hypothesis on domestic violence

• Open access
• Published: 20 June 2023

A qualitative quantitative mixed methods study of domestic violence against women

• Mina Shayestefar 1 ,
• Mohadese Saffari 1 ,
• Razieh Gholamhosseinzadeh 2 ,
• Monir Nobahar 3 , 4 ,
• Majid Mirmohammadkhani 4 ,
• Seyed Hossein Shahcheragh 5 &
• Zahra Khosravi 6  

BMC Women's Health volume  23 , Article number:  322 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

6912 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Violence against women is one of the most widespread, persistent and detrimental violations of human rights in today’s world, which has not been reported in most cases due to impunity, silence, stigma and shame, even in the age of social communication. Domestic violence against women harms individuals, families, and society. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and experiences of domestic violence against women in Semnan.

This study was conducted as mixed research (cross-sectional descriptive and phenomenological qualitative methods) to investigate domestic violence against women, and some related factors (quantitative) and experiences of such violence (qualitative) simultaneously in Semnan. In quantitative study, cluster sampling was conducted based on the areas covered by health centers from married women living in Semnan since March 2021 to March 2022 using Domestic Violence Questionnaire. Then, the obtained data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. In qualitative study by phenomenological approach and purposive sampling until data saturation, 9 women were selected who had referred to the counseling units of Semnan health centers due to domestic violence, since March 2021 to March 2022 and in-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted. The conducted interviews were analyzed using Colaizzi’s 7-step method.

In qualitative study, seven themes were found including “Facilitators”, “Role failure”, “Repressors”, “Efforts to preserve the family”, “Inappropriate solving of family conflicts”, “Consequences”, and “Inefficient supportive systems”. In quantitative study, the variables of age, age difference and number of years of marriage had a positive and significant relationship, and the variable of the number of children had a negative and significant relationship with the total score and all fields of the questionnaire (p < 0.05). Also, increasing the level of female education and income both independently showed a significant relationship with increasing the score of violence.

Conclusions

Some of the variables of violence against women are known and the need for prevention and plans to take action before their occurrence is well felt. Also, supportive mechanisms with objective and taboo-breaking results should be implemented to minimize harm to women, and their children and families seriously.

Peer Review reports

Violence against women by husbands (physical, sexual and psychological violence) is one of the basic problems of public health and violation of women’s human rights. It is estimated that 35% of women and almost one out of every three women aged 15–49 experience physical or sexual violence by their spouse or non-spouse sexual violence in their lifetime [ 1 ]. This is a nationwide public health issue, and nearly every healthcare worker will encounter a patient who has suffered from some type of domestic or family violence. Unfortunately, different forms of family violence are often interconnected. The “cycle of abuse” frequently persists from children who witness it to their adult relationships, and ultimately to the care of the elderly [ 2 ]. This violence includes a range of physical, sexual and psychological actions, control, threats, aggression, abuse, and rape [ 3 ].

Violence against women is one of the most widespread, persistent, and detrimental violations of human rights in today’s world, which has not been reported in most cases due to impunity, silence, stigma and shame, even in the age of social communication [ 3 ]. In the United States of America, more than one in three women (35.6%) experience rape, physical violence, and intimate partner violence (IPV) during their lifetime. Compared to men, women are nearly twice as likely (13.8% vs. 24.3%) to experience severe physical violence such as choking, burns, and threats with knives or guns [ 4 ]. The higher prevalence of violence against women can be due to the situational deprivation of women in patriarchal societies [ 5 ]. The prevalence of domestic violence in Iran reported 22.9%. The maximum of prevalence estimated in Tehran and Zahedan, respectively [ 6 ]. Currently, Iran has high levels of violence against women, and the provinces with the highest rates of unemployment and poverty also have the highest levels of violence against women [ 7 ].

Domestic violence against women harms individuals, families, and society [ 8 ]. Violence against women leads to physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, including threats, coercion and arbitrary deprivation of their freedom in public and private life. Also, such violence is associated with harmful effects on women’s sexual reproductive health, including sexually transmitted infection such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), abortion, unsafe childbirth, and risky sexual behaviors [ 9 ]. There are high levels of psychological, sexual and physical domestic abuse among pregnant women [ 10 ]. Also, women with postpartum depression are significantly more likely to experience domestic violence during pregnancy [ 11 ].

Prompt attention to women’s health and rights at all levels is necessary, which reduces this problem and its risk factors [ 12 ]. Because women prefer to remain silent about domestic violence and there is a need to introduce immediate prevention programs to end domestic violence [ 13 ]. violence against women, which is an important public health problem, and concerns about human rights require careful study and the application of appropriate policies [ 14 ]. Also, the efforts to change the circumstances in which women face domestic violence remain significantly insufficient [ 15 ]. Given that few clear studies on violence against women and at the same time interviews with these people regarding their life experiences are available, the authors attempted to planning this research aims to investigate the prevalence and experiences of domestic violence against women in Semnan with the research question of “What is the prevalence of domestic violence against women in Semnan, and what are their experiences of such violence?”, so that their results can be used in part of the future planning in the health system of the society.

This study is a combination of cross-sectional and phenomenology studies in order to investigate the amount of domestic violence against women and some related factors (quantitative) and their experience of this violence (qualitative) simultaneously in the Semnan city. This study has been approved by the ethics committee of Semnan University of Medical Sciences with ethic code of IR.SEMUMS.REC.1397.182. The researcher introduced herself to the research participants, explained the purpose of the study, and then obtained informed written consent. It was assured to the research units that the collected information will be anonymous and kept confidential. The participants were informed that participation in the study was entirely voluntary, so they can withdraw from the study at any time with confidence. The participants were notified that more than one interview session may be necessary. To increase the trustworthiness of the study, Guba and Lincoln’s criteria for rigor, including credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability [ 16 ], were applied throughout the research process. The COREQ checklist was used to assess the present study quality. The researchers used observational notes for reflexivity and it preserved in all phases of this qualitative research process.

Qualitative method

Based on the phenomenological approach and with the purposeful sampling method, nine women who had referred to the counseling units of healthcare centers in Semnan city due to domestic violence in February 2021 to March 2022 were participated in the present study. The inclusion criteria for the study included marriage, a history of visiting a health center consultant due to domestic violence, and consent to participate in the study and unwillingness to participate in the study was the exclusion criteria. Each participant invited to the study by a telephone conversation about study aims and researcher information. The interviews place selected through agreement of the participant and the researcher and a place with the least environmental disturbance. Before starting each interview, the informed consent and all of the ethical considerations, including the purpose of the research, voluntary participation, confidentiality of the information were completely explained and they were asked to sign the written consent form. The participants were interviewed by depth, semi-structured and face-to-face interviews based on the main research question. Interviews were conducted by a female health services researcher with a background in nursing (M.Sh.). Data collection was continued until the data saturation and no new data appeared. Only the participants and the researcher were present during the interviews. All interviews were recorded by a MP3 Player by permission of the participants before starting. Interviews were not repeated. No additional field notes were taken during or after the interview.

The age range of the participants was from 38 to 55 years and their average age was 40 years. The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants are summarized in table below (Table  1 ).

Five interviews in the courtyards of healthcare centers, 2 interviews in the park, and 2 interviews at the participants’ homes were conducted. The duration of the interviews varied from 45 min to one hour. The main research question was “What is your experience about domestic violence?“. According to the research progress some other questions were asked in line with the main question of the research.

The conducted interviews were analyzed by using the 7 steps Colizzi’s method [ 17 ]. In order to empathize with the participants, each interview was read several times and transcribed. Then two researchers (M.Sh. and M.N.) extracted the phrases that were directly related to the phenomenon of domestic violence against women independently and distinguished from other sentences by underlining them. Then these codes were organized into thematic clusters and the formulated concepts were sorted into specific thematic categories.

In the final stage, in order to make the data reliable, the researcher again referred to 2 participants and checked their agreement with their perceptions of the content. Also, possible important contents were discussed and clarified, and in this way, agreement and approval of the samples was obtained.

Quantitative method

The cross-sectional study was implemented from February 2021 to March 2022 with cluster sampling of married women in areas of 3 healthcare centers in Semnan city. Those participants who were married and agreed with the written and verbal informed consent about the ethical considerations were included to the study. The questionnaire was completed by the participants in paper and online form.

The instrument was the standard questionnaire of domestic violence against women by Mohseni Tabrizi et al. [ 18 ]. In the questionnaire, questions 1–10, 11–36, 37–65 and 66–71 related to sociodemographic information, types of spousal abuse (psychological, economical, physical and sexual violence), patriarchal beliefs and traditions and family upbringing and learning violence, respectively. In total, this questionnaire has 71 items.

The scoring of the questionnaire has two parts and the answers to them are based on the Likert scale. Questions 11–36 and 66–71 are answered with always [ 4 ] to never (0) and questions 37–65 with completely agree [ 4 ] to completely disagree (0). The minimum and maximum score is 0 and 300, respectively. The total score of 0–60, 61–120 and higher than 121 demonstrates low, moderate and severe domestic violence against women, respectively [ 18 ].

In the study by Tabrizi et al., to evaluate the validity and reliability of this questionnaire, researchers tried to measure the face validity of the scale by the previous research. Those items and questions which their accuracies were confirmed by social science professors and experts used in the research, finally. The total Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.183, which confirmed that the reliability of the questions and items of the questionnaire is sufficient [ 18 ].

Descriptive data were reported using mean, standard deviation, frequency and percentage. Then, to measure the relationship between the variables, χ2 and Pearson tests also variance and regression analysis were performed. All analysis were performed by using SPSS version 26 and the significance level was considered as p < 0.05.

Qualitative results

According to the third step of Colaizzi’s 7-step method, the researcher attempted to conceptualize and formulate the extracted meanings. In this step, the primary codes were extracted from the important sentences related to the phenomenon of violence against women, which were marked by underlining, which are shown below as examples of this stage and coding.

The primary code of indifference to the father’s role was extracted from the following sentences. This is indifference in the role of the father in front of the children.

“Some time ago, I told him that our daughter is single-sided deaf. She has a doctor’s appointment; I have to take her to the doctor. He said that I don’t have money to give you. He doesn’t force himself to make money anyway” (p 2, 33 yrs).

“He didn’t value his own children. He didn’t think about his older children” (p 4, 54 yrs).

The primary code extracted here included lack of commitment in the role of head of the household. This is irresponsibility towards the family and meeting their needs.

“My husband was fired from work after 10 years due to disorder and laziness. Since then, he has not found a suitable job. Every time he went to work, he was fired after a month because of laziness” (p 7, 55 yrs).

“In the evening, he used to get dressed and go out, and he didn’t come back until late. Some nights, I was so afraid of being alone that I put a knife under my pillow when I slept” (p 2, 33 yrs).

A total of 246 primary codes were extracted from the interviews in the third step. In the fourth step, the researchers put the formulated concepts (primary codes) into 85 specific sub-categories.

Twenty-three categories were extracted from 85 sub-categories. In the sixth step, the concepts of the fifth step were integrated and formed seven themes (Table  2 ).

These themes included “Facilitators”, “Role failure”, “Repressors”, “Efforts to preserve the family”, “Inappropriate solving of family conflicts”, “Consequences”, and “Inefficient supportive systems” (Fig.  1 ).

Themes of domestic violence against women

Some of the statements of the participants on the theme of “ Facilitators” are listed below:

Husband’s criminal record

“He got his death sentence for drugs. But, at last it was ended for 10 years” (p 4, 54 yrs).

Inappropriate age for marriage

“At the age of thirteen, I married a boy who was 25 years old” (p 8, 25 yrs).

“My first husband obeyed her parents. I was 12–13 years old” (p 3, 32 yrs).

“I couldn’t do anything. I was humiliated” (p 1, 38 yrs).

“A bridegroom came. The mother was against. She said, I am young. My older sister is not married yet, but I was eager to get married. I don’t know, maybe my father’s house was boring for me” (p 2, 33 yrs).

“My parents used to argue badly. They blamed each other and I always wanted to run away from these arguments. I didn’t have the patience to talk to mom or dad and calm them down” (p 5, 39 yrs).

Overdependence

“My husband’s parents don’t stop interfering, but my husband doesn’t say anything because he is a student of his father. My husband is self-employed and works with his father on a truck” (p 8, 25 yrs).

“Every time I argue with my husband because of lack of money, my mother-in-law supported her son and brought him up very spoiled and lazy” (p 7, 55 yrs).

Bitter memories

“After three years, my mother married her friend with my uncle’s insistence and went to Shiraz. But, his condition was that she did not have the right to bring his daughter with her. In fact, my mother also got married out of necessity” (p 8, 25 yrs).

Some of their other statements related to “ Role failure” are mentioned below:

Lack of commitment to different roles

“I got angry several times and went to my father’s house because of my husband’s bad financial status and the fact that he doesn’t feel responsible to work and always says that he cannot find a job” (p 6, 48 yrs).

“I saw that he does not want to change in any way” (p 4, 54 yrs).

“No matter how kind I am, it does not work” (p 1, 38 yrs).

Some of their other statements regarding “ Repressors” are listed below:

Fear and silence

“My mother always forced me to continue living with my husband. Finally, my father had been poor. She all said that you didn’t listen to me when you wanted to get married, so you don’t have the right to get angry and come to me, I’m miserable enough” (p 2, 33 yrs).

“Because I suffered a lot in my first marital life. I was very humiliated. I said I would be fine with that. To be kind” (p1, 38 yrs).

“Well, I tell myself that he gets angry sometimes” (p 3, 32 yrs).

Shame from society

“I don’t want my daughter-in-law to know. She is not a relative” (p 4, 54 yrs).

Some of the statements of the participants regarding the theme of “ Efforts to preserve the family” are listed below:

Hope and trust

“I always hope in God and I am patient” (p 2, 33 yrs).

Efforts for children

“My divorce took a month. We got a divorce. I forgave my dowry and took my children instead” (p 2, 33 yrs).

Some of their other statements regarding the “ Inappropriate solving of family conflicts” are listed below:

Child-bearing thoughts

“My husband wanted to take me to a doctor to treat me. But my father-in-law refused and said that instead of doing this and spending money, marry again. Marriage in the clans was much easier than any other work” (p 8, 25 yrs).

Lack of effective communication

“I was nervous about him, but I didn’t say anything” (p 5, 39 yrs).

“Now I am satisfied with my life and thank God it is better to listen to people’s words. Now there is someone above me so that people don’t talk behind me” (p 2, 33 yrs).

Some of their other statements regarding the “ Consequences” are listed below:

Harm to children

“My eldest daughter, who was about 7–8 years old, behaved differently. Oh, I was angry. My children are mentally depressed and argue” (p 5, 39 yrs).

After divorce

“Even though I got a divorce, my mother and I came to a remote area due to the fear of what my family would say” (p 2, 33 yrs).

Social harm

“I work at a retirement center for living expenses” (p 2, 33 yrs).

“I had to go to clean the houses” (p 5, 39 yrs).

Non-acceptance in the family

“The children’s relationship with their father became bad. Because every time they saw their father sitting at home smoking, they got angry” (p 7, 55 yrs).

Emotional harm

“When I look back, I regret why I was not careful in my choice” (p 7, 55 yrs).

“I felt very bad. For being married to a man who is not bound by the family and is capricious” (p 9, 36 yrs).

Some of their other statements regarding “ Inefficient supportive systems” are listed below:

Inappropriate family support

“We didn’t have children. I was at my father’s house for about a month. After a month, when I came home, I saw that my husband had married again. I cried a lot that day. He said, God, I had to. I love you. My heart is broken, I have no one to share my words” (p 8, 25 yrs).

“My brother-in-law was like himself. His parents had also died. His sister did not listen at all” (p 4, 54 yrs).

“I didn’t have anyone and I was alone” (p 1, 38 yrs).

Inefficiency of social systems

“That day he argued with me, picked me up and threw me down some stairs in the middle of the yard. He came closer, sat on my stomach, grabbed my neck with both of his hands and wanted to strangle me. Until a long time later, I had kidney problems and my neck was bruised by her hand. Given that my aunt and her family were with us in a building, but she had no desire to testify and was afraid” (p 3, 32 yrs).

Undesired training and advice

“I told my mother, you just said no, how old I was? You never insisted on me and you didn’t listen to me that this man is not good for you” (p 9, 36 yrs).

Quantitative results

In the present study, 376 married women living in Semnan city participated in this study. The mean age of participants was 38.52 ± 10.38 years. The youngest participant was 18 and the oldest was 73 years old. The maximum age difference was 16 years. The years of marriage varied from one year to 40 years. Also, the number of children varied from no children to 7. The majority of them had 2 children (109, 29%). The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants are summarized in the table below (Table  3 ).

The frequency distribution (number and percentage) of the participants in terms of the level of violence was as follows. 89 participants (23.7%) had experienced low violence, 59 participants (15.7%) had experienced moderate violence, and 228 participants (60.6%) had experienced severe violence.

Cronbach’s alpha for the reliability of the questionnaire was 0.988. The mean and standard deviation of the total score of the questionnaire was 143.60 ± 74.70 with a range of 3-244. The relationship between the total score of the questionnaire and its fields, and some demographic variables is summarized in the table below (Table  4 ).

As shown in the table above, the variables of age, age difference and number of years of marriage have a positive and significant relationship, and the variable of number of children has a negative and significant relationship with the total score and all fields of the questionnaire (p < 0.05). However, the variable of education level difference showed no significant relationship with the total score and any of the fields. Also, the highest average score is related to patriarchal beliefs compared to other fields.

The comparison of the average total scores separately according to each variable showed the significant average difference in the variables of the previous marriage history of the woman, the result of the previous marriage of the woman, the education of the woman, the education of the man, the income of the woman, the income of the man, and the physical disease of the man (p < 0.05).

In the regression model, two variables remained in the final model, indicating the relationship between the variables and violence score and the importance of these two variables. An increase in women’s education and income level both independently show a significant relationship with an increase in violence score (Table  5 ).

The results of analysis of variance to compare the scores of each field of violence in the subgroups of the participants also showed that the experience and result of the woman’s previous marriage has a significant relationship with physical violence and tradition and family upbringing, the experience of the man’s previous marriage has a significant relationship with patriarchal belief, the education level of the woman has a significant relationship with all fields and the level of education of the man has a significant relationship with all fields except tradition and family upbringing (p < 0.05).

According to the results of both quantitative and qualitative studies, variables such as the young age of the woman and a large age difference are very important factors leading to an increase in violence. At a younger age, girls are afraid of the stigma of society and family, and being forced to remain silent can lead to an increase in domestic violence. As Gandhi et al. (2021) stated in their study in the same field, a lower marriage age leads to many vulnerabilities in women. Early marriage is a global problem associated with a wide range of health and social consequences, including violence for adolescent girls and women [ 12 ]. Also, Ahmadi et al. (2017) found similar findings, reporting a significant association among IPV and women age ≤ 40 years [ 19 ].

Two others categories of “Facilitators” in the present study were “Husband’s criminal record” and “Overdependence” which had a sub-category of “Forced cohabitation”. Ahmadi et al. (2017) reported in their population-based study in Iran that husband’s addiction and rented-householders have a significant association with IPV [ 19 ].

The patriarchal beliefs, which are rooted in the tradition and culture of society and family upbringing, scored the highest in relation to domestic violence in this study. On the other hand, in qualitative study, “Normalcy” of men’s anger and harassment of women in society is one of the “Repressors” of women to express violence. In the quantitative study, the increase in the women’s education and income level were predictors of the increase in violence. Although domestic violence is more common in some sections of society, women with a wide range of ages, different levels of education, and at different levels of society face this problem, most of which are not reported. Bukuluki et al. (2021) showed that women who agreed that it is good for a man to control his partner were more likely to experience physical violence [ 20 ].

Domestic violence leads to “Consequences” such as “Harm to children”, “Emotional harm”, “Social harm” to women and even “Non-acceptance in their own family”. Because divorce is a taboo in Iranian culture and the fear of humiliating women forces them to remain silent against domestic violence. Balsarkar (2021) stated that the fear of violence can prevent women from continuing their studies, working or exercising their political rights [ 8 ]. Also, Walker-Descarte et al. (2021) recognized domestic violence as a type of child maltreatment, and these abusive behaviors are associated with mental and physical health consequences [ 21 ].

