J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572 DOI 10.1007/s10896-012-9447-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Female Immigrant Victims of Domestic Violence: A Comparison between Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel and Israeli-Born Women Eugene Tartakovsky & Sabina Mezhibovsky
Published online: 31 May 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract This study aimed to understand patterns of physical and psychological violence and the system of social support among female immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel who are suffering from domestic violence. Immigrant women receiving help in Centers for the Treatment and Prevention of Domestic Violence and in shelters for battered women (n074) were compared with Israeli-born women receiving help in the same Centers and shelters (n0107). Immigrant and Israeli-born women reported similar levels of physical and psychological violence, and the immigrants’ utilization of formal and informal systems of social support was similar to that among Israeli-born women. However, immigrant women were threatened more frequently with expulsion from Israel, and their partners were alcoholically intoxicated more often than the partners of Israeli-born women. Non-Jewish women were more frequently threatened with expulsion from Israel, and they reported a lower level of social support received from parents and friends. Keywords Domestic violence against women . Social support . Immigrants . Former Soviet Union . Israel
Domestic violence against women occurs in all countries and socioeconomic groups; however, its prevalence and manifestations vary widely (Straus 2004; Watts and Zimmerman 2002). During the last few decades, the number of immigrants E. Tartakovsky (*) The Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University, P.O.B. 39040, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel e-mail:
[email protected] S. Mezhibovsky Jewish Family and Child Services, Toronto, Canada
in the world has been rapidly growing; therefore, understanding the socio-cultural specificity of domestic violence against women among different immigrant groups is becoming increasingly important (Dumont and Lemaître 2005; Field and Caetano 2004; Menjivar and Salcido 2002; Raj and Silverman 2002). The present study focuses on Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union (FSU) in Israel. About 1.5 million Jews and their relatives (from a population of about 2 million who lived in the Soviet Union) left the FSU since the fall of the Communist regime in 1989 (Tolts 2009). About 900,000 of them immigrated to Israel; others settled in the USA, Canada, Germany, and other countries (CBSI 2010). Until now, domestic violence against women has not been investigated in this population. In the present study, female immigrants from the FSU in Israel were compared with Israeli-born women in terms of the levels of physical and psychological violence they experienced, their perceived social support, and various socio-demographic characteristics. The study was conducted among women who received psychosocial help in Centers for the Treatment and Prevention of Domestic Violence and in shelters for battered women.
Domestic Violence Against Immigrant Women Theoretical Considerations Both the general public and researchers often assume that immigrants have higher rates of domestic violence than the majority population. This assumption is based on two theories: the subculture of violence theory and the structural inequality theory (Field and Caetano 2004; Sokoloff and Dupont 2005). The subculture of violence theory argues that certain cultural groups are more accepting of violence against women as a means of conflict resolution and as a culturally appropriate means of punishing women for their transgression of culturally sanctioned norms of behavior
562
(Sokoloff and Dupont 2005; Yoshihama 1999). Cultures that permit domestic violence against women are often labeled patriarchal (Taylor et al. 2001). In addition to supporting domestic violence, patriarchal cultural norms may negatively affect women’s ability to seek psychosocial help. For instance, adherence to norms of upholding family honor and particularly its male members makes it difficult for female victims of domestic violence to blame their husbands before law enforcement agencies or social workers (Kasturirangan et al. 2004). The subculture of violence theory applied to the case of immigration assumes that some immigrants come from cultures that support violence against women, and that immigrants continue to adhere to these cultural norms in the host country. Structural inequality theory assumes that structural factors in a given society (e.g., undereducation, unemployment, poverty, low prospective for socioeconomic advantage, and discrimination) are responsible for the increased levels of domestic violence prevalent in certain socio-economic and ethnic groups. Families with a lower socio-economic status experience increased stress, because their stressors are more numerous and severe, and they have fewer resources available to cope with these stressors. Stress caused by structural factors may lead to increased frustration, disharmony in interpersonal relationships, and violence (Field and Caetano 2004). Structural inequality theory assumes that the effect of structural factors on immigrant families is essentially similar to their effect on domestic violence among low-status families belonging to the majority ethnic group (Sokoloff and Dupont 2005). However, the theory also assumes that immigration may exacerbate domestic violence, because immigrants often experience a decrease in their socio-economic status and financial instability in the host country as compared with their situation in the country of origin (Raj and Silverman 2002). In addition, the task of socio-cultural adaptation to the host country may require changes in the relationship patterns in the family, which may also cause distress and conflict (Kasturirangan et al. 2004; Slonim-Nevo et al. 1999). Structural inequality theory also assumes that an immigrant status may create special difficulties for women trying to escape abusive relationships, because it increases their isolation from the larger society. Immigrant women may be restricted to their families by language barriers, limited information on the host society, and fear of discrimination (Burman and Chantler 2005; Johnson and Ferraro 2000). For the same reasons, immigrant women may experience a greater difficulty in utilizing psychosocial services than women belonging to the majority ethnic group, or even minority women who are permanent residents of the country. Finally, women whose immigration status is tied to the status of their spouse may fear losing their immigration status and be deported (Kasturirangan et al. 2004). Empirical Findings Most studies conducted in the USA have found consistent cross-racial differences in domestic
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
violence against women. A study using a representative US sample (Tjaden et al. 1999) found that throughout their life, Asian women suffered the least from domestic violence (13 %), followed by Anglo women (21 %), AfricanAmerican women (26 %), and American Indians and Alaska Natives (31 %). Another study found that 12 % of Anglos, 17 % of Hispanics, and 23 % of blacks reported at least one incident of male-to-female partner violence in the past year (Caetano et al. 2000). At the same time, in most studies, when the socioeconomic characteristics (such as education levels and occupational status) were accounted for, the level of violence among blacks and Hispanics was similar to that of non-Hispanic white women (Farmer and Tiefenthaler 2003; Johnson and Ferraro 2000; Rodriguez et al. 2001; Torres 1991). Several studies conducted in the US have indicated that the stress of immigration may exacerbate domestic violence against women. Thus, a representative study of Mexican women demonstrated that domestic violence against them increased after their immigration to the United States (Lown and Vega 2001). Additionally, the highest rate of domestic violence was found among women who were undocumented immigrants or conditional residents married to citizens or permanent residents of the United States (Anderson 1993). These findings seem to corroborate the structural inequality theory of domestic violence. However, some other studies conducted in the US support the subculture of violence theory. Torres (1991) found that Hispanic women tended to endure battering for a longer time than Anglo and African-American women, and Mexican American women, more than Anglo women, tended to view some forms of domestic violence as normal and acceptable. In addition, Field and Caetano (2004) found that when the variables of urbanity, income, employment, and occupation status were controlled, Hispanics still demonstrated a higher prevalence of domestic violence against women than Anglos. Some researchers suggest that the subculture of violence and structural inequality theories may be supplementary rather than contradictory (Raj and Silverman 2002). Thus, several recent studies have indicated that both men and women with lower levels of education and occupational status demonstrated more patriarchal social norms, tended to blame their wives for their violence against them, and viewed violence against women as more acceptable (Ahmad et al. 2004; Haj-Yahia 2003; Sakalli 2001).
Domestic Violence Against Women in Russia and Israel No data is available regarding domestic violence in the Soviet Union. Furthermore, no data is available regarding domestic violence among Jews in the FSU. However, several recent studies have provided data regarding domestic violence against women in post-perestroika Russia. Empirical studies conducted in Moscow and St. Petersburg
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
indicate that the life prevalence of domestic violence against women in Russia is about 27 % (Cubbins and Vannoy 2005; Stickley et al. 2008a, b), which is higher than in the US and other western developed countries (Caetano et al. 2000; Horne 1999; Pridemore 2002). The results obtained in these studies have indicated that similar factors affect domestic violence against women in Russia and the US. A lower level of education (of both the women and their partners), unemployment, and blue-collar occupations were associated with higher levels of violence. In addition, alcohol abuse by the partner was associated with a higher level of domestic violence against women in both Russia and the US. However, the level of alcohol consumption is much higher in Russia than in the US and most other developed countries, and it is partly responsible for the higher level of domestic violence in Russia as compared to western developed countries (Horne 1999; Pridemore 2002). Another important difference between the FSU and developed countries is in the system of psychosocial help provided for victims of domestic violence. Unlike in the US and other developed countries, psychosocial services aimed at treating domestic violence did not exist in the Soviet Union, and the first crisis center for female victims of domestic violence was opened only in 1992 in Moscow (Horne 1999). Twenty years after the beginning of Perestroika, only a dozen such centers exist in Russia, which probably explains why Russian women suffering from domestic violence report friends as their main source of social support (Cubbins and Vannoy 2005). Recent studies have indicated that the yearly prevalence of domestic physical violence in Israel is 10–13 % (Eisikovits et al. 2004; Muhlbauer 2006), which is slightly lower than the figures found in the US (Caetano et al. 2000). The domestic violence rate is lower in the Jewish than in the Arab Israeli population. The rate of violence among immigrants from the FSU is similar to that found in the Israeli-born population in general, and it is slightly higher than that in the Jewish Israeliborn population (Eisikovits et al. 2004). The proportion of immigrants from the FSU receiving psychosocial help in shelters and Centers for the Treatment and Prevention of Domestic Violence and in shelters for battered women is similar to their proportion in the Israeli population, which in 2010 was 14 % (CBSI 2010; Meir et al. 2011).
Jewish Immigrants from the FSU to Israel Certain socio-demographic characteristics of the immigrants from the FSU in Israel differentiate them from most of the immigrant groups that have been studied in the context of domestic violence. First, they are “Diaspora immigrants”, i.e. in their country of origin most of them belonged to an ethnic minority group (Jewish), which is the majority group in the host country. Because of their ethnic and religious closeness to
563
the dominant group in the host country, Diaspora immigrants receive larger social support from the government and society and suffer less discrimination than other groups of immigrants (Leshem and Lissak 1999; Remennick 2003). However, about 30 % of immigrants from the FSU to Israel are relatives of Jews, but they are not Jewish (Remennick 2004; Tolts 2009). They have full rights as Israeli citizens; however, they are sometimes discriminated against, especially concerning issues of citizenship and matrimony, which in Israel are under the auspices of the religious authorities (Leshem and Lissak 1999). The second distinctive feature of the immigration from the FSU to Israel is its mass character, which ensures that most immigrants have families and friends in Israel that can provide them with social support (Slonim-Nevo et al. 1999). However, about one third of the immigrants from the FSU left their firstdegree relatives in their country of origin (Remennick 2004). The mass character of the immigration from the FSU enabled immigrants to create a large Russian-speaking community in Israel, which provides them with much social support (Leshem and Lissak 1999); however, the large Russianspeaking community may also delay the integration of immigrants from the FSU into Israeli society. Recent studies have demonstrated that social contacts between immigrants from the FSU and the Israeli-born population are limited (cf. Leshem and Lissak 1999). A study that investigated intimate relationships among immigrants from the FSU in Israel found that only 15 % of immigrant women and 10 % of men reported ever having romantic relationships with Israeli-born partners, and only 2 % had a permanent Israeli-born partner (Remennick 2003, 2004). Although studies conducted in different countries indicate that most first-generation immigrants marry their fellow immigrants, the Israeli rate of intercultural relationships is much lower than the corresponding numbers found in the US and Australia, which indicated that more than 25 % of first-generation Caucasian immigrants had local partners (Gregory and Meng 2005; Kalmijn 1998). The third distinctive feature of the immigrants from the FSU in Israel is their high level of education and employment in general and of women in particular. About 53 % of immigrant men and 56 % of immigrant women have 13 or more years of schooling (Kushnirovich 2007), which is higher than the rate of 43 % among both men and women in the Israeli population (CBSI 2010). According to the latest data (CBSI 2010), about 65 % of immigrant men and 60 % of immigrant women of working age are employed, and these proportions are similar to those found among Israeli-born men and women of working age, which are 65 % and 66 % accordingly.
The Present Study The present study aimed to understand socio-demographic characteristics, patterns of physical and psychological violence,
564
and the system of social support among female immigrants from the FSU in Israel suffering from domestic violence. To achieve this goal, level of education and employment status of women receiving help in Centers for the Treatment and Prevention of Domestic Violence and in shelters for battered women and of their partners were compared with the corresponding characteristics of women and men in the general population in Israel. In addition, socio-demographic characteristics of immigrant women receiving help in the Centers and shelters and of their partners were compared with the corresponding characteristics of Israeli-born women receiving help in the same Centers and shelters and of their partners. Finally, the levels of domestic violence and perceived social support were compared in the two groups. Based on the results of previous studies and an analysis of the specific situation of female immigrants from the FSU in Israel, the following main hypotheses were formulated: 1. Immigrant and Israeli-born victims of domestic violence and their partners would have a lower education level and employment status than the general population. However, immigrant victims of domestic violence and their partners would have a higher education level and employment status than Israeli-born victims of domestic violence and their partners. 2. The positive effects of the immigrants’ higher education level and employment status would counterbalance the negative effects of the higher levels of alcohol abuse and difficulties associated with adjustment in Israel. Therefore, the levels of physical and psychological violence among immigrants would be similar to those in the non-immigrant population. 3. Among immigrant women, there would be more violence associated with alcohol abuse, and partners of immigrant women would threaten them more often with expulsion from Israel. Non-Jewish immigrant women and women who have been living in Israel for less time would be threatened with expulsion from Israel more often. 4. No difference was expected between immigrant and Israeli-born women in the social support received from friends and the social workers. However, immigrant women would report a lower level of social support received from the family, because parents of some of them would be living abroad.
Method Participants One hundred eighty one women participated in the present study: 74 were born in the FSU and 107 were born in Israel. The participants received psychosocial help in Centers for
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
the Treatment and Prevention of Domestic Violence (133) and in shelters for battered women (48). The participants’ age varied from 19 to 70. Immigrant women lived in Israel for an average of 15.7 years (SD010.0). Among the 74 immigrant women, 37 had relationships with their present partners before immigrating to Israel. Of them, 16 women (43 %) reported that violence against them began before immigrating, and 21 women (57 %) reported that violence began after their immigration. None of the women who suffered from domestic violence before immigration received psychosocial help in the FSU. Procedure From a list of 86 Centers for the Treatment and Prevention of Domestic Violence and 13 shelters for battered women in Israel (Meir et al. 2011), 23 places were chosen that were situated in cities and towns with a substantial number of immigrants from the FSU (about 10 % or more of the total city population, CBSI 2010; Kushnirovich 2007). The researchers or research assistants visited each chosen Center or shelter on a prearranged day of the week, approached all the immigrants from the FSU who came to the Center or shelter on that day, and asked them to participate in the study. A similar number of Israeli-born women who were present at the Center or shelter were asked to participate in the study. About 90 % of the women approached agreed to participate. The participants completed the questionnaires at their convenience, before or after their therapeutic sessions. Signed informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was supervised by the Research Department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services and by the Ethics Committee of the School of Social Work at Tel Aviv University. Measures The study used self-report anonymous questionnaires. The questionnaires were prepared in Russian and Hebrew. The similarity of the two versions was ensured by translation and back translation procedures completed by two bilingual professionals. The internal consistency of the instruments was measured using Cronbach alpha separately for the immigrant and non-immigrant samples. Physical Violence Against Women Physical violence against women was measured by the Physical Assault Scale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al. 1996). This scale consists of ten items describing physically violent behaviors that are health- or life-threatening (e.g., “My partner hit me or tried to hit me with something”). The participants evaluated how frequently the described behaviors happened during the last year on a 5-point scale, from 0—‘never’ to 4—‘very frequently.’ This scale has been used in different countries,
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
including Russia and Israel, and has demonstrated high validity and reliability (e.g., Cubbins and Vannoy 2005; Eisikovits et al. 1993; Stickley et al. 2008a, b). In the present study, internal consistency of the scale was high in both the immigrant and non-immigrant samples (.93; .94). Psychological Violence Against Women Psychological violence against women was measured by the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Tolman 1989). This questionnaire consists of 58 items that measure non-physical aspects of women’s abuse by their husbands, partners, or boyfriends. The scale items reflect behaviors and statements that demean women (“I am treated like I’m inferior”), isolation from resources and other people (“I was not allowed to leave the house”), demands for subservience (“I was ordered around”), and rigid observation of traditional sexual roles (“My partner would become upset if the household chores were not done”). The participants evaluated how frequently the abuse happened during the last year on a 5-point scale, from 0—‘never’ to 4—‘very frequently.’ Internal consistency of the scale was high in both the immigrant and nonimmigrant samples (.94; .97). To account for specific types of violence against immigrant women from the FSU, two items were added to the scale: one item measured the frequency of the partner’s threats to expel the woman from Israel, and another measured the frequency of the partner being alcoholically intoxicated when violent. Perceived Social Support Perceived social support was measured by the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al. 1988). This questionnaire consists of 12 items, which are divided into three subscales relating to social support received from family, friends, and the social worker providing the woman with psychosocial help in a Center or shelter. Item examples: “My family really tries to help me”; “I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows”; “My social worker is around when I am in need.” The participants assessed to what degree the scale’s items accurately reflected their situation, from 1—‘absolutely incorrect for me’ to 5—‘absolutely correct for me.’ The scale has been used for assessing social support among immigrants from the FSU in Israel (Ritsner et al. 2000). Internal consistency of the scales of perceived social support was high in both the immigrant and non-immigrant samples: from family (.91; .96), friends (.94; .96), and the social worker (.92; .97).
Results Statistical analyses were conducted in several stages. First, the education and employment status of the battered women participating in the present study were compared with the
565
corresponding characteristics of the general population in Israel. This was done separately for the immigrant and the Israeli-born participants. Second, socio-demographic characteristics of immigrant women suffering from domestic violence were compared with the corresponding characteristics of Israeli-born women receiving help in the same Centers and shelters. Third, the levels of domestic violence and perceived social support were compared in the two groups. Finally, multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to test for the effects of different predicting factors on the levels of domestic violence and perceived social support among women suffering from domestic violence. Compared to the general population, a lower proportion of battered women had a post-secondary education: among immigrant women (42 % vs. 56 %; χ2 05.98; p0.014) and among Israeli-born women (16 % vs. 43 %; χ2 032.0; p0.000). Similarly, a lower proportion of partners of battered women had a post-secondary education than men in the general population: among partners of immigrant women (18 % vs. 53 %; χ2 037.3; p0.000) and among partners of Israeli-born women (6 % vs. 43 %; χ2 061.0; p0.000). Compared to the general population, a similar proportion of battered immigrant women of working age were employed outside the home (61 % vs. 60 %; χ2 0.14; p0.704). However, among Israeli-born women a smaller proportion of battered women was employed outside the home (45 % vs. 66 %; χ2 021.3; p0.000). Compared to the general population, a similar proportion of the battered women’s abusive partners were employed outside the home: among partners of immigrant women (61 % vs. 65 %; χ2 0.26; p0.609) and among partners of Israeli-born women (66 % vs. 65 %; χ2 0.09; p0.769). In addition, the proportion of immigrant women whose partner was Israeli-born was compared among battered immigrant women and in the general population of immigrant women. Among battered immigrant women there was a higher proportion of women whose partner was born in Israel (34 % vs. 2 %; χ2 0381; p0.000). The socio-demographic characteristics of immigrant women suffering from domestic violence were compared with the corresponding characteristics of Israeli-born women suffering from domestic violence (Table 1). The immigrant women suffering from domestic violence were slightly younger than the Israeli-born women (M(SD)immigrants 035.7 (8.70); M(SD)Israeli-born 039.0(10.1); t(179)02.25; p0.026); however, no significant difference in the age of their partners was found: (M(SD)immigrants 041.7(9.11); M(SD)Israeliborn 042.6(10.6); t(179)0.55; p0.581). The age disparity between women and their partners was larger among immigrant than Israeli-born women: M(SD)immigrants 06.00(6.36); M(SD)Israeli-born 03.58(5.47); t(179)02.74; p0.007. Compared to Israeli-born women, a higher proportion of immigrant women had a post-secondary education (42 % vs. 16 %; χ2 015.2; p0.000) and were employed outside the
566 Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of immigrant and Israeli-born women suffering from domestic violence
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
Socio-demographic characteristics
Immigrant women
Israeli-born women
Statistical test of difference
35.7(8.70)
39.0(10.1)
t(179)02.25; p0.026
42 %
16 %
χ2 015.2; p0.000
61 % 40 %
45 % 2%
χ2 04.46; p0.035 χ2 045.0; p0.000
41.7(9.11)
42.6(10.6)
18 %
6%
t(179)0.55; p0.581 χ2 06.66; p0.010
61 % 23 % 34 %
66 % 4% 96 %
χ2 0.58; p0.445 χ2 015.8; p0.000 χ2 082.5; p0.000
Characteristics of the battered women: Age, M(SD) Education (% of women with a post-secondary education) Employment status (% of employed) Ethnicity (% of non-Jewish) Characteristics of the abusive partners: Partner’s age, M(SD) Partner’s education (% with a post-secondary education) Partner’s employment status (% of employed) Partner’s ethnicity (% of non-Jewish) Partner’s place of birth (% of Israeli-born)
home (61 % vs. 45 %; χ2 04.46; p0.035). When comparing the women’s partners, it was found that a higher proportion of immigrant women’s partners had a post-secondary education (18 % vs. 6 %; χ2 06.66; p0.010); however, they did not differ in their employment status from the partners of Israeli-born women (61 % vs. 66 %; χ2 0.58; p0.445). To examine whether the immigrant women differed from the Israeli-born women regarding the level of domestic violence, the scores of the scales measuring different aspects of domestic violence in the two groups were compared using t-tests. After that, to control for the differences between the two groups in terms of age, education, and employment status, the differences on the level of domestic violence were tested using ANCOVA. Table 2 presents the means and SDs of the two groups, along with the t-test results. The results obtained demonstrated that immigrant women lived together with their abusive partner for less years as compared to the Israeli-born women (M (SD)immigrants 010.6(8.35); M(SD)Israeli-born 014.3(9.66); t (179)02.69; p0.008). However, this result was probably obtained because immigrant battered women were younger on average than their Israeli counterparts, and the women’s Table 2 Measures of domestic violence among immigrant and Israeli-born women suffering from domestic violence
age was significantly related to the years of living with the abusive partner (r0.80). The proportion of years of abuse out of the total number of years living together with the abusive partner was similar among the immigrant and Israeli-born women (M(SD)immigrants 0.95(.68); M(SD)Israeliborn 0.84(.30); t(179)01.45; p0.141). No significant difference between the two groups was found in the levels of physical violence either in direct comparison (M(SD)immigrants 01.47(1.04); M(SD)Israeli-born 0 1.53(1.07); t(179)0.39; p0.694) or when controlling for socio-demographic variables (F(1; 172)0.29; p0.593). Similarly, no significant difference between the two groups was found in the levels of psychological violence either in direct comparison (M(SD)immigrants 02.51(.65); M(SD)Israeli-born 0 2.47(.84); t(178)0.37; p0.715) or when controlling for socio-demographic variables (F(1; 172)0.10; p0.755). At the same time, immigrant women reported significantly more threats of expulsion from Israel by their partners (M (SD) immigrants 01.14(1.65); M(SD) Israeli-born 0.13(.57); t (179)05.82; p0.000), and their partners were more frequently alcoholically intoxicated when violent (M(SD)immigrants 01.59 (1.70); M(SD)Israeli-born 01.05(1.51); t(179)02.28; p0.024).
