University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The role of acculturation in Asian Americans' attitudes towards domestic violence and of male privilege as a mediator in placing blame

(USC Thesis Other)

The role of acculturation in Asian Americans' attitudes towards domestic violence and of male privilege as a mediator in placing blame

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE ROLE OF ACCULTURATION IN ASIAN AMERICANS’ ATTITUDES
TOWARDS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OF MALE PRIVILEGE AS A
MEDIATOR IN PLACING BLAME

by
Jane Y. Yang

____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
EDUCATION (COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY)

December 2006

Copyright 2006 Jane Y. Yang

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all those who have provided support, encouragement,
and guidance throughout the dissertation process and graduate school. To Dr. Ruth
Chung, your mentorship and your belief in me have been invaluable. Thank you for
nurturing my personal and professional growth, and thank you for helping me to
maintain perspective throughout my years of graduate education. To my committee
members: Dr. Rodney Goodyear, thank you for your patience and your helpful
feedback as we have walked through the process of dissertation. Dr. Jane Iwamura,
thank you for your willingness to “save the day” and serve as my third committee
member. To my former committee member, Dr. Mitchell Earleywine, thank you for
your constructive feedback in the conceptualization and development of this project,
particularly in regard to methods and analyses. And to my statistical consultant, Dr.
Yuying Tsong, thank you for holding my hand (and often dragging me along)
throughout the analyses--without you, I would have been lost in the world of SPSS.
All of you made this study a stronger one!
I would also like to thank my family for their continuous support while I have
pursued my higher education. Dad, thank you for reminding me to maintain my faith
and my perspective regarding all the reasons I have done this work. Mom, thank you
for all of your interest in my “dissertation book” and for your persistent reminders
that I need to finish! Mary and Sonny, thank you for your emotional support and
your nudges for me to keep my chin up and to keep my momentum. And to Joe,
who came into my life again at the end of this process--thank you for believing in me
iii
and for taking care of me in all the ways that you have so that I could complete my
dissertation. Finally, thank you to all my friends who have provided a sense of
sanity and positivity throughout my time in graduate school.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix

Chapter I: Introduction 1
History of the Battered Women’s Movement 1
Domestic Violence in the United States: Do the Numbers
Represent All Women? 2
Characteristics of Asian Americans in the United States 3
Barriers to Investigating Domestic Violence in the Asian
American Community 4
Existing Evidence of Asian American Domestic Violence 6
Working Past the Stigma: Using Attitudes towards Domestic
Violence to Understand Asian American Intimate
Partner Violence 10
Theoretical Framework of the Study 13
Asian Values as a Contributor to Domestic Violence 13
Acculturative Stress as a Contributor to
Domestic Violence 15
Acculturation and Domestic Violence: Are
They Related? 17
Significance of the Study 19

Chapter II: Literature Review 21
Theories of Acculturation 22
Acculturation as a Predictor of Domestic Violence
` Prevalence and Attitudes 26
How Do Asian Values Influence Attitudes towards
Domestic Violence? 31
The Asian Value of Collectivism 32
Preservation of Family Honor and Protection
from “Losing Face” 33
Patriarchal Ideology and the Role of Male Privilege 34
Acculturation, Male Privilege, and Attitudes towards
Domestic Violence Victims: Who is to Blame? 43
Summary 45
Purpose of the Study 46
Research Questions 47

v
Chapter III: Method 49
Participants 49
Instruments 50
Demographic and Background Information 51
The Revised Attitudes toward Wife Abuse Scale 51
Vignette: Who is Responsible for the Violence? 53
Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation
Scale 54
Asian Values Scale 56
Procedure 56

Chapter IV: Results 58
Intercorrelations 58
Preliminary Analyses 63
Asian American Group Differences in
Acculturation 63
Racial and Ethnic Group Differences for All
Major Variables 64
Research Question 1: Do behavioral acculturation to
American culture, behavioral acculturation to
Asian culture, and values acculturation to Asian
culture predict Asian Americans’ attitudes
towards domestic violence? 67
Research Question 2: Do Behavioral Acculturation to
American Culture, Behavioral and Values
Acculturation to Asian Culture, and Attitudes
towards Domestic Violence predict Asian
Americans’ attributions of responsibility for
Domestic Violence Situations? 69
Research Question 3: Do Attitudes Regarding Male
Privilege Mediate the Relationship between
Acculturation to Asian Values and Attribution of
Responsibility in Domestic Violence Situations? 72

vi
Chapter V: Discussion and Implications 78
Discussion of Primary Findings 78
Discussion of Findings for Mediation Fit for
Attribution of Responsibility in
Domestic Violence Situations 78
Discussion of Gender Differences in Mediation Fit 81
Discussion of Secondary Findings 84
Discussion of Values Acculturation to Asian
Culture as a General Predictor of Attitudes
towards Domestic Violence 85
Discussion of Behavioral Acculturation to Asian
and American Cultures as Predictors of
Attitudes towards Domestic Violence 88
Discussion of Acculturation and Attitudes
towards Domestic Violence as Predictors
of Attributions of Responsibility for
Domestic Violence 92
Discussion of Additional Noteworthy Findings 98
Racial/Ethnic Group Differences 98
Gender Differences 100
Implications 101
Theoretical Implications of Primary and
Secondary Analyses 102
Research Implications of Primary and
Secondary Analyses 106
Applied Implications of Primary and Secondary
Analyses 107
Limitations of Study 108
Future Directions 112
Conclusion 114

References 117

Appendices 128
Appendix A: Informed Consent 128
Appendix B: Demographic Information 132
Appendix C: Revised Attitudes toward Wife Abuse
Scale 134
Appendix D: Vignette: Who is Responsible for the
Violence? 135
Appendix E: Asian Values Scale 138
Appendix F: Asian American Multidimensional
Acculturation Scale 140
vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order
Pearson Product Correlations for Measured
Variables 61

Table 4.2: Means and Standard Deviations for Major
Variables by Gender and Ethnicity 62

Table 4.3: Group Differences Multivariate and Univariate
Analysis of Variance for Attitudes towards
Domestic Violence with Significant Post Hoc Tests 65

Table 4.4: Means and Standard Deviations for Attitudes
towards Domestic Violence 65

