Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 315–340 | Cite as

Dominance and Domestic Abuse Among Mexican Americans: Gender Differences in the Etiology of Violence in Intimate Relationships

  • Yoko SugiharaEmail author
  • Judith Ann Warner


Gender differences in dominance and aggressive behavior in intimate relationships among Mexican Americans were examined. Three hundred and sixteen Mexican American men and women took the Dominance Scale and the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2). Results showed that power and possessiveness were associated with all types of aggressive behavior. Dominance was, however, expressed differently by men and women. High power and possessiveness were associated with all types of aggressive behavior. Decision-making power was also associated with physical assault, and high devaluation with inflicting injury among men. Among women, high power was only associated with physical assault, whereas possessiveness was associated with psychological aggression and physical assault. Devaluation was also high among women who inflicted injury on their male partners.

intimate abuse Mexican Americans CTS2 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. J. Marr. Fam. 59: 655–669.Google Scholar
  2. Babcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., and Gottman, J. M. (1994). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. J. Counsel. Clin. Psychol. 61: 40–50.Google Scholar
  3. Baca Zinn, M. (1982). Chicano men and masculinity. J. Ethn. Stud. 10: 29–44.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1990). Cross-cultural assessment of personality: The case for replicatory factor analysis. In Butcher, J. N., and Spielberger, C. D. (eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment, Vol. 8, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, M. J. (1992). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence, outcomes and policy implications. Am. Psychol. 48: 1077–1090.Google Scholar
  6. Butcher, J. N., Lim, J., and Nezami, E. (1998). Objective study of abnormal personality in cross-cultural settings: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 29: 189–211.Google Scholar
  7. Cantos, A. L., Neidig, P. H., and O'Leary, K.D. (1994). Injuries ofwomenandmenin a treatment program for domestic violence. J. Fam. Violence 9: 113–124.Google Scholar
  8. Cascardi, M., and Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences. J. Fam. Violence10: 265–293.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, D. H., and Straus, M. A. (1990). Marital power, conflict and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 287–304.Google Scholar
  10. Comrey, A. L. (1988). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 55: 584–594.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, C., and Harris, R. J. (1995). Attributions about spouse abuse in cases of bidirectional battering. Violence Vict. 10: 143–151.Google Scholar
  12. Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence AgainstWives: A Case Against the Patriarchy Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., and Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Soc. Probl. 39: 71–91.Google Scholar
  14. Dutton, D. G. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence Vict. 9: 167–182.Google Scholar
  15. Dutton, D. G., and Stazomski, A. J. (1994). Psychological differences between court-referred and self-referred wife assaulters. Crim. Just. Behav. 21: 203–222.Google Scholar
  16. Dutton, R. E., Starzomski, A. J., and Ryan, L. (1996a). Antecedents of abusive personality and abusive behavior in wife assaulters. J. Fam. Violence 11: 113–132.Google Scholar
  17. Dutton, D. G., van Ginkel, C., and Landolt, M. A. (1996b). Jealousy, intimate abusiveness, and intrusiveness. J. Fam. Violence 11: 411–423.Google Scholar
  18. Flores-Ortiz, Y. (1993). La mujer y la violencia:Aculturally based model for the understanding and treatment of domestic violence in Chicana/Latina communities. In Alarcon, N., Castro, R., Perez, E., Pesquera, B., Riddell, A. S., and Zavella, P. (eds.), Chicana Critical Issues, ThirdWoman Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 169–182.Google Scholar
  19. Flores-Ortiz, Y. (2000). Injustice in Latino families: Considerations for family therapists. In Flores, M. T., and Carey, G. (eds.), Family Therapy With Hispanics: Toward Appreciating Diversity, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  20. Floyd, F. J., and Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol. Assess. 7: 286–299.Google Scholar
  21. Flynn, C. P. (1990). Relationship violence by women: Issues and implications. Fam. Relations 39: 194–198.Google Scholar
  22. Gelles, R. J., and Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate Violence, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Gil, R.M., and Vasquez, C. I. (1996). The Maria Paradox: How Latinas Can Merge Old World Traditions With New World Self Esteem, G. P. Putnam, New York. Dominance and Domestic Abuse Among Mexican Americans 339Google Scholar
  24. Guttman, M. C. (1996). The Meanings of Macho: Being a Man in Mexico City, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge D., and Tolin, D. F. (1997). An empirical classification of motivations for domestic violence. Violence Against Women 3: 401–423.Google Scholar
  26. Hamby, S. L. (1996) The dominance scale: Preliminary psychometric properties. Violence Vict. 11: 199–212.Google Scholar
  27. Harrell, W. A. (1990). Husband's masculinity, wife's power, and marital conflict. Soc. Behav. Pers. 18: 207–216.Google Scholar
  28. Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability test? Am. Psychol. 47: 1083–1101.Google Scholar
  29. Hornung, C. A., McCullough, C., and Sugimoto, T. (1981). Status relationships in marriage: Risk factors in spousal abuse.J. Marr. Fam. 48: 675–692.Google Scholar
  30. Kalichman, S. C. (1988). MMPI profiles of women and men convicted of domestic homicide. J. Clin. Psychol. 44: 847–853.Google Scholar
  31. Kaufman Kantor, G., and Jasinski, J. L. (1998). Dynamics and risk factors in partner violence. In Jasinski, J. L., and Williams, L.M. (eds.), Partner Violence: A Comprehensive Review of Twenty Years of Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  32. Kaufman Kantor, G., Jasnski, J. L., and Aldarondo, E. (1994). Sociocultural status and incidence of marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence Vict. 9: 207–222.Google Scholar
  33. Levinson, D. (1989). Family Violence in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Makepeace, J.M. (1986). Gender difference in courtship violence victimization. Fam. Relations 35: 383–388.Google Scholar
  35. Malik, N. M., and Lindahl, K. M. (1998). Aggression and dominance: The roles of power and culture in domestic violence. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 5: 409-423.Google Scholar
  36. Mann, C. R. (1996). WhenWomen Kill, State University of New York Press, Stoney Book, NY.Google Scholar
  37. Marin, G., and Marin, B. (1991). Research With Hispanic Populations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Mirande, A. (1997). Hombres y Machos: Masculinity and Latino Culture, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  39. Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence Vict 10: 251–272.Google Scholar
  40. Mosher, D. L., and Thompkins, S. S. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine enculturation and enculturation. J. Sex Res. 25: 60–84.Google Scholar
  41. Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., and Schluter, T. D. (1995). Spousal violence among Anglos, Blacks, and Mexican-Americans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial predictors, and alcohol consumption. J. Fam. Violence 10: 1–21.Google Scholar
  42. Overholser, J. C., and Moll, S. H. (1990). Who's to blame: Attributions regarding causality in spouse abuse. Behav. Sci. Law 8: 107–120.Google Scholar
  43. Pearson, P. (1997). When SheWas Bad: How and WhyWomen GetAwayWith Murder, Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Pence, E., and Paymar, M. (1993). Education Groups for Men who Batter: The Duluth Model, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Renzetti, C. (1999). “The challenges to feminism posed by women's use of violence in intimate relationships.” In Lamb, S. (ed.), New Versions of Victims: Feminists Struggle With the Concept, New York University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Roiphe, K. (1993). The Morning After, Little Brown, Boston.Google Scholar
  47. Ronfeldt, H. M., Kimerling, R., and Arias, I. (1998). Satisfaction with relationship power and the perpetration of dating violence. J. Marr. Fam. 60: 70–78.Google Scholar
  48. Rouse, L. P. (1990). The dominance motive in abusive partners: Identifying couples at risk. J. College Stud. Dev. 31: 330–335.Google Scholar
  49. Russell, M. N. (1995). Confronting Abusive Beliefs: Group Treatment for Abusive Men, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  50. Saltzman, L. E., Mercy, J. A., Rosenburg, M. L., Elsea, W. R., Napper, G., Sikes, R. K., and Waxweiler, R. J. (1990). Magnitude and patterns of family and intimate assault in Atlanta, Georgia, 1984. Violence Vict. 5: 3–17. 340 Sugihara andWarnerGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis.Violence Vict. 5: 257–273.Google Scholar
  52. Sorenson, S. B., and Telles, C.A. (1991). Self-report of spousal violence in a Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white population. Violence Vict. 6: 3–16.Google Scholar
  53. Sorenson, S.B., Upchurch, D. M., and Shen, H. (1996).Violence and injury in marital arguments: Risk patterns and gender differences. Am. J. Public Health 86: 35–40.Google Scholar
  54. Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The Cycle of Violence: Assertive, Aggressive and Abusive Family Interaction, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  55. Stets, J. E., and Straus, M. A. (1990). “Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences” In Straus,M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp. 341–363.Google Scholar
  56. Stevens, E. (1973). Machismo and marianismo. Society 10: 57–63.Google Scholar
  57. Strainer, D. (1994). Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Can. J. Psychiatry 39: 135–140.Google Scholar
  58. Straus, M. A. (1980). Victims and aggressors in marital violence. Am. Behav. Scientist 23: 681–704.Google Scholar
  59. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., and Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, Transaction Publisher, Garden City, NJ.Google Scholar
  60. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., and Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2). J. Fam. Issues 17: 283–316.Google Scholar
  61. Sugarman, D. B., and Flankle, S. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A metaanalytic review. J. Fam. Violence 11: 13–40.Google Scholar
  62. Vivian, D., and Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A gender-sensitive comparison. Violence Vict 9: 107–124.Google Scholar
  63. West, C. M. (1998). Lifting the “political gag order”: Breaking the silence around partner violence in ethnic partner families. In Jasinski, J. L., and Williams, L. J. (eds.), Partner Violence: A Comprehensive Review of 20 Years of Research,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 184–209.Google Scholar
  64. Yllo, K., and Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative factors. In Straus, M. A., and Gelles, R. J. (eds.), Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations toViolence in 8,145 Families, Transaction, Publisher, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 383–399.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Miyazaki International CollegeMiyazakiJapan
  2. 2.Texas A&M International UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations