Carolyn M. West
Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire
Copyright
Information
Introduction
Partner violence is a serious problem that cuts across all backgrounds. However, research on violence in intimate relationships has historically neglected the experiences of many groups, including ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. All these groups are important; however, the lack of attention to ethnic minorities, a group that is projected to constitute approximately 50% of the U.S. population by 2050 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993a), is a considerable oversight. Structural inequalities experienced by minorities, including poverty and discrimination, may contribute to their higher rates of violence, shape their help seeking patterns, and have implications for therapeutic practice (Asbury, 1993). Failure to consider these factors has resulted in stereotypes about ethnic minority partner violence, distorted theories, and unfair public policies (Fontes, 1996).
Given the importance of ethnic minorities, this chapter will discuss the research on partner violence in this population. While the term "ethnic minority" may encompass many groups, this chapter will focus on the four largest groups in the United States: African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and American Indians. First, there will be a brief description of each group. Second, the literature on partner violence among these groups will be reviewed. Specifically, ethnic differences, demographic and cultural factors that contribute to higher rates of partner violence among ethnic minorities, and limitations of the research will be addressed. Third, therapeutic implications, such as barriers to help seeking, hallmarks of culturally appropriate assessments, and culture-specific treatment interventions will be discussed. Finally, recommendations for policy will be suggested.
Description of the populations
The purpose of this section is to briefly describe the four ethnic groups discussed in this chapter. An emphasis will be placed on conditions that are associated with increased levels of partner violence. These factors include demographics characteristics, such as age, high poverty rates, limited access to education and jobs, and important historic events (e.g., forced migration). Cultural strengths, which act as a buffer against violence, will also be highlighted (Asbury, 1993; Cazenave & Straus, 1990). The reader is reminded, however, that conclusions can not be drawn about individuals based totally on ethnic group membership.
African Americans
African or Black Americans make up approximately 12% of the total U.S. population and constitute its largest racial minority. Although largely descendants of tribes along the West coast of Africa, many also have American Indian and European ancestry. Unlike other immigrants, African Americans entered the United States via the slave trade. Their 200 year history of enslavement was characterized by forced separation of families, beatings, loss of language, and culture. Following slavery, discrimination took the form of de facto segregation (Greene, 1994; Hammond & Yung, 1994). Substantial societal gains have been made; nevertheless, Blacks have not achieved economic, employment, and educational parity with Anglo Americans. For example, one in three African Americans currently lives in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992). Despite social and economic injustices, African American families have developed cultural strengths and coping strategies including, adaptability of family roles; strong kinship bonds; emphasis on work, education, and achievement; religious values; and a humanistic belief system that stresses concern for others and spontaneous interactions (Allen, 1986; Greene, 1994).
Latino Americans
Latinos represent approximately 22.4 million people or about 9% of the total U.S. population. They are projected to be one of the largest minority groups by the turn of the century (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans constitute the three major Latino ethnic groups living in the U.S. mainland. They differ substantially in terms of immigration history and number of generations in the United States. Mexican Americans account for 60% of the Latino population and have been in the U.S. for 150 years. The original population did not enter this country as immigrants, rather, they were conquered during the Mexican American War. As the result of the acquisition of their land during the Spanish American War, Puerto Ricans also share a similar history of domination. However large waves of Puerto Rican migration to the U.S., primarily to escape high unemployment rates, began only 45 years ago. Today Puerto Ricans account for 15% of Latinos. Finally, Cubans, the most recent immigrants, make up 5% of the Latino population. The "first wave" of Cuban immigrants were primarily White, educated, professionals who arrived in Florida between 1959 and 1965. Because they were considered political refugees, Cubans received economic assistance from the federal government. By the 1980s, U.S. immigration laws were stricter and the economy was declining. Consequently, subsequent waves of non-White, less educated Cuban immigrants were met with hostility (Ginorio, Gutierrez, & Cause, 1995; Portes & Truelove, 1987).
These differing migration histories contribute to demographic variations between ethnic groups. For example, Cuban Americans are older than Latinos as a group (median age 40 vs. 26, respectively) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993b). They also tend to be more economically advantaged. In a nationally representative sample, Cuban American families were more likely than Puerto Ricans and Mexican Americans to report two incomes and employment in managerial or professional occupations (Jasinski, 1996; Kaufman Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldorondo, 1994). Despite the economic success of some Cubans, Latino families are two to five times more likely than Anglo families to live in poverty (Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994). Nonetheless, Latinos maintain strong social support networks and multigenerational families characterized by loyalty and honor (Ginorio, et al., 1995).
Asian Americans
Asian/Pacific Island Americans represent 2.9% (7.27 million) of the total U.S. population. There are three predominant Asian groups residing in the United States. The first group can trace its origins to mainland Asiatic culture (Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Koreans) and the second to Southeast Asia (Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Cambodians, and Laotians). While the third group, Pacific Islanders (Hawaiians, Samoans, and Guamanians), are considered "natives" rather than immigrants (Okamura, Heras, & Wong-Kerberg, 1995; Trask, 1990).
The experience of Asian Americans differs greatly by immigration and generational status. Immigrant-descendent families, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans, can trace up to four or more generations in this country. In general these groups are highly acculturated, that is, they have adopted the norms and behaviors of U.S. society. Immigrant American families, in which the parents are foreign born and the children are American born, sometimes experience cultural and generational conflicts as the family tries to manage both traditional and new norms and values. Nevertheless, these families are often able to pool their resources and achieve relatively high levels of educational and economic success (Okamura, et al., 1995). Due to the prosperity of these two family constellations, Asians have been dubbed "model minorities." This stereotype minimizes the poverty that exists among other Asian American groups, which is almost twice the rate for Anglos, with recently arrived immigrant/refugee families being most impoverished (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993b). This economic instability is often coupled with language barriers, lack of education, unsafe neighborhoods, and anti-Asian violence. Despite their diverse backgrounds, as a group Asians emphasize family loyalty, responsibility, respect, and cooperation (Chen & True, 1994; Stevenson, 1992).
American Indians
The indigenous native people of North America are referred to as American Indians. The 2 million American Indians in the U.S., which represent over 500 different tribes, account for 0.8% of the total population. Due to increased willingness to acknowledge Indian ancestry, interracial marriages, and high birth rates, this population has grown by almost 600,000 in the last decade. Almost every tribe was subjected to forced removal from ancestral homelands, brutal colonization, confinement to reservations, and pressure to assimilate into European American society. Presently one-third live on federal reservations, while the remainder live in rural or urban settings. Migration between the two locations is common (LaFromboise, Berman, & Sohi, 1994; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991).
As a consequence of the high unemployment rate, over 80% in some communities, American Indians experience substantial rates of poverty (Bachman, 1992; Indian Health Service, 1989; LaFromboise, et al., 1994; LaFromboise, Choney, James, & Running Wolf, 1995). Early death is also a common experience. More than one-third of all American Indian deaths involve people under age 45--three times the rate of the general population. This high death rate, primarily due to suicide, homicide, and accidents, may account for the youthfulness of this population (median age of 22.6 years). The prevalence of alcoholism, which is 3.8 times higher for American Indians than other ethnic groups (Asbury, 1993), is a major contributor to many of these deaths. For example, alcohol is a factor in 90% of American Indian suicides (Johnson, 1994). Despite this adversity, many American Indian families, such as the Hopi of Northern Arizona, maintain traditional values and customs including reverence to elders, cooperation, and group cohesion (Wasinger, 1993).
