Flake-Violencia Domestica en La

7/28/2019 Flake-Violencia Domestica en La

1/13

Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 21, No. 1, January 2006 ( C 2006)

DOI: 10.1007/s10896-005-9002-2

Fighting Families: Family Characteristics Associated

with Domestic Violence in Five Latin American Countries

Dallan F. Flake1 and Renata Forste1,2

Published online: 8 April 2006

This study uses data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs) to examine the relationship

betweenfamilial characteristics and the likelihood of experiencing domestic violence in Colombia, the

Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Peru. Logistic regression techniques are used to measure

relationships between marital status, family size, partner alcohol use, socioeconomic status (SES),

decision-making power, and education homogamy and the likelihoodof experiencingpartner violence.Cohabitation, female-dominant decision making, and partner alcohol are positively associated with

domestic violence across datasets. Family size, SES,and education homogamy emerged as statistically

significant in some, but not all of the datasets. This study helps clarify the profile of the abused Latina

and also tests the applicability of current abuse research to a non-Western setting.

KEY WORDS: Latin America; spouse abuse; family violence; marital violence.

INTRODUCTION

Domestic violence3 is one of Latin Americas most

pressing social problems, as each year between 10 and

35% of Latina women are physically abused by their

partners (Buvinic et al., 1999). Whereas the region is

notorious for its high rates of political and social vio-

lence, much less understood is the violence that occurs

behind closed doorsbetween husbands and wives. With

so much attention centered on Latin Americas corruption,

crime, and political instability, it is easily overlooked that

the family is perhaps this regions most violent social

institution.

Although domestic violence research has reached un-

precedented heights, relatively little is known about how

spouse abuse functions outside traditional Western regions

of study such as North America and Europe. Culture isknown to affect the magnitude and characteristics of inti-

1Department of Sociology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of So-

ciology, Brigham Young University, 2032 JFSB, Provo, UT 84602;

e-mail: renata [email protected] While numerous forms of aggression are incorporated into the term

domestic violence, the present study focuses exclusively on domestic

violence involving physical abuse between heterosexual partners.

mate violence in different societies (Holtzworth-Munroe

et al., 1997), but because few studies compare these issues

in different cultural contexts, it remains unclear if present-

dayabuse research canbe applied to non-Western settings.

A few foundational studies have been conducted in Latin

America (Ellsberg et al., 2000; Gonzales de Olarte &

Gavilano Llosa, 1999); however, they tend to focus on

women in a single city or country rather than examin-

ing broader patterns of domestic violence across Latin

America.

This study extends the domestic violence litera-

ture by examining family characteristics associated with

spouse abuse across five Latin American countries.

Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, and

Peru were selected for analysis because they reflect the

rich diversity of Latin America. The purpose of this study

is twofold. First, it aims to create a more comprehen-sive profile of the abused Latina to inform researchers,

policymakers, and women themselves of potential risk

markers for abuse. Second, this study investigates the ap-

plicability of Western abuse research to less-developed

countries. This may potentially be its most important

contribution, as it could shed light on the relevance of

current theories, models, programs, and policies to Latin

America.

19

0885-7482/06/0100-0019/0 C 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/13

20 Flake and Forste

The Latin American Context

Latin America is one of the most culturally heteroge-

neous regions in the world. The myriad races, ethnicities,

languages, and lifestyles preclude the lumping together

of Colombians, Dominicans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and

Peruvians as part of a uniform Latin American culture.In examining domestic violence in Latin America, how-

ever, most of the countries share two characteristicsa

legacy of social violence and rigid gender scriptsthat

are integral to understanding spouse abuse in the Latin

American context.

Latin America has long been one of the worlds most

violent regions. Beginning with the Spanish Conquest and

extending to the present day, political conflict has become

a near permanent fixture in the lives of millions of Latinos.

In Colombia, the constant war between the government

and drug cartels has made the country one of the most vio-

lent places in the world. Colombia is currently engaged inone of its bloodiest conflicts to date, against the powerful

guerilla organization FARC. The Dominican Republic,

Haiti, and Nicaragua have been equally unstable. Corrupt

regimes andbloodycivil conflicts ledto international mili-

tary intervention in all three countries during the twentieth

century. Peru has a similar history of political violence and

is presently battling the Shining Path, a Maoist terrorist

group whose stated goal is to destroy existing Peruvian

institutions and replace them with a communist peasant

regime. Since the Shining Path took up arms in 1980,

approximately 30,000 persons have died in Peru.

Buvinic and colleagues (1999) argue that societies

with long histories of wars are vulnerable to outbreaks of

social violence. The widespread availability of weapons,

coupled with the attenuation of inhibitions against vio-

lence that war brings, tend to exacerbate already powerful

contributing factors including inequality and high lev-

els of poverty. The effects of political violence on Latin

American society have been devastating: The regions

homicide rate of almost 30 murders per 100,000 peo-

ple is more than double the world average (Murray &

Lopez, 1996). Excessive political and social violence

is associated with higher rates of domestic violence

(Messing, 1999). In Latin America, violence is the subject

of casual conversation and newspaper headlines. Childrenwho grow up witnessing or experiencing violence can be-

come desensitized to the deleterious effects of aggression

and see it as a suitable way of obtaining what they want.

The second characteristic of Latin American

societygender-based normsreinforces male authority

and superiority over females throughout much of Latin

America. According to cross-cultural literature, two of

the most enduring factors that promote violence against

women are rigidly defined gender roles and a cultural def-

inition of manhood that is linked to dominance (Counts

et al., 1992). The term machismo is often used to describe

Latino masculinity, and refers to the cultural expecta-

tion that males must show they are masculine, strong,

and sexually aggressive, and even able to consume large

amounts of alcohol without getting drunk (Giraldo, 1972).Machismo is largely viewed as an expression of an in-

feriority complex stemming from the Spanish Conquest

(Riding, 1985). Hypermasculinity is a culturally accepted

response to male dependency, powerlessness, feelings

of inferiority, and low self-esteem (McCord & McCord,

1960). Machismo, then, is the combination of feeling in-

ferior and acting superior (Ingoldsby, 1991).

Male dominance is reinforced by womens role in

Latin American society. Marianismo refers to the expec-

tation that women embrace the veneration of the Virgin

Mary in that they are capable of enduring any suffer-

ing inflicted upon them by males (Stevens, 1973). LatinAmerican women are to be submissive, dependent, sex-

ually faithful to their husbands, and are expected to take

care of household needs and dedicate themselves entirely

to their husbands and children. Because Latinas identities

are defined by their roles as mothers and wives, Latino

patriarchy denies women individuality on the basis of

gender (Rivera, 1998). Nobel Prize laureate Octavio Paz

(1961) observed that a woman who does not conform to

the traditional female ideal is viewed as a mala mujer

(bad woman) in Latin America.

The Family as an Enabling Context for Abuse

In describing the Latino family, social scientists gen-

erally focus on two concepts: familism and machismo.

Familism refers to the Latino ideal of placing ones fam-

ily ahead of individual interests, and includes responsibil-

ities and obligations to ones immediate family members

and other kin (Ingoldsby, 1991). As previously noted,

machismo is the term used to describe Latino masculinity

and is characterized by aggressiveness and hypersexuality

(Giraldo, 1972). Although familism and machismo may

appear at odds with one another, both concepts are evi-

dent in Latino families. The combination of familism andmachismo may make Latino families more susceptible to

domestic violence, since women are expected to fulfill fa-

milial obligations unconditionally within an overarching

patriarchal family system.

How can the family be a haven for love, support,

and comfort, and yet be the place where one is most

likely to be spanked, slapped, beat up, assaulted, or killed

(Gelles, 1997)? Family violence researchers have sought
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/13

Domestic Violence in Latin America 21

to resolve this paradox by examining how certain fam-

ily characteristics influence the likelihood of domestic

violence. Family-level explanations of violence tend to

focus on issues of stress and power dynamics. Other

aggravating factors, including marital status and drink-

ing, are also commonly linked to domestic violence. The

present study examines whether family characteristicsassociated with abuse in Western contexts are similarly

related to domestic violence in Latin America. The fol-

lowing factors have been linked to wife abuse in Western

literature; each is included in the present analyses.

Marital Status

Higher rates of domestic violence are consistently

found among cohabitors compared to married couples. In

an analysis of 14 marital violence studies, Brownridge

and Halli (2000) conclude that on average, cohabitors are

between 2 and 4 times more likely to engage in phys-ical violence than married couples. Western theoretical

explanations often point to the temporary and imperma-

nent nature of cohabitation as a primary reason cohab-

itors are more abusive than married couples (Nock, 1995).

Whereas cohabitation in Western countries usually serves

as a trial period preceding marriage, the relationship is

much more permanent in Latin America and might best be

described as surrogate marriage (Castro Martin, 2002).

Cohabitation has been an integral component of the Latin

American family system since the colonial period, when

the Catholic Church sanctioned informal sexual unions

between Spanish colonizers and indigenous women. Be-

cause of the unique nature of cohabitation in Latin

America, it is reasonable to expect that marital status

would influence domestic violence differently in this re-

gion than in Western settings. Understanding the relation-

ship between marital status and partner violence in Latin

America is critical, given that cohabitation rates there are

increasing. In some countries, more than half of couples

opt to cohabit rather than marry (Castro Martin, 2002). If

marital status does not influence violence in Latin Amer-

ica, the growing popularity of cohabitation need not be

a concern for antiabuse coalitions. If cohabitation has a

similar effect in Latin America as in Western countries,

however, the growing prevalence of this relationship typewould be reason for great alarm.

Hypothesis 1: Cohabiting women are more likely to ex-

perience domestic violence than married women.

Family Size

Numerous studies have found a positive linear re-

lationship between family size and domestic violence

(Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988; Ellsberg et al., 2000;

Farrington, 1977). The general perception among family

violence researchers is that large families are more prone

to violence because they experience greater stress asso-

ciated with the necessity to provide for several children

(Hoffman et al., 1994). Family size has a high potential

for generating frustration because of its low probability ofresolution. Violence not only becomes a possible response

to this frustration, but also an acceptable one. Family size

might be a particularly important characteristic of abuse in

Latin America because of the high fertility rate. Although

the regions total fertility rate is gradually declining

(2.7 children per woman), it remains much higher than

rates in North America (2.1) and Europe (1.4) (Popula-

tion Reference Bureau, 2002). High fertility rates,coupled

with widespread poverty, can be a major source of stress

for families.

Hypothesis 2: Women with larger families are more likely

to experience domestic violence than women with smallerfamilies.

Partner Alcohol Use

The relationship between alcohol use and domes-

tic violence is complex (Roizen, 1997). While most re-

search confirms that alcohol andviolencego hand-in-hand

(Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Pan et al., 1994), there is

little agreement over the exact role alcohol plays in part-

ner violence. Martin (1993) argues that the relationship

between alcohol and violence differs depending on factorssuch as who has been drinking, the drinking context, and

the relationship between perpetrator and victim. Theory

building is difficult because so many factors combine to

determine the link between alcohol and violence (Stith

& Farley, 1993). Selective disinhibition theory (Parker

& Rebhun, 1995) might be the most promising expla-

nation, positing that alcohols negative effects on peo-

ples perceptions and judgment interact with a complex

set of social and psychological factors to result in violence

in certain cases. Understanding the relationship between

alcohol and violence is particularly important in Latin

America because gender scripts encourage heavy alcohol

consumption among males (Giraldo, 1972). Although percapita alcohol consumption rates are comparable in Latin

America and the United States, the prevalence of prob-

lem drinking is relatively high among Latinos (Madrigal,

1998). A polarity has been established in Latin America,

where low perception of problem drinking leads to social

pressure to drink. The combination of problem drinking

and social pressure to drink may make women in Latin

America particularly susceptible to violence.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/13

22 Flake and Forste

Hypothesis 3: Women whose partners sometimes or fre-

quently get drunk are more likely to experience domestic

violence than women whose partners never get drunk.

Socioeconomic Status

It is commonly assumed that women who are poor

are more likely to experience violence than women who

are not poor (Ellsberg et al., 1999; Heise, 1998; Jewkes,

2002). Poverty is not necessarily viewed as a causal fac-

tor, but it is generally assumed to increase the risk of

spouse abuse. In 9 of 11 case-comparison studies from

the United States, Hotaling and Sugarman (1986) identi-

fied family income as a consistent marker of wife assault.

The relationship between socioeconomic status and do-

mestic violence is also well established internationally,

in Cambodia (Nelson & Zimmerman, 1996), Nicaragua

(Ellsberg et al., 2000), Chile (Larrain, 1993), andThailand

(Hoffman et al., 1994). A variety of domestic violence

perspectives espouse the idea that domestic violence is

more widespread among the poor because families living

in impoverished conditions are subject to higher levels of

stress than families not living in poverty (Martin et al.,

1999). Carlsons (1984) structural theory of intrafamilial

violence contends that the inequitable distribution of so-

cietal resources causes stress and tension among people

with insufficient material resources. When combined with

other aggravating factors such as living conditions, over-

crowding, a sense of hopelessness, and lack of employ-

ment opportunities, poverty can significantly increase the

risk of domestic violence (Gonzales de Olarte & GavilanoLlosa, 1999; Heise, 1998). Poverty may be an especially

salient risk marker for abuse in Latin America, where

44% of people live in poverty and 19% live in extreme

poverty (Economic Commission for Latin America and

the Caribbean, 2002). The prevalence of poverty suggests

that millions of Latino families experience high levels of

stress and tension associated with economic frustration.

The stressassociated with poverty may have a pronounced

impact on domestic violence in Latin America.

Hypothesis 4: Families with lower socioeconomic status

are more likely to experience marital violence than fami-

lies with higher socioeconomic status.

Decision-Making Power

One of the fundamental differences in the roles en-

acted by men and women in relationships involves power.

A major part of how gender roles are identified in families

is through decision-making power. Rettig (1993) argues

that decision-making processes are key to understanding

the dynamics of couple relationships because they reveal

interaction and agency within relationships, and can in-

dicate where individuals are acting out or resisting social

norms. Decision-making power is an important dimension

of marital power, as it represents how much say an indi-

vidual has in the couple relationship. Coleman and Straus

(1990) examined how four types of decision-making rela-tionships influence spousal violence: egalitarian (couple

makes decisions together), divided power (male makes

some decisions, female makes others), female-dominant

(female makes most decisions), and male-dominant (male

makes most decisions). They found violence to be most

prevalent among nonegalitarian couples, regardless of

whether the man or woman dominated the decision mak-

ing. Studies by Yllo (1993) and Kim and Sung (2000)

reveal similar patterns. Given the rigidity of gender scripts

in Latin America, decision making may have a particu-

larly powerful effect on the likelihood of experiencing do-

mestic violence. Female-dominant decision making mayheighten the risk of domestic violence. Because of the

cultural expectation that men should govern their families

by making critical decisions, men whose partners domi-

nate decision making might resort to violence to reassert

dominance over their families. Male-dominant decision

making may also increase the risk of domestic violence for

women in Latin America, even though the man does not

feel threatened by his partner. It is likely that dominance

in decision making is indicative of a mans dominion over

other aspects of the couple relationship.

Hypothesis 5: Women in nonegalitarian relationships, re-

gardless of who dominates the decision making, are more

likely to experience domestic violence than women in

egalitarian relationships.

Education Homogamy

Status inconsistencies in relationships, specifically

with regard to educational attainment, lead to higher lev-

els of spouse abuse in Western contexts (Anderson, 1997).

Violence is more likely to occur in nonhomogamous re-

lationships, regardless of whether the male or female has

more education. In patriarchal societies, women who have

more education than their partners have a high risk ofabuse because gender roles entail that husbands have

more education than their wives (Okun, 1986; Walker,

1984). OBrien (1971) and Gelles (1974) contend that

if a husband does not possess more skills and resources

than his wife to legitimate his superior status, he may feel

threatened by an educational disadvantage to his wife and

may use physical force as a last resort. Men with higher

levels of education than their wives are also more likely to
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/13


become violent. Goode (1971) explains this phenomenon

in terms of access to resources: Men with higher levels

of education possess more resources, which means they

have the ability to use force.

