Religiosity, Christian Fundamentalism, and Intimate Partner Violence
Jerome R. Koch and Ignacio Luis Ramirez
Texas Tech University
Address all correspondence to:
Jerome R. Koch
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work
Box 41012 (Holden Hall 158)
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
[email protected]
(806) 742-2401, ext. 227
4883 words
Religiosity, Christian Fundamentalism, and Intimate Partner Violence
Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between religious behavior, religious belief, and
intimate partner violence. Because intimate partner violence is both perceived and demonstrated
to be a gendered crime, we also report results examining gender symmetry of the violent
attitudes and behavior measured below. Survey data were gathered from a sample of
undergraduates (N = 626). Our dependent variables were derived from conflict tactics scales and
Strauss’s Personal and Relationships Profile measuring violence approval, psychological
aggression, and intimate partner violence. Our two substantive independent variables were, first,
religiosity as a scale containing questions from the General Social Survey, and second, Christian
fundamentalism as a scale used in previously published research. General religiosity, measured
as belief in God, strength of religious faith, church attendance, and frequency of prayer, was not
associated with violence approval, psychological aggression, or intimate partner violence.
However, Christian fundamentalism was positively associated with both violence approval and
acts of intimate partner violence, but not psychological aggression. With regard to gender
symmetry of violence, men were more likely to approve of violence in our study, but were no
more or less likely than women to commit violent acts or exercise psychological aggression.
INTRODUCTION
Much research has been done over the past forty years or so seeking to explain the social
antecedents and behavioral correlates associated with the increasing prominence of American
Christian fundamentalism (Ammerman 1990, 1997; Finke and Stark 1992; Hunter 1983; Kelley
1972; Koch and Curry 2000; Stark and Bainbridge 1985). Recently, the influence of the
Religious Right on the American political scene has gained attention (Francis, Green, Hernson,
Powell, and Wilcox, 2003; Kohut, Green, Keeter, and Toth, 2000; Wilcox, 2000).
Taking a somewhat critical tone, previous studies have noted positive correlations
between fundamentalist Christian beliefs and negative social outcomes such as racial and sexist
prejudice and discrimination (Kirkpatrick, 1993; McFarland, 1989). This pattern replicates with
regard to antipathy toward homosexuality (Fulton, Gorsuch, and Maynard, 1999; Hill, Moulton,
and Burdette, 2004; Petersen and Donnenwerth, 1997).
On a more positive note, general religiosity correlates negatively with the incidence of
domestic violence (Ellison and Anderson, 2001). Conservative Christian religiosity is negatively
associated with behavior that is linked to domestic violence, such as excessive drinking, illegal
drug use, and illicit sexual behavior (Cochran and Beeghley, 1991; Ford and Kadushin, 2002).
Causing some debate in the literature are studies which indicate that conservative
Christians are more likely than other experts to endorse, or at least not explicitly oppose,
corporal punishment for children (Bartkowski, 1995; Bartkowski and Ellison, 1995). Strauss
(1994) argues this creates a family environment within which child abuse and partner violence
are more likely. Others suggest the approval of and use of corporal punishment stands alone and
is more likely a largely benign reflection of authority and patriarchal leadership in conservative
2
Christian families (Ellison, 1996). Even so, Nason-Clark (2000) argues patriarchal leadership
and authority approving corporal punishment may also legitimate the use of force and violence
by males in conservative Christian families.
This research examines the relationship between Christian fundamentalism and
aggression among intimate partners. For comparative purposes, we also explore common
measures of religious belief and practice in relation to partner aggression. We examined these
relationships by surveying otherwise normative, middle to upper class, mainstream American
college students. A college-age sample is appropriate for exploring these issues for several
reasons. Renison and Welchans (2000) note that rates of non-lethal intimate partner violence are
greatest among individuals aged 20-24, and next highest among those aged 16-19. The majority
of college students fall into these high-risk categories. Moreover, Sugarman and Hotaling
(1991) review several studies showing that incidence of physical assault among dating partners
aged 18-22 ranges from 20 to 59%. College students make up about 1/3 of the 18-22 year old
population; they are forming habits and patterns in intimate relationships that carry forward into
the balance of their lives (O’Leary, Malone, and Tyree, 1994).
