Elsevier

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Volume 31, November–December 2016, Pages 116-126
Aggression and Violent Behavior

A meta-analysis of cross cultural risk markers for intimate partner violence

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.08.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Cultural context is important in understanding IPV risk markers.

  • Markers in US/collectivist countries are more similar than US/individualist countries.

  • Emotional abuse and control were strongest risk markers in all groups.

  • Differences between groups were found for relationship and family risk markers.

Abstract

The majority of IPV research has originated from western countries and neglected to examine cultural influences. We meta-analyzed the strength of various well-established risk markers (demographic, individual-level and relational) for male-perpetrated IPV across different cultures. Using Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov's (2010) individualism scale, we grouped studies from countries into individualist and collectivist categories, and then accounted for the influence of the large number of U.S.-based studies, by creating 3 groups: U.S., Individualistic, and Collectivist. Risk markers across collectivist and U.S. groups had similar effect sizes across while risk markers in the U.S. had larger effect sizes than those found in the international individualist countries. Our findings suggest that if a comprehensive understanding of IPV perpetration is to be achieved, cultural context cannot be ignored.

Section snippets

Theoretical review

Hofstede's Dimensional Model of Culture has been used to understand variation in cultural values across different countries (Hofstede, 2011). This model emerged from Hofstede's values survey completed by IBM employees from 50 countries in the 1970's. Initial correlational analyses revealed that there were significant stable differences between mean survey item scores at the country level. Hofstede replicated these findings with 400 non-IBM management trainees from 30 countries which showed a

Search strategies

Selection and identification of appropriate studies occurred in multiple phases. We first reviewed 509 studies from 1980 to 2000, which were considered in a previous meta-analysis of IPV risk markers (Author). These studies were obtained from computer database searches (ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, Medline, PsychLit, Social Sciences Abstracts, and Social Sciences Citations Index). The key words from the previous meta-analysis were adapted and used in this present study (see Stith, Smith, Penn,

Included samples

Using the selection criteria outlined above, we included 49 studies from collectivist samples, 31 from individualist samples outside the U.S., and 210 from the U.S., for a total of 291 studies representing a combined sample size of 225,822 and yielding 779 independent effect sizes (k). Of these effect sizes, 107 were from collectivist countries, 92 from international individualist countries, and 580 from the U.S. A list of international individualist and collectivist countries and the number of

Discussion

Although a great deal of research on IPV has been conducted within the U.S. and North America, there is a need for more research on risk markers for IPV worldwide. The primary goal of the present study was to contribute to the literature by using a meta-analytic approach to examine risk markers of IPV in different cultural contexts to identify possible similarities and differences. Based on Hofstede's Dimensional Model of Culture (Hofstede, 2011), which categorizes countries as ‘individualist’

Limitations

“Societal cultures reside in (often unconscious) values, in the sense of broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (Hofstede, 2001, p.55). Because individual differences (i.e. preferences and personalities) exist within a family, family differences (i.e. dynamics and expectations) within cultures, cultural differences (i.e. values and ideals) within regions or cities, and regional differences (i.e. resources and infrastructure) within countries, any “categorical

Future research directions

The studies included in the meta-analysis were limited to male perpetration. There are few studies on female perpetration, female victimization, and male victimization outside of the U.S. and North America. When looking at IPV through a cultural lens, studying both male and female IPV would help to better understand how IPV might be different in other cultures. Thus, more studies are needed in these areas. Furthermore, we were unable to include many potential risk markers in our analyses

Conclusion

Overall, our findings suggest that risk markers for IPV vary across cultural groups, with unexpectedly greater similarities in effects between the U.S. and collectivist countries than between the U.S. and individualist countries. This information provides a number of insights, the most prominent being that understanding IPV in a cultural context is necessary when determining markers associated with risk for perpetration and defining appropriate foci for intervention in a particular culture.

Acknowledgments

This research is based on work supported by the US Air Force Division of Behavioral Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Award Number: 2015-39575-24367; PI: Sandra Stith).

References (41)

  • R. Rosenthal

    The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1979)
  • S.M. Stith et al.

    Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review

    Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior

    (2004)
  • M. Borenstein et al.

    Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 2) [computer software]

    (2005)
  • M.B. Brewer et al.

    Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism

    Psychological Review

    (2007)
  • K.J. Burrus et al.

    Spouses' perceptions of aggression and associations with relationship satisfaction

    Partner Abuse

    (2011)
  • B. Cafferky et al.

    Substance use and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review

    Psychology of Violence

    (2016)
  • D.M. Capaldi et al.

    A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence

    Partner Abuse

    (2012)
  • N.A. Card

    Applied meta-analysis for social science research

    (2012)
  • K.L. Chan

    Correlates of wife assault in Hong Kong Chinese families

    Violence and Victims

    (2004)
  • D. Collison et al.

    Income inequality and child mortality in wealthy nations

    Journal of Public Health

    (2007)
  • S. Duval et al.

    A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis

    Journal of the American Statistical Association

    (2000)
  • Z. Eisikovits et al.

    The first Israeli national survey on domestic violence

    Violence Against Women

    (2004)
  • E.E. Esquivel-Santoveña et al.

    Partner abuse worldwide

    Partner Abuse

    (2013)
  • C. Garcia-Moreno et al.

    Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence

    World Health Organization

    (2013)
  • D. Hadas et al.

    Spousal violence among immigrants from the former Soviet Union—General population and welfare recipients

    Journal of Family Violence

    (2008)
  • A.J. Hawkins et al.

    Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (2008)
  • G. Hofstede

    Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage series on cross-cultural research and methods

    (1984)
  • G. Hofstede

    Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations

    (2001)
  • Hofstede

    Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context

    Online Reading in Psychology and Culture

    (2011)
  • G. Hofstede et al.

    Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind

    (2010)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text