Hypothesis 6: Women with more or less education than

their partners are more likely to experience domestic vi-

olence than women whose education levels are the sameas their partners.

Based on this literature review, relationships between

family characteristics and domestic violence in Latin

America are examined. In so doing, this study aims to shed

light on why some Latinas are more likely than others to

experience abuse.

METHODS

Sample

This analysis uses Demographic and Health Surveys

(DHSs) conducted in Colombia (1995), the Dominican

Republic (1999), Haiti (2000), Nicaragua (1998), and Peru

(2000). DHSs are nationally representative household sur-

veys with large sample sizes of women ages 1549, which

provide data for a wide range of monitoring and impact

evaluation indicators in the areas of population, health,

and nutrition. The datasets do not include all factors em-

pirically linked to differential rates of domestic violence;

thus the results should not be interpreted as definitive.

Nonetheless, DHSs do contain measures of several sig-

nificant family characteristics of violence, including mar-

ital status, family size, partner alcohol use, socioeconomicstatus, decision-making power, and education homogamy.

Restricting the sample to women currently in a union, the

sample sizes are 6,082 in Colombia, 588 in the Domini-

can Republic, 2,275 in Haiti, 6,728 in Nicaragua, and

15,174 in Peru. Sample cases are weighted to adjust for

oversampling of particular regions and to compensate for

differences in response rates.

Measures

This study focuses exclusively on physical abuse be-

tween heterosexual partners and employs Gelles (1997)definition of violence: An act carried out with the in-

tention or perceived intention of causing physical pain or

injury to another person (p. 14). Physical aggression is

operationalized differently in each of the datasets. The

Colombia DHS asks respondents to list reasons they have

been physically hit by their partners. A dichotomous vari-

able was created to measure violence and is coded 1 if the

respondent listed a reason she had been abused, and 0 if

she had not been abused. In the Dominican Republic and

Haiti, a series of questions was asked based on Straus

(1990) Conflict Tactics Scale. If the respondent answered

yes to any of the physical aggression questions, her

response was coded 1; if she answered no to all of the

questions, her response was coded 0. The Nicaragua DHS

asks if respondents have ever experienced any physicalviolence at the hands of a partner. Yes responses were

coded 1; no responses were coded 0. The Peru DHS

asks respondents if they have ever been hit, pushed, or

shoved by a partner. Again, yes answers were coded

1 and no answers were coded 0. Cases with missing

dependent variable data were excluded from the analyses.

The percentage of cases dropped is no greater than 10%

in each of the datasets.

Marital status is measured as a dichotomous variable

coded 1 if the respondent is married and 0 if she is co-

habiting. Divorced, widowed, and separated women are

not included in this study. In Haiti, 97% of the sample aremarried. Thus, too few women are cohabiting to create a

meaningful measure of marital status in Haiti. Based on

US statistics, we anticipate cohabiting women to expe-

rience more violence than married women (Brownridge

& Halli, 2000). Family size is measured by how many

living children the woman has. We expect that women

with larger families are more likely to experience violence

than women with smaller families, since large families

have higher stress levels associated with having to pro-

vide for several children (Hoffman et al., 1994). Partner

alcohol use is measured by how often respondents part-

ners come home drunk. Dummy variables were created

for each response option: never gets drunk, sometimes

gets drunk, and frequently gets drunk. Because re-

sponse options in the Nicaragua DHS are slightly differ-

ent, we adjusted the categories for uniformity. If the male

never comes home drunk, the response is categorized

as never gets drunk; if he comes home drunk once in

a while or once a month, the response is categorized

as sometimes gets drunk; and if he comes home drunk

twice a month, once a week, or almost daily, the

response is categorized as frequently gets drunk. Be-

cause alcohol weakens brain mechanisms that normally

restrain aggression (Parker & Rebhun, 1995), we expect

a positive, linear relationship between partner alcohol useand domestic violence.

Decision-making power is determined by a series of

questions that ask if the woman, her partner, or somebody

else has the final say in certain household decisions (such

as her own health care, making large household purchases,

daily purchases, visits to family or relatives, and food to be

prepared each day). Although the questions vary slightly

across datasets, they are conceptually uniform in that they
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/13

24 Flake and Forste

measure decision-making power with respect to house-

hold decisions. Response options include respondent

alone, respondent and partner, respondent and other

person, partner alone, someone else, and other.

Respondents are classified into one of four relationship

power types based on their answers to the final say

questions: egalitarian (both partners have an equal say inmost issues), divided power (man or woman is dominant

in making decisions in different areas), female-dominant

(woman makes most decisions), and male-dominant (man

makes most decisions) (Straus, 1990). We expect the like-

lihood of violence to be greater in nonegalitarian relation-

ships because there is a higher probability of conflict when

couples do not make decisions together (Rettig, 1993).

Educationhomogamyis measured with three dummy

variables constructed by subtracting a womans total years

of education from her partners total years of education.

If the female and male have the same amount of school-

ing, the response is categorized as homogamous; if themale has more schooling, the response is categorized as

male has more than female; if the female has more

schooling, the response is categorized as female has

more than male. Based on Western data (Okun, 1986),

we expect women in nonhomogamous relationships to be

more likely to be abused than women in homogamous

relationships.

