Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence Cause Attribution in South Asian Immigrants in the United States: Implications for Practice

Abstract

South Asian immigrant communities in the United States face a significant prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV). This brief investigates the attributions of violence causes, particularly considering gender differences. For this study, data from a cross-sectional study with 450 adult South Asian participants was utilized. We explore three subscales—Structural/Cultural Causes, Environmental Causes, and Individual-Related Causes—of the violence cause scales. A gender-based comparison was done using t-tests for each item. Results revealed women attributing greater significance to cultural shifts and female autonomy factors compared with men. Findings emphasize the paradoxical relationship between women’s autonomy and IPV risk, advocating for a culturally sensitive approach in interventions, including strategies tailored to home country values, involving men, implementing family-based programs, and promoting cross-cultural communication.

Keywords

immigrants male and female immigrants intimate partner violence practice implications South Asian

Introduction

The estimations provided by South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) in 2019 indicate that the South Asian population in the United States currently stands at 5.4 million individuals. South Asians constitute one of the most rapidly expanding and sizable immigrant communities within the country. This demographic includes individuals hailing from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Sri Lanka, sharing cultural affinities. Previous research within this community has yielded findings indicating that a substantial proportion, ranging from 18% to 40%, experience domestic violence (DV) or intimate partner violence (IPV; Mahapatra, 2012; Rai & Choi, 2018; Raj & Silverman, 2002).

Cultural and social norms wield considerable influence over individual behavior, particularly in the context of violence. These norms, particularly those pertaining to gender, can either positively or negatively impact individuals’ well-being and their likelihood of engaging in IPV (Nnyombi et al., 2022; Shakya et al., 2022). Within the framework of feminist theories addressing IPV, it is posited that such violence is connected to the prevailing patriarchal structure of society, which marginalizes women and perpetuates gender-based violence (Rakovec-Felser, 2014; Sabri et al., 2018a). The existence of societal gender disparities and patriarchal family arrangements fosters an environment wherein IPV is tolerated (Fine et al., 2021). Cross-cultural research indicates that societies characterized by pronounced ideologies of male dominance tend to exhibit higher incidences of violence (Jewkes et al., 2015).

Traditional gender roles and societal expectations contribute to the encouragement of violence as a means for men to assert their masculinity, juxtaposed with the need for women to conform to submissive and passive roles (González & Rodríguez-Planas, 2020; Murnen et al., 2002). Gender norms frequently place women in disadvantaged positions, as men perceive inherent entitlement over their families, thereby internally justifying behaviors that would be considered abusive (Anderson, 2002).

In South Asian cultures, long-standing norms dictate that men are providers while women manage home and children. Rigid cultures and patriarchal attitudes often devalue women, leading to widespread violence against them, particularly within the private family structure where the man is perceived as the undisputed ruler (McCleary-Sills et al., 2016). As women enter more equitable gender spaces, their increased bargaining power challenges these patriarchal expectations, creating conflicts and defying traditional identities, especially in South Asian contexts where empowerment movements have been initiated to elevate women from subservient roles to more equitable positions over the past few decades (Dhanaraj & Mahambare, 2022). Gendered expectations for immigrant women may intensify as immigrant men grapple with a devalued status in the new country, resulting in deep entrenchment in patriarchal relations and roles within marital families (Sabri et al., 2018b; Xiao et al., 2019). In addition, the immigrant role adds to vulnerabilities as South Asian immigrant women face a double disadvantage as subordinate figures according to patriarchal cultural norms and as ethnic minority women in the host country (Chaudhuri et al., 2014). South Asian immigrant women’s strategies for dealing with abuse often serve as forms of resistance, challenging stereotypic images of them as always submissive and passive, even when lacking resources and social isolation (Abraham, 1995; Bhandari, 2018).

Study Rationale and Information

Causal attribution theory proves instrumental in comprehending the significance of perceptions related to IPV and is crucial for informing the development of effective prevention programs (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). To devise successful programs aimed at modifying aggressive behaviors, understanding the root causes of such behaviors is essential, emphasizing the need for insight into why IPV occurs within relationships (Neal & Edwards, 2017).