This study measures the impact of religiosity and Christian fundamentalism on three
measures of aggression. These are: violence approval, psychological aggression, and physical
violence. Religiosity and Christian fundamentalism are measured by indicators used in previous
research (Davis, Smith, and Marsdan, 2004; Kirkpatrick, 1993; McFarland, 1989). Measures of
aggression come from conflict tactics scales developed by Strauss, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and
Sugarman, (1996; 1999). Because intimate partner violence is widely understood as a gendered
crime, we also examine gender symmetry of violence on these measures.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORY
Four bodies of previous research inform our work. These are studies which explore:
(1) Conservative religiosity, religious belief, religious practice, and social deviance;
(2) Religious practice and domestic violence;
(3) Christian fundamentalism and corporal punishment;
(4) Gender symmetry and intimate partner violence.
Conservative religiosity, religious belief, religious practice, and social deviance.
There is wide support for the hypothesis that religious belief and practice suppress social
deviance. People of strong religious faith are less likely to drink illegally and abusively, and by
extension, behave violently. They are also less likely to engage in pre or extra marital sex, or
use illegal drugs (Brown, Parks, Zimmerman, and Phillips, 2001; Jaynes, 2001; Nelson and
Rooney, 1982). Regular church attendance is negatively correlated with illegal alcohol and drug
abuse (Cochran and Beeghley, 1991; Richard, Bell, and Carlson, 2000). These correlations and
relationships are more prominent among Christian conservatives (Bock, Cochran, and Beeghley,
1987; Cochran, Beeghley, and Bock, 1988; Peek, Chalfant, and Milton, 1979). Choosing not to
use illegal drugs, drink alcohol while under-age, or engage in pre-marital sex seems thus
associated with being socialized, or living in, a strongly religious environment, especially among
religious conservatives. However, these studies tend to focus on defining conservative
religiosity in terms of respondents’ affiliation with Baptist-like organizations (Ammerman, 1990;
1997) rather than specifically probing the content of their individual beliefs.
Taken as a whole, this body of research supports the argument that religious belief and
practice suppress social deviance. Therefore, we propose that respondents who attend worship,
4
pray regularly, and who strongly believe in God may also be less likely than others to approve of
violent behavior, or to use psychological and physical aggression in their intimate relationships.
Moreover, the literature on religion and deviance leads us to expect this negative relationship to
be more prominent among Christian fundamentalists.
Religious practice and domestic violence.
Regular church attendance is inversely associated with domestic violence for both men
and women (Ellison and Anderson, 2001). This inverse relationship holds for male perpetrators
who attend weekly or more often and for females who attend monthly or more. It holds as well
for both male and female victims (Cunradi, Caetano, and Schafer, 2002). These results support
other research suggesting that church attendance maintains individuals’ contact with normative
reference groups (Roberts, Koch, and Johnson, 2001). We imagine this to be particularly evident
among church attendees who would avoid the risk of having fellow congregants witness the
effects of domestic violence such as visible bruising, seasonally inappropriate clothing to hide
bruises, or other more subtle signs of marital discord and trauma that may become evident
through interacting with others in a religious setting.
Even so, a conservatively religious sub culture that supports the use of corporal
punishment, and also uses Biblically based family life education may also create a context
conducive to hierarchical, if not overtly abusive family dynamics (Capps, 1992; Nason-Clark,
2000). However, data cast some limited doubt on making these assumptions (Brinkerhoff,
Grandlin, and Luperi, 1992; Ellison, 1996). Thus, this body of research leads us to initially
propose that religiosity itself is not likely associated with intimate partner violence.
5
Christian fundamentalism and corporal punishment.
There is a debate among scholars and practitioners over the appropriate use of corporal
punishment with children. Conservative Christian parenting specialists tend to support its
limited use (Bartkowski, 1995). Survey data also show that parents holding conservative
Christian beliefs are more likely to use corporal punishment than are others (Ellison, Bartkowski,
and Seagal, 1996; Grasmick, Bursick, and Kimpel, 1991). There is a shortage of direct empirical
evidence linking support for and use of corporal punishment with the increased likelihood of
child abuse or domestic violence, even among religious conservatives (Ellison, 1996). However,
others argue that, at a minimum, corporal punishment creates a family environment more tolerant
of other forms of violence (Strauss, 1994; Strauss and Gelles, 1990). Moreover, Nason-Clark
(2000) cautions that institutionalized norms of patriarchal authority among Christian
fundamentalists elevate the risk for child and spouse abuse.
This study tries to partially adjudicate that debate. Rather than making assumptions
about the beliefs and behavior of individuals resulting from attending a conservative church, or
declaring themselves to be part of a conservative religious tradition or denomination, we directly
compare respondents’ expression of Christian fundamentalist beliefs with their tolerance for, or
engagement in, violence approval, psychological, and physical aggression. A positive
correlation among these variables strengthens the case for linking corporal punishment with an
enhanced likelihood of domestic violence in Christian fundamentalist families. We propose that
authoritarian and patriarchal norms emerging from a fundamentalist faith ultimately makes
violence more likely.
6
Gender symmetry and intimate partner violence.
A second matter of debate in the literature which we tried to partially adjudicate is the
matter of gender symmetry and violence. It is widely believed that intimate partner violence is
primarily committed by men. Strauss (1999) demonstrates when the comparison is based on
police reports or surveys on crime victimization, more than three-fourths of violent perpetrators
are men. However, results of nearly two-hundred studies that use data from surveys relating to
family problems (Archer, 2000; Feibert, 1997) show that “… women are as physically
aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships.” (Feibert, 1997: 273).
Moreover, Strauss and Ramirez (2007) showed that gender symmetry for severe as well as for
chronic minor assaults, persisted after controlling for respondents’ age, severity and chronicity of
violence, SES, and response bias. The design of this study is very much like those in the latter
body of research; we thus propose gender symmetry will be apparent on our indicators of
intimate partner violence.
Based on the review of literature, we offer the following hypotheses:
Hypotheses
H1: As religiosity increases violence approval decreases.
H2: As fundamentalism increases, violence approval increases.
H3: As religiosity increases, psychological aggression decreases.
H4: As fundamentalism increases, psychological aggression increases.
H5: As religiosity increases, intimate partner violence decreases.
H6: As fundamentalism increases, intimate partner violence increases.
H&: There will be gender symmetry for all aspects of intimate partner violence.
SAMPLE AND METHODS
The sample is comprised of 626 undergraduate students from two universities in the
southwestern United States. Data were collected during the Fall of 2003 and the Spring of 2004.
7
After IRB review and obtaining informed consent, students enrolled in undergraduate Sociology
classes responded to questions administered through an anonymous questionnaire. They were
offered nominal extra credit for participating and all in attendance on the data collection days
chose to do so. Table 1 details basic demographics of the sample. Note that nearly all (88%)
reported currently being in a dating relationship. Nearly half (48%) reported being in a dating
relationship for a year or longer.
Table 1 about here
We also included a measure of social desirability to indicate the extent to which
respondents answered the questions truthfully. We are aware that, especially when asking for
anonymous responses concerning religion and deviance, there may be a propensity to shade the
truth, especially when true responses put individuals at odds with their stated beliefs or the
norms of religious groups to which they belong. Following Reynolds’ (1982) guidelines, our
sample’s mean social desirability score of 34 was deemed an acceptable indicator of truth-telling
among our respondents.
Dependent Variables
There are three dependent variables. The first is violence approval and is measured with
the Personal and Relationships Profile (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugerman, 1999).
The next two independent variables are Conflict Tactics Scales measuring psychological
aggression and intimate partner violence (Straus, et al. 1996). Possible responses were “Yes” or
“No” during the relationship for these two variables. Each scale measures minor, severe, and
total psychological aggression and intimate partner violence. Specific questions response
choices are noted in the appendix.
8
Independent Variables
Two substantive independent variables measure dimensions of religious belief and
practice. The first is religiosity, a four item scale using questions taken from the General Social
Survey (Davis, Smith, and Marsdan, 2004). The second is Christian fundamentalism, a six-item
scale using questions from previously published research (Kirkpatrick, 1993; McFarland, 1989).
The specific questions that comprise these scales are detailed in the appendix.
Demographic Variables
Basic demographic variables were measured. These included: gender, ethnicity,
relationship type, length of relationship, year in university, cohabitation status, age, and whether
respondents were sexually active with their partners. Socioeconomic status was computed using
an index of father’s education, mother’s education, and family income. Multivariate analysis
assesses the impact of our substantive variables in the presence of these controls, and also allows
us to assess gender symmetry of violence.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The data were analyzed using OLS and Logistic Regression Multivariate Analysis.
