Gender Equality,Patriarchal Cultural Norms,and Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence: Comparison of Male University Students in Asian and European Cultural Contexts

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between patriarchal cultural norms and violence perpetration by male partners using a subsample of university students in Asia (n = 784) and Europe (n = 575) from the International Dating Violence Study (IDVS) data set. Bivariate analyses indicated Asian students scored significantly higher than Europeans on dominance, hostility to women, jealousy, negative attribution, and violence approval as well as perpetration of severe physical assault in dating relationships. Logistic regression models demonstrated that dominance and violence approval were significant predictors of severe physical and psychological aggression against dating partners. Implications for culturally relevant programming for intimate partner violence prevention are discussed.

Keywords

dating violence intimate partner violence gender equality patriarchal cultural norms

Over the last few decades, intimate partner violence (IPV) has been recognized as a serious social and public health concern throughout the world. Violence by intimate partners, which includes not only physical abuse but also sexual coercion, psychological attacks, and controlling tactics, is experienced by diverse groups of people globally (World Health Organization [WHO], 2002). According to the World Report on Violence and Health, the first comprehensive analysis of multiple types of violence from 48 population-based studies conducted in various countries, approximately 10-70% of women reported lifetime experience of physical violence by male partners (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). Similarly, a multicountry WHO study that investigated experiences of IPV in 10 countries, where research had been limited, revealed that 15-71% of women (n = 24,097) in both urban and rural regions reported experiencing physical and/or sexual abuse by their partners in their lifetime (Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006).

One of the common features of IPV globally is that it is primarily perpetrated by men against women. Although men are the majority of victims of violence in general, when the relationship between the victim and perpetrator is intimate, the likelihood of experiencing victimization shifts largely to women (Krug et al., 2002). For example, in the United States, national crime statistics indicate that women are victimized at significantly higher rates than men for violent crimes committed by male intimate partners, including robbery and simple assault (Catalano, Smith, Snyder, & Rand, 2009). Furthermore, in a systematic review of studies conducted in 66 countries, intimate partner homicide victimization rates for women were 6 times higher than rates for men (38.6 vs. 6.3%; Stöckl et al., 2013).

Although IPV occurs in all cultures, there are some contextual differences. For instance, the WHO multicountry study found that more severe forms of violence by male intimates were consistently reported in rural settings than cities, suggesting that the more traditional and isolated environment may support men’s harsh treatment of their female partners (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2006). Traditional practices in some cultures, such as female infanticides and honor killings and assaults (Fontes & McCloskey, 2011), treat women and girls as property of men within individual families as well as in society, and thus place them in emotional and physical danger. In general, these traditional cultural practices are uncommon in highly industrialized countries such as those found in North America and Europe. However, it must be recognized that subtler forms of “traditions” that treat women as property and restrict their liberties exist in western societies as well, such as the traditional announcement of the married couple as “Mr. and Mrs. (husband’s full name)” at wedding ceremonies. It is important to underscore that it is not individual cultures that are problematic in terms of support or even promotion of violence against women, but rather aspects of patriarchy embedded within culture that serve to maintain and sustain these norms. Lerner (1986) defines patriarchy as “the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general” (p. 239). Patriarchy is evidenced by social arrangements that have historically existed across the globe, though at different levels in various ways, and its persistent influence affects individual actions and the nature of intimate relationships.

With this framing of the meaning and relevance of patriarchy in mind, understanding the nature of IPV perpetration in highly patriarchal cultural contexts in comparison with those with lower levels of patriarchal values can add to the knowledge that informs policies and practices that aim to prevent IPV perpetration, thus resulting in increased support for survivors living in diverse contexts. Against this backdrop, the current study utilized a sample of male university students to examine the relationship between patriarchal cultural values and perpetration of IPV through a comparison of countries in two world regions, East Asia and Western Europe, where differing levels of gender equality exist.

Theoretical Foundation

Over the years, feminist scholars have employed patriarchy as a framework to explain men’s violence against women (Brownmiller, 1975; Caputi, 1989; Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Despite its popularity, Hunnicutt (2009) argues that the theory of patriarchy has been criticized since its introduction, thus leading to the term largely disappearing from contemporary feminist scholarship on violence against women. Despite this, she also argues that the idea of patriarchy has been expressed in different ways, still pointing to the relevance of male dominance as an important factor for consideration in inquiry on violence against women (Hunnicutt, 2009).

Arguably, the persistence of gender inequality expressed in various settings, including education, employment, and health care, is a manifestation of patriarchy. Patriarchy is a social structure that puts women in vulnerable positions within intimate relationships, families, groups, communities, and society at large. Manifestations of patriarchy in such things as laws and organizational structures, as well as role expectations related to mothers in the home and fathers in the workplace, all have patriarchal roots. Despite the commonalities related to male dominance, patriarchal influences look different in different cultural contexts. Hunnicutt (2009) focuses on the fluidity of patriarchy and calls it a theory of varieties of patriarchy, which are constituted by “social arrangements that privilege males, where men as a group dominate women as a group, both structurally and ideologically—hierarchical arrangements that manifest in varieties across history and social space” (p. 557). Evidence of the persistent presence of patriarchy is seen worldwide, but the way it is experienced likely differs based on the local social norms. Some researchers have revealed that women in countries characterized by blatant gender inequality, strict social expectations based on gender, and lack of sanctions against men who sexually abuse women are exceptionally vulnerable to IPV victimization (WHO, 2002). Patriarchal cultural values, such as support for traditional gender roles of male dominance and female powerlessness, affect views that allow men’s perpetration of violence against women. Understanding the role of these values in IPV perpetration will provide additional knowledge to be utilized in efforts to prevent IPV and other types of gender-based violence.

Literature Review

Gender Equality in Cultural Contexts

Eliminating gender inequality has been an important goal for the global community over the last few decades. In particular, since the 1990s, the United Nations has identified issues affecting women, such as violence targeting girls and women, as significant public policy and human rights concerns that demand action (United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1993). One example of those efforts, the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, addressed concerns related to gender inequality, such as poverty and violence suffered by women, including IPV (United Nations [UN], 1996).

These declarations and action platforms are based on evidence from across the world, which indicates that women in comparison with men are treated unequally in all corners of the globe and this gender inequality is part of the culture that supports and even promotes violence against women (e.g., UN, 1996). In an effort to monitor the state of gender equality, since 1990 the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has reported the level of gender equality for many countries. The UNDP contends that individuals, no matter who they are and where they live, should have the basic human right to fully realize their capabilities, including the right to achieve good health and gain access to the knowledge and educational opportunities that will assist them in realizing their full potential (Nussbaum, 2011). Globally, it is evident that women compared with men are consistently more likely to lack access to opportunities that will allow them to fully realize their capabilities. For example, rampant sex-selective abortion of females in China continues to rise, contributing greatly to the estimated over 134 million “missing women” worldwide (UNDP, 2014).

In 1995, the UNDP first reported the gender empowerment measure (GEM), a composite index that captures the level of gender equality in different countries by using data on gender difference in three areas: political decision making, occupational opportunities, and income earning.¹ Although the GEM is a fairly simple index, the UNDP (1995) argues that by focusing on arenas from which women are generally excluded, the index serves to remind leaders of all nations of the importance of gender equality in their development efforts, rather than focusing only on economic measures such as GDP.

The first GEM indicator, participation in political decision making, is reflected by the percentage of parliamentary seats occupied by women and men. The highest percentage of parliamentary seats held by women in the Human Development Report 2007/2008 is 47.3% in Sweden, followed by 42% in Finland, with countries mostly from Europe and some from Latin America reporting percentages of 30 or more (UNDP, 2007). In the same report, several countries, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were at the bottom of the list at 0%, followed by Yemen at 0.7%, along with many other developing nations such as Iran (4.1%) and Thailand (8.7%), as well as developed nations such as Japan (11%) and South Korea (13.4%).

The second indicator is measured by the percentage shares of positions as legislators, senior officials, and managers, as well as another percentage share of professional and technical positions held by each gender. The UNDP (2007) reported that the countries that had women occupying a higher percentage share of legislator, senior official, and managerial positions included diverse nations such as the Philippines (58%), the United States (42%), and Ukraine (38%). The lower end of the list was dominated by Muslim states (e.g., Pakistan 2%, and Yemen 4%), as well as Asian countries (e.g., South Korea 8%, Japan 10%, and China 17%). Another variable included in the occupational indicator, the percentage share of women in professional and technical positions, is higher in general than senior and managerial positions and does not seem to show as dramatic a difference as other indicators among nations. For example, numerous countries had more women than men in professional or technical positions (e.g., Russia 65%, Australia 56%, and Denmark 53%). However, the lower percentage share for women in this category was again mostly in Muslim nations (e.g., Saudi Arabia 6% and Yemen 15%). In this sphere, South Korea and Japan fared better than in other categories (39% and 46%, respectively) but were still ranked lower than most developed nations.

Finally, the third indicator is measured based on estimated earned income. The ratio of female to male earned income was the highest for Sweden (0.81), followed by other European nations: Norway (0.77), Denmark (0.73), and Finland (0.71) (UNDP, 2007). Just as in the case of the other two indicators, the ratio in Muslim nations was at the lowest of all 93 rated countries (e.g., Oman 0.19 and Egypt 0.23). In addition, it is notable that women in Japan and South Korea earned less than half of what men earned (0.45 and 0.40, respectively).

The GEM value is computed as an average of an equally distributed equivalent percentage (EDEP) of all three indicators, with the maximum possible value of 1 (UNDP, 2007).² The UNDP (2007) found the top three GEM ranking nations in Scandinavia: Norway (0.910), Sweden (0.906), and Finland (0.887). The three lowest ranking nations were the Muslim states of Yemen (0.129), Saudi Arabia (0.254), and Egypt (0.263). Notably, East Asian nations that display extremely high to moderate levels of overall economic development are found to be on the lower end of the ranking: Japan (54th, 0.557), China (57th, 0.534), and South Korea (64th, 0.510).

The GEM ranking and the pattern for the three indicators suggest that European women are able to participate more fully in political and economic life compared with women in the Middle East and East Asia. For the Middle Eastern countries, which are mostly governed by Islamic laws, limitations for women’s participation in society are likely based on religious and cultural expectations (Pharaon, 2004). In East Asia, their low gender equality is likely influenced by Confucianism, a system of philosophical teachings originating in China, which focuses on the importance of relationships between people and their roles in society (Jiang, 2009). Women in modern Asia, where a strong Confucian influence continues to exist, are expected to play the traditional subordinate role in the family, community, and society (Peng, 2004). While Confucius intended to teach virtues to sustain positive relationships among people in his historical era, by emphasizing different roles based on status, such as women and men, the philosopher’s teachings have become oppressive to women who were assigned to play the obedient and often sacrificial role in private, religious, and secular life (Jiang, 2009). As the influence of cultural heritage, often flowing from religious values and philosophical teachings, is extremely persistent and tends to endure through economic and political changes (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005), the key to the distinct patterns of gender equality in one region and inequality in other geographic locations may lie in the varieties of cultural norms and values that flow from these influences.

IPV in Patriarchal Asian Cultural Context

Societies that are highly patriarchal are likely to affect dynamics of intimate relationships by supporting domineering behavior by men over women. Researchers who investigated IPV victimization experienced by women living in highly patriarchal societies, for example, in East Asian cultures, have found patriarchal cultural values to be influential in IPV in heterosexual relationships (Kim & Emery, 2003; Lee, 2000; Yoshihama, 2005).

In her literature review and interview of Asian-serving agencies (n = 11) in the United States and Canada, Lee (2000) reported that many battered Chinese immigrant women living in North America viewed marriage as a man’s license to force sex on his wife, and thus, the women felt they could not refuse sexual advances by husbands. A focus-group study of adult female IPV survivors (n = 64) in Japan revealed that women felt trapped by their partners’ abusive tactics, which they believed were supported and reinforced by the patriarchal social structure (Yoshihama, 2005). Participants of the focus group attributed the roots of their partners’ violence to the presence of gender inequality in Japanese society. Similarly, an empirical study conducted in South Korea underscored the role of patriarchal norms in IPV perpetration. Drawing on a nationally representative sample of South Korean couples (n = 1,523), the study revealed that high conflict in household matters, such as cooking/cleaning, finances, and parenting, significantly correlated with higher rates of violence when the relationship was characterized by a male-dominant power structure, which is often evident in South Korea’s Confucian-based culture (Kim & Emery, 2003). In relationships that did not reflect a traditional patriarchal male–female power dynamic, high conflicts over household matters were not significantly related to increased IPV perpetration (Kim & Emery, 2003). Collectively, these studies suggest the existence of strong patriarchal norms in Asian couples and the association of these norms to men’s use of violence against their female partners.

Comparing the prevalence of dating violence perpetration and IPV-related attitudes among university students of different cultural heritage, researchers have found a pattern: Groups known for more patriarchal cultural norms showed a tendency for increased likelihood of reporting IPV compared with their counterparts. Chan and Straus (2008) found that both male and female university students in Hong Kong (n = 651) reported a much higher rate of dating violence perpetration compared with their counterparts in the United States (n = 1,085). Similarly, in a study conducted in Los Angeles that compared White (n = 138) and Chinese American (n = 289) college students of both genders, Chinese American students were significantly more likely than White students to support a justification of dating violence in situations that imply women’s insubordination to gender role expectations, such as having an affair, being unwilling to have sex, and disobeying her partner (Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 2000).