This brief note presents gendered differences in perceived causes of violence among the studied population, focusing on women’s perspectives to identify specific vulnerabilities. The goal is to understand factors making women more susceptible to violence, informing culturally sensitive interventions. The study employs a cross-sectional design and was conducted online using Qualtrics. The sampling methods involved convenience sampling and snowballing, with detailed information available in Rai (2021). Inclusion criteria comprised individuals of South Asian origin, aged 18 years or older, and currently residing in the United States (N = 450).

The main measure we will discuss in this paper is the Violence Cause scale comprising of three distinct subscales, namely, the Structural/Cultural Causes Subscale-Revised, the Environmental Causes Subscale-Revised, and the Individual-Related Causes Subscale-Revised (Yick, 1997). The Structural/Cultural Causes Subscale-Revised includes five closed-ended items, exemplified by assertions such as “belief that men are authority figures over women.” Meanwhile, the Environmental Causes Subscale-Revised integrates seven closed-ended items, including references to “drugs” and “poverty.” Finally, the Individual-Related Causes Subscale-Revised incorporates five closed-ended items, such as the notion of a “lack of education.” The scoring system is designed such that higher mean scores signify that participants attribute a greater number of causes to violence, while lower mean scores indicate a lesser attribution of causes for violence by participants. The Cronbach’s alpha was reported to be 0.91 in Yick (1997) and 0.90 in Ahn’s (2002) subsequent study. Cronbach’s alpha was run for this sample, the value was found to be 0.95 overall with 0.94 for a female only sample and 0.95 for a male only sample. A series of independent samples t-tests was conducted individually for each of the 18 items within the scale as well as the scale overall. This analytical strategy facilitated a granular examination of gender-based variations in perceptions, allowing for the identification of specific items where statistically significant differences emerged.

Main Findings

The study has a sample of 450 individuals, with 198 identified as male and 252 as female with no significant differences in other demographic characteristics (detailed demographic information in Table 1). The survey did not include questions on sexuality or cis/trans identity, thus, the assumptions made in the study would be for a population considered to be cis-gender and heterosexual, because of the taboo around acknowledging same sex relationships in the South Asian culture (Bhat, 2023). In the examination of perceived causes of violence, a notable gender disparity emerges, with women consistently attributing higher significance to various factors compared with men. While gender differences are discernible in the first two subscales (individual causes and environmental causes) for only a select number of items, the third subscale of structural and cultural causes exhibits statistically significant variations across all items between men and women.

Table 1.

Violence Cause Attribution: Differences by Gender (N = 450).

Violence cause scale items	OverallM	MaleM	FemaleM
Individual-Related Causes Subscale
Job pressure	3.60	3.48	3.70
Inability to control a bad temper	4.37	4.18	4.51
Past experiences with violence during childhood**	3.91	3.62	4.14
Lack of education	4.12	4.06	4.17
Mental illness***	4.31	3.92	4.61
Environmental Causes Subscale
An overcrowded house	3.31	3.35	3.28
Arguments that get out of hand*	4.08	3.85	4.25
Lack of trust in a marriage***	4.14	3.83	4.39
Stress from immigrating to the United States	3.30	3.23	3.36
Poverty*	3.72	3.49	3.88
Alcohol**	4.35	4.10	4.56
Drugs***	4.34	3.98	4.61
The structural/cultural causes
Women’s lower status compared with men in the South Asian culture***	3.55	3.10	3.93
A woman wanting to make more decisions in the home***	3.45	3.13	3.71
Belief that men are authority figures over women***	4.11	3.67	4.46
Beliefs that women are the properties of men***	3.99	3.46	4.40
Belief that wives should be obedient***	4.10	3.65	4.42
Disagreement with in-laws**	3.98	3.73	4.18
Full Scale Score**	3.92	3.65	4.15

p-value *<.05. ** < .01. ***< .001. (Source: Rai et al. [2023].)

Notably, cultural elements specific to South Asian culture (Table 1), such as the perceived lower status of women (3.10 vs. 3.93), the endorsement of female independence in decision-making in the home (3.13 vs. 3.71), the belief that men hold authoritative roles (3.67 vs. 4.46), belief that women are the properties of men (3.46 vs. 4.40), and the expectation of wives’ obedience (3.65 vs. 4.42), all display statistically significant gender differences. In each instance, women consistently rate these cultural beliefs as more substantial causes of violence than their male counterparts, with a significance level of p < .001 for all items.

Discussion and Social Work Implications

This study seeks to build upon the findings of Rai & Choi (2022) by employing the same dataset. Rai & Choi demonstrated that physical violence ranked highest among forms of IPV, followed by emotional, economic, and verbal abuse. The study demonstrated that physical violence ranked highest among forms of IPV, followed by emotional, economic, and verbal abuse. Prevalence rates were comparable between male and female participants. In addition, they observed that female participants, individuals with lower levels of acculturation, and those endorsing liberal gender-role attitudes tended to attribute a greater number of causal factors to IPV in comparison with their counterparts. This study extends these findings by not only validating these trends but also pinpointing specific items that differ between genders (a novel contribution of this specific study), contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the attributed causal factors.

Specifically, in this study, the results indicate notable gender differences in the attribution of violence. Women acknowledge female equality as a potential cause of violence, whereas men tend to recognize it less. There is an identification that shifting from the status quo of patriarchal culture could add risk in women’s lives in the form of retaliatory violence from their male spouse (Karmaliani et al., 2012). This could be linked with the differences in how men and women view equality and empowerment, since striving for women’s equality can clash with long-held patriarchal beliefs of male authority and high status. This shift in status quo might lead men to see it as a challenge to their power and equity, rather than a cause of relationship violence (Nadeem & Malik, 2021; Singh & Aggarwal, 2020).

In other geographical settings, various studies have yielded analogous findings, indicating that women who perceive themselves as adhering to a more gender-equitable perspective also self-identify as being more susceptible to IPV (Gómez-Casillas et al., 2023; Serrano-Montilla et al., 2020). It is widely recognized that the long-term promotion of women’s empowerment holds potential to mitigate incidences of IPV. However, the process of empowerment often confronts entrenched gender norms, thereby causing tension within couples accustomed to traditional gender roles. This tension stemming from the transition toward more egalitarian dynamics and increased empowerment presents a focal point for potential retaliatory violence perpetrated by men (Bradley, 2015; Moscoso, 2022).

The observed trend is explained by the notion that individuals with liberal gender-role attitudes may have an enhanced ability to distinguish cultural elements from violent behaviors, leading them to avoid attributing violence solely to cultural norms. The reduced inclination among men to attribute causes to violence may be linked to limited experiences of victimization, adherence to traditional family values, and exposure to South Asian domestic violence movements, and media representations predominantly condoning violence within the context of relationships (Jesmin, 2017; O’Connor et al., 2023; Singh & Aggarwal, 2020). The higher authority of men in relationships may also be linked to why men don’t often attribute factors around inequality as a cause of violence, as they see this inequality as part of everyday living and not necessarily relating to domestic violence (Nadeem & Malik, 2021; Singh & Aggarwal, 2020).

The intricate relationship between women’s autonomy and the risk of IPV in immigrant communities unfolds as a paradox. Despite mainstream discourse applauding women’s autonomy as a societal marker of progress (Desai et al., 2022), a distinct correlation arises among immigrant women, associating independence with an increased risk of IPV (Dhanaraj & Mahambare, 2022; Eggers del Campo & Steinert, 2022). Cultural shifts, notably experienced by South Asian women post-migration, introduce significant transformations marked by evolving norms and enhanced women’s empowerment (Jewkes et al., 2015). Of note is that persistent familial values from the home country create dissonance, contributing to stress within immigrant couples navigating dual cultural contexts (Goodfriend & Arriaga, 2018). Recognizing this contradiction is vital for tailoring interventions and social services to immigrant women, demanding a culturally sensitive approach that respects and considers values rooted in individuals’ home countries.

To address this complex dynamic, intervention strategies must consider cultural nuances. Empowerment initiatives should contextualize cultural values (Rai & choi 2022; Reddy, 2020), and educational programs should involve men, recognizing their role in acculturation. Family-based interventions are pivotal in bridging gaps between value systems, reducing stress and conflicts (Goodfriend & Arriaga, 2018). In addition, targeted interventions to enhance communication skills within couples and families can facilitate navigation of cultural shifts and mitigate violence risks. While in the short term, behaviors associated with empowerment may be perceived as potential causes of violence, it is crucial to recognize the enduring positive impact of women’s empowerment in the long run (Chatterjee & Poddar, 2022; Rocca et al., 2009). By involving both men and women, providers can normalize gender equity preventing retaliation by men, if and when the status quo favoring the higher stature of men is harmed by women taking on an active role toward ensuring equity in marital relationships.