Table 2 reports results testing hypotheses 1 and 2 and examines the relationships between
religiosity, Christian fundamentalism, and violence approval. The analysis indicates that
fundamentalism is positively associated with violence approval while religiosity is not. As
fundamentalism increases violence approval also increases slightly. For each one point increase
in the fundamentalism scale score there is .63 point increase in violence approval. Controlling
for gender in this model indicates that males are significantly more likely to approve of violence
than females. This lends support for linking the approval or corporal punishment among
9
fundamentalist males with an elevated tolerance for other forms of violence.
Table 2 about here
Table 3 reports results testing hypotheses 3 and 4 and examines the relationships between
religiosity, Christian fundamentalism, and psychological aggression. Logistic regression reports
the odds ratios; no relationships were found. Neither religiosity nor fundamentalism effect the
likelihood of psychological aggression in intimate relationships among our respondents. Gender
is also not a significant predictor of psychological aggression, indicating gender symmetry on
this measure of violence.
Table 3 about here
Table 4 reports results testing hypotheses 5 and 6 and examines the relationships between
religiosity, Christian fundamentalism, and physical violence. The analysis again indicates that
fundamentalism is positively associated with physical violence while religiosity is not. For each
one point increase in the fundamentalism scale, the odds of physically assaulting a partner
increase by 5%. However, gender is not a significant predictor of physical violence, indicating
again there appears to be gender symmetry on this measure of violence.
Table 4 about here
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This research adds to the literature cited above in three substantive ways. First, religious
belief and practice (religiosity) is shown to have no impact on the likelihood of intimate partner
violence. Any enhancing effect with regard to a conservative tendency to support corporal
punishment is seemingly balanced by the general suppressive effect of religious practice on
deviance.
10
Second, Christian fundamentalism is positively associated with two of the three measures
of partner violence. The greater the level of Christian fundamentalist beliefs among our
respondents, the more likely they were to approve of violence and to use violent behavior in their
intimate relationships. This lends support to Capps (1992) and Nason-Clark’s (2000) theoretical
argument that a conservative religious environment makes family violence at least more
tolerable if not more overtly likely. It also lends support for the argument that approval and use
of corporal punishment, which is more prominent among Christian fundamentalists, may lead to
a more general level of violence approval and may increase the likelihood of violent behavior in
intimate relationships.
Finally, we note gender symmetry in two of the three measures of violent behavior. Men
are more likely than women to approve of violence in our sample. Violence approval is arguably
similar to endorsing corporal punishment. That men in our sample are more likely to approve of
violence in general perhaps indicates a level of male authoritarianism among Christian
fundamentalists. Further investigation of these links is warranted by this finding. On the other
hand, men and women in this study appear equally likely to perpetrate (or not perpetrate)
psychological aggression and violent behavior in their intimate relationships. This lends support
to previous research claiming gender symmetry of violence in studies conducted through survey
research rather than police records (Strauss, 1999).
These measurable links between religious fundamentalism and aggression suggest
expanding this research agenda by examining the impact of Christian fundamentalism on other
social relationships. Our work here examines how fundamentalist beliefs effect intimate
relationships. The logic of this work lends itself to investigating its role with other family
11
dynamics such as child-rearing practices and status hierarchies in marriage. Religious
fundamentalism might also effect how individuals relate to one another at school or work, when
seeking medical help, wrestling with bio-ethical decisions, as well as when deciding for whom to
vote or what political agendas to embrace or reject based on one’s faith.
REFERENCES
12
Ammerman, Nancy Tatom. 1990. Baptist Battles. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Ammerman, Nancy Tatom. 1997. Congregation and Community. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers Univ. Press.
Archer, J. 2000. “Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic
review.” Psychological Bulletin. 126: 651-680.
Bartkowski, J.P. 1995. “Spare the Rod ... Or Spare the Child: Divergent Perspectives in
Conservative Protestant Child Discipline.” Review of Religious Research 37: 97-116.
Bartkowski, J.P. & Ellison, C.G. 1995. “Divergent Models of Childrearing in Popular
Manuals:
Conservative Protestants vs. Mainstream Experts.” Sociology of Religion 56: 21-24.
Bock, E.E., Cochran, J.K, & Beeghley, L. 1987. “Moral Messages: The Relative Influence of
Denomination of the Religiosity-Alcohol Relationship.” The Sociological Quarterly 28:
89-103.
Brinkerhoff M.B., Grandin, E., & Lupri, E. 1992. “Religious Involvement and Spousal
Violence: The Canadian Case.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31: 15-31.
Brown, T.L., Parks, G.S., Zimmerman, R.S., & Phillips, C.M. 2001. “The role of religion in
predicting adolescent alcohol use and problem drinking.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol
62: 696-705.
Capps, D. 1992. “Religion and Child Abuse: Perfect Together.” Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 31: 1-14.
Cochran, J. K., Beeghley, L., & Bock, E.W. 1988. “Religiosity and alcohol behavior: an
exploration of reference group theory.” Sociological Forum 3: 256-276.
Cochran, J., & Beeghley, L. 1991. “The influence of religion on attitudes toward non-marital
sexuality: a preliminary assessment of reference group theory.” Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 30: 45-62.
Cunradi, C.B., Caetano, R., & Schafer, J. 2002. “Religious Affiliation, Denominational
Homagamy, and Intimate Partner Violence Among U.S. Couples.” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 41: 139-152.
Davis, J.A., T.W. Smith, and P.V. Marsden. 2004. General Social Surveys, 1972-2004:
13
[CUMULATIVE FILE][Computer File]. ICPSR 04295-v. 2. Chicago, IL: National
Opinion Research Center [producer], 2005. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion
Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research [distributors], 2006-04-05.
Ellison, C.G. 1996. “Conservative Protestantism and the Corporal Punishment of Children:
Clarifying the Issues.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35: 1-16.
Ellison, C.G., Bartkowski, J.P., & Segal, M.L. 1996. “Conservative Protestantism and the
Parental Use of Corporal Punishment.” Social Forces 74: 1003-1028.
Ellison, C.G., & Anderson, K.L. 2001. “Religious Involvement and Domestic Violence Among
U.S. Couples.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40: 269-286.
Fiebert, M. S. 1997. “Annotated bibliography: References examining assaults by women on
their spouses/partners.” In B. M. Dank & R. Refinette (Eds.), Sexual harassment &
sexual consent (Vol. 1, pp. 273-286). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Finke, Roger, and Rodney Stark. 1992. The Churching of America, 1776-1990. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Ford, J., & Kadushin, C. 2002. “Between sacral belief and moral community: a
multidimensional approach to the relationship between religion and alcohol among
blacks and whites.” Sociological Forum 17: 255-279.
Francis, P.L., Green, J.C., Hernson, P.S., Powell, LW., & Wilcox, C. 2003. The Financiers of
Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Fulton, A.S., Gorsuch, R.L., & Maynard, E.A. 1999. “Religious Orientation, Antihomosexual
Sentiment, and Fundamentalism Among Christians.” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 38: 14-22.
Grasmick, H, R. Bursik, and M. Kimpel. 1991. “Protestant fundamentalism and attitudes
toward
corporal punishment of children. Violence and Victims 6: 283-297.
Hill, T.D., Moulton, B.E., & Burdette, A.E. 2004. “Conservative Protestantism and Attitudes
Toward Homosexuality: Does Political Orientation Mediate This Relationship?”
Sociological Focus 37: 59-70.
Hunter, James Davison. 1983. American Evangelicalism. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Rutgers University Press.
Jaynes, W.H. 2001. “Religious commitment and adolescent behavior.” Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies 13: 31-50.
14
Kelley, D.M. 1972. Why Conservative Churches are Growing. New York: Harper and Row.
Kirkpatrick, L.A. 1993. “Fundamentalism, Christian Orthodoxy, and Intrinsic Religious
Orientation as Predictors of Discriminatory Attitudes.” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 32: 256-268.
Koch, J.R., & Curry, E.W. 2000. “Social Context and the Presbyterian Gay/Lesbian Debate:
Testing Open-Systems Theory.” Review of Religious Research 42: 206-214.
Kohut, A.J, Green, J.C., Keeter, S., & Toth, R.C. 2000. The Diminishing Divide: Religion’s
Changing Role in American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
McFarland, S.G. 1989. “Religious Orientations and the Targets of Discrimination.” Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 28: 324-336.
Nason-Clark, N. 2000. “Making the Sacred Safe: Woman Abuse and Communities of Faith.”
Sociology of Religion 61: 349-368.
Nelson, H.M., & Rooney, J.F. 1982. “Fire and brimstone, lager and pot: religious involvement
and substance use.” Sociological Analysis 43: 247-255.
O'Leary, K. D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. 1994. “Physical aggression in early marriage:
Prerelationship and relationship effects.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
62: 594-602.