On the other hand and based on the “Lack of effective communication” category, ignoring the role of the counselor in solving family conflicts and challenges in the life of couples in the present study was expressed by women with reasons such as lack of knowledge and family resistance to counseling. Several pathologies are needed to investigate increased domestic violence in situations such as during women’s pregnancy or infertility. Because the use of counseling for couples as a suitable solution should be considered along with their life challenges. Lin et al. (2022) stated that pregnant women were exposed to domestic violence for low birth weight in full term delivery. Spouse violence screening in the perinatal health care system should be considered important, especially for women who have had full-term low birth weight infants [ 22 ].

Also, lack of knowledge and low level of education have been found as other factors of violence in this study, which is very prominent in both qualitative and quantitative studies. Because the social systems and information about the existing laws should be followed properly in society to act as a deterrent. Psychological training and especially anger control and resilience skills during education at a younger age for girls and boys should be included in educational materials to determine the positive results in society in the long term. Manouchehri et al. (2022) stated that it seems necessary to train men about the negative impact of domestic violence on the current and future status of the family [ 23 ]. Balsarkar (2021) also stated that men and women who have not had the opportunity to question gender roles, attitudes and beliefs cannot change such things. Women who are unaware of their rights cannot claim. Governments and organizations cannot adequately address these issues without access to standards, guidelines and tools [ 8 ]. Machado et al. (2021) also stated that gender socialization reinforces gender inequalities and affects the behavior of men and women. So, highlighting this problem in different fields, especially in primary health care services, is a way to prevent IPV against women [ 24 ].

There was a sub-category of “Inefficiency of social systems” in the participants experiences. Perhaps the reason for this is due to insufficient education and knowledge, or fear of seeking help. Holmes et al. (2022) suggested the importance of ascertaining strategies to improve victims’ experiences with the court, especially when victims’ requests are not met, to increase future engagement with the system [ 25 ]. Sigurdsson (2019) revealed that despite high prevalence numbers, IPV is still a hidden and underdiagnosed problem and neither general practitioner nor our communities are as well prepared as they should be [ 26 ]. Moreira and Pinto da Costa (2021) found that while victims of domestic violence often agree with mandatory reporting, various concerns are still expressed by both victims and healthcare professionals that require further attention and resolution [ 27 ]. It appears that legal and ethical issues in this regard require comprehensive evaluation from the perspectives of victims, their families, healthcare workers, and legal experts. By doing so, better practical solutions can be found to address domestic violence, leading to a downward trend in its occurrence.

Some of the variables of violence against women have been identified and emphasized in many studies, highlighting the necessity of policymaking and social pathology in society to prevent and use operational plans to take action before their occurrence. Breaking the taboo of domestic violence and promoting divorce as a viable solution after counseling to receive objective results should be implemented seriously to minimize harm to women, children, and their families.

Limitations

Domestic violence against women is an important issue in Iranian society that women resist showing and expressing, making researchers take a long-term process of sampling in both qualitative and quantitative studies. The location of the interview and the women’s fear of their husbands finding out about their participation in this study have been other challenges of the researchers, which, of course, they attempted to minimize by fully respecting ethical considerations. Despite the researchers’ efforts, their personal and professional experiences, as well as the studies reviewed in the literature review section, may have influenced the study results.

Data Availability

Data and materials will be available upon email to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Intimate Partner Violence

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Organization WH. Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women. World Health Organization; 2021.

Huecker MR, Malik A, King KC, Smock W. Kentucky Domestic Violence. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL) ineligible companies. Disclosure: Ahmad Malik declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies. Disclosure: Kevin King declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies. Disclosure: William Smock declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.: StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2023.

Gandhi A, Bhojani P, Balkawade N, Goswami S, Kotecha Munde B, Chugh A. Analysis of survey on violence against women and early marriage: Gyneaecologists’ perspective. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2021;71(Suppl 2):76–83.

Article   Google Scholar  

Sugg N. Intimate partner violence: prevalence, health consequences, and intervention. Med Clin. 2015;99(3):629–49.

Google Scholar  

Abebe Abate B, Admassu Wossen B, Tilahun Degfie T. Determinants of intimate partner violence during pregnancy among married women in Abay Chomen district, western Ethiopia: a community based cross sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2016;16(1):1–8.

Adineh H, Almasi Z, Rad M, Zareban I, Moghaddam A. Prevalence of domestic violence against women in Iran: a systematic review. Epidemiol (Sunnyvale). 2016;6(276):2161–11651000276.

Pirnia B, Pirnia F, Pirnia K. Honour killings and violence against women in Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(10):e60.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Balsarkar G. Summary of four recent studies on violence against women which obstetrician and gynaecologists should know. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2021;71:64–7.

Ellsberg M, Jansen HA, Heise L, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C. Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: an observational study. The lancet. 2008;371(9619):1165–72.

Chasweka R, Chimwaza A, Maluwa A. Isn’t pregnancy supposed to be a joyful time? A cross-sectional study on the types of domestic violence women experience during pregnancy in Malawi. Malawi Med journal: J Med Association Malawi. 2018;30(3):191–6.

Afshari P, Tadayon M, Abedi P, Yazdizadeh S. Prevalence and related factors of postpartum depression among reproductive aged women in Ahvaz. Iran Health care women Int. 2020;41(3):255–65.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gebrezgi BH, Badi MB, Cherkose EA, Weldehaweria NB. Factors associated with intimate partner physical violence among women attending antenatal care in Shire Endaselassie town, Tigray, northern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study, July 2015. Reproductive health. 2017;14:1–10.

Duran S, Eraslan ST. Violence against women: affecting factors and coping methods for women. J Pak Med Assoc. 2019;69(1):53–7.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Devries KM, Mak JY, Garcia-Moreno C, Petzold M, Child JC, Falder G, et al. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science. 2013;340(6140):1527–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mahapatro M, Kumar A. Domestic violence, women’s health, and the sustainable development goals: integrating global targets, India’s national policies, and local responses. J Public Health Policy. 2021;42(2):298–309.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry: sage; 1985.

Colaizzi PF. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. 1978.

Mohseni Tabrizi A, Kaldi A, Javadianzadeh M. The study of domestic violence in Marrid Women Addmitted to Yazd Legal Medicine Organization and Welfare Organization. Tolooebehdasht. 2013;11(3):11–24.

Ahmadi R, Soleimani R, Jalali MM, Yousefnezhad A, Roshandel Rad M, Eskandari A. Association of intimate partner violence with sociodemographic factors in married women: a population-based study in Iran. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22(7):834–44.

Bukuluki P, Kisaakye P, Wandiembe SP, Musuya T, Letiyo E, Bazira D. An examination of physical violence against women and its justification in development settings in Uganda. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0255281.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Walker-Descartes I, Mineo M, Condado LV, Agrawal N. Domestic violence and its Effects on Women, Children, and families. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2021;68(2):455–64.

Lin C-H, Lin W-S, Chang H-Y, Wu S-I. Domestic violence against pregnant women is a potential risk factor for low birthweight in full-term neonates: a population-based retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(12):e0279469.

Manouchehri E, Ghavami V, Larki M, Saeidi M, Latifnejad Roudsari R. Domestic violence experienced by women with multiple sclerosis: a study from the North-East of Iran. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):1–14.

Machado DF, Castanheira ERL, Almeida MASd. Intersections between gender socialization and violence against women by the intimate partner. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2021;26:5003–12.

Holmes SC, Maxwell CD, Cattaneo LB, Bellucci BA, Sullivan TP. Criminal Protection orders among women victims of intimate Partner violence: Women’s Experiences of Court decisions, processes, and their willingness to Engage with the system in the future. J interpers Violence. 2022;37(17–18):Np16253–np76.

Sigurdsson EL. Domestic violence-are we up to the task? Scand J Prim Health Care. 2019;37(2):143–4.

Moreira DN, Pinto da Costa M. Should domestic violence be or not a public crime? J Public Health. 2021;43(4):833–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors of this study appreciate the Deputy for Research and Technology of Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Social Determinants of Health Research Center of Semnan University of Medical Sciences and all the participants in this study.

Research deputy of Semnan University of Medical Sciences financially supported this project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Allied Medical Sciences, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

Mina Shayestefar & Mohadese Saffari

Amir Al Momenin Hospital, Social Security Organization, Ahvaz, Iran

Razieh Gholamhosseinzadeh

Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

Monir Nobahar

Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

Monir Nobahar & Majid Mirmohammadkhani

Clinical Research Development Unit, Kowsar Educational, Research and Therapeutic Hospital, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

Seyed Hossein Shahcheragh

Student Research Committee, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

Zahra Khosravi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.Sh. contributed to the first conception and design of this research; M.Sh., Z.Kh., M.S., R.Gh. and S.H.Sh. contributed to collect data; M.N. and M.Sh. contributed to the analysis of the qualitative data; M.M. and M.Sh. contributed to the analysis of the quantitative data; M.SH., M.N. and M.M. contributed to the interpretation of the data; M.Sh., M.S. and S.H.Sh. wrote the manuscript. M.Sh. prepared the final version of manuscript for submission. All authors reviewed the manuscript meticulously and approved it. All names of the authors were listed in the title page.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mina Shayestefar .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This article is resulted from a research approved by the Vice Chancellor for Research of Semnan University of Medical Sciences with ethics code of IR.SEMUMS.REC.1397.182 in the Social Determinants of Health Research Center. The authors confirmed that all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. All participants accepted the participation in the present study. The researchers introduced themselves to the research units, explained the purpose of the research to them and then all participants signed the written informed consent. The research units were assured that the collected information was anonymous. The participant was informed that participating in the study was completely voluntary so that they can safely withdraw from the study at any time and also the availability of results upon their request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shayestefar, M., Saffari, M., Gholamhosseinzadeh, R. et al. A qualitative quantitative mixed methods study of domestic violence against women. BMC Women's Health 23 , 322 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02483-0

Download citation

Received : 28 April 2023

Accepted : 14 June 2023

Published : 20 June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02483-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Domestic violence
• Cross-sectional studies
• Qualitative research

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Lauren Isaac, MSW

Domestic Violence in Families: Theory, Effects, and Intervention

If a person experiences trauma; specifically that of domestic violence, either directly or vicariously (indirectly) from a young age, they do not properly pass though the appropriate developmental stages. This will hinder their emotional growth—causing them to remain stuck in one particular stage. Therefore, this child will not develop and maintain a normal level of trust in his/her parents because they will not feel the appropriate amount of safety in their environment. This alone, will affect how the family members relate to one another from that point on and will put the child at a disadvantage because they will be unable to form healthy relationships with those outside the family system as well. Depending on the frequency, intensity, and duration of the violence, these effects may be life-altering, devastating, and last for many years to come.

A child who experiences this type of trauma at a young age, will not have an appropriately developed brain. This idea suggests that there will be significant differences between the brain of child who has grown up or is currently growing up in a loving, supportive, and caring environment, and the brain of a child who is witnessing domestic violence within their family system, causing them to experience constant fear and inconsistency; hence the inability to grow and thrive. This type of upbringing will cause the child to develop the sense that he/she is in constant danger; also known as the “fight or flight” response; meaning that they will be in a consistent state of hyper vigilance. It is well documented that the cycle of violence is a constant, causing patterns of violence to develop within the family over a period of generations.

Much of the client population we serve in the field of social work, have experienced or at least witnessed some form of violence whether it is indirectly within their neighborhood or directly from someone they know/love or watching someone they love be badly hurt, beaten, or killed. Becoming more knowledgeable of the effects that this trauma has on children and families developmentally as well as socio-emotionally allows us to provide a higher quality of care to our clients and their families.

One of those main ideas is the cycle of violence and what makes a victim consistently return to their abuser; the classic question. It has been relayed to me many times by various professional sources that it takes a woman 5 or 7 times of attempting to leave her abuser, before she will actually not return. (Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos & Swindler, 2012) Stemming from this idea, a child being brought up in this violent environment will not develop the same way as a child who is raised in a loving and nurturing environment. I decided I wanted to explore these differences in physical and psychosocial development as a result of experiencing vicarious or direct violence/trauma. I also wanted to look at the short-term as well as the long-term effects of domestic violence on the various family members, emotionally as well as behaviorally. There is quite a bit of speculation regarding the theories of domestic violence as well as the contributing factors and I think that learning more about those would benefit me greatly because I will obtain greater insight on where/how to identify and recognize domestic violence and its effects. Lastly, I believe that it’s vital especially in the social work profession, to possess current and up-to-date information about what services are currently in place and/or are being offered to help individuals and families in domestic violence situations or who have been in the past.

Domestic violence (DV) cuts across all age groups, social classes and travels beyond the extent of physical abuse. It includes emotional abuse including threats, isolation, extreme jealousy and humiliation, and sexual abuse as well. Whenever an individual is placed in a situation involving physical danger or when she is controlled by the threat or use of physical force, this is considered domestic abuse. Domestic violence generally occurs in cycles, requiring the social worker to be able to recognize it so that he/she can intervene appropriately. (“Ohio physicians’ domestic,” 1995) Many barriers exist to identifying DV. Many of these women are either reluctant or unable to get help for themselves and their children. Some may be held captive, while others may be lacking transportation or the financial means to acquire help. (Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos & Swindler, 2012)

A woman’s cultural, ethnic, or religious background may also influence her response to the abuse as well as her awareness of viable resources and options. (“Ohio physicians’ domestic,” 1995) In this profession, we are all aware of the immediate effects of DV such as physical injuries. Further research has also shown me that the abused spouse may experience chronic psychosomatic pain or pain due to diffuse trauma without visible evidence. The abused spouse and/or child may develop chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, other anxiety disorders, or depression. These conditions can be recognized by various symptoms including sleep and appetite disturbances, fatigue, decreased concentration, chronic headaches…etc. (“Ohio physicians’ domestic,” 1995) Battered women experiencing PTSD can become entangled in a myriad of symptoms such as avoidance, numbness, fear, and flashbacks; interrupting normal functioning and interfere with adapting coping mechanisms. (Basu, Malone, Levendosky & Dubay, 2009) Psychosomatic complaints are also detected with frequent visits to the physician’s office without evidence of any physiological problems. Suicide rates are also known to be higher in battered women than other women. (“Ohio physicians’ domestic,” 1995)

Some additional psychiatric problems related to the effects of DV include severe and ongoing depression, panic disorder, suicidal tendencies and substance abuse, which may hinder the battered spouse’s ability to appropriately assess her situation and take necessary action. Alcohol and/or drug use is frequently used to rationalize violent behavior. (“Ohio physicians’ domestic,” 1995) The family members affected as well as the abuser may insist that substance abuse is the problem and refuse to place the blame where it belongs. Stressful or violent relationships between adult partners can also lead to an increased sense of negativity in the parent-child dyad and exacerbate the negative effects of exposure; particularly for women with anxiety symptoms or diagnosis of PTSD. (Basu, Malone, Levendosky & Dubay, 2009) According to Systems Theory, a family can be thought of as a system, regarding each member as a subject, mutually influencing each other and displaying patterns and various developmental processes. (Robbins, Chatterjee & Canda, 2012)Each of these members of the family system has a certain level of autonomy and independence but is interdependent by the other subjects to a degree as well; meaning that what affects one family member affects another. (Robbins, Chatterjee & Canda, 2012)

Children are often a factor in the woman’s decision to remain in a violent relationship. An estimated 3.3 million to 10 million children are exposed to domestic violence in their home each year. (Richards, 2011)Children’s exposure to DV and the effects that this exposure can have has been increasingly recognized in recent years. Research even suggests that when a child does not directly witness DV, they may still be negatively affected. (Richards, 2011)The stereotypical view of a child who has witnessed DV between his/her parents is that they are “emotionally traumatized” by the event. There has been much controversy over what “witnessing” DV really means. Research indicates that witnessing DV can involve a broad range of incidents including: hearing the violence, being used as a physical weapon, being forced to watch/participate in the assault, being informed that they are to blame for the violence, being used as a hostage, defending a parent, and/or having to intervene or stop the violence from occurring. Literature also indicates that the aftermath effects for a child include having to see a parent with bruises, see a parent be arrested, having their own injuries and/or the becoming the “parentified” child. Most research conducted on the impacts of childhood exposure to domestic violence focus on the range of psychological and behavioral impacts including but not limited to depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, increased aggression levels, anti-social behaviors, lower social competence, temperament issues, low self-esteem, dysregulated mood, loneliness and increased likelihood of substance abuse. (Richards, 2011)These children are also at higher risk for school difficulties such as peer conflict or impaired cognitive functioning. Teenage pregnancy, truancy, suicide attempts, and delinquency are also listed as impacts. Long-term physical impacts have rarely been documented, but one study done indicated that children from violent homes are found to have significantly higher heart rates than other children even post-abuse. (Moylan, Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl & Russo, 2009) Another study found that living in a violent home is a also an attributing factor to a range of serious health conditions as mentioned above such as depression and substance abuse. (Moylan, Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl & Russo, 2009) Studies have also indicated that children from violent homes may be more likely to exhibit attitudes and behaviors reflecting their childhood experiences witnessing DV. (Richards, 2011) Domestic violence increases a child’s risk for internalizing and externalizing these outcomes during their adolescence. (Moylan, Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl & Russo, 2009) Research indicates that females are 229% more likely to become victims of DV than their peers from non-violent homes. (Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos & Swindler, 2012) In males, the prominent effect of abuse direct or indirect victimization is hyper aggression; suggesting that boys who witness DV or who are somehow involved, are more likely than girl to identify with the aggressor thus eventually perpetuating the abuse on their spouse and/or child. This may justify their own use of violence and or cause them to carry violence-tolerant roles to their adult relationships. (Moylan, Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl & Russo, 2009)

Based on self-reports from survivors of domestic violence whom I have had the privilege to personally speak to in confidence, I have been able to obtain first-hand information about the effects and devastating impacts of DV. Most of these battered women report having permanent problems with attachment in their personal relationships involving a lack of trust, a lack of ability to soothe their child or to be soothed by another person, difficulty sleeping, self-harm, and a lack of empathy or over-involvement in the distress of others. One of these women explained to me that the DV she experienced at the hands of her ex-husband exacerbated her substance abuse problem; primarily alcoholism. Another woman stated “My son and I haven’t been able to sleep for weeks.” In the brief time spent with these women and their children, I observed an abundance of hypervigilance and inattention. Many of the children appeared to be in the “fight or flight” heightened sense of defensiveness on a consistent basis. A mother’s little boy explained to me that he could no longer trust any man around his mother and that he still has “nightmares about seeing her get beat up and have bruises.” In many of these self-reporting cases, both the mother and her children were exhibiting characteristics of PTSD. Abraham Maslow’s Transpersonal Theory of Self-Actualization and Self-Transcendence Hierarchy of Needs explains that there is an inherent tendency of people to express their innate potentials for love, creativity, and spirituality. According to Maslow, in order for an individual to self-actualize successfully, a nurturing environment, providing all basic needs and social support. A child who is exposed to domestic violence will be unable to establish survival, security, and a sense of being loved, not allowing him the ability to transcend to the higher levels of creativity and spirituality. (Moylan, Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl & Russo, 2009) These children often grow up and are still unable to move past the level of safety and physiological needs. Each woman that I spoke to across the board reported having selected or continuing to select abusive partners. This leads me to believe that domestic abuse can turn into a pattern. In other words, until the woman is ready to tackle her feelings at the source of her emotional void, she will continue to place herself and her children at risk.

While treating these children in their school environment, I have come to find out that many of their behavioral problems stemmed from feelings of insecure attachment and a lack of sense of safety. Many of them exhibited psychomotor agitation and remained in a consistent, intense emotional state. As I moved through treatment with them and often times their mothers, I came to realize that they were both very distrusting and the child would often have lost his/her ability to “play.” I found myself having to be very creative in play therapy activities with these children because they remained so guarded. Depending on the child’s personality, some of them would internalize these feelings, while others would externalize them. The children who internalized their feelings were quite introverted, rarely socialized with other kids, had a very low self-esteem and were very hypervigilent and sensitive. Externalized behaviors would manifest themselves in more off-task, non-compliant, and defiant/disruptive behaviors. I would usually give these children a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Many of them had problems with attention and impulse control as well and were given Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. These families usually continued to struggle throughout the course of treatment. Due to many of the mothers’ fear of being alone, they would continue to associate with controlling men because that is what they were accustomed to. I always knew that my number one priority is to the safety and well-being of the child and would do my best to empower them and be consistent in treatment so that they would slowly realize that there are people you can trust. I was able to help a mother find a doctor for her and her son who prescribed her son medication for his ADHD. As a result, his behavior problems at school have greatly decreased and assisted him and his mother in mending their broken relationship. With patience, understanding and attunement, I was able to take most of the children at least one step further than where they started.

The intergenerational transmission of domestic violence has been one of the most commonly reported influences in DV during adulthood. Research conducted on this transmission of DV, further perpetuation the “cycle of violence” is based largely on Social Learning Theory. (McCluskey, 2010) This theory validates that observing violence in one’s home as a child creates ideas and norms about how, when, and toward whom aggression is appropriate. Early studies found a high frequency of violence in families from which the family of origin included domestically violent man/men. A national sample found that exposure to inter-parental spousal DV contributes to the probability for martial aggression for both men and women. (McCluskey, 2010) In aiding victims of domestic violence, the social worker must be able to identify the developmental origins of the client’s struggles and inner-conflicts. Based on an article written by a social work graduate student about her experience interning at a domestic violence shelter, one of her client’s early life was disrupted by an adverse social environment filled with unreliable sources of support and a lack of nurturance. This caused the woman to internally replicate a persistent and pervasive mistrust of others throughout her life, develop a terrible self- of herself as well as negative feelings regarding her external world. (McCluskey, 2010) She had become self-injurious, and she did not develop the ability to care for her children properly, stating that doing for them was “too overwhelming.” This woman’s early object relations have set the tone for her adult patterns of relating to others and her present-day conflicts. As explained in this student’s article, when object relations theory is applied to social work within the context of domestic violence, it illuminates the psychological aspects associated with early relational patterns. (McCluskey, 2010)

Erickson’s Psychosocial Stage 1- Trust versus Mistrust provides that during the years of early infancy, the child must develop a sense of trust for their caregiver. The experience of trauma; specifically domestic violence during this beginning stage, can lead to inadequate emotional development, causing this child to remain at this stage instead of passing through to the appropriate ongoing stages. If this trust is not gained at an early age, the child will grow up anticipating that the world will reflect danger and volatility and that people are not to be trusted. (McCluskey, 2010)

Psychological theories of DV perpetration analyze more individual factors including personality disorders, neurobiological/neuroanatomical factors, disordered or insecure attachment, cognitive distortions, and post-traumatic symptoms as previously stated. (Corvo, Dutton & Chen, 2008)Evidence suggests that violent husbands show more psychological distress, more tendencies to personality disorders, more attachment/dependency issues, a higher tendency towards anger and hostility and more alcohol problems than non-violent men. There is a much larger body of research that examines the relationship between psychological factors and DV in general. (Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos & Swindler, 2012)

It is well documented that one of the impacts of prolonged exposure to DV is a decrease in cognitive ability. (Corvo, Dutton & Chen, 2008)The brain stem to the frontal cortex is often negatively impacted. One area of particular importance is the association between frontal lobe deficits and DV. In general, frontal lobe deficits refer to compromised abilities to inhibit impulsivity or aggression or to redirect attention from repetitive behavior. Multi-disciplinary health and development studies have illustrated the factors most closely correlated with DV were associated with general criminal offending, a scope of mental health problems, academic failure, economic resource deficits, and early onset anti-social behavior. (Corvo, Dutton & Chen, 2008)

Attachment Theory suggests that an assaultive male’s violent outbursts may be a form of protest behavior directed at his attachment figure that may have rejected him and/or precipitated by perceived threats of separation or abandonment. (Robbins, Chatterjee & Canda, 2012) Thus, the central features of a fearful attachment pattern are anxiety and anger. Early life separation and loss were strongly correlated with adult DV perpetration as well as exposure to parental violence, validating that insecure attachment style is related to the dis-regulation of the negative flow of emotions in intimate relationships. (Moylan, Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl & Russo, 2009)

Most group interventions to treat the effects of domestic violence generally focus on male batterers whereas treatment groups for battered women and their children are rare. There are many potential benefits of these interventions for the women and their children such as increasing empowerment, decreasing feelings of isolation, developing interpersonal skills, increasing coping strategies and gaining knowledge of resources. A DV shelter can be the answer in the short-term aftermath of the abuse, as a temporary safe house for the woman and her children where all basic needs are met. While DV shelters often provide counseling and support services for battered women and their children, these programs are typically informal and lack empirical support. (Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos & Swindler, 2012) Group intervention for trauma survivors is common, victim-advocacy support groups, as well as Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and other CBT based interventions for both victims/families and their perpetrators. (Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos & Swindler, 2012)

The prevalence for minorities to be exposed to domestic violence is much higher than that of the general population. Underlying causes for this include the fact that they are more likely to be poor, allowing them less access to services, they have to endure more foster care changes as well as experience more cumulative effects of DV. (Swartz, 2012) Another statistic shows that more than half of minorities have a diagnosed mental illness, but 75% of them do not receive services within 12 months of receiving a child abuse/neglect investigation. (Swartz, 2012) Several studies conducted on the impact of coordinated community response to DV validate that minority populations are overrepresented in shelter populations; meaning that the current wave of interventions indicate little to no accommodation to the needs of racial minorities. (Swartz, 2012) Historically, the development of the DV shelter movement and community-based interventions emerged from predominantly Caucasian populations with an upper-middle class socioeconomic status. In many ways, the field of Social Work is still lacking culturally competent approaches consistent with creating an environment consistent for helping minority groups succeed in treatment. Studies show that increased cultural sensitivity and an individualized perspective integrating racial and ethnic background is suggested to promote understanding of culturally specific underpinnings of violence and aggression; particularly in the African American and Latino communities. (Swartz, 2012

The first step towards ending family violence is for the victims and their children to be able to engage with practitioners they can trust and whom they can confide in. In order for our profession to remain effective in our work with these vulnerable women and their children, it is essential that we provide culturally and gender-sensitive skills. The social worker often struggles to find a balance between ensuring the safety of the mother and child while simultaneously empowering the mother to do that herself. As far as future directions, I believe that more attention needs to be paid to preventative work. (Keeling & van Wormer, 2011) I think that women survivors of domestic violence can be an excellent source for engaging in DV advocacy leading to improved service provision and policy development. (Barner and Carney, 2011) It is suggesting that by embracing this approach, we can open the door to better engagement with these vulnerable individuals, striving together to ensure safety and increased ability to access service and support. (Barner and Carney, 2011) In terms of prevention, there definitely needs to be more inter-agency coordination when attending to the needs of women and their children. Funding for victim-based services is currently at an all-time low. A stronger need for community-based advocacy needs to be promoted, as well as flexibility in victim informed arrest, prosecution, sentencing, and intervention services. (Barner and Carney, 2011) Unfortunately, the system has become increasingly bureaucratic and punitive, causing women to continuously suffer in silence rather than seek the help that they need. (Keeling & van Wormer, 2011)

In social work practice, social workers and students of social work must continue to work for institutional change in making relationship building with women experiencing DV, a priority. Social work values related to the topic of DV are service (mental health treatment for domestic violence trauma), importance of human relationships (within the family system and larger social environment), dignity and worth of the person (each member of the family), social justice (domestic violence awareness and prevention), and competence (a social worker’s ability to serve this population objectively, professionally, and effectively). I believe the domestic violence training along with integrating policy and decision-making regarding DV services training into social work curriculum. Even for those who are most oppressed such as women, poverty-stricken individuals, those with mental illness, children, and other minorities, there is always an opportunity to act. In conjunction with the values of social work, we should always treat every person as an individual and respect their personal choices, including them in the implementation of their treatment/safety plans as well as continue to support them in obtaining professional and community support, contributing to their healing process.

Robbins, S. P., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. R. (2012). Contemporary human behavior theory: A critical perspective for social work . (3rd edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

The Ohio State Medical Association, The Ohio Department of Human Services-Ohio Domestic Violence Advisory Committee. (1995). Ohio physicians’ domestic violence prevention project: Trust talk- break the silence, begin the cure    

Barner, J. R., & Carney, M. M. (2011). Interventions for intimate partner violence: A historical review. Journal of Family Violence , (26), 235-244. doi: 10.1007/s10896-011-9359-3

Basu, A., Malone, J. C., Levendosky, A. A., & Dubay, S. (2009). Longitudinal treatment effectiveness outcomes of a group intervention for women and children exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma , 2 , 90-105. doi: 10.1080/19361520902880715

Corvo, K., Dutton, D., & Chen, W. (2008). Toward evidence-based practice with domestic violence perpetrators. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 16 (2), doi: 10.1080/10926770801921246

Keeling, J., & van Wormer, K. (2011). Social worker interventions in situations of domestic violence: What we can learn from our survivors’ personal narratives?. British Journal of Social Work , (42), 1354-1370. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr137

McCluskey, M. J. (2010). Psychoanalysis and domestic violence: Exploring the application of object relations theory in social work field placement. Clinical Social Work Journal , (38), 435-442. doi: 10.1007/s10615-010-0266-5

Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Russo, M. J. (2009). The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence , (25), 53-63. doi: 10.1007/s10896-009-9269-9

Richards, K. (2011). Children’s exposure to domestic violence in Australia. Trends and Issues in crime and criminal justice , (419), 1-5.

Yamawaki, N., Ochoa-Shipp, M., Pulsipher, C., Harlos, A., & Swindler, S. (2012). Perceptions of domestic violence: The effects of domestic violence myths, victim’s relationship with her abuser, and the decision to return to her abuser. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 27 (16), 3195-3212. doi: 10.1177/0886260512441253

In Christine Swartz PCC (Chair). Developmental trauma and its effects on children . (2012).

Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment

Related posts, subscribe to the sjs weekly newsletter, leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Domestic violence theories.

There is no single causal factor related to domestic violence. Rather, scholars have concluded that there are numerous factors that contribute to domestic violence. Feminists found that women were beaten at the hands of their partners. Drawing on feminist theory, they helped explain the relationship between patriarchy and domestic violence. Researchers have examined other theoretical perspectives such as attachment theory, exchange theory, identity theory, the cycle of violence, social learning theory, and victim-blaming theory in explaining domestic violence.

Theories of Domestic Violence:

Attachment theory.

Attachment theory is a useful lens through which to understand perpetrator behavior. It explains how early childhood experiences have led to a particular way of experiencing close relationships. It also helps therapists to see how, depending on the attachment status of the client, interventions will need to be developed to address their specific needs and that cookie cutter approaches will not advance the profession. The attachment findings make it clear that domestic violence is not just a result of social conditioning; if anything, it is at least the interaction between psychological conditioning and the social context. Therefore, while social changes are necessary, violence will never stop as long as the psychological and biological factors are minimized or altogether ignored. Read more about Attachment Theory .

Cycle of Violence

Since the late 1970s, researchers and theorists have focused increased attention on the widespread problem of domestic violence in contemporary society. Research has shown that domestic violence cuts across racial, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic lines. In particular, researchers have sought to identify the factors associated with intimate violence in an effort to develop theories explaining the causes of battering. One of the most widely cited theories in the domestic violence literature is Lenore Walker’s cycle of violence. According to Walker, the cycle of violence is characterized by three distinct phases which are repeated over and over again in the abusive relationship. As a result, domestic abuse rarely involves a single isolated incident of violence. Rather, the abuse becomes a repetitive pattern in the relationship. Read more about  Cycle of Violence .

Exchange Theory

As with the general exchange theory, the key assumption of an exchange theory of family violence is that human interaction is guided by the pursuit of rewards and the avoidance of punishment and costs. Simply stated, individuals will use force and violence in their relationships with intimates and family members if they believe that the rewards of force and violence outweigh the costs of such behavior. A second assumption is that a person who supplies reward services to another obliges the other to fulfill a reciprocal obligation; and thus, the second individual must furnish benefits to the first (Blau 1964). Blau (1964) explains that if reciprocal exchange occurs, the interaction continues. However, if reciprocity is not received, the interaction will be broken off. Of course, family relations, including partner relations, parent–child relations, and sibling relations, are more complex and have a unique social structure compared with the exchanges that typically exist outside of the family. Read more about Exchange Theory .

Identity Theory

Identity theory provides an important avenue for theoretical development in domestic violence research because all behavior, including aggression, is rooted in issues of self and identity. To understand aggression, we need to understand the meanings individuals attribute to themselves in a situation, that is, their self-definitions or identities. In all interactions, the goal of individuals is to confirm their identities. When their identities are not confirmed, persons may control others in the situation to make them respond differently in order to confirm their identities. If control does not work, aggression may be used as a last resort to obtain control and, in turn, confirmation of identity. Thus, identity theory can help explain domestic violence by showing how a lack of identity confirmation at the individual level is tied to the control process and aggression at the interactive level. Read more about Identity Theory .

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory is one of the most popular explanatory perspectives in the marital violence literature. Often conceptualized as the ‘‘cycle of violence’’ or ‘‘intergenerational transmission theory’’ when applied to the family, the theory states that people model behavior that they have been exposed to as children. Violence is learned through role models provided by the family (parents, siblings, relatives, and boyfriends/girlfriends), either directly or indirectly (i.e., witnessing violence), is reinforced in childhood, and continues in adulthood as a coping response to stress or as a method of conflict resolution. During childhood and adolescence, observations of how parents and significant others behave in intimate relationships provide an initial learning of behavioral alternatives which are ‘‘appropriate’’ for these relationships. Children infer rules or principles through repeated exposure to a particular style of parenting. If the family of origin handled stresses and frustrations with anger and aggression, the child who has grown up in such an environment is at greater risk for exhibiting those same behaviors, witnessed or experienced, as an adult. Gelles (1972) states that ‘‘not only does the family expose individuals to violence and techniques of violence, the family teaches approval for the use of violence.’’ Children learn that violence is acceptable within the home and is an effective method for solving problems or changing the behavior of others. Read more about Social Learning Theory .

Victim-Blaming Theory

Victim-blaming theory describes the practice of holding victims partly responsible for their misfortune. It represents the faulting of individuals who have endured the suffering of crimes, hardships, or other misfortunes with either part or whole responsibility for the event. Often, victim-blaming theories rely on the premise that individuals should recognize the dangers that exist in society and therefore should take the necessary precautions to maintain a certain level of safety. Those who do not take such precautions are perceived as blameworthy for their demise even if they have not acted carelessly. These perceptions in effect shift the culpability away from the perpetrator of the crime onto the victim. When discussing issues of family violence, violence against women, or sexual assault, one often hears victim-blaming statements such as, ‘‘Why didn’t she leave?’’ or ‘‘She was asking for it.’’ Within the context of family violence, victim blaming often includes condemnation of the victim for staying in an abusive relationship. Read more about Victim-Blaming Theory .

General Strain Theory

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 21 June 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Kaitlyn B. Hoover 2  

69 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30 (1), 47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38 (4), 319. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022427801038004001

Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory . Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Agnew, R. (2011). Crime and time: The temporal patterning of causal variables. Theoretical Criminology, 15 (2), 115. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362480609356671

Agnew, R. (2013). When criminal coping is likely: An extension of general strain theory. Deviant Behavior, 34 (8), 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.766529

Agnew, R., Matthews, S. K., Bucher, J., Welcher, A. N., & Keyes, C. (2008). Socioeconomic status, economic problems, and delinquency. Youth & Society, 40 (2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X08318119

Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminology, 30 (4), 475–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01113.x

Anderson, A. S., & Lo, C. C. (2011). Intimate partner violence within law enforcement families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26 (6), 1176–1193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510368156

Aseltine, R. H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and delinquency: An empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41 (3), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676320

Bernard, T. (1987). Testing structural strain theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24 (4), 262–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427887024004002

Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1994). Reconsidering strain theory: Operationalization, rival theories, and adult criminality. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10 (3), 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02221211

Cernkovich, S., & Giordano, P. C. (2000). Race, crime, and the American dream. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37 (2), 131–170.

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs . Free Press.

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang . Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide, a study in sociology . The Free Press.

Eriksson, L., & Mazerolle, P. (2013). A general strain theory of intimate partner homicide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 (5), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.002

Froggio, G. (2007). Strain and juvenile delinquency: A critical review of Agnew’s general strain theory. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 12 (4), 383–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325020701249363

Gottfredson, M. R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). The general theory of crime . Stanford University Press.

Johnson, R. E. (1979). Juvenile delinquency and its origins: An integrated theoretical approach . Cambridge University Press.

Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency . University of Chicago Press.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., McCullars, A., & Misra, T. (2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3 , 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.e10

Lilly, R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. (2019). Criminological theory: Context and consequences (7th ed.). Sage Publications.

Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1997). Violent responses to strain: An examination of conditioning influences. Violence and Victims, 12 (4), 323–343.

Mazerolle, P., Piquero, A. R., & Capowich, G. E. (2003). Examining the links between strain, situational and dispositional anger, and crime: Further specifying and testing general strain theory. Youth & Society, 35 (2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X03255029

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3 (5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure . The Free Press.

Paternoster, R., & Mazerolle, P. (1994). General strain theory and delinquency: A replication and extension. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31 (3), 235–263.

Polizzi, D. (2011). Agnew’s general strain theory reconsidered: A phenomenological perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55 (7), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10380846

Shaw, C. R. & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas . University of Chicago Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Kaitlyn B. Hoover

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaitlyn B. Hoover .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Gavin Vance

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester Hills, MI, USA

Madeleine K. Meehan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Hoover, K.B. (2023). General Strain Theory. In: Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85493-5_664-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85493-5_664-1

Received : 17 August 2022

Accepted : 18 August 2022

Published : 21 June 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85493-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85493-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Anxiety Disorder
• Bipolar Disorder
• Schizophrenia
• Adjustment Disorder
• Agoraphobia
• Antisocial Personality Disorder
• Borderline Personality Disorder
• Childhood ADHD
• Dissociative Identity Disorder
• Narcissistic Personality Disorder
• Oppositional Defiant Disorder
• Panic Attack
• Postpartum Depression
• Schizoaffective Disorder
• Seasonal Affective Disorder
• Sex Addiction
• Social Anxiety
• Specific Phobias
• Teenage Depression
• Black Mental Health
• Emotional Health
• Sex & Relationships
• Understanding Therapy
• Workplace Mental Health
• My Life with OCD
• Caregivers Chronicles
• Empathy at Work
• Sex, Love & All of the Above
• Parent Central
• Mindful Moment
• Mental Health News
• Live Town Hall: Mental Health in Focus
• Inside Mental Health
• Inside Schizophrenia
• Inside Bipolar
• ADHD Symptoms Quiz
• Anxiety Symptoms Quiz
• Autism Quiz: Family & Friends
• Autism Symptoms Quiz
• Bipolar Disorder Quiz
• Borderline Personality Test
• Childhood ADHD Quiz
• Depression Symptoms Quiz
• Eating Disorder Quiz
• Narcissim Symptoms Test
• OCD Symptoms Quiz
• Psychopathy Test
• PTSD Symptoms Quiz
• Schizophrenia Quiz
• Attachment Style Quiz
• Career Test
• Do I Need Therapy Quiz?
• Domestic Violence Screening Quiz
• Emotional Type Quiz
• Loneliness Quiz
• Parenting Style Quiz
• Personality Test
• Relationship Quiz
• Stress Test
• What's Your Sleep Like?
• Find Support
• Suicide Prevention
• Drugs & Medications
• Find a Therapist

What Causes Domestic Violence?

Domestic violence is about power and control. Abuse can happen to anyone of any race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

Being hurt by an intimate partner or spouse can be a very confusing and traumatizing experience for survivors of domestic abuse.

People on the outside may wonder why survivors don’t “just leave,” but abusive or violent relationships are often marked by complex dynamics that make it difficult to get away.

And despite societal and cultural stigma around who might experience abuse, domestic violence can happen to anyone. More than 10 million adults in the United States experience abuse by their romantic or intimate partner every year.

If you are experiencing domestic violence, it’s essential to understand that you aren’t at fault for your partner’s behavior. Survivors don’t “make” their abusers punish or target them with physical or psychological abuse.

Abusers use domestic violence to gain power and control over their targets. Domestic violence is a choice on the part of the abuser, but certain underlying factors might sometimes contribute to a person’s propensity for abuse, including:

• experiencing childhood trauma
• holding certain belief systems about hierarchy and domination
• witnessing domestic violence as a child

Types of domestic abuse

Domestic abuse, also known as intimate partner abuse, describes any situation where a romantic or intimate partner or spouse uses dominating or violent behavior to exert control over a partner, physically, sexually, or psychologically.

Abuse can begin subtly for many people who experience it. This may make abusive behaviors difficult to discern in some cases, especially during the initial onset of abuse.

The goal of abusers who engage in domestic violence is almost always to control. Abusive partners and spouses may be looking for a way to manipulate you and maintain a sense of dominance.

Domestic abuse can take many forms, including these common types:

• Sexual. Forcing you to participate in nonconsensual acts, including sexual assault and rape , demeaning behaviors, infidelity, or exploitation.
• Physical. Any behaviors that directly harm you physically, including violence such as assault or withholding needs, like food, sleep, or housing.
• Isolation. Preventing you from seeing family, friends, or attending social events.
• Control. Eliminating freedom by controlling you from making your own choices, checking up on you obsessively, dictating your clothing or style choices, or using your children as leverage.
• Emotional. Targeting your insecurities or vulnerabilities; brainwashing.
• Verbal. Using words to threaten, blame, or demean you; screaming and flying into rages.
• Male privilege. Adhering to cultural beliefs that men must be dominant over women.
• Economic. Your partner has complete control over your spending and income, or squanders money on nonessentials.

Experiences of domestic abuse can often include many tactics at once.

You might find verbal and emotional abuse go hand in hand. Or your partner may control all your personal finances because of a belief that “that’s what men are supposed to do.”

Signs of domestic abuse

Because domestic abuse can be subtle and complex, you may not be sure whether what you’re experiencing qualifies as abuse.

Domestic abuse can be much more than physical violence. Even if they don’t cause you physical harm, controlling or dominating behaviors can still be considered domestic abuse.

Signs of financial abuse:

• All the finances are under your partner’s name.
• Your name is used for legal documents without your permission.
• You have an allowance that’s often unrealistic and not self-imposed.
• You’re not allowed to work or have income.

Signs of sexual abuse:

• You’re forced into sexual acts or sex work.
• You’re harmed during intimacy or sexually assaulted
• Birth control is either withheld or forced on you without your consent.

Signs of physical abuse:

• You experience physical assault.
• Unwanted rough play occurs.
• Partner aggression is directed at things you care about, like belongings, children, or pets.
• You’re punished with deliberate reckless driving.
• You’re forced or pressured into taking substances nonconsensually.
• Your partner withholds food, water, or prevents sleep.
• Your partner holds you down or keeps you imprisoned.

Signs of emotional abuse:

• Your partner devalues or dismisses your beliefs.
• Your partner withholds praise or appreciation.
• Your partner is excessively jealous .
• You’re accused of constant infidelity.
• Your partner harms themselves or threatens to harm themselves to get you to cooperate.
• Your partner makes you feel as though you deserved to be punished.

Signs of verbal abuse:

• Your partner insults and demeans you.
• Your partner belittles you in front of others.
• You’re called names.
• Your partner yells, screams, or rages at you.

Signs of control and isolation:

• Your phone calls, text messages, or emails are constantly monitored.
• Your partner demands you prove where you’re at whenever you’re apart.
• You can’t wear certain clothes, do your hair a certain way, or wear makeup, or else your partner guilts or punishes you.
• You’re not allowed to see family and friends.
• Your partner stops you from attending social events.

Patriarchal domination:

• Your partner refuses to do certain “women-only” chores.
• You’re expected to behave in a submissive way.
• You’re not allowed to contribute to decisions.

What causes domestic violence?

Domestic violence can be varied and individual, and there is no one cause of domestic violence.

It’s important to remember that domestic violence is a choice, not an uncontrolled impulse. A survivor’s actions cannot cause abusive behavior.

If you are experiencing domestic violence, you are never to blame. You can’t “make” someone abuse you, no matter what an abuser may say.

Even if you could do everything possible to please an abusive partner, their need to control you will likely still show itself through their behavior eventually.

In some cases, intimate partner abuse can be influenced by situations, including your own state of behavioral well-being. For example, if you and your partner both experience tendencies toward domestic violence, the situation may quickly spiral out of control.

While the possible causes of domestic violence may be as complex as some of the warning signs, research suggests much of domestic violence behavior is learned.

Children who witness domestic abuse may grow up thinking physical or psychological violence are acceptable ways to solve conflict. In the same way, raising children to believe a different gender is inferior may result in exhibiting controlling behavior later in life.

The need for control that could lead to domestic violence may be linked to several individual factors, including:

• less access to education
• personality disorders
• substance use
• cultural attitudes
• gender ideologies
• low self-esteem
• struggling with anger management

However, having some of these traits doesn’t automatically mean someone will have an unmet need for control that develops into domestic violence.

Having a partner who is insecure or experiences low self-esteem doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll have tendencies for abuse.

Power and control

Domestic violence is set apart by one partner’s behavior pattern used to gain or maintain control and power over another partner. Abusers tend to use these behavioral tactics to keep their partner in the relationship.

Usually, abusive behavior starts subtly and gradually and can become continuous over time. With domestic violence, these nuanced behaviors lead to physical, sexual, or psychological violence .

Even when domestic abuse escalates, the more subtle behaviors — like financial or emotional abuse — may continue being used as a method of reinforcing violence by subduing the abused partner further, making them easier to control.

If you notice your partner’s behaviors are increasingly focused on controlling or manipulating you, this could indicate that you may be in an escalating domestic violence situation.

Support and resources for domestic violence

It can sometimes be challenging to seek help if you’re experiencing domestic violence. You might not have access to private communication, or it may not be possible for you to leave your home.

Even if you’ve decided you want to leave, you might not feel safe enough to get out yet.

Options are still available for you as a survivor of domestic violence, even if you might sometimes feel like you’ve hit a dead end in getting help.

No matter where you are in the world, you can find resources available through the United Nations Critical Incident Stress Management Unit at [email protected] .

In the United States, you may also receive anonymous, confidential help at any hour through the National Domestic Violence Hotline: 800-799-7233 or 800-787-3224 (TTY).

The National Domestic Violence Hotline also offers an online chat feature as well as the option to text by sending “START” to 88788.

Additional resources can be found by calling the National Center for Victims of Crime: 855-484-2846.

In the event of an emergency, dialing 911 or contacting your local authorities can provide immediate assistance.

If you are experiencing domestic violence, you are not alone. Millions of people live with and report domestic violence by an intimate or romantic partner every year.

Your actions can’t cause abusive behavior, and nothing you’ve done can make you “deserve” any form of abuse from your partner or anyone else.

Domestic violence is varied and individualized in different situations. There is no one cause of domestic violence.

Abuse is a choice, and domestic violence stems from a partner’s need to gain power and control. These behaviors may be rooted in:

• childhood experiences
• psychological disorders
• cultural beliefs

Domestic abuse isn’t just physical violence but can be a complex mixture of emotional and mental manipulation. You may find you’re being isolated or can’t wear the things you’d like to wear. You may not have any privacy or freedom.

These nuances and complexities mean that it sometimes can be challenging to identify abuse.

However, help is available if and when you are ready and feel safe enough to leave. And even if you don’t yet feel safe enough to leave, there are still options for seeking support. There are ways to get help and heal.

Where to find help

If you’re experiencing domestic violence, support is available:

• You can call the the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 800-799-7233 for free, confidential, 24/7 care and support.
• You can call loveisrespect.org at 866-331-9474 or text LOVEIS to 22522 for support if you think you could be in an abusive relationship.

In addition, you can visit The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) , a domestic violence prevention advocacy group with a list of resources for relationship abuse help.

Last medically reviewed on September 30, 2021

9 sources collapsed

• Aziz NNA, et al. (2018). Causes and effects of domestic violence: A conceptual model on the performance at work. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nurul-Nadia-Aziz/publication/323508059_CAUSES_AND_EFFECTS_OF_DOMESTIC_VIOLENCE_A_CONCEPTUAL_MODEL_ON_THE_PERFORMANCE_AT_WORK_Syazliana_Astrah_Mohd_Idris_Johor_Empowerment_of_Intellectual_Women_Association_Ministry_of_Women_Family_and_Socie/links/5a98a84c0f7e9ba42976e9bc/CAUSES-AND-EFFECTS-OF-DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE-A-CONCEPTUAL-MODEL-ON-THE-PERFORMANCE-AT-WORK-Syazliana-Astrah-Mohd-Idris-Johor-Empowerment-of-Intellectual-Women-Association-Ministry-of-Women-Family-and-Soc.pdf
• Domestic violence. [Fact sheet]. (2020). https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/domestic_violence-2020080709350855.pdf?1596828650457
• Frieden, TR, et al. (2010). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
• Huecker MR, et al. (2021). Domestic violence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/
• Jura F, et al. (2015). Domestic violence: Causes and implications for the education system. http://www.ijrhss.org/pdf/v2-i4/9.pdf
• National statistics. (n.d.). https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS
• Violence against women. (2021). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women
• What is domestic abuse? (n.d.). https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/what-is-domestic-abuse
• What is domestic violence? (n.d.). https://ncadv.org/learn-more

Read this next

Even if you’ve gone back before, you can safely and permanently leave an abusive relationship.

When the trauma from domestic abuse interferes with your ability to function daily, you may be experiencing PTSD. Here's more.

Use this brief screening measure to help you determine if you might need to see a mental health or other social services professional to help

Domestic violence can come in many forms and look different from situation to situation. But there are common signs to look out for.

Loving someone who hurts you can be confusing. Though everyone is different, there are a few reasons why you may still love an abusive partner.

Gaslighting is a type of emotional abuse centered around control. Here's how to identify and deal with gaslighting in your relationships.

In an emotionally safe relationship you can truly express yourself and show up as your most authentic self. Here's how to create emotional safety.

Mental health gets all the blame for gun violence. But doing this creates a problem for people who live with mental health conditions.

Healing after leaving an abusive relationship is possible. If you're unsure where to start, these tips may help.

Hypothesis For Domestic Violence Essay

Show More Hypothesis: If domestic violence is continually seen as non-violent to law enforcement, then abusers will continually get away with the incorrect form of punishment. I support my hypothesis to an extent at this point, but I feel as though I should have rephrased it differently. After I did more research over domestic violence and over the laws regarding domestic violence , I am beginning to see that there are holes in my hypothesis. I do believe that abusers will continually get away with the incorrect form of punishment, but there are not exactly guidelines for what the punishment should be for the abusers. I realize that this is how all laws are, but domestic violence branches off into many different categories. Domestic violence is physical, …show more content… The law enforcement will look for physical abuse , rather than mental abuse. If an individual attempts to prove they were mentally abused by someone in their household, it may not be taken as seriously just because the court cannot prove it as well. If sexual abuse occurs, it would be put in the category of rape. This is where domestic violence can be a messy topic, which is why my hypothesis has holes in it. I did not specify what the correct form of punishment was because it is not specified in the laws. My question on my survey asked, “Considering mental abuse, sexual abuse, and physical abuse all count as domestic abuse, should one have less of a punishment? Why or why not?” The responses I received for this question is when I began to look into my hypothesis deeper. When I had one respondent say this as their answer, “That is touchy, because they all need some sort of punishment but they all deserve different levels on it in my opinion. As in I feel that someone that is accused of sexual abuse or rape, should get way more punishment than mental abuse, if that makes sense,” that is when I also began to realize all of the holes in my hypothesis. This

Related Documents

Domestic violence on women essay.

Hambrook adds that because of the violence women endure they sometimes have to leave their homes while the men get to stay. She even mentions the danger of domestic violence against children being physically and sexually assaulted by men (¶12). Women do become less fortunate in the battle of domestic violence with having to leave their homes and almost starting life over completely. Women endure disorders like Battered Woman’s Syndrome and PTSD while overcoming economic struggles as a result of IPV. Men also deal with some of the same things.…

Domestic Violence Case Study Essay

Reason Case was accepted for investigation: On 07/28/2017, Hennepin Child Protection accepted a report alleged physical abuse domestic violence of Shea Estey and Sidara Aden by mother’s former boyfriend alleged father of Sidra, Ayahye Aden. Per reporter Sarah was granted an order for protection due to domestic violence involving Ayahye. Per OFP documents, on 6/8/17 Ayahye became angry after Sarah told him to stop watching TV. Per reporter Ayahye then started to pull the TV off of the wall Called Sarah, a “Stupid piece of Shit” and was waving his arm around.…

Feminization Of Poverty In Nickel And Dimed By Barbara Ehrenreich

The feminization of poverty refers to the rate at which women are more likely to be in poverty than men due to various factors such as wage disparities, sexism in the workplace, intimate partner violence, and the prevalence of female-headed single parent families. In Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed, Ehrenreich witnessed the hardships that her working-poor coworkers went through everyday. Ehrenreich noticed that gender-specific work had lower wages than men’s work and that sexism in the workplace put women at the mercy of their bosses whim and to fear possible retaliation if they reported bad behavior. Intimate partner violence is a method for men to control the social and economic well beings of their partners and to steer them toward…

Victims As Offenders Summary

Synopsis In the book Victims as Offenders, Miller exposes the failure of the criminal justice system in protecting victims of domestic violence and urges criminal justice agencies including, the police, courts, and corrections, to rethink its incident-driven nature, pro-arrest and mandatory arrest policies. These policies limit discretion and often leave victims vulnerable to manipulation by their abusers who have found a way to use and manipulate the criminal justice system to their advantage. Miller states arrest of women for assault within intimate relationships have increased drastically by forty percent over the past decade while arrests in men have dropped by one percent. The change in arrests of women for assault raised important questions.…

Domestic Violence In Canada Essay

Impact on Canadians Everyone in Canada is affected by family violence either direct or indirect. Six percent of the Canadian population has dealt with a current or former partner abuse in the previous five years (Stats Canada 2009). This means anyone can have a chance of being a victim of abuse throughout his or her lifespan. It is also common for people to know victims who are dealing with or have dealt with this form of violence. In order to care for these victims, Canadian resources and tax money are directed towards help to these individuals.…

Intimate Partner Violence Essay

Legal interventions have proven not to work in certain instances. Furthermore, the efficacy of the arrest and prosecution in deterring a perpetrator from committing future violence has often been put into question. In some cases, it has prevented the occurrence of violence while in others, it has served to escalate the levels of abuse experienced (Barnett, 2000). Moreover, pressing charges against a batterer is a matter that is fraught with impediments. The process escalates the victim’s powerlessness as he or she has no control over the outcome of the…

Persuasive Essay On Intimate Partner Violence

According to The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. This equates to more than 10 million women and men, per year. Physical abuse is just one aspect of intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV is defined as physical and/or sexual violence, stalking and psychological aggression by a current or former intimate partner (Violence Prevention, 2017). The frequency and severity of IPV can vary dramatically.…

Mandatory Arrest Policies

Domestic Violence: How policies affect? Some people have been questioning the form in which the police department acts or responds to domestic violence. There was one time in which two couples were arguing, the situation was getting worse each day until the fights and physical threats started. The woman was really affected and needed help.…

Essay On Native American Domestic Violence

The first generalization and the most important problem in Native American domestic violence is that family violence is a serious problem in our native communities and this includes abusing a spouse, children, parents, grandparents or elders, cousin, aunts, and uncle. Native Americans have the highest numbers reported of elder, children, and rape abuse by a family member out of any other race because the use drugs and alcohol, and their own mental health issues. This is why our family related domestic violence problems are a serious issue it’s because a lot of our abuse is cause by substance abuse or mental health issues. “Domestic violence is a learned behavior (through observation, experience, reinforcement, culture, family, and community).…

Persuasive Essay On Domestic Violence

The scars you can’t see are the hardest to heal ! This statement proves true for many Americans including, children, women, and men. Domestic violence refers to the acts of barbarity that occur within a relationship be it at home, work, school, anywhere and at any time. It is the exploitation of the human being either physically, sexually, emotionally, or psychologically. The worst threats are the ones in plain sight, and the main problem with domestic violence is that it is a social problem which continues to plague the nation, not a private issue.…

Amber Heard And Johnny Depp Case Study

If you have not heard of the celebrity news between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, it has been all over the media since late May and still persists today. On May 23rd, Heard petitioned to divorce Depp after 15 months of marriage citing “irreconcilable differences”. She asked for spousal support, in which Depp blocked the next day. On May 27th, Heard appears in civil court to request a restraining order against Depp because he allegedly smashed a cell phone into her face on May 21st. Her claim states that he was drunk and had also trashed her paint studio.…

The Social And Exchange Theory Of Domestic Violence

What is Domestic Violence? Domestic Violence is also called intimate partner violence is a serious public health concern because it affects the most important unit of society, which is the family. Unlike other forms of violent crime across social interaction, violence within the household occurs amongst individuals with intimate and trustworthy relationships. The term ‘domestic violence’ is defined as patterns of abuse in a relationship in order to gain or maintain power over the victim.…

Thesis Statement For Domestic Violence

Thesis: Domestic violence his generally defined as violent or aggressive behavior within a home, that typically involves the violent abuse of a spouse or partner (Gosselin, D. K. , 2014). Within society today domestic violence is all around us, sometimes it is visible but other times victims of this abuse fail to report such activities to authorities. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the topic of domestic violence, and the intervention programs that are put in place for the minimization such violence. In addition these programs weaknesses will be addressed, and how they can be made to be more effective.…

Essay On Male Domestic Violence

Domestic violence has been framed to be understood as a women's issue, while men are often overlooked. When we think about domestic violence we think of women who are battered by their husband, boyfriend, or a man they used to involve with. However, every year in the U.S. about 3.2 million men are the victims of an assault by an intimate partner. Most assaults are, though many are more serious and has end in homicide in some cases. About 15% of men are victims of reported intimate partner violence.…

Domestic Violence Between Men And Women Essay

Both men and women suffer greatly from abuse whether it be verbal, emotional, physical or financial abuse. Intimate partner violence is usually referred to as domestic violence, which is a real world problem since the dawn of time. When abuse is spoken of usually the first gender to come into someone’s mind is a female and not a male, but in all reality anyone can be a victim of abuse. Battered men and/or women are beings who feel that they are in danger or are in a life threatening situation and the only two choices are to kill or be killed, their lives are on the line. Their self-defense instincts kick in and they act on it and sometimes that results in the death of the abuser.…

Related Topics

• Domestic violence
• Child abuse
• Psychological abuse
• Physical abuse

Ready To Get Started?

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is the Cycle of Violence?

Brittany is a health and lifestyle writer and former staffer at TODAY on NBC and CBS News. She's also contributed to dozens of magazines.

Akeem Marsh, MD, is a board-certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist who has dedicated his career to working with medically underserved communities.

Justin Case / Getty Images

Why Does Violence Sometimes Repeat Itself?

Risk factors of domestic violence, how to prevent violence.

While abusive behavior can be repetitive, it's important to note that abuse does not always occur in a cyclical pattern. In fact, assuming that violence occurs in cycles can lead to victim-blaming. Abuse can be unpredictable and it is never OK.

Some people who have experienced any type of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse can attest to the fact that the abuse happened in very predictable cycles. In some instances, violence can be repetitive and may have generational roots.

People who experience trauma as children are likely to experience triggers that they don't understand when they become parents. These triggers may cause the parent to repeat old patterns that they are already familiar with.

One study suggested that one reason why children who have been abused are more likely to abuse children of their own when they become parents is because of the way that they've learned to perceive social situations as children. This research says that kids who experience physical abuse are more likely to be biased when processing social situations, even jumping to harsh conclusions when they initially meet people.

People who experienced physical abuse are more likely to doubt the intentions of new people, which can make it difficult to form healthy relationships.

This article looks at the (sometimes) repetitive nature of violence, the factors that predispose people to violence, and ways to prevent abusive or violent behaviors. It also covers important resources for people who are hoping to recover and heal from past trauma.

One study found that exposure to family violence early in life drastically increases the chances of intimate partner violence (IPV) in adulthood.  

Another study even found that children that had experienced abuse were far more likely to be arrested for a non-traffic offense at least once by the age of 32.

In the past, it's been believed that domestic abuse follows a "cycle;" however, as we learn more about abuse and why it happens, we understand that abuse can be unpredictable. The cycle below is listed for informational purposes only and is not reflective of all cases of abuse.

When abuse is described as a cycle, it's often separated into four stages:

• Tension Building: This is when the abuser starts to get angry. The potential victim may try to calm their partner down.
• The Incident: This is the moment when an abusive event happens. Abuse can be physical, emotional, or sexual.
• The "Honeymoon" Period: In this stage, the abuser appears to feel remorse for their actions, and they typically ask for forgiveness or promise not to repeat the behavior. Some abusers will also try to push the blame on their victim during this phase or downplay the severity of the situation.
• The Calm: Abuse is absent during this stage. The person who perpetrated the abuse might pretend the abuse never occurred or will try to show the victim that they really have changed. Sometimes, the victim will feel as though they can trust their partner again.

While violence can happen to anyone from any background, studies have shown that there are a few factors that increase the likelihood of perpetual violence.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also notes that there is a variety of societal, community, and relationship-based risk factors that can increase the likelihood of perpetuating violence. Some of them include:

• Experiencing abuse in childhood
• Substance abuse
• Lower formal education levels
• Dealing with a mental illness
• Social isolation
• Lower family income

Once a history of parental childhood abuse has been found, studies have shown that certain social services, like mental healthcare and child care, can potentially curb the likelihood of repeating abusive behavior.

According to the CDC, the risk of violence decreases when people have high-quality friendships and social support systems, as well as supportive community agencies and neighborhood interactions.

In terms of helping victims of child abuse on a larger scale, the CDC lists a few things that would help to prevent abusive behavior:

• Providing early options for childhood education
• Early childhood home visits
• Behavioral training programs for parents
• Treatment for problem behavior
• Increased financial security in individual households
• Improved licensing and accreditation standards for child care facilities

If you or someone you know has experienced violence in either a relationship or as a child, it's important to seek help. For example, Safe Horizon provides short-term shelter as well as access to counseling services . They also offer multiple community services that can be helpful based on your specific case.

Support groups can be helpful because they can help you find community and feel less alone. They can also provide comfort for those that are also struggling after ending relationships.

If you or a loved one are a victim of domestic violence, contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 for confidential assistance from trained advocates.

For more mental health resources, see our National Helpline Database .

A Word From Verywell

Just because you experienced violence as a child or in a past relationship doesn't mean that you will repeat those patterns. If you are dealing with PTSD or other mental health issues, a therapist will be able to help you address your symptoms and triggers. They can also provide you with healthy coping mechanisms.

Berlin LJ, Appleyard K, Dodge KA. Intergenerational continuity in child maltreatment: mediating mechanisms and implications for prevention .  Child Dev . 2011;82(1):162-176. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01547.x

Chiang L, Howard A, Gleckel J, Ogoti C, Karlsson J, Hynes M, Mwangi M. Cycle of violence among young Kenyan women: The link between childhood violence and adult physical intimate partner violence in a population-based survey . Child Abuse and Neglect . 2018;84:45-52.

Maxfield MG, Widom CS. The Cycle of Violence: Revisited 6 Years Later .  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.  1996;150(4):390–395.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline. Is Abuse Really a "Cycle"? .

Rakovec-Felser Z. Domestic Violence and Abuse in Intimate Relationship from Public Health Perspective .  Health Psychol Res . 2014;2(3):1821. Published 2014 Oct 22. doi:10.4081/hpr.2014.1821

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Risk and Protective Factors for Perpetration . Updated November 2, 2021.

Dixon L, Browne K, Hamilton-Giachritsis C. Risk factors of parents abused as children: a mediational analysis of the intergenerational continuity of child maltreatment (Part I) .  J Child Psychol Psychiatry . 2005;46(1):47-57. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00339.x

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Intimate Partner Violence: Prevention Strategies .

By Brittany Loggins Brittany is a health and lifestyle writer and former staffer at TODAY on NBC and CBS News. She's also contributed to dozens of magazines.

Domestic Violence Hypothesis

As stated in the article the null hypothesis for this article is domestic violence is not the cause for increase death rate of married women. As result the alternative hypothesis is domestic violence is the cause for increase in death rate of married women. Domestic violence is defined as violent or aggressive behavior within the home, typically involving the violent abuse of a spouse or partner. This hypothesis is aimed to study about domestic violence in India with special reference to Chennai. It's also to analyze the existing laws in India to prevent domestic violence . The author behind this hypothesis is looking deeper into domestic violence trying to find conclusions that lead us closer to helping the women involved in domestic violence …show more content…

This is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to protect women from domestic violence. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contains five chapters and thirty-seven sections. This is aimed to protect the women and not intended to penalize the perpetrators of violence. This act defines It defines domestic violence comprehensively – covering physical, psychological, economic and sexual violence. It is applicable on all relations – sister, daughter, wife, mother and live-in relationship. This act recognizes various rights of the victim. This act covers women married or related to the respondent. This act also covers children of the respondent under the age of 18 whether they are step, foster, or adopted …show more content…

The conclusion that the author got from all the results is that domestic violence against women is a problem around the world. It affects women of all races, ethnic groups, classes and nationalities. This can have serious consequences like health effects, injuries, death, sexual and reproductive health, social and economic costs. After the findings, the author has made some suggestions on the subject. Some of the author suggestions include, strengthening women organizations, adopting humanistic approach to victims, changing the criminal justice system, and change in women’s values and their parents

Overview Of Intimate Partner Violence Fatalities: Prevention And Intervention

Not only is the victim at risk of death, but there are direct correlations to child deaths during the admission of the parent homicide and/or as a form of retaliation. Frequently child welfare is involved in

Pa 604 Domestic Violence Data Exploration Paper

PA 604: Domestic Violence Data Exploration Project My research topic for this data exploration project was influenced by reading the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2014 Annual Criminal Victimization Report. From that publication, an intriguing statistic caught my attention and research interest. “The rate of domestic violence, which includes crime committed by intimate partners and family members, remained stable from 2013 to 2014 (4.2 per 1,000). No measurable change was detected from 2013 to 2014 in the rate of intimate partner violence (2.4 per 1,000), which includes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends” (BJS Criminal Victimization, August 2015). I decided to investigate how this statistic was concluded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

Domestic Violence In The 1970's

Home. A place where someone can feel safe, a place where someone will be able to unwind, relax, and relish the rest of their day. On the other hand, home is a place where someone dreads to go, a place where they’re petrified of what their significant other or their family member will do to them next. Routinely, they’re scared to feel the stinging sensation on their cheek, or scared to hear the harsh words spit out of someone’s mouth, or even be forced to do something that they don’t want to do. Women, children and even some men are held prisoners to someone they thought they loved.

Domestic Violence In Jackson Katz's Deceived By Jackson Katz

Jackson Katz’s deficient diction portrays a fallacious idea that the majority of the victims of domestic violence are women with ideas that it’s a “men’s issue, and we are at fault” and “men are broken and need to be leaders, receive leadership training, and not sensitivity training.” Multiple empirical studies conclude that ¼ of all relationships have violence, and nonreciprocal violence in a relationship was more than 70%, initiated by females, and only less than 30%, initiated by male. People say that females are more affected as the statistics show that women get the brunt of the damage, but that 's because men are usually stronger and have the ability to inflict that much damage. From this, we can assume that the stereotype that women are

Domestic Violence In Sociology

Today violence against women is an uncontrollable phenomenon, which is a direct result of the rapid urbanization, industrialization and structural adjustment programs which are changing the socio-economic scenario of our country.   "Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women" (United Nations Declaration1993) Domestic violence has attracted much attention of the sociologists in India since the decades of 1980s. Violence affects the lives of millions of women, worldwide, in all socio- economic and educational classes. It cuts across cultural and religious barriers, threatening the right of women to participate fully in society.

Domestic Violence: Spousal Abuse In The United States

Spousal Abuse People often turn away from issues that do not affect them, but this only lets the issue grow further until there is nothing left to do but deal with it. This could be why domestic violence has been taking place for centuries now. One issue that comes with domestic violence is spousal abuse- a problem that only seems to be getting worse, with ten million victims being beaten by an intimate partner each year (“Domestic Violence”). Although spousal abuse seems to be an ongoing issue in the United States, efforts are being made at both national and local levels to suppress the violence.

Attachment Theory Of Domestic Violence

The various theories that attempt to explain domestic violence have no agreement in common about the underlying causes and factors that contribute towards the development of domestic violence (Chornesky, 2000). A brief description of traditional theoretical explanations for domestic violence will be given. Using attachment theory to examine domestic violence this assignment will attempt to explain why abusive relationships persist in terms of the couple fit. Attachment theory provides an alternative perspective on domestic violence that gives a deeper explanation and enriching previous traditional explanations. This analysis of domestic violence was chosen as it remains an area of interest and development identified from my reflective review.

Feminist Theory Of Domestic Violence

To better understand the cause of intimate violence will help to come up will help come up with a better solution on solving this problem. There are various theories that have come up to explain the main causes of domestic violence, some include; learned helplessness theory, Intergenerational Transmission Theory, Social–Psychological Model and the feminist theory. All of these theories have tried to illustrate the causes of domestic violence. In this paper, I will target my writing on the feminist theory where it emphasizes power and gender inequalities in relationships. The theory focuses on how societal messages that makes it alright for a male to use aggression and violence, and the gender roles that dictate how women and men should act in their relationships

The Pros And Cons Of Domestic Violence

The Good and the Bad Victims of domestic violence are not at fault for the abuse that is inflicted upon them. A lot of people ask why the victim stayed in the first place, but in some cases the answer is not always so simple. According to Why Do Abuse Victims Stay, “We often put ourselves in the place of the victims and imagine ourselves leaving at the first signs of abuse. But breaking free of abuse is not simply a matter of walking out the door. Leaving is a process.”

Sociological Theories Of Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence is often defined as the recurring pattern of behaviour in an intimate relationship that is used in order to control, maintain or gain power over a partner; this includes physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse (Davies 2008, p. 1; Department of social services 2015 & Australian Bureau of statistics 2013). The principal purpose of this essay is to offer a range of sociological explanation that justifies why domestic violence is happening. Social conflict and symbolic interactionism are the two theories that have been explored. The paper argues that micro level analysis offers a deeper understanding of the motivation behind domestic violence, compared to a macro level one. The study also contains recommendations that

Psychodynamic Theory Of Domestic Violence

Many women are experiencing controlling and violent environment which should be about intimacy, love and care. In relation to this social justice issue, domestic violence all these theories can be applied effectively to assist in a practitioner’s work. Psychodynamic is a micro leveled practice involving more individualized work investigating the user’s unconscious behaviors and mental processors. Systems theory focuses on keeping a balanced equilibrium with marriage counselling and other forms of community assistance to help the user adapt to their environment. The critical perspective, feminist theory, works alongside the user in order to help identify social injustices and assists to empower and educate them.

Essay On There Should Be Tougher Law Enforcement To Protect Against Domestic Violence

I strongly believe that there should be tougher law enforcement to protect against domestic violence. No one should experience or be exposed to domestic violence for it; affects family life’ increase the crime rate in countries, and it affects one’s body and mind. Firstly, domestic violence causes a number of effects on family life, it affects how family members relate to one another because they will not feel the appropriate

Social Learning Theory And Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence: Early Exposure to Violence and How Violence Affects Children and Families By: Emily Lopez Texas Woman’s University 03/06/2018 Abstract Domestic Violence is an issue that is prevalent in the United States. Domestic violence can have a tremendous impact on individuals, children and families and last a lifetime. This paper will examine two theories, social learning theory and conflict theory, and will be used to address the issue of domestic violence.

Domestic Violence Problem Solution

Domestic Violence Problem Migdalia Villanueva Kaplan University CJ-333 Domestic violence is a crime that is faced in not only America but other countries across the globe. The overall purpose of this study is to show the impact domestic violence will not only have on the American society but also in other countries, I choose to look at the countries of Canada, Australia, England and Saudi Arabia The first pages of the essay illustrate the problems which have been faced in America because of the high increase in domestic violence rates. As portrayed in the essay, there are several problems which will be similar to the ones which encountered in the different countries that will be mentioned in the essay.

Persuasive Essay On Women Abuse

There are many women who are being forced into sex, beaten or perhaps abused in her lifetime by a person called a man. At some other times, the women are being assaulted by people whom they don’t know, but most frequently they are hurt or abused by people who are close to them. Women abuse occur in all cultures and races, it doesn’t have any boundaries. We have buried a lot of women, of which their death resulted from women abuse issue, some women today have anger and can’t even raise their children properly, they are angry with everyone and some can’t even face the world. Women abuse causes an awful emotional and physical pain; it intimidates the lives of women.

More about Domestic Violence Hypothesis

Related topics.

• Domestic violence
• Child abuse
• Violence against women
• Psychological abuse

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE IN CONTEXT: EXPLORING THE MODERATING ROLES OF NEIGHBORHOOD DISADVANTAGE AND CULTURAL NORMS *

Emily m. wright.

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha

ABIGAIL A. FAGAN

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University

Although the cycle of violence theory has received empirical support ( Widom, 1989a , 1989b ), in reality, not all victims of child physical abuse become involved in violence. Therefore, little is known regarding factors that may moderate the relationship between abuse and subsequent violence, particularly contextual circumstances. The current investigation used longitudinal data from 1,372 youth living in 79 neighborhoods who participated in the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), and it employed a multivariate, multilevel Rasch model to explore the degree to which neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms attenuate or strengthen the abuse–violence relationship. The results indicate that the effect of child physical abuse on violence was weaker in more disadvantaged communities. Neighborhood cultural norms regarding tolerance for youth delinquency and fighting among family and friends did not moderate the child abuse–violence relationship, but each had a direct effect on violence, such that residence in neighborhoods more tolerant of delinquency and fighting increased the propensity for violence. These results suggest that the cycle of violence may be contextualized by neighborhood structural and cultural conditions.

The cycle of violence theory ( Widom, 1989a , 1989b ) purports that violent victimization, particularly physical abuse perpetrated by parents or caregivers, increases the likelihood of subsequent violent behavior among youth. Although some well-conducted, longitudinal studies have supported the cycle of violence ( Mersky and Reynolds, 2007 ; Smith, Ireland, and Thornberry, 2005 ; Widom, 1989b ), not all empirical research has conclusively established significant and/or substantial relationships between child physical abuse and subsequent violence ( Derzon, 2010 ; Zingraff et al., 1993 ), and furthermore, some children seem to be resilient to the negative effects of abuse ( DuMont, Widom, and Czaja, 2007 ). These results suggest that other facets of youths’ lives may moderate the impact of child abuse on later violence.

The current study investigates the possibility that the cycle of violence ( Widom, 1989a , 1989b ) may be contextualized by neighborhood conditions, particularly by disadvantage and cultural norms. The potential for neighborhood characteristics to moderate the relationship between child abuse and subsequent violence has been posited ( Zielinski and Bradshaw, 2006 ) but rarely examined perhaps because of the notion that neighborhood characteristics are ill equipped to influence “private” forms of violence and victimization, particularly those that occur “behind closed doors” ( Gelles, 1983 ; Raudenbush and Sampson, 1999 ). Yet, evidence links neighborhood conditions to the occurrence of both child abuse/neglect ( Coulton et al., 2007 ; Coulton, Korbin, and Su, 1999 ; Molnar et al., 2003 ) and delinquency and violence (e.g., Maimon and Browning, 2010 ; Zimmerman and Messner, 2010 , 2011 ), and several studies have indicated that neighborhood conditions (especially disadvantage) moderate the impact of various risk factors on youth delinquency and violence (e.g., Bellair and McNulty, 2010 ; Gibson, 2012 ; Simons et al., 2005 ). We extend these lines of research to explore the degree to which neighborhood disadvantage and cultural values, such as tolerance for forms of deviance, violence, or victimization ( Sampson and Bartusch, 1998 ; Sampson and Wilson, 1995 ), affect the relationship between child physical abuse and violence.

VIOLENCE BEGETS VIOLENCE

Cathy Widom’s seminal longitudinal research examining the short- and long-term effects of child physical abuse found that victims were significantly more likely than those without officially substantiated records of abuse to be arrested for violent crimes during adolescence and young adulthood ( Maxfield and Widom, 1996 ; Widom, 1989b ). Widom’s work significantly advanced knowledge regarding the impact of child maltreatment and set new methodological standards for victimization research, which had previously tended to use cross-sectional and/or retrospective data, often gathered from children and families in child welfare or criminal justice systems who were likely not representative of the general population ( Fergusson and Lynskey, 1997 ; Widom, 1989a ). Following Widom’s lead, recent studies have relied more heavily on longitudinal data, which can more effectively establish causal relationships between abuse and violence, and on larger, more representative samples. These studies have provided additional evidence for the link between child abuse and subsequent violent behavior, whether relying on official reports (e.g., Mersky and Reynolds, 2007 ; Smith, Ireland, and Thornberry, 2005 ) or when using maternal ( Herrenkohl, Egolf, and Herrenkohl, 1997 ; Herrenkohl et al., 2003 ) or youth reports ( Fagan, 2005 ) of child physical abuse.

Although many studies have supported Widom’s (e.g., Maxfield and Widom, 1996 ; Widom, 1989a , 1989b ) findings regarding the cycle of violence, the strength of the relationship between physical abuse and violence has varied across studies ( Derzon, 2010 ; Maas, Herrenkohl, and Sousa, 2007 ), and a few investigations have failed to show a significant relationship between these constructs ( Smith and Thornberry, 1995 ; Zingraff et al., 1993 ). Widom’s own research has indicated that a substantial proportion of victims seems to be resilient to the negative effects of abuse ( DuMont, Widom, and Czaja, 2007 ). These examples suggest that there may be differences across individuals and/or settings in terms of how individuals respond to child victimization.

Our work builds on this foundation and seeks to extend the cycle of violence literature by examining potential moderators of the child abuse/violence relationship in the neighborhood context, while ensuring that our analyses are methodologically rigorous. In particular, a goal of the current study is to distinguish more clearly the effects of physical abuse from other potential risk factors for violence. Dodge, Bates, and Pettit (1990 : 250) cautioned that studies using official data to identify victims of abuse may “confound the experience of abuse with subsequent actions by these agencies.” That is, such investigations cannot easily differentiate whether it is the experience of abuse that heightens the risk for violence or whether this results from the process of, and consequences that stem from, being officially labeled a victim (e.g., potential separation from caregivers or placement in foster homes). Studies that rely on child ( Fagan, 2005 ) or caregiver ( Herrenkohl, Egolf, and Herrenkohl, 1997 ; Herrenkohl et al., 2003 ) reports of child physical abuse avoid this potential “contamination.” Although official records may be considered more valid, self-reports also have been shown to produce valid and reliable information on child maltreatment ( Smith et al., 2008 ), assuming that respondents are not asked to recall events in the distant past ( Henry et al., 1994 ; Widom 1989a , 1989b ). Our study relies on caregivers to report their use of physical discipline in the year prior to data collection, thus minimizing problems associated with retrospective recall. This information is used to predict violent behavior self-reported by youth; using independent sources to assess abuse and violence further helps to establish the validity of our findings.

Second, empirical research has demonstrated that child abuse does not operate in a vacuum and that abused children are likely to experience many other factors that can increase their potential for delinquency and violence, including low socioeconomic status (SES), criminal parents, poor parenting practices, exposure to delinquent peers, and/or individual risk factors such as impulsivity or low self-control ( Dodge, Bates, and Pettit, 1990 ; Fergusson and Lynskey, 1997 ). Most tests of the cycle of violence theory have controlled for demographic characteristics of children and/or families (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity, and family SES), but fewer have controlled for other psychosocial risk factors known to influence violence (although for exceptions, see Fagan, 2005 ; Herrenkohl et al., 2003 ). Failure to do so risks misspecifying and perhaps overstating the relationship between child physical abuse and subsequent violence. Our data are drawn from a large-scale and comprehensive study of children’s development, thereby allowing the inclusion of a diverse set of control variables and a stringent examination of the relationship between abuse and violence.

Finally, our analyses explore the possibility that the effect of abuse on violence will differ across children and their environments. Although some investigations have examined demographic characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, and family socioeconomic status as potential moderators of the cycle of violence (e.g., Fagan, 2005 ; Mersky and Reynolds, 2007 ), there has been little examination of the potential for neighborhood conditions to impact the relationship between child physical abuse and subsequent violence. We examine this possibility in this study.

NEIGHBORHOOD DISADVANTAGE, CHILD ABUSE, AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

Contextual research has suggested that neighborhoods impact children’s development in direct, indirect, and moderating ways ( Aber et al., 1997 ). We speculate that the relationship between child abuse and violence will be moderated by neighborhood characteristics—that is, that the impact of child abuse on violence will vary according to the neighborhood in which children reside. Although few studies have examined the degree to which neighborhood context moderates the effect of child abuse ( Coulton et al., 2007 ), our hypothesis is based on emerging evidence that neighborhoods condition the relationships between other family violence-related variables, such as family violence and the perpetration of child maltreatment ( Coulton, Korbin, and Su, 1999 ), maltreatment and aggression ( Schuck and Widom, 2005 ; Yonas et al., 2010 ), and race and child abuse ( Molnar et al., 2003 ). Only one study that we are aware of has explored the moderating impact of neighborhood disadvantage on the relationship between child abuse and violence ( Schuck and Widom, 2005 ). Schuck and Widom (2005) examined the long-term impact of officially substantiated child abuse and neglect on adult criminal offending. This study found that not only were abused and neglected children more likely to be arrested later in life than nonmal-treated children (consistent with the expectations of the cycle of violence), but also the relationship between child abuse/neglect and adult criminal arrests was slightly ( p < .10) stronger in areas of higher concentrated disadvantage, controlling for victims’ gender, race, and age. 1 Additional analyses that examined relationships according to the type of maltreatment experienced indicated that neglect was a stronger risk factor for later criminal offending among children who grew up in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The effect of child physical abuse, however, was not moderated by neighborhood disadvantage. This study provided some evidence that neighborhood disadvantage may moderate the relationship between child maltreatment and offending, although it did not examine violent behavior in particular, focused on adult offenders (who were on average 32 years of age), and measured maltreatment and offending using official statistics, which likely reflect individuals experiencing more extreme forms of maltreatment or who are involved in more frequent and/or serious criminal behavior. The degree to which neighborhood context moderates the effects of physical abuse on violence among adolescents has not, to our knowledge, yet been examined.

Although Schuck and Widom (2005) found that the effect of maltreatment (primarily neglect) on adult offending was amplified in more disadvantaged neighborhoods, in the broader literature examining neighborhood moderation on a variety of individual-level relationships, some studies also have indicated that disadvantage makes bad situations worse (e.g., Beaver et al., 2012 ; Schuck and Widom, 2005 ), whereas others have suggested that disadvantage mitigates the effects of certain risk factors ( Coulton, Korbin, and Su, 1999 ; Gibson, 2012 ; Zimmerman and Messner, 2011 ). Similar to Schuck and Widom’s (2005) results, Brody and colleagues (2003) found that poor parenting practices had stronger effects on delinquency in high-poverty neighborhoods, and Simons et al. (2005) reported that the effect of positive parenting practices on delinquency were weaker in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Neighborhood disadvantage has even been found to moderate the effect of genes on behavior: Beaver et al. (2012) reported that the effects of certain genetic risk factors on aggression were stronger in disadvantaged areas.

Alternatively, some scholars have reported contradictory findings regarding the negative impact of disadvantage. Coulton, Korbin, and Su (1999) examined parents’ potential for child maltreatment in Cleveland and found that the relationship between parents who reported experiencing violence as children and their own potential for child maltreatment was weaker in poorer neighborhoods, whereas the relationship was strongest in the most affluent neighborhoods. Gibson (2012) reported that low self-control increased victimization among adolescents in a Chicago sample, and this relationship was attenuated in disadvantaged areas and exacerbated in more affluent areas. Finally, Zimmerman and Messner (2011) found similar moderating effects between disadvantage and delinquent peers on adolescent violence: As neighborhood disadvantage increased, the negative impact of delinquent peers on violence decreased.

Because the findings to date regarding the moderating effects of neighborhood disadvantage on various individual-level relationships are mixed, many scholars maintain that the precise mechanism(s) by which neighborhood disadvantage may influence outcomes are still unknown (e.g., Schuck and Widom, 2005 ; Zielinski and Bradshaw, 2006 ). Many suggestions have been put forth, however. Zimmerman and Messner (2011) referred to “saturation effects” associated with highly disadvantaged areas and hypothesized that the impact of violent peers (or, by extension, any other risk factor) on youth violence is weaker in these communities because exposure to the risk factor is much more likely to occur. In areas with lower levels of risk, the impact would be felt more strongly because such influences are not as plentiful or redundant with their own experiences. In a somewhat similar vein, Gibson (2012) discussed the “social push” hypothesis ( Raine, 2002 ) as a potential explanation of his findings. The social push hypothesis suggests that within neighborhoods experiencing multiple risk factors (such as disadvantage and abuse), the effect of any one risk factor is diluted ( Raine, 2002 ).

Others (e.g., Coulton et al., 2007 ; Stewart, Simons, and Conger, 2002 ) have suggested that the norms in the neighborhood, especially highly disadvantaged and violent neighborhoods, play an important role in linking neighborhood characteristics to child and youth outcomes. For instance, Stewart, Simons, and Conger (2002 : 820) suggested that children in violent disadvantaged neighborhoods may “become desensitized to the pervasive neighborhood violence they witness” and that by being exposed to high rates of violence, they “may be more likely to normalize it or become desensitized to it.” We believe this perspective indicates a potential for neighborhood cultural norms to moderate the effect of child abuse on violence; yet no study that we are aware of has explored this possibility, and it is therefore unknown whether (or how) neighborhood norms are related to the child abuse–violence relationship. We examine this relationship in the current study.

THE MODERATING ROLES OF DISADVANTAGE, CULTURAL NORMS, AND TOLERANCE FOR DEVIANCE

It is possible that neighborhood disadvantage may moderate the relationship between child abuse and later violence in part because of neighborhood cultural norms or cognitive landscapes ( Sampson and Wilson, 1995 ). We suspect that these norms, if tolerant of child abuse, fighting between family members or with friends, or deviance/delinquency in general, may exacerbate the effect of child abuse on subsequent violence, particularly if they send a message to youth that 1) neighbors are unwilling to intervene to stop the abuse or to provide support to victims of child abuse or 2) certain acts and behaviors, such as child abuse (see, e.g., Korbin et al., 2000 ) or violence, are not wholly unacceptable, at least under certain situations or contexts (e.g., as adaptations; for instance, see Anderson, 1999 ; Kirk and Papachristos, 2011 ). Alternatively, neighborhood cultural norms regarding violence and fighting with others, including family members, might mitigate the effect of child abuse on youth violence by conveying less condemnation of such behavior and/or desensitizing (e.g., Stewart, Simons, and Conger, 2002 ) or “saturating” (e.g., Zimmerman and Messner, 2011 ) youth to abuse. We expand on these possibilities in the subsequent discussion.

First, neighborhood disadvantage may foster a culture that tolerates violence that occurs within familial relationships and may make it less likely that neighbors will step in to stop such violence. In this manner, disadvantaged neighborhoods with attenuated mainstream values ( Kornhauser, 1978 ; Warner, 2003 ) may foster cognitive landscapes ( Sampson and Wilson, 1995 ), whereby residents view violence within families as somewhat acceptable under some conditions, normative, and/or a private matter (e.g., Sampson and Bartusch, 1998 ; Sampson and Bean, 2006 ; Sampson and Wilson, 1995 ). For instance, some parents in these neighborhoods may believe that overly restrictive and punitive discipline strategies are necessary to keep children safe and may even help “toughen them up” so they are better prepared for the violent interactions they are likely to face on the streets ( Furstenberg et al., 1999 ; Ness, 2004 ). At the same time, some residents may be ambivalent about violence within the family (e.g., Berg et al., 2012 ; Harding, 2007 ), and others may fiercely condemn such behavior. The multitude of different value systems that exist in disadvantaged communities may expose residents to a variety of different viewpoints on familial violence and potentially can increase the likelihood that they become more tolerant of a variety of acts ( Berg et al., 2012 ; Harding, 2007 ). The overall effect may be that neighborhood residents who are available to intervene may be less willing to get involved (e.g., “none of my business”; see also Kirk and Papachristos, 2011 ). If residents are more tolerant of violence in general and within families, and are less apt to take action to stop violence, then the social mores that work to control such behavior may be weakened, essentially “freeing” people to behave more aggressively ( Hirschi, 1969 ; Sykes and Matza, 1957 ).

Relevant to the current study, when norms are more tolerant of family violence and neighbors are less willing to intervene, the potential for child abuse to increase children’s perpetration of violence may be heightened. Children in these areas are likely to receive lower levels of social support from adult residents, and thus, they may be more harmed by the stressors of abuse ( Agnew, 2006 ). In addition, children in these neighborhoods are more likely to be exposed to attitudes favorable to violence ( Stewart and Simons, 2006 ); as a result, they may be more likely to perpetrate violent behaviors themselves.

Alternatively, neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms may mitigate or weaken the relationship between child abuse and violence. Research has indicated that disadvantaged areas have higher rates of child abuse and maltreatment ( Coulton et al., 2007 ; Coulton, Korbin, and Su, 1999 ; Molnar et al., 2003 ), and that residents in these areas are more likely than residents living in suburban areas to be investigated for child maltreatment ( Coulton et al., 2007 ) and to hold different views about why child abuse occurs ( Korbin et al., 2000 ) or how to respond to it (e.g., regarding formal or informal responses; Kirk and Papachristos, 2011 ). It is therefore plausible that within disadvantaged neighborhoods, child abuse may be considered more typical or commonplace. If child abuse occurs more often in disadvantaged areas, and if residents in such areas have greater acceptability of various views regarding family violence ( Berg et al., 2012 ), then these behaviors are more likely to be “normalized” ( Anderson, 1999 ; Stewart, Simons, and Conger, 2002 ). In turn, the effects of being a victim may be less severe. For example, youth in these areas may be more likely to have either experienced abuse or received harsh/severe physical discipline from their parents, or to know others who have experienced these things, and may therefore be less likely to view such behaviors as aberrant or “abusive.” Stewart, Simons, and Conger (2002) suggested that youth in disadvantaged neighborhoods may become “desensitized” to the violence and victimization that surrounds them, and we suggest that this desensitization may reduce the negative impact of child abuse on victims’ later violence.

To summarize, the literature has demonstrated that child abuse can lead to violence ( Widom, 1989a , 1989b ), but moderating factors might influence this relationship. Neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms regarding the acceptability of deviance and/or the use of aggression within families or close groups could each moderate the effects of child abuse on violence, but very few studies have examined the potential for these contextual variables to do so. Building from and integrating these lines of research, we investigate the relationship among neighborhood disadvantage, cultural norms, child physical abuse, and violence. We examine three research questions: 1) What is the main effect of child abuse on later violence, controlling for other relevant risk factors for adolescent violence; 2) if the relationship between child abuse and violence varies across neighborhoods, is this relationship conditioned by neighborhood disadvantage; and 3) if the relationship between child abuse and violence varies across neighborhoods, is this relationship moderated by neighborhood tolerance for deviance and tolerance for fighting between family members and friends, controlling for neighborhood disadvantage?

This study used data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN; Earls et al., 2002 ). The PHDCN collected data from 343 neighborhood clusters (NCs) in Chicago. The NCs were derived from 847 contiguous census tracts in the city. Each NC comprises approximately 8,000 residents. From these NCs, data for the PHDCN were collected in several different components—we used data from the Community Survey, the Longitudinal Cohort Study, and the 1990 U.S. Census in the current study.

Individual-level measures were created from data collected during the first and second waves of the Longitudinal Cohort Study (LCS), between 1994 and 1997 and between 1997 and 2000, respectively. The 343 NCs described earlier were grouped by seven categories of racial/ethnic composition (e.g., 75 percent or more African American) and three levels of socioeconomic status (e.g., high, medium, and low); from these 21 strata, 80 NCs were selected via stratified probability sampling from which respondents were sampled for the LCS. In the first wave, 6,226 children, adolescents, and young adults 0 to 18 years of age living in these 80 NCs were surveyed, along with their primary caregivers, most of whom (93.2 percent) were females.

The data for neighborhood disadvantage were abstracted from the 1990 U.S. Census. Recall that each neighborhood cluster comprised several contiguous census tracts. Census tract information was matched with corresponding neighborhood clusters, and census-derived information for each NC was calculated to measure the structural disadvantage of the 80 NCs. The matching process was conducted by staff at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research to ensure the confidentiality of the subjects of the PHDCN.

The neighborhood measures of tolerance for deviance and tolerance for fighting among family and friends were derived from the Community Survey portion of the PHDCN. The Community Survey took place between 1994 and 1995, and it surveyed a sample of residents from all 343 NCs. The residents were asked questions regarding their neighborhood’s political and organizational groups, cultural values, and social networks, among other topics. The Community Survey followed a three-stage sampling design where city blocks were sampled within each NC, dwelling units were then sampled within blocks, and one adult resident was sampled within each dwelling unit. This study relies on data only from the 80 neighborhood clusters in which the individual respondents from the LCS were nested.

Given our focus on child abuse and later adolescent violence, the current study includes respondents from three cohorts of youth (9, 12, and 15 years of age at wave I, n = 1,372) and their caregivers. Table 1 describes the measures used in this study.

Sample Means and Standard Deviations a

Source : Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, waves I and II.

Dependent Variable

The violence measures were taken from the Self-Report Delinquency Questionnaire ( Huizinga, Esbensen, and Weiher, 1991 ) and were self-reported by the youth subjects. At waves I and II, youth were asked to report whether in the past year they had committed each of seven violent acts: throwing objects at someone, hitting someone, hitting someone you live with, carrying a weapon, attacking with a weapon, being involved in a gang fight, and committing robbery. Our analysis focuses on whether a youth engaged in any of these violent behaviors at wave II. To predict the odds of engaging in each violent behavior, we used a multivariate, multilevel Rasch model ( Raudenbush, Johnson, and Sampson, 2003 ). The three-level model nests violent item responses within persons within neighborhoods. The level 1 model (items within persons) produces a latent variable that represents each person’s propensity for violence (i.e., their likelihood of engaging in various violent behaviors). This continuous variable is assumed to be normally distributed on a logit metric and is the outcome variable for the level 2 (person-level) and level 3 (neighborhood-level) models ( Osgood, McMorris, and Potenza, 2002 ).

Child Physical Abuse

Child physical abuse was assessed with the Conflict Tactics Scale for Parent and Child and reflected whether the parent reported using any of four serious forms of physical abuse against the youth (kicked, bit, or hit child with fist; hit child with something; beat child up; or burned or scalded child) during the past year (coded no = 0, yes = 1). 2

Control Variables

Multiple control variables were included in the analysis to account for other possible predictors of youth violence. Adolescents reported on their age, demographic information, prior violence, and friends’ delinquency. Male indicated that the youth was male (no = 0, yes = 1). Age was the youth’s age in years. Hispanic and African American were dichotomous variables denoting the race/ethnicity of the participant, with Caucasians (non-Latino Whites) serving as the reference category. Peer delinquency was based on child reports of the number of friends who engaged in 11 delinquent acts (alpha = .82), including vandalism, stealing, breaking and entering, car theft, fighting, robbery, selling drugs, and so on. Youth responded to each item using a four-point scale (1 = none, 2 = some of them, 3 = most of them, and 4 = all), and responses were summed across the 11 items. Youths’ own prior violence was a dichotomous variable indicating reports of any violence, based on seven items (throwing objects at someone, hitting someone, hitting someone you live with, carrying a weapon, attacking with a weapon, being involved in a gang fight, or committing robbery; alpha = .66) assessed at wave I.

Responses from the primary caregiver or interviewer impressions were used to measure four additional variables, all taken at wave I: youth self-control, parental warmth, family socioeconomic status, and parental criminality. Following Gibson et al. (2010) , youth’s low self-control was measured according to 17 items (alpha = .75) reported by parents on the Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impulsivity Temperament survey ( Buss and Plomin, 1975 ). Parents were asked to report on a five-point Likert scale how characteristic each attitude or behavior was for their child, with items relating to inhibitory control (e.g., “has trouble resisting temptation”), decision time (e.g., “often acts on the spur of the moment”), sensation seeking (e.g., “will try anything once”), and persistence (e.g., “tends to give up easily”). Responses were summed across items and scored such that higher values indicate lower levels of self-control. Parental warmth toward the youth reflects the number of acts displayed by parents toward children, as observed by trained PHDCN staff conducting in-home interviews, who rated the occurrence of each of nine behaviors (alpha = .76; e.g., praise, encouragement, and affection offered to children from parents) using a dichotomous rating scale (not observed = 0, observed = 1). Family SES was a factor score based on parent education, employment, and income (alpha = .58). Parental criminality was a dichotomous variable (no = 0, yes = 1) indicating that either biological parent of the child had had “trouble with the police or been arrested.”

Neighborhood Variables

A measure of concentrated disadvantage was created through principal components factor analysis of the neighborhood cluster census data described earlier. Concentrated disadvantage included the percentage of residents in a neighborhood cluster who were below the poverty line, receiving public assistance, and unemployed (alpha = .81) (e.g., Cerda et al., 2008 ; Molnar et al., 2008 ).

We use two measures to assess the cultural context of neighborhoods. The first measure reflects neighborhood attitudes regarding deviance in general, whereas the second assesses neighborhood attitudes toward violence among family and friends specifically. Regarding deviance in general, we followed the procedures used in previous analyses of the PHDCN data (e.g., Raudenbush and Sampson, 1999 ; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997 ; Wright and Benson, 2010 ), and we used a three-level item response model to create a tolerance for deviance scale. This scale measured neighborhood residents’ attitudes about the wrongfulness of drinking, drug use, and fighting among teenagers. Residents were asked how wrong they considered it to be for 13- to 19-year-olds to smoke cigarettes, use marijuana, drink alcohol, and get into fist fights (neighborhood internal consistency reliability = .511; see Raudenbush and Sampson [1999] for more details regarding item response scale reliabilities across aggregates). Responses were originally given from one to five on a Likert-type scale ranging from “extremely wrong” to “not wrong at all.” Because of the skew in responses, the answers to each item were subsequently dichotomized; categories of “not wrong at all” and “a little wrong” were combined and coded as 1, whereas “wrong,” “very wrong,” and “extremely wrong” were combined and coded as 0. As such, the tolerance for deviance measure for the item response model indicates the degree to which neighborhoods tolerated deviance. Although these forms of deviance may seem far removed from child physical abuse, we include them in our models for methodological and theoretical reasons. First, this measure has been used in prior research on race/ethnicity and street violence ( Sampson and Bartusch, 1998 ), as well as on other forms of familial violence ( Wright and Benson, 2010 ), with the PHDCN data. Second, we theorize that because tolerance of minor forms of deviance often is associated with more serious forms of crime ( Kelling and Coles, 1996 ), neighborhoods that do tolerate these minor forms of deviance also may tolerate more serious forms of interpersonal or family violence, including child abuse. Finally, it also is likely, but largely untested, that residence in such environments will moderate the likelihood that children who are physically abused will become violent themselves because either the child abuse or the violence is viewed as more normative behavior.

