International Perspectives on Family Violence and Abuse

A Cognitive Ecological Approach

Kathleen Malley-Morrison

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN:
  9780805842456
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135633868
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

In this book, in which definitions and examples of abuse from men and women from every continent and a very diverse set of backgrounds are considered. The volume provides information on the extent to which family violence is a recognized problem in each country, research findings available on different forms of family violence, and information on governmental responses to family violence. Finally, the value of an international human rights approach to abuse and violence in families is considered.

The book presents an unparalleled international coverage, addressing all forms of family violence in Australia and at least two countries from every other continent. Each chapter begins by describing the cultural context in which family violence and abuse take place. These sections emphasize the role of women and children in the country. Providing a multitude of voices, each chapter includes fascinating and often dramatic definitions and examples of abuse from ordinary citizens of the country. The concluding chapter elaborates on the appropriateness of a human rights approach in addressing family violence cross-nationally and cross-culturally; and provides an excellent integration of much of the material from the previous chapters.

The book is intended for advanced undergraduates and graduate students in psychology and sociology, as well as pre-professionals and professionals in medicine, law, and social services. It has strong relevance and value to individuals training in counseling (counselor education) and clinical psychology. Because of its readable style and extensive use of quotations from citizens of the countries studied for the book, it may also appeal to a much broader audience, including a lay audience.

PART I
CONTEXT

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

Kathleen Malley-Morrison

In recent years, the United States has seen a proliferation in the number of family and intimate relationships to which the label of abuse is often applied, such as child abuse, wife abuse, spouse abuse, husband abuse, partner abuse, elder abuse, dating abuse, and sibling abuse. But what does that term abuse mean? How much consensus is there about the types of behavior that should be labeled abusive?

We believe that most people have an implicit theory about what abuse means. For example, when asked for her definition of abuse within the context of the family, Melissa, an American college student, said “Abuse would be any physical, verbal, or emotional action which is unwanted, uncalled for, and inappropriate that harms another person.” When asked to indicate what types of family interactions should be considered severely, moderately, and mildly abusive, Melissa said that an interaction is extremely abusive “when extreme harm is inflicted-life is threatened, health is threatened—the more permanent the injury, the more extreme it is.” Her view of a moderately abusive interaction is one in which “harm is inflicted that is not as permanent as extreme,” and a mildly abusive interaction is one where “pain is only very temporary.” When we consider this young woman's theory as to what constitutes abuse, we see that she has emphasized three dimensions—”appropriateness” of the behavior, extent of harm, and degree of permanence of harm/pain. It is also clear from her definition that the harmful behaviors may be verbal or emotional as well as physical.

A second question that we can ask about this young woman's theory of abuse is whether it has different premises for different family relationships. When asked about extreme abuse within the married couple, Melissa said that from a husband to a wife, extreme abuse is “beating, murdering, etc.” and that from a wife to a husband, extreme abuse is “using a weapon to harm or kill.” Thus, she projects a similar outcome for the two forms of spousal abuse, but adds the component of “weapon” to her example of extreme abuse by a wife. Perhaps one of the premises of her theory is that wives need weapons to severely harm or kill their spouses whereas husbands do not. In husbands, she continues, a moderately abusive interaction is “forcing sex upon a wife, pushing, slapping”; in wives, a moderately abusive interaction is “hitting him with an object.” We can now see that her theory of abusive family interactions does not include wives forcing sex on husbands, and that she is reiterating the theme that wives need to use weapons to cause the same degree of harm that a husband can cause simply by pushing and slapping, Finally, she holds that mild abuse by a husband is “verbal, emotional abuse” whereas mild abuse by a wife is “pushing, hitting”— suggesting again that wives are somehow more vulnerable than are husbands to lower levels of aversive behavior.

Additional elements to Melissa's theory of intrafamilial abuse become apparent as we look at her descriptions of abuse in other family relationships. With regard to child abuse, she said that extreme abuse from parent to child is “any sex on any sex; starving, beating, denying love, burning, attempting or succeeding in murder, shaking—many others.” This list is longer than the list of extremely abusive interactions in marital couples, and introduces some new behaviors—starving, denying love, burning, and shaking. Her expanded list suggests that she views children's dependency on their parents as making them vulnerable to forms of abuse to which adults—particularly fathers—are not vulnerable. Although she did not make any suggestions as to moderately abusive behaviors from parents to children, she said that “spanking on the backside, mild slap on hand” were mildly abusive. This response is interesting in light of the fact that corporal punishment is still widely accepted in the United States, despite recommendations from professional groups such as the American Psychological Association and American Academy of Pediatrics that spanking not be used to discipline children.

As forms of extreme abuse against elderly parents, Melissa listed “neglect, starving, emotional and verbal abuse, physical violence.” As examples of extreme abuse in sibling relationships, she listed “use of weapons, aggravated assault, murder.” Here we see that, in contrast to her examples of child, sibling, and spousal abuse, Melissa did not explicitly include murder as a form of elder abuse, but did include neglect. Her inclusion of starving suggests that in her theory of abuse, elders, like children, are considered dependent on the middle generation for satisfaction of survival needs. And just as she characterized denial of love as severely abusive to children, she viewed psychological abuse as severely abusive of elders. It is only husbands whom she seems to consider as relatively invulnerable to the withholding of love and psychological abuse.

What do we mean by calling Melissa's definitions and examples of various kinds of abuse an implicit theory? The notion of implicit theories has roots in Kelly's (1955) theory of personal constructs, in which he argued that the human mind has a fundamental tendency to form dimensions of meaning, or personal constructs, and to use these constructs to make sense of experience. In his view, we all actively construct understandings of ourselves, others, and relationships; we are not just passive learners of facts about the social world. More recently, Sternberg (1985) described implicit theories as constructions that exist in people's minds in relation to a particular construct—for example, creativity, wisdom, love, success. How do these implicit theories arise? In describing laypeople's implicit theories of “success,” Sternberg (2000) argued that in the process of growing up, young people observe “stories” of success in their environment and identify people who serve as role models of success. Based on these observations, they develop what may be fairly complex implicit theories of what leads people to success. These implicit theories are important because they are not just abstract ideas, but may include dispositions, actions, emotional states, and interrelationships among all these components. Sternberg noted that while implicit theories of success can be prosocial, they can also be antisocial— as when ghetto children, for example, define success as running potentially illegal street businesses.

We believe that implicit theories of abuse, like implicit theories of success, develop through young people's experiences within their environments and the stories they see unfolding there. The implicit theory that evolved in Melissa's mind appears to include the following premises: Abuse involves unwarranted injury; some acts are more injurious when done by a man than by a woman or a child; abuse of children and the elderly can involve neglect; and even a common act like hitting is abusive (presumably because it can produce pain). What other forms might an implicit theory of abuse take?

Consider the definitions provided by Makoto, a 20-year-old college student from Japan. His general definition of abuse was “not following family roles, not taking care of children or family to raise them properly, misrepresenting the family, violence.” How interesting it is that the first example Makoto gives of abuse is “not following family roles” and the last is “violence.” We cannot assume he views not following family roles as more abusive than violence, but neither can we assume the sequence is irrelevant.

Makoto's example of an extremely abusive interaction is one which “seriously harms physically or emotionally” and a mildly abusive interaction is “inappropriate but tolerated acts.” Although he includes the idea of harm in his example of an extremely abusive interaction, in general, his theory of abuse is quite different from Melissa's, particularly in his concerns with following family roles and with not misrepresenting the family. The nature of these differences becomes clearer in his examples of abuse in particular family dyads. He told us that extreme abuse is “violence to the point of serious injury” when done by husbands against wives and parents against children. It is “adultery, squandering money, violence” when done by wives against husbands. It is “not taking care of them, violence, not following lines of respect” when done by adults against elderly parents. These specific examples of extreme abuse indicate that Makoto's theory identifies not just physically injurious violence but also violation of roles and lack of respect for elders as extremely abusive.

This interpretation of Makoto's theory is reinforced by his examples of moderate and mild abuse. For example, both moderate and mild forms of abuse by wives are “failing to perform duties,” and moderate and mild forms of abuse from adults to elderly parents are “complacency.” Here again, we note the emphasis in his theory on respect for roles. Finally, mild abuse from a husband to a wife, he told us, is “too much drinking, being unsuccessful, adultery.” It is noteworthy that husbands' sexual misconduct and failure in a role (“being unsuccessful”) are seen as only mildly abusive behaviors.

Clearly, Makoto, with his emphasis on conforming to roles and respect, has a very different implicit theory of familial abuse than does Melissa. Although we would not stereotype Melissa as a prototypical American and Makoto as a prototypical Japanese, we agree with Sternberg that people derive their implicit theories at least in part from the “stories” to which they are exposed in the environments in which they mature. We would also argue that Melissa's strong emphasis on physical and psychological aggression and Makoto's emphasis on roles and respect reflect strong cultural traditions. Finally, it is important to remember that Melissa and Makoto differ in gender as well as nationality, and that people's gender can play a powerful role in the experiences they have, the stories they're told, and the interpretations they make of personal and cultural events.

CULTURAL CONTEXTS: INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM

In recent decades, a popular social science approach to cross-cultural comparisons of behavior and values has focused on the constructs of individualism and collectivism. In general, according to Triandis (1995), collectivists (typically from Eastern societies) define themselves as part of a group whereas individualists (typically from Western societies) define themselves more in terms of autonomy from groups; thus, collectivists tend to have more interdependent views of self, whereas individualists tend to have more independent self-views. Moreover, the social behavior of collectivists is best predicted from group social norms and perceived duties and obligations, whereas the social behavior of individualists is best predicted from their own attitudes and values, as well as from contracts they have entered into. In addition, relationships are of supreme importance to collectivists, even when the costs of these relationships exceed the benefits.