It is important to note that these two studies, along with other prevalence studies on dating violence among university students, did not identify significant gender differences in the rate of perpetration (Chan & Straus, 2008; Sellers & Bromley, 1996; Straus, 2008; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 2000). However, these findings should not be simply interpreted as evidence of gender symmetry in IPV perpetration as quantitative studies often lack contextual information, such as motivation, serious versus playful nature of force, mutual violence, and fear experienced by victims (Hamby & Grych, 2013; Perry & Fromuth, 2005; White & Koss, 1991). In summary, in examining the complex phenomenon of dating violence among Asian students, the strong norm of male superiority in the Asian culture should be taken into consideration.

Beliefs/Attitudes and Perpetration of IPV

Some factors have been identified as strong correlates of IPV perpetration, although research on perpetration in diverse cultural contexts is limited. Among the factors that have been consistently supported by research on IPV perpetration are the following personal beliefs and attitudes: dominance, gender hostility, jealousy, negative attribution, and approval of violence.

Dominance

Dominance in intimate relationships consists of authority, restrictiveness, and disparagement, each of which is “one kind of deviation from an egalitarian relationship” (Hamby, 1996, p. 199). Authority is most associated with one partner’s control over decision making, assumed rights to control the other’s life, and disapproving or disparaging of the other’s worth (Hamby, 1996). Male dominance is at the core of patriarchal cultural norms. Although certainly evidenced in other religious and philosophical teachings, the original writings of Confucius show little regard for women, and the teachings place authority in men while restricting women’s rights (Gao, 2003; Jiang, 2009).

Gender hostility

Gender hostility, hostility to women in particular, has been correlated with the presence of both sexual harassment and aggression toward women (Straus & Yodanis, 1996). In a study on dating violence among a mixed-gender college sample (n = 264), men’s hostility to women was found to be related to both verbal aggression and sexual coercion (Forbes, Adams-Curtis, & White, 2004). Hostility to women, which supports men’s superiority and women’s sexual objectification (Glick & Fiske, 1996), aligns with patriarchal cultural norms that sustain sexism in Confucian-based society (Jiang, 2009).

Jealousy

Jealousy has been found to be significantly related to use of violence among IPV perpetrators, particularly men who tend to depend on others and fear abandonment (Babcock, Costa, Green, & Eckhardt, 2004; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). Although using violence as a jealous response to a partner’s infidelity is considered characteristic of borderline personality traits in majority White male samples in the United States (Babcock et al., 2004; Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), jealousy may also hold a different meaning in patriarchal cultural contexts. Studies have found that Asian respondents considered men’s violence against female partners acceptable in cases involving sexual infidelity by women (Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshioka, DiNoia, & Ullah, 2001), indicating the influence of Confucian teachings on women’s obligation to stay in their submissive role in intimate relationships (Jiang, 2009) and also the belief in the virtue of sexual repression for both genders, but particularly for women (Higgins, Zheng, Liu, & Sun, 2002).

Negative attributions

Negative attributions indicate one’s tendency to attach negative intentions to his or her partner (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 2010). Significant correlations have been found between negative attributions and dating violence perpetration among university students in the United States (Stith & Hamby, 2002) and in Hong Kong (Chan, Tiwari, Leung, Ho, & Cerulli, 2007). Because women are considered subordinate to men and play supportive roles in their male partners’ success within patriarchal Asian cultural norms (Gao, 2003; Jiang, 2009), it can be argued that women would also shoulder significant responsibility and blame for men’s unhappiness and failures.

Violence approval

Approval of violence has been studied as a predictor of violence perpetration in intimate relationships and was found to have a significant relationship in a community sample of married couples (Margolin, John, & Foo, 1998) as well as a clinical sample of men in batterer intervention and alcoholism treatment programs (Stith & Farley, 1993). Approval of violence in cases of women’s sexual infidelity and nagging was also found among Asian immigrants in the United States (Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshioka et al., 2001). Women who have extramarital affairs or are perceived as nagging their male intimates would be considered nonvirtuous under Confucian teachings that extol the expectation that women will obey and sacrifice for men (Gao, 2003). Furthermore, approval of violence against women is evident within Asian traditions. Regarded as inferior and even “subhuman beings” (p. 114), women were often expected to submit themselves to physical torture such as foot-binding, honor suicide after death of husbands, and abuse by husbands and in-laws in patriarchal societies (Gao, 2003). Although some of these practices are no longer common, it can be argued that the core beliefs about the nature of male and female roles in society from which they arose still exist in some form.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The present study explores one main research question:

Research Question 1: Does the level of gender equality experienced in different cultural contexts relate to perpetration of IPV by men against women?

There are three research hypotheses generated by this question:

Hypothesis 1: Male students in countries with lower GEM scores are more likely to have beliefs/attitudes that are indicative of patriarchal social norms compared with their counterparts in countries with higher GEM scores.

Hypothesis 2: Male students in lower GEM countries are more likely to use violence against their female dating partners compared with their counterparts in higher GEM countries.

Hypothesis 3: Beliefs and attitudes indicative of patriarchal social norms are more likely to predict perpetration of violence.

Method

The International Dating Violence Study (IDVS)

This study utilized data from the IDVS to examine the relationship between patriarchal cultural norms and perpetration of IPV among male university students living in select East Asian and Western European countries. The IDVS was conducted between 2001 and 2006 in 32 countries by an international consortium of researchers (Straus, 2011b). The convenience sample of university students from seven world regions responded to questions regarding their experiences of both violence perpetration and victimization within dating relationships. The research consortium members translated and administered the questionnaires following the locally approved protection of human subjects procedures instituted at each participating university (Straus, 2004b). Typically, during the regular class period of the social science courses such as psychology, sociology, criminology, and family studies (Straus, 2008), students received an explanation of the study, including the purpose of the study and the confidential and voluntary nature of their participation (Straus, 2011a). The response rate across sites ranged from 42-100%, with the majority ranging between 85% and 95% (Straus, 2011c).

Sample

A total of seven nations were selected for inclusion in the current study from the original 32 nations in the IDVS. Two key factors influencing the selection of nations were the availability of a GEM score and sufficient sample size for analyses. Despite the fact that a large portion of the IDVS data comes from the United States and Canada (both of which have GEM scores), these countries were not selected for inclusion in the analysis in an effort to bolster the capacity to address potential explanations for country-level differences that may be found. Instead, the analysis focuses on select countries located in two areas: East Asia and Western Europe. For East Asia, China, Japan, and South Korea were selected because each country had low GEM scores (UNDP, 2007), indicating low levels of gender equality overall. They also share some common history and cultural heritage, including the presence of Confucian-based social norms. Because GEM was reported only for mainland China, Hong Kong was not included in the present study. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden were selected out of 13 European countries included in the 32 IDVS sites because they were in the top 10 GEM ranking in the Human Development Report 2007/2008 (UNDP, 2007), which would provide more contrast when comparing with the Asian nations. These EU (n.d.) members also share historical and cultural experiences, such as individualism rooted in religious and philosophical influences of Christianity and strong support for gender equality.

