ethnicity along which individuals and eth-nic groups vary, such as collective histories of immigration andcolonization, adaptation and development, cultural norms andvalues, quality of ethnic identity, gender role socialization, spiri-tuality, identification with the community, and experiences andattitudes associated with minority status (e.g., racism and dis-crimination) (see Perilla, 1999). Concerning research on Latinofamilies, we would do well to heed the recommendations of theNational Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence(Mederos, 1999).




The Latino community has not received sufficient attention indomestic violence research. Research questions often do not reflectthe needs of the community and the research methods are oftenunsuitable. In addition, most research erroneously lumps togetherdifferent ethnic backgrounds, assuming that Latinos are one uni-tary group. Changing demographics require a greater level of cul-tural competence, acknowledging each and every culture thatmakes up the Latino community. (p. 3)

NOTE

1. We conducted a series of univariate ANOVAs and chi-square tests to evaluate theeffects of all risk markers on the rate of physical assaults by men against their female part-ners for the total sample. The results of those analyses for male respondents showed signif-icant effects for all risk markers with the exception of violence approval and occupation.The results of the analysis for female respondents showed significant effects for alcoholuse, marital status, and occupational status, and not for family income and the men’s ageand employment status. Despite the fact that some conventional risk markers were not sig-nificant predictors of violence for the total sample, we included them in subsequent analy-ses because we expected that differences might emerge by ethnicity.

REFERENCES

Aldarondo, E., & Mederos, F. (in press). Men who batter: Intervention and prevention strategiesin a diverse society. New York: Civic Research Institute.

Aldarondo, E., & Sugarman, D. (1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and persis-tence of wife assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1010-1019.

Barling, J. N., O’Leary, K. D., Jouriles, E. V., Vivian, D., & MacEwen, C. (1987). Factor simi-larity of the Conflict Tactics Scales across samples, spouses, and sites: Issues and impli-cations. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 37-53.

Bauer, H. M., Rodriguez, M. A., Quiroga, S. S., & Flores-Ortiz, Y. G. (1999). Barriers to healthcare for abused Latina and Asian immigrant women. Journal of Health Care for the Poorand Underserved, 11, 33-43.

Caetano, R., Schafer, J., Clark, C. L., Cunradi, C. B., & Raspberry, K. (2000). Intimate partnerviolence, acculturation, and alcohol consumption among Hispanic couples in theUnited States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 30-45.

Campbell, J. C., Miller, P., Cardwell, M., & Belknap, R. A. (1994). Relationship status of bat-tered women over time. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 99-111.

Carrillo, R., & Tello, J. (1998). Family violence and men of color. New York: Springer.DeKeseredy, W., & Schwartz, M. (1998). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in intimate het-

erosexual relationships: A critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Retrieved from http://www.vaw.umn.edu/vawnet/ctscritique.htm

Dobash, R., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (1998). Separate and intersecting real-ities: A comparison of men’s and women’s accounts of violence against women. Vio-lence Against Women, 4, 382-415.




Gondolf, E. W., Fisher, E., & McFerron, J. R. (1988). Racial differences among shelter resi-dents: A comparison of Anglo, Black, and Hispanic battered women. Journal of FamilyViolence, 3, 39-51.

Grotevant, H. D., & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Family assessment: A guide to methods and measures.New York: Guilford.

Hage, S. M. (2000). The role of counseling psychology in preventing male violence againstfemale intimates. Counseling Psychologist, 28, 797-828.

Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: The-ory and process. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Bates, L. (1998). A brief review of the research onhusband violence. Part III: Sociodemographic factors, relationship factors, and differ-ing consequences of husband and wife violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2,285-307.

Hotaling, G., & Sugarman, D. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife vio-lence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101-124.

Jasinski, J. L., & Williams, L. M. (Eds.). (1998). Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20years of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaufman Kantor, G. (1990, November). Ethnicity, drinking, and wife abuse: A structural andcultural interpretation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society ofCriminology, Baltimore, MD.

Kaufman Kantor, G., Aldarondo, E., & Jasinski, J. (in press). Incidence of Hispanic drinkingand intra-family violence. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.