Although strong arguments have been made that collectivism and individualism should not be treated as monolithic constructs (e.g., Stephan, Stephan, Saito, & Barnett, 1998), they continue to be used as a conceptual framework in many cross-cultural studies—particularly those comparing participants from selected Eastern countries such as Korea or Japan, with selected Western countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom. We believe that not only is it important to attend to differences in experiences and judgments within and between different Eastern and Western countries, but it is also crucial to seek out information on experiences and judgments from the Southern hemisphere. In this book, we present the perspectives from several different countries commonly considered to have collectivistic values (e.g., Korea, Japan, the Philippines), as well as from several different countries commonly considered to have individualistic values (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany). In addition, although this chapter begins with Melissa, from a presumably individualistic country, and Makoto, from a presumably collectivistic country, we include rich information from areas of the world likely to have strong cultural traditions not lumped easily into either of these categories-the Middle East, Brazil, South Africa.

IMPLICIT THEORIES AND CULTURE

A number of investigators have argued that implicit theories vary as a function of cultural heritage. For example, Chiu, Morris, Menon, and Hong (2000) suggested that the tendency of North Americans to conceive of individuals as autonomous agents and of Chinese to conceive of groups as autonomous units reflects different culturally based implicit theories. They also suggested that reliance on these theories is most likely to occur when individuals are required to provide reasons for a judgment concerning somebody's behavior in an ambiguous situation. In our view, making judgments as to the extent to which a particular behavior (e.g., hitting) is abusive is likely to activate such culturally based implicit theories. Thus, for example, a child's asserting his or her own views in the face of opposing views from parents may be seen as healthy autonomy in cultures with an implicit theory valuing individualism but as disrespectful in a culture with an implicit theory valuing the group over the individual.

An Ecologic Perspective

Evidence concerning the role of cultural values in influencing individual definitions and perceptions of abuse supports the value of an ecological approach to implicit theories. Expanding on early work by Bronfenbrenner (1979), Belsky (1993) applied a developmental-ecological perspective to the etiology of child abuse, In his analysis of levels of “contexts of maltreatment,” Belsky identified first the “developmental-psychological context,” which includes attributes of both parents (e.g., their own disciplinary history) and children (e.g., age) that play a role in child maltreatment. The next level is the “immediate interactional context” (the “microsystem”), which includes both specific parenting behaviors and parent-child interactions. According to Belsky, the developmental and interactional contexts are embedded in broader social contexts that are also relevant to child maltreatment. These broader contexts include the particular community in which the family lives, and the broader societal-cultural context.

Obviously countries have different histories and different cultural contexts, which are likely to give rise to different implicit theories concerning the acceptability of aggression in close relationships and to different “stories” concerning the effects and the justifiability of such aggression. Although there may be some basic commonalities to human development around the globe, we believe that there are also important differences between and within countries in the types of social environmental contexts in which attitudes, values, and behaviors develop. Each author in this book provides a description of important aspects of the social, political, and economic contexts of development in his or her country. What is the status of women? Of children? To what extent is that country beset with internal or external violence? Also in each chapter, in defining and giving examples of abuse, respondents to our cross-cultural survey give more personal glimpses at the ecological niches in which they developed their theories concerning the abusiveness of violence in close relationships. Thus, the underlying conceptual framework for the book combines a focus on individual implicit theories with an emphasis on the broader ecological framework within which these theories develop.

Implicit Theories and Judgments of Abuse

There is substantial research literature in the United States on individual and group differences in judgments concerning potentially abusive behaviors in families and other close relationships. It is our view that these differences in judgment reflect differences in implicit theories. Although this literature is too extensive to be reviewed exhaustively here, we consider some examples from research on attitudes toward child discipline from the perspective of implicit theory.

Judgments Concerning Punishment of Children. Implicit theories of child abuse must account somehow for parental disciplinary practices. Much of the relevant literature in this domain has focused on both lay and professional judgments of spanking and other forms of corporal punishment. Is hitting or spanking a child sometimes abusive? Always abusive? Never abusive? The research reveals a broad range of views (implicit theories) on these issues, For example, Flynn (1996) found that approximately half of his sample of nevermarried, nonparenting American college students agreed with two statements: “It is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good hard spanking,” and “Spanking a child usually works to correct misbehavior.” Agreement with the items suggests that spanking does not fit the criteria for child abuse in the implicit theories of those students. Flynn also found that endorsement of the nee...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• PART I: CONTEXT
• PART II: WESTERN EUROPE
• PART III: CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN EUROPE
• PART IV: THE MIDDLE EAST
• PART V: AFRICA
• PART VI: ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
• PART VII: LATIN AMERICA
• PART VIII: NORTH AMERICA
• PART IX: CONCLUSION
• Author Index
• Subject Index