Advertisement

Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 303–317 | Cite as

Knowledge of spouse abuse in the community: A comparison across locations

  • Leslie W. Kennedy
  • David R. Forde
  • Michael D. Smith
  • Donald G. Dutton
Article

Abstract

Of concern to many who study criminality of all kinds is the high level of known abuse in a climate of noninvolvement by others. The research reported in this paper clearly indicates that noninvolvement in spousal assault cases is not dependent on low levels of knowledge of the problem, as many people admit to being aware of its occurrence among relatives, friends, and neighbors. This knowledge does vary, however, by location of the respondents with strong effects of nonmetropolitan residents expressing greater knowledge of the occurrence of this violence than people living in urban areas. We find this in the context of lower levels of self-reported victimization. It could be that these lower levels reflect a reluctance on the part of nonmetropolitan women to admit to researchers that they are victims of this problem. Or, it could suggest that these women have access to a more intricate network of support from friends and family who become involved in discussing this problem with the victims and helping them to reduce its incidence.

Key words

family violence community knowledge social support physical abuse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, J., and Nelson, F. (1984).Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, Sage, Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, D., T., and Northrup, D. (1987).Toronto Woman Abuse Pilot Study, Phase Two: Sample and Field Report, Institute for Social Research, York University.Google Scholar
  3. Bozinoff, L., and McIntosh, P. (1988).Almost One in Four Report Awareness of Wife Abuse, Gallup, Toronto.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, B. (1984). Causes and maintenance of domestic violence: An ecological analysis.Social Service Review, pp. 569–587.Google Scholar
  5. Dutton, D. G. (1987). The criminal justice response to wife assault.Law and Human Behaviour, 11: 189–206.Google Scholar
  6. Fagan, J., and Wexler, S. (1985).Complex behaviors and simple measures: Understanding violence in families, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, C. S. (1973). On urban alienation and anomie.Am. Social. Rev. 38: 311–326.Google Scholar
  8. Fischer, C. S. (1982).To Dwell Among Friends, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Gelles, R., and Straus, M. (1979). Determinants of violence in the family: Toward a theoretical integration. In Burr, W., Hill, R., Nye, I., and Reiss, I. (eds.),Contemporary Theories About the Family, Vol 1, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Hamner, J., and Saunders, S. (1984).Well Founded Fear: A Community Study of Violence to Women, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  11. Handelman, M., and Ward, W. (1976).Battered Women, Emergency Shelter and the Law, University of Windsor.Google Scholar
  12. Hatty, S. (1987). Woman battering as a social problem: The denial of injury.ANZJS, 23: 36–46.Google Scholar
  13. Hudson, W. W., and McIntosh, S. (1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: Two quantifiable dimensions.J. Man. Fam. 43: 873–888.Google Scholar
  14. Kennedy, L. W., and Dutton, D. (1989). The Incidence of Wife Abuse in Alberta.Canad. J. Behav. Sci. 21: 1:40–54.Google Scholar
  15. Macleod, L. (1980).Wife Battering in Canada: the Vicious Circle, The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Canadian Government Publishing Center.Google Scholar
  16. Russell, D. E. (1982).Rape in Marriage, Macmillan, Riverside, N.J.Google Scholar
  17. Sherman, L. W., and Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault.Am. Sociological Rev. 49: 261–272.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, M. D. (1985).Woman Abuse: The Case for Surveys by Telephone. LaMarsh Research Program on Violence and Conflict Resolution. Report No. 12, York University, Toronto.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, M. D. (1987). The incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in Toronto.Viol, Vict. 2: 33–47.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, M. D. (1988).Woman Abuse in Toronto: Indicence, Prevalence, and Demographic Risk Markers, unpublished paper, Department of Sociology: York University.Google Scholar
  21. Straus, M. (1979). Measuring family conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scale.J. Marr. Fam. 41: 75–88.Google Scholar
  22. Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence rates from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys.J Marr. Fam. 48: 465–479.Google Scholar
  23. Straus, M., Gelles, R. J. and Steinmetz, S. (1980).Behind Closed Doors: The American Family, Anchor Press, Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Ursel, E. J. (1984)Preliminary Report on Wife Abuse, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
  25. Walker, L. (1984). Battered women, psychology, and public policy.Am. Psychologist 39: 1178–1182.Google Scholar
  26. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life.Am. J. Social. 44: 1–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie W. Kennedy
    • 1
  • David R. Forde
    • 1
  • Michael D. Smith
    • 2
  • Donald G. Dutton
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of SociologyYork UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of British ColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations