Chitra Raghavan, Ph.D. Department of Psychology

John Jay College of Criminal JusticeCity University of New York

Alliance Research To Practice Series

October 2, 2007

2

The Influence of Public Life on Private: The role of

neighborhood factors in partner violence

3

Individual-Level Substance abuse/alcohol (e.g., El- Bassel &

colleagues)

Mental illness (e.g., PTSD, dependent or borderline personality)(e.g.,Dutton 1999)

Personality traits of batterers (e.g., impulsive, low anger control)

Typologies (Holtzworth-Munroe, 1999) questioned by Waltz, Babcock, Jacobson, & Gottman (2000)

4

What else is there?

Disadvantaged neighborhoods are at higher risk for domestic violence (Miles-Doan, 2000; DeKeseredy et al, 1999; Renzetti and Maier, 2002).

Robust even after controlling for individual-level risk factors (Browning, 2002; Cunradi, Caetano, Clark, & Schafer, 2000).

5

Big Question

Why should being assaulted external to the home be related to being assaulted inside the home?

Fundamental logical flaw

6

My Presentation

Study 1 – Community Violence and Affiliation with Victimized Women

Study 2 – Community Violence and Affiliation with Violent Peers and Victimized Women

7

General Theoretical Framework

Where you live matters Social Disorder Community Violence

The people you live with matter Informal Social Control/Collective Efficacy Violence in Social Support Networks

8

Social Disorder

Incivilities in the public sphere such such as public drunkenness, kids playing truant, disputes, loitering

9

Community Violence

Characterized by acts such as violent public arguments, drug related disputes, gang fights, robbery-related assaults and sexual victimization.

Social disorder and community violence are intimately linked-violent behaviors tend to flourish in neighborhoods where disorder is high (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls, 1997)

10

Collective Efficacy Pervasive violence reflects a lack of investment or inability of the

community to regulate their environment (Perkins & Taylor, 1996).

May not gather resources to address community problems

Norms governing informal social control may “tolerate” violence-specific

Public ills are more pressing than private ones

11

Violence in the Network

Move away from individual targets to groups

Poor women tend to network with women with very similar profiles.

Less choice because restricted educational and vocational opportunities (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

Other women in their network may also experience domestic violence.

12

Violence in Network

How much support can a resource-strapped group provide?

How much risk can a resource-strapped group convey?

13

Study 1-Partner violence in the context of drug use, social disorder, community violence, and network violence

Estimated lifetime rates of IPV for substance abusers range from 60% to 75% (e.g., American Medical Association, 1992; Gilbert, El-Bassel, Rajah, Foleno, & Frye, 2001)

14

Two viewpoints

Individual level-drug use is directly related to IPV

Systemic level-Women’s submersion in a drug lifestyle is associated with multiple forms of violence, and the ubiquity of violence may contribute to IPV

15

Goal of this study

Examine whether hard drug use functioned as a directly or indirect risk factor via drug-dependent lifestyle for IPV

16

Figure 1

b.d.

c.

a.

Community Violence

Network Intimate Partner Violence Intimate

Partner Violence

Social Disorder

Substance Use

Direct ?

Indirect?

17

Hypotheses

Direct path

Drug use will be related to higher rates of male-to-female IPV

Indirect path

Relationship between drug use and IPV will be mediated by community violence

18

Hypotheses ctd

Direct path

Network violence will be related to higher rates of male-to-female IPV

Indirect path

Relationship between network violence and IPV will be mediated by community violence

19

Participants

Recruited from a Welfare-to-Work program

Currently receive/eligible to receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)

Have an admitted drug problem

20

Participants

20 to 45 years (M = 31.16, SD = 7.09).

44 % African American and European American (N = 50)

66% had a high school degree

76% relied on state for income, < 10,000 yr

21

Summary of Descriptives

Social disorder (M = .90 ; SD =.70) Drug use in past 6 months (70%) Network Violence (16%) High experience of community violence

(40%) 26% were victimized by intimates 15% were violent towards intimates

22

Figure 1

b.

c.

Community Violence

Network Intimate Partner Violence IPV

Social Disorder

Substance Use

Direct for

networks

Indirect for

drugs

23

Why Drug Use?

Costly drugs such as cocaine often necessitates a criminal lifestyle to support women and their partner’s drug-use.

Higher exposure to community violence

24

Why Community Violence?Public=======Private?

Pervasiveness of violence indicates low informal social control/collective efficacy

Norms governing informal social control may “tolerate” partner violence

Banalization of violence-not an explicit dismissal

25

Why Female Networks?

Resource strapped themselves

View abuse as normal

Their own use of violence mitigates partner’s use

26

Does this generalize?

Is it specific to highly disadvantaged populations?

Bulk of related research is with extreme poverty

and violence

27

Study II: Community Violence, Peer Networks, and IPV

Young non drug-addicted college men

Community Violence

Male and Female Peers

How does cultural background matter?

28

Community Violence

Characteristics of community violence Economically disadvantaged

neighborhoods Theories

Acceptance orlegitimization

of use of violence

Low collectiveefficacy

29

Male Social Support Networks

Social Learning

Theory

Modeling of violent behavior towards

women

Affiliation with men who legitimize

Economic disenfranchisement

and stress

30

Female Social Support Networks

Supportfrom

fellow victims

Violence not viewed as

abusive orunusual

MinimizationEncourage

to stayEmpathy

effect

31

The Current Study Is community violence a direct risk factor

for IPV ? How does it affect social support networks

and IPV?

Aims Examine how community violence may relate

to IPV Provide a detailed examination of how social

support may be associated with perpetration of male to female IPV

32

Methods

Participants Undergraduate male students (N=479) in a large

public urban university Measures

Community Violence Adult Version of My Exposure to Violence Scale

(Selner-O’Hagan, Kindlon, Buka, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1998)

Social Support and Network Violence Block (2002) Network Domestic Violence

Intimate Partner Violence Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2: Straus,

Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)

33

Sample Descriptives

Age 18-28 years (M=18.61, SD=1.26)

Participants were residing with Parents 80% Room-mates 3% Rented their own room 4% Dating Partner 4% Other 9%

Household income ≤ $30, 000 42% 31,000 - $60,000 28% >$61,000 25%

African-American

17%

White30%

Asian/ Other

9%

Hispanic 44%

34

Predictor Variables: Social Support Network

Variables Percentage

Male Support

Male friends 66.5

Brother/Father 6.6

Multiple 18.0

Other 8.4

Female Support

Female Friends 61.9

Sister/Mother 15.2

Multiple 13.0

Other 9.0

Full Sample N = 479 Men

Male-Support -Perpetrator 34.9

Female Support-Victimized 46.6

Participant IPV 30.1

Witnessing Community Violence 84.1

35

Full-Sample: Community Violence and Violence in Male Support to predict IPV Perpetration

Centered Mean Community Violence

86420-2-4

Mea

n IP

V (

Log-

Tra

nsfo

rmed

) .6

.5

.4

.3

.2

.1

0.0

Male Networks

Average/Low Violence

High Violence

36

Preliminary Ethnic Group Differences

Would these relationships hold across ethnic groups?

Culture prescribes the way we make friends and how important their messages are

Whose message matters and how?

37

African Americans and Victimization of Female Support

Female Network Victimization

543210-1

Mea

n IP

V (

Log-

Tra

nsfo

rmed

)

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0.0

-.5

38

Asian American- Victimization in Female Support

Female Network Victimization

43210-1

Mea

n IP

V (

Log-

Tra

nsfo

rmed

)

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0.0

-.5

39

Summary of results

Community violence associated with IPV Impact more severe when support groups are violent

Violent male peers sufficient risk for White men and Asian men

Insufficient for Latinos

Insufficient for Blacks

40

Summary

Racial/ethnic group differences

Female victimization matters for African Americans and Asians

Why?

41

Ethnic differences ctd

Caucasians and Latinos Female peers may not be an important source of role

models

African-Americans Women’s victimization, but not men’s violence, may convey

particular messages to African-American men Women’s own use of violence

Asian Americans When female support members report severe victimization,

the message changes

42

General Discussion

Where you live matters

Who you associate with matters

43

Next Steps?

What is the actual content of the messages? Implicit or explicit?

Person x Environment interactions neglected

Does community violence interact or exacerbate violence prone emotions such as jealousy?

44

Practice and Policy change

Redirect energy to communities and provide support to neighborhoods Help in creation and maintenance of new peer

groups

Change peer messages and peer norms

Practical-community centers and better housing

45

Ctd

Reduce crime, poverty, and substance use

Increase opportunities for prosocial behaviors Movie theatres and clubs that are accessible to

everyone

Create real jobs not McDonald’s