In conclusion, there is a great deal of cultural, linguistic, historic, and geographic diversity both between and within ethnic minority groups. However, as a group, they are disproportionately more likely than Anglo Americans to be youthful and impoverished. Nevertheless, these groups have developed cultural strengths, such as cooperation, and strong kinship bonds.
Incidence of partner violence
In order to address the incidence of partner violence among ethnic minorities, the literature in this area will first be reviewed. Ethnic variations and prevalence rates of partner assault may be best estimated by using large national probability samples, rather than clinical or convenience samples (Hampton, Gelles, & Harrop, 1989). Thus, this chapter will highlight studies such as the First and Second National Family Violence Surveys (Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980), which are comprised of national probability samples of 2,143 and 6,002 households, respectively. The majority of the literature focuses on African Americans and Latinos. Although there is a discernible absence of research on Asian Americans and American Indians as well as gender differences in victim and perpetrator role, the research in these areas will be discussed when available. Demographic contributors to violence, such as social class, age, and husband's occupational and employment status, will also be considered. In addition, cultural factors, including level of acculturation, alcohol abuse, and normative approval of violence are additional risk markers that will be addressed. Finally, limitations of the research will be discussed.
Are ethnic minorities more violent than Anglo Americans?
African Americans. No ethnic differences were found in rates of partner assault in community samples (Lockhart, 1987) or other non-representative samples, such as incarcerated abused women (Roundtree, Parker, Edwards, & Teddlie, 1982) or residents of a battered women's shelter (Star, 1978). However, some community (e.g., (Neff, Holamon, & Schluter, 1995)) and large national probability samples have revealed a higher rate of partner assault among African Americans compared to Anglo Americans. For example, the rate of Black husband-to-wife abuse was four times higher than that of Anglo husbands in the First National Family Violence Survey (Straus, et al., 1980). The same study also revealed that African American wives were twice as likely to batter their husbands as Anglo wives. A similar pattern of racial differences emerged in the Second National Family Violence Survey (Hampton & Gelles, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1986). When violence rates from these two studies were compared, battering of Black women decreased by almost half (42%). Despite this decline, African Americans were still more violent than their Anglo counterparts (Hampton, et al., 1989).
National probability studies have been criticized for excluding family constellations with high representations of ethnic minorities, such as single parent families and families with children under three (Kanuha, 1994). When these family types were included in the National Survey of Families, however, racial differences remained. African Americans were almost twice as likely as Anglos to report physical violence toward their partner (e.g., hitting, shoving, throwing objects) (Sorenson, Upchurch, & Shen, 1996).
Latino Americans. Researchers using community (Neff, et al., 1995), clinical (Mirande & Perez, 1987), and shelter samples (Torres, 1991) found no differences in rates of partner assaults between Mexican Americans and Anglos. However, national probability studies found contradictory results. When data from the National Survey of Families and Households was examined, Sorenson and colleagues (1996) discovered that Latinos were less violent than Anglos. In contrast, Latinos in the Second Family Violence Survey reported a higher rate of partner abuse than Anglo couples (23% vs. 15%, respectively).
These discrepant findings reflect two major research limitations. Specifically by regarding Latinos as a homogenous group and by limiting studies to English speaking participants, important ethnic group differences are obscured. Kaufman Kantor and colleagues (1994) avoided these problems by conducting face-to-face bilingual (Spanish- English) interviews with a national probability sample, including an oversampling of approximately 800 Latinos. Large ethnic group differences emerged, with Puerto Rican husbands (20.4%) approximately twice as likely as Anglo husbands (9.9%) and ten times more likely than Cuban husbands (2.5%) to assault their wives.
Asian Americans. To date, there have been no nationally representative studies of Asian American partner violence (Sorenson, et al., 1996). Instead, much of the research has relied on case histories (Eng, 1995), clinical samples (Chan, 1987), anecdotal reports (Lai, 1986), and newspaper accounts (Chin, 1994). Consequently, estimates of wife assault have varied widely. For instance a focus group, comprised of six to ten Chinese women, estimated that between 20% to 30% of Chinese husbands hit their wives (Ho, 1990). While, Song (1986) found that 60% of her nonrandom sample of 150 immigrant Korean women were battered. Although it is not possible to draw conclusions about ethnic differences based on these limited studies, interviews with victims (Ho, 1990) and community leaders (Huisman, 1996) indicate that battering is a serious problem in this population.
American Indians. Presently, there are no accurate lifetime prevalence rates of partner violence within or between American Indian groups (Chester, Robin, Koss, Lopez, & Goldman, 1994). Estimates of battering have ranged from 50% (Wolk, 1982) to 80% (Chapin, 1990). However, many of these findings are based on anecdotal reports (e.g. (Allen, 1986)) and samples as small as twenty respondents (Verlarde-Castillo, 1992). A national sample from the Second National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1990) found that American Indian couples were significantly more violent than their Anglo counterparts (7.2 vs. 5.3 per 100 couples) (Bachman, 1992). The relatively small size of American Indian families surveyed (N=204) and the failure to assess tribal affiliation, however, makes it difficult to draw conclusions about ethnic differences.
To summarize, research using nonrepresentative samples, such as shelter residents, have found no racial differences in rates of partner violence between African Americans, Latinos, and Anglo battered women (Gondolf, Fisher, & McFerron, 1988). Some community samples (Neff, et al., 1995) and several large nationally representative samples have indicated that African Americans (Sorenson, et al., 1996; Straus & Gelles, 1986) and American Indians (Bachman, 1992) report higher rates of partner violence than Anglo Americans. Findings for Latino Americans were contradictory, however, with national studies finding both higher (Straus & Smith, 1990) and lower rates of physical violence (Sorenson, et al., 1996) for Latinos compared to Anglos. When Latino ethnic groups were considered, Puerto Rican husbands reported the highest rate of wife assault and Cuban husbands reported the lowest (Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994). Failure to consider ethnic group differences may account for these contradictory findings . To date, there are no accurate estimates of Asian American partner assaults, although evidence from focus groups and community activists suggest that violence is a concern in this population as well (Ho, 1990; Huisman, 1996).
What factors contribute to these ethnic group differences?
The question of whether ethnic minorities are more violent is far too simplistic. A structural explanation is necessary in order to understand the higher rates of partner violence in these populations. That is, ethnic minorities are disadvantaged in a society in which race determines access to economic resources. Lack of opportunities and societal inequalities create stress, that in turn may increase the risk for violence. Economic marginalization also shapes the culture of the family. Specifically, it influences the level of acculturation, or the extent to which an immigrant group takes on the norms and behaviors of society, drinking patterns, and attitudes concerning the use of violence. These cultural factors have been shown to increase the likelihood of violence (Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994; Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987). Stated another way, ethnic minorities are not inherently more violent than Anglo Americans. Rather, they are more likely than Anglos to be overrepresented in demographic categories that are at greater risk for physical violence (Asbury, 1993; Cazenave & Straus, 1990; Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994; Straus, et al., 1980). In many cases, racial differences in rates of partner violence disappear when age, lower social class, and husband's occupational and employment status are taken into account (Cazenave & Straus, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1990). The remaining ethnic differences can often be explained by level of acculturation, alcohol abuse, particularly husband's binge drinking, and normative approval of violence. The following section will review the research in these areas.
