Fighting Families: Family Characteristics Associated ... - OneResponse

Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 21, No. 1, January 2006 ( C○ 2006)
DOI: 10.1007/s10896-005-9002-2
Fighting Families: Family Characteristics Associated
with Domestic Violence in Five Latin American Countries
Dallan F. Flake 1 and Renata Forste 1,2
INTRODUCTION
Published online: 8 April 2006
Domestic violence 3 is one of Latin America’s most
pressing social problems, as each year between 10 and
35% of Latina women are physically abused by their
partners (Buvinic et al., 1999). Whereas the region is
notorious for its high rates of political and social violence,
much less understood is the violence that occurs
behind closed doors—between husbands and wives. With
so much attention centered on Latin America’s corruption,
crime, and political instability, it is easily overlooked that
the family is perhaps this region’s most violent social
institution.
Although domestic violence research has reached unprecedented
heights, relatively little is known about how
spouse abuse functions outside traditional Western regions
of study such as North America and Europe. Culture is
known to affect the magnitude and characteristics of inti-
1 Department of Sociology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
2 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Sociology,
Brigham Young University, 2032 JFSB, Provo, UT 84602;
e-mail: renata forste@byu.edu.
3 While numerous forms of aggression are incorporated into the term
domestic violence, the present study focuses exclusively on domestic
violence involving physical abuse between heterosexual partners.
This study uses data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHSs) to examine the relationship
between familial characteristics and the likelihood of experiencing domestic violence in Colombia, the
Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Peru. Logistic regression techniques are used to measure
relationships between marital status, family size, partner alcohol use, socioeconomic status (SES),
decision-making power, and education homogamy and the likelihood of experiencing partner violence.
Cohabitation, female-dominant decision making, and partner alcohol are positively associated with
domestic violence across datasets. Family size, SES, and education homogamy emerged as statistically
significant in some, but not all of the datasets. This study helps clarify the profile of the abused Latina
and also tests the applicability of current abuse research to a non-Western setting.
KEY WORDS: Latin America; spouse abuse; family violence; marital violence.
19
mate violence in different societies (Holtzworth-Munroe
et al., 1997), but because few studies compare these issues
in different cultural contexts, it remains unclear if presentday
abuse research can be applied to non-Western settings.
A few foundational studies have been conducted in Latin
America (Ellsberg et al., 2000; Gonzales de Olarte &
Gavilano Llosa, 1999); however, they tend to focus on
women in a single city or country rather than examining
broader patterns of domestic violence across Latin
America.
This study extends the domestic violence literature
by examining family characteristics associated with
spouse abuse across five Latin American countries.
Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, and
Peru were selected for analysis because they reflect the
rich diversity of Latin America. The purpose of this study
is twofold. First, it aims to create a more comprehensive
profile of the abused Latina to inform researchers,
policymakers, and women themselves of potential risk
markers for abuse. Second, this study investigates the applicability
of Western abuse research to less-developed
countries. This may potentially be its most important
contribution, as it could shed light on the relevance of
current theories, models, programs, and policies to Latin
America.
0885-7482/06/0100-0019/0 C○ 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc

20 Flake and Forste
The Latin American Context
Latin America is one of the most culturally heterogeneous
regions in the world. The myriad races, ethnicities,
languages, and lifestyles preclude the lumping together
of Colombians, Dominicans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and
Peruvians as part of a uniform “Latin American” culture.
In examining domestic violence in Latin America, however,
most of the countries share two characteristics—a
legacy of social violence and rigid gender scripts—that
are integral to understanding spouse abuse in the Latin
American context.
Latin America has long been one of the world’s most
violent regions. Beginning with the Spanish Conquest and
extending to the present day, political conflict has become
a near permanent fixture in the lives of millions of Latinos.
In Colombia, the constant war between the government
and drug cartels has made the country one of the most violent
places in the world. Colombia is currently engaged in
one of its bloodiest conflicts to date, against the powerful
guerilla organization FARC. The Dominican Republic,
Haiti, and Nicaragua have been equally unstable. Corrupt
regimes and bloody civil conflicts led to international military
intervention in all three countries during the twentieth
century. Peru has a similar history of political violence and
is presently battling the Shining Path, a Maoist terrorist
group whose stated goal is to destroy existing Peruvian
institutions and replace them with a communist peasant
regime. Since the Shining Path took up arms in 1980,
approximately 30,000 persons have died in Peru.
Buvinic and colleagues (1999) argue that societies
with long histories of wars are vulnerable to outbreaks of
social violence. The widespread availability of weapons,
coupled with the attenuation of inhibitions against violence
that war brings, tend to exacerbate already powerful
contributing factors including inequality and high levels
of poverty. The effects of political violence on Latin
American society have been devastating: The region’s
homicide rate of almost 30 murders per 100,000 people
is more than double the world average (Murray &
Lopez, 1996). Excessive political and social violence
is associated with higher rates of domestic violence
(Messing, 1999). In Latin America, violence is the subject
of casual conversation and newspaper headlines. Children
who grow up witnessing or experiencing violence can become
desensitized to the deleterious effects of aggression
and see it as a suitable way of obtaining what they want.
The second characteristic of Latin American
society—gender-based norms—reinforces male authority
and superiority over females throughout much of Latin
America. According to cross-cultural literature, two of
the most enduring factors that promote violence against
women are rigidly defined gender roles and a cultural definition
of manhood that is linked to dominance (Counts
et al., 1992). The term machismo is often used to describe
Latino masculinity, and refers to the cultural expectation
that males must show they are masculine, strong,
and sexually aggressive, and even able to consume large
amounts of alcohol without getting drunk (Giraldo, 1972).
Machismo is largely viewed as an expression of an inferiority
complex stemming from the Spanish Conquest
(Riding, 1985). Hypermasculinity is a culturally accepted
response to male dependency, powerlessness, feelings
of inferiority, and low self-esteem (McCord & McCord,
1960). Machismo, then, is the combination of feeling inferior
and acting superior (Ingoldsby, 1991).
Male dominance is reinforced by women’s role in
Latin American society. Marianismo refers to the expectation
that women embrace the veneration of the Virgin
Mary in that they are capable of enduring any suffering
inflicted upon them by males (Stevens, 1973). Latin
American women are to be submissive, dependent, sexually
faithful to their husbands, and are expected to take
care of household needs and dedicate themselves entirely
to their husbands and children. Because Latinas’ identities
are defined by their roles as mothers and wives, Latino
patriarchy denies women individuality on the basis of
gender (Rivera, 1998). Nobel Prize laureate Octavio Paz
(1961) observed that a woman who does not conform to
the traditional female ideal is viewed as a “mala mujer”
(bad woman) in Latin America.
The Family as an Enabling Context for Abuse
In describing the Latino family, social scientists generally
focus on two concepts: familism and machismo.
Familism refers to the Latino ideal of placing one’s family
ahead of individual interests, and includes responsibilities
and obligations to one’s immediate family members
and other kin (Ingoldsby, 1991). As previously noted,
machismo is the term used to describe Latino masculinity
and is characterized by aggressiveness and hypersexuality
(Giraldo, 1972). Although familism and machismo may
appear at odds with one another, both concepts are evident
in Latino families. The combination of familism and
machismo may make Latino families more susceptible to
domestic violence, since women are expected to fulfill familial
obligations unconditionally within an overarching
patriarchal family system.
How can the family be a haven for love, support,
and comfort, and yet be the place where one is most
likely to be spanked, slapped, beat up, assaulted, or killed
(Gelles, 1997)? Family violence researchers have sought

Domestic Violence in Latin America 21
to resolve this paradox by examining how certain family
characteristics influence the likelihood of domestic
violence. Family-level explanations of violence tend to
focus on issues of stress and power dynamics. Other
aggravating factors, including marital status and drinking,
are also commonly linked to domestic violence. The
present study examines whether family characteristics
associated with abuse in Western contexts are similarly
related to domestic violence in Latin America. The following
factors have been linked to wife abuse in Western
literature; each is included in the present analyses.
Marital Status
Higher rates of domestic violence are consistently
found among cohabitors compared to married couples. In
an analysis of 14 marital violence studies, Brownridge
and Halli (2000) conclude that on average, cohabitors are
between 2 and 4 times more likely to engage in physical
violence than married couples. Western theoretical
explanations often point to the temporary and impermanent
nature of cohabitation as a primary reason cohabitors
are more abusive than married couples (Nock, 1995).
Whereas cohabitation in Western countries usually serves
as a trial period preceding marriage, the relationship is
much more permanent in Latin America and might best be
described as “surrogate marriage” (Castro Martin, 2002).
Cohabitation has been an integral component of the Latin
American family system since the colonial period, when
the Catholic Church sanctioned informal sexual unions
between Spanish colonizers and indigenous women. Because
of the unique nature of cohabitation in Latin
America, it is reasonable to expect that marital status
would influence domestic violence differently in this region
than in Western settings. Understanding the relationship
between marital status and partner violence in Latin
America is critical, given that cohabitation rates there are
increasing. In some countries, more than half of couples
opt to cohabit rather than marry (Castro Martin, 2002). If
marital status does not influence violence in Latin America,
the growing popularity of cohabitation need not be
a concern for antiabuse coalitions. If cohabitation has a
similar effect in Latin America as in Western countries,
however, the growing prevalence of this relationship type
would be reason for great alarm.
Hypothesis 1: Cohabiting women are more likely to experience
domestic violence than married women.
Family Size
Numerous studies have found a positive linear relationship
between family size and domestic violence
(Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988; Ellsberg et al., 2000;
Farrington, 1977). The general perception among family
violence researchers is that large families are more prone
to violence because they experience greater stress associated
with the necessity to provide for several children
(Hoffman et al., 1994). Family size has a high potential
for generating frustration because of its low probability of
resolution. Violence not only becomes a possible response
to this frustration, but also an acceptable one. Family size
might be a particularly important characteristic of abuse in
Latin America because of the high fertility rate. Although
the region’s total fertility rate is gradually declining
(2.7 children per woman), it remains much higher than
rates in North America (2.1) and Europe (1.4) (Population
Reference Bureau, 2002). High fertility rates, coupled
with widespread poverty, can be a major source of stress
for families.
Hypothesis 2: Women with larger families are more likely
to experience domestic violence than women with smaller
families.
Partner Alcohol Use
The relationship between alcohol use and domestic
violence is complex (Roizen, 1997). While most research
confirms that alcohol and violence go hand-in-hand
(Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Panet al., 1994), there is
little agreement over the exact role alcohol plays in partner
violence. Martin (1993) argues that the relationship
between alcohol and violence differs depending on factors
such as who has been drinking, the drinking context, and
the relationship between perpetrator and victim. Theory
building is difficult because so many factors combine to
determine the link between alcohol and violence (Stith
&Farley,1993). Selective disinhibition theory (Parker
& Rebhun, 1995) might be the most promising explanation,
positing that alcohol’s negative effects on people’s
perceptions and judgment interact with a complex
set of social and psychological factors to result in violence
in certain cases. Understanding the relationship between
alcohol and violence is particularly important in Latin
America because gender scripts encourage heavy alcohol
consumption among males (Giraldo, 1972). Although per
capita alcohol consumption rates are comparable in Latin
America and the United States, the prevalence of problem
drinking is relatively high among Latinos (Madrigal,
1998). A polarity has been established in Latin America,
where low perception of problem drinking leads to social
pressure to drink. The combination of problem drinking
and social pressure to drink may make women in Latin
America particularly susceptible to violence.

22 Flake and Forste
Hypothesis 3: Women whose partners sometimes or frequently
get drunk are more likely to experience domestic
violence than women whose partners never get drunk.
Socioeconomic Status
It is commonly assumed that women who are poor
are more likely to experience violence than women who
are not poor (Ellsberg et al., 1999; Heise,1998; Jewkes,
2002). Poverty is not necessarily viewed as a causal factor,
but it is generally assumed to increase the risk of
spouse abuse. In 9 of 11 case-comparison studies from
the United States, Hotaling and Sugarman (1986) identified
family income as a consistent marker of wife assault.
The relationship between socioeconomic status and domestic
violence is also well established internationally,
in Cambodia (Nelson & Zimmerman, 1996), Nicaragua
(Ellsberg et al., 2000), Chile (Larrain, 1993), and Thailand
(Hoffman et al., 1994). A variety of domestic violence
perspectives espouse the idea that domestic violence is
more widespread among the poor because families living
in impoverished conditions are subject to higher levels of
stress than families not living in poverty (Martin et al.,
1999). Carlson’s (1984) structural theory of intrafamilial
violence contends that the inequitable distribution of societal
resources causes stress and tension among people
with insufficient material resources. When combined with
other aggravating factors such as living conditions, overcrowding,
a sense of hopelessness, and lack of employment
opportunities, poverty can significantly increase the
risk of domestic violence (Gonzales de Olarte & Gavilano
Llosa, 1999; Heise,1998). Poverty may be an especially
salient risk marker for abuse in Latin America, where
44% of people live in poverty and 19% live in extreme
poverty (Economic Commission for Latin America and
the Caribbean, 2002). The prevalence of poverty suggests
that millions of Latino families experience high levels of
stress and tension associated with economic frustration.
The stress associated with poverty may have a pronounced
impact on domestic violence in Latin America.
Hypothesis 4: Families with lower socioeconomic status
are more likely to experience marital violence than families
with higher socioeconomic status.
Decision-Making Power
One of the fundamental differences in the roles enacted
by men and women in relationships involves power.
A major part of how gender roles are identified in families
is through decision-making power. Rettig (1993) argues
that decision-making processes are key to understanding
the dynamics of couple relationships because they reveal
interaction and agency within relationships, and can indicate
where individuals are acting out or resisting social
norms. Decision-making power is an important dimension
of marital power, as it represents how much say an individual
has in the couple relationship. Coleman and Straus
(1990) examined how four types of decision-making relationships
influence spousal violence: egalitarian (couple
makes decisions together), divided power (male makes
some decisions, female makes others), female-dominant
(female makes most decisions), and male-dominant (male
makes most decisions). They found violence to be most
prevalent among nonegalitarian couples, regardless of
whether the man or woman dominated the decision making.
Studies by Yllo (1993) and Kim and Sung (2000)
reveal similar patterns. Given the rigidity of gender scripts
in Latin America, decision making may have a particularly
powerful effect on the likelihood of experiencing domestic
violence. Female-dominant decision making may
heighten the risk of domestic violence. Because of the
cultural expectation that men should govern their families
by making critical decisions, men whose partners dominate
decision making might resort to violence to reassert
dominance over their families. Male-dominant decision
making may also increase the risk of domestic violence for
women in Latin America, even though the man does not
feel threatened by his partner. It is likely that dominance
in decision making is indicative of a man’s dominion over
other aspects of the couple relationship.
Hypothesis 5: Women in nonegalitarian relationships, regardless
of who dominates the decision making, are more
likely to experience domestic violence than women in
egalitarian relationships.
Education Homogamy
Status inconsistencies in relationships, specifically
with regard to educational attainment, lead to higher levels
of spouse abuse in Western contexts (Anderson, 1997).
Violence is more likely to occur in nonhomogamous relationships,
regardless of whether the male or female has
more education. In patriarchal societies, women who have
more education than their partners have a high risk of
abuse because gender roles entail that husbands have
more education than their wives (Okun, 1986; Walker,
1984). O’Brien (1971) and Gelles (1974) contend that
if a husband does not possess more skills and resources
than his wife to legitimate his superior status, he may feel
threatened by an educational disadvantage to his wife and
may use physical force as a last resort. Men with higher
levels of education than their wives are also more likely to

Domestic Violence in Latin America 23
become violent. Goode (1971) explains this phenomenon
in terms of access to resources: Men with higher levels
of education possess more resources, which means they
have the ability to use force.
Hypothesis 6: Women with more or less education than
their partners are more likely to experience domestic violence
than women whose education levels are the same
as their partners’.
Based on this literature review, relationships between
family characteristics and domestic violence in Latin
America are examined. In so doing, this study aims to shed
light on why some Latinas are more likely than others to
experience abuse.
METHODS
Sample
This analysis uses Demographic and Health Surveys
(DHSs) conducted in Colombia (1995), the Dominican
Republic (1999), Haiti (2000), Nicaragua (1998), and Peru
(2000). DHSs are nationally representative household surveys
with large sample sizes of women ages 15–49, which
provide data for a wide range of monitoring and impact
evaluation indicators in the areas of population, health,
and nutrition. The datasets do not include all factors empirically
linked to differential rates of domestic violence;
thus the results should not be interpreted as definitive.
Nonetheless, DHSs do contain measures of several significant
family characteristics of violence, including marital
status, family size, partner alcohol use, socioeconomic
status, decision-making power, and education homogamy.
Restricting the sample to women currently in a union, the
sample sizes are 6,082 in Colombia, 588 in the Dominican
Republic, 2,275 in Haiti, 6,728 in Nicaragua, and
15,174 in Peru. Sample cases are weighted to adjust for
oversampling of particular regions and to compensate for
differences in response rates.
Measures
This study focuses exclusively on physical abuse between
heterosexual partners and employs Gelles’ (1997)
definition of violence: “An act carried out with the intention
or perceived intention of causing physical pain or
injury to another person” (p. 14). Physical aggression is
operationalized differently in each of the datasets. The
Colombia DHS asks respondents to list reasons they have
been physically hit by their partners. A dichotomous variable
was created to measure violence and is coded 1 if the
respondent listed a reason she had been abused, and 0 if
she had not been abused. In the Dominican Republic and
Haiti, a series of questions was asked based on Straus’
(1990) Conflict Tactics Scale. If the respondent answered
“yes” to any of the physical aggression questions, her
response was coded 1; if she answered “no” to all of the
questions, her response was coded 0. The Nicaragua DHS
asks if respondents “have ever experienced any physical
violence at the hands of a partner.” “Yes” responses were
coded 1; “no” responses were coded 0. The Peru DHS
asks respondents if they have “ever been hit, pushed, or
shoved by a partner.” Again, “yes” answers were coded
1 and “no” answers were coded 0. Cases with missing
dependent variable data were excluded from the analyses.
The percentage of cases dropped is no greater than 10%
in each of the datasets.
Marital status is measured as a dichotomous variable
coded 1 if the respondent is married and 0 if she is cohabiting.
Divorced, widowed, and separated women are
not included in this study. In Haiti, 97% of the sample are
married. Thus, too few women are cohabiting to create a
meaningful measure of marital status in Haiti. Based on
US statistics, we anticipate cohabiting women to experience
more violence than married women (Brownridge
& Halli, 2000). Family size is measured by how many
living children the woman has. We expect that women
with larger families are more likely to experience violence
than women with smaller families, since large families
have higher stress levels associated with having to provide
for several children (Hoffman et al., 1994). Partner
alcohol use is measured by how often respondents’ partners
come home drunk. Dummy variables were created
for each response option: “never gets drunk,” “sometimes
gets drunk,” and “frequently gets drunk.” Because response
options in the Nicaragua DHS are slightly different,
we adjusted the categories for uniformity. If the male
“never comes home drunk,” the response is categorized
as “never gets drunk”; if he comes home drunk “once in
a while” or “once a month,” the response is categorized
as “sometimes gets drunk”; and if he comes home drunk
“twice a month,” “once a week,” or “almost daily,” the
response is categorized as “frequently gets drunk.” Because
alcohol weakens brain mechanisms that normally
restrain aggression (Parker & Rebhun, 1995), we expect
a positive, linear relationship between partner alcohol use
and domestic violence.
Decision-making power is determined by a series of
questions that ask if the woman, her partner, or somebody
else has the final say in certain household decisions (such
as her own health care, making large household purchases,
daily purchases, visits to family or relatives, and food to be
prepared each day). Although the questions vary slightly
across datasets, they are conceptually uniform in that they

24 Flake and Forste
measure decision-making power with respect to household
decisions. Response options include “respondent
alone,” “respondent and partner,” “respondent and other
person,” “partner alone,” “someone else,” and “other.”
Respondents are classified into one of four relationship
power types based on their answers to the “final say”
questions: egalitarian (both partners have an equal say in
most issues), divided power (man or woman is dominant
in making decisions in different areas), female-dominant
(woman makes most decisions), and male-dominant (man
makes most decisions) (Straus, 1990). We expect the likelihood
of violence to be greater in nonegalitarian relationships
because there is a higher probability of conflict when
couples do not make decisions together (Rettig, 1993).
Education homogamy is measured with three dummy
variables constructed by subtracting a woman’s total years
of education from her partner’s total years of education.
If the female and male have the same amount of schooling,
the response is categorized as “homogamous”; if the
male has more schooling, the response is categorized as
“male has more than female”; if the female has more
schooling, the response is categorized as “female has
more than male.” Based on Western data (Okun, 1986),
we expect women in nonhomogamous relationships to be
more likely to be abused than women in homogamous
relationships.
Estimation
Basic descriptive statistics are initially employed to
provide a demographic profile of the samples. As the
dependent variable is binary, each dataset is examined
separately using logistic regression techniques. The equations
express the log odds of being abused (versus not)
as a linear function of a set of explanatory variables. The
models’ coefficients represent the increase or decrease in
the likelihood of physical abuse, associated with a unit (or
category) change in an independent variable.
RESULTS
Table I presents descriptive statistics on family
factors influencing partner violence. The prevalence of
spousal violence in all five countries is high, ranging
from 16% in Haiti to 39% in Peru. The percentages could
be much higher, as some women deny, minimize, and
underreport abuse (Ellsberg et al., 2001). These data suggest
that while domestic violence occurs throughout Latin
America, the proportion of women who have experienced
violence varies dramatically between countries. Cross-
national variation in violence rates may be attributable to
a wide array of sociodemographic and cultural factors.
Differences in survey methodologies and variable operationalization
may also help account for differential rates
of violence.
Couple relationships in Latin America are characterized
by a strong affinity to cohabit rather than marry.
In Colombia, Nicaragua, and Peru, approximately half of
all women currently in relationships are cohabiting; in the
Dominican Republic, two-thirds of women cohabit. Other
characteristics of Latino families include relatively high
fertility, alcohol use, and low socioeconomic status. While
poverty affects families throughout Latin America, some
countries are much poorer than others. In Colombia, 67%
of couples own at least six (of a possible seven) household
amenities included in the SES index. In comparison, 5%
of Haitians own the same number of amenities.
The power dynamics of couple relationships vary
across countries, suggesting that patriarchal norms might
not be uniform across Latin America. Decision-making
power, for example, varies dramatically between countries.
In the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, most
couples make decisions together (egalitarian). In Haiti,
most couples split household decision-making responsibilities
(divided power) rather than make decisions together.
In Peru, it is most common for females to control
the decision making (female-dominant). There is also
variance in education homogamy. The cultural expectation
for males to have more education than their female
partners persists in all five countries. In some countries,
however, this norm is challenged: In Colombia, the Dominican
Republic, and Nicaragua, one-third of women in
relationships have more education than their partners.
Logistic Regression Model
Odds ratios presented in Table II provide at least partial
support for the hypothesized relationships between
family characteristics and the likelihood of experiencing
partner violence. Marital status and partner alcohol use are
the strongest predictors of abuse, having emerged as statistically
significant in all of the datasets. Married women
are far less likely to be physically abused than cohabiting
women. The effect is strongest in the Dominican Republic,
where married women are half as likely to be abused
as cohabitors (p < .01). That the Dominican Republic
has the lowest percentage of married women (35%) is
important, as it indicates that marital status has a pronounced
effect on domestic violence in that country. As
hypothesized, partner alcohol use increases a woman’s

Domestic Violence in Latin America 25
Table I. Demographic and Background Factors Influencing Partner Violence (Percentages)
Colombia Dom. Rep. Haiti Nicaragua Peru
(1995) (1999) (2000) (1998) (2000)
Ever physically abused by partner 19.0 22.6 15.7 26.1 38.9
Marital status
Married 54.1 35.0 97.3 46.0 55.8
Cohabiting 45.9 65.0 2.7 54.0 44.2
Family size (living children)
0–1 28.8 25.2 29.6 23.9 24.7
2–4 57.7 62.2 45.9 50.3 55.7
5+ 13.5 12.6 24.5 25.8 19.6
Partner alcohol use
Never gets drunk — 32.9 8.1 45.8 26.6
Sometimes gets drunk — 25.5 9.6 40.9 65.7
Frequently gets drunk — 8.0 2.6 12.0 6.9
Missing — 33.7 79.7 1.2 .8
SES (0–7)
0–2 8.9 7.8 65.6 23.2 28.0
3–5 24.0 47.5 29.4 50.4 31.5
6–7 67.1 44.7 5.0 26.4 40.5
Decision-making relationship
Egalitarian — 44.5 19.2 60.1 32.5
Divided power — 17.3 51.4 9.6 11.7
Male-dominant — 8.8 4.3 11.1 8.5
Female-dominant — 26.7 22.2 13.6 43.6
Other — 9.5 2.9 5.6 3.7
Education homogamy
Homogamous 26.0 16.6 27.6 25.3 30.1
Male has more than female 38.0 42.1 46.1 37.6 50.8
Female has more than male 34.6 32.0 15.9 35.2 18.7
Missing 1.4 9.3 10.4 1.9 .3
[ N] 6082 588 2275 6728 15174
Note. Statistics are weighted to represent population parameters. The reported sample sizes are weighted.
likelihood of being assaulted. Women whose partners
sometimes get drunk are between 1.3 (p < .001) and
2.5 times (p < .001) more likely to experience violence
than women whose partners never get drunk. Frequent
drunkenness is associated with an even higher likelihood
of violence: Women whose partners frequently get drunk
are between 2.6 (p < .001) and 9.8 (p < .001) times more
likely to be abused than women whose partners do not get
drunk.
As hypothesized, women who do not make decisions
together with their partners are at a greater risk of being
abused than women who share in the decision-making process
(egalitarian). In Haiti, Nicaragua, and Peru, women
in divided power relationships (she makes some decisions,
he makes others) are between 1.2 (p < .01) and 2 times
(p < .001) more likely to experience violence than women
in egalitarian relationships. Women whose partners control
decision making (male-dominant) are between 1.3 (p
< .01) and 2.7 times (p < .001) more likely to be abused
than women in egalitarian relationships. Male-dominant
decision making is not statistically significant in the Dominican
Republic or Peru. Female-dominant relationships
have the strongest and most consistent effect on domestic
violence. In each country, women who control the
decision-making are much more likely to experience violence
than women who share decision making with their
partners.
The hypothesized relationship between education
homogamy and domestic violence is partially supported
by these data. In Colombia and Haiti, women with less
education than their partners are more likely to experience
violence than women with the same level of education as
their partners. In Nicaragua and Peru, women with more
education than their partners have a higher likelihood of
abuse than women who have the same amount of education
as their partners. Education homogamy was not
found to be associated with spouse abuse in the Dominican
Republic.

26 Flake and Forste
Table II. Family Characteristics and the Likelihood of Experiencing Partner Violence (Odds Ratios)
Colombia Dom. Rep. Haiti Nicaragua Peru
(1995) (1999) (2000) (1998) (2000)
Married .747 ∗∗∗ .519 ∗∗ – .593 ∗∗∗ .704 ∗∗∗
Family size 1.276 ∗∗∗ .742 1.010 1.174 ∗∗∗ 1.210 ∗∗∗
Partner alcohol use
Never gets drunk — 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Sometimes gets drunk — 2.441 ∗∗∗ 2.484 ∗∗∗ 1.298 ∗∗∗ 1.890 ∗∗∗
Frequently gets drunk — 9.844 ∗∗∗ 4.800 ∗∗∗ 2.631 ∗∗∗ 8.233 ∗∗∗
Socioeconomic status (0–7) 1.027 1.140 1.172 ∗∗∗ 1.009 1.004
Decision-making relationship
Egalitarian — 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Divided power — 1.642 1.925 ∗∗∗ 2.026 ∗∗∗ 1.197 ∗∗
Male-dominant — 1.526 2.750 ∗∗∗ 1.314 ∗∗ 1.084
Female-dominant — 2.057 ∗∗ 2.318 ∗∗∗ 2.082 ∗∗∗ 1.378 ∗∗∗
Education homogamy
Homogamous 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Male has more than female 1.190 ∗ 1.135 1.805 ∗∗∗ 1.013 1.076
Female has more than male 1.140 1.185 1.067 1.158 ∗ 1.373 ∗∗∗
−2 LL 5784.291 552.836 1866.065 7245.761 18897.311
Chi-square 132.820 75.660 114.232 478.436 1382.728
Df 5 10 9 10 10
[ N] 6082 588 2275 6728 15174
Note. Statistics are weighted to represent population parameters. The reported sample sizes are weighted.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
DISCUSSION
Although domestic violence is a serious and
widespread problem in Latin America, few researchers
have sought to explain partner violence in the Latino context.
This study examines the magnitude and characteristics
of partner abuse in Colombia, the Dominican Republic,
Haiti, Nicaragua, and Peru, and is one of the only
violence studies to test a model across multiple datasets.
This research offers several important contributions to the
family violence literature and serves as a foundation for
future research in Latin America.
A major contribution of this study is that it tests
the applicability of Western theoretical and empirical violence
models to a non-Western setting. Previous research
has focused primarily on wife abuse in North America and
Europe. Thus, little is known about the nature of partner
violence in cross-cultural settings. To address this gap
in the violence literature, the current study examines how
Western risk markers for abuse influence violence in Latin
America. To at least some extent, each of the variables
tested emerged as an important predictor of domestic violence,
indicating that several risk markers for abuse are
shared between Latin American and Western countries.
This finding has significant implications for family violence
researchers and policymakers, as it suggests that
current research and policies might have some relevance
in parts of Latin America. Much more research is needed
to fully understand how the national context influences
spouse abuse.
This study helps clarify the profile of the abused
Latina. If a woman cohabits in Latin America, she is
more likely to experience violence than if she is married.
While marriage is critical to reducing abuse among
Latinas, there is a tendency for women to cohabit rather
than marry. That cohabitation rates are increasing in every
Latin American country (Castro Martin, 2002) isamajor
concern, as it signifies that more and more women are
inadvertently placing themselves at risk of partner violence.
Socioeconomic conditions are likely to be part of
the explanation for the high prevalence of cohabitation
in Latin America. Castro Martin (2002) explains that unlike
in developed countries, consensual unions in Latin
America are most prevalent among the poor, suggesting
that financial costs may deter couples from formal marriage.
Although marriage is generally regarded as more
desirable than cohabitation, consensual unions are easier
to initiate and are less costly (Greene, 1991). Modifying
existing marriage requirements to accommodate the poor
could help reduce the incidence of domestic violence by
encouraging couples to more fully commit to one another
by marrying rather than cohabiting.
Partner alcohol use also plays a critical role in partner
violence. Of all the family factors included in the present

Domestic Violence in Latin America 27
study, alcohol has the strongest and most consistent effect
on the likelihood of experiencing domestic violence. Although
alcohol consumption rates in Latin America are
not extraordinarily high, problem drinking is more prevalent
among Latinos than other groups (Madrigal, 1998).
Given the rigid social expectation that macho men should
be able to consume large quantities of alcohol (Giraldo,
1972), it is unlikely that alcohol consumption rates can
be lowered. A more plausible recommendation would be
to educate men and women about drinking responsibly.
Latino families should be educated about the risk of domestic
violence that accompanies drunkenness. If men
can learn to drink without getting drunk, they may be
less likely to become violent, so long as casual drinking
does not drastically alter their perceptions and judgment
(Parker & Rebhun, 1995).
In addition to marital status and partner alcohol use,
power dynamics influence domestic violence in Latin
America. Decision-making power, in particular, has a
pronounced effect on the likelihood of abuse. Our findings
suggest that if couples do not make decisions together,
there is a greater likelihood of domestic violence
than if they share in decision making. Power dynamics
in Latin America are such that when one partner
has more decision-making power than the other, there
is a greater risk of marital conflict and violence. In
particular, when females wield more decision-making
power than their partners, they are more likely to be
abused than when they share decision-making power
equally. This finding lends support to theories of patriarchy,
which suggest that men who have less power
than their partners may turn to violence to reestablish
culturally prescribed dominance over women (Straus
et al., 1980).
If a woman cohabits, has a large family, has a partner
who gets drunk, does not share decision-making responsibilities
with her partner, or does not have the same
level of education as her partner, she is more likely to
experience domestic violence than a woman who marries,
has a small family, has a partner who never gets drunk,
shares decision-making power with her partner, or has
the same amount of education as her partner. The profile
of the abused Latina appears quite similar to the profile
of abuse victims in the United States, Great Britain,
Switzerland, and other Western countries. The full picture
remains blurred, however, as numerous factors were
not tested in the present study. According to the ecological
perspective, domestic violence is a multifaceted
phenomenon grounded in an interplay of individual,
family, community, and national characteristics (Heise,
1998). To understand differences in abuse victims, one
must consider the entire ecology of the individual:
their home, workplace, church, family and community
roles, and the overarching institutional patterns of culture
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
While this study makes important contributions to
the understanding of domestic violence in Latin America,
it is not without limitations. Two problems arise from the
narrow focus of Demographic and Health Surveys, which
are not designed primarily for the study of abuse. First,
the operationalization of domestic violence questions is
not always uniform, making cross-national comparisons
somewhat difficult. Second, several family characteristics
of abuse in Western cultures were not included in the DHS
questionnaires. Religiosity, resource control, and attitudes
toward violence may be important risk markers for abuse.
These factors were unable to be included in the model,
however, because the DHSs do not include measures of
these variables.
Findings from this study should not be interpreted
as definitive, but rather as foundational. Much more research
is needed to fully understand the characteristics of
domestic violence in Latin America. To compare crossnational
results more effectively, future research should
employ standardized questionnaires and methodologies.
Other types of abuse, including psychological and sexual
abuse, and child maltreatment should be included to
understand the entire scope of domestic violence. Power
dynamics must also be emphasized. Machismo in particular
may play a prominent role in explaining spouse
abuse in Latin America, and can be measured with a variety
of well-established scales, including the Bem Sex
Role Inventory (Bem, 1974), Villemez and Toughey’s
(1977) 28-point Macho Scale, the Hyper-Masculinity
Index (Mosher, 1991), and Cuellar and colleagues’ (1995)
17-item Machismo Scale. A final recommendation is to
extend research to men. The vast majority of violence
studies target women because they are generally more
willing to participate and share their experiences with
abuse. While understanding the risk markers of abuse for
women is critical, it is equally essential—if not more so—
that we uncover the reasons why men hit their partners. To
effectively lower rates of intimate violence, we must create
a thorough and comprehensive profile of the abuser—not
just the abuse victim.
REFERENCES
Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An
integration of feminist and family violence approaches. J. Marriage
Fam. 59: 655–669.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42: 155–162.
Brinkerhoff, M. B., and Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal violence. Canadian
J. Soc. 12(4): 407–434.

28 Flake and Forste
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of Human Development, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Brownridge, D. A., and Halli, S. S. (2000). Living in sin and sinful
living: Toward filling a gap in the explanation of violence against
women. Aggr. Viol. Behav. 5(6): 565–583.
Buvinic, M., Morrison, A. R., and Shifter, M. (1999). Violence in the
Americas: A framework for action. In Morrison, A. R., and Biehl,
M. L. (eds.), Too Close to Home: Domestic Violence in the Americas.
Inter-American Development Bank, John Hopkins University Press,
Washington, DC, pp. 3–34.
Carlson, B. E. (1984). Causes and maintenance of domestic violence:
An ecological analysis. Soc. Service Rev. 58(4): 569–587.
Castro Martin, T. (2002). Consensual unions in Latin America: Persistence
of a dual nuptiality system. J. Comp. Fam. Studies 33(1):
35–55.
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, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 287–
300.
Counts, D., Brown, J., and Campbell, J. (1992). Sanctions and sanctuary,
Westview, Boulder, CO.
Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., and Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cognitive referents of
acculturation: Assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Americans.
J. Comm. Psych. 23: 339–356.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (2002).
2001–2002 Social Panorama of Latin America, United Nations, New
York.
Ellsberg, M. C., Peña, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., and Winkvist, A.
(1999). Wife abuse among women of childbearing age in Nicaragua.
Am.J.Pub.Hlth.89(2): 241–244.
Ellsberg, M. C., Peña, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., and Winkvist,
A. (2000). Candies in hell: Women’s experiences of violence in
Nicaragua. Soc. Sci. Med. 51(8): 1595–1610.
Ellsberg, M. C., Winkvist, A., Heise, L., Peña, R., and Agurto, S. (2001).
Researching domestic violence against women: Methodological and
ethical considerations. Stud. Fam. Plann. 32(1): 1–16.
Farrington, K. (1977). Family violence and household density: Does the
crowded home breed aggression? Association paper, Society for the
Study of Social Problems Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA.
Gelles, R. J. (1974). The Violent Home, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Gelles, R. J. (1997). Intimate Violence in Families. Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Giraldo, O. (1972). El machismo como fenómeno psicocultural. Revista
Mexicana de Psicologia 3: 350–354.
Gonzales de Olarte, E., and Gavilano Llosa, P. (1999). Does poverty
cause domestic violence? Some answers from Lima. In Morrison,
A. R., and Biehl, M. L. (eds.), Too Close to Home: Domestic Violence
in the Americas, Inter-American Development Bank, John Hopkins
University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 35–50.
Goode, W. J. (1971). Force and violence in the family. J. Marr. Fam.
33(4): 624–636.
Greene, M. E. (1991). The importance of being married: Marriage
choice and its consequences in Brazil. Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania.
Heise, L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological
framework. Viol. Against Women 4(3): 262–290.
Hoffman, K. L., Demo, D. H., and Edwards, J. N. (1994). Physical wife
abuse in a non-western society: An integrated theoretical approach.
J. Marr. Fam. 56(1): 131–146.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., and Sandler, E. (1997).
A brief revision of research on husband violence: Part I: Maritally
violent versus nonviolent men. Aggr. Viol. Behav. 2(1): 65–99.
Hotaling, G. T., and Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers
in husband-to-wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Viol.
Vict. 1(2): 101–123.
Ingoldsby, B. B. (1991). The Latin American family: Familism vs.
machismo. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 22(1): 57–62.
Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention.
Lancet 359(9315): 1423–1429.
Kim, J. Y., and Sung, K. (2000). Conjugal violence in Korean American
families: A residue of the cultural tradition. J. Fam. Viol. 15(4): 331–
345.
Larrain, S. (1993). Estudio de frecuencia de la violencia intrafamiliar y
la condición de la mujer in Chile. Pan American Health Organization,
Santiago, Chile.
Madrigal, E. (1998). Latin America. In Grant, M. (ed.), Alcohol and
Emerging Markets: Patterns, Problems, and Responses, Taylor and
Francis, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 223–262.
Martin, S. E. (ed.) (1993). Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fostering
Multidisciplinary Perspectives. National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Research Monograph No. 24. National
Institute of Health Publication No. 93–3496. Rockville, MD,
pp. v–xi.
Martin, S. L., Tsui, A. O., Maitra, K., and Marinshaw, R. (1999). Domestic
violence in northern India. Am. J. Epid. 150(4):417–426.
McCord, W., and McCord, J. (1960). Origins of Alcoholism, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.
Messing, U. (1999). Introduction. In Morrison, A. R., and Biehl,
M. L. (eds.), Too Close to Home: Domestic Violence in the Americas,
Inter-American Development Bank, John Hopkins University Press,
Washington D.C., pp. xi–xiii.
Mosher, D. L. (1991). Macho men, machismo, and sexuality. Ann. Rev.
Sex. Research 2: 199–247.
Murray, C., and Lopez, A. (eds.) (1996). The Global Burden of Disease:
A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from
Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020,
Vol. 1, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nelson, E., and Zimmerman, C. (1996). Household survey on domestic
violence in Cambodia. Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Project
Against Domestic Violence, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Nock, S. L. (1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships.
J. Fam. Issues 16(1): 53–76.
O’Brien, J. E. (1971). Violence in divorce prone families. J. Marriage
Fam. 33: 692–698.
Okun, L. (1986). Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing Myths, State University
of New York Press, Albany.
Pan, H. S., Neidig, P. H., and O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Predicting mild and
severe husband-to-wife physical aggression. J. Consult. Clin. Psych.
62(5): 975–981.
Parker, R. N., and Rebhun, L. (1995). Alcohol and Homicide: A Deadly
Combination of Two American Traditions, State University of New
York Press, Albany.
Paz, O. (1961). The Labyrinth of Solitude: Life and Thought in Mexico,
Grove Press, New York, pp. 29–30.
Population Reference Bureau (2002). 2002 World Population Data
Sheet. Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC.
Rettig, K. D. (1993). Problem-solving and decision-making as central
processes of family life: An ecological framework for family relations
and family resource management. Marr. Fam. Rev. 18(3/4):
187–222.
Riding, A. (1985). Distant Neighbors, Vintage, New York.
Rivera, J. (1998). Domestic violence against Latinas by Latino males.
In Delgado, R., and Stefancic, J. (eds.), The Latino/a Condition: A
Critical Reader, New York University Press, New York, pp. 501–507.
Roizen, J. (1997). Epidemiological issues in alcohol-violence. In
Galanter, M. (ed.), Recent Developments in Alcoholism, Vol. 13:
Alcoholism and Violence, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 7–40.
Stevens, E. (1973). Machismo and marianismo. Society 10: 57–63.
Stith, S. M., and Farley, S. C. (1993). A predictive model of male spousal
violence. J. Fam. Viol. 8(2): 183–201.
Straus, M. A. (1990). Social stress and marital violence in a national sample
of American families. 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. 181–201.

Domestic Violence in Latin America 29
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., and Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind Closed
Doors: Violence in the American Family, Anchor Press, New York.
Villemez, W. J., and Toughey, J. C. (1977). A measure of individual
differences in sex stereotyping and sex discrimination: The Macho
Scale. Psych. Reports 41: 411–415.
Walker, L. E. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome, Springer,
New York.
Yllo, K. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power and violence.
In Gelles, R. J., and Bogard, M. (eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife
Abuse, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 47–62.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: Fighting Families: Family Characteristics Associated with
Domestic Violence in Five Latin American Countries
SOURCE: J Fam Violenceter Electron 21 no1/607/12 Ja
20060442004
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-2851/