Partner Violence in Ethnic Minority Families

This section is part of an online course “Spousal and Partner Abuse” offered by Ofer Zur, Ph.D.
Text was developed by Sage DeBeixedon, Ph.D.

Intimate partner violence knows no boundaries. It cuts across age, gender, culture, SES, sexual orientation and ethnicity. Even though all groups experience relational violence, there are factors which contribute uniquely to intimate partner violence among ethnic minorities. These include poverty and discrimination. These factors, as well as others, may contribute to frequency of violence and impact the help-seeking behavior of the victim (West, 2003).

Minorities Studied

African Americans

African-Americans constitute the largest racial minority in the United States, representing approximately 12% of the total population. The majority of African Americans entered the United States via the slave trade. As a result, they endured the forced separation of their families, physical abuse, prohibition of indigenous language and culture. While this ethnic minority has improved its plight significantly, they still have not achieved economic, employment and educational parity with Anglican Americans. Even in the face of these adversities, 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” (West, 2003, p. 79).

Latinos and Mexican-Americans

This ethnic group represents 9% of the US population (about 22.4 million people). This group is comprised of immigrants from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Cuba.

Mexican Americans make up 60% of this ethnic group. While many migrated here from Mexico, the original population was indigenous to this land and was conquered during the Mexican-American War. The Californios and Angelinos were the original inhabitants of what are now known as California and Los Angeles.

In similar fashion Puerto Ricans lost their indigenous rights during the Spanish-American War. Approximately 50 years ago, Puerto Ricans began to immigrate to the U.S. to escape unemployment and poverty. Today, Puerto Ricans comprise 15% of the Latino population.

Immigrants from Cuba make up 5% of the Latino minority. Those who arrived between 1959 and 1965 were considered political refugees (because Cuba is a communist country) and were primarily White, educated professionals. By the 1980s U.S. laws and economic status had changed, and the influx of Cuban immigrants was experienced with quite a different attitude (Ginorio, Gutierrez, & Cause, 1995; Portes & Truelove, 1987).

The difference in migration histories and patterns contributes to variations within this ethnic population. For instance Cuban-Americans tend to be older and more economically advantaged than other subsets of the Latino population.

Asian Americans

The Asian/Pacific Island Americans represent 2.9% (7.27 million) of the total U.S. population. This ethnic group is comprised primarily of 1) those from mainland Asiatic cultures (Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Koreans), 2) those from Southeast Asia (Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Cambodians and Laotians) and 3) those from the Pacific Islands (Hawaii, Samoa and Guam).

Like the subgroups which comprise the Latino population, Asian-Americans differ greatly by immigration and generational status. A large percentage of the first subgroup (mainland Asians) immigrated many generations ago, increasing their level of acculturation and adoption of American norms and behaviors. They have also achieved relatively high levels of educational and economic success (Okamura, et al., 1995). In contrast, more recent immigrants to the U.S. are considerably more impoverished and face greater language barriers, lack of education, unsafe neighborhoods and anti-Asian violence. Despite their diverse backgrounds, as a group, Asian-Americans emphasize family loyalty, responsibility, respect and cooperation (Chen & True, 1994; Stevenson, 1992).

Native Americans

Of the groups studied, the smallest ethnic minority in the U.S. is the indigenous Native American population. These 2 million Native Americans represent over 500 different tribes and account for 0.8% of the total U.S. population. Historically, almost every tribe was forced to relinquish their homelands and move to assigned reservations. Like the Africans, they were pressured to assimilate into the Anglican-American society.

This group experiences extraordinarily high unemployment rates, great poverty, significant prevalence of alcoholism and high “early” mortality (Bachman, 1992; Indian Health Service, 1989; LaFromboise, et al., 1994; LaFromboise, Choney, James, & Running Wolf, 1995). Despite these incredible challenges, many Native American families maintain their traditional values and customs (e.g. reverence of elders, cooperation and group cohesion) (Wasinger, 1993).

Incidence of Partner Violence

The most accurate representation of intimate partner violence likely comes from large national probability samples rather than community or non-representative samples. As such, this is the data that will be primarily reviewed.

African Americans. According to the large national probability samples, there is a higher rate of partner assault among African-Americans compared to Anglican-Americans. The First National Family Violence Survey indicates that Black husbands are violent with their wives at a rate four times higher than Caucasian husbands, and Black wives assault their husbands twice as often as do Caucasian wives (West, 2003; Straus, et al., 1980; Hampton & Gelles, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1986; Hampton, et al., 1989).

Latino and Mexican-Americans. Data from two national surveys produced conflicting results: while one study indicated that couples from the Latino minority were less violent than their Anglican-American counterparts, another study suggested that there was a higher rate of violence among Latino couples. In order to avoid these apparent research flaws, Kaufman Kantor and colleagues (1994) conducted person-to-person bilingual interviews with respondents in a national probability sample. When the subsets of the Latino minority were considered by subgroup, large ethnic group differences emerged: Puerto Rican spouses were approximately twice as likely as Anglican husbands and ten times more likely than Cuban husbands to be violent with their wives (West, 2003).

Asian Americans. West (2003) reports that no nationally representative surveys have been conducted with those in the Asian-American ethnic minority. In addition, studies that have been conducted produced mixed results, though there appears to be a preponderance of relational violence in this minority group as well.