Estimation

Basic descriptive statistics are initially employed to

provide a demographic profile of the samples. As thedependent variable is binary, each dataset is examined

separately using logistic regression techniques. The equa-

tions express the log odds of being abused (versus not)

as a linear function of a set of explanatory variables. The

models coefficients represent the increase or decrease in

the likelihood of physical abuse, associated with a unit (or

category) change in an independent variable.

RESULTS

Table I presents descriptive statistics on family

factors influencing partner violence. The prevalence ofspousal violence in all five countries is high, ranging

from 16% in Haiti to 39% in Peru. The percentages could

be much higher, as some women deny, minimize, and

underreport abuse (Ellsberg et al., 2001). These data sug-

gest that while domestic violence occurs throughout Latin

America, the proportion of women who have experienced

violence varies dramatically between countries. Cross-

national variation in violence rates may be attributable to

a wide array of sociodemographic and cultural factors.

Differences in survey methodologies and variable opera-

tionalization may also help account for differential rates

of violence.

Couple relationships in Latin America are charac-

terized by a strong affinity to cohabit rather than marry.In Colombia, Nicaragua, and Peru, approximately half of

all women currently in relationships are cohabiting; in the

Dominican Republic, two-thirds of women cohabit. Other

characteristics of Latino families include relatively high

fertility, alcohol use, and low socioeconomic status. While

poverty affects families throughout Latin America, some

countries are much poorer than others. In Colombia, 67%

of couples own at least six (of a possible seven) household

amenities included in the SES index. In comparison, 5%

of Haitians own the same number of amenities.

The power dynamics of couple relationships vary

across countries, suggesting that patriarchal norms mightnot be uniform across Latin America. Decision-making

power, for example, varies dramatically between coun-

tries. In the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, most

couples make decisions together (egalitarian). In Haiti,

most couples split household decision-making responsi-

bilities (divided power) rather than make decisions to-

gether. In Peru, it is most common for females to con-

trol the decision making (female-dominant). There is also

variance in education homogamy. The cultural expecta-

tion for males to have more education than their female

partners persists in all five countries. In some countries,

however, this norm is challenged: In Colombia, the Do-

minican Republic, and Nicaragua, one-third of women in

relationships have more education than their partners.

Logistic Regression Model

Odds ratios presented in Table II provide at least par-

tial support for the hypothesized relationships between

family characteristics and the likelihood of experiencing

partner violence.Marital status andpartner alcohol useare

the strongest predictors of abuse, having emerged as sta-

tistically significant in all of the datasets. Married women

are far less likely to be physically abused than cohabitingwomen. The effect is strongest in the Dominican Repub-

lic, where married women are half as likely to be abused

as cohabitors (p < .01). That the Dominican Republic

has the lowest percentage of married women (35%) is

important, as it indicates that marital status has a pro-

nounced effect on domestic violence in that country. As

hypothesized, partner alcohol use increases a womans
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/13


Table I. Demographic and Background Factors Influencing Partner Violence (Percentages)

Colombia Dom. Rep. Haiti Nicaragua Peru

(1995) (1999) (2000) (1998) (2000)

Ever physically abused by partner 19.0 22.6 15.7 26.1 38.9

Marital status

Married 54.1 35.0 97.3 46.0 55.8

Cohabiting 45.9 65.0 2.7 54.0 44.2

Family size (living children)

01 28.8 25.2 29.6 23.9 24.7

24 57.7 62.2 45.9 50.3 55.7

5+ 13.5 12.6 24.5 25.8 19.6

Partner alcohol use

Never gets drunk 32.9 8.1 45.8 26.6

Sometimes gets drunk 25.5 9.6 40.9 65.7

Frequently gets drunk 8.0 2.6 12.0 6.9

Missing 33.7 79.7 1.2 .8

SES (07)

02 8.9 7.8 65.6 23.2 28.0

35 24.0 47.5 29.4 50.4 31.5

67 67.1 44.7 5.0 26.4 40.5

Decision-making relationship

Egalitarian 44.5 19.2 60.1 32.5

Divided power 17.3 51.4 9.6 11.7

Male-dominant 8.8 4.3 11.1 8.5

Female-dominant 26.7 22.2 13.6 43.6

Other 9.5 2.9 5.6 3.7

Education homogamy

Homogamous 26.0 16.6 27.6 25.3 30.1

Male has more than female 38.0 42.1 46.1 37.6 50.8

Female has more than male 34.6 32.0 15.9 35.2 18.7

Missing 1.4 9.3 10.4 1.9 .3

[ N] 6082 588 2275 6728 15174

Note. Statistics are weighted to represent population parameters. The reported sample sizes are weighted.

likelihood of being assaulted. Women whose partners

sometimes get drunk are between 1.3 (p < .001) and

2.5 times (p < .001) more likely to experience violence

than women whose partners never get drunk. Frequent

drunkenness is associated with an even higher likelihood

of violence: Women whose partners frequently get drunk

are between 2.6 (p< .001) and 9.8 (p< .001) times more

likely to be abused than women whose partners do not get

drunk.

As hypothesized, women who do not make decisions

together with their partners are at a greater risk of being

abused than women whosharein thedecision-making pro-cess (egalitarian). In Haiti, Nicaragua, and Peru, women

in divided power relationships (she makes some decisions,

he makes others) are between 1.2 (p < .01) and 2 times

(p< .001) more likely to experience violence than women

in egalitarian relationships. Women whose partners con-

trol decision making (male-dominant) are between 1.3 (p

< .01) and 2.7 times (p < .001) more likely to be abused

than women in egalitarian relationships. Male-dominant

decision making is not statistically significant in the Do-

minican Republic or Peru. Female-dominant relationships

have the strongest and most consistent effect on domes-

tic violence. In each country, women who control the

decision-making are much more likely to experience vio-

lence than women who share decision making with their

partners.