Kaufman Kantor, G., & Asdigian, N. L. (1997) Gender differences in alcohol-relatedspousal aggression. In R. W. Wilsnack & S.C. Wilsnack (Eds.), Gender and alcohol: Indi-vidual and social perspectives (pp. 312-334). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Center of AlcoholStudies.

Kaufman Kantor, G., & Jasinski, J. (1998). Dynamics and risk factors in partner violence. InJ. Jasinski & L. M. Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years ofresearch (pp. 1-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaufman Kantor, G., Jasinski, J., & Aldarondo, E. (1994). Sociocultural status and incidenceof marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9, 207-222.

Kaufman Kantor, G., & Straus, M. A. (1987). The “drunken bum” theory of wife beating.Social Problems, 34, 213-230.

Kaufman Kantor, G., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Substance abuse as precipitant of wife abusevictimization. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 15, 173-189.

Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Foo, L. (1998). Interactive and unique factors for husbands’emotional and physical abuse of their wives. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 315-344.

Mederos, F. (1999). National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence: Sympo-sium report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., & Schluter, T. D. (1995). Spousal violence among Anglos, Blacks,Mexican-Americans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial predictors, andalcohol consumption. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 1-21.

O’Keefe, M. (1994). Racial/ethnic differences among battered women and their children.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3, 283-305.

Perilla, J. L. (1999). Domestic violence as a human rights issue: The case of immigrant Lati-nos. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 107-133.

Sorenson, S. B. (1996). Violence against women: Examining ethnic differences and com-monalities. Evaluation Review, 20, 123-145.

Sorenson, S. B., & Telles, C. A. (1991). Self-reports of spousal violence in Mexican-Americanand non-Hispanic White population. Violence and Victims, 6, 3-15.

Straus, M. A. (1990). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict TacticsScales. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk fac-tors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 29-48). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.




Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factorsand adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980) Behind closed doors: Violence in the Ameri-can family. New York: Doubleday/Anchor.

Straus, M. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Violence in Hispanic families in the United States: Inci-dence rates and structural interpretations. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physicalviolence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families(pp. 341-367). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1990). Arisk marker analysis of assaulted wives. Journalof Family Violence, 5, 1-13.

Suitor, J. J., Pillemer, K., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Marital violence in a life course perspective.In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors andadaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 305-319). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Torres, S. (1991). A comparison of wife abuse between two cultures: Perceptions, attitudes,nature, and extent. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 12, 113-131.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1993). Statistical abstract of the United States (112th ed.). Wash-ington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Etiony Aldarondo, Ph.D., is an associate professor in counseling and developmen-tal psychology at Boston College, where he conducts research on change in menwho batter. He is cochair of the National Latino Alliance for the Elimination ofDomestic Violence, board president for Common Purpose, Inc., board presidentfor Dorchester Domestic Violence Community Roundtable, and member of theNational Advisory Board of the National Violence Against Women PreventionResearch Center.

Glenda Kaufman Kantor, a sociologist and criminologist, is a research associateprofessor at the Family Violence Laboratory and the Department of Sociology atthe University of New Hampshire. Her major research interests are related to thelinkages between substance abuse and family violence, and the etiology and pre-vention of intrafamily violence. She is currently directing multiple studies onfamily-violence-related issues, such as parental substance abuse and child mal-treatment, and the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment. Sheis also the principal investigator on an NICHD/NIH-funded study on the causesand assessment of child neglect.

Jana L. Jasinski received her Ph.D. at the University of New Hampshire (1996)where she was also a National Institute of Mental Health Post Doctoral ResearchFellow at the Family Research Laboratory (1997). She is currently an assistantprofessor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University ofCentral Florida. Dr. Jasinski’s research interests are in the areas of both lethal andnonlethal interpersonal violence (particularly intimate partner violence), sub-stance abuse, the response of the criminal justice system to violence, and the nega-tive consequences of child sexual assault. Recent publications appear in Violenceand Victims, Child Abuse & Neglect, and the Journal of Interpersonal Vio-lence. She is also the co-editor of two books: Out of the Darkness: Contempo-rary Perspectives on Family Violence and Partner Violence: AComprehen-sive Review of 20 Years of Research.




Documents

A Risk Marker Analysis of Wife Assault in Latino Families