Table 4.5: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis
for RAWA (The Revised Attitudes towards Wife
Abuse Scale) 67

Table 4.6: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis
for Attribution of Responsibility 69

Table 4.7: Summary of Mediation Model Statistics for Direct
and Mediated Effects of Endorsement of Male
Privilege in Domestic Violence Situations 73
viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Mediation Conceptual Model 72
Figure 4.2: Mediation Model of Attribution of Responsibility
to Mark 75

Figure 4.3: Mediation Model of Attribution of Responsibility
to Sonia 75
ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between
acculturation, attitudes towards domestic violence, and attribution of responsibility
for domestic violence among Asian Americans. This study proposed that the value
of male privilege serves as a mediator of values acculturation to Asian culture and
attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor or to the female victim for
domestic violence situations. This study was also unique in examining acculturation
using an orthogonal model when evaluating Asian Americans’ general attitudes
towards domestic violence. The entire sample of participants (N=552) included 330
Asian Americans who were recruited to complete an online survey via listservs,
websites, web mailings, and announcements from professors in one southern
California university. The survey consisted of demographic information, The
Revised Attitudes Toward Wife Abuse Scale (RAWA), A Vignette: Who is
Responsible for the Violence?, The Asian Values Scale (AVS), and the Asian
American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS). Results indicated that
male privilege serves as a complete mediator of values acculturation to Asian culture
and attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor, while male privilege serves as
a partial mediator of values acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of
responsibility to the female victim. Additionally, values acculturation to Asian
culture was the most relevant predictor of attitudes towards domestic violence in
three domains, while attitudes towards domestic violence were the most salient
predictors of attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. Results suggested
x
the importance of differentiating between behavioral acculturation and values
acculturation when assessing Asian Americans’ attitudes towards domestic violence.
Results also indicated that a particular value of salience (e.g., male privilege) may
serve as the mechanism by which adherence to traditional Asian cultural values
influences attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. Implications for
theory, research, and practice were discussed.
1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
History of the “Battered Women’s Movement”
Violence between intimate partners is an “old” phenomenon that did not
begin to receive true recognition until the advent of the second women’s movement
in the 1960’s (Davidson, 1978; Straus, 1992). Up until the second women’s
movement, the term “domestic violence” typically referred to physical abuse
inflicted upon a child by his/her parent. However, the women’s movement served as
a force in expanding public understanding to include violence committed between
intimate partners in the definition of the term. From this increased understanding
grew increased resources, which initially included hotlines for victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault. In 1971, Erin Pizzey opened the first shelter for abused
wives in England (Pagelow, 1992). Appropriately, just as women in the United
States had gained inspiration for their first women’s movement from the women of
England in the 1800’s, the opening of the shelter in England in 1971 inspired women
in the United States to open the first shelter for abused wives in the United States in
1972 (Baumgardner & Richards, 2000).
When Pizzey (1974) followed the opening of her shelter for battered women
with the first published book chronicling their experiences, the popular press began
to take interest in wife abuse as a legitimate social problem. This interest extended
to social scientists and researchers who had previously limited domestic violence
research to child abuse. In 1976, Straus suggested that the lack of previous research
2
that addressed violence committed by husbands against their wives was most
probably due to the “implicit, unrecognized” social norms that permitted husbands to
hit their wives. In the wake of Pizzey’s (1974) book and other social forces, the
literature on spousal abuse burgeoned, and researchers reached several conclusions.
First, they became aware of the striking gap in the literature regarding this
phenomenon. They realized that the causes of spousal abuse and appropriate
prevention education and intervention could not be determined without more
thorough methods, both in assessment and in research, to increase their
understanding of this problem (Hudson & McIntosh, 1981). Second, they noted the
difficulty of receiving accurate information regarding the phenomenon due to the
social stigma of discussing this “taboo” topic (Gelles, 1978). Overall, researchers
acknowledged that understanding spousal abuse was a vital part of understanding
family functioning and the impact of social forces on family functioning (Gelles,
1978).
Domestic Violence in the United States: Do the Numbers Represent All Women?
Since the 1980’s the domestic violence literature has increased exponentially.
From this growing body of literature, researchers have established definitions of
domestic violence and determined various risk factors for domestic violence. The
term “domestic violence” refers to “a pattern of coercive behaviors, including
physical, psychological, and/or sexual violence between husbands and wives” (Yick,
2001, p. 546). In this study, the terms “domestic violence,” “spousal abuse,” “wife
abuse,” and “intimate partner violence” will be used interchangeably.
3
Currently, an estimated 1.5 to three million women in the United States
report being victims of domestic violence at the hands of their husbands and
boyfriends (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2006). Since many women are
assaulted multiple times by one perpetrator, this increases the estimates to
approximately 5.9 million physical assaults committed against women in the United
States every year (Maitri, 2006). According to the National Institute of Justice
(2000), while women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds are vulnerable to intimate
partner violence, women of color tend to underreport their experiences. Of all
groups, Asian American women have the lowest rate of reporting intimate partner
violence (National Institute of Justice, 2000), although information gleaned through
various community and government agencies indicates that domestic violence is a
significant problem within the Asian American community (Kim & Sung, 2000;
Lum, 1998). Because of the tendency for Asian American women to underreport
domestic violence, it has traditionally been viewed as a virtually nonexistent
occurrence in this community. As a result, services geared towards Asian American
domestic violence victims, while growing, are sparse; and literature addressing
domestic violence in the Asian American community reflects only a paucity of
research.
Characteristics of Asian Americans in the United States
The lack of research on domestic violence in Asian American communities is
surprising given that Asian Americans comprise one of the fastest growing ethnic