The sample of male respondents from the Asian region consists of students in 16 universities in China (10 in Beijing and four in Shanghai), and one university each in Japan and South Korea. The total number of male respondents for the Asian sample is 784 (China, n = 592; Japan, n = 99; and South Korea, n = 93). Although China had a sizable sample, Japan and South Korea were still included to create a sample that represents East Asia rather than just a single country. The European sample includes two universities each in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, and one university in Sweden. The number of male students in the European sample totals 575 (Belgium, n = 186; Germany, n = 163; The Netherlands, n = 63; and Sweden, n = 163). Table 1 displays the numbers of respondents and the GEM ranking and values for each national setting included in this study. It should be noted that these convenience samples are not representative of university students in the respective countries and cannot be generalized to either the university student population or general population. While surveying people in one country does not guarantee homogeneity of the sample, the countries selected for inclusion in this study show high levels of homogeneity in terms of their racial/ethnic heritage and/or religious affiliations (see Central Intelligence Agency, 2013; EU, n.d.).

Table 1.

GEM Ranking and GEM Value by Country.

Region	Country	n (%)	GEM ranking	GEM value^a
Asia	China	592 (75.5)	57	0.534
	Japan	99 (12.6)	54	0.557
	South Korea	93 (11.9)	64	0.510
Total Asia		784 (100)	—	—
Europe	Belgium	186 (32.3)	7	0.850
	Germany	163 (28.3)	9	0.831
	The Netherlands	63 (11.1)	6	0.859
	Sweden	163 (28.3)	2	0.906
Total Europe		575 (100)	—	—
Total all		1,359 (100)	—	—

Note. GEM = gender empowerment measure; EDEP = equally distributed equivalent percentage.

GEM value is an average of three indexed EDEP of representation in parliamentary seats, share of power in economy assessed in positions such as senior officials and managers, and estimated earned income (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2007).

Measurements

The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) was used to collect information about the dependent variable, perpetration of violence. A subset of scales from the Personal and Relationships Profile (PRP) was used to capture beliefs and attitudes. The GEM was introduced to assess gender equality in each country.

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)

The CTS2 is a 78-item scale that measures both minor and severe forms of physical assault and other types of abusive tactics used in intimate relationships (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). For the current study, the CTS2 subscales on psychological aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion were computed for yearly prevalence (0 = never happened before/not in the past year but happened before, 100 = happened in the past year). Table 2 displays a list of subscales and sample items from the CTS2. Each subscale has minor and severe categories with possible scores ranging from 0-400 for both minor and severe psychological aggression (four items each), 0-500 for minor physical assault (five items), 0-600 for severe physical assault (six items), 0-300 for minor sexual coercion (three items), and 0-400 for severe sexual coercion (four items). Straus (2004a) reports high reliability for this widely used scale: the lowest alpha coefficients of .72 for female students on psychological aggression and the highest alpha coefficients of .93 for male students on physical assault. The validity of the measure was assured using the Limited Disclosure Scale of the PRP (Straus et al., 2010).

Table 2.

CTS2 Scales Used for This Study and Sample Items.

Subscales	Level	Sample items
Psychological Aggression	Minor	Insulted or swore at my partner
Psychological Aggression	Severe	Threatened to hit or throw something at my partner
Physical Assault	Minor	Twisted my partner’s arm or hair
Physical Assault	Severe	Choked my partner
Sexual Coercion	Minor	Insisted on sex when my partner did not want to (no physical force)
Sexual Coercion	Severe	Used force (hitting, holding down, and so forth, to make my partner have sex

Note. CTS2 = revised Conflict Tactics Scale.

PRP

The PRP consists of 25 scales and was developed for use in screening of clients in clinical settings and in research on family violence (Straus et al., 2010). Of the 25 scales that make up the PRP, five were selected for inclusion in the current study. Table 3 displays the names of these five PRP scales, along with the number of items in each scale, and a sample item. All scales used 4-point Likert-type response sets (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree) and were computed by summing scale items and dividing by the total number of items in that scale, resulting in a possible score ranging from 0-4.

Table 3.

The PRP Scales Used for This Study and Sample Items.

Scales (No. of items)	Sample items
Individual characteristics and experiences
Hostility to Women (5)	Women treat men badly
Violence Approval (10)	A boy who is hit by another boy should hit back
Characteristics of couple relationships
Dominance (9)	My partner needs to remember that I am in charge
Jealousy (8)	I would be mad if my partner flirted with someone else
Negative Attribution (4)	My partner likes to make me mad

Note. PRP = Personal and Relationships Profile.

Dominance

The Dominance scale is designed to measure three types of dominance: authority, restrictiveness, and disparagement (Hamby, 1996). There are nine items in the scale, with higher scores indicating greater dominance in the relationship. Using the IDVS sample of 17,404 students from 68 universities in 32 nations, the alpha coefficient of internal consistency reliability for this scale was .66, indicating adequate reliability (Straus et al., 2010). For this subsample, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .68.

Hostility to Women

The scale on hostility to women is part of the Gender Hostility Scales that were developed based on a study using a sample of male (n = 79) and female (n = 139) university students (Straus & Yodanis, 1996). The Hostility to Women scale measures the negative beliefs and negative emotions male respondents have toward the opposite sex using the five-item short version (Straus et al., 2010). A higher score suggests greater hostility to women. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .75) for the original full sample (Straus et al., 2010) and slightly lower (α = .68) for the current study.

Jealousy

The scale is designed to measure the extent to which respondents are concerned about the exclusiveness of their relationship as it relates to potential jealousy in three different contexts: relationship exclusiveness, sexual exclusiveness, and time exclusiveness (Straus et al., 2010). Eight items are included in this scale with higher scores indicating higher levels of jealousy. The scale showed high reliability for both the full IDVS sample (Cronbach’s α = .84; Straus et al., 2010) and the subsample used in the current analyses (α = .83).

Negative Attribution

The Negative Attribution scale was developed as an instrument to measure the extent to which the respondents attribute blame and negativity toward their partners (Straus et al., 2010). The scale consists of four items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of attribution of negativity to partner’s intentions (α = .74; Straus et al., 2010). For the current study, the alpha was slightly lower at .69.

Violence Approval

The Violence Approval scale is designed to assess the extent to which respondents endorse use of physical violence in various social contexts and includes three subscales: Family Violence, Male Violence, and Sexual Aggression (Straus et al., 2010). There are 10 items in this scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of approval of violent behavior. The alpha coefficient for this scale was .70 with the overall IDVS student sample (Straus et al., 2010) and .73 for the current study, indicating good reliability.

The GEM

The GEM, as explained earlier, is a composite index that highlights women’s political, occupational, and economic participation. In this study, the GEM ranking is introduced to provide a mechanism for differentiating two world regions based on women’s status in each country, indicating the level of patriarchal norms. The higher GEM ranking for a country represents more gender equality for the country, thus suggesting the existence of more political and economic access and opportunity for women. Table 1 displays the GEM ranking of countries included in the current study.

Analytic Plan

Preanalysis data screening revealed that the data were not normally distributed. The assumption of homoscedasticity was examined using the Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance. Both PRP and CTS2 scales were heteroscedastic across countries with p values ranging from .000-.042. As violations of normality and homoscedasticity do not pose a serious statistical problem with one-way ANOVA and logistic regression, the data were used without transformation. An examination of tolerance indicated that there was no problem with collinearity for any of the variables used in this study.

After descriptive statistics were examined, t tests were conducted to assess differences in beliefs and perpetration based on low GEM (Asian countries) and high GEM (European countries) groups. ANOVA was performed to examine differences in beliefs/attitudes within and between countries. Chi-square tests were conducted to compare the low GEM (Asian) and high GEM (European) samples on each type of violence measured by the CTS2.

Finally, a series of logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between PRP scale scores and violence perpetration. Given the nested nature of the data used for this analysis (students nested within countries), multilevel models (MLM) with countries coded as either low GEM (China, Japan, and South Korea) or high GEM (Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands) for Level 2 analyses were also examined. These analyses were conducted in STATA 12.1. All other analyses were completed using SPSS 20.0.

Results

Sample Characteristics

As shown in Table 4, the Asian sample was significantly younger on average (M = 22.78) than the European sample (M = 25.72) (t = 11.60, p < .001). The age of respondents ranged between 18, 19, or 20 and 45 in all but the Japanese sample, which ranged from 19-23. The majority of students, particularly in Europe (79.2-98.2%), reported that sex was part of their current or most recent relationship that lasted 1 month or more (76.2-100%). Chinese respondents showed lower percentage in reporting sex being part of the relationship (28.5%) compared with respondents in all other nations. The same pattern was displayed for the measure of relationship duration, with Chinese respondents again showing a lower rate of relationships lasting 1 month or more (48.6%). All of these differences were significant at p ≤ .001.

Table 4.

Respondent Characteristics as a Percentage of Each Country’s Subsample.

Regions/Countries	Mean age	Parents married	Parents divorced	Live with partner	Dating	Engaged	Heterosexual relationship	Sex part of relationship	1+ month relationship
Asia
China	21.79	92.7	3.0	6.3	87.5	9.7	96.9	28.5	48.6
Japan	20.30	96.0	2.0	6.1	85.5	11.3	100.0	80.6	62.6
South Korea	26.25	80.6	3.2	7.5	83.1	3.9	98.7	67.5	82.8
Europe
Belgium	26.77	74.2	13.4	12.9	90.8	2.0	97.4	82.9	81.7
Germany	24.73	65.0	19.6	19.0	81.1	0.0	94.6	96.6	90.8
Netherlands	23.08	81.0	9.5	33.3	83.3	4.2	89.6	79.2	76.2
Sweden	28.31	60.1	16.6	39.3	44.2	41.1	96.9	98.2	100.0

Hypothesis 1: Beliefs/Attitudes Between Two Cultural Contexts

A series of independent-samples t tests were conducted to examine whether a significant difference exists in scores on the PRP scales between Asian and European respondents. As shown in Table 5, the results revealed that Asian and European students differed significantly (p ≤ .001) for each of the PRP scales. The results indicate that Asian male students report significantly more dominance in their dating relationships, hostility to women, jealousy in their relationships, negative attributions toward dating partners, and violence approval than their European counterparts. Thus, the first hypothesis was supported.

Table 5.

Mean Differences in PRP Scale Scores Between Asian and European Students.

PRP scales^a	Regions	n	M	SD	t value	p value
Dominance	Asia	427	2.17	.33	19.85	.000
Dominance	Europe	511	1.73	.35	19.85	.000
Hostility to Women	Asia	784	1.88	.42	7.56^b	.000
Hostility to Women	Europe	575	1.69	.50	7.56^b	.000
Jealousy	Asia	427	2.75	.50	12.81^b	.000
Jealousy	Europe	511	2.31	.56	12.81^b	.000
Negative Attributions	Asia	427	2.11	.46	13.67^b	.000
Negative Attributions	Europe	511	1.67	.52	13.67^b	.000
Violence Approval	Asia	784	2.32	.40	19.91^b	.000
Violence Approval	Europe	575	1.87	.43	19.91^b	.000

Note. PRP = Personal and Relationships Profile.

All scales range = 1-4.

Equality of variance not assumed (Levene’s test p ≤ .05).

Furthermore, multiple comparisons were conducted with the post hoc analysis using the Games–Howell test to examine mean differences among all seven countries. For three of the five PRP scales, the three Asian countries had the highest scores. The two exceptions were the Hostility to Women scale (top four means were South Korea, Germany, China, and Japan) and Negative Attributions scale (top four means = China, South Korea, Germany, and Japan). A number of significant differences were identified in the analyses. Although the order changed depending on the scale, for each of the five PRP scales, Belgium, Sweden, and the Netherlands consistently reported the three lowest mean averages.

Dominance scale

The Chinese sample (M = 2.217, SD = .306) was significantly different from five of the six other countries, with Chinese students scoring on average 0.41-0.57 points higher than European students. Students in China did not score significantly higher than students in South Korea on the Dominance scale (South Korea M = 2.177, SD = .330), however. While students in Germany did score significantly lower on the Dominance scale than students in either China or South Korea, their scores were not significantly different from students in Japan. Similarly, average scores for Japan were significantly lower than scores for students in both China and South Korea.

Hostility to Women scale

South Korean students scored significantly higher and students in the Netherlands scored significantly lower than students in other countries. The mean score for the South Korean sample was 0.71 point higher than the mean score for their counterparts in the Netherlands (South Korea = 2.062 and The Netherlands = 1.352). Notably, students in Japan were not significantly different from students in Sweden, and students in Germany were not significantly different from students in either China or Japan.

Jealousy scale

The Jealousy scale displayed differences between Asian and European students, with the mean difference being significant only between individual Asian countries and European countries. Students in Japan reported the highest mean score on the Jealousy scale (M = 2.80, SD = .089), which was significantly higher than all other countries with the exception of South Korea (M = 2.275, SD = .349).

Negative Attribution scale

Chinese students again scored higher than students in all other nations, with mean differences ranging between 0.30 and 0.77. Similarly, students in Japan and South Korea had significantly higher scores on the scale than students in European countries, except for Germany. In this case, students in Germany did not differ significantly from students in either Japan or South Korea; however, they did report significantly higher scores on the Negative Attribution scale when compared with students in the other three European countries.

Violence Approval scale

The Violence Approval scale also indicated that the Chinese sample scored significantly higher than students in each of the four European countries, with mean differences ranging from 0.40-0.62, as well as scoring significantly higher than students in Japan (M difference = .19).

Hypothesis 2: Violence Perpetration With Two Cultural Contexts

Hypothesis 2 stated that compared with their European counterparts, male Asian students would report higher frequencies of use of violence against their female partners. Chi-square tests compared the frequency of perpetration (occurred, did not occur) of each type of violence for Asian and European students using the cross-tabulation. Although severe physical assault was reported by a small percentage of students in each region (Asia = 8.4% and Europe = 5.1%, χ² = 4.211, p ≤ .05), the difference represented a significantly higher rate of perpetration for Asian males. For severe psychological aggression, 24.6% of Asian and 17.8% of European students reported perpetration (χ² = 6.473, p = .011); however, the results revealed that significantly more European students perpetrated minor psychological aggression than Asian students (Asia = 46.4% and Europe = 71.4%, χ² = 60.873, p ≤ .001). There were no significant differences in the two cultural contexts on minor physical assault (χ² = 0.578, p = .447), minor sexual coercion (χ² = 0.254, p = .614), or severe sexual coercion (χ² = 3.017, p = .082). Thus, the second hypothesis, male Asian students are more likely to use violence against their dating partners compared with their counterparts in Europe, was partially supported.

Hypothesis 3: Beliefs/Attitudes and Violence Perpetration

The final set of analyses examined the hypothesis that beliefs and attitudes indicative of patriarchal social norms would be predictive of violence perpetration. A series of multilevel logistic regression models examined the impact of beliefs and attitudes on the likelihood that IPV would be perpetrated within countries. Six separate models predicting both minor and severe levels of physical assault, psychological aggression, and sexual coercion were analyzed. Each of the models contained five predictor variables: Dominance, Hostility to Women, Jealousy, Negative Attributions, and Violence Approval.

Psychological aggression

Inclusion of the five PRP scale measures offered a significant improvement in the constant-only model predicting perpetration of severe psychological aggression (χ² = 38.01, p = .001). The Dominance, z = 2.42, p = .015, Exp(B) = 2.03, and Violence Approval scales, z = 3.24, p ≤ .001, Exp(B) = 2.03, each made significant contributions to the model. Further analysis of the relationships nested within low GEM and high GEM groups indicated that the model was significantly improved by considering Level 2 effects (χ² = 3.23, p = .036). Respondents within the low GEM group scored significantly higher on Violence Approval, while those within the high GEM group scored significantly higher on the Dominance scale. For minor psychological aggression, two of the five scales made significant contributions: Dominance (z = 2.23, p = .026) and Hostility to Women (z = 2.65, p = .008). MLM identified Level 2 differences for low GEM versus high GEM nations as well (χ² = 92.27, p < .001), with low GEM respondents scoring higher on both Hostility to Women and Violence Approval, and high GEM respondents scoring significantly higher on Negative Attributions.

Physical assault

For minor physical assault, Negative Attributions, z = 2.42, p = .015, Exp(B) = 1.61, and Violence Approval, z = 2.72, p = .006, Exp(B) = 1.78, contributed significantly to the model (χ² = 3.23, p = .036). Inclusion of Level 2 effects for low GEM versus high GEM countries resulted in significant improvement in the model (χ² = 17.82, p = .001). Although low versus high GEM did not affect the role of Violence Approval in predicting minor physical assault, the tendency to assign Negative Attributions was significant within the high GEM group, but not the low GEM group. For severe physical assault, Dominance, z = 2.11, p = .035, Exp(B) = 2.74, and Violence Approval, z = 3.20, p ≤ .001, Exp(B) = 3.30, were significant predictors in the model (pseudo-R² = .117, p < .001). Due to the small number of cases that reported severe physical assault perpetration, this relationship was not examined in a multilevel model.

Sexual coercion

For severe sexual coercion, the model explained approximately 12% of the variation in the data (χ² = 37.88, p < .001). Dominance was a strong and significant contributor to the model, z = 4.45, p ≤ .001, Exp(B) = 15.49. None of the predictors made a unique, significant contribution to the model predicting minor sexual coercion. The examination of the Level 2 model indicated that respondents did not differ based on low versus high GEM contexts.

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship between patriarchal norms as evidenced by individual attitudes and perpetration of IPV against women among samples of male students attending universities in a select group of Asian and European countries. As a key focus of this study was to further our understanding of the relationship between individual attitudes and IPV targeting women within the context of one’s cultural environment, the national settings were selected based on two factors: common cultural heritages and GEM rankings that represent distinct differences in gender equality (low GEM vs. high GEM). In terms of the historical influences on culture, the common influence of traditional Confucian-based culture offers one basis for interpreting findings within low GEM Asian countries. On the other end of the GEM ranking spectrum, the Western European countries included in the analyses have historical roots in Christianity, but more importantly for the purpose of this study, these countries have GEM scores suggesting a high level of gender equality.

Beliefs/Attitudes, Cultural Contexts, and Perpetration of Dating Violence

As hypothesized, results of the current study revealed that male students attending Asian universities were significantly more likely than their European counterparts to endorse perspectives/beliefs that are indicative of patriarchal cultural norms, including a belief in male dominance, hostility to women, jealousy, assigning negative attributions to a partner’s actions, and violence approval. Each of these factors has been identified as correlates to IPV perpetration in past research (Forbes et al., 2004; Hamby, 1996; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Margolin et al., 1998; Stith & Hamby, 2002). Notably, while the identified relationship was consistent across all five scales, when differences between individual countries were considered, both Japan and Germany often functioned differently than other geographically and culturally similar countries. Despite their differences (Japan GEM score = .557, Germany GEM score = .831), Japan and Germany were more similar to one another across three of the five measures: Dominance, Hostility to Women, and Negative Attributions.

The second hypothesis on violence perpetration between Asian and European contexts resulted in nuanced findings. The finding that students at European universities scored significantly higher on minor psychological aggression compared with their Asian counterparts is somewhat unexpected and inconsistent with theoretical expectations. However, perpetration of severe psychological aggression and severe physical assault were reported more often by Asian than by European respondents, which is consistent with the findings of the first hypothesis.

The analysis for the third hypothesis revealed that some of the beliefs and attitudes were indeed strong predictors of violence perpetration. Out of six predictors, negative attribution was a significant predictor for minor physical assault only. It is noteworthy that dominance contributed to all severe levels of violence and that violence approval contributed to both minor and severe forms of physical assault and severe psychological aggression. However, the current analyses offer limited, mixed support for the argument that these relationships are more likely to occur within low GEM rather than high GEM countries. While support for male dominance was a consistent predictor across four of the five IPV measures, only one of the multilevel models demonstrated a Level 2 effect for high GEM countries, not for low GEM countries.

Influence of Culture on Attitudes and Perpetration of Violence

Some differences in Asian and European students were observed in the descriptive information. Asian students were younger, more likely to have parents who were currently married, and much less likely to experience parents’ divorce compared with students in European countries. Both groups were mostly in dating relationships; however, more European students lived with partners. These rates may suggest a Confucian-based role expectation for Asian students. For instance, divorce may be particularly hard for Asian couples because of expected roles for individuals within the family and society. Living with a partner may be seen as a taboo for nonmarried couples in Asian culture, as it may reflect one’s deviance from traditional roles. These traditional role expectations include views on appropriate gender roles and may play a key part in how Asian men in the sample viewed women, violence, and intimate relationships.

The current study found that Asian male students scored significantly higher on all beliefs/attitudes indicative of patriarchal norms and also reported significantly more severe physical assault and severe psychological aggression than their European counterparts. Dominance and violence approval, out of the six beliefs/attitudes examined in this study, were both strong predictors of severe forms of both physical assault and psychological aggression. Male students in Asia may expect women to believe that men are in charge (dominance) and may have a high tendency to objectify women sexually by justifying sexual aggression (violence approval) based on a sense of male superiority. While violence approval is outside the realm of contextual factors that contribute to the construction of GEM rankings, the same cannot be said for the pervasiveness of beliefs in male dominance within civic and social life. Indeed, the strong patriarchal cultural context is likely a relevant factor in forming individual beliefs and attitudes that support violence against women among Asian men. These factors may also be critical in understanding the lower GEM ranking for Asian countries (UNDP, 2007).

Limitations

The data used in this study are the result of nonprobability sampling strategies, which contributes to a lack of generalizability of the study findings. As the survey was conducted in university social science classes, it is reasonable to assume that some students might be more aware of issues of IPV than the general student population. In addition, it must also be noted that most of these classes were taught by members of the research consortium who conducted the original study and thus were likely to be recognized for their research interest in the area of IPV or other types of violence and gender issues. This may increase the potential for students in these classes to have an even greater interest in the topic of IPV and/or greater concern about gender equality, and thus may reduce the likelihood that they would engage in or report patriarchal attitudes and/or IPV perpetration. As these arguments would hold true for students in both Asian and European countries, in terms of the comparisons made for the current analyses, the impact of this potential bias may have been minimal.

Like many secondary data analyses, this study was limited by available data. The IDVS data set does not include questions on race or ethnicity, nor does it provide information on students’ immigration and international status. While the sample used for this study comes from countries that are generally homogeneous in these categories (see Central Intelligence Agency, 2013; EU, n.d.), one cannot assume this is the case for all of the respondents in each setting. For example, it is possible that there were international students from Europe in the Chinese sample, or Korean immigrants in the German sample. Thus, it is possible (probable) that a minority of respondents may have had different cultural heritages than their classmates. Although speculative at best, it can be argued that the likely impact of this low-level heterogeneity in the samples would produce weaker empirical relationships, thus increasing the likelihood that the significant relationships identified here are evidence of differences worthy of further consideration. Additional analyses are needed to address this issue, however.

As criticized by many researchers (Currie, 1998; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2011; Kimmel, 2002), the CTS2 only asks about the occurrence of violence and lacks contextual information such as intentions and history. Because IPV is a highly complicated phenomenon, simply asking about the presence of a behavior is not likely to be helpful in determining, for instance, if the violence was perpetrated as a means of patriarchal dominance, self-defense, or even horseplay. Because the IDVS was strictly quantitative in research design and had no other data to contextualize the results, it does not allow researchers to differentiate reasons for violence, which can provide critical insight behind the numbers. Given the nature of the current study, this contextual information is of particular interest.

Implications

This study contributes to the nascent, yet growing body of literature examining IPV among people in places other than the United States and Canada where the bulk of the extant research has occurred. Given the alarming rates of dating violence among university students and the lack of literature on more diverse samples of students, studies that add to the knowledge of perpetration of violence among a variety of populations in varied settings are critical. To that end, the results of the current study, suggesting a potential link between gender inequality in environments influenced by patriarchal cultural norms, can inform prevention and intervention programs targeting students as well as general communities. The information may be beneficial for universities in improving existing violence prevention and intervention programs, and meeting the cultural needs of students of Asian descent, including international and immigrant students. Furthermore, as the patriarchal beliefs are likely contributors to IPV perpetration, this study provides some evidence for consideration as Asian communities explore strategies for facilitating cultural norm change to reduce violence against women.

Although research findings based on a convenience sample cannot be generalized, the analyses add to the knowledge base for practitioners, educators, and policy makers striving to provide programs that meet the needs of diverse population. Further analysis may be conducted to examine the frequency of violence perpetration in the Asian context rather than the simple prevalence in the past year as it is captured in the current study. In addition to the quantitative analysis, qualitative information such as motivations, history, and context of perpetration would likely provide deeper understanding of IPV in future research.

Conclusion

The debate about the relevance of patriarchy as a heuristic for understanding the prevalence of IPV within particular cultural settings has been ongoing for some time. At the heart of the argument against the utility of the construct as a meaningful interpretive tool is the fact that significant and sometimes equal numbers of men and women report experiences of IPV victimization in which the perpetrator is female (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010). The ensuing argument suggests that, by definition, the notions of male dominance as a catalyst for IPV fail to resonate in the face of such evidence. Evidence that individual endorsements of certain attitudes and beliefs rooted in patriarchy are significantly related to some forms of IPV perpetration, and that those relationships vary across national settings where gender inequality (also rooted in part in patriarchy) exists, suggests that the influence of patriarchy is not entirely irrelevant to our continuing exploration (Hunnicutt, 2009). Finding methods to finely tune our understanding of specific ways this influence is manifested and maintained will be critical to future scholarship in this important area of inquiry.

Footnotes

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Reiko Ozaki, MSW, LISW-S, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Kentucky College of Social Work. She has 20 years of practice experience in the field of violence against women in various settings, including community organizing, batterer intervention, and victim advocacy in the United States. She has also collaborated for a decade with organizations in Japan to provide advocacy training. Her research interests include prevention of violence perpetration, service delivery for immigrant communities, and training for service providers. She was recently involved in a program evaluation of bystander primary prevention strategies aimed at reducing sexual and dating violence.