Peek, C. W., Chalfant, H.P., & Milton, E.V. 1979. “Sinners in the hands of an angry God:
fundamentalist fears about drunken driving.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
18: 29-39.
Peterson, L.R., & Donnenwerth, G.V. 1997. “Secularization and the influence of religion on
beliefs about premarital sex.” Social Forces 75: 1071-1088.
Renison, C. M., & Welchans, S. 2000. Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics Special Report.
Reynolds, W.M. 1982. Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 38: 119-125.
Richard, A.J., Bell, D.C., & Carlson, J.W. 2000. “Individual religiosity, moral community, and
drug user treatment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 39: 240-246
Roberts, A.E., Koch, J.R., & Johnson, D.P. 2001. “Reference Groups and Religion: An
Empirical Test.” Sociological Spectrum, 21: 81-98.
15
Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W.S. 1985. The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult
Formation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strauss, M.A. 1994. “State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds in relation
to assaults on wives.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 25: 7-24.
Straus, M. A. 1999. “The Controversy over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological,
Theoretical, and Sociology of Science Analysis.” In X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.),
Violence in Intimate Relationships (pp. 17-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, M.A., and R.J Gelles (Eds.). 1990. Physical Violence in American Families: Risk
factors and adaptations to violence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., and Sugarman, D. B. 1996.. “The revised
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data.”
Journal of Family Issues 17: 283-316.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. 1999. The personal and
relationships profile (PRP). Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of
New Hampshire.
Straus, M. A. & Ramirez, I. 2007. “Gender Symmetry in Prevalence, Severity, and Chronicity
of Physical Aggression Against Dating Partners by University Students in Mexico and
USA.” Aggressive Behavior 33: 281-290.
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. 1991. “Dating violence: A review of contextual and risk
factors.” In B. Levy (Ed.), Dating violence: Young women in danger (pp. 100-118).
Seattle: Seal Press.
Wilcox, C. 2000. Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Table I: Respondents’ Characteristics.
Sample of 626 Undergraduate Students from two universities in the Southwestern United States.
16
Gender
Female
Male
63%
37%
Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
56%
44%
Relationship Type
Dating
Engaged
Married
88%
6%
6%
++Relationship Length
1-12 Months
13-24 Months
25 or more
52%
17%
31%
Father’s education
High school/less
Some college
College degree
Graduate school
27%
34%
24%
15%
Mother’s education
High school/less
Some college
College degree
Graduate school
28%
36%
26%
10%
Family Income
Median Group
50-59,999
+++SES Mean Score 13.5
Year in University
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
37%
27%
20%
15%
Relationship Status
Current
Previous
57%
43%
Cohabiting
12%
+Age (Mean)
20
Sexually Active
70%
Social Desirability
Mean Score
34.09
+The categories are 18, 19, 20, 21, 22-24, 25-29, 30-39, 40 or older.
++ The categories are 1 = about one month, 2 = about 2 months, 3 = 3-5 months, 4 = 6-11 months, 5 = about 1 year,
6 = more than 1 year but less than 2 years, 7 = about 2 years, 8 = more than 2 years but less than 4, 9 = 4 years or
more.
+++ Socioeconomic Status includes family income, father’s education, and mother’s education
Table 2: OLS Regression of Violence Approval on Independent Variables.
Coefficient
P Value
17
Religiosity
Fundamentalism
Ethnicity
Gender
Socioeconomic Status
Relationship Length
Sexual Activity
Age
Social Desirability
Constant
-.0336331
.0634642
1.079176
-2.538284
-.0210577
.1120113
.6905253
-.2502986
-.3278804
32.39035
0.394
0.017**
0.002**
0.000***
0.622
0.153
0.048*
0.007**
0.000***
0.000
Number of obs
= 624
F( 9, 614)
= 23.87
Prob > F
= 0.0000
R-squared
= 0.2592
Adj R-squared
= 0.2483
Root MSE
= 3.5807
* p > .05; **p>.01;***p>.001
Table 3: Logistic Regression of Psychological Aggression on Independent Variables.
Odds Ratios
P Value
18
Religiosity
Fundamentalism
Ethnicity
Gender
Socioeconomic Status
Relationship Length
Sexual Activity
Age
Social Desirability
.9854053
.9906001
2.04385
1.288056
.9803071
1.309846
2.109703
.8643439
.8795156
0.557
0.568
0.001***
0.200
0.465
0.000***
0.001***
0.012*
0.000***
Number of obs
= 626
LR chi2(9)
= 103.00
Prob > chi2
= 0.0000
Pseudo R2
= 0.1261
* p > .05; **p>.01;***p>.001
Table 4: Logistic Regression of Intimate Partner Violence on Independent Variables.