Native Americans. Estimates of intimate partner violence within Native American couples range from 50% (Wolk, 1982) to 80% (Chapin, 1990), though most of the data comes from anecdotal reports (e.g. (Allen, 1986) and small samples (Verlarde-Castillo, 1992). Results from the National Family Violence Survey (Straus & Gelles, 1990) noted that Native American couples were significantly more violent than their Anglican counterparts (Bachman, 1992; West, 2003).

While the research suggests that minority groups have a higher prevalence of intimate partner violence than Anglican Americans, ethnic minorities are not inherently more violent than Anglican Americans. They are more likely to be overrepresented in demographic categories (lack of opportunity, higher unemployment, lower SES, prevalence of alcoholism) that are at greater risk for physical violence (Asbury, 1993; Cazenave & Straus, 1990; Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994; Straus, et al., 1980). West (2003) points out that “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” (p.83).

Demographic Factors

Age. Younger age, specifically being under age 30, is a strong predictor of partner violence (Straus & Smith, 1990; Suitor, Pillemer & Straus, 1990).

Social class. Cazenave and Straus (1990) found that when SES is held stable, the prevalence of intimate partner violence in African-American couples is no higher than that in Caucasian couples. Higher rates of domestic violence among Black couples were only identified in the $6,000-$11,999 annual income range (unfortunately the largest percentage of African-American couples were in this income category). Similar results appeared for partner violence in the Latino minority. Less research was available on Native American and Asian American couples, though it is believed that this factor impacts couples in these ethnic minorities in the same way that it impacts other minority groups.

Husband’s occupational and employment status. African-American men employed in blue collar occupations as well as those who were unemployed reported more violence than their Black professional counterparts (Cazenave & Straus, 1990; Hampton & Gelles, 1994). Husband’s unemployment demonstrated the strongest effect when statistics for Latino couples were compared with those of Caucasian couples (Kaufman Kantor, et al., 1994). These kinds of associations have not been studied adequately for the Asian American and Native American ethnic groups.

Cultural FactorsAs much as we would like to believe that poverty and unemployment are the strongest reasons for heightened frequency of domestic violence in ethnic minority couples, some surveys suggest this is not the case. When these factors were held stable in one study, Black men were still more violent than their Caucasian counterparts (Cazenave & Straus, 1990).

Other factors associated with increased intimate partner violence are being evaluated. Perceived stress, for example, may be the culprit for the higher prevalence of violence in Native American couples (Bachman, 1992; West, 2003). And, just as Dutton and his colleagues (in press) found, alcohol abuse and normative approval of violence likely significantly impact intimate partner violence in ethnic minority groups (Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987). Level of acculturation may have some impact on domestic violence in ethnic minorities though research on this factor has produced mixed results for the Asian American minority (Jasinski, 1996; Okamura, et al., 1995). Among those in the Latino minority, being born in the U.S. was associated with increased risk for domestic violence (Kaufman et al., 1994; Sorenson & Telles, 1991).

Therapeutic Implications

For help-seeking behavior:

There are several factors which may impede the help-seeking behavior of battered minority women, including cultural and institutional barriers (Rodriguez & O’Donnell, 1995). Anecdotal data suggests that Latinas seek and utilize fewer resources than do African-American and Caucasian women (Gondolf, et al, 1988; O’Keefe, 1994).

It is possible that cultural beliefs may inhibit help-seeking behavior, though acculturation level, language skills, educational attainment and socioeconomic status may also impact which beliefs are held strongly and how significantly help-seeking behavior is affected as a result. For example, Kanuha (1994) found that more acculturated, educated, second and third generation Latina and Asian battered women may be more familiar with and accepting of mental health services.

Some of the institutional barriers that are postulated to have an impact on the help-seeking behavior of ethnic minorities include the lack of translators, limited number of bi-cultural/bi-lingual professionals, inadequate reading materials in client native languages and limited number of ethnically-sensitive treatment programs (West, 2003). Other factors which may impede help-seeking behavior include geographic distance of resources from the home, prohibitive fees and inconvenient hours of operation.

For culturally appropriate assessment:

In addition to all the data that is gathered in any assessment, West (2003) reminds that therapists should also seek information in the following categories for their ethnically diverse clients:

Race/Ethnicity

Economic Status

Family Structure: boundaries, family roles, family support network

Level of Acculturation: language preference, immigration history

Prior Exposure to Violence: personal and ancestral

Suicide Potentiality

Cultural Coping Strategies: family strengths, past and current family coping strategies (family rituals, religious practices)

Any effective treatment program must always consider the specific culture, beliefs and traditions of the population being addressed.

References

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 the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence.

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, and 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.

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.

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, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

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 D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Gondolf, W., Fisher, E., & McFerron, R. (1988). Racial differences among shelter residents. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 39-51.

Hampton, R .L., & Gelles, R. J. (1994). Violence towards 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.

Indian Health Service (1989). Indian health service: Trends in Indian health. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

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.

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., 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.

LaFramboise, 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.

LaFramboise, 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, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

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.

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.

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.

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 Family, 48, 465-479.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

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.

Verlarde-Castillo, A. R. (1992). Spouse abuse among Hopi women. Unpublished manuscript: University of Texas at Austin.

Wasinger, L. (1993). The value system of the Native American counseling client: An exploration. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 17(4), 91-98.

West, C. (2003). Partner violence in ethnic minority families. Retrieved from http://www.agnr.umd.edu/nnfr/research/pv/pv_ch7.html

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.