Women’s empowerment not only plays a pivotal role in diminishing instances of violence but also contributes significantly to enhancing the overall health and well-being of women. In addition, interventions should prioritize normative shifts within South Asian communities, by creating collaboration with the existing sizable South Asian community in the United States who would be able to provide a nuanced perspective on familial dynamics in the ethnic group. Given the high regard for in-laws and parents within South Asian families, involving them in interventions may enhance familial communication and efficacy. A community-based approach involving bystanders would reduce the risk of IPV victimization among South Asian women. Some examples of these interventions would be the Shanti Project, B.R.A.K.E. The Cycle (Rai et al., 2023; Yoshihama et al., 2012) that creates domestic violence awareness by involving South Asian community members, including men.

South Asian communities are not a monolithic group, and empirical investigations within India underscore the influence of both geographical location (correlated with cultural norms) and perceived socioeconomic status on the prevalence of IPV, with studies indicating regional disparities such as higher rates of physical violence in Eastern Indian states compared with their Western counterparts (Chowdhury et al., 2022; Garg et al., 2021). Thus, future studies should undertake more nuanced examinations to identify culture-specific dynamics of IPV within these communities. Differences in the experiences and perceptions of IPV could also persist based on class/caste which need to be examined in the future and accounted for in service provision.

Upon immigrating to the United States, understanding the cultural schemas of South Asian immigrants becomes pivotal for effective intervention development and the empowerment of women. Notably, initiatives like the Shanti project have targeted specific subgroups, such as the Gujarati community originating from the state of Gujarat in India, employing tailored communication and educational strategies (Yoshihama et al., 2012, 2024). However, prevailing IPV support structures in the United States lack further stratification based on cultural, socioeconomic, or linguistic parameters within the expansive South Asian diaspora (Tripathi & Azhar, 2022).

Practitioners and social welfare organizations must move beyond a mere consideration of immigration status when catering to South Asian beneficiaries, recognizing the significance of their diverse cultural backgrounds. Empowerment of South Asian women needs to account for differences by geographical location and caste or class differences, so that cultural nuances of subgroups can be accounted for more holistically. While this study score refrains from examining specific cultural differentials by state or class/caste due to its scope limitations, it acknowledges the imperative of incorporating such contextual nuances into future investigations.

Therefore, social work practitioners should prioritize acknowledging and ensuring that the long-term benefits of fostering equitable power dynamics within families are duly recognized and considered as vital components of effective interventions. In conclusion, a culturally sensitive approach is paramount for addressing empowerment, cultural values, and IPV prevention within immigrant communities. Incorporating strategies such as considering values of the country of origin, inclusion of men in IPV conversations, implementing family-based programs, and promoting cross-cultural communication can significantly contribute to the well-being and resilience of immigrant individuals and families. Understanding partners’ beliefs about IPV occurrence is crucial for tailoring therapeutic efforts to increase perpetrator responsibility and decrease victim blaming. Social work practitioners can play a key role in facilitating these approaches at the individual, family, and community level.

Footnotes

Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Shikha Chandarana

Abha Rai

Kristen Ravi

References

Abraham

(1995). Ethnicity, gender, and marital violence: South Asian women’s organizations in the United States. Gender & Society, 9(4), 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124395009004004

Ahn

. (2002). The perceptions of and attitudes toward partner abuse among first-generation Korean-Americans: Their relationships to the incidence of partner abuse. LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2167 (Doctoral Dissertation, Louisiana State University).