Measures of domestic violence
Immigrant women, M(SD)
Israeli-born women, M(SD)
Statistical test of difference
Years living with the abusive partner Years of abuse Proportion of years of abuse from the total number of years living together with the abusive partner Physical violence
10.6(8.35) 8.11(6.15) .95(.68)
14.3(9.66) 11.9(9.48) .84(.30)
t(179)02.69; p0.008 t(179)03.28; p0.001 t(179)01.45; p0.141
1.47(1.04)
1.53(1.07)
t(179)0.39; p0.694
2.51(.65) 1.14(1.65)
2.47(.84) .13(.57)
t(178)0.37; p0.715 t(179)05.82; p0.000
1.59(1.70)
1.05(1.51)
t(179)02.28; p0.024
Psychological violence Partner threatened to expel the woman from Israel Partner was intoxicated when violent
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
567
These differences between the immigrant and Israeli-born women remained significant when controlling for sociodemographic variables: for the threat of expulsion (F(1; 172)025.2; p0.000) and for the partner’s alcoholic intoxication (F(1; 172)07.08; p0.009). Among immigrants, women who were not Jewish were threatened with expulsion from Israel more often than Jewish women (M(SD)non-Jewish 02.34(1.72); M(SD)Jewish 0.36 (1.03); t(70)06.24; p0.000); the difference remained significant when controlling for age, education, and employment status (F(1; 65)039.2; p0.000). Among immigrant women, length of time in Israel was negatively correlated with the frequency of being threatened with expulsion (r 0−.47; p 0.000). However, when age, education, and ethnicity (Jewish vs. non-Jewish) were controlled, the connection between time in Israel and the threat of being expelled from Israel became not significant (β0−.24, p0.057). A further analysis revealed a negative correlation between time in Israel and the number of non-Jewish women who have immigrated from the FSU to Israel (r0−.58, p0.000), which means that a larger number of non-Jewish women have immigrated from the FSU to Israel during recent years. Multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to investigate the relationship between age, education, employment status, and the partner’s alcoholic intoxication, and physical and psychological aspects of domestic violence among both immigrant and Israeli-born women (Table 3). The only significant effect was found between the partner’s alcoholic intoxication and the level of physical violence reported by the women (β0.22, p0.003). Table 4 presents the findings regarding the social support system of the female victims of domestic violence, comparing immigrant and Israeli-born women. No significant difference was found between immigrant and Israeli-born women in the time that elapsed since the onset of the violence until initial contact with a psychosocial service (in both populations it was about seven years). The women
Table 3 Summary of multiple regression analyses predicting levels of domestic violence
Codes for categorical variables: Ethnicity: 0-non-Jewish; 1Jewish. Employment status: 1employed; 2- unemployed. Immigration status: 1-Israeli born; 2-immigrant. Education: 1secondary; 2-tertiary. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Predicting variables
Age Employment status Ethnicity Immigration status Education Partner was intoxicated when violent R2 Adjusted R2 F(df), p
in the study were in treatment for an average of one and a half years, and no significant difference was found between immigrant and Israeli-born women. No significant difference was found between the two groups in the social support received from family, friends, or social workers. In both groups, perceived social support received from the social worker was greater than that received from the family: among immigrants (M(SD) social worker 03.12(1.05); M (SD)family 02.15(1.30); t(70) 05.41; p 0.000) and Israeliborn women: (M(SD) s o c i a l w o r k e r s 03.02(1.19); M (SD)family 02.32(1.40); t(106)04.39; p0.000). In addition, in both groups, the social support received from the social worker was greater than that received from friends: among immigrants (M(SD)social workers 03.12(1.05); M(SD)friends 0 2.44(1.30); t(70)03.91; p0.000) and Israeli-born women (M(SD)social workers 03.02(1.19); M(SD)friends 02.32(1.27); t (106)04.95; p0.000). The number of close friends (two or three) was similar among immigrant and non-immigrant women; however, less people in the immigrant women’s surroundings knew about the violence as compared to the Israeli-born women (M(SD) immigrants 04.09(1.72); M(SD)Israeli-born 04.62(1.54); t(179)02.14; p0.034). To investigate the effect of socio-demographic factors on perceived social support a series of multiple regression analyses were conducted in the combined sample of immigrant and Israeli-born women (Table 5). The predicting variables included age, education, employment status, ethnicity, immigration status, and the parents’ residence (Israel vs. abroad); the predicted variables included perceived social support from family, friends, and social worker. A higher level of perceived social support from family was associated with Jewish ethnicity (β 0.29, p 0.003) and parents’ residence in Israel (β0.30, p0.004). A higher level of perceived social support from friends was associated with Jewish ethnicity (β0.22, p0.030). Perceived social support from the social worker was not related to any sociodemographic variable.
Physical violence
Psychological violence
B
S.E.
β
B
S.E.
