Violence and Victims, Volume 21, Number 6, December 2006
Domestic Violence Beliefs and
Perceptions Among College Students
Erin L. Nabors, MA
Tracy L. Dietz, PhD
Jana L. Jasinski, PhD
Utiiversity of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
This study builds on current research, investigating the relationships between sociodemographic variables and domestic violence attitudes and beliefs among college students. Data
from the Relationship Characteristics Study conducted in 2001, which includes a sample
of 1,938 college students, are used to replicate and extend the research of Carlson and
Worden (2001, 2005), the developers of the attitudes and beliefs items. In addition, the
research portends to analyze factors associated with domestic violence causation endorsement, physical and sexual abuse, stalking, and verbal abuse beliefs, including gender, race
and ethnicity, university year, parents' education, family income, parents' marital status,
and relationship status. Results are consistent with the rates reported by the item developers. Further, results demonstrate that sociodemographic variables are correlated with
physical and sexual abuse and verbal abuse beliefs and causation endorsement.
Keywords: dating violence; intimate partner violence; public opinions; attitudes; partner
abuse
W
ith more than three decades of research on intimate partner violence, domestic
violence is now generally recognized as a serious social problem. However,
despite existing research evidence (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989), it is not
as widely known that dating couples are significantly more likely to be violent in their
relationships than married couples. Specifically, college students experience extremely
high rates of dating violence that range between 20% and 50% (Bryant & Spencer, 2003;
Lloyd, 1991; Makepeace, 1981, 1986; Shook, Gerrity, Jurich, & Segrist, 2000; Straus,
2004). Because dating violence among college students is such a widespread problem, it
is important to understand what lies at the foundation of this type of abuse. One possible
factor is a belief system supporting the use of violence against intimate partners.
Researchers have found a strong correlation between beliefs supportive of domestic
violence and acts of intimate partner violence (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Archer &
Haigh, 1999; Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Riggs & O'Leary, 1996). However, studies investigating the question of who is most likely to hold beliefs accepting domestic violence are
limited in both number and scope and often arrive at inconsistent findings. The current
study provides an analysis of the relationships between sociodemographic variables and
beliefs supportive of domestic violence among college students using recently available
data from the Relationship Characteristics Study (Dietz & Jasinski, 2003). In addition, the
© 2006 Springer Publishing Company
779
780
Nabors et al.
results from this study also contribute to the understanding of a newly developed scale to
measure beliefs about domestic violence (Carlson & Worden, 2005; Worden & Carlson,
2005). With the knowledge provided by this research, prevention programs can be more
effectively directed toward college students who are most likely to hold beliefs supportive
of domestic violence.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Dating Violence Among College Students
Undeniably, college students experience exceptionally high rates of dating violence.
Worldwide figures from the Intemational Dating Violence Survey (Straus, 2004) suggest
that anywhere from 17% to 45% of university students had physically assaulted their
intimate partner in the year prior to the survey, and up to 20% had assaulted their partner
so severely as to cause injury. In fact, rates of severe violence among university students
are considerably higher than among the general population (see, e.g., Tjaden & Thoennes,
2000). Results from the International Dating Violence Survey (Straus, 2004) indicate that
between 4% and 20% of students had used severe forms of violence, including using a gun
or knife on their partner, punching or hitting with a solid object, choking, slamming their
partner against a wall repeatedly, beating up their partner, purposefully burning or scalding their partner, or kicking their partner (Straus, 2004). The types of severely violent acts
used by dating partners are consistent across studies (Makepeace, 1981; Straus, 2004) and
often result in injury. Straus (2004), for example, found that 2% of college students seek
medical attention because of injuries inflicted by their partners.
These high rates of victimization do not go unnoticed by students. One study, for example, found that 79% of college students think dating violence is a major problem (Knickrehm
& Teske, 2000). It is likely that this awareness is a result of some level of personal involvement, because students often know someone involved in a physically abusive dating relationship (Makepeace, 1981). It is certainly possible that knowledge and beliefs may influence
the types of decisions college students make when faced with violence in their own or
their friends' relationships. Moreover, developing successful prevention and intervention
programs may depend on a more complete understanding of both the relationship between
beliefs and behaviors and the factors that are associated with beliefs supportive of violence.
Beliefs and Domestic Violence
Among the factors identified as risk markers for dating violence, there is evidence of a
strong correlation between holding beliefs supportive of domestic violence and committing violent acts against partners (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Archer & Haigh, 1997;
Dibble & Straus, 1980; Kaufman Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994; Price et al., 1999).
For example. Dibble and Straus (1980) found that 28% of respondents believe that slapping their partners is either necessary, normal, or good. Of that 28%, one-third reported
physically abusing their partners, while only 8% of respondents not supportive of slapping
their partners reported perpetrating domestic violence. Dibble and Straus (1980) also found
that 5% of participants believe that slapping, pushing, grabbing, shoving, and throwing something
at their partner is either necessary, normal, or good. Similar findings have been observed
among college students (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Archer & Haigh, 1999; Bryant
& Spencer, 2003; Knickrehm & Teske, 2000; Riggs & O'Leary, 1996). In fact. Archer
Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions
781
and Graham-Kevan (2003) found that beliefs supportive of domestic violence are more
predictive of abuse in intimate relationships among college students than among either
women in domestic violence shelters or men in prison convicted of physically abusing
their partners. These findings are particularly troublesome when combined with the high
rates of perpetration of partner violence in this population. Furthermore, Straus, Kaufman
Kantor, and Moore's (1997) analysis indicates that youth is one factor associated with a
greater likelihood of believing in the acceptability of violence against an intimate partner.
Consequently, an analysis of the factors associated with beliefs endorsing the use of violence among a sample of college students is particularly important.
Sociodemographic Characteristics and Beliefs Supporting Intimate
Partner Violence
Although there is evidence that domestic violence beliefs are associated with perpetrating
abusive acts against partners, research probing the question of who is most likely to hold
beliefs supportive of domestic violence is lacking. Studies dealing with this topic have
demonstrated only tentative correlations between beliefs accepting violent acts toward
partners and gender. Moreover, only a limited amount of research examines connections
between domestic violence beliefs and other demographic characteristics such as socioeconomic status, age, and relationship status.
The results of research investigating the relationship between beliefs supportive of
domestic violence and gender are ambiguous. Some researchers, for example, have found
no gender differences in the beliefs accepting violence in intimate relationships (Archer
& Haigh, 1997; Arias & Johnson, 1989; Dibble & Straus, 1980; Mwamwenda, 1999). For
instance, Mwamwenda (1999) found that approximately 25% of both male and female
college students approve of domestic violence. However, other researchers have found that
men are more likely than women to accept physical aggression toward partners (Archer &
Graham-Kevan, 2003; Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Carlson, 1999; Locke & Richman, 1999;
Riggs & O'Leary, 1996; Simon et al., 2001).
The relationships among beliefs supportive of violence and other sociodemographic
characteristics such as race and ethnicity and socioeconomic variables such as education
and income have also been considered, often with inconsistent results (Dibble & Straus,
1980; Locke & Richman, 1999; Simon et al., 2001). Although several studies have found
that college students of color are more likely than White students to hold beliefs accepting
violence toward partners (Locke & Richman, 1999; Simon et al., 2001), other researchers have found that White respondents were more likely to approve of the use of violence
toward a marital partner (Straus et al., 1997). In an effort to understand racial and ethnic
differences in beliefs about intimate partner violence, Klein, Campbell, Soler, and Ghez
(1997) argued that these differences may be a function of deeply ingrained beliefs about
gender roles and responsibilities. Evidence for a relationship between socioeconomic
variables and belief systems is also not definitive. Although at least one study has found
that participants without a high school diploma are most likely to accept physical abuse
in intimate relationships (Simon et al., 2001), other researchers have found no significant
association with education (Straus et al., 1997). Similarly, contradictory results have
been found with respect to the association between income and domestic violence beliefs
(Dibble & Straus, 1980; Simon et al., 2001; Straus et al., 1997).
In addition to gender, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, researchers have
examined the correlation between age and beliefs accepting physically abusive acts toward
782
Nabors et al.
partners. In this area, the research fmdings are more consistent. Most studies have shown that
beliefs supportive of domestic violence decrease with age (Archer & Haigh, 1997; Carlson,
1999; Simon et al., 2001; Straus et al., 1997). More precisely, one study found that acceptance of hitting a partner is higher among participants younger than 35 years old than among
any other age group (Simon et al., 2001). The majority of college students would fall into
this age group, and there is evidence that college students in dating relationships are more
supportive of abusive acts toward partners (Carlson, 1999) compared to other age groups.
College students experience violence within intimate relationships at a rate that is much
higher than the general population, and there is some evidence to suggest that beliefs about
domestic violence, among other factors, contribute to this risk. At the same time, we know
little about the factors that are associated with these beliefs. Moreover, comparisons with
existing research are often difficult because of different samples and a lack of standardized
measures. This article builds on existing research by comparing the rates of attitudes and
beliefs reported by college students to those of an adult, community-dwelling sample in
the state of New York, using a newly developed measure of attitudes toward and beliefs
about domestic violence. In addition, psychometric analysis of the measure using this college student sample is performed, which extends the work of previous investigators using
these items (Carlson & Worden, 2005; Worden & Carlson, 2005). Finally, the research
adds to the literature by investigating the relationships among sociodemographic characteristics and attitudes and beliefs regarding the acceptance of domestic violence and beliefs
about the causes of it among college students using scales created from the items.
DATA AND METHODS
Data for this investigation are taken from the cross-sectional Relationship Characteristics
Study conducted by two of the authors (Dietz & Jasinski, 2003). Data were collected by
questionnaires completed during class in large undergraduate introductory sociology and
anthropology courses at a university in the southeastern United States during the fall of 2001.
The convenience sample consisted of 1,938 student participants. These courses fulfill general
education requirements for the university. Thus, this selection allowed for the inclusion of
students from a variety of disciplines. The students were informed of their right to accept
or decline participation in the project as well as of the procedures used to ensure anonymity
and confidentiality. Participation in the study was not a course requirement, and completion
of the questionnaire took less than 75 minutes. Following the administration of the questionnaires, students were provided with information sheets detailing the purpose of the study and
information on where they could obtain help in the area with relationship problems.
The Relationship Characteristics Study includes sociodemographic questions about
respondents' and partners' gender, respondents' age, race and ethnicity, educational
level, family income, parents' education, parents' marital status, respondents' relationship status, cohabitation, length of relationship, and sexual activity within their relationship. Participants also answer questions regarding video game use, family commitment,
social desirability, alcohol and controlled substance use, and pets. Additionally, the study
includes the BEM Sex-Role Inventory and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Finally, the
Relationship Characteristics Study poses questions about participants witnessing violence
between parents or guardians, their victimization and help-seeking behaviors, and their
beliefs toward domestic violence.
Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions
783
MEASURES
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables are composed of two sets of variables created by Bonnie Carlson
and Alissa Politz Worden (Carlson & Worden, 2001, 2005; Worden & Carlson, 2005).
These variables include a set of 10 items that are designed to determine whether the
respondent endorses certain causes of domestic violence. Respondents are asked to agree
or disagree with a series of statements. Half of the items in the set are designed to measure myths or misconceptions about the causes of violence and include especially those
types of myths that result in victim blaming. The other half of the items measure causation endorsements reflecting risk factors for domestic violence that have been identified
through empirical research. Many of these items reflect the relationship between substance
abuse and family violence and the escalation of verbal abuse to physical violence as well
as the socialization of aggressive behavior within society.
A second set of five items is designed to measure whether respondents believe particular behaviors constitute domestic violence. Each of the five items are presented first with
a male perpetrator and female victim and then re-presented with a female perpetrator and
male victim. Respondents are instructed to answer whether they would consider each of
the following domestic violence (1 = yes, 0 = no): punching with a fist, slapping during
an argument, using physical force for sex, following a former partner all over town, and
insulting a partner by calling him or her a "stupid slob." The items in the current study
differ from the original in that response options are dichotomous (agree/disagree; yes/no)
rather than scaled.
Independent Variables
Gender. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were male or female.
Racial/Ethnic Category. Respondents were asked to indicate which category best
described them from the following options: Asian, African American (Black), Caucasian
(White), Native American (American Indian, Samoan, or Hawaiian), Hispanic (Latino/a),
and Other.
University Year. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were a freshman,
sophomore, junior, senior, or other.
Parents' Education. Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level of education
achieved by their mother and their father. They were given the following options on both
questions: less than high school, high school graduate, some college, two-year college
graduate (for example, community college), four-year college graduate, some graduate
school, and graduate degree.
Family Income. Respondents were asked to indicate their family's yearly income using
the following categories: under $9,999, $10,000-$19,999, $20,000-$29,999, $30,000$39,999, $40,000-$49,999, $50,000-$59,999, $60,000-$69,999, $70,000-$79,999, and
$80,000 or more.
Parents' Current Marital Status. The following categories were used: married to
each other, separated, divorced, never married to each other, or one or both parents have
died.
Relationship Status. Respondents were asked whether they were currently, previously,
or had never been in a relationship.
784
Nabors et al.
ANALYTIC STRATEGY
The purpose of this study is threefold. First, we attempted to replicate the studies conducted by Carlson and Worden (Carlson & Worden, 2001, 2005; Worden & Carlson,
2005). Thus, we began by conducting an analysis of the frequency distributions of the
independent and dependent variables. The second focus of this research is to extend the
work of Carlson and Worden by identifying latent factors. Thus, we conducted a series
of factor analyses of the sets of items created by Carlson and Worden, followed by alpha
reliability testing of the resulting scales. Finally, to identify the factors associated with
attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence, a series of regression analysis models using
the independent variables identified above and the scales created from the factor analysis
were examined.
RESULTS
Table 1 displays the sample's sociodemographic characteristics. The sample is relatively
evenly split with 59% women and 41% men. Approximately 71% of the participants are
White. The remaining participants are relatively evenly distributed, with roughly 10%
Black and 11% Hispanic. The majority of participants are freshmen (66%), 14% are
sophomores, and 11% are juniors. Respondents' parents' education varies, but the median
educational level for both is a two-year college degree. Median family income for the
sample was between $60,000 and $69,999 per year. About two-thirds of respondents' parents are currently married to each other. Approximately 45% of participants are currently
in a relationship, 40% have previously been in a relationship, and 15% have never been in
a relationship.
TABLE 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Sample
Characteristic
Total (N)
Percent male
41 (795)
Percent White, non-Hispanic
71 (1,364)
Percent Black or African American
10 (186)
Percent Hispanic
11(221)
Percent freshmen
66(1,259)
Percent sophomore
14 (272)
Percent junior
11 (204)
Median family income
$60,000-$69,999
Percent currently in relationship
45 (867)
Percent previously in relationship
40 (778)
Median father's education
2-year college degree
Median mother's education
2-year college degree
Percent parents not currently married
34 (652)
Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions
785
Overall, as presented in Table 2, participants demonstrate a high level of domestic violence causation endorsement. More than half of participants agree with domestic violence
myths, with two exceptions. Only 9% of participants agree that "a lot of what is called
'domestic violence' is really just a normal reaction to day-to-day stress and frustration,"
and 26% agree that "some women who are abused secretly want to be treated that way."
Generally, the respondents in this sample were very likely to agree with the statements that
related to empirically derived causes of domestic violence. In fact, more than two-thirds
of all respondents in this study endorsed each of the empirically based statements pertaining to causes of domestic violence. We did , however, fmd some differences in the pattem
of responses when compared to the original study (Carlson & Worden, 2005; Worden
& Carlson, 2005). Students in our sample were more likely to endorse victim-blaming
statements than were the respondents in the original study. In addition, the students in our
sample also were more likely to endorse statements about the inevitability of violence.
TABLE 2. Frequencies and Percentages for Causation Endorsement Variables
Reported by Sample and by Worden and Carlson (2005)
% Agree (AO
% Agree Reported
by Worden and
Carlson (2005)
A lot of what is called domestic violence is
really just a normal reaction to day-to-day
stress and frustration.
9 (1,917)
38
Some violence is caused by women starting
physical fights.
80(1,912)
68
Some women who are abused secretly want to
be treated that way.
26 (1,907)
23
Most women could find a way to get out of an
abusive relationship if they really wanted to.
77(1,904)
63
Some violence is caused by the way women
treat men.
62 (1,903)
46
People who are violent toward their family
members are not likely to change.
71 (1,917)
50
Husbands who shout, yell, and curse at their
wives are likely to become physically violent
eventually.
73(1,911)
56
Society teaches boys to be physically
aggressive.
69 (1,919)
65
Most men who act abusively toward family
members have psychological or personality
problems.
85 (1,912)
70
Much domestic violence is caused by alcohol
and drugs.
85 (1,894)
85
Variable
Myth-Based Causes
Empirically Based Causes
Nabors et al.
786
TABLE 3. Frequencies and Percentages for Definition Variables Reported by Sample
and by Carlson and Worden (2005)
% Agree (AO
% Agree Reported by
Carlson and Worden
(2005)
Husband to use physical force to make
wife have sex
97 (1,919)
95
Wife to use physical force to make her
husband have sex
89(1,910)
81
Husband to punch wife with fist
97(1,919)
99
Wife to punch husband with fist
96(1,901)
90
Husband to slap wife during an argument
87 (1,914)
91
Wife to slap husband during an argument
61 (1,919)
82
Man to follow former girlfriend all over
town to try to get her back
46(1,913)
48
Woman to follow former boyfriend all over
town to try to get him back
45 (1,909)
31
Husband to insult wife by calling her a
stupid slob
29 (1,908)
54
Wife to insult husband by calling him a
stupid slob
24(1,913)
33
Variable
Frequencies and percentages for the domestic violence definition items are displayed in Table 3. Respondents are more likely to define the action as domestic
violence if the perpetrator is male than if the perpetrator is female. Nearly all of the
participants consider a man or woman physically forcing a partner to have sex (97%
and 89%, respectively) or punching a partner (97% and 96%, respectively) to be
domestic violence. Most participants define a husband slapping his wife as domestic
violence (87%), but less than two-thirds of participants (61%) define a wife slapping
her husband as domestic violence. About 45% of respondents believe that a man or
woman following a former partner all over town to try to get back together with that
partner is domestic violence. However, less than one-third of participants think that a
man or woman insulting a partner is domestic violence. The last column of the table
shows that, with few exceptions, many of the rates for individual items are remarkably consistent with rates reported by the scale developers (Carlson & Worden, 2005;
Worden & Carlson, 2005).
Domestic Violence Beliefs Scales
Using the data from this sample, we analyzed the intemal consistency of the subsets
defined by Carlson and Worden. An intemal consistency estimate of reliability was computed for each of the subsets described by these researchers, including the five items that
represent beliefs about causation that are myths, the five items that represent beliefs about
causation that are empirically founded, the entire set of beliefs about what constitutes
Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions
787
TABLE 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for Belief Scales
(N = 1,911)
Scales
M
SD
Alpha
Cause endorsement (total)
6.335
1.782
.504
Myth-based causes
2.548
1.149
.444
Empirically based causes
3.821
1.196
.482
Definition of domestic violence (total)
6.698
2.042
.730
Male Perpetration Scale
3.561
1.016
.491
Female Perpetration Scale
3.138
1.160
.500
Physical and sexual abuse
4.635
0.848
.676
Stalking
0.902
0.966
.941
Verbal abuse
0.531
0.838
.894
Note. The range of myth-based and empirically based causation endorsement scales is
0 to 5, with higher scores indicating more agreement with domestic violence causation.
The range of male and female perpetration and physical and sexual abuse belief scales
is 0 to 5, and the range of stalking and verbal abuse belief scales is 0 to 2, with higher
scores indicating more agreement with domestic violence definitions.
domestic violence, and then the last set divided according to gender of perpetrator and
victim. The intemal consistency estimates generated were generally low and are presented
in Table 4.
Because the intemal consistency estimates generated with this sample were low, we
elected to extend the original work by determining whether the two sets of items—domestic violence causation and defmitions—might have latent factor stmctures with this sample
that differed from those theoretically proposed by the developers (Carlson & Worden,
2005; Worden & Carlson, 2005). Using factor analysis, we examined the possible latent
factor stmctures by conducting two separate analyses, one for each set of items. The
dimensionality of the 10 items from the domestic violence cause endorsement measure
was analyzed using maximum likelihood factor analysis. Four criteria were used to determine the number of factors to rotate: the a priori hypothesis that the measure was unidimensional, the eigenvalues, the scree test, and the interpretability of the factor solution.
The eigenvalues and scree plot indicate that the initial hypothesis of unidimensionaUty is
incorrect. Based on the eigenvalues and scree plot, two factors were rotated using a varimax rotation procedure. However, the rotated solution did not yield interpretable factors.
Consequently, scales based on the theoretical divisions proposed by Carlson and Worden
(2005) were used for all further analyses. Simple additive scales were created for the five
myth-based and five empirically based statements, respectively.
