Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Chitra Raghavan, Ph.D. Department of Psychology John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York Alliance Research To Practice Series October.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Chitra Raghavan, Ph.D. Department of Psychology John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York Alliance Research To Practice Series October."— Presentation transcript:

1 Chitra Raghavan, Ph.D. Department of Psychology John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York Alliance Research To Practice Series October 2, 2007

2 2 The Influence of Public Life on Private: The role of neighborhood factors in partner violence

3 3 Individual-Level Substance abuse/alcohol (e.g., El- Bassel & colleagues) Mental illness (e.g., PTSD, dependent or borderline personality)(e.g.,Dutton 1999) Personality traits of batterers (e.g., impulsive, low anger control) Typologies (Holtzworth-Munroe, 1999) questioned by Waltz, Babcock, Jacobson, & Gottman (2000)

4 4 What else is there? Disadvantaged neighborhoods are at higher risk for domestic violence (Miles-Doan, 2000; DeKeseredy et al, 1999; Renzetti and Maier, 2002). Robust even after controlling for individual- level risk factors (Browning, 2002; Cunradi, Caetano, Clark, & Schafer, 2000).

5 5 Big Question Why should being assaulted external to the home be related to being assaulted inside the home? Fundamental logical flaw

6 6 My Presentation Study 1 – Community Violence and Affiliation with Victimized Women Study 2 – Community Violence and Affiliation with Violent Peers and Victimized Women

7 7 General Theoretical Framework Where you live matters Social Disorder Community Violence The people you live with matter Informal Social Control/Collective Efficacy Violence in Social Support Networks

8 8 Social Disorder Incivilities in the public sphere such such as public drunkenness, kids playing truant, disputes, loitering

9 9 Community Violence Characterized by acts such as violent public arguments, drug related disputes, gang fights, robbery-related assaults and sexual victimization. Social disorder and community violence are intimately linked-violent behaviors tend to flourish in neighborhoods where disorder is high (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls, 1997)

10 10 Collective Efficacy Pervasive violence reflects a lack of investment or inability of the community to regulate their environment (Perkins & Taylor, 1996). May not gather resources to address community problems Norms governing informal social control may “tolerate” violence- specific Public ills are more pressing than private ones

11 11 Violence in the Network Move away from individual targets to groups Poor women tend to network with women with very similar profiles. Less choice because restricted educational and vocational opportunities (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Other women in their network may also experience domestic violence.

12 12 Violence in Network How much support can a resource-strapped group provide? How much risk can a resource-strapped group convey?

13 13 Study 1-Partner violence in the context of drug use, social disorder, community violence, and network violence Estimated lifetime rates of IPV for substance abusers range from 60% to 75% (e.g., American Medical Association, 1992; Gilbert, El-Bassel, Rajah, Foleno, & Frye, 2001)

14 14 Two viewpoints Individual level-drug use is directly related to IPV Systemic level-Women’s submersion in a drug lifestyle is associated with multiple forms of violence, and the ubiquity of violence may contribute to IPV

15 15 Goal of this study Examine whether hard drug use functioned as a directly or indirect risk factor via drug- dependent lifestyle for IPV

16 16 Figure 1 b. d. c. a. Community Violence Network Intimate Partner Violence Intimate Partner Violence Social Disorder Substance Use Direct ? Indirect?

17 17 Hypotheses Direct path Drug use will be related to higher rates of male- to-female IPV Indirect path Relationship between drug use and IPV will be mediated by community violence

18 18 Hypotheses ctd Direct path Network violence will be related to higher rates of male-to-female IPV Indirect path Relationship between network violence and IPV will be mediated by community violence

19 19 Participants Recruited from a Welfare-to-Work program Currently receive/eligible to receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Have an admitted drug problem

20 20 Participants 20 to 45 years (M = 31.16, SD = 7.09). 44 % African American and European American (N = 50) 66% had a high school degree 76% relied on state for income, < 10,000 yr

21 21 Summary of Descriptives Social disorder (M =.90 ; SD =.70) Drug use in past 6 months (70%) Network Violence (16%) High experience of community violence (40%) 26% were victimized by intimates 15% were violent towards intimates

22 22 Figure 1 b. c. Community Violence Network Intimate Partner Violence IPV Social Disorder Substance Use Direct for networks Indirect for drugs

23 23 Why Drug Use? Costly drugs such as cocaine often necessitates a criminal lifestyle to support women and their partner’s drug-use. Higher exposure to community violence

24 24 Why Community Violence? Public=======Private? Pervasiveness of violence indicates low informal social control/collective efficacy Norms governing informal social control may “tolerate” partner violence Banalization of violence-not an explicit dismissal

25 25 Why Female Networks? Resource strapped themselves View abuse as normal Their own use of violence mitigates partner’s use

26 26 Does this generalize? Is it specific to highly disadvantaged populations? Bulk of related research is with extreme poverty and violence

27 27 Study II: Community Violence, Peer Networks, and IPV Young non drug-addicted college men Community Violence Male and Female Peers How does cultural background matter?

28 28 Community Violence Characteristics of community violence Economically disadvantaged neighborhoods Theories Acceptance or legitimization of use of violence Low collective efficacy

29 29 Male Social Support Networks Social Learning Theory Modeling of violent behavior towards women Affiliation with men who legitimize Economic disenfranchisement and stress

30 30 Female Social Support Networks Support from fellow victims Violence not viewed as abusive or unusual Minimization Encourage to stay Empathy effect

31 31 The Current Study Is community violence a direct risk factor for IPV ? How does it affect social support networks and IPV? Aims Examine how community violence may relate to IPV Provide a detailed examination of how social support may be associated with perpetration of male to female IPV

32 32 Methods Participants Undergraduate male students (N=479) in a large public urban university Measures Community Violence Adult Version of My Exposure to Violence Scale (Selner-O’Hagan, Kindlon, Buka, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1998) Social Support and Network Violence Block (2002) Network Domestic Violence Intimate Partner Violence Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2: Straus, Hamby, Boney- McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)

33 33 Sample Descriptives Age 18-28 years (M=18.61, SD=1.26) Participants were residing with Parents80% Room-mates 3% Rented their own room 4% Dating Partner 4% Other 9% Household income ≤ $30, 00042% 31,000 - $60,00028% >$61,00025%

34 34 Predictor Variables: Social Support Network VariablesPercentage Male Support Male friends66.5 Brother/Father6.6 Multiple18.0 Other8.4 Female Support Female Friends61.9 Sister/Mother15.2 Multiple13.0 Other9.0 Full SampleN = 479 Men Male-Support -Perpetrator34.9 Female Support-Victimized46.6 Participant IPV30.1 Witnessing Community Violence84.1

35 35 Full-Sample: Community Violence and Violence in Male Support to predict IPV Perpetration Centered Mean Community Violence 86420-2-4 Mean IPV (Log-Transformed).6.5.4.3.2.1 0.0 Male Networks Average/Low Violence High Violence

36 36 Preliminary Ethnic Group Differences Would these relationships hold across ethnic groups? Culture prescribes the way we make friends and how important their messages are Whose message matters and how?

37 37 African Americans and Victimization of Female Support

38 38 Asian American- Victimization in Female Support Female Network Victimization 43210 Mean IPV (Log-Transformed) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0.5 0.0 -.5

39 39 Summary of results Community violence associated with IPV Impact more severe when support groups are violent Violent male peers sufficient risk for White men and Asian men Insufficient for Latinos Insufficient for Blacks

40 40 Summary Racial/ethnic group differences Female victimization matters for African Americans and Asians Why?

41 41 Ethnic differences ctd Caucasians and Latinos Female peers may not be an important source of role models African-Americans Women’s victimization, but not men’s violence, may convey particular messages to African-American men Women’s own use of violence Asian Americans When female support members report severe victimization, the message changes

42 42 General Discussion Where you live matters Who you associate with matters

43 43 Next Steps? What is the actual content of the messages? Implicit or explicit? Person x Environment interactions neglected Does community violence interact or exacerbate violence prone emotions such as jealousy?

44 44 Practice and Policy change Redirect energy to communities and provide support to neighborhoods Help in creation and maintenance of new peer groups Change peer messages and peer norms Practical-community centers and better housing

45 45 Ctd Reduce crime, poverty, and substance use Increase opportunities for prosocial behaviors Movie theatres and clubs that are accessible to everyone Create real jobs not McDonald’s


Download ppt "Chitra Raghavan, Ph.D. Department of Psychology John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York Alliance Research To Practice Series October."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google