Demographic Factors
Age. Regardless of ethnicity, younger age, specifically being under age 30, is a strong predictor of partner violence (Suitor, Pillemer, & Straus, 1990). Research based on the Second National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1990) has indicated that younger African American (Hampton & Gelles, 1994) and American Indian couples (Bachman, 1992) were more violent than their older counterparts. The same pattern appears to be present in Asian American couples. Both anecdotal accounts (Yoshihama, Parekh, & Boyington, 1991) and empirical studies (Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985) have documented dating aggression among Asian American young adults. However, it should be noted that when the youthfulness of Latinos was taken into consideration they were not more violent than Anglos (Straus & Smith, 1990). Given the general youthfulness of ethnic minorities, the association of younger age and partner violence is likely to exist for African Americans, American Indians, and Asian Americans as well.
Social class. Ethnic differences in rates of partner violence also often disappear when social class is taken into account. Using the First National Family Violence Survey (Straus, et al., 1980), Cazenave and Straus (1990) found that African Americans experienced less partner violence than Anglos in three of four income categories (the two highest and the lowest income group). Higher rates of partner assaults were only reported by African American respondents in the $6,000-$11,999 income range. However, 40% of the Blacks in this sample were in this income category. Similarly, in the Second National Family Violence Survey, Straus and Smith (1990) found lower income and urban residence accounted for the differences in rates of partner violence between Latinos and Anglo Americans.
Although income and partner violence were not correlated among American Indians in one national study, a significant association was found between these two variables for the entire sample. Given that a higher percentage of American Indians were represented in the lower income levels, the link between social class and assault may still exist in this population (Bachman, 1992). Poverty has also been linked to partner violence among Asian focus group participants. Chinese Americans attributed wife battering to the poor, rural, less educated members of their community (Ho, 1990).
Husband's occupational and employment status. Nationally representative studies have revealed a link between husband's occupational and employment status and partner violence. Specifically, African American men employed in blue collar occupations reported more violence than their Black professional counterparts (13% vs. 7%, respectively) (Cazenave & Straus, 1990). Additionally, Black families in which the husband was unemployed reported higher rates of wife assault than families with employed husbands (Hampton & Gelles, 1994). A similar association is expected to exist for American Indians. Although Bachman (1992) did not empirically test this link, more American Indian than Anglo couples were employed in blue collar occupations, a group that reported significantly higher rates of partner abuse. The association between husband's occupational status and Asian American partner assault has not been examined empirically. Nevertheless, media accounts and interviews have associated wife battering with limited employment opportunities among Chinese immigrant husbands (Chin, 1994). There is no way of knowing, however, what other factors may be acting in conjunction with husband's unemployment to account for these finding. Finally, like other demographic factors, when employment status was taken into consideration racial differences disappeared. Husband's unemployment, rather than ethnicity, exerted the strongest effect when Latinos and Anglos were compared (Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994). Again, this association is suspected to exist for the other ethnic groups.
Cultural factors
In some cases, even when social class and occupational status were considered, the rate of partner violence continued to be higher for African Americans than Anglo Americans (e.g. (Neff, et al., 1995)). For instance in a community sample, more middle-class African American women (46%) were battered than their middle-class Anglo counterparts (27%) (Lockhart, 1987). Similarly, a national study revealed that controlling for husband's occupation did not always eliminate racial differences. African American men employed in white-collar occupations were still more abusive than Anglo professionals (7% vs. 3%, respectively) (Cazenave & Straus, 1990). These findings seem contrary to expectations given the previous discussion on demographic risk markers. Cazenave & Straus (1990) concluded that "there are some effects of racial oppression which are independent of income and may cause marital stress and tensions that may erupt in violence" (p. 336). Therefore, escaping poverty may not totally eliminate the risk of partner violence for ethnic minorities since their higher economic status is often precarious and potentially lost with slight economic changes. This financial uncertainty may lead to stress, that may in turn contribute to partner violence (Lockhart, 1987). Empirical research supports this association. For example, as perceived levels of stress increased, defined as nervousness and the inability to cope, the probability of American Indian couple violence increased (Bachman, 1992).
Wife assault has also been empirically linked to alcohol abuse and normative approval of violence. Research using a national study found wife battering to be seven times greater among binge-drinking, blue collar men who approve of violence, regardless of race (Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987). Stressors and demographic characteristics, including poverty and lack of job opportunities, place ethnic minorities at greater risk for heavy drinking and possibly greater tolerance of violence. These factors, along with level of acculturation, interact to contribute to increased levels of wife abuse among ethnic minorities (Kaufman Kantor, 1990; Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994).
Level of acculturation. As a contributor to wife assaults, level of acculturation, often measured by English language preference, country of origin, and number of generations in the U.S., have yielded mixed findings. Both high (Jasinski, 1996) and low levels of acculturation (Okamura, et al., 1995) have been found to be predictors of violence. The ethnic group under investigation, definition of acculturation used, and the failure to consider the confounding effects of socioeconomic status account for these divergent results.
High acculturation as a predictor of violence. The bulk of empirical research in the area of acculturation has focused on Latino Americans. Greater levels of acculturation, as measured by comfort with English language, were associated with increased levels of partner violence (Jasinski, 1996). Using country of origin as a measure of acculturation, which is highly correlated with English preference, revealed important ethnic group differences. Specifically, being born in the U.S. was associated with increased risk for wife assault among Mexican and Puerto Rican American husbands (Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994). A similar pattern was found among Latinos in a Los Angeles community sample. Mexican Americans born in the U.S. reported higher rates of hitting or throwing things at their partners (30.9%) than both Mexican Americans born in Mexico and Anglos (20% vs. 21.6%, respectively) (Sorenson & Telles, 1991).
What accounts for these findings? One explanation suggests that as Latinos become more Americanized, the "American Dream" of greater economic and educational opportunities may also be desired. When discrimination blocks these efforts, feelings of frustration and hostility could potentially be acted out in the form of wife assault (Jasinski, 1996).
Low acculturation as a predictor of violence. There is also evidence that less acculturated members of ethnic groups are more violent. For example, among Latino Americans, such as Puerto Ricans, partner violence was associated with being born outside of the U.S. In their efforts to assimilate, non-U.S. born Latinos may experience conflict between their culture of origin and Anglo culture. The stress associated with making this adjustment may lead to violence (Jasinski, 1996).