The hypothesized relationship between education

homogamy and domestic violence is partially supported

by these data. In Colombia and Haiti, women with less

education than their partners are more likely to experienceviolence than women with the same level of education as

their partners. In Nicaragua and Peru, women with more

education than their partners have a higher likelihood of

abuse than women who have the same amount of ed-

ucation as their partners. Education homogamy was not

found to be associated with spouseabuse in theDominican

Republic.


8/13

26 Flake and Forste

Table II. Family Characteristics and the Likelihood of Experiencing Partner Violence (Odds Ratios)

Colombia Dom. Rep. Haiti Nicaragua Peru

(1995) (1999) (2000) (1998) (2000)

Married .747 .519 .593 .704

Family size 1.276 .742 1.010 1.174 1.210

Partner alcohol use

Never gets drunk 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Sometimes gets drunk 2.441 2.484 1.298 1.890

Frequently gets drunk 9.844 4.800 2.631 8.233

Socioeconomic status (07) 1.027 1.140 1.172 1.009 1.004

Decision-making relationship

Egalitarian 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Divided power 1.642 1.925 2.026 1.197

Male-dominant 1.526 2.750 1.314 1.084

Female-dominant 2.057 2.318 2.082 1.378

Education homogamy

Homogamous 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Male has more than female 1.190 1.135 1.805 1.013 1.076

Female has more than male 1.140 1.185 1.067 1.158 1.373

2 LL 5784.291 552.836 1866.065 7245.761 18897.311

Chi-square 132.820 75.660 114.232 478.436 1382.728

Df 5 10 9 10 10

[ N] 6082 588 2275 6728 15174

Note. Statistics are weighted to represent population parameters. The reported sample sizes are weighted.p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

DISCUSSION

Although domestic violence is a serious and

widespread problem in Latin America, few researchers

have sought to explain partner violence in the Latino con-

text. This study examines the magnitude and character-

istics of partner abuse in Colombia, the Dominican Re-

public, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Peru, and is one of the only

violence studies to test a model across multiple datasets.

This research offers several important contributions to the

family violence literature and serves as a foundation for

future research in Latin America.

A major contribution of this study is that it tests

the applicability of Western theoretical and empirical vio-

lence models to a non-Western setting. Previous research

has focused primarily on wife abuse in North America and

Europe. Thus, little is known about the nature of partner

violence in cross-cultural settings. To address this gap

in the violence literature, the current study examines howWestern risk markers for abuse influence violence in Latin

America. To at least some extent, each of the variables

tested emerged as an important predictor of domestic vi-

olence, indicating that several risk markers for abuse are

shared between Latin American and Western countries.

This finding has significant implications for family vi-

olence researchers and policymakers, as it suggests that

current research and policies might have some relevance

in parts of Latin America. Much more research is needed

to fully understand how the national context influences

spouse abuse.

This study helps clarify the profile of the abused

Latina. If a woman cohabits in Latin America, she is

more likely to experience violence than if she is mar-

ried. While marriage is critical to reducing abuse among

Latinas, there is a tendency for women to cohabit rather

than marry. That cohabitation rates are increasing in every

Latin American country (Castro Martin, 2002) is a major

concern, as it signifies that more and more women are

inadvertently placing themselves at risk of partner vio-

lence. Socioeconomic conditions are likely to be part of

the explanation for the high prevalence of cohabitation

in Latin America. Castro Martin (2002) explains that un-

like in developed countries, consensual unions in Latin

America are most prevalent among the poor, suggesting

that financial costs may deter couples from formal mar-

riage. Although marriage is generally regarded as moredesirable than cohabitation, consensual unions are easier

to initiate and are less costly (Greene, 1991). Modifying

existing marriage requirements to accommodate the poor

could help reduce the incidence of domestic violence by

encouraging couples to more fully commit to one another

by marrying rather than cohabiting.

Partner alcohol use also plays a critical role in partner

violence. Of all the family factors included in the present
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/13


study, alcohol has the strongest and most consistent effect

on the likelihood of experiencing domestic violence. Al-

though alcohol consumption rates in Latin America are

not extraordinarily high, problem drinking is more preva-

lent among Latinos than other groups (Madrigal, 1998).

Given the rigid social expectation that macho men should

be able to consume large quantities of alcohol (Giraldo,1972), it is unlikely that alcohol consumption rates can

be lowered. A more plausible recommendation would be

to educate men and women about drinking responsibly.

Latino families should be educated about the risk of do-

mestic violence that accompanies drunkenness. If men

can learn to drink without getting drunk, they may be

less likely to become violent, so long as casual drinking

does not drastically alter their perceptions and judgment

(Parker & Rebhun, 1995).

In addition to marital status and partner alcohol use,

power dynamics influence domestic violence in Latin

America. Decision-making power, in particular, has apronounced effect on the likelihood of abuse. Our find-

ings suggest that if couples do not make decisions to-

gether, there is a greater likelihood of domestic violence

than if they share in decision making. Power dynam-

ics in Latin America are such that when one partner

has more decision-making power than the other, there

is a greater risk of marital conflict and violence. In

particular, when females wield more decision-making

power than their partners, they are more likely to be

abused than when they share decision-making power

equally. This finding lends support to theories of pa-

triarchy, which suggest that men who have less power

than their partners may turn to violence to reestab-

lish culturally prescribed dominance over women (Straus

et al., 1980).