Maximum likelihood factor analysis was also used to analyze the dimensionality of
the 10 items from the measure of domestic violence definitions. Again, four criteria
were used to determine the number of factors to rotate: the a priori hypothesis that the
measure was unidimensional, the eigenvalues, the scree test, and the interpretability of
the factor solution. The eigenvalues and scree plot indicate that the initial hypothesis of
unidimensionality is incorrect. Based on the eigenvalues and scree plot, three factors were
788
Nabors et al.
rotated using a varimax rotation procedure. Table 5 shows the rotated solution, which
yields three interpretable factors: physical and sexual abuse beliefs, stalking beliefs, and
verbal abuse beliefs. The physical and sexual abuse beliefs factor accounts for 20.74% of
the item variance, the stalking beliefs factor accounts for 17.93% of the item variance, and
the verbal abuse beliefs factor accounts for 17.45% of the item variance. Only one item,
which asks participants to specify whether they would consider it domestic violence for
a wife to slap her husband during an argument, did not load on any factor, indicating that
participants do not regard women slapping men to be an act of domestic violence. Because
this item did not load on any factor, it is excluded from subsequent analyses.
Additionally, an intemal consistency estimate of reliability was computed for each
additive scale. The myth-based cause endorsement scale has a mean score of 2.55, a
standard deviation of 1.15, and a coefficient alpha of .44. Likewise, the empirically based
cause endorsement scale has a mean score of 3.82, a standard deviation of 1.20, and a coefficient alpha of .48. Higher scores on both the myth endorsement scale and the empirically
founded scale indicate more agreement with domestic violence cause endorsement. The
physical and sexual abuse belief additive scale ranges from zero to five and has a mean
score of 4.64, a standard deviation of .85, and a coefficient alpha of .68. The stalking belief
and verbal abuse belief additive scales both range from zero to two. The stalking belief
scale has a mean score of .90, a standard deviation of .97, and a coefficient alpha of .94;
and the verbal abuse belief scale has a mean score of .84, a standard deviation of .84, and
a coefficient alpha of .89. Higher scores on the physical and sexual abuse belief, stalking
TABLE 5. Factor Analysis Results for Belief Variables
Factor
1
2
3
Husband to use physical force to
make wife have sex
.720
.023
-.002
Wife to use physical force to make
husband have sex
.481
.072
.067
Husband to punch wife with fist
.788
.015
.003
Wife to punch husband with fist
.667
.060
.034
Husband to slap wife during
argument
.425
.035
.160
Wife to slap husband during an
argument
.244
.070
.259
Man to follow former girlfriend all
over town to try to get her back
.083
.892
.192
Woman to follow former boyfriend
all over town to try to get him back
.090
.961
.175
Husband to insult wife by calling
her a stupid slob
.050
.200
.854
Wife to insult husband by calling
him a stupid slob
.041
.134
.922
Variable
Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions
789
belief, and verbal abuse belief scales indicate more agreement with domestic violence
definitions. These coefficients are presented in Table 4 with the scores for the theoretically
based scales.
Using the results from these factor analyses, we created additive indices to be used
as the dependent variables in the subsequent multiple regression models. As mentioned
previously, because no reliable scales emerged during the psychometric analysis phase of
the analysis for the causation items, we elected to create two additive indices based on the
developers' delineation of the set of items. Thus, an index of causation based on myth was
calculated, and an index of causation based on empirically founded causes was calculated.
Indices measuring respondents' definitions of domestic violence were calculated by summing participants' scores for physical and sexual abuse beliefs, stalking beliefs, and verbal
abuse beliefs, for a total of five scales.
Sociodemographic Characteristics Associated With Domestic
Violence Beliefs
Five multiple linear regression models were analyzed to examine the relationships between
sociodemographic variables and attitudes and beliefs about the definitions and causes of
domestic violence among college students. Tolerances for the predictor variables were
examined to ensure against multicollinearity. Although age was identified as a possible
predictor of perpetrating violent acts against partners in earlier studies, age was not
included as a predictor variable in this study due to multicollinearity with university year
and the intrinsic lack of variance in age associated with college students.
The physical and sexual abuse belief scale was the dependent variable in the first analysis; the verbal abuse belief scale was the dependent variable in the second analysis; the
stalking belief scale was the dependent variable in the third analysis; the domestic violence
myth-based causation scale was the dependent variable in the fourth analysis; and the
empirically based causation scale was the dependent variable in the fifth analysis.
The regression equation for the stalking belief scale was not significant, R^ - .005,
F (11, 1,819) - .783, p - .658. These findings indicate that sociodemographic characteristics are not associated with domestic violence stalking beliefs, differing from prior
research and our hypotheses. Conversely, the regression equation for the physical and
sexual abuse belief scale was significant, R'^ = .038, F (11, 1,824) = 6.525, p < .000, as
was the regression equation for the verbal abuse belief scale, R^ - .017, F (11, 1,822)
= 2.894, p = .001. The regression equation for the myth-based causation scale was significant, R^ = .036, F (11, 1,801) = 6.103, p < .000. In addition, the regression equation
for the empirically based causation scale was also significant, R^ = .039, F (11, 1,807)
= 6.663, p < .000.
Table 6 displays the multiple regression results for the physical and sexual abuse belief
scale. Findings demonstrate that men are more likely to hold beliefs supportive of physical
and sexual abuse than women, p = -.168, p = .000. Results also indicate that the participants who are farther along in their university education are less likely than those who are
not as far along to hold beliefs supportive of physical and sexual abuse, (3 = .064, p - .006.