Similar conclusions have been drawn for Asian Americans. According to anecdotal research (Dunwoody, 1982; Lai, 1986; Rimonte, 1989), case studies (Eng, 1995; Okamura, et al., 1995), and legal accounts (Anderson, 1993; Jang, Lee, & Morello-Frosch, 1990), Asian immigrants and refugee families experienced more partner violence than their American born counterparts. Cultural isolation and limited family support, coupled with the lack of educational and job opportunities, limited English speaking skills, and poverty are posited to contribute to their increased risk for partner violence (Chen & True, 1994). Asian women who enter the country illegally or through "mail order" marriages often have even greater difficulty escaping abusive marriages. Substantial documentation of abuse, in the form of affidavits from police, medical personnel, and social service agencies, may be required from these immigrant women. Without proof, which is difficult in obtain in most cases, victims risk deportation by fleeing violent husbands (Anderson, 1993). Although The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), signed by President Clinton in September 1994, provides greater protection for battered immigrants, it is still too early to tell whether they are benefitting from its passage (Franco, 1996; Huisman, 1996).
In conclusion, being highly acculturated, as measured by English preference and generational status, was found to be associated with increased Latino violence, possibly because efforts to achieve economic parity with Anglos are thwarted. Feelings of disappointment and anger, resulting from unfair treatment, have been theoretically linked to Black partner violence as well (Oliver, 1989). The stress of being an immigrant trying to adjust to another culture is also hypothesized to contribute to wife assaults. Given the history of Asian American and American Indians in this country, similar explanations may be used to explain violence in these groups. However, more research needs to be conducted before the association between acculturation and violence can be understood in these ethnic groups. In addition, other dimensions of acculturation, such as feelings of cultural marginality, perception of social distance, and discrimination from the dominant Anglo society should also be empirically investigated (Portes, 1984).
Alcohol abuse. The linkage between drinking and wife beating is not a problem solely of poor, ethnic minorities (Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987). Social isolation, economic marginalization, and a host of other stressors place segments of the Latino, African American, (Kaufman Kantor, 1990) and American Indian (Asbury, 1993) community at increased risk for heavy drinking, therefore making them more susceptible to alcohol related wife assaults (Hampton, 1987). Research using the 1985 National Family Violence Survey has linked high volume drinking by Latino men to increased rates of partner violence. Specifically, Latinas with binge-drinking husbands were more than ten times as likely to be assaulted than those with low to moderate drinking husbands (Kaufman Kantor, 1990). When ethnic group differences were investigated in the 1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey, heavy drinking Puerto Rican husbands were five times more likely to hit their wives than their nondrinking counterparts (Kaufman Kantor, in press). Similarly, a husband's heavy drinking was also found to be associated with partner violence among African Americans (Kaufman Kantor, 1990) and American Indians (Bachman, 1992). To date, the literature has not explored the link between drinking and Asian American violence.
Normative approval of violence. Regardless of ethnicity, approval of partner violence has been linked to increased level of partner assaults (Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987). Researchers contend that economic inequalities are likely to create more condoning attitudes toward intimate violence. Oliver (1989), for example, posited that when traditional wage earner roles are unavailable, working-class Black men take on alternative roles, which often emphasize physical violence and exploitation of women. Cultural norms sanctioning partner assaults, measured by the item "are there situations that you can imagine in which you would approve of a husband slapping his wife?" (Owens & Straus, 1975), has been investigated in national surveys. African Americans were found to be more approving of both husband and wife slapping than Anglos in the First National Family Violence Survey (Straus, et al., 1980). However, these ethnic differences disappeared when lower income and husband's occupational status of Blacks were taken into account (Cazenave & Straus, 1990).
The male-dominated Latino family structure has been theoretically linked to more approving attitudes toward violence (Zambrano, 1985). However, Latino couples were not significantly more male-dominated or accepting of violence than Anglo Americans in a national study on alcohol and family violence. Instead the endorsement of violent norms, regardless of ethnicity and income level, more than doubled the odds of husband-to-wife assault (Jasinski, 1996; Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994).
Similarly hierarchal family structures and rigid gender roles, which emphasize male dominance and women's submissiveness, have theoretically been linked to battering among Asians (Ho, 1990; Rimonte, 1989). Although there is no empirical support for this association, focus group interviews suggested that there are ethnic group differences in cultural approval of violence. Based on statements such as "physical abuse of a wife once in a while is okay", Ho (1990) concluded that the Vietnamese, Khmer, and Laotians were more tolerant of abuse than the Chinese.
What are the research limitations?
Much of the information about ethnic minority partner violence is derived from anecdotal reports, self-report surveys, incidence reports from public sources (e.g., FBI Uniform Crime Reports and surveys administered by the National Opinion Research Center), and survey based research. Although all sources provide valuable information, they are also biased in important ways (Kanuha, 1994). Anecdotal accounts and curricula developed by battered women's programs, while providing excellent first person accounts, are often subjective and based on small samples (Burns, 1986; White, 1985; Zambrano, 1985). Self administered surveys are more objective; however, to date, most have failed to include illiterate participants and samples that are diverse enough to examine racial/ethnic differences (Kanuha, 1994). While government sponsored reports use larger, more diverse samples, they frequently rely on public sources that are overwhelmingly utilized by minorities and the poor (e.g., police reports, community health clinics) (Kanuha, 1994). Large national probability studies have corrected these problems by including more representative samples and oversampling African Americans (e.g., (Straus & Gelles, 1986)) and Latinos (e.g., (Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994)). However, they often fail to include Asians, American Indians, and other groups with high representations of ethnic minorities, such as single parent families, cohabiting couples, and families with children under three. Furthermore, non-English speaking participants have not been adequately surveyed because of the reliance on phone interviews (Asbury, 1987; Lockhart, 1987).
The existing research is also limited in other important ways. First, in many studies ethnic groups have been combined and labeled "non-White" or labeled broadly. For example, Latino respondents are often referred to as "Latino" without reference to ethnic group composition. Second, language barriers, geographic isolation, and lack of telephone services make it difficult to adequately survey some groups (Bachman, 1992; Ho, 1990). For instance, there were only 109 private telephones, mostly belonging to Anglo medical staff and missionaries, on one American Indian reservation with a population of 13,000 (S. Hamby, personal communication, September 3, 1996). Third, the bulk of the research is race comparative and relies on psychometric rating scales that are rarely normed with diverse populations (Chester, et al., 1994).
In conclusion, partner violence appears to be more prevalent among African Americans, American Indian, and some Latino ethnic groups than Anglos. Upon closer inspection these ethnic differences often disappear when age, social class, and husband's employment status are taken into account. When ethnic differences remain, they may be explained by level of acculturation, binge drinking, and normative approval of violence. Despite our growing knowledge of violence in these groups, more empirical research needs to be conducted, particularly with Asian Americans and American Indians. Future research should compare violent ethnic minorities to their nonviolent counterparts. Research also needs to be more culturally sensitive, including using the participant's preferred language, having minority researchers help design and conduct studies, and incorporating measures of acculturation and racial identity (Fontes, 1996; Root, 1996; Sorenson, et al., 1996).
Therapeutic implications
This chapter takes the position that "success of the therapy depends less on the identity into which therapists are born than on their skills, knowledge, cultural competency, and genuine comfort with people of diverse cultures" (Fontes, 1995, p. 261). With this said, the following section will focus on three therapeutic issues including obstacles which impede help seeking by battered women, the hallmarks of a culturally appropriate assessment, and culturally-specific treatment recommendations.
What barriers impede help seeking?