If a woman cohabits, has a large family, has a part-

ner who gets drunk, does not share decision-making re-

sponsibilities with her partner, or does not have the same

level of education as her partner, she is more likely to

experience domestic violence than a woman who marries,

has a small family, has a partner who never gets drunk,

shares decision-making power with her partner, or has

the same amount of education as her partner. The profile

of the abused Latina appears quite similar to the pro-

file of abuse victims in the United States, Great Britain,Switzerland, and other Western countries. The full pic-

ture remains blurred, however, as numerous factors were

not tested in the present study. According to the eco-

logical perspective, domestic violence is a multifaceted

phenomenon grounded in an interplay of individual,

family, community, and national characteristics (Heise,

1998). To understand differences in abuse victims, one

must consider the entire ecology of the individual:

their home, workplace, church, family and community

roles, and the overarching institutional patterns of culture

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

While this study makes important contributions to

the understanding of domestic violence in Latin America,

it is not without limitations. Two problems arise from the

narrow focus of Demographic and Health Surveys, whichare not designed primarily for the study of abuse. First,

the operationalization of domestic violence questions is

not always uniform, making cross-national comparisons

somewhat difficult. Second, several family characteristics

of abuse in Western cultures were not included in the DHS

questionnaires. Religiosity, resource control, and attitudes

toward violence may be important risk markers for abuse.

These factors were unable to be included in the model,

however, because the DHSs do not include measures of

these variables.

Findings from this study should not be interpreted

as definitive, but rather as foundational. Much more re-search is needed to fully understand the characteristics of

domestic violence in Latin America. To compare cross-

national results more effectively, future research should

employ standardized questionnaires and methodologies.

Other types of abuse, including psychological and sex-

ual abuse, and child maltreatment should be included to

understand the entire scope of domestic violence. Power

dynamics must also be emphasized. Machismo in par-

ticular may play a prominent role in explaining spouse

abuse in Latin America, and can be measured with a va-

riety of well-established scales, including the Bem Sex

Role Inventory (Bem, 1974), Villemez and Tougheys

(1977) 28-point Macho Scale, the Hyper-Masculinity

Index (Mosher, 1991), and Cuellar and colleagues (1995)

17-item Machismo Scale. A final recommendation is to

extend research to men. The vast majority of violence

studies target women because they are generally more

willing to participate and share their experiences with

abuse. While understanding the risk markers of abuse for

women is critical, it is equally essentialif not more so

that we uncover the reasons why men hit their partners. To

effectively lower ratesof intimate violence, we must create

a thorough and comprehensive profile of the abusernot

just the abuse victim.

REFERENCES

Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: Anintegration of feminist and family violence approaches. J. MarriageFam. 59: 655669.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42: 155162.

Brinkerhoff, M. B., and Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal violence. Cana-dian J. Soc. 12(4): 407434.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/13

28 Flake and Forste

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of Human Development, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA.

Brownridge, D. A., and Halli, S. S. (2000). Living in sin and sinfulliving: Toward filling a gap in the explanation of violence againstwomen. Aggr. Viol. Behav. 5(6): 565583.

Buvinic, M., Morrison, A. R., and Shifter, M. (1999). Violence in theAmericas: A framework for action. In Morrison, A. R., and Biehl,M. L. (eds.), Too Close to Home: Domestic Violence in the Americas.Inter-American Development Bank, John Hopkins University Press,Washington, DC, pp. 334.

Carlson, B. E. (1984). Causes and maintenance of domestic violence:An ecological analysis. Soc. Service Rev. 58(4): 569587.

Castro Martin, T. (2002). Consensual unions in Latin America: Per-sistence of a dual nuptiality system. J. Comp. Fam. Studies 33(1):3555.

Coleman, D. H., and Straus, M. A. (1990). Marital power, conflict,and violence in a nationally representative sample of American cou-ples. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violencein American Families, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 287300.

Counts, D.,Brown, J.,and Campbell,J. (1992). Sanctions and sanctuary,Westview, Boulder, CO.

Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., and Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cognitive referents ofacculturation: Assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Ameri-

cans. J. Comm. Psych. 23: 339356.Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (2002).

20012002 Social Panorama of Latin America, United Nations, NewYork.

Ellsberg, M. C., Pena, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., and Winkvist, A.(1999). Wife abuse among women of childbearing age in Nicaragua.Am. J. Pub. Hlth. 89(2): 241244.

Ellsberg, M. C., Pena, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., and Winkvist,A. (2000). Candies in hell: Womens experiences of violence inNicaragua. Soc. Sci. Med. 51(8): 15951610.

Ellsberg,M. C., Winkvist,A., Heise,L., Pena, R.,and Agurto,S. (2001).Researching domestic violence against women: Methodological and

ethical considerations. Stud. Fam. Plann. 32(1): 116.Farrington, K. (1977). Family violence and household density: Does the

crowded home breed aggression? Association paper, Society for theStudy of Social Problems Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA.

Gelles, R. J. (1974). The Violent Home, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Gelles, R. J. (1997). Intimate Violence in Families. Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.

Giraldo, O. (1972). El machismo como fenomeno psicocultural. RevistaMexicana de Psicologia 3: 350354.

Gonzales de Olarte, E., and Gavilano Llosa, P. (1999). Does povertycause domestic violence? Some answers from Lima. In Morrison,A. R., and Biehl, M.L. (eds.), Too Close to Home: Domestic Violencein the Americas, Inter-American Development Bank, John HopkinsUniversity Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3550.

