Article Assignment

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Parental Models of Family Violence and Associations with Partner Violence for College Women from Three Countries

Helen M. Hendy1 & S. Hakan Can2 & Ahmet Akin3 & Maria Jose Tenorio4

Published online: 26 December 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract The present study provides a cross-national com- parison of parental models of family violence as predictors of romantic partner violence reported by college women. Participants included college women from the United States (n=319), Spain (n=95), and Turkey (n=207) to report vio- lence in five relationships: father-to-mother, mother-to-father, father-to-participant, mother-to-participant, and romantic- partner-to-participant. Multiple regression revealed that part- ner violence received by college women was best explained by mother-to-father violence for the United States sample, but by father-to-mother violence for the Spanish and Turkish sam- ples. Results may be useful for college women to identify family and cultural risk factors for romantic partner violence so that they may work to protect themselves and their educa- tional opportunities.

Keywords Partner violence . Parental models .

Male-domination . Intergenerational violence

Although violence from romantic partners is believed to be widespread in countries around the world (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005), cross-national comparisons of partner violence are difficult because available studies have used varied sam- ples, varied research methods, and varied measures of vio- lence (Archer 2000; Hagemann-White 2001; Krahe et al. 2005; Krug et al. 2002). Most of the existing multi-national studies have focused on partner violence received by women because “the overwhelming burden of partner violence is borne by women at the hands of men” (Krug et al. 2002, p. 89), and they have primarily been concerned with determining prevalence rather than parental predictors of such partner vio- lence. The purpose of the present study was to provide the first available cross-national comparison of parental models of family violence and their association with romantic partner violence reported by college women from the United States, Spain, and Turkey, using consistent research methodology and measures of violence.

Literature Review

As widely believed, a college education has been shown to increase the probability of employment and financial security for young adults (Cheng 2010). Unfortunately, completion of college is interrupted for many students by family or interper- sonal issues they experience, and these problems may include violence in their romantic relationships (Tinto 2001). Young college students may be particularly vulnerable to such partner violence because they are often away from their families and home towns, living independently for the first time, and

* Helen M. Hendy [email protected]

S. Hakan Can [email protected]

Ahmet Akin [email protected]

Maria Jose Tenorio [email protected]

1 Psychology Program, Schuylkill Campus, Penn State University, 200 University Drive, Schuylkill Haven, PA 17972, USA

2 Administration of Justice Program, Schuylkill Campus, Penn State University, 200 University Drive, Schuylkill Haven, PA 17972, USA

3 Psychological Counseling and Guidance Department, Sakarya University, 54300 Hendek, Sakarya, Turkey

4 Psychology Program, Complutense University, C/Donoso Cortes, 28015 Madrid, Spain

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:689–695 DOI 10.1007/s10896-015-9792-9

finding themselves surrounded by many new potential roman- tic partners, but with limited experience for resolving conflict in intimate relationships, and with limited access to family support if romantic relationships should they become violent. When college romantic relationships do become violent, women are more likely than men to be physically injured to the extent of needing medical treatment and missing school or work (Makepeace 1986; Morse 1995; Vivian and Langhinrichsen-Rohling 1994). Additionally, women whose college education is interrupted by personal problems such as relationship violence have the additional burden of then being viewed less favorably when evaluated for prospective em- ployment (Halim and Heilman 2013).

Because of the widespread damage that can result from partner violence received by women, much research has been devoted to evaluating family variables associated with its oc- currence in Western countries such as the United States and Canada. Many of these studies have found patterns suggesting an “intergenerational model of violence” in which violence observed between parents or received from them is associated with increased risk for violence from romantic partners (Cui et al. 2010; Black et al. 2010; Franklin and Kercher 2012; Stith et al. 2000). Social Learning Theory (Bandura 1977) is most commonly used to explain these patterns with the sug- gestion that parents serve as authority figures to be copied, and observations of parental family violence may teach children that such behavior is appropriate in close relationship (Franklin and Kercher 2012). For samples from the United States and Canada, the mother’s display of family violence has been found to be the most powerful parental model asso- ciated with increased risk of partner violence received by young college women (Hendy et al. 2012, 2003; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. 1995). These results have been interpreted as mothers being not only authority figures whose behavior should be copied by young women, but with mothers also typically being the most frequent caregivers and models for conflict resolution style (Hendy et al. 2003).