minority groups in the United States. Since the passage of the Immigration Reform
4
Act of 1965, the growth of the Asian American population in the U.S. has been
exponential (Fong, 1998; Takaki, 1998; Uba, 1994). U.S. Census data indicate that
from 1980 to 1990, the Asian American population grew by 99 percent while the
total U.S. population increased by only 10 percent (Frey, 1991); and from 1990 to
2000, the population of Asian Americans who identified as “Asian only” increased
by 48 percent while the total U.S. population grew only 13 percent (United States
Census Bureau, 1990). Currently, Asian Americans comprise 4.5 percent of the U.S.
population, and 61 percent of Asian Americans are foreign-born (United States
Census Bureau, 2000). In reality, the term “Asian Americans” describes individuals
from over 25 different Asian countries, with vastly different histories, cultural
experiences, and reasons for migration to the United States (Takaki, 1998). As such,
the term “Asian American” is used in this study primarily for the sake of
convenience and is used in the sense that it emphasizes the similarities in values
between different Asian American ethnic groups, rather than identical experiences of
migration or acculturation.
Barriers to Investigating Domestic Violence in the Asian American Community
Interestingly, in spite of their growing numbers in the U.S., the potential
needs of this group have been neglected in much of the mental health research,
particularly in the realm of domestic violence (Ho, 1990; Yoshihama, 1999). In
explaining the lack of empirical research addressing domestic violence in the Asian
American community, Thomas (2000) implicates the “model minority” stereotype.
With the rapid growth of the Asian and Pacific Islander population in the United
5
States, there has been a concurrent development of the image of this population as a
homogeneous “model minority,” which has few, if any, mental health or social
service needs (Bhattacharya, 1998; Ja & Aoki, 1993). Along with the model
minority image, the perception of homogeneity across Asian American groups has
contributed to a lack of domestic violence research addressing the potential
differences that exist between various Asian American ethnic groups, although as
noted previously the term “Asian American” actually refers to individuals from over
25 different countries (Uba, 1994).
Besides the model minority image, researchers have also implicated
traditionally-used avenues of information gathering for the lack of understanding and
awareness about domestic violence in the Asian American community. According to
Ho (1990) and Thomas (2000), information regarding domestic violence is often
collected via social service and government agencies. However, previous research
has shown that, in general, Asian Americans under-utilize mental health and social
service agencies (Sue, Fujino, Hu, Takeuchi, & Zane, 1991). Additionally, studies
that have addressed the issue of help-seeking for domestic violence in particular,
have found that Asian American and other immigrant communities are particularly
reticent about seeking help for intimate partner violence (Segal, 2000; Wachholz &
Miedema, 2000).
Factors that impede Asian American women from seeking help may be
experienced by many immigrants, and Abraham (2000) has coined the impact of
these factors the “invisible wall of isolation” surrounding abused immigrant women.
6
These factors include language barriers, lack of social support networks, cultural
value differences, fear of threat to migration status, fear of deportation (in the case of
illegal immigrants and temporary resident aliens), and lack of knowledge regarding
community resources (Abraham, 2000; Ho, 1990; Thomas, 2000; Jang, Lee, &
Morello-Frosch, 1991). In addition, lack of faith in government agencies due to
experiences of social and institutional forms of racism may contribute to the
reticence of Asian American women in seeking help for domestic violence
(Abraham, 2000; Jang et al., 1991). If the “invisible wall of isolation” deters Asian
Americans from seeking help for domestic violence situations, the assessment of
actual prevalence of Asian American domestic violence utilizing information from
government and social service agencies may vastly underestimate actual rates (Ho,
1990; Thomas, 2000). Furthermore, the “invisible wall of isolation” may contribute
to difficulty on the part of researchers and service providers in gaining a deeper
understanding of the phenomenon of domestic violence in the Asian American
community.
Existing Evidence of Asian American Domestic Violence
In spite of the belief that Asian Americans may have difficulty accessing help
from social service, community, and government agencies, with the growth of the
Asian American population in the United States, there has also been the birth of a
small number of grass roots organizations developed to assess and meet the needs of
particular Asian American ethnic groups (Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on
Domestic Violence, 2005). The development of these organizations has led to an
7
increased awareness of the potential struggles of Asian American women, and
information from these sources has provided evidence for the existence of spousal
abuse within the Asian American community. For example, according to Tan
(1997), from 1994 to 1996, more than 10 percent of domestic violence fatalities in
Massachusetts involved Asian American victims, although Asian Americans only
comprised 2.4 percent of the state’s population during this time period. In addition,
Rimonte (1989) discusses a domestic violence shelter for Asian American women in
Los Angeles that served 3,000 women between 1978 and 1985. It is interesting to
note, however, that both Rimonte (1989) and Tan (1997) expressed concern that
these figures vastly underrepresented the actual prevalence of domestic violence in
Asian American families. Tan’s (1997) figures represented abuse that led to
fatalities, while Rimonte’s (1989) figures represented individuals who reported
severe cases of abuse. As such, both researchers expressed a concern that less severe
cases of abuse may not have been represented in their numbers.
In addition to information gleaned from community agencies, a handful of
empirical research studies have attempted to assess the prevalence of domestic
violence in the Asian American community (Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-Kim, 1992;
Yick, 2000a; Yoshihama, 1999). Yick (2000a) found that approximately 20 percent
of her Chinese American sample reported minor forms of physical aggression at the
hands of their intimate partners while Song-Kim (1992) found that 60 percent of his
Korean American participants reported being severely battered by their husbands and
boyfriends. Of Song-Kim’s (1992) study, 37 percent of the women reported being
8
battered on a monthly basis while 24 percent reported experiencing violence at least
once a week. In addition, the women in Song-Kim’s (1992) study reported
experiencing the following physical ramifications as a result of being assaulted by
their intimate partners: 70 percent reported sustaining bruises; 10 percent reported
having damaged teeth; 17 percent suffered from concussions; 9 percent had
miscarriages; and 7 percent had been hospitalized at least once.
In addition to Yick (2000a) and Song-Kim (1992), Yoshihama (1999) and
Kim and Sung (2000) have found prevalence data with Japanese American and
Korean American respondents, respectively. Kim and Sung (2000) interviewed