Anderson

K. L.

(2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 851–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00851.x

Bhandari

(2018). South Asian women’s coping strategies in the face of domestic violence in the United States. Health Care for Women International, 39(2), 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2017.1385615

Bhat

(2023, May 4). Being young, LGBTQIA+, and South Asian. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-psychology-of-the-south-asian-diaspora/202305/being-young-lgbtqia-and-south-asian

Bradley

M. S.

(2015). Gender and the acceptance of retaliatory violence among acquaintance, dating, and marital relationships. Violence and Victims, 30(3), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-13-00169

Chatterjee

Poddar

(2022). Women’s empowerment and intimate partner violence: Evidence from a multidimensional policy in India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 72(2), 801–832. https://doi.org/10.1086/721281

Chaudhuri

Morash

Yingling

(2014). Marriage migration, patriarchal bargains, and wife abuse: A study of South Asian women. Violence Against Women, 20(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214521326

Chowdhury

Singh

Kasemi

Chakrabarty

. (2022). Economic Inequality in Intimate Partner Violence among Forward and Backward Class Women in India: A Decomposition Analysis. Victims & Offenders, 0(0), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2080312

10.

Desai

Chen

Reddy

McLaughlin

. (2022). Measuring women’s empowerment in the global south. Annual Review of Sociology, 48(1), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-030420-015018

11.

Dhanaraj

Mahambare

(2022). Male Backlash and female guilt: Women’s employment and intimate partner violence in urban India. Feminist Economics, 28(1), 170–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2021.1986226

12.

Eggers del Campo

Steinert

J. I

. (2022). The effect of female economic empowerment interventions on the risk of intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(3), 810–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020976088

13.

Fine

S. L.

Kane

J. C.

Murray

S. M.

Skavenski

Munthali

Mwenge

Paul

Mayeya

Murray

L. K.

(2021). The role of violence acceptance and inequitable gender norms in intimate partner violence severity among couples in Zambia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), NP10744–NP10765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519876722

14.

Fiske

S. T.

Taylor

S. E.

(1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/mh021/90024234.html

15.

Garg

Das

Goyal

L. D.

Verma

. (2021). Trends and correlates of intimate partner violence experienced by ever-married women of India: Results from National Family Health Survey round III and IV. BMC Public Health, 21, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12028-5

16.

Gómez-Casillas

van Damme

Permanyer

(2023). Women’s and men’s status: Revisiting the relationship between gender equality and intimate partner violence against women in Europe. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(15–16), 8755–8784. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231158760

17.

Gonzalez

Rodríguez-Planas

. (2020). Gender Norms and Intimate Partner Violence (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3892578). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3892578

18.

Goodfriend

Arriaga

X. B.

(2018). Cognitive reframing of intimate partner aggression: Social and contextual influences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112464

19.

Jesmin

S. S.

(2017). Social determinants of married women’s attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21), 3226–3244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515597436

20.

Jewkes

Hilker

Khan

Fulu

Busiello

Fraser

. (2015). What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls Evidence Reviews Paper 3: Response mechanisms to prevent violence against women and girls. What Works to Prevent Violence.

21.

Karmaliani

Pasha

Hirani

Somani

Hirani

Asad

Cassum

McFarlane

(2012). Violence against women in Pakistan: Contributing factors and new interventions. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33(12), 820–826. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2012.718046

22.

Mahapatra

(2012). South Asian women in the U.S. and their experience of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 27(5), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9434-4

23.

McCleary-Sills

Namy

Nyoni

Rweyemamu

Salvatory

Steven

(2016). Stigma, shame and women’s limited agency in help-seeking for intimate partner violence. Global Public Health, 11(1–2), 224–235.

24.

Moscoso

(2022). Female homicides, laws, and women’s empowerment: An early warning of retaliation effect. Women’s Studies International Forum, 95, 102650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2022.102650

25.

Murnen

S. K.

Wright

Kaluzny

(2002). If “Boys Will Be Boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020488928736

26.

Nadeem

Malik

M. I.

(2021). The role of social norm in acceptability attitude of women toward intimate partner violence in Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP11717–NP11735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519889942

27.

Neal

A. M.

Edwards

K. M.

(2017). Perpetrators’ and victims’ attributions for IPV: A critical review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(3), 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015603551

28.

Nnyombi

Bukuluki

Besigwa

Ocaya-Irama

Namara

Cislaghi

(2022). How social norms contribute to physical violence among ever-partnered women in Uganda: A qualitative study. Frontiers in Sociology, 7, 867024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.867024

29.