β
−.01 .24 −.16 −.08 −.01 .15
.01 .16 .24 .19 .18 .05
−.10 .11 −.06 .04 −.01 .22**
.00 .22 .01 .01 .13 .06
.01 .12 .18 .14 .14 .04
.00 .14 −.01 .00 −.07 .13
.07 .04 F(6; 174)02.23, p0.043
.04 .01 F(6; 174)01.24, p0.290
568
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
Table 4 Measures of psychosocial support among immigrant and Israeli-born women suffering from domestic violence
Measures of psychosocial support
Immigrant women, M(SD)
Israeli-born women, M(SD)
Statistical test of difference
Asking for help since the violence began, in years Time in treatment, in years Perceived support from family
6.62(6.04)
7.66(8.80)
t(179)0.88; p0.378
1.54(.99) 2.15(1.30)
1.51(.96) 2.32(1.40)
t(179)0.18; p0.857 t(179)0.85; p0.398
Perceived support from friends
2.44(1.30)
2.32(1.27)
t(179)0.63; p0.533
Perceived support from the social worker Number of close friends
3.12(1.05) 2.64(1.12)
3.02(1.19) 2.91(1.22)
t(179)0.52; p0.605 t(179)01.52; p0.129
Number of people who know about the violence Proportion of women whose parents are living in Israel, %
4.09(1.72)
4.62(1.54)
t(179)02.14; p0.034
53 %
99 %
χ2 059.9; p0.000
Discussion In the present study, socio-demographic characteristics of female victims of domestic violence and their abusive partners were compared with the corresponding characteristics of women and men in the general population (both immigrant and non-immigrant) in Israel. The results obtained demonstrated that the education level of battered women and their abusive partners (both immigrants and Israeliborn) were lower than in the general population. These results are in line with the findings of previous studies conducted in the US, Russia, and Israel (Caetano et al. 2000; Cubbins and Vannoy 2005; Eisikovits et al. 2004; Johnson and Ferraro 2000). A higher level of education may increase women’s resilience to domestic violence in two ways. First, women who have a higher level of education have greater personal and social resources that protect them from some of the risks of domestic violence. Secondly, highly educated women tend to choose men who are also
highly educated, and who are therefore less prone to being violent (Farmer and Tiefenthaler 2003; Johnson and Ferraro 2000; Levendosky et al. 2004). The results of the present study indicate that female immigrants from the FSU in Israel as well as their partners have a higher education level than their Israeli-born counterparts. This difference is similar in the general population and among victims of domestic violence. In addition, immigrant battered women have a higher employment rate than Israeli-born women suffering from domestic violence. Previous studies have demonstrated that groups with a higher education level and employment status tend to have relatively lower levels of domestic violence (e.g., Caetano et al. 2000; Tjaden et al. 1999). However, the present study found that immigrants from the FSU in Israel and Israeli-born women had similar levels of physical and psychological violence. This indicates that other factors increase the level of domestic violence among immigrants from the FSU in Israel and thus counterbalance the positive effect of their high education and employment status.
Table 5 Summary of multiple regression analyses predicting perceived social support Predicting variables
Support from family B
Age Employment status Ethnicity Immigration status Education Parents’ residence R2 Adjusted R2 F(df), p
S.E.
−.01 .01 −.10 .20 1.03 .35 −.26 .26 .38 .23 1.01 .34 .10 .06 F(6; 174)03.06, p0.007
Support from friends β
B
−.09 −.04 .29** −.09 .12 .30**
−.01 .01 −.20 .19 .73 .33 −.20 .25 .36 .23 .28 .34 .06 .03 F(6; 174)01.98, p0.071
S.E.
Support from the social worker β
B
−.10 −.08 .22* −.08 .13 .09
.00 .01 −.14 .17 .10 .30 .26 .22 .22 .20 .20 .30 .02 .01 F(6; 174)0.56, p0.763
S.E.
β .02 −.06 .03 .12 .08 .07
Codes for categorical variables: Ethnicity: 0-non-Jewish; 1-Jewish. Employment status: 1- employed; 2- unemployed. Immigration status: 1-Israeli born; 2-immigrant. Education: 1-secondary; 2-tertiary. Parents’ residence: 1-abroad; 2- in Israel. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
One of these factors may relate to alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption is universally associated with a higher rate of domestic violence (Caetano et al. 2000; Johnson 2000). Russia has one of the highest levels of alcohol consumption in the world (McKee 1999), and previous studies have demonstrated that immigrants from the FSU in Israel consume more alcohol than the Israeli-born population (Isralowitz et al. 2002). The results of the present study corroborated previous findings and indicated that the partners of the immigrant women, more often than the partners of the Israeli-born women, were alcoholically intoxicated when violent. In addition, the frequency of being intoxicated when violent was associated with a higher level of physical violence against both the immigrant and Israeli-born women. Another factor that may counterbalance the positive effect of high education and employment among women from the FSU in Israel is their immigration status. In the present study, in 57 % of the couples that had intimate relationships before immigration, violence began only after their arrival to Israel. This finding confirms the theoretical assumption that the stress of immigration increases family conflicts that may lead to violence (Lown and Vega 2001; Slonim-Nevo et al. 1999). Moreover, the context of immigration may be related to some specific forms of domestic violence. Thus, in the present study, immigrant women were often threatened by their partners with expulsion from Israel; among Israeli-born women, this form of violence was very rare. Non-Jewish immigrant women were more frequently threatened with expulsion from Israel than their Jewish counterparts. These findings support the theoretical assumption that women’s vulnerability associated with their immigration status increases their risk of being subject to domestic violence (Anderson 1993; Kasturirangan et al. 2004). These findings also confirmed that women belonging to un-privileged immigrant groups are the most vulnerable (Sainsbury 2006). In Israel, non-Jewish immigrants constitute an un-privileged immigrant population. Therefore, this group may require more help from social workers and other professionals. In the present study, about one third of the immigrant female victims of domestic violence had intimate partners who were born in Israel. This number is fifteen times higher than the corresponding number in the general population (Remennick 2003). In addition, among immigrant victims of domestic violence, the age disparity between the woman and her partner was significantly higher than the corresponding difference among Israeli-born victims of domestic violence. It is possible that some immigrant women enter relationships with Israeli men seeking assistance in their adjustment in the host country, while Israeli men perhaps seek an immigrant partner because such women are more vulnerable and therefore may be more easily controlled (Menjivar and Salcido 2002). However, while the Israeli partners have a stronger command of the language and a larger social capital, immigrant women
569