Finally, as a measure of neighborhood culture more directly related to our focus on the negative consequences of family violence, we drew on one item from the Community Survey in which respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with the statement that “fighting between friends or within families is nobody else’s business.” The five response categories ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Responses were dichotomized to create the tolerance for fighting among family and friends measure, which indicates the proportion of residents in a neighborhood cluster who either agreed or strongly agreed (coded as 1) with the statement. In the current study, 32 percent of residents agreed or strongly agreed that fighting between friends or family was nobody else’s business. We theorize that neighborhoods in which fighting among family members and friends is viewed as a private matter create more opportunities for and acceptance of family violence, including child abuse, and that this level of support will condition the likelihood that victims of abuse will subsequently engage in violence themselves.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Following Raudenbush, Johnson, and Sampson (2003) ; Sampson, Morenoff, and Raudenbush (2005) ; and Zimmerman and Messner (2010 , 2011 ), we employ a multilevel logistic regression model to predict the odds that a respondent living in a given neighborhood will engage in a specific violent offense. This approach allows us to use all 9,593 responses to the wave II violence items provided by all 1,372 participants living in 79 neighborhoods in our sample. 3 Thus, our analytic technique includes any subject who responded to at least one violence item asked at wave II. This technique effectively avoids the loss of data from missing item responses ( Osgood, McMorris, and Potenza, 2002 ). This modeling technique also is beneficial in that it takes item difficulty into account (i.e., that some violent behaviors are more serious and thus less prevalent than others) and allows simultaneous estimation of the impact of individual-, family-, and neighborhood-level influences on the likelihood of violence ( Sampson, Morenoff, and Raudenbush, 2005 ).

The multivariate, multilevel Rasch model is a three-level model in which dichotomous violence items are nested within persons who are nested within neighborhoods ( Raudenbush, Johnson, and Sampson, 2003 ). The level 1 outcome is the log-odds of responding affirmatively to item i of m – 1 violence items, by j person, living in k neighborhood, and it has been referred to as an individual’s “criminal propensity” ( Zimmerman and Messner, 2010 , 2011 ), or as “propensity for violence” in the current analyses. This variable locates item severities on the logit scale ( Raudenbush, Johnson, and Sampson, 2003 ). Thus, the level 1 model adjusts the within-person propensity for violence by item severity, missing data, and measurement error. The level 1 intercept serves as the outcome for the level 2 and level 3 models and is assumed to be normally distributed on a logit scale.

The level 2 model examines the effects of person-level correlates (e.g., age, gender, and child physical abuse) on the level 1 intercept (propensity for violence), while controlling for item severities at level 1. All person-level effects were grand mean centered. The effects of all covariates were assumed to be fixed across neighborhoods, except for the effect of child abuse, which varied across neighborhoods ( p < .05), permitting the examination of the cross-level interactions.

The level 3 model allows for estimation of the propensity for violence across neighborhood clusters. The level 3 intercepts-as-outcomes model examines the effects of neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and cultural norms on the level 2 intercept (i.e., the propensity for violence, controlling for person-level correlates at level 2 and item severities at level 1). The level 3 slopes-and-intercepts-as-outcomes model allows for examination of the cross-level interaction between neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and cultural norms and the level 2 relationship between child physical abuse and propensity for violence.

Tables 2 and ​ and3 3 present the results of our three research questions. The results shown in table 2 are based on models that control only for demographic background characteristics (age, race, gender, and family SES) at the individual level. We use these models to be consistent with and allow a comparison of our findings with most previous examinations of the cycle of violence (e.g., Schuck and Widom, 2005 ). Because abused children may be at increased risk for exposure to other risk factors known to increase violence (e.g., criminal parents, exposure to delinquent peers, and/or individual risk factors such as impulsivity or low self-control; see Dodge, Bates, and Pettit, 1990 ; Fergusson and Lynskey, 1997 ), it also is important to control for such experiences. Doing so helps to ensure that the impact of child abuse on violence is not overstated or misspecified. We examine the impact of abuse on violence controlling for a range of psychosocial risk factors, as well as for demographic characteristics, in the “fully specified” models shown in table 3 .

Direct Effects of Child Abuse and Neighborhood Characteristics on Violence Propensity, and Cross-level Interactions Between Neighborhood Characteristics and Child Abuse—Propensity for Violence Relationship, Demographic Models a

Direct Effects of Child Abuse and Neighborhood Characteristics on Violence Propensity, and Cross-level Interactions Between Neighborhood Characteristics and Child Abuse—Propensity for Violence Relationship, Fully Specified Models a

Model 1 in table 2 depicts the main effect of child abuse on violence controlling for concentrated disadvantage and individual-level background characteristics. Consistent with many previous examinations of the cycle of violence (e.g., Schuck and Widom, 2005 ), the results demonstrate that child abuse increased youths’ subsequent violence (.29, p ≤ .05). Additionally, males, older youth, and African American youth reported significantly more violence than females, younger youth, and non-Latino Whites.

The effect of child abuse on the propensity for violence did significantly vary across neighborhoods ( p ≤ .05), both in models controlling only for demographic characteristics and in the fully specified models, meaning that in some neighborhoods, the influence of child abuse on violence seemed to be stronger, whereas its influence was weaker in other neighborhoods. The purpose of the cross-level interactions, provided in the top halves of tables 2 and ​ and3, 3 , is to explain this variation and to determine whether neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms moderated the effect of child physical abuse on violence.

Model 1 in table 2 also displays the cross-level interaction of concentrated disadvantage on the relationship between child abuse and violence, as well as the direct effect of disadvantage, whereas models 2 and 3 add the tolerance measures. The results indicate that the direct effect of disadvantage on adolescent propensity for violence (bottom section of table 2 ) was largely not significant, except in model 3, where it reached a marginally significant level (.12, p ≤ .10). 4 In model 1, the cross-level interaction term was significant (−.27, p ≤ .05) and indicated that concentrated disadvantage significantly reduced the effect of child abuse on subsequent violence. The direction of this effect suggested that the relationship between child abuse and the likelihood of youth violence became weaker as neighborhood disadvantage increased. The moderating effect of disadvantage continued to be significant and negative in models including tolerance for deviance (−.30, p ≤ .05; model 2) and tolerance for fighting among family and friends (−.31, p ≤ .05; model 3).

Models 2 and 3 demonstrate that cultural norms maintained direct effects on youth violence, with norms tolerant of delinquency in general (.68, p ≤ .01) and for fighting specifically within intimate groups (1.74, p ≤ .01) significantly increasing youth subsequent violence. Yet, these norms did not moderate the relationship between child abuse and violence, as did disadvantage.

The results of the “fully specified” models shown in table 3 demonstrate the importance of controlling for additional risk factors for violence. The effect of child abuse on violence became nonsignificant when controlling for youths’ prior violence, peer delinquency, low self-control, parental criminality, and parental warmth, many of which were related to children’s propensity for violence. As shown in model 1, although child abuse had no effect on later violence, males, older youth, African American youth, those with lower self-control, those with more friends who had been delinquent, and those who had previously engaged in violence were significantly more likely to engage in violent behavior. These findings did not change substantively when various neighborhood-level variables were entered into models 2, 3, or 4.

That child abuse was not significantly related to the propensity for violence 3 years later was somewhat surprising given prior support for the cycle of violence theory in longitudinal investigations ( Schuck and Widom, 2005 ; Smith and Thornberry, 1995 ; Widom, 1989b ). However, our analyses, particularly those shown in table 3 , are based on a rigorous test of the cycle of violence theory compared with some prior research. First, as mentioned, some of these studies have included only demographic controls (e.g., Schuck and Widom, 2005 ; Smith and Thornberry, 1995 ; Widom, 1989a , 1989b ) and have not controlled for other known predictors of violence. Additionally, many tests of the cycle of violence have used official data to assess maltreatment and/or offending ( Mersky and Reynolds, 2007 ; Schuck and Widom, 2005 ; Widom, 1989b ), which may reflect only the most serious cases and, by extension, children most likely to become involved in violence ( Dodge, Bates, and Pettit, 1990 ). Our study, in contrast, relied on maternal self-reports of physical abuse, which were not substantiated or officially reported, and youth self-reports of violence. Given that our study includes a range of control variables, relies on measures that potentially include a greater range of violence that occurs but is not subject to official intervention, and uses independent sources of data to measure independent and dependent variables, we avoid the potential to inflate the strength of the relationship between child abuse and violence.

Model 2 in table 3 presents the direct effect of neighborhood disadvantage on youths’ propensity for violence, as well as its moderating effect on the relationship between child physical abuse and the propensity for violence. Once more, disadvantage was not significantly related to the propensity for violence. These results again differ from the findings of Schuck and Widom (2005) , who reported that neighborhood disadvantage predicted higher arrest rates among adults. It is worth reiterating that they examined official arrest records of adults, whereas we relied on self-reports of youth violence, and it may be that disadvantage increases the likelihood of arrest, but not necessarily offending in general, or that disadvantage does not have a direct impact on violence during adolescence. In fact, our null findings in this regard are consistent with previous and more recent evidence that also has failed to find significant, direct effects of neighborhood disadvantage on self-reported youth violence (e.g., Maimon and Browning, 2010 ; Zimmerman and Messner, 2011 ).

More interesting, however, are the results of the cross-level interaction between disadvantage and the relationship between child abuse and violence in the fully specified models. The cross-level interaction was marginally significant (−.25, p ≤ .10) and indicated that concentrated disadvantage somewhat reduced the effect of child abuse on subsequent violence. Although weaker in terms of statistical significance (most likely because of the additional individual-level controls), the direction of this effect was similar to that found in table 2 and suggested that the relationship between child abuse and violence became weaker as neighborhood disadvantage increased. Figure 1 depicts the cross-level interaction shown in model 2 of table 3 . As shown, the relationship between child abuse and violence was steep and positive in neighborhoods characterized by low (1 standard deviation below the mean) disadvantage, indicating that child abuse strongly increased later violence when experienced in such neighborhoods. The relationship between child abuse and violence became weaker (as indicated by the flattening slope) as the level of disadvantage within neighborhoods increased. Finally, in highly (1 standard deviation above the mean) disadvantaged neighborhoods, the slope of child physical abuse and violence tilted in the negative direction, signifying that disadvantage weakened the relationship between childhood abuse and later violence.

The Relationship Between Child Abuse and Propensity for Violence by Neighborhood Level of Structural Disadvantage

We conducted several additional analyses (not shown) to confirm the robustness of the finding that concentrated disadvantage alleviated the effect of child abuse on violence. These results indicated that the cross-level interaction of disadvantage was not dependent on having tolerance measures, prior violence, and/or peer delinquency in the models, nor was it dependent on using certain codings of child abuse and measures of cultural norms. Specifically, the cross-level interaction was statistically significant (at p ≤ .05) when prior violence was excluded from the fully specified models (in models that included and excluded tolerance measures). When peer delinquency was excluded from the fully specified models and tolerance measures were included, the interaction term also remained statistically significant (at p ≤ .05) and became marginally significant ( p ≤.10) when peer delinquency was dropped from the analysis. Furthermore, the interaction term was negative and marginally significant ( p ≤ .10) in models where a count variable was used to measure child abuse and when a continuous measure was used to represent tolerance. 5 Because similar patterns of findings were demonstrated across all of these analyses, we believe that the interactions presented in tables 2 and ​ and3 3 are robust and reliable.

Model 3 in table 3 adds tolerance for deviance as a neighborhood predictor. Tolerance for deviance maintained a significant direct effect on youth violence at wave II (.57, p ≤ .01) controlling for a variety of individual-level influences, suggesting that, in general, areas of higher tolerance for general delinquency (i.e., substance use and fighting) experienced a higher propensity for youth violence. This variable did not significantly alter the relationship between child abuse and violence, though, as indicated by the nonsignificant cross-level interaction term. However, when this interaction term was included, the coefficient representing the cross-level interaction for disadvantage became stronger in terms of statistical significance (moving from p ≤ .10 to p ≤ .05).

Similar results were found in model 4 when neighborhood tolerance for family violence was added to the analysis. Like the direct effect of tolerance for deviance, tolerance for violence within families and friends significantly increased the likelihood of youth violence; higher levels of tolerance for this violence predicted higher rates of adolescent violence (1.47, p ≤ .01; see model 4). Furthermore, the cross-level interaction term indicated that tolerance for violence among family and friends did not significantly impact variation in the effect of child physical abuse on violence across neighborhoods, but its addition to the model did enhance the moderating effect of concentrated disadvantage on this relationship. As in model 3, the results showed that disadvantage significantly (−.29, p ≤ .05) reduced the effect of child abuse on subsequent violence once tolerance for violence among family and friends was included. Taken together, the results from the cross-level interactions presented in tables 2 and ​ and3 3 suggest that concentrated disadvantage reduced the impact of child abuse on subsequent youth violence, but this effect was strengthened (to the p ≤ .05 level in the fully specified models) when cultural norms that condone the use of violence generally (tolerance for deviance) as well as within families and intimate groups specifically (tolerance for fighting among family and friends) were included. That the moderating effect of concentrated disadvantage was strengthened (to the p ≤ .05 level) when cultural norms were included suggests a potential suppression effect. These findings may indicate that the effect of child abuse on subsequent youth violence was weaker in disadvantaged areas that also were more tolerant of deviance.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Although some scholars have speculated about the various mechanisms by which neighborhoods moderate individual-level relationships, few studies have specifically examined these complex phenomena. Our study sought to advance this literature and extend the cycle of violence theory by exploring whether neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms moderated the impact of child abuse on subsequent violence. Our results suggest that the cycle of violence may be contextualized by neighborhood conditions, especially structural disadvantage. Furthermore, the effect of neighborhood disadvantage may be particularly salient when paired with cultural norms that are more tolerant of deviant behaviors and fighting among intimate social groups.

The first goal of our study was to test the cycle of violence theory using a methodologically rigorous approach, which relied on independent sources of information to assess key constructs, and it involved an ethnically diverse, representative sample of children living in Chicago. Our results indicated that controlling only for demographic/background characteristics, child abuse predicted subsequent self-reported violence among adolescents. Whereas this is consistent with prior evidence regarding the cycle of violence (e.g., Schuck and Widom, 2005 ; Widom, 1989a , 1989b ), we also found that this effect was diluted to nonsignificance once additional important controls were added. Therefore, although child abuse is a salient risk factor for problem behavior among youth, it is important to consider other—perhaps more proximate—risk factors (e.g., peer delinquency) when assessing this relationship, so as not to overstate the impact of child abuse.

We next explored the direct and moderating effects of disadvantage, and our results add to a growing body of recent research that suggests that although the direct impact of neighborhoods may be weak, the indirect or moderating effects may be more pronounced. To illustrate, we found that disadvantage consistently, across multiple models including a variety of individual-level control variables and neighborhood cultural norms, failed to impact youth violence directly; yet it weakened the effect of child abuse on subsequent violence. These moderating effects are consistent with recent studies that have shown that neighborhood disadvantage reduces the strength of other individual-level relationships ( Gibson, 2012 ; Zimmerman and Messner, 2011 ). Nonetheless, the findings were somewhat surprising given that we posited that the effect of child abuse could be exacerbated in disadvantaged areas, as it would add to the pool of risk factors that youth were already exposed to within their neighborhood. Furthermore, some prior research has supported this perspective and has shown that risk factors can be more salient when experienced in combination with neighborhood structural disadvantage (e.g., Beaver et al., 2012 ; Brody et al., 2003 ; Schuck and Widom, 2005 ). Our results suggest otherwise, and we speculate as to why this may be so.

Our final aim was to explore the degree to which cultural norms tolerant of deviance and violence among family or friends impacted youths’ propensity for violence directly and whether they moderated the effect of child abuse on their propensity for violence, controlling for structural disadvantage. The results of these analyses showed that neighborhood cultural norms that were more tolerant of deviance in general, as well as violence within families and friendship groups, significantly increased the likelihood that youths engaged in violent behaviors. Relatively few studies have examined the impact of cultural norms on adolescent violence (for exceptions, see Berg et al., 2012 ; Kirk and Matsuda, 2011 ), and our study adds to and supports the findings in this area by demonstrating that community norms can influence adolescent behavior. Although the direct effects of cultural norms on violence were significant, their moderating effects on the relationship between child abuse and subsequent propensity for violence were not. Additionally, they did not mediate the effect of disadvantage, as have some other neighborhood social constructs (e.g., collective efficacy or legal cynicism; Kirk and Matsuda, 2011 ; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997 ). Instead, including these cultural norms seemed to strengthen (in terms of statistical significance) the mitigating effect of disadvantage on the relationship between child abuse and violence, implying a suppression effect. Certainly, more research is needed to disentangle the precise relationship between norms and disadvantage, especially using data on norms at the aggregate level as we employed in this study. To help guide such research, we propose two possible explanations for our results, which we hope can be further explored in future research.

First, it is plausible that in disadvantaged areas, where violent behaviors are in general more abundant, violence is more likely to be seen as a somewhat common, legitimate, or necessary way of interacting with others ( Anderson, 1999 ; Berg et al., 2012 ; Kirk and Papachristos, 2011 ), at least under some circumstances. In these areas, violence in the home also may be more plentiful and somewhat more tolerated, among at least some residents. In fact, in supplemental analyses (not shown), we found that both tolerance measures independently predicted the prevalence of child abuse, with greater levels of tolerance associated with increased levels of child abuse. 6

The effect of experiencing physical abuse from caregivers, therefore, might be diluted in these areas because such behavior occurs more often and may not, as a result, be viewed as particularly aberrant or “abusive.” Therefore, the long-term detrimental effect of child abuse on youth violence may be weakened in more disadvantaged areas. This explanation is similar to the “saturation” and “desensitization” arguments put forth by Zimmerman and Messner (2011) and by Stewart, Simons, and Conger (2002) , respectively. The saturation hypothesis posits that exposure to risk factors (e.g., child abuse) often is higher in disadvantaged areas, and when this exposure reaches a “saturation point,” its impact weakens. This may occur, at least in part, because the “messages” conveyed by risk factors (i.e., that physical aggression is one way of interacting with others) become redundant and are no longer “novel” or new ( Zimmerman and Messner, 2011 ). 7 At a certain point, when the messages are no longer different enough from existing beliefs or behaviors, they lose their impact and are ignored. Put another way, adolescents become “tolerant” of such risk factors and/or the messages they convey, and their behavior ceases to be influenced by these experiences.

Stewart, Simons, and Conger (2002) suggested similar mechanisms. They stipulated that children exposed to high rates of violence (or, by extension, any other risk factor) may become “desensitized” to it, which weakens its impact on their behavior. We suspect that these saturation and desensitization processes also are similar to the process of becoming tolerant of such behaviors and might thus account for our finding that the effect of child abuse on subsequent violence is weaker in more disadvantaged areas (as depicted by the flattening slope in figure 1 ), where tolerance for violence also may be greater ( Sampson and Bartusch, 1998 ).

A second explanation may be drawn from the “social push” hypothesis, which has posited that biological factors have a stronger impact on deviant behaviors when children live in environments that lack the factors that would otherwise “push” them into crime (e.g., social risk factors, such as living in disadvantaged neighborhoods or residing in a criminal household; see Raine, 2002 ). Drawing from this perspective, we speculate that for youth who experience few risk factors (i.e., who live in more advantaged communities), the effect of any one risk factor (e.g., exposure to violence or abuse) is more readily expressed and potentially more detrimental. Our results suggest that abused children in more advantaged neighborhoods reported engaging in more violence than nonabused children in more disadvantaged neighborhoods, as represented in figure 1 . This pattern is surprising at first glance given the tendency to consider high-poverty areas as teeming with violence. Yet, we believe that the social push hypothesis is a useful perspective for understanding this relationship (i.e., the stronger negative effect of a risk factor, such as child abuse, in a relatively benign environment, such as an advantaged community). Thus, youth who experience the discontinuity of living in a relatively affluent and more benign community, and who are simultaneously exposed to violence in the home, may be more at risk for experiencing problematic outcomes because they lack other risk factors in their environments. Or, borrowing from Zimmerman and Messner (2011) , because the “messages” this risk factor conveys are novel or at odds with the other messages they are routinely exposed to, it thus has a stronger effect on behavior.