Goode, W. J. (1971). Force and violence in the family. J. Marr. Fam.33(4): 624636.

Greene, M. E. (1991). The importance of being married: Marriagechoice and its consequences in Brazil. Doctoral Dissertation, Univer-sity of Pennsylvania.

Heise, L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecologicalframework. Viol. Against Women 4(3): 262290.

Hoffman, K. L., Demo, D. H., and Edwards, J. N. (1994). Physical wifeabuse in a non-western society: An integrated theoretical approach.J. Marr. Fam. 56(1): 131146.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., and Sandler, E. (1997).

A brief revision of research on husband violence: Part I: Maritallyviolent versus nonviolent men. Aggr. Viol. Behav. 2(1): 6599.

Hotaling, G. T., and Sugarman,D. B. (1986).An analysis of risk markersin husband-to-wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Viol.Vict. 1(2): 101123.

Ingoldsby, B. B. (1991). The Latin American family: Familism vs.machismo. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 22(1): 5762.

Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention.Lancet359(9315): 14231429.

Kim, J. Y., and Sung, K. (2000). Conjugal violence in Korean Americanfamilies: A residue of the cultural tradition. J. Fam. Viol. 15(4): 331345.

Larrain, S. (1993). Estudio de frecuencia de la violencia intrafamiliar yla condicionde lamujer inChile. Pan American Health Organization,Santiago, Chile.

Madrigal, E. (1998). Latin America. In Grant, M. (ed.), Alcohol andEmerging Markets: Patterns, Problems, and Responses, Taylor andFrancis, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 223262.

Martin, S. E. (ed.) (1993). Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fos-tering Multidisciplinary Perspectives. National Institute on AlcoholAbuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Research Monograph No. 24. Na-tional Institute of Health Publication No. 933496. Rockville, MD,pp. vxi.

Martin, S. L., Tsui, A. O., Maitra, K., and Marinshaw, R. (1999). Do-mestic violence in northern India. Am. J. Epid. 150(4):417426.

McCord, W., and McCord, J. (1960). Origins of Alcoholism, StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, CA.

Messing, U. (1999). Introduction. In Morrison, A. R., and Biehl,M. L. (eds.), Too Close to Home: Domestic Violence in the Americas,Inter-American Development Bank, John Hopkins University Press,

Washington D.C., pp. xixiii.

Mosher, D. L. (1991). Macho men, machismo, and sexuality. Ann. Rev.Sex. Research 2: 199247.

Murray, C., and Lopez, A. (eds.) (1996). The Global Burden of Dis-ease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability fromDiseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020,Vol. 1, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Nelson, E., and Zimmerman, C. (1996). Household survey on domesticviolence in Cambodia. Ministry of Womens Affairs and the ProjectAgainst Domestic Violence, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Nock, S. L. (1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relation-ships. J. Fam. Issues 16(1): 5376.

OBrien, J. E. (1971). Violence in divorce prone families. J. MarriageFam. 33: 692698.

Okun, L. (1986). Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing Myths, StateUniversityof New York Press, Albany.

Pan, H. S., Neidig, P. H., and OLeary, K. D. (1994). Predicting mild andsevere husband-to-wife physical aggression. J. Consult. Clin. Psych.

62(5): 975981.Parker, R. N., and Rebhun, L. (1995). Alcohol and Homicide: A Deadly

Combination of Two American Traditions, State University of NewYork Press, Albany.

Paz, O. (1961). The Labyrinth of Solitude: Life and Thought in Mexico,Grove Press, New York, pp. 2930.

Population Reference Bureau (2002). 2002 World Population DataSheet. Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC.

Rettig, K. D. (1993). Problem-solving and decision-making as centralprocesses of family life: An ecological framework for family rela-tions and family resource management. Marr. Fam. Rev. 18(3/4):187222.

Riding, A. (1985). Distant Neighbors, Vintage, New York.Rivera, J. (1998). Domestic violence against Latinas by Latino males.

In Delgado, R., and Stefancic, J. (eds.), The Latino/a Condition: ACritical Reader, NewYork University Press, NewYork, pp. 501507.

Roizen, J. (1997). Epidemiological issues in alcohol-violence. InGalanter, M. (ed.), Recent Developments in Alcoholism, Vol. 13:Alcoholism and Violence, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 740.

Stevens, E. (1973). Machismo and marianismo. Society 10: 5763.Stith, S. M.,and Farley, S. C. (1993). A predictive model of male spousal

violence. J. Fam. Viol. 8(2): 183201.Straus, M. A.(1990).Social stressand marital violence in a national sam-

ple of American families. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.),Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adapta-tions to Violence in 8,145 Families. Transaction, New Brunswick,NJ, pp. 181201.


11/13


Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., and Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind ClosedDoors: Violence in the American Family, Anchor Press, New York.

Villemez, W. J., and Toughey, J. C. (1977). A measure of individualdifferences in sex stereotyping and sex discrimination: The MachoScale. Psych. Reports 41: 411415.

Walker, L. E. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome, Springer,New York.

Yllo, K. A. (1993).Through a feministlens:Gender, power andviolence.In Gelles, R. J., and Bogard, M. (eds.), Feminist Perspectives on WifeAbuse, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 4762.


12/13


13/13

Flake-Violencia Domestica en La

Documents

Transcript of Flake-Violencia Domestica en La