Korean American men and found that 19 percent of the men reported at least one
incident of minor physical altercation (e.g., pushing, grabbing, or slapping) with their
spouses in the previous year. An additional 6.3 percent reported at least one instance
of severe assault (e.g., beating up their spouse or threatening them with various
weapons) in the previous year (Kim & Sung, 2000). Yoshihama (1999) found that
when using assessment strategies developed for European Americans, 80 percent of
her Japanese American respondents met criteria for being abused by their intimate
partners; however, this number dropped to 61 percent when the respondents were
assessed with an instrument that accounted for their cultural beliefs and for their
interpretations of whether they experienced their partners’ behaviors as abusive.
Besides addressing the potential prevalence of domestic violence in the Asian
American community as a whole, survey studies and community data have also
provided information regarding potential differences between various Asian ethnic
9
groups. According to Chun (1990), Korean American males comprised the highest
percentage of all Asian Americans accused of spousal abuse in Los Angeles County
at the time of his survey. In addition, Kim and Sung (2000) discuss information
reported in The Chosun Daily News, a Los Angeles Korean newspaper, which
reported that, according to information obtained from the Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD) in 1992, of all spousal abuse cases reported by Asian
Americans in 1992, approximately half of these cases involved Korean American
families. According to Kim and Sung (2000), the number of Korean American
spousal abuse cases reported to the LAPD increased by 10 percent from 1991 to
1992. There have not been any empirical studies to date that have systematically
examined the potential differences in the prevalence of spousal abuse between
different Asian American ethnic groups, perhaps because the various negative
consequences associated with reporting abuse may deter individuals from doing so.
As can be seen, evidence exists to support the occurrence of domestic
violence in various Asian American communities (Kim & Sung; Rimonte, 1989;
Song-Kim, 1992; Tan, 1997; Yick, 2000a; Yoshihama, 1999). Not only does this
evidence provide information regarding the prevalence of domestic violence, it also
provides information regarding potential Asian American ethnic group differences
(Chun, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000). Considering the possibility that actual prevalence
of spousal abuse in the Asian American population in general and in specific Asian
American ethnic groups in particular is difficult to assess, alternative methods with
less threatening potential consequences for reporting may be important in examining
10
domestic violence in this community. One alternative method has been to examine
attitudes towards domestic violence rather than asking individuals to disclose actual
incidents of abuse (prevalence) or their own experiences with abuse (Yick, 2000a,
2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshioka, DiNoia, & Ullah, 2001).
Working Past the Stigma: Using Attitudes towards Domestic Violence to
Understand Asian American Intimate Partner Violence
Although obtaining information regarding the actual prevalence of domestic
violence in the Asian American community has been somewhat difficult, the existing
data supports the view that domestic violence is a significant problem in Asian
American communities (Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-Kim, 1992; Yick, 2000a;
Yoshihama, 1999). Due to the difficulty with assessing both the prevalence of
domestic violence and the needs of Asian American domestic violence victims,
researchers have begun to develop more indirect methods of assessing the needs of
Asian American communities (Yick, 2000a, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert,
1997; Yoshioka et al., 2001). These methods have included examining attitudes
towards domestic violence rather than asking individuals to disclose actual personal
experiences with domestic violence. Previous studies examining Asian Americans’
attitudes towards domestic violence have found that Asian Americans endorse more
tolerant views of spousal abuse and other forms of intimate partner violence,
particularly if they adhere to more traditional Asian values (Mori, Bernat, Glenn,
Selle, and Zarate, 1995; Yick, 2000a, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997;
Yoshioka, Dang, Shewmangal, Chan, & Tan, 2000; Yoshioka et al., 2001). The
11
findings of these studies suggest a link between attitudes towards domestic violence
and Asian cultural values, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter II.
Because of the various barriers associated with examining Asian Americans’
actual domestic violence experiences, this study will seek to further understanding
about domestic violence in Asian American communities via assessing participants’
attitudes towards domestic violence. Attitudes that condone the use of domestic
violence are defined as, “Those beliefs that support a man’s right to use physical
and/or emotional force with a female intimate partner and support the use of violence
in specific situations” (Yoshioka et al., 2000, p. 7). One quantitative study has
examined the link between attitudes towards domestic violence and prevalence of
domestic violence in the Asian American community, and findings from this study
suggested that more tolerant attitudes were associated with adherence to traditional
Asian values and with increased experiences of intimate partner violence (Yick,
2000a). Although the quantitative literature has been limited, a number of
qualitative studies with Asian Americans have reported findings in which
participants from several Asian American ethnic groups shared their belief in the
strong connection between adherence to traditional Asian cultural values, more
tolerant attitudes towards domestic violence, and increased prevalence of domestic
violence (Ho, 1990; Lee, 2003; Yoshihama, 1999, 2000; Yoshioka et al. 2000;
Yoshioka et al., 2001; Xu, Campbell, & Zhu, 2001). In support of the literature with
Asian Americans, previous literature with non-Asian American samples has strongly
supported that attitudes condoning intimate partner violence are predictive of actual
12
battering behavior (Berkel, Vandiver, & Bahner, 2004; Delsol & Margolin, 2004;
Moore & Stuart, 2005; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward & Tritt, 2003; Wolfe, Wekerle,
Scott, Straatman, & Grasley, 2004).
While every individual who endorses attitudes that condone domestic
violence will not necessarily commit violence, Finn (1986) asserts that intimate
partner violence can only occur in environments in which it is supported and in
which men are afforded the right to control their intimate partners. As such,
understanding domestic violence attitudes is a vital part of understanding the needs
of Asian American domestic violence victims (Yoshioka et al., 2000).
According to Yoshioka et al.:
Understanding how people think about domestic violence can help us to
understand the roots of violence, to what extent individuals find violence
appropriate in given situations, and to what extent individuals think domestic
violence is a personal problem rather than a community problem. If we can
identify the extent to which Asian communities see domestic violence as a
problem, we can better target education, prevention, and treatment services to
those who are in the greatest need. (p. 8)

Thus, while domestic violence attitudes are not absolute predictors of battering
behavior, understanding attitudes is a critical part of understanding the needs of
communities and of developing appropriate clinical intervention.
Various researchers have used the link between attitudes condoning violence
in Asian American communities to develop theories regarding Asian American
domestic violence (Crites, 1991; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Lum, 1998; Rhee,
1997; Song-Kim, 1992; Sorenson, 1996; Yoshihama, 1999, 2000; Yoshioka et al.,
2001). These theories have rested upon the view of domestic violence as part of a
13
value system that endorses patriarchal ideology and domestic violence as a means of
coping with the impact of migration (Crites, 1991; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000;
Lum, 1998; Rhee, 1997; Song-Kim, 1992; Sorenson, 1996; Yoshihama, 1999, 2000;
Yoshioka et al., 2001). The next sections will provide an overview of theories
regarding Asian American domestic violence.
Theoretical Framework of the Study
Asian Values as a Contributor to Domestic Violence
Feminist theories suggest that domestic violence arises out of a patriarchal
system, which supports male domination over women (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).
According to feminist theory, violence towards women serves to maintain and
perpetuate male domination over women. Several studies suggest that spousal abuse
is common in patriarchal countries, such as Asian countries (Bui, 2003; Bui &
Morash, 1999; Kozu, 1999; Levinson, 1989; Song, 1996; Xu et al., 2001). Asian
groups (such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) that comprise the samples generally
used in empirical research studies in the U.S. share a foundation in Confucian-based
ideology (Fong, 1998; Kozu, 1999). Confucian-based ideology sets forth a hierarchy
to which family members are expected to conform in order to fulfill their roles and
obligations within the family. Within this hierarchy, the young are subordinate to the
old and females are subordinate to males (Chan & Leong, 1994; Kozu, 1999). Thus,
Confucian tradition confers a superior status to males. This superior status is
reflected in a saying derived from Confucius’ doctrine of three obediences for
women. This saying reminds women that in youth, daughters must obey their
14
fathers; in adulthood, wives must obey their husbands; and in old age, widows must
obey their eldest sons (Hsu, 1967; Shon & Ja, 1982).
Several researchers have found support for the relationship between
adherence to values associated with patriarchal ideology and domestic violence
among Asian Americans (Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Yick, 2000a). Additionally,
researchers have found that Asian values of collectivism (Bui, 2003; Ho, 1990; Lum,
1998; Rhee, 1997; Sorenson, 1996) and preserving the honor of the family (Bui,
2003; Ho, 1990; Lum, 1998; Thomas, 2000) influence methods of coping and help-
seeking patterns of Asian American domestic violence victims. These studies will be
discussed in further detail in Chapter II.
Although Asian values have been linked to the occurrence of domestic
violence and coping behaviors in Asian American families, few studies have
systematically examined the actual relationships between adherence to Asian cultural
values, the occurrence of domestic violence, attitudes towards domestic violence,
and other factors that may influence help-seeking in the Asian American community
(Bui, 2003; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Lum, 1998; Rhee, 1997; Sorenson, 1996;
Yick, 2000a; Yoshioka et al., 2001). Nor have previous studies examined the
potential mechanisms by which Asian cultural values may impact domestic violence
attitudes in this community. The current study will address some of these gaps in
Asian American domestic violence literature.