Little empirical research has examined the extent and nature of help seeking efforts by battered minority women. In several samples of shelter residents, Latinas reported less help from family, friends, clergy, and social service agencies than Black and Anglo women (Gondolf, et al., 1988; O'Keefe, 1994). Although conclusions about help seeking behavior can not be based solely on shelter samples, these studies point to a pattern of service underutilization. According to the Latino mental health literature, cultural and institutional barriers, rather than lack of desire for services, impede minority help seeking efforts (Rodriguez & O'Donnell, 1995). Community activists further argue that stereotypes concerning ethnic minority partner violence act as an additional obstacle. The following section will review the research on these barriers.
Cultural barriers. Cultural barriers to help seeking consist of "subcultural values and beliefs that predispose those who identify with them to avoid use of specialty mental health" (Rodriguez & O'Donnell, 1995) (p. 170). These barriers may take different forms for various ethnic groups. For example, African American's strong religious beliefs that emphasize faith and prayers (Abney & Priest, 1995); Puerto Rican's "cultural fatalism" or belief that certain negative life events happen regardless of efforts to prevent them (Comas-Diaz, 1995); Asian's fear of dishonor and "losing face" (Ho, 1990); and American Indian's emphasis on endurance of misfortune may contribute to reluctance to seek assistance when assaulted (LaFromboise, et al., 1994). This is not to imply that some cultural beliefs are inferior. In fact, these subcultural beliefs may have helped minorities families survive great adversity. They become cultural barriers however, when they impede help seeking through formal and informal avenues. Moreover, the extent to which cultural barriers impede help seeking is due to a combination of acculturation level, language skills, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status. For example, greater acculturated, educated, second and third generation Latina and Asian battered women may be more familiar with and accepting of mental health services (Kanuha, 1994).
Institutional barriers. Institutional barriers are characteristics of the agency delivery system that make it difficult for ethnic minorities to access necessary services (Rodriguez & O'Donnell, 1995). Agencies may be ill-equipped to handle the needs of minority clients. They may lack translators and bi-cultural/bilingual professionals, reading material in the client's native language, or ethnically sensitive treatment programs. Other structural barriers include rules against treating non-English speaking or immigrant clients, geographic distance from minority communities, prohibitive fee structures, and inflexible or inconvenient hours of operation (Bachman, 1992; Chester, et al., 1994; Comas-Diaz, 1995; Eng, 1995; Fontes, 1995; Williams, 1992). A national survey of 142 domestic partner violence treatment programs found many of the aforementioned institutional barriers. More than half (55%) of the programs were located in Anglo neighborhoods, 15% did not provide training on ethnic minority issues, 70% did not have manuals or literature concerning culturally sensitive practice methods, and 61% did not have a bilingual counselor (Williams, 1994). When these institutional barriers were removed, community agencies reported an increase in ethnic minority clients (Rimonte, 1989).
Racial stereotypes. The stereotyped view of violence as more normal among Blacks than among Anglos has been hypothesized to pose barriers to the intervention and prevention of partner assault. Specifically, if legal and social service agency workers characterize Blacks as violent based on these stereotypes, they may be more likely to substantiate partner violence. They may also believe that intervention efforts with minorities are futile (Hawkins, 1987). These stereotypes may contribute to victim blaming, which in turn reduces the likelihood of help seeking by minority women (Rasche, 1988). Moreover, the fear of reinforcing stereotypes, coupled with community and family loyalty, may encourage some women to hide their abuse. For example, one battered Korean American woman feared that her co-workers would believe that "there was something wrong with Korean people" if they learned of her abuse (Richie & Kanuha, 1993) (p. 291). Community leaders may also fear that discussing minority partner violence will reinforce negative stereotypes. The concern about maintaining a positive community image of minorities may contribute to community denial of partner violence as well as discourage women from seeking help within their own communities (Eng, 1995).
What are the hallmarks of a culturally appropriate assessment?
A culturally appropriate assessment should include the same demographic and background information that would be gathered from any client or family (e.g., history of substance abuse, mental illness). Therapists should also explore the following areas that are relevant to minorities (Abney & Priest, 1995; Chan & Leong, 1994; Comas-Diaz, 1995; LaFromboise, et al., 1994; Okamura, et al., 1995):
(a) Several different languages may be spoken or comprehended. Therapists should carefully assess preferred language among ethnic groups (Okamura, et al., 1995). For example, which language does the client prefer to speak at work and home. Awareness of language nuances is important as well. That is, "battering" may have a different meaning depending on the language. Therapists should make sure communication is clear.(b) Pre-migration and post-migration status of the family will give clues about significant stressors. Important areas to explore include: loss of significant people (through death and separation), property, and homeland; changes in status (e.g., different occupations, inability to obtain employment); and effects of culture shock and displacement.
(a) Prior exposure to violence, such as living in high crime areas, may heighten the effects of a crisis, including partner violence (Allen, 1996)(b) Interviews about partner violence may trigger memories of traumatic historic events (e.g., a Cambodian being interviewed about wife assault may remember the interrogations she face in resettlement camps) (Fontes, 1996).
(c) Second and third generations may minimize partner abuse when they compare it to previous family and historical traumas (Yoshihama, et al., 1991).
The purpose of this section is to make the therapist aware of culturally appropriate interventions that may be used with minorities when appropriate (Fontes, 1995). Leeder (1994) defines culturally sensitive practice as:
awareness that race, social class, ethnic group membership, and cultural background are taken into consideration in understanding the client's life-style and value system. It means trying to understand the client's values, dispositions, behaviors, language, and beliefs. . . A therapist belonging to a group unlike that of one's client must be acutely aware of the unique qualities of that group while making sure not to stereotype or stigmatize that client because of preconceptions about that group (p. 24).
An effective program must also take into account the specific culture, beliefs, and traditions of the treated population. For example, an "Afrocentric perspective" may be more appropriate for African Americans (i.e., a world view that is framed by African American historical traditions of racial pride and respect for family and community) (Abney & Priest, 1995; Campbell, 1993).
Many of the treatment recommendations for ethnic populations come from case studies, (Eng, 1995), focus groups (Ho, 1990), and brief handbooks for battered African Americans (White, 1985) and Latinas (Zambrano, 1985). Although they are based on clinical and anecdotal evidence, they may be beneficial for some minority clients. The following section will review these recommendations.
Treatment of female victims. The treatment goals for ethnic minorities are often similar to those of Anglos. These goals include:
Determining the appropriate therapeutic format is important as well. Some minority women may prefer an ethnically different therapist. They may perceive someone outside their community as more objective and able to maintain confidentiality. While, other minority women feel that only a person of their ethnic background can understand their issues. These women may be best serviced by community resources (White, 1985).
Support groups can reduce the level of isolation and provide social support in the event of community ostracism. However, feelings of shame and fear of bringing humiliation on the family, may make this a less effective milieu for some groups, such as Southeast Asians (Kanuha, 1987). The fear of reinforcing stereotypes about Black men or concerns about revealing family or community affairs to outsiders may make racially mixed groups uncomfortable for some minority women (White, 1985; Zambrano, 1985). Mental health professionals should discuss these concerns in detail with clients before deciding on the appropriate therapeutic format.
With any client, establishing rapport is important. Providing legal and employment information for undocumented women, without directly inquiring about the client's immigration status is one method for building trust (Zambrano, 1985). Depending on the level of acculturation and assimilation, indirect questioning, the use of metaphor, or third- party references may be more effective. For example, some Asian women respond better when asked about ways to help a fictitious friend who has been victimized (Huisman, 1996; Kanuha, 1987). Less acculturated and immigrant women may need more advocacy and help negotiating the system. They may prefer a hierarchal relationship, with the therapist being very directive rather than asking open-ended questions. (Franco, 1996; Rimonte, 1989). It is recommended that therapists take their lead from the client.
Therapists are encouraged to discuss discrimination when appropriate. This discussion can be facilitated by pointing out the similarities and differences between institutional and individual abuse. For instance, how has the client experienced domination, isolation, and threats as a woman, minority, and victim of partner violence (Crites, 1990; NiCarthy, 1982). This also includes addressing cultural barriers that impede help seeking. The goal is to reframe cultural beliefs in a way that empowers battered women. For example, the therapist can reassure the client that revealing the abuse and seeking help is not a "loss of face" or betrayal to the ethnic community. Rather, it is an act of courage and a way to both improve the family and community (Dao, 1988; Dunwoody, 1982; Ho, 1990). Ultimately, therapists should respect a woman's right to choose what aspects of her culture to embrace, rather than forcing her to adhere to the dominant culture's expectations.
Cultural resources can also be utilized if the woman prefers. Some programs for Native American battered women are now integrating traditional herbs, foods, meditation, and ceremonies to complement psychoeducational therapy (Kanuha, 1994). Therapists are also encouraged to provide a welcoming environment for ethnic minority clients and their children. Making books, art work, and toys depicting characters of different racial backgrounds visible can convey this openness (Coley & Beckett, 1988). If shelter services are necessary, culturally sensitive accommodation should be sought (e.g., those with bilingual counselors, ethnic food, and hair care products) (Sorenson, et al., 1996).
Consulting with extended family members, community elders, or healers are other cultural resources that can be used (Ho, 1990). Translators have been recommended as well. If possible, children should not be asked to function in this role. Therapists should also be aware of confidentiality and power dynamics if the translator is an influential community member (Huisman, 1996). Whatever help sources are used, they should be supportive, knowledgeable about partner violence, and willing to adhere to the client's self- determination.
Treatment of male batterers. To date much of the research in this area is theoretical and addresses the treatment of African American men (Dennis, Key, Kirk, & Smith, 1995; Williams, 1992; Williams, 1994). Many of the therapeutic goals for abusive Black men are similar to that of Anglo men. They include preventing violence by focusing on conflict resolution, the development of interpersonal skills, and improving poor communication (Campbell, 1993; Dennis, et al., 1995).
As a group, men who batter tend to resist treatment. Given the dearth of culturally sensitive batterer treatment programs (Williams, 1994), it is not surprising that men of color are underrepresented in these programs (Gondolf, et al., 1988). Black men and other minority men may question the goodwill and cultural specific knowledge of nonminority counselors, treatment group counselors, and group members. They may also feel that mainstream organizations do not value the lives of minorities (Hawkins, 1987; Williams, 1992)
Based on the research several recommendations are made for culturally sensitive practice. First, treatment tactics that label Black abusers as devoid of positive personal or social characteristics or that require clients to view themselves as "sick" should be avoided. African American men are likely to resist these strategies because they perceive them as punitive. Instead, the focus should be the client's capacity for change and his responsibility to participate in the treatment process. Therapists must also be prepared to discuss racism and other forms of discrimination, while continuing to challenge the batterer to be accountable for his behavior (Williams, 1992).
Group therapy can be a particularly effective treatment modality for Black batterers. Racially homogeneous groups are effective because they create an increased level of trust by group members. Black batters often experience a greater identification with themes discussed in the group (e.g., personal and institutional racism). The group environment is also consistent with Black men's help seeking patterns of confiding in community members. Mixed race groups can be effective as well if therapists create a trusting environment. This means resisting "color blindness" or the attempts to respond to all clients as ethnically similar. It also means a willingness to discussing the impact of racism with the group and challenging racist comments if they occur. In order to be validating, groups should have at least two African American men or other men of color (Williams, 1994).
In conclusion, despite stereotypes about ethnic minority partner violence and cultural and institutional barriers, these groups seek help from both formal and informal sources. When assistance is sought, a culturally appropriate assessment, which takes into account race, level of acculturation, economic status, and prior exposure to violence, should be conducted. Effective therapeutic intervention requires culturally appropriate and ethnically sensitive treatment. More research needs to be conducted on culturally sensitive programs for all ethnic groups.
Policy recommendations
Based on this research the following policy recommendations are suggested (Franco, 1996; Jasinski, 1996; Williams, 1994):
Appendix
Women and men who are sexually attracted to and seek romantic relationships with individuals of the same gender are labeled lesbians and gay men. Although it is not possible to obtain an accurate estimate, approximately 10% of the population is believed to be homosexual (Hyde, 1990). These individuals may be at greater risk for partner violence due to their marginalized status (Carlson, 1992). Estimates of physical aggression and victimization in lesbian relationships range from a low of 17% (Loulan, 1987) to a high of 57% (Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montagne, & Reyes, 1991). In most studies, however, approximately 30%-40% of participants reported partner violence (Lie & Gentlewarrier, 1991; Lockhart, White, Causby, & Isaac, 1994). These estimates are considerably higher than those focused on heterosexual samples (e.g. Straus and Gelles (1980)). Because no empirical studies have been conducted on gay male partner violence estimates are difficult to obtain. Based on the incidence of heterosexual battering and the likelihood of gay relationships being more violent because two men are involved, Island and Letellier (1989) estimated that approximately 500,000 gay men are victims of partner violence every year.
Some of the same factors that contributed to violence among heterosexual couples are also predictors of lesbian battering including, substance abuse, violence in the family of origin, conflict around attachment and autonomy, and power imbalances (Lockhart, et al., 1994; Renzetti, 1988; Schilit, Lie, Bush, Montagne, & Reyes, 1991). To date, however, little empirical research has examined these predictors among gay men.
For more information on this population the reader is referred to: (Farley, 1992; Island & Letellier, 1991; Leeder, 1988; Lobel, 1986; Margolies & Leeder, 1995)
References
Abney, V. D., & Priest, R. (1995). African Americans and sexual child abuse. In L. A. Fontes (Ed.), Sexual abuse in nine North American cultures: Treatment and prevention (pp. 11-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Allen, I. M. (1986). Violence and the American Indian woman. In M. C. Burns (Ed.), The speaking profits us: Violence in the lives of women of color (pp. 5-7). Seattle, WA: Center for Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence.
Allen, I. M. (1996). PTSD among African Americans. In A. J. Marsella, M. J. Friedman, E. T. Gerrity, & R. M. Scurfield (Eds.), Ethnocultural aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder (pp. 209-235). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Anderson, M. J. (1993). A license to abuse: The impact of conditional status on female immigrants. The Yale Law Journal, 102, 1401-1430.
Asbury, J. (1987). African American women in violent relationships: An exploration of cultural differences. In R. L. Hampton (Ed.), Violence in the Black family: Correlates and consequences (pp. 86-106). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Asbury, J. (1993). Violence in families of color in the United States. In R. L. Hampton, T. P. Gullota, G. R. Adams, E. H. Potter, & R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), Family violence: Prevention and treatment (pp. 159-178). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bachman, R. (1992). Death and violence on the reservation: Homicide, family violence, and suicide in American Indian populations. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
Burns, M. C. (1986). The speaking profits us: Violence in the lives of women of color. Seattle, WA: Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestice Violence.
Campbell, D. W. (1993). Nursing care of African American battered women: Afrocentric perspectives. AWHONNS Clinical Issues in Perinatal and Women's Health Nursing, 4, 407-415.
Carlson, B. E. (1992). Questioning the party line on family violence. Affilia, 7(2), 94-110.
Cazenave, N. A., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Race, class, network embeddedness and family violence: A search for potent support systems. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 321-340). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Chan, C. S. (1987). Asian American women: Psychological responses to sexual exploitation and cultural stereotypes. Asian American Psychological Association Journal, 12, 11-15.
Chan, S., & Leong, C. W. (1994). Chinese families in transition: Cultural conflicts and adjustment problems. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 3(3), 263-281.
Chapin, D. (1990). Peace on earth begins in the home. The Circle, 14(1).
Chen, S. A., & True, R. H. (1994). Asian/Pacific Island Americans. In L. D. Eron, J. H. Gontry, & J. P. Schleyel (Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychological perspective on violence and youth (pp. 145-162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chester, B., Robin, R. W., Koss, M. P., Lopez, J., & Goldman, D. (1994). Grandmother dishonored: Violence against women by male partners in American Indian communities. Violence and Victims, 9(3), 249-258.
Chin, K. L. (1994). Out-of-town brides: International marriage and wife abuse among Chinese immigrants. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(1), 53-69.
Coley, S. M., & Beckett, J. O. (1988). Black battered women: Practice issues. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 483-490.
Comas-Diaz, L. (1995). Puerto Ricans and sexual child abuse. In L. A. Fontes (Ed.), Sexual abuse in nine North American cultures: Treatment and prevention (pp. 31-66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crites, L. (1990). Cross-cultural counseling in wife beating cases. Response to Victimization of Women and Children, 13(4), 8-12.
Dao, H. (1988). The battered Southeast Asian women--Who is she? Paper presented at the National Conference Against Domestic Violence Fourth National Conference and Membership Meeting, Seattle, WA.
Dennis, R. E., Key, L. J., Kirk, A. L., & Smith, A. (1995). Addressing domestic violence in the African American community. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Undeserved, 6(2), 284-293.
Dunwoody, E. (1982). Battering in Indochinese refugee families. Response to Victimization of Women and Children, 5(5), 1-12.
Eng, P. (1995). Domestic violence in Asian/Pacific Island communities. In D. L. Adams (Ed.), Health issues for women of color: A cultural diversity perspective (pp. 78-88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Farley, N. (1992). Same-sex domestic violence. In S. H. Dworkin & F. J. Gutierrez (Eds.), Counseling gay men and lesbians: Journey to the end of the rainbow (pp. 231-242). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.
Fontes, L. A. (1995). Sexual abuse in nine North American cultures: Treatment and prevention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fontes, L. A. (in press). Conducting ethical cross-cultural research on family violence. In G. Kaufman Kantor & J. L. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Franco, F. E. (1996). Unconditional safety for conditional immigrant women. Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 11, 99-141.
Ginorio, A. B., Gutierrez, L., & Cause, A. M. (1995). Psychological issues for Latinas. In H. Landrine (Ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 241-263). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gondolf, W., Fisher, E., & McFerron, R. (1988). Racial differences among shelter residents. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 39-51.
Greene, B. (1994). African American women. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene (Eds.), Women of color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy (pp. 10-29). New York: Guilford Press.
Hammond, W. R., & Yung, B. R. (1994). African Americans. In L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, & P. Schlegal (Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychological perspective on violence and youth (pp. 105-118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hampton, R. L. (1987). Family violence and homicides in the Black community: Are they linked? In R. L. Hampton (Ed.), Violence in the Black family: Correlates and consequences (pp. 135-186). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hampton, R. L., & Gelles, R. J. (1994). Violence toward Black women in a nationally representative sample of Black families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(1), 105-119.
Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Is violence in Black families increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 national survey rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 969-980.
Hawkins, D. F. (1987). Devalued lives and racial stereotypes: Ideological barriers to the prevention of family violence among Blacks. In R. H. Hampton (Ed.), Violence in the Black family: Correlates and consequences (pp. 190-205). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Ho, C. K. (1990). An analysis of domestic violence in Asian American communities: A multicultural approach to counseling. In L. S. Brown & M. Root (Eds.), Diversity and complexity in feminist therapy (pp. 129-150). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Huisman, K. A. (1996). Wife battering in Asian American communities. Violence Against Women, 2(3), 260-283.
Hyde, J. S. (1990). Understanding human sexuality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Indian Health Service (1989). Indian health service: Trends in Indian health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Island, D., & Letellier, P. (1991). Men who beat the men who love them: Battered gay men and domestic violence. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Jang, D., Lee, D., & Morello-Frosch, R. (1990). Domestic violence in the immigrant and refugee community: Responding to the needs of immigrant women. Response to Victimization of Women and Children, 13(4), 2-7.
Jasinski, J. L. (1996) Structural inequalities, family and cultural factors, and spousal violence among Anglo and Hispanic Americans. Doctoral Dissertation, University of New Hampshire, Durham.
Johnson, D. (1994). Stress, depression, substance abuse, and racism. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 6(1), 29-33.
Kanuha, V. (1987). Sexual assault in Southeast Asian communities: Issues in intervention. Response to Victimization of Women and Children, 10(3), 4-6.
Kanuha, V. (1994). Women of color in battering relationships. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene (Eds.), Women of color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy (pp. 428-454). New York: Guilford Press.
Kaufman Kantor, G. (1990). Ethnicity, alcohol, and family violence: A structural and cultural interpretation. Paper presented at the Forty-second Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore, MD.
Kaufman Kantor, G. (in press). Alcohol and spouse abuse: Ethnic differences. In M. Galanter (Ed.), Recent developments in alcoholism. New York: Plenum.
Kaufman Kantor, G., Jasinski, J., & Aldorondo, E. (1994). Sociocultural status and incidence of marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9(3), 207-222.
Kaufman Kantor, G., & Straus, M. A. (1987). The "drunken bum" theory of wife beating. Social Problems, 34(3), 213-230.
LaFromboise, T. D., Berman, J. S., & Sohi, B. K. (1994). American Indian women. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene (Eds.), Women of color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy (pp. 30-71). New York: Guilford Press.
LaFromboise, T. D., Choney, S. B., James, A., & Running Wolf, P. R. (1995). American Indian women and psychology. In H. Landrine (Ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 197-239). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lai, T. A. (1986). Asian women: Resisting the violence. In M. C. Burns (Ed.), The speaking profits us: Violence in the lives of women of color (pp. 8-11). Seattle, WA: Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence.
Lane, K. E., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P. A. (1985). Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6(1), 45-59.