from the FSU usually have a higher education and good chances of finding employment outside the home (Remennick 2004). It is probable that this imbalance of resources leads to conflict and violence in cross-cultural couples. The results obtained in the present study indicate that the utilization of formal systems of social support was very similar among immigrant and Israeli-born women. No difference between the two groups was found for time that elapsed before seeking psychosocial help, the length of time in therapy, and in the level of social support received from social workers. Among both immigrant and Israeli-born women, social support received from the social workers was greater than the support received from families and friends. These findings contradicted the results of some previous studies that have indicated that immigrant women underuse psychosocial services (Burman and Chantler 2005; Johnson and Ferraro 2000). It is possible that the relatively high education level of female immigrants from the FSU and their employment outside the home enabled them to be better informed about domestic violence psychosocial services. In addition, almost all the psychosocial services in Israel have Russian-speaking social workers, thus increasing the rapport with immigrant clients and decreasing their fear of discrimination (Meir et al. 2011). Finally, domestic violence psychosocial services are well publicized in the Russian-speaking media in Israel, which increases their availability for immigrant women (Caspi et al. 2002). Thus, the availability of domestic violence psychosocial services in Israel perhaps enabled immigrant women who were unable to receive psychosocial help for domestic violence in their country of origin to receive it in Israel. The immigrants’ utilization of informal systems of social support was similar to that found among Israeli-born women. The two groups reported similar levels of social support received from the family. This finding was unexpected, because almost one-half of the immigrant women’s parents lived abroad. It is possible that immigrant women remain connected with their parents abroad via inexpensive telecommunication services such as phone calls and the internet. Still, women who had no parents in Israel reported a lower level of social support received from the family than those women whose parents lived in Israel. In the present study, more women who were non-Jewish had parents living abroad, due to the Israeli immigration policy that severely limits non-Jewish immigration to Israel. Therefore, women living without their parents in general, and non-Jewish women in particular, have limited support from their parents and are therefore especially vulnerable to domestic violence. The number of close friends was similar among immigrant and Israeli-born women and the two groups reported similar levels of social support received from friends. It is probable that the large Russian-speaking community in Israel enabled immigrants to quickly rebuild the social networks they left in their country of origin (Leshem and Lissak 1999; Slonim-Nevo et al. 1999). However, in the
570
present study non-Jewish women reported a lower level of support received from their friends as compared to Jewish women suffering from domestic violence. It is probable that because Israel is an officially Jewish state, non-Jews have more limited social networks and may be able to mobilize less social support when needed. In the present study, a smaller number of people in the immigrant women’s surroundings were aware of their suffering from domestic violence, compared to the Israeli-born women. It is possible that cultural norms formed in the FSU prevent telling other people about one’s family problems; however, the present study did not investigate the cultural norms of immigrants from the FSU. This issue requires further research. Limitations The present study has several limitations. The research sample was relatively small, decreasing the power of the statistical tests, and not allowing some potentially meaningful connections between the variables to be revealed. In addition, because of the small sample, comparisons could not be made between immigrants from different republics of the FSU. The subculture of violence theory was not tested in the present study, since the study did not investigate attitudinal aspects of domestic violence, which might vary cross-culturally and thus affect domestic violence and the utilization of social support systems among immigrant and non-immigrant women in different ways. Further studies may focus on how the values of immigrants from the FSU (both women and men) relate to their attitudes towards women and domestic violence. Another limitation is that the study used self-report questionnaires and only the voice of the women was heard. Further studies on domestic violence in immigrant groups should gather information from women’s partners and social workers in addition to that received from the women.
Conclusion Despite its limitations, the present study contributes to the theoretical understanding of psychosocial processes related to domestic violence against immigrant women. The results obtained corroborated the structural inequality theory of domestic violence. They demonstrated that women who are less educated, belong to an underprivileged ethnic group, and have a partner abusing alcohol are at a greater risk of being subject to domestic violence. However, the results obtained also indicate that the level of domestic violence and the utilization of social support systems may be similar among immigrant and non-immigrant women. The present study indicates that the level of domestic violence and the utilization of systems of social support in each immigrant group results from a unique profile of the
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572
immigrants’ socio-demographic characteristics and specific circumstances of the immigrants’ adjustment in the host country. Each immigrant group has a specific combination of these factors that may increase their resilience or make them more susceptible to domestic violence. Policy makers and social workers should analyze the specific situation of each immigrant group in order to develop culturally attuned programs of psychosocial help. It is dangerous to either belittle or exaggerate domestic violence in immigrant groups. Belittling the prevalence of domestic violence against women among immigrants may lead to allocating insufficient resources for helping immigrant women. On the other hand, exaggeration of domestic violence against women among immigrants may be associated with a belief that domestic violence is inherent in a specific culture and thus cannot be altered (Sokoloff and Dupont 2005). In addition, it may lead to stigmatization of immigrants as pathologically prone to violence and, therefore, dangerous for the host society. Finally, the assumption that immigrant women avoid psychosocial services may decrease the motivation of the services’ workers to reach out to immigrant women and keep them in treatment (Menjivar and Salcido 2002). The results of the present study reveal the dual role that immigration plays for immigrant victims of domestic violence. On one hand, it increases the stress that may exacerbate domestic violence in immigrant couples. On the other hand, it opens an opportunity to receive psychosocial help for those women who suffered domestic violence but were unable to receive psychosocial help in their country of origin. Further studies are much needed in order to investigate the effect of immigration on domestic violence in various immigrant groups.
References Ahmad, F., Riaz, S., Barata, P., & Stewart, D. E. (2004). Patriarchal beliefs and perceptions of abuse among South Asian immigrant women. Violence Against Women, 10(3), 262–282. Anderson, M. J. (1993). A license to abuse: the impact of conditional status on female immigrants. Yale Law Journal, 102(6), 1401–1430. Burman, E., & Chantler, K. (2005). Domestic violence and minoritisation: legal and policy barriers facing minoritized women leaving violent relationships. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28(1), 59–74. Caetano, R., Cunradi, C. B., Clark, C. L., & Schafer, J. (2000). Intimate partner violence and drinking patterns among Whites, Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of Substance Abuse, 11(2), 123–138. Caspi, D., Adoni, H., Cohen, A. A., & Elias, N. (2002). The red, the white, and the blue: the Russian media in Israel. Gazette, 64(6), 537–556. Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel [CBSI]. (2010). Statistical abstract of Israel, 2010. Jerusalem: CBSI. Cubbins, L. A., & Vannoy, D. (2005). Socioeconomic resources, gender traditionalism, and wife abuse in urban Russian couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 37–52.
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572 Dumont, J.-C., & Lemaître, G. (2005). Counting immigrants and expatriates in OECD countries: a new perspective. Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat. New York. http://www.un.org/esa/ p o p u l a t i o n / m i g r a t i o n / t u r i n / S y m p o s i u m _ Tu r i n _ f i l e s / P09_Dumont&Lemaitre.pdf Eisikovits, Z., Guttmann, E., Sela-Amit, M., & Edleson, J. L. (1993). Women battering in Israel: the relative contributions of relationship adjustment, conflict and social support. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(2), 313–317. Eisikovits, Z., Winstok, Z., & Fishman, G. (2004). The first Israeli national survey on domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 729–748. Farmer, A., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2003). Explaining the recent decline in domestic violence. Contemporary Economic Policy. Retrieved from :http://www.nasams.org/DMS/Documents/1195248210.25/ Explaining%20Decline%20in%20Domestic%20Violence.pdf Field, C. A., & Caetano, R. (2004). Ethnic differences in intimate partner violence in the US general population: the role of alcohol use and social status. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 5(4), 303– 317. Gregory, R. G., & Meng, X. (2005). Intermarriage and the economic assimilation of immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(1), 135–175. Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2003). Beliefs about wife beating among Arab men from Israel: the influence of their patriarchal ideology. Journal of Family Violence, 18(4), 193–206. Horne, S. (1999). Domestic violence in Russia. American Psychologist, 54(1), 55–61. Isralowitz, R., Straussner, L., Vogt, I., & Chtenguelov, V. (2002). A preliminary exploration of immigrant substance abusers from the former Soviet Union living in Israel, Germany and the United States: a multi-national perspective. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 2(3/4), 119–136. Johnson, H. (2000). The role of alcohol in male partners’ assaults on wives. Journal of Drug Issues, 30(4), 725–740. Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 948–963. Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(2), 395–421. Kasturirangan, A., Krishnan, S., & Riger, S. (2004). The impact of culture and minority status on women’s experience of domestic violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 5(4), 318–332. Kushnirovich, N. (2007). Yearbook of immigrants in Israel 2006: statistical abstract. Emeck Khefer: Ruppin Academic Center, Institute for Immigration and Social Integration, Israel. (In Hebrew). Leshem, E., & Lissak, M. (1999). Development and consolidation of the Russian community in Israel. In S. Weil (Ed.), Roots and routs: Ethnicity and migration in global perspective (pp. 36–171). Jerusalem: Magnes. Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., Theran, S. A., Trotter, J. S., von Eye, A., & Davidson, W. S. (2004). The social networks of women experiencing domestic violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1/2), 95–109. Lown, E. A., & Vega, W. A. (2001). Prevalence and predictors of physical partner abuse among Mexican American women. American Journal of Public Health, 91(3), 441–445. McKee, M. (1999). Alcohol in Russia. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 34(6), 824–829. Meir, A., & Talay, S., & Hanoch-Achdut, M. (2011). Programs in prevention and treatment of domestic violence and help to female sexual workers. Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services, Department of Individual and Social Services. Jerusalem, Israel. (In Hebrew).
571 Menjivar, C., & Salcido, O. (2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence: common experiences in different countries. Gender and Society, 16(6), 898–920. Muhlbauer, V. (2006). Domestic violence in Israel: changing attitudes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087(2), 301– 310. Pridemore, W. A. (2002). Vodka and violence: alcohol consumption and homicide rates in Russia. American Journal of Public Health, 92(12), 1921–1930. Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women: the role of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 367–398. Remennick, L. (2003). What does integration mean? Social insertion of Russian immigrants in Israel. Journal of International Migration and Immigration, 4(1), 23–49. Remennick, L. (2004). Providers, caregivers, and sluts: women with a Russian accent in Israel. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies, and Gender Issues, 8(1), 87–114. Ritsner, M., Modai, I., & Ponizovsky, A. (2000). The stress-support patterns and psychological distress of immigrants. Stress and Health, 16(3), 139–147. Rodriguez, E., Lasch, K. E., & Lee, C. J. (2001). Family violence, employment status, welfare benefits, and alcohol drinking in the United States: what is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 55(3), 172–178. Sainsbury, D. (2006). Immigrants’ social rights in comparative perspective: welfare regimes, forms in immigration and immigration policy regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3), 229– 244. Sakalli, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: the effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44(4), 599–610. Slonim-Nevo, V., Sheraga, Y., & Mirsky, J. (1999). A culturally sensitive approach to therapy with immigrant families. The case of Jewish emigrants from the former Soviet Union. Family Process, 38(4), 445–462. Sokoloff, N. J., & Dupont, I. (2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender: challenges and contributions to understanding violence against marginalized women in diverse communities. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 38–64. Stickley, A., Kislitsyna, O., Timofeeva, I., & Vagero, D. (2008). Attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women in Moscow, Russia. Journal of Family Violence, 23(6), 447–456. Stickley, A., Timofeeva, I., & Sparen, P. (2008). Risk factors for intimate partner violence against women in St. Petersburg, Russia. Violence against Women, 14(4), 483–495. Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-Mccoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. Taylor, W. K., Magnussen, L., & Amundson, M. J. (2001). The lived experience of battered women. Violence Against Women, 7(5), 563–585. Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (1999). Comparing violence over the life span in samples of same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. Violence and Victims, 14(4), 413–425. Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4(3), 159–177. Tolts, M. (2009). Mixed marriage and post-Soviet aliyah. In S. Reinharz & S. DellaPergola (Eds.), Jewish intermarriage around the world (pp. 89–104). New Brunswick, USA and London, UK: Transaction Publishers.
572 Torres, S. (1991). A comparison of wife abuse between two cultures: perceptions, attitudes, nature and extent. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 12(1), 113–131. Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against women: global scope and magnitude. Lancet, 359(9313), 1232– 1237.
J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572 Yoshihama, M. (1999). Domestic violence against women of Japanese descent in Los Angeles: two methods of estimating prevalence. Violence Against Women, 5(8), 869–897. Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41.
Copyright of Journal of Family Violence is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