15
Acculturative Stress as a Contributor to Domestic Violence
Crites (1991), Ho (1990), Kim and Sung (2000), Rhee (1997), Song-Kim
(1992), and Sorenson (1996) agree that the various stressors associated with the
migration process may contribute to domestic violence within Asian American
families. These stressors may include discrimination (Kim & Sung, 2000), language
difficulties (Rhee, 1997), employment difficulties (Hsu, Davies, & Hansen, 2004;
Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-Kim, 1992), financial difficulties (Rhee, 1997), and
changes in traditional family roles (Chan & Leong, 1994; Ho, 1990). The interaction
of these stressors may contribute to the development of violence in the home (Kim &
Sung, 2000). In addition, separation from traditional extended support networks
available in the home country may remove an informal source of intervention if
abuse does begin to occur (Ho, 1990; Kibria, 1990; Sorenson, 1996).
In support of the theory that acculturative stress contributes to the prevalence
of domestic violence in Asian American families, Kim and Sung (2000) found that
those Korean American couples who reported an increased number of stressors upon
migrating to the United States also reported an increased frequency and severity of
intimate partner violence. Kim and Sung also found that increased length of
residence in the United States was negatively related to levels of stress and rates of
violence, suggesting that violence decreased with the diminishment of migration
stressors and the “successful” adaptation of the family to U.S. culture. In addition to
Kim and Sung, Song-Kim (1992) found that 75 percent of the Korean American
women interviewed in his study reported that the greatest frequency and severity of
16
spousal abuse occurred within the first three to five years of migrating to the United
States. Song-Kim suggested that this may indicate violence in response to
acculturative stressors and the impact of these stressors on traditional family
relationships.
Upon arrival in the United States, many Asian American males confront
difficulties in obtaining jobs that are commensurate with their level of education or
training (Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Rhee, 1997). Lack of language proficiency
and lack of appropriate or transferable skills to the American labor market often
results in the downward social mobility of the Asian American male (Kim & Sung,
2000; Rhee, 1997). Driven by economic need, many Asian American males take
jobs as unskilled laborers, which results in long hours away from their families
(Chan & Leong, 1994; Rhee, 1997). This absence from the home may compromise a
husband’s ability to serve as the traditional leader of the family (Chan & Leong,
1994). In addition, the Asian American husband’s difficulty finding a job or his low
wages may necessitate that his wife find employment (Crites, 1991; Ho, 1990). His
wife’s sudden earning power may also challenge his traditional role as the leader of
the family. In order to re-assert his position as the leader of his family, the Asian
American male may resort to physical violence.
In summary, acculturative stress has been linked to the occurrence of spousal
abuse in the Asian American community (Chan & Leong, 1994; Crites, 1991; Dinh
et al., 1994; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Rhee, 1997; Song-Kim, 1992). Studies
have supported the theory that increased stressors upon migration to the United
17
States may contribute to both the frequency and severity of intimate partner violence
in Asian American families (Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-Kim, 1992). Studies have
also supported the theory that the adaptation required to negotiate migration
“successfully” may contribute to shifts in traditional family roles, such that the father
perceives a threat to his relative power in the home and re-asserts his power via
physical violence (Chan & Leong, 1994; Dinh et al., 1994; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung,
2000). Thus, studies suggest that the desire to maintain a family system that is
reflective of patriarchal ideology contributes to the prevalence of domestic violence
in Asian American communities; however, few studies have examined the
relationships between Asian cultural values, patriarchal ideology (male privilege),
and domestic violence. Understanding the relationships between these variables is
vital in understanding the etiology of Asian American domestic violence and
culturally sensitive programs for prevention, education, and intervention in different
Asian American communities.
Acculturation and Domestic Violence: Are They Related?
Given the potential influence of cultural adaptation on the prevalence of
domestic violence in the Asian American community, systematically examining the
relationship between acculturation and spousal abuse may serve as a relevant tool in
better understanding Asian American intimate partner violence (Ho, 1990; Song-
Kim, 1992; Yick, 2000a, 2000b). Acculturation refers to the process by which
individuals and families who move from one culture to another experience a change
in values and behavior upon coming into contact with the host culture (Olmedo,
18
1979; Ponterotto, Baluch, & Carielli, 1998). As families move from the native
culture to the host culture, they undergo changes that affect their functioning
(Graves, 1967). Several theories that address the process of acculturation have been
developed, and they will be discussed further in Chapter II.
As discussed in the previous section, studies suggest that the introduction to
Western cultural values may “threaten” traditional family roles and contribute to
domestic violence (Dinh et al., 1994). Although studies have shown that
acculturation plays a significant role in Asian American family functioning (Chung,
2001; Lee, Choe, Kim, & Ngo, 2000), only a handful of studies have examined the
relationship between acculturation and domestic violence (Yick, 2000a, 2000b; Yick
& Agbayani-Siewert, 1997). Two of these studies examined the relationship
between acculturation and attitudes towards domestic violence (Yick, 2000b; Yick &
Agbayani-Siewert, 1997) while the remaining study examined the relationship
between acculturation and prevalence of domestic violence (Yick, 2000a). Although
on the surface their findings appeared to be mixed, upon further examination of the
methods and the results all the studies indicated a link between adherence to
traditional Asian cultural values and increased tolerance of domestic violence as well
as increased prevalence of domestic violence (Yick, 2000a, 2000b; Yick &
Agbayani-Siewert, 1997). The findings of these studies will be discussed in further
detail in Chapter II.