In more male-dominated cultural environments than the United States and Canada, however, it may be expected that violence displayed by the father rather than the mother would be the most powerful parental model of family violence asso- ciated with increased risk of partner violence reported by young college women. In a review of 35 countries conducted by the World Health Organization, male-dominated societies were found to have the highest prevalence rates of partner violence toward women (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005). Young college women growing up in such patriarchal social environ- ments may see fathers as “the head of the household,” making his display of violence toward their mothers a powerful model for how people resolve conflict in their intimate relationships, and making it more likely that these young women would expect and even accept violence from their own male partners (Exposito et al. 2010; Franklin and Kercher 2012; Venegas

2013). Women in male-dominated environments may also believe that nothing can be done to stop partner violence in any case because most authority figures to whom they might turn for help are also men (Wu et al. 2013).

In the United States, laws prohibiting gender discrimina- tion in workplace and educational environments have been in place since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, perhaps making displays of male dominance more subtly displayed than in countries without such laws (Good and Rudman 2010; King et al. 2011; Ridgeway 2011). For example, Spain experienced an authoritarian and patriarchal dictatorship under Francisco Franco until 1975 that limited women to being mothers and housewives with little access to college education or employ- ment outside the home (Gartzia and Lopez-Zafra 2014). Although a gender-equity constitutional change in 1978 brought increased opportunities for women (Meil 2006), some observers believe that the recent economic crisis in Spain has prompted “a regression toward traditional gender roles in so- ciety” (Bark et al. 2014, p. 522). Also, despite Spain’s Organic Law Against Gender Violence passed in 2004, partner vio- lence against women may continue to be enhanced by cultural beliefs that minimize the seriousness of such violence and that blame the victim (Gartzia and Lopez-Zafra 2014). Similarly, “the patriarchal family structure still affects women’s lives in Turkey” (Yuksel-Kaptanoglu et al. 2012, p. 2744), with be- liefs of male-domination associated with increased acceptance and prevalence of partner violence toward women (Kocacik et al. 2007; Marshall and Furr 2010).

Purpose of Present Study

The aim of the present study was to provide the first available comparison of parental models of family violence as predic- tors of partner violence reported by college women from the United States, Spain, and Turkey, using consistent research methodology and measurement of relationship violence. For college women 18–25 years of age, four parental models of family violence were considered as predictors of such partner violence received: father-to-mother; mother-to-father; father- to-participant; and mother-to-participant. As suggested by Social Learning Theory (Bandura 1977) and the “intergener- ational model of violence” (Cui et al. 2010; Franklin and Kercher 2012; Stith et al. 2000), we hypothesized that signif- icant positive correlations would be found between violence in all pairs of relationships considered in the present study, both those within the family and the daughter’s romantic re- lationship outside the family. We hypothesized that, as in past research with Western college women (Hendy et al. 2003, 2012; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. 1995), the mother’s com- mission of family violence (to the father or to the daughter) would be the most powerful predictor of partner violence re- ported by college women from the United States. However, in

690 J Fam Viol (2016) 31:689–695

the more male-dominated social environments of Spain and Turkey, we hypothesized that the father’s violence (especially to the mother) would be the most powerful predictor of partner violence reported by young college women from these two countries. If results were found as expected, they could be used by college women to explore whether their exposure to male-dominated cultural or family environments may put them at increased risk for partner violence, so that they may take action to reduce such threats to their education and well- being.

Method

Research Design and Participants

The research methodology was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Penn State University, with the same proce- dures used with samples of college women from the United States, Spain, and Turkey who completed anonymous ques- tionnaires during class time. The purpose of the questionnaire was described as a study of “predictors of conflict in the close relationships of college students.” After completion of the questionnaires, students were asked to seal them in large en- velopes provided to keep their responses anonymous. Male students present in the classrooms also completed the ques- tionnaires, but their responses were not included in the present study because the focus was on female college students and because their sample sizes were too small for the data analyses planned.