Melanie D. Otis, PhD, is the Richard K. Brautigam professor of Criminal, Juvenile, and Social Justice at the University of Kentucky. Her research interests focus on the etiology of mental and physical health disparities among members of disadvantaged groups (e.g., sexual minorities, ethnic and racial minorities, women, persons living in central Appalachia). She has also examined the intersection between these factors and experiences of violent victimization, most recently as it is reflected in lives of incarcerated heterosexual and sexual minority women who have lifetime histories of violent victimization and co-occurring substance use problems.

References

Babcock

J. C.

Costa

D. M.

Green

C. E.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2004). What situations induce intimate partner violence? A reliability and validity study of the Proximal Antecedents to Violent Episodes (PAVE) Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 433-442.

Brownmiller

(1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Caputi

(1989). The sexual politics of murder. Gender & Society, 3, 437-456.

Catalano

Smith

Snyder

H. N.

Rand

(2009). Female victims of violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Central Intelligence Agency. (2013). The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Chan

K. L.

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Prevalence and correlates of physical assault on dating partners: A comparison between Hong Kong and the US samples. Open Social Science Journal, 1, 5-14.

Chan

K. L.

Tiwari

Leung

W. C.

H. W. Y.

Cerulli

(2007). Common correlates of suicidal ideation and physical assault among male and female university students in Hong Kong. Violence and Victims, 22, 290-303.

Currie

D. H.

(1998). Violent men or violent women? Whose definition counts? In Bergen

R. K.

(Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 97-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(2011). Theoretical and definitional issues in violence against women. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

(1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press.

11.

European Union. (n.d.). How the EU works: Basic information. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/about-eu/index_en.htm

12.

Fontes

L. A.

McCloskey

K. A.

(2011). Cultural issues in violence against women. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Kennedy Bergen

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (2nd ed., pp. 151-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13.

Forbes

G. B.

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

White

K. B.

(2004). First- and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women, 10, 236-261.

14.

Gao

(2003). Women existing for men: Confucianism and social injustice against women in China. Race, Gender & Class, 10, 114-125.

15.

Garcia-Moreno

Jansen

H. A.

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

C. H.

(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. Lancet, 368, 1260-1269.

16.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

17.

Hamby

S. L.

(1996). The Dominance scale: Preliminary psychometric properties. Violence and Victims, 11, 199-212.

18.

Hamby

S. L.

Grych

(2013). The web of violence: Exploring connections among different forms of interpersonal violence and abuse. New York: Springer.

19.

Higgins

L. T.

Zheng

Liu

Sun

C. H.

(2002). Attitudes to marriage and sexual behaviors: A survey of gender and culture differences in China and the United Kingdom. Sex Roles, 46(3-4), 75-89.

20.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Meehan

J. C.

Herron

Rehman

Stuart

G. L.

(2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019.

21.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Stuart

G. L.

(1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497.

22.

Hunnicutt

(2009). Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: Resurrecting “patriarchy” as a theoretical tool. Violence Against Women, 15, 553-573.

23.

Inglehart

Welzel

(2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Jiang

(2009). Confucianism, women, and social contexts. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 36, 228-242.

25.

Kim

J.-Y.

Emery

(2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197-219.

26.

Kimmel

M. S.

(2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332-1363.

27.

Krug

E. G.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Mercy

J. A.

Zwi

A. B.

Lozano

(2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

28.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179-193.

29.

Lee

M. Y.

(2000). Understanding Chinese battered women in North America. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8, 215-241.

30.

Lerner

(1986). The creation of patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press.

31.

Margolin

John

R. S.

Foo

(1998). Interactive and unique risk factors for husbands’ emotional and physical abuse of their wives. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 315-344.

32.

Nussbaum

M. C.

(2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

33.

Peng

(2004). Post-industrial pressures, political regime shifts, and social policy reform in Japan and South Korea. Journal of East Asian Studies, 4, 389-425.

34.

Perry

A. R.

Fromuth

M. E.

(2005). Courtship violence using couple data: Characteristics and perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1078-1095.

35.

Pharaon

N. A.

(2004). Saudi women and the Muslim state in the twenty-first century. Sex Roles, 51, 349-366.

36.

Sellers

C. S.

Bromley

M. L.

(1996). Violent behavior in college student dating relationships: Implications for campus service providers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 12, 1-27.

37.

Stith

S. M.

Farley

S. C.

(1993). A predictive model of male spousal violence. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 183-201.

38.

Stith

S. M.

Hamby

S. L.

(2002). The Anger Management scale: Development and preliminary psychometric properties. Violence and Victims, 17, 383-402.

39.

Stöckl

Devries

Rotstein

Abrahams

Campbell

Watts

Moreno

C. G.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. Lancet, 382, 859-865.

40.

Straus

M. A.

(2004a). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407-432.

41.

Straus

M. A.

(2004b). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-811.

42.

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.

43.

Straus

M. A.

(2011a). International Dating Violence Study, 2001-2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

44.

Straus

M. A.

(2011b). International Dating Violence Study, 2001-2006 (ICPSR29583-v1) [Computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. doi:10.3886/ICPSR29583.v1

45.

Straus

M. A.

(2011c). International Dating Violence Study, 2001-2006: Description. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

46.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

47.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

(2010). Manual for the personal and relationship profile (PRP). Durham: University of New Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory. Retrieved from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2

48.

Straus

M. A.

Yodanis

C. L.

(1996, August). Gender hostility and violence against dating partners. Paper presented at the XII World Meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression, Strasbourg, France.

49.

United Nations. (1996). Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women: Beijing, 4-15 September 1995. New York: Author.

50.

United Nations Development Programme. (1995). Human development report 1995. New York: Oxford University Press.

51.

United Nations Development Programme. (2007). Human development report 2007/2008. New York: Author.

52.

United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Human development report 2010. New York: Author.

53.

United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Human development report 2014. New York: Author.

54.

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1993). Vienna declaration and programme of action: Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Vienna.aspx

55.

White

J. W.

Koss

M. P.

(1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256.

56.

World Health Organization. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

57.

Yick

A. G.

Agbayani-Siewert

(1997). Perceptions of domestic violence in a Chinese American community. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 832-846.

58.

Yick

A. G.

Agbayani-Siewert

(2000). Dating violence among Chinese American and White students: A sociocultural context. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8, 101-129.

59.

Yoshihama

(2005). A web in the patriarchal clan system: Tactics of intimate partners in the Japanese sociocultural context. Violence Against Women, 11, 1236-1262.

60.

Yoshioka

M. R.

DiNoia

Ullah

(2001). Attitudes toward marital violence: An examination of four Asian communities. Violence Against Women, 7, 900-926.