Odds Ratios
P Value
19
Religiosity
Fundamentalism
Ethnicity
Gender
Socioeconomic Status
Relationship Length
Sexual Activity
Age
Social Desirability
.9853233
1.055671
1.490886
.9814135
1.013688
1.457656
2.026946
1.044114
.8476436
Number of obs =
626
LR chi2(9)
= 103.08
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Pseudo R2
= 0.1640
* p > .05; **p>.01;***p>.001
APPENDIX
Dependent Variables, Scales, and Questions
0.619
0.010*
0.141
0.937
0.680
0.000***
0.004**
0.546
0.000***
20
1. Violence Approval (Responses were “Strongly Agree, Agree, Not Sure, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree”):
Family Violence
1) It is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good hard spanking.
2) It can think of a situation when I would approve of a wife slapping a husband’s face.
3) It can think of a situation when I would approve of a husband slapping a wife’s face.
4) It is sometimes necessary for parents to slap a teen who talks back or is getting into
trouble.
Male Violence
5) When a boy is growing up, it’s important for him to have a few fist fights.
6) A man should not walk away from a physical fight with another man.
7) A boy who is hit by another boy should hit back.
Sexual Aggression
8) A woman who has been raped probably asked for it.
9) If a wife refuses to have sex, there are times when it may be okay to make her do it.
10) Once sex gets past a certain point, a man can’t stop himself until he is satisfied.
2. Psychological Aggression (Responses were “Yes” or “No” in relationships):
1) Insulted or swore at my partner.
2) Shouted or yelled at my partner.
3) Stomped out of the room or house or yard during a disagreement.
4) Said something to spite my partner.
5) Called my partner fat or ugly
6) Destroyed something belonging to my partner
7) Accused my partner of being a lousy lover
8) Threatened to hit or throw something at my partner.
3. Intimate Partner Violence (Responses were “Yes” or “No” in relationship):
1) Threw something at partner
2) Twisted arm or hair
3) Pushed or shoved
4) Grabbed
5) Slapped
6) Used knife or gun on partner
7) Punched or hit
8) Choked
9) Slammed against wall
10) Beat up
21
11) Burned or scalded
12) Kicked
Independent Variables:
1. Religiosity:
1) How often do you attend a place of worship (church, synagogue, etc.) now?
1) Never
2) Once or twice a year
3) Several times a year
4) About once a month
5) 2-3 times a month
6) Weekly or more often
2) In general, would you consider your religious faith to be?
1) Non-existent
2) Very weak
3) Moderately weak
4) Moderately strong
5) Very strong
3) About how often do you pray?
1) Never
2) Several times a day
3) Daily
4) Several times a week
5) Once a week
6) Less than once a week
4) Beliefs about God?
1) I don’t believe in God
2) I don’t believe in a personal God, but I believe in a higher power of some kind.
3) I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at other times.
4) While I have some doubts, I feel that I do believe in God.
5) I know that God really exists and I have no doubts about it
5) Church attendance: How often do you attend a place of worship (church, synagogue,
etc.) now?
1) Never
2) Once or twice a year
3) Several times a year
4) About once a month
5) 2-3 times a month
6) Weekly or more often
22
2. Christian Fundamentalism (Responses were “Strongly Agree, Agree, Not Sure, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree”
1) I am sure the Bible contains no errors or contradictions.
2) It is very important for true Christians to believe that the Bible is the infallible Word
of God.
3) The Bible is the final and complete guide to morality; it contains God’s answers to all
important questions about right and wrong.
4) Christians should not let themselves be influenced by worldly ideas.
5) Christians must try hard to know and defend the true teachings of God’s word.
6) The best education for a Christian child is in a Christian school with Christian
teachers.
Jerome R. Koch is Associate Professor of Sociology at Texas Tech University. His research
interests are related to the sociology of religion, medicine, and deviance. He is co-author (with
Robert E. Beckley) of The Continuing Challenge of AIDS: Clergy Responses to Patients,
Friends, and Families, published by Auburn House in 2002.
23
Ignacio Luis Ramirez is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Texas Tech University. His
research interests are related to the study of gender, ethnicity, and religion and intimate partner
violence.