The sample from the United States originally included 792 college women from two university campuses in Pennsylvania (mean age=24.8 years, SD=9.1; 19.0 % mar- ried; 57.5 % having parents still married to each other) from a previous study that examined maternal and sibling violence as predictors of partner violence (Hendy et al. 2012). Of these 792 United States college women, 319 (40.3 %) were selected for the present study because they were 18–25 years of age and they provided complete information for violence in all five relationships evaluated in the present study (mean age=20.2 years, SD=1.8; 4.4 % married; 74.3 % having par- ents still married). The sample from Spain originally included 175 college women from a university in Madrid (mean age=22.7 years, SD=5.4; 0.6 % married; 70.5 % having par- ents still married), with 95 (54.3 %) of them selected for the present study because they were 18–25 years of age and they provided complete information for violence in all five rela- tionships considered (mean age=21.2 years, SD=1.2; 0 % married; 76.8 % having parents still married). The sample from Turkey originally included 256 college women from two universities in the Sakarya region (mean age=18.6 years, SD=1.4; 3.3 % married; 91.9 % having par- ents still married), with 207 (80.9 %) of them selected for the

present study because they were 18–25 years of age and they provided complete information for violence in all five rela- tionships considered (mean age=18.5 years, SD=1.0; 2.5 % married; 91.3 % having parents still married).

Measurement of Relationship Violence

Besides demographic information, the anonymous question- naire asked participants to report violence in five relation- ships: father-to-mother, mother-to-father, father-to-partici- pant, mother-to-participant, and romantic-partner-to-partici- pant. Violence was measured with the 6-item violence sub- scale of the 15-item Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (Caulfield and Riggs 1992). Although we are unaware of any validation studies conducted in Spain or Turkey for the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, it has been the most frequently used measure of interpersonal violence in many countries because its brief list of behavioral items are relevant for a variety of types of rela- tionships (Schafer 1996; Straus 1990). The 15 behavioral items of the scale included three non-aggressive actions (avoided disagreements with the other; gave in to the other’s wishes; tried to work out a compromise), six verbally aggres- sive actions as a Verbal Aggression Subscale (insulted or swore at the other; sulked or refused to talk about it; stomped out of the room; cried; did or said something spiteful; threat- ened to end the relationship), and six physically aggressive actions as a Violence Subscale (threatened to hit the other; hit or kicked something; threw something at the other; pushed or grabbed or shoved the other; slapped the other; kicked or bit or hit the other with a fist).

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale as originally used by Caulfield and Riggs (1992) asked participants to estimate the actual number of instances that each violent action occurred for each relationship. However, to reduce respondent burden and to encourage complete responses for all five relationships considered, the present study asked participants to use a 3- point rating (1=never, 2=once or twice, 3=many times) to report how often each behavior occurred during conflict in the past year. Then, for each of the five relationships considered (father-to-mother, mother-to-father, father-to-participant, mother-to-participant, romantic partner-to-participant) the nu- merical value used to represent violence was calculated as the sum of these 3-point ratings for the six items from the Violence Subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Cronbach’s alpha internal reliability values for partner vio- lence received were .90 for the United States college women (n=319), .73 for the Spanish college women (n=95), and .94 for the Turkish college women (n=207).

Data Analysis

The first goal for data analysis in the present study was to use one-way ANOVAs to compare college women from the

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:689–695 691

United States, Spain, and Turkey for violence they reported for each of the five relationships considered in the present study: father-to-mother, mother-to-father, father-to-partici- pant, mother-to-participant, and partner-to-participant. For each relationship, the dependent variable in the ANOVA was the sum of 3-point ratings given for the six items from the Violence Subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale.

A second goal for data analysis was to examine bivariate Pearson correlations between violence measures for each pos- sible pair of the five relationships considered in the present study: father-to-mother, mother-to-father, father-to-partici- pant, mother-to-participant, and romantic-partner-to-partici- pant. The numerical value used to represent violence in each relationship was again the sum of 3-point ratings given for the six items from the Violence Subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. These bivariate Pearson correlations were cal- culated separately for the college women from the United States, Spain, and Turkey.

A third goal for data analysis was to compare the samples from the United States, Spain, and Turkey for which parental models of family violence best explained variance in partner violence reported by college women. Separately for each country, a simultaneous multiple regression analysis was con- ducted with the criterion variable being partner-to-participant violence, again measured as the sum of 3-point ratings given for the six items from the Violence Subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Predictor variables in these multiple regression analyses were four parental models of family vio- lence (father-to-mother, mother-to-father, father-to-partici- pant, and mother-to-participant), again measured as the sum of 3-point ratings given for six items from the Violence Subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale.