A comparison of mean physical and sexual abuse belief scores of freshmen, sophomores,
juniors, and seniors provides further insight into this finding. Average scores for freshmen,
sophomores, and juniors are between 4.60 and 4.66, while the average score for seniors is
4.83, indicating a significant change in beliefs between junior and senior university years,
F(3, 1,901) = 3.958,/? = .008.
790
Nabors et al.
o
1
'fill
B
PQ
I
I
O\
o
O
CO
o
r
ca
U
"S
p-
CO r^
o o
l'
I
I
B
m
IO
lO
2
o
s 3 ^ *fs ^
lO
^. ^- B ^ ^.
O
00
cs
00
-rf
O
OS
o
g g g 2 ^
o
O
00
s
>o
vo
s
o
o
o
o
r
(N
O
IO
o
I
I
«g
tti
vo
00
O
>O
O
^^ vo
O
'-H
00
o
I
I
00
T-i
O
I
< !/3
ca 0)
I
q
O
cs
q q
r r
B
u
pq
X)
CO
CO
ON
cs
ri
o
o o
o
CO
O
CO
IfJ
O
oo
o
q
^
2
vo
CO
I
^
s s
ON CO CO O
Z(
q
r
cs
CO
o o o o o o
o
X)- vo
vo
r~- cs
^^
q ^
^
^
q q
I
I
S
o
o
o
00
00
CO
CO
O
o
•o
o
o
t
o
'-I
>O
q q
r r
vo O cs cs
^ o o o
O
VD CS
O o
2 I
CO
o o o ^ IO
t> cs ov r- CO
fe
00
.5"
u
u
vo
CS --H
O
O
cs
cs
cs
CO
o
o
o
>o
lO
o
o
o
"ca u
3
o
00
ca
—>
SD
r<i r^
vo vo o o o
o o
•a
O
as
>o
o
OS
lO
o
o
>o
00
OH
cs
CO
o
o
CO
CO
>o
q
o o
vo
00
'Ti
vo
CO
o
I
3
I
l II I i| il il I
I ll
S
pa
CO
O
Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions
791
Table 6 also presents the multiple regression results for the verbal abuse belief scale.
Only race and ethnicity is significantly correlated with verbal abuse beliefs. Findings show
that Hispanic participants and participants with races and ethnicities other than White,
Black, or Hispanic are least likely to hold beliefs supportive of verbal abuse, j3 = .072, p
= .003 and p = .056, p = .019, respectively. Furthermore, having a Black racial and ethnic
background is not significantly correlated with verbal abuse beliefs.
Four variables were statistically related to scores on the myth-based causation scale.
Men scored statistically higher on this scale than women, j3 = -.157, p < .000. In addition. Black respondents were less likely to score higher on the scale, p - -.046, p = .05.
No other ethnic group differences were found. Those respondents who were currently in
a relationship scored significantly higher on the myth-based causation scale, j3 = .059, p
= .04. Finally, there was a negative relationship between year in school and score on the
myth-based causation scale, j3 = -.072, p = .003.
Only three variables were statistically associated with scores on the empirically based
causation scale. Women scored statistically higher on this scale than men, j3 = .174, /? <
.000. In addition. Black respondents were less likely to score higher on the scale than those
with other racial or ethnic backgrounds, p = -.050, p = .04. No other racial or ethnic group
differences emerged. Finally, there was a positive relationship between year in school and
score on the empirically based causation scale, P = .049, p = .04.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study demonstrates the importance of investigating domestic violence beliefs to
accurately pinpoint factors associated with beliefs regarding specific types of domestic
violence. Using data from a college student sample, the current study sought to address
several issues. First, we wanted to provide further evidence of the utility of a newly created
measure of attitudes and beliefs about what is defined as domestic violence and the causes
of domestic violence. Our results provide evidence that the measures created by Carlson
and Worden (2001) provide generally consistent results across populations. For example,
our findings are consistent with those of Carlson and Worden (2005) in that respondents
were more likely to endorse those items that involved a male perpetrator and female victim
as domestic violence than vice versa.
More than half of the respondents in Worden and Carlson's (2005) study of adults in
New York State endorsed the statement that some violence is caused by women starting
physical fights and that most women could find a way to get out of an abusive relationship
if they really wanted to. The results with this sample of college students were consistent
with those results, although a substantially larger percentage of our college student sample
endorsed the latter myth. This is not surprising, given that they are perhaps more likely to
be college educated once they reach the age of the respondents in the Worden and Carlson
study. In addition, more than half of this sample endorsed the notion that some violence is
caused by the way women treat men, while only 45% of the Worden and Carlson sample
endorsed this myth. Interestingly, the participants in this student sample endorsed the
empirically based causes for domestic violence at a much greater rate than did the adult
sample from New York used by Worden and Carlson.