O’Connor

Nikolova

Cardenas

Snyder

(2023). The mediating effect of traditional gender beliefs on the relationship between gender disparities and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 32(1–2), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2022.2088322

30.

Rai

. (2021). Indirect experiences with domestic violence and help-seeking preferences among south asian immigrants in the United States. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(6), 1983–2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22492

31.

Rai

Choi

Y. J.

(2018). Socio-cultural risk factors impacting domestic violence among South Asian immigrant women: A scoping review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.12.001

32.

Rai

Choi

Y. J.

(2022). Domestic violence victimization among South Asian immigrant men and women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37, 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211015262

33.

Rai

Perkins

N. H.

Grossman

S. F.

Malazarte

(2023). Development of B.R.A.K.E. the cycle: A culturally responsive bystander intervention for South Asian immigrants in the United States. Families in Society, 104(3), 384–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894221132339

34.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

(2002). Intimate partner violence against South Asian women in greater Boston. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association (1972), 57(2), 111–114.

35.

Rakovec-Felser

. (2014). Domestic Violence and Abuse in Intimate Relationship from Public Health Perspective. Health Psychology Research, 2(3), 1821. https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2014.1821

36.

Reddy

T. E

. (2020). Inequalities and Inclusive Development: Some Policy Perspectives for Indian Economy. Advances in Economics and Business, 8(3), 122–132. DOI: 10.13189/aeb.2020.080302.

37.

Rocca

C. H.

Rathod

Falle

Pande

R. P.

Krishnan

(2009). Challenging assumptions about women’s empowerment: Social and economic resources and domestic violence among young married women in urban South India. International Journal of Epidemiology, 38(2), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyn226

38.

Sabri

Nnawulezi

Njie-Carr

V. P. S.

Messing

Ward-Lasher

Alvarez

Campbell

J. C.

(2018a). Multilevel risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence among African, Asian, and Latina immigrant and refugee women: Perceptions of effective safety planning interventions. Race and Social Problems, 10(4), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-018-9247-z

39.

Sabri

Simonet

Campbell

J. C.

(2018b). Risk and protective factors of intimate partner violence among South Asian immigrant women and perceived need for services. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(3), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000189

40.

Serrano-Montilla

Lozano

L. M.

Bender

Padilla

J.-L

. (2020). Individual and societal risk factors of attitudes justifying intimate partner violence against women: A multilevel cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 10(12), e037993. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037993

41.

Shakya

H. B.

Cislaghi

Fleming

Levtov

R. G.

Boyce

S. C.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

(2022). Associations of attitudes and social norms with experiences of intimate partner violence among married adolescents and their husbands in rural Niger: A dyadic cross-sectional study. BMC Women’s Health, 22(1), 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01724-y

42.

Singh

Aggarwal

(2020). Are traditional, negative gender attitudes associated with violent attitudes toward women? Insights from a new, culturally adapted measure in India. Sex Roles, 83(3), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01102-3

43.

South Asian Americans Leading Together. (2019). Demographic snapshot of South Asians in the United States. Demographic Snapshot of South Asians in the United States. https://saalt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SAALT-Demographic-Snapshot-2019.pdf

44.

Tripathi

Azhar

(2022). A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions impacting South Asian Women in the United States. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(2), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020957987

45.

Xiao

Liu

Yao

Wang

(2019). Psychosocial predictors of acculturative stress among female and male immigrant Asian Americans: A gender comparison study. SHS Web of Conferences, 60, Article 01004. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196001004

46.

Yick

A. G

. (1997). Chinese-Americans’ perceptions of and experiences with domestic violence and factors related to their psychological well-being. Available from Dissertation Abstracts International (Order No. 9823585) (Doctoral dissertation. University of California).

47.

Yoshihama

Rai

Choi

Y. J.

Hong

J. S.

Yan

(2024). Relationships among intimate partner violence, unfair treatment, depressive symptoms, and family support: A community-based study of Gujarati women in the Midwestern USA. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 94(3), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000723

48.

Yoshihama

Ramakrishnan

Hammock

A. C.

Khaliq

(2012). Intimate partner violence prevention program in an Asian immigrant community: Integrating theories, data, and community. Violence Against Women, 18(7), 763–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212455163