Results

Comparison of Partner Violence Reported from Three Countries

Results from the one-way ANOVA found no significant dif- ferences in partner violence received by the samples of young college women from the United States, Spain, and Turkey (see

Table 1). However, father-to-mother violence witnessed was significantly different across the three countries, with paired comparisons showing more father-to-mother violence for col- lege women from the United States and Turkey than for col- lege women from Spain (t=3.46, df=412, p=.001; t=3.14, df=300, p=.002, respectively), but no significant differences between the United States and Turkey (t = .10, df = 524, p=.921). Similarly, mother-to-father violence witnessed was significantly different across the three countries, with paired comparisons showing more mother-to-father violence for col- lege women from the United States and Turkey than for col- lege women from Spain (t=3.00, df=412, p=.003; t=3.34, df=300, p=.001, respectively), but no significant differences between the United States and Turkey (t = .30, df = 524, p=.761). Additionally, father-to-participant violence experi- enced was significantly different across the three countries, with paired comparisons showing more father-to-participant violence for college women from the United States and Turkey than for college women from Spain (t = 2.79, df =412, p=.006; t =2.96, df =300, p =.003, respectively), but no significant differences between the United States and Turkey (t = 1.11, df = 524, p = .267). Also, mother-to- participant violence experienced was significantly different across the three countries, with paired comparisons showing more mother-to-participant violence for college women from the United States than for college women from Spain (t=2.44, df=412, p=.016), but no significant differences between the United States and Turkey (t=1.02, df=524, p=.310) or be- tween Turkey and Spain (t=1.76, df=300, p=.080).

Bivariate Correlations for Violence in Five Relationships

Results from bivariate Pearson correlations between measures of violence in five relationships for young college women (partner-to-participant, father-to-mother, mother-to-father, fa- ther-to-participant, and mother-to-participant) all showed sig- nificant positive correlations for the United States (see Table 2). One exception to this pattern was that for college women in Spain, father-to-mother violence was not signifi- cantly correlated with mother-to-participant violence (r=.187, n=94, p<.07).

Table 1 Violence Scores in Five Relationships Reported by College Women from Three Countries Measured with the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale

USA (n = 319) Spain (n = 95) Turkey (n = 207) Relationship: M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Anova results:

Partner-to-participant 6.85 (2.16) 6.53 (1.28) 6.64 (1.97) F(2, 618) = 1.31; p = .270

Father-to-mother 7.01 (2.27) 6.19 (0.67) 6.99 (2.43) F(2, 618) = 5.63; p = .004; effect size = .018

Mother-to-father 6.90 (2.24) 6.20 (0.58) 6.96 (2.17) F(2, 618) = 5.03; p = .007; effect size = .016

Father-to-participant 6.78 (1.74) 6.26 (0.88) 6.98 (2.27) F(2, 618) = 4.89; p = .008; effect size = .016

Mother-to-participant 7.14 (2.43) 6.51 (1.43) 6.93 (2.13) F(2, 618) = 3.07; p = .047; effect size = .010

692 J Fam Viol (2016) 31:689–695

Comparison of Most Powerful Parental Models of Family Violence

For the United States, multiple regression analysis re- vealed that of the four parental models of violence con- sidered (father-to-mother, mother-to-father, father-to-par- ticipant, mother-to-participant), only mother-to-father vi- olence was a significant predictor of partner violence reported by college women (β = .274; see Table 3). For Spain, however, multiple regression analysis revealed that father-to-mother violence was the strongest predic- tor of partner violence reported by college women (β = .537), with mother-to-participant violence also posi- tively associated with partner violence (β = .323). For Turkey, multiple regression analysis also revealed that father-to-mother violence was the strongest predictor of partner violence reported by college women (β = .540), with mother-to-father violence and father-to-participant violence also significantly associated with partner vio- lence reported by college women (β = .326, β = −.410, respectively).