With a few exceptions, there was only moderate deviation from the rates for individual
items in the measure when comparing rates reported by the scale developers (Carlson &
Worden, 2005; Worden & Carlson, 2005) to those from this sample. In comparison to the
792
Nabors et al.
rates reported by the developers in their adult sample from New York, the college students
in our sample were more likely to endorse all but one of the empirically founded causations and one of the myths of causation. The patterns for attitudes and beliefs about what
constitutes domestic violence were less consistent. Perhaps most interesting was that the
student sample was much less inclined than the adult sample to identify most examples of
female-perpetrated aggression as domestic violence. The exceptions to this were that the
respondents in the student sample were more likely to define female-perpetrated stalking
and a woman punching her male partner as domestic violence. These noted differences
may be related to age differences in the samples or regional differences; the Carlson and
Worden (2005) sample was geographically isolated to the state of New York and the student sample was isolated to a large metropolitan university in Florida. Clearly, additional
research is needed to verify the cross-cultural and cross-generational reliability and validity of the measures, but these results suggest that the measures are promising in the efforts
to develop standardized measures of beliefs and attitudes regarding domestic violence.
The developers of the measures presented the items as subsets divided by the gender of
perpetrator for the definition of domestic violence items (Carlson & Worden, 2005). Our
psychometric analysis of these items reveals little reliability in using the items in the manner proposed by the developers. Because our response choices were dichotomous rather
than the original scaled five category response choices, however, it is possible that the
reduction in variability could account somewhat for the lower alpha coefficients compared
to the original. Factor loadings for the variables illustrate that, in this student sample,
respondents were more likely to differentiate domestic violence by type of abuse, including physical and sexual abuse, stalking, and verbal abuse rather than based on gender.
Furthermore, the developers suggested that the beliefs about causation might be divided
based on whether the beliefs had been substantiated through empirical research or whether
they were myths. In their explanation of the set of items, they present factor analysis
results, but acknowledge that the results were not robust. Our results confirm the lack of
robustness in their findings, because obvious latent factors with high internal consistency
likewise did not emerge among our sample. It is worth further noting, however, that a
woman slapping her husband did not load onto any of the factors. This may result from
a tendency in our society to trivialize and normalize female-perpetrated acts of violence
such as slapping in intimate relationships.
Our analyses further demonstrate the importance of exploring relationships between
sociodemographic variables and beliefs supportive of specific types of domestic violence
among college students. Results show that some sociodemographic variables are correlated with beliefs related to physical and sexual abuse beliefs and verbal abuse beliefs as
well as beliefs about domestic violence causation related to myth-based and empirically
based causes, but not to stalking beliefs. However, the results are not entirely consistent
with past research. Contrary to previous studies (e.g.. Dibble & Straus, 1980; Locke &
Richman, 1999; Simon et al., 2001) and expectations, race and ethnicity, father's education, mother's education, family income, parents' marital status, and relationship status are
not significantly correlated with physical and sexual abuse beliefs or verbal abuse beliefs.
The relationships between sociodemographic variables and physical and sexual abuse and
verbal abuse also differ.
Gender was also associated with physical and sexual abuse beliefs and beliefs in causation. Interestingly, men scored higher on the myth-based scale, while women scored
higher on the empirically based scale—indicating that women, at least at this university,
are much better educated about the causes of domestic violence. In addition, women were
Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions
793
more likely than men to define examples of physical and sexual abuse as domestic violence. University year was also correlated with these same indices. Those who had completed more education reported higher scores on the empirically based causation scale and
were more likely to define examples of physical and sexual abuse as domestic violence.
Meanwhile, those with less education were more likely to score higher on the causation
based on myths scale. This suggests that the students at this university may be learning
about what domestic violence is and what the real risk factors are. At the same time, however, these differences are not large, and we would assume any programming effect would
have a greater impact than what the scores indicate. It is also possible that these changes
may simply be a result of having more experiences in intimate relationships as well as
getting older. Gender and year at the university are not associated, however, with beliefs
about verbal abuse constituting abuse. Interestingly, individuals who reported being in a
current relationship were more likely than others not currently in a relationship to endorse
myths as causes of domestic violence. This finding is perplexing but may be related to
rates of domestic violence in the relationship. Future research might include measures of
domestic violence perpetration and victimization as predictors of beliefs to further explore
this result. Although the Relationship Characteristics Study (Dietz & Jasinski, 2003) did
contain measures of relationship violence, including them in our analysis was beyond the
scope and purpose of the current study.
Results regarding race and ethnicity and domestic violence beliefs differ from past
studies as well (e.g., Locke & Richman, 1999; Simon et al., 2001). Non-White respondents were expected to be more likely than White respondents to hold beliefs supportive
of domestic violence. Likewise, being Black or African American was found to reduce
the score on both causation indices. However, race and ethnicity was not correlated with
physical and sexual abuse beliefs or stalking beliefs. Additionally, Hispanic participants
and participants with racial and ethnic backgrounds other than White, Black, and Hispanic
were significantly less likely to hold beliefs accepting verbal abuse than White respondents. These findings might be attributed to variety of explanations. First, this study
examines correlations between sociodemographic variables and beliefs related to each
type of violence separately, while the majority of previous research investigates domestic
violence beliefs more generally (e.g.. Dibble & Straus, 1980; Straus et al., 1997). Also, in
contrast to most past studies of associations between race and ethnicity and domestic violence beliefs (Locke & Richman, 1999), this study included racial and ethnic categories in
addition to White and African American. Finally, previous research has demonstrated that
Hispanic ethnicity, particularly Cuban ethnicity, is associated with lower rates of cultural
approval of intimate partner violence (Kaufman Kantor et al., 1994). Because the data for
this study were collected at a Florida university with a relatively large Hispanic population,
it is possible that there is a high proportion of Cuban respondents included in the sample,
which could affect results regarding Hispanic respondents' domestic violence beliefs.