Leeder, E. (1988). Enmeshed in pain: Counseling the lesbian battering couple. Women and Therapy, 7(1), 81-99.
Leeder, E. (1994). Treating abuse in families: A feminist and community approach. New York: Springer.
Lie, G. Y., & Gentlewarrier, S. (1991). Intimate violence in lesbian relationships: Discussion of survey findings and practice implications. Journal of Social Service Research, 15(1/2), 41-59.
Lie, G. Y., Schilit, R., Bush, J., Montagne, M., & Reyes, L. (1991). Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships: How frequently do they report aggressive past relationships. Violence and Victims, 6(2), 121-135.
Lobel, K. (1986). Naming the violence: Speaking out about lesbian battering. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Lockhart, L. L. (1987). A re-examination of the effects of race and social class on the incidence of marital violence: A search for reliable differences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 603-610.
Lockhart, L. L., White, B. W., Causby, V., & Isaac, A. (1994). Letting out the secret: Violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9(4), 469-492.
Loulan, J. (1987). Lesbian passion. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.
Margolies, L., & Leeder, E. (1995). Violence at the door: Treatment of lesbian batterers. Violence Against Women, 1(2), 139-157.
Mirande, A., & Perez, P. (1987). Ethnic and cultural differences in domestic violence: A test of conflicting models of the Chicano family. Paper presented at the Research Conference on Violence and Homicide in the Hispanic Community, Los Angeles, CA.
Narayan, U. (1995). "Male-order" brides: Immigrant women, domestic violence, and immigration law. Hypatia, 10(1), 104-119.
Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., & Schluter, T. D. (1995). Spousal violence among Anglos, Blacks, and Mexican Americans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial predictors, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Family Violence, 10(1), 1-21.
NiCarthy, G. (1982). Social and political aspects of abuse. G. NiCarthy (Ed.), Getting free: You can end the abuse and take back your life (pp. 3-13). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
O'Keefe, M. (1994). Racial/Ethnic differences among battered women and their children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 3(3), 283-305.
Okamura, A., Heras, P., & Wong-Kerberg, L. (1995). Asian, Pacific Island, and Filipino Americans and sexual child abuse. In L. A. Fontes (Ed.), Sexual Abuse in Nine North American Cultures: Treatment and Prevention (pp. 67-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oliver, W. (1989). Sexual conquest and patterns of Black-on-Black violence: A structural-cultural perspective. Violence and Victims, 4(4), 257-273.
Orloff, L. E., Jang, D., & Klein, C. F. (1995). With no place to turn: Improving legal advocacy for battered immigrant women. Family Law Quarterly, 29(2), 313-329.
Owens, D., & Straus, M. A. (1975). The social structure of violence in childhood and approval of violence as an adult. Aggressive Behavior, 1, 193-211.
Portes, A. (1984). The rise of ethnicity: Determinants of ethnic perceptions among Cuban exiles in Miami. American Sociological Review, 49, 383-397.
Portes, A., & Truelove, C. (1987). Making sense of diversity: Recent research on Hispanic minorities in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 359-385.
Rasche, C. E. (1988). Minority women and domestic violence: The unique dilemmas of battered women of color. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 4, 150-171.
Renzetti, C. (1988). Violence in lesbian relationships: A preliminary analysis of causal factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(4), 381-399.
Richie, B. E., & Kanuha, V. (1993). Battered women of color in public health care systems: Racism, sexism, and violence. In B. Blair & S. E. Cayleff (Eds.), Wings of gauze: Women of color and the experience of health and illness (pp. 288-299). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Rimonte, N. (1989). Domestic violence among Pacific Asians. In Asian Women United of California (Ed.), Making waves: An anthology of writings by and about Asian American women (pp. 327-473). Boston: Beacon Press.
Rodriguez, O., & O'Donnell, M. (1995). Help-seeking and use of mental health services by the Hispanic elderly. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Root, M. P. (1996). Women of color and traumatic stress in "domestic captivity": Gender and race as disempowering statuses. In A. J. Marsella, M. J. Friedman, E. T. Gerrity, & R. M. Scurfield (Eds.), Ethnocultural aspects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Issues, research, and clinical applications (pp. 363-388). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Roundtree, G. A., Parker, A. D., Edwards, D. W., & Teddlie, C. B. (1982). A survey of the types of crimes committed by incarcerated females in two states who reported being battered. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 28, 23-26.
Schilit, R., Lie, G. Y., Bush, J., Montagne, M., & Reyes, L. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of violence in lesbian relationships. Affilia, 6(1), 72-87.
Song, Y. I. (1986) Battered Korean women in urban America: The relationship of cultural conflict to wife abuse. Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Sorenson, S. B., & Telles, C. A. (1991). Self-reports of spousal violence in a Mexican-American and non-Hispanic White population. Violence and Victims, 6(1), 3-15.
Sorenson, S. B., Upchurch, D. M., & Shen, H. (1996). Violence and injury in marital arguments: Risk patterns and gender differences. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 35-40.
Star, B. (1978). Comparing battered and non-battered women. Victimology, 3, 32-44.
Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1995). Killing the beast within: Woman battering and female suicidality. International Journal of Health Services, 25(1), 43-64.
Stevenson, H. W. (1992). Learning from Asian Schools. Scientific American, 267(6), 70-77.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). How violent are American families? Estimates from the national family violence resurvey and other studies. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 95-112). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press.
Straus, M. A., & Hotaling, G. T. (Ed.). (1980). The social causes of husband-wife violence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Straus, M. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Violence in Hispanic families in the United States: Incidence rates and structural interpretations. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 341-368). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
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 and adaptations 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.
Trask, H. (1990). Politics in the Pacific Islands: Imperialism and native self-determination. Amerasia Journal, 16(1), 1-19.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1991). In Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992). Statistical abstract of the United States. In Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993a). Population Profile of the United States 1993 (Series P-23, No. 185). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993b). We, the American ... Asians. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Verlarde-Castillo, A. R. (1992) Spouse abuse among Hopi women. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.
Walker, L. E. A. (1994). Abused women and survivor therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wasinger, L. (1993). The value system of the Native American counseling client: An exploration. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 17(4), 91-98.
White, E. (1985). Chain, chain, change: For Black women dealing with physical and emotional abuse. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Williams, E. E., & Ellison, F. (1996). Culturally informed social work practice with American Indian clients: Guidelines for non-Indian social workers. Social Work, 41(2), 147-151.
Williams, O. J. (1992). Ethnically sensitive practice to enhance treatment participation of African American men who batter. Families in Society, 588-595.
Williams, O. J. (1994). Domestic partner abuse treatment programs and cultural competence: The results of a national survey. Violence and Victims, 9(3), 287-296.
Wolk, L. E. (1982). Minnesota's American Indian battered women: The cycle of oppression; A cultural awareness training manual for non-Indian professionals. St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Indian Center.
Yoshihama, M., Parekh, A. L., & Boyington, D. (1991). Dating violence in Asian/Pacific communities. In B. Levy (Ed.), Dating violence: Young women in danger (pp. 184-301). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Zambrano, M. M. (1985). For the Latina in an abusive relationship. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Return to
NNFR/USAF Partner Violence page
Return
to NNFR homepage