Certainly, our results suggest that the mechanisms by which neighborhoods moderate the effect of risk factors on delinquent behaviors are complicated, and it is possible that different mechanisms operate in different “types” of neighborhoods (affluent versus disadvantaged). Our explanations are tentative and speculative at this point, and we encourage future research to continue to explore the various moderating processes involved in different types of neighborhoods.

Although we believe that this study has built upon and helped extend the cycle of violence theory by considering neighborhood context, we nonetheless must acknowledge some limitations of our research. Most importantly, our study would have benefited from neighborhood-level cultural norms measures that tapped into beliefs regarding child abuse, in particular, instead of the proxy measures of general delinquency and family or friend violence that were employed here. Additionally, we restricted our measure of child abuse to serious physical abuse (e.g., beating up or hitting one’s child) because we believed more extreme forms of physical discipline would be most likely to lead to violence among victims, but it would be useful to test whether other types of violence in families (e.g., more minor forms of abuse) are impacted differently by neighborhood factors. We also used a dichotomous measure of child abuse that does not reflect the incidence or frequency in which children were physically punished; whereas our supplementary analyses indicated similar results when using a continuous measure of abuse, future studies may wish to examine the relationship among abuse, neighborhood context, and violence using alternative measures. We also used caregiver reports of child abuse, which allowed us to avoid the problems associated with official data and with using the same source to measure the primary independent and dependent variables, but it is possible that caregivers underestimated their use of physically abusive behaviors because of social desirability or shame/embarrassment at being identified as an abuser, which would make this a more conservative test of the cycle of violence. It should be noted, however, that some literature has shown that official and self-reports of child maltreatment have similar predictive validity ( Smith et al., 2008 ). Additionally, whereas most of the sample was located in the same neighborhood at waves I and II, some participants did move out of their original neighborhood (where the abuse occurred) and we could not assess whether this movement impacted the results presented here. Finally, participants in this study spanned a range of ages, and our measure of abuse therefore captured abuse occurring during childhood and adolescence. Some literature has suggested that the impact of abuse on outcomes may vary according to when the abuse occurred (e.g., Finkelhor et al., 2009 ), and this may have affected our results.

Nonetheless, we believe that our study provides important insights into how and for whom the cycle of violence operates as well as the mechanisms by which neighborhoods impact individual-level outcomes; it also adds to the relatively limited research on neighborhood moderation and cultural norms. Our study contributes to a growing body of research regarding the violence that occurs “behind closed doors” and suggests that neighborhood factors should not be neglected when examining these forms of violence. Overall, these results suggest that neighborhoods may affect youth in complex ways, and rather than directly impacting youth behavior, neighborhoods may enhance or inhibit the effects of other risk factors. An investigation of the moderating effects of neighborhoods is therefore important, and research needs to continue to identify additional mechanisms by which the neighborhood context impacts behavior.

Biographies

Emily M. Wright is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research examines exposure to violence and victimization, particularly family and intimate partner violence, in the neighborhood context, as well as the effective correctional responses to female offenders. She has received funding from the National Institute of Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Justice for projects examining contextual influences on exposure to violence and youth offending.

Abigail A. Fagan is an associate professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Her research focuses on the etiology and prevention of juvenile delinquency and substance use, with an emphasis on examining the ways in which scientific advances can be successfully translated into effective crime and delinquency prevention practices. Her research includes particular attention on the effects of family processes (e.g., parenting practices and sibling relationships), victimization experiences, and community influences on juvenile offending.

* This study was supported by Grant R01DA30387–01 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse and 2009-IJ-CX-0043 from the National Institute of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions of either Institute. The data used in this study were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Neither the collectors of the original data nor the Consortium bear any responsibility for the analyses or conclusions presented here. The authors would also like to acknowledge Dr. Lee VanHorn for providing statistical consultation for this manuscript. Direct correspondence to Emily M. Wright, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street, 218 CPACS, Omaha, NE 68182-0149 ( ude.ahamonu@thgirWME ).

1 Schuck and Widom’s (2005) results indicated that residential stability, ethnic heterogeneity, and concentrated advantage did not have direct or moderating effects in fully specified models.

2 Victims of child physical abuse span a range of ages and include both younger children (e.g., 9 years of age) and adolescents (e.g., 15 years of age). We refer to this form of violence as “child” abuse to be consistent with the broader literature on family violence.

3 One neighborhood dropped out when we limited our analyses to youth in cohorts 9–15 years of age.

4 Recall that because individual-level variables were grand mean centered, the “main” or direct effects of neighborhood factors indicate the average effect across all neighborhood clusters included in the analyses.

5 The only model in which the cross-level interaction was not significant was when disadvantage was dichotomized to differentiate neighborhood clusters at the highest quartile of disadvantage versus all others, and this finding may be the result of limited statistical power.

6 Controlling for individual-level age, race, gender, and family socioeconomic status, as well as for concentrated disadvantage, both tolerance measures independently and significantly ( p ≤ .05) predicted the prevalence of child abuse.

7 We suggest that “messages” can be conveyed or transmitted in direct ways, such as discussion with or interaction with others, as well as in indirect ways, such as by observing others’ behaviors or hearing stories of others’ behaviors (see also Kirk and Papachristos, 2011 ).

Contributor Information

EMILY M. WRIGHT, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

ABIGAIL A. FAGAN, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University.

• Aber J Lawrence, Gephart Martha A, Brooks-Gunn Jeanne, Connell James P. Development in context: Implications for studying neighborhood effects. In: Brooks-Gunn Jeanne, Duncan Greg J, Lawrence Aber J., editors. Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consequences for Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agnew Robert. Pressured into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. Cary, NC: Roxbury; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson Elijah. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: Norton; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaver Kevin M, Gibson Chris L, DeLisi Matt, Vaughn Michael, Wright John Paul. The interaction between neighborhood disadvantage and genetic factors in the prediction of antisocial outcomes. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2012; 10 :25–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bellair Paul E, McNulty Thomas L. Cognitive skills, adolescent violence, and the moderating role of neighborhood disadvantage. Justice Quarterly. 2010; 27 :538–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berg Mark T, Stewart Eric A, Brunson Rod K, Simons Ronald L. Neighborhood cultural heterogeneity and adolescent violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2012; 28 :411–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brody Gene H, Ge Xiaojia, Kim Su Yeong, Murry Velma McBride, Simons Ronald L, Gibbons Fredrick X, Gerrard Meg, Conger Rand D. Neighborhood disadvantage moderates associations of parenting and older sibling problem attitudes and behavior with conduct disorders in African American children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2003; 71 :211–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss Arnold H, Plomin Robert. A Temperament Theory of Personality Development. New York: Wiley; 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cerda Magdalena, Sanchez Brisa N, Galea Sandro, Tracy Melissa, Buka Stephen L. Estimating co-occurring behavioral trajectories within a neighborhood context: A case study of multivariate transition models for clustered data. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2008; 168 :1190–203. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coulton Claudia J, Crampton David S, Irwin Molly, Spilsbury James C, Korbin Jill E. How neighborhoods influence child maltreatment: A review of the literature and alternative pathways. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2007; 31 :1117–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coulton Claudia J, Korbin Jill E, Su Marilyn. Neighborhoods and child maltreatment: A multi-level study. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1999; 23 :1019–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Derzon James H. The correspondence of family features with problem, aggressive, criminal, and violent behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2010; 6 :263–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dodge Kenneth A, Bates John E, Pettit Gregory S. Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science. 1990; 250 :1678–83. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuMont Kimberly A, Widom Cathy Spatz, Czaja Sally J. Predictors of resilience in abused and neglected children grown-up: The role of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2007; 31 :255–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Earls Felton J, Brooks-Gunn Geanne, Raudenbush Stephen W, Sampson Robert J. Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Wave 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Grant 93-IJ-CX-K005; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fagan Abigail A. The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: Support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence. Journal of Family Violence. 2005; 20 :279–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fergusson David M, Lynskey Michael T. Physical punishment/maltreatment during childhood and adjustment in young adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1997; 21 :617–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finkelhor David, Turner Heather A, Ormond Richard, Hamby Sherry, Kracke Kristen. Children’s Exposure to Volence: A Comprehensive National Survey. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Furstenberg Frank F, Jr, Cook Thomas D, Eccles Jacquelynne, Elder Glen H, Jr, Sameroff Arnold. Managing to Make It: Urban Families and Adolescent Success. Chicago, IL: Unversity of Chicago Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelles Richard J. An exchange/social control theory. In: Finkelhor David, Gelles Richard J, Hotaling Gerald T, Straus Murray A., editors. The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson Chris L. An investigation of neighborhood disadvantage, low self-control, and violent victimization among youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2012; 10 :41–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson Chris L, Sullivan Christopher J, Jones Shayne, Piquero Alex R. “Does it take a village?” Assessing neighborhood influences on children’s self control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2010; 47 :31–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harding David J. Cultural context, sexual behavior, and romantic relationships in disadvantaged neighborhoods. American Sociological Review. 2007; 72 :341–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henry Bill, Moffitt Terrie E, Caspi Avshalom, Langley John, Silva Phil A. On the “remembrance of things past”: A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective method. Psychological Assessment. 1994; 6 :92–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrenkohl Roy C, Egolf Brenda P, Herrenkohl Ellen C. Preschool antecedents of adolescent assaultive behavior: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1997; 67 :422–32. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrenkohl Todd I, Huang Bu, Tajima Emiko A, Whitney Stephen D. Examining the link beween child abuse and youth violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2003; 18 :1189–208. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschi Travis. Causes of Delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huizinga David, Esbensen Finn-Aage, Weiher Anne Wylie. Are there multiple paths to delinquency? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1991; 82 :83–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelling George, Coles Catherine M. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities. New York: Martin Kessler Books; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirk David S, Matsuda Mauri. Legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and the ecology of arrest. Criminology. 2011; 49 :443–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirk David S, Papachristos Andrew V. Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. American Journal of Sociology. 2011; 116 :1190–233. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korbin Jill E, Coulton Claudia J, Lindstrom-Ufuti Heather, Spilsbury James C. Neighborhood views on the definition and etiology of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2000; 24 :1509–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kornhauser Ruth Rosner. Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appriasal of Analytic Models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maas Carl, Herrenkohl Todd I, Sousa Cynthia. Review of research on child maltreatment and violence in youth. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2007; 9 :56–67. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maimon David, Browning Christopher R. Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology. 2010; 48 :443–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxfield Michael G, Widom Cathy Spatz. The cycle of violence: Revisited six years later. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 1996; 150 :390–5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mersky Joshua P, Reynolds Arthur J. Child maltreatment and violent delinquency: Disentangling main effects and subgroup effects. Child Maltreatment. 2007; 12 :246–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnar Beth E, Buka Stephen L, Brennan Robert T, Holton John K, Earls Felton. A multilevel study of neighborhoods and parent-to-child physical aggression: Results from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods. Child Maltreatment. 2003; 8 :84–97. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molnar Beth E, Magdalena Cerda, Roberts Andrea L, Buka Stephen L. Effects of neighborhood resources on aggressive and delinquent behaviors among urban youths. American Journal of Public Health. 2008; 98 :1086–93. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ness Cindy D. Why girls fight: Female youth violence in the inner city. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. 2004; 595 :32–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osgood D Wayne, McMorris Barbara J, Potenza Maria T. Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance I: Item response theory scaling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2002; 18 :267–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raine Adrian. Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults: A review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2002; 30 :311–26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raudenbush Stephen W, Johnson Christopher, Sampson Robert J. A multivariate, multilevel Rasch model with application to self-reported criminal behavior. Sociological Methodology. 2003; 33 :169–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raudenbush Stephen W, Sampson Robert J. Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology. 1999; 29 :1–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson Robert J, Bartusch Dawn Jeglum. Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society Review. 1998; 32 :777–804. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson Robert J, Bean Lydia. Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised theory of community-level racial inequality. In: Peterson Ruth D, Krivo Lauren J, Hagan John., editors. The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. New York: New York University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson Robert J, Morenoff Jeffrey D, Raudenbush Stephen W. Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health. 2005; 95 :224–32. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson Robert J, Raudenbush Stephen W, Earls Felton. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997; 277 :918–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson Robert J, Wilson William Julius. Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In: Hagan John, Peterson Ruth D., editors. Crime and Inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuck Amie M, Widom Cathy Spatz. Understanding the role of neighborhood context in the long-term criminal consequences of child maltreatment. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2005; 36 :207–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons Ronald L, Simons Leslie Gordon, Burt Callie Harbin, Brody Gene, Cutrona Carolyn. Collective efficacy, authoritative parenting and delinquency: A longitudinal test of a model integrating community- and family-level processes. Criminology. 2005; 43 :989–1029. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Carolyn A, Ireland Timothy O, Thornberry Terence P. Adolescent maltreatment and its impact on young adult antisocial behavior. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2005; 29 :1099–119. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Carolyn A, Ireland Timothy O, Thornberry Terence P, Elwyn Laura J. Childhood maltreatment and antisocial behavior: Comparison of self-reported and substantiated maltreatment. Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2008; 78 :173–86. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Carolyn A, Thornberry Terence P. The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology. 1995; 33 :451–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart Eric A, Simons Ronald L. Structure and culture in African American adolescent violence: A partial test of the “code of the street” thesis. Justice Quarterly. 2006; 23 :1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stewart Eric A, Simons Ronald L, Conger Rand. Assessing neighborhood and social psychological influences on childhood violence in an African-American sample. Criminology. 2002; 40 :801–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sykes Gresham M, Matza David. Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review. 1957; 22 :664–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warner Barbara D. The role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory. Criminology. 2003; 41 :73–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Widom Cathy Spatz. Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin. 1989a; 106 :3–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Widom Cathy Spatz. The cycle of violence. Science. 1989b; 244 :160–6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright Emily M, Benson Michael L. Immigration and intimate partner violence: Exploring the immigrant paradox. Social Problems. 2010; 57 :480–503. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yonas Michael A, Lewis Terri, Hussey Jon M, Thompson Richard, Newton Rae, English Diana, Dubowitz Howard. Perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy moderate the impact of maltreatment on aggression. Child Maltreatment. 2010; 15 :37–47. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zielinski David S, Bradshaw Catherine P. Ecological influences on the sequelae of child maltreatment: A review of the literature. Child Maltreatment. 2006; 11 :49–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman Gregory M, Messner Steven F. Neighborhood context and the gender gap in adolescent violent crime. American Sociological Review. 2010; 75 :958–80. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman Gregory M, Messner Steven F. Neighborhood context and nonlinear peer effects on adolescent violent crime. Criminology. 2011; 49 :873–903. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zingraff Matthew T, Leiter Jeffrey, Myers Kristen A, Johnsen Mathew C. Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology. 1993; 31 :173–202. [ Google Scholar ]

Opinion | Sheerine Alemzadeh: Domestic violence is a…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Clarence Page

Opinion | Sheerine Alemzadeh: Domestic violence is a community safety issue, so let’s treat it that way

Earlier this month, a wrenching tragedy on the Far North Side was met with predictable calls for more of the same tough-on-crime policies that have repeatedly failed survivors of gender-based violence.

A 5-year-old child watched a man critically wound his mother and fatally stab his 11-year-old brother in his Edgewater home, a place where he was supposed to feel safe. The person charged with the stabbings was not an unknown intruder but someone his mother had previously dated. This family belongs to a community, and the unbearably horrific harm they experienced is community violence.

Unfortunately, because the killing occurred in their home and in the context of gender-based violence, it will be relegated to a different, lesser category. It will be spoken of, in many spheres, as a private matter, a broken relationship, a “domestic dispute.” When domestic violence leads to lethal harm, the victim becomes the one who “slipped through the cracks,” cast as an anomaly in a system that is portrayed as generally functioning fine.

Already, the state’s attorney has alluded to “gaps in the justice system” that would “allow for a dangerous offender to commit the acts that he did.” This framing continues to isolate survivors, to cast the harm they suffer in an individualized light instead of as a systemic problem that requires the entire community, the entire city, to come together to solve.

This heartbreaking violence must be viewed in the context of a larger spate of community violence recently rocking the Far North Side. Public officials have spoken of ramping up “community safety” responses , including increased policing and violence interrupters. But domestic violence has not yet figured into these conversations. It’s likely this unspeakable tragedy will fuel some promises in the coming days. But whether they will translate into increased safety for our communities depends on all of us.

There is no shortage of possible solutions to address gender-based violence. Survivors are imaginative and intrepid and know what they need to achieve safety. To interrupt cycles of generational violence, survivors across the city for the last five years have led Sex Ed Works , a citywide campaign to ensure Chicago Public Schools students and their families receive education about consent and healthy relationships that can literally save their lives. They’ve proposed peer-to-peer programs in which survivors not only share their stories but also serve as critical access points for other survivors to connect to resources and build a community of support.

In such a model, survivors — who, through the abuse they’ve experienced, are often isolated — can develop multiple entry points to build communities that could ultimately help them leave a violent situation or build other tools to create more safety.

But because survivors’ problems are not seen as “community issues,” they are treated like an afterthought, their experiences and needs minimized. Comprehensive sexual health education and caregiver education around gender-based violence are key violence-prevention tools, yet they’ve received only minimal CPS funding. While violence interrupter programs are well funded, parallel peer-to-peer models for survivors do not receive the same public resources.

In fact, gender-based violence organizations are desperately working to convince the city to continue the funding streams that barely keep the lights on for shelters, legal aid and crisis hotlines. Meanwhile, the city has no plan for sustaining already inadequate levels of funding for gender-based violence support after federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan have run out.

The portion of the city budget that is heavily funded — and is often cited when questions arise about resources for survivors — is the budget for the Chicago Police Department. However, gender-based violence activists have long pleaded with the city to fund services for survivors outside the bounds of the Police Department, since police often put survivors at risk. For example, survivors who defend themselves during an instance of gender-based violence often end up criminalized themselves . And police-perpetrated sexual violence is well documented .

At the same time, community-based groups that are well equipped to support survivors in building safety networks, connect with resources and develop advocacy skills are chronically underfunded.

This systemic de-prioritization of survivors’ needs is only possible because they are seen as disposable. For this, we are all accountable — for wanting to believe each instance was an isolated tragedy. For frantically seeking reassurance that a stabbing in our neighborhood was just a domestic dispute. For leaving survivors out of our conversations about community violence.

But we all pay a price. Gun violence, youth violence, neighborhood violence and gang violence all partly stem from the isolation, shame and profound despair of domestic violence. There is no trauma more fundamental than witnessing harm at home — the very place where safety is paramount — the place where you first learn what love means.

Safety starts at home, and it’s time to invest in survivors — including survivor-led, peer-based models of support — to ensure the safety of our communities.

Sheerine Alemzadeh is a co-founder and co-director of Healing to Action, a Chicago nonprofit that works with survivors of gender-based violence. She is a Chicago Public Schools parent living in the Rogers Park neighborhood. 

More in Opinion

Editorials | Editorial: No, voters aren’t imagining things. Inflation has been a bear.

Editorials | Editorial: Burke and Harris deliver a much-needed lesson in how to behave, win or lose

Letters to the Editor | Letters: Wetlands play a critical role in combating air pollution

Commentary | Laura Washington: What does the slow count for state’s attorney’s race mean for November?

Trending nationally.

• Companies behind cargo ship that destroyed Baltimore’s Key Bridge seek exemption from legal liability
• Powerball jackpot nears $1 billion after no one matches all 6 in latest drawing
• Sierra Nevada snowpack ‘unusually normal’ and reservoirs are brimming as winter season winds down
• Harvard Library removes human skin from binding of French book
• AT&T says a data breach leaked millions of customers’ information online. Were you affected?