Discussion

The present study provides the first available comparison of parental models of family violence associated with partner violence reported by college women from three countries using consistent research methodology and measurement of relationship violence. Results from the present study may be useful for young college women to identify family and cultur- al risks for romantic partner violence so that they may work to protect themselves and their educational opportunities.

Present results suggest that the young college women sam- pled from the United States, Spain, and Turkey reported sim- ilar frequency of violence from their romantic partners. However, more parental displays of violence within the family (father-to-mother, mother-to-father, father-to-daughter, moth- er-to-daughter) were reported by college women from the United States and Turkey than those from Spain. One inter- pretation for these patterns would be cultural differences in willingness to disclose violence displayed by parents (Montalvo-Liendo 2008), perhaps with stronger beliefs in Spain that such matters should “stay within the family.”

Table 2 Correlations of Relationship Violence Reported by College Women from Three Countries Measured with the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale

Father-to-mother Mother-to-father Father-to-participant Mother-to-participant

Partner-to-participant USA (n = 319): Spain (n = 95): Turkey (n = 207):

.312***

.575***

.589***

.368***

.231*

.595***

.225***

.359***

.431***

.245***

.412***

.530***

Father-to-mother USA (n = 319): Spain (n = 95): Turkey (n = 207):

.685***

.395***

.714***

.564***

.383***

.828***

.448***

.187

.746***

Mother-to-father USA (n = 319): Spain (n = 95): Turkey (n = 207):

.437***

.337**

.681***

.594***

.303**

.779***

Father-to-participant USA (n = 319): Spain (n = 95): Turkey (n = 207):

.459***

.461***

.820***

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 3 Multiple Regression Results for Four Parental Models of Family Violence as Predictors of Romantic Partner Violence Reported by College Women from Three Countries Measured with the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale

USA (n = 319) Spain (n = 95) Turkey (n = 207)

Beta t p Beta t p Beta t p

Father-to-mother .090 1.15 .251 .537 5.95 .000 .540 5.38 .000

Mother-to-father .274 3.44 .001 -.090 1.01 .317 .326 3.69 .000

Father-to-participant .044 .67 .503 .034 .36 .720 -.410 3.68 .000

Mother-to-participant .021 .31 .754 .323 3.55 .001 .210 1.96 .052

adjusted R2 = .133 F(4, 314) = 13.23 p = .000

adjusted R2 = .408 F(4, 90) = 17.22 p = .000

adjusted R2 = .436 F(4, 202) = 40.77 p = .000

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:689–695 693

Results from the present study also found significant pos- itive correlations between violence in all five relationships considered, and in general for samples from all three coun- tries. As suggested by Social Learning Theory (Bandura 1977) and the “intergenerational model of violence” (Cui et al. 2010; Franklin and Kercher 2012; Stith et al. 2000), these results could mean that when violence is modeled by parents within the family, their daughters may learn violence as a means of conflict resolution in close relationships, making them more likely to expect and/or accept violence from their romantic partners.

As hypothesized, the mother’s violence within the family was the most powerful parental model of family violence as- sociated with partner violence reported by college women from the United States, but the father’s violence within the family was the most powerful parental model for college women from the more male-dominated cultural environments of Spain and Turkey. Perhaps mothers were the most powerful models for college women from the United States because they experience a social environment for which laws against gender discrimination have been in place for 50 years (King et al. 2011), with more of their mothers sharing the role of “head of the household” with the father because they too have college educations and employment outside the home. Perhaps fathers were the most powerful models for college women from Spain and Turkey because they experience more male-dominated cultural environments, with the father more commonly viewed as the “head of the household” with edu- cation and employment.

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

One limitation of the present study was that the three samples of young college women were relatively small and were drawn from only one or two university locations, so they cannot be said to represent the entire “culture” for any of the three countries included. Future research could examine whether patterns found in the present study could be replicated for larger samples of college women and from more countries with varying degrees of male domination ideology. Future research would benefit from measuring the degree to which the college women study participants actually believed in male-domination ideology (Wu et al. 2013) and how much they believe that information about violence should “stay in the family” (Montalvo-Liendo 2008). Additionally, future re- search could seek confirmation of reported relationship vio- lence from other sources, such as the college woman’s parents and romantic partner. Finally, future research should consider samples of young college men to determine whether they show similar patterns for parental models of family violence most associated with their romantic partner violence.

References

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between hetero- sexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bark, A. S. H., Escartin, J., & van Dick, R. (2014). Gender and leadership in Spain: a systematic review of some key aspects. Sex Roles, 70, 522–537.

Black, D. S., Sussman, S., & Unger, J. B. (2010). A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: witnessing interpersonal violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1022–1042.

Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dating ag- gression: empirical evaluation of the conflict tactics scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 549–558.

Cheng, T. (2010). Financial self-sufficiency or return to welfare? A lon- gitudinal study of mothers among the working poor. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19, 162–172.

Cui, M., Durtschi, J. A., Donnellan, M. B., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression: a prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 688–697.

Exposito, F., Herrera, M. C., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (2010). Don’t rock the boat: women’s benevolent sexism predicts fears of marital vio- lence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 36–42.

Franklin, C. A., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). The intergenerational transmis- sion of intimate partner violence: differentiating correlated in a ran- dom community sample. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 187–199.

Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and do- mestic violence against women: Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes, and women’s responses. Retrieved September 13, 2014, from http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43309

Gartzia, L., & Lopez-Zafra, E. (2014). Gender research in Spanish psychology: an overview for international readers. Sex Roles, 70, 445–456.

Good, J. J., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: the costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 481–493.

Hagemann-White, C. (2001). European research on the prevalence of violence against women. Violence Against Women, 7, 732–759.

Halim, M. L., & Heilman, M. E. (2013). Sex bias in evaluating nontra- ditional job applicants: reactions to women and men’s interrupted college attendance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2330–2340.

Hendy, H. M., Weiner, K., Bakerofskie, J., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C., & McLeod, K. C. (2003). Comparison of six models for violent ro- mantic relationships in college men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 645–665.

Hendy, H. M., Burns, M. K., Can, S. H., & Scherer, C. R. (2012). Adult violence with the mother and siblings as a predictor of partner vio- lence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2276–2297.

King, E. B., Dunleavy, D. G., Dunleavy, E. M., Jaffer, S., Morgan, W. B., Elder, K., & Graebner, R. (2011). Discrimination in the 21st century: are science and the law aligned? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 54–75.

Kocacik, F., Kutlar, A., & Erselcan, F. (2007). Domestic violence against women: a field study in Turkey. Social Science Journal, 44, 698–720.

Krahe, B., Bieneck, S., & Moller, I. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807–827.

694 J Fam Viol (2016) 31:689–695

Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Neidig, P., & Thorn, G. (1995). Gender dif- ference in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 31, 150–160.

Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender difference in courtship violence victim- ization. Family Relations, 35, 383–388.

Marshall, G. A., & Furr, L. A. (2010). Factors that affect women’s atti- tudes toward domestic violence in Turkey. Violence and Victims, 25, 265–277.

Meil, G. (2006). The evolution of family policy in Spain. Marriage and Family Review, 39, 359–380.

Montalvo-Liendo, N. (2008). Cross-cultural factors in disclosure of inti- mate partner violence: an integrated review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 20–34.

Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the conflict tactics scale: assessing gender difference in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10, 251–272.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality per- sists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schafer, J. (1996). Measuring spousal violence with the conflict tactics scale: notes on reliability and validity issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 572–585.

Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of

spouse abuse: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640–654.

Straus, M. A. (1990). The CTS and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adapta- tions to violence in 8145 families (pp. 49–74). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Tinto, V. (2001). Rethinking the first year of college. Higher Education Monograph Series. Syracuse University.

Venegas, M. (2013). Sex and relationships education and gender equality: recent experiences from Andalusia (Spain). Sex Education, 13, 573–584.

Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A gender-sensitive compari- son. Violence and Victims, 9, 107–124.

Wu, Y., Button, D. M., Smolter, N., & Poteyeva, M. (2013). Public re- sponses to intimate partner violence: comparing preferences of Chinese and American college students. Violence and Victims, 28, 303–323.

Yuksel-Kaptanoglu, I., Turkyilmaz, A. S., & Heise, L. (2012). What puts women at risk of violence from their husbands? Findings from a large, nationally representative survey in Turkey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2743–2769.

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:689–695 695

Journal of Family Violence is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.