The diversity and size of the sample and a design that replicated a measure of domestic
violence beliefs are strengths of the current study. At the same time, several items limit
the generalizability of our findings to the overall population of college students and to the
adult population in general. Clearly, this sample is not reflective of the population in terms
of social class. Most participants recorded that their family income is $60,000 or more.
Moreover, future researchers should attempt to draw nongeographically isolated samples
that are more generalizable to the adult population in the United States so that anomalies
in the current findings can be further explored. A more generalizable sample can also provide additional support for the refinement or adoption of these measures for the study of
794
Nabors et al.
domestic violence across populations. In addition, the amount of variance in the dependent
variables as explained by the independent variables was relatively small as evidenced by
the low R^ values. Although this is consistent with the results from the original study, it
does suggest that additional factors may be important to consider in any investigation of
domestic violence beliefs.
Despite the limitations, however, the results of these analyses do provide important
contributions to the field. First, they provide empirical support for the potential use of the
newly created measures of attitudes and belief about the definitions and causes of domestic violence. Such replication is crucial before any measure can be fully adopted for use.
In addition, these results demonstrate the need to further explore the unique attitudes and
beliefs held by college students. The literature suggests that relationships among younger
individuals are more likely to be violent, and it is important to understand the beliefs and
attitudes of young adults and adolescents specifically if effective educational campaigns
are to be designed. Further, these analyses suggest that the educational campaigns at this
university may be somewhat effective given that those who have been in school longer
are less likely to endorse myths as causes of domestic violence and to define physical and
sexual abuse as domestic violence and more likely to report that the empirically based
causes of domestic violence are real causes. Unfortunately, the results also demonstrate
that greater efforts may be needed to educate college students about verbal abuse and that
increased attention should be directed toward educating men about domestic violence.
REFERENCES
Archer, J., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2003). Do beliefs about aggression predict physical aggression to
pannexs,! Aggressive Behavior, 29, 41-54.
Archer, J., & Haigh, A. (1997). Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.
Aggressive Behavior, 23(6), 405-415.
Archer, J., & Haigh, A. (1999). Sex differences in beliefs about aggression: Opponent's sex and the
form of aggression. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 71-84.
Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 4(3), 298-307.
Bryant, S. A., & Spencer, G. A. (2003). University students' attitudes about attributing blame in
domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18(6), 369-376.
Carlson, B. E. (1999). Student judgements about dating violence: A factorial vignette analysis.
Research in Higher Education, 40(2), 201-220.
Carlson, B. E., & Worden, A. R (2001). Public beliefs about partner violence and the law: Modeling
the effects of social background, experience, and community. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
Carlson, B. E., & Worden, A. P. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of
a public opinion survey: Definitions of domestic violence, criminal domestic violence, and
pKYalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10), 1197-1218.
Dibble, U., & Straus, M. A. (1980). Some social structure determinants of inconsistency between
attitudes and behavior: The case of family violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42,
71-80.
Dietz, T. L., & Jasinski, J. L. (2003). Explaining female perpetrated partner violence and aggression:
Masculinity, femininity, and violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 15(\), 81-100.
Kaufman Kantor, G., Jasinski, J. L., & Aldarondo, E. (1994). Sociocultural status and incidence of
marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9(3), 207-222.
Klein, E., Campbell, J., Soler, E., & Ghez, M. (1997). Ending domestic violence: Changing public
perceptions: Halting the epidemic. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions
795
Knickrehm, K. M., & Teske, R. L. (2000). Attitudes toward domestic violence aniong Romanian and
U.S. university students: A cross-cultural comparison. Women & Politics, 21(3), 27-52.
Lloyd, S. A. (1991). The darkside of courtship: Violence and sexual exploitation. Family Relations,
40(1), 14-20.
Locke, L. M., & Richman, C. L. (1999). Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender
issues. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 40(3/4), 227.
Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30(1),
97-102.
Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations,
35(2), 383-388.
Mwamwenda, T. S. (1999). Gender differences in attitudes toward wife battering. Journal of Social
Psychology 139(6), 790-792.
Price, E. L., Byers, E. S., Belliveau, N., Bonner, R., Caron, B., Doiron, D., et al. (1999). The
Attitudes Towards Dating Violence Scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of
Family Violence, 14(4), 351-375.
Riggs, D. S., & O'Leary, K. D. (1996). Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(4),
519-540.
Shook, N. J., Gerrity, D. A., Jurich, J., & Segrist, A. E. (2000). Courtship violence among college
students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence,
15(1), 1-22.
Simon, T. R., Anderson, M., Thompson, M. P, Crosby, A. E., Shelley, G., & Sacks, J. J. (2001).
Attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence among U.S. adults. Violence and Victims,
16(2), 115-126.
Straus, M. A., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Moore, D. (1997). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence from 1968 to 1994. In G. Kaufman Kantor & J. L. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 3-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university
students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(1), 790-811.
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Violent men in intimate relationships: An analysis of
risk maikexs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1034-1048.
Tjaden P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-tomale intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Aqainst Women Survey.
Violence Aqainst Women, 6(2), 142-161.
Worden, A. P., & Carlson, B. E. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results
of a public opinion survey: Beliefs about causes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10),
1219-1243.
Offprints. Requests for offprints should be directed to Erin L. Nabors, Department of Sociology,
University of Central Rorida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816-1360. E-mail:
[email protected]