19
Significance of the Study
The present study is a step towards increasing the understanding of domestic
violence in the Asian American community. Specifically, this study will examine
the relationships between adherence to traditional Asian values, attitudes towards
domestic violence, and attributions of responsibility for domestic violence.
Attribution of responsibility for domestic violence will be included in this study due
to the potential influence that blame has on help-seeking behavior (Hsu et al., 2004).
This study will present a specific model for the process by which adherence to Asian
values influences attribution of responsibility for domestic violence to a male
aggressor or to a female victim. This study will also examine the relationship
between acculturation and attitudes towards domestic violence. Acculturation will
be measured in three dimensions: values acculturation to Asian culture, behavioral
acculturation to Asian culture, and behavioral acculturation to American culture.
Attitudes towards domestic violence will also be measured in three domains: the
belief that male privilege serves as a justification for domestic violence, the belief
that women should endure battering behavior, and the belief that domestic violence
is justified when one perceives provocation on the part of the female victim.
This study seeks to answer three major research questions: First, do attitudes
towards domestic violence (e.g., male privilege as a justification for domestic
violence) mediate the relationship between acculturation and attribution of
responsibility for domestic violence? Second, does acculturation predict attitudes
towards domestic violence? And third, do acculturation and attitudes towards
20
domestic violence predict attribution of responsibility for domestic violence?
Chapter II will include a discussion of the relevant literature that addresses
acculturation, attitudes towards domestic violence, and attribution for domestic
violence in the Asian American community. Chapter III will present the
methodology used in this study, participant characteristics, and psychometric
properties of the instruments used to measure acculturation, attitudes towards
domestic violence, and attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. Chapter
IV will provide results of the analyses used to address the research questions of this
study. Chapter IV will also include data regarding preliminary analyses and
interrelationships of the variables. Chapter V will discuss the results of the study,
the implications of the results for theory and clinical practice, the limitations of the
study, and future directions.
21
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
In spite of the rapid growth of the Asian American community in the United
States, a relatively small number of empirical studies have systematically addressed
the mental health needs of different Asian American ethnic communities. An area
that has received particularly little attention has been that of domestic violence in
Asian American intimate partner relationships, which is surprising given that
evidence from community surveys suggests that the prevalence of domestic violence
has reached as high as 41 to 61 percent in a number of communities comprised of
Asian American women (Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence,
2005). Adherence to Asian cultural values such as patriarchal ideology (Bui, 2003;
Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Lum, 1998; Rhee, 1997; Sorenson, 1996; Yick,
2000a; Yoshioka et al., 2001), experiences of acculturative stress (Chan & Leong,
1994; Crites, 1991; Dinh et al., 1994; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Rhee, 1997;
Song-Kim, 1992; Sorenson, 1996), and the process of acculturation (Yick, 2000a,
2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997) have been linked to the occurrence of
intimate partner violence in Asian American communities. However, few studies
have systematically addressed the processes by which these factors may influence
domestic violence in Asian American intimate partner violence.
This study seeks to increase understanding of the relationships between
acculturation, attitudes towards domestic violence, and attribution of responsibility
for domestic violence. Since attitudes towards domestic violence and attribution of
22
responsibility for domestic violence play a role in help-seeking behavior,
understanding how adherence to Asian American culture influences these factors is
vital in providing appropriate intervention and prevention education (Bui, 2003;
Thomas, 2000). This chapter will provide an overview of the literature pertaining to
acculturation as a predictor of domestic violence and acculturation as a predictor of
attitudes towards domestic violence, particularly in Asian American communities.
This chapter will also provide an overview of the literature pertaining to specific
values of salience that have been found to contribute to attribution of responsibility
for domestic violence. Finally, this chapter will end by proposing the specific
research questions and hypotheses that will be examined in this study.
Theories of Acculturation
Acculturation refers to the process by which individuals and families who
move from one culture to another experience a change in values and behavior upon
coming into contact with the host culture (Olmedo, 1979; Ponterotto et al., 1998).
As families move from their country of origin to their new host culture, they
frequently experience internal and external changes that affect overall family
functioning (Graves, 1967). Researchers have asserted that acculturative stress, as
well as the process of acculturation itself, may play a role in spousal abuse within the
Asian American community (Ho, 1990; Song-Kim, 1992; Yick, 2000a, 2000b). This
section will first provide a general overview of theory regarding the process of
acculturation. Then, relevant studies that have addressed acculturation in relation to
domestic violence in Asian American communities will be reviewed.
23
Different theories have addressed acculturation and provided models for the
process by which acculturation occurs. Early models conceptualized acculturation as
a unidimensional process in which individuals adopt behavioral and cultural
attributes of their new host culture while they relinquish the corresponding attributes
of their native culture (Szapocznik, Kurtines, & Fernandez, 1980). Padilla (1980),
Ramirez (1984), and Szacopznik and Kurtines (1980) criticized the unidimensional
model of acculturation as limited in its ability to reflect the “true biculturation” of
some individuals. The term “true biculturation” is used to refer to individuals who
highly identify with behavioral and cultural attributes of both their native and host
cultures (Ramirez, 1984). Because early models of acculturation did not reflect the
reality that individuals may identify with both their native and host cultures,
researchers called for more appropriate models to conceptualize the multifaceted
nature of the acculturation process. In response, Oetting and Beauvais (1991)
developed the orthogonal model of acculturation.
According to the orthogonal model of acculturation, the process of
acculturation occurs on two independent (or orthogonal) continua, with one
continuum representing an individual’s adherence to values and behaviors associated
with the new host culture and the other continuum representing adherence to values
and behaviors associated with the native culture (Oetting & Beauvais, 1991). Thus,
the model appropriately addresses the reality that acculturation to the host culture
does not have to come at the expense of adherence to one’s culture of origin.
Although the orthogonal model is an improvement upon past linear models of
24
acculturation, its limitation rests in its conceptualization of acculturation in reference
to the host culture’s values and behaviors without a parallel recognition of the
potential persistent influence of individuals’ indigenous cultural values and
behaviors (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Kim & Abreu, 2001; Segall,
Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1990).
In response to these limitations on the part of the orthogonal model of
acculturation, researchers have begun to revisit a concept coined “enculturation,”
which was first discussed by Herskovits (1948). The term “enculturation” refers to
“the process of socialization to the norm’s of one’s culture, including the values,
ideas, and concepts that are salient for the culture” (Kim & Hong, 2004, p. 15).
Essentially, enculturation refers to the process by which individuals retain values,
behaviors, and cultural identities that are consistent with their indigenous culture
(Kim & Abreu, 2001). The importance of the renewal of this concept rests in its
reflection of both the between-group and within-group differences among Asian
Americans in terms of their adherence to Asian cultural values and behaviors (Kim
& Abreu, 2001). Thus, the concept of enculturation moves beyond orthogonality,
which focuses on acculturation with the host culture as a reference point, and
highlights multidimensionality, which focuses on acculturation with the indigenous
culture as a reference point. In this study, “enculturation” will hereafter be referred
to as values acculturation to Asian culture or as adherence to traditional Asian
values.
25
In addition to the increased recognition of the influence exerted by
individuals’ indigenous cultures, there has been a concurrent growing awareness of
the multidimensionality of acculturation in terms of values and behaviors.
Specifically, researchers have proposed that behavioral acculturation and values
acculturation occur at varying rates, such that behavioral acculturation, which
includes areas such as language acquisition, occurs more quickly than values
acculturation, which includes areas such as attitudes and belief systems (Berry, 1980;
LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980; Szapocznik,
Scopetta, Kurtines, & Aranalde, 1978). The rationale for this difference in rates of
behavioral and values acculturation rests in the assertion that individuals who
migrate to a different culture must acquire that culture’s behaviors in order to
maintain economic survival (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980). Furthermore, the
process of values acculturation to the host culture occurs more slowly because no
extrinsic motivation, such as economic need, exists to force the adoption of the host
culture’s values (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980). In regard to Asian Americans,
research by Kim, Atkinson, and Yang (1999) supports the view of acculturation as a
multidimensional process, with behavioral acculturation to American culture
occurring more quickly than values acculturation to American culture. As stated by
Sodowsky, Kwan, and Pannu (1995) Asian Americans may adopt American
behaviors relatively quickly; however, they may also maintain their Asian values
indefinitely.

26
Acculturation as a Predictor of Domestic Violence Prevalence and Attitudes
Chin (1994) and Song-Kim (1992) have hypothesized that acculturation
serves as an antecedent to domestic violence in Asian American families; however,
only four studies have examined the relationship between acculturation and domestic
violence within the Asian American community (Yick 2000a, 2000b; Yick-
Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshioka et al., 2001). Of these four studies, only two
systematically assessed acculturation, and they used a behavioral measure of
acculturation (Yick, 2000a, 2000b). Yick’s (2000a) study specifically addressed the
relationship between prevalence of domestic violence, gender role beliefs, and
acculturation in a sample of Chinese American couples. While Yick (2000a) found
that gender role beliefs and acculturation did not predict the occurrence of minor
forms of domestic violence within the past 12 months, she did find that more
acculturated Chinese American women were more than twice as likely to report
experiencing severe physical violence from their intimate partners during their
lifetimes.
In two other studies, researchers examined the relationships between
acculturation, gender role beliefs, perceptions of domestic violence, and attitudes
towards domestic violence in the Chinese American community (Yick, 2000b; Yick
& Agbayani-Siewert, 1997). Yick (2000b) found that those Chinese American
participants who endorsed more egalitarian gender role beliefs were also more likely
than their “traditional” counterparts to view various acts as abusive. Specifically,
those individuals who endorsed more egalitarian views regarding the appropriate
27
roles for men and women were more likely than their “traditional” counterparts to
define physical, emotional, and sexual aggression as abusive (Yick, 2000b).
Furthermore, while Yick (2000b) found that her formal measure of acculturation did
not predict Chinese Americans’ attitudes regarding intimate partner violence, she did
find that those Chinese Americans who were older at the time of migration were
more likely than their younger counterparts to endorse the use of physical force in
resolving problems. Other researchers have found that age of migration serves as a
significant indicator of acculturation to culture of origin and host culture (Yoshioka
et al., 2001).
While Yick and Agbayani-Siewert (1997) found that the majority of their
Chinese American participants did not agree with the use of physical force in
intimate partner relationships, they also found that approximately 50 percent of their
participants indicated that domestic violence was justified in cases of defending
oneself and one’s child. They also found that 33 percent of their participants
endorsed the use of physical violence if a husband found out that his wife was having
an affair (Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997). Consistent with Yick (2000b), Yick and
Agbayani-Siewert found that those Chinese Americans who were older at their time
of migration were more likely than their younger counterparts to endorse the use of
physical violence. Additionally, older respondents were less likely than their
younger counterparts to define various aggressive acts as abusive. Finally, the
researchers also found that longer length of residence in the U.S. significantly
predicted less tolerant attitudes towards using physical violence in marriages,
28
suggesting that acculturation to host culture plays a significant role in shaping views
regarding the use of physical violence in intimate relationships.
Although Yoshioka et al. (2001) did not use a systematic measure to assess
acculturation, they are the only researchers to date who have conducted studies
comparing different Asian American ethnic groups using a measure that was
specifically developed to assess Asian Americans’ attitudes towards domestic
violence. In their study, they not only found ethnic differences in attitudes towards
domestic violence in Asian American communities, they also found generational
differences in attitudes. Specifically, they reported finding that Asian Americans
who were older at their time of migration held more tolerant attitudes regarding the
use of physical violence in specific situations. In terms of ethnic differences, they
found that foreign-born Chinese Americans were more likely than U.S.-born Chinese
Americans to endorse the use of physical violence in specific situations; this was not
the case when comparing foreign-born and U.S.-born Asian Americans of Korean
and Cambodian descent.
In summary, the four studies that have examined the relationship between
acculturation and domestic violence in Asian American communities have provided
qualified support for the link between acculturation and domestic violence (Yick,
2000a, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshioka et al., 2001). Of these
four studies, only two have systematically assessed acculturation (Yick, 2000a,
2000b), and on the surface their findings initially appear to be mixed. Yick (2000a,
2000b) found that acculturation did not predict attitudes towards domestic violence,
29
nor did it predict prevalence of minor forms of domestic violence within the most
recent 12-month period prior to interview; however, acculturation did predict severe
forms of domestic violence over the participants’ lifetime. Additionally, older age at
migration, which is considered an indicator of acculturation, significantly predicted
more tolerant views towards domestic violence. This latter finding is consistent with
the other two studies that addressed acculturation (Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997;
Yoshioka et al., 2001).
An examination of the methods and participants in Yick’s (2000a, 2000b)
studies provides suggestions regarding the potential reasons that acculturation did
not predict attitudes towards domestic violence and prevalence of minor forms of
domestic violence in the 12 months prior to participants’ interviews. Both studies
used the Marin and Marin Acculturation Scale to assess acculturation (Marin,
Sabogal, Marin, & Otero-Sabogal, 1987). The Marin and Marin Acculturation Scale,
originally developed for Mexican Americans, only assesses acculturation via
language proficiency. As mentioned previously, acculturation of behaviors, such as
language acquisition, may occur more quickly than acculturation of values
(LaFromboise et al., 1993; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980; Szapocznik et al., 1978).
Thus, the behavioral method used to measure acculturation in Yick’s (2000a, 2000b)
studies may not have accessed the influence of adherence to traditional Asian
cultural values or adoption of mainstream American cultural values on attitudes
towards domestic violence and prevalence of minor forms of violence. This
hypothesis is supported in that length of residence in the U.S. and age of respondents
30
at migration, both considered more adequate markers of cultural assimilation, did
serve as significant predictors of prevalence and attitudes towards intimate partner
violence in all four studies (Yick, 2000a, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997;
Yoshioka et al., 2001). However, this hypothesis is difficult to confirm since none of
the four studies systematically assessed adherence to Asian cultural values or
adoption of American values.
Besides the method used to measure acculturation, Yick’s (2000a) study may
have faced a sampling bias in terms of its assessment of violence in the 12 months
prior to interview. Although acculturation did not predict minor forms of violence in
the past 12 months, acculturation did predict severe forms of intimate partner
violence over participants’ lifetimes. Previous literature has found that the most
frequent and severe abuse of migrant women often occurs within the first three to
five years of migration and significantly decreases with time (Kim & Sung, 2000;
Song-Kim, 1992). Participants in Yick’s study had been in the United States for an
average of 12 years. As such, their lack of experience with domestic violence in the
most recent 12 month period is consistent with previous literature indicating that the
most frequent and severe abuse occurs within the first three to fives years of
migration. However, Yick’s consistency with the prior literature primarily serves to
highlight that the limited time period about which her participants were questioned
(the most recent 12 months) may not have served as an adequate barometer for the
frequency or severity of lifetime experiences of violence. Deeper understanding of
these lifetime experiences is particularly relevant given that acculturated participants
31
were more than twice as likely than their less acculturated counterparts to report their
past experiences of violence as having been severe.
How Do Asian Values Influence Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence?
Although previous studies have suggested that a relationship exists between
acculturation and domestic violence (Yick, 2000a, 2000b, Yick & Agbayani-Siewert,
1997; Yoshioka et al., 2001), few studies have systematically examined this
relationship in depth. Specifically, few studies to date have examined the underlying
cultural values that influence Asian Americans’ attitudes towards domestic violence
and battering behavior. Nor have previous studies examined the process by which
adherence to traditional Asian cultural values influences attitudes towards domestic
violence. However, several studies with Asian Americans have reported findings
that suggest particular values of salience that may contribute to Asian Americans’
attitudes towards intimate partner violence (Chin, 1994; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung,
2000; Song-Kim, 1992; Xu et al., 2001; Yamawaki & Tschanz, 2005; Yick, 2000b;
Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshihama, 2000; Yoshioka et al., 2000; Yoshioka
et al., 2001). These researchers have specifically identified Asian values of
collectivism, preservation of family honor, and patriarchal ideology as values that
influence attitudes towards domestic violence and attitudes towards domestic
violence victims among Asian Americans. This section will provide an overview of
how these values may influence Asian American domestic violence.

32
The Asian Value of Collectivism
In regard to the value of collectivism, Ho (1990) discusses how Asian
individuals are instilled with values that emphasize the role of individuals as
representatives of their families. The needs of the family supersede the needs of the
individual such that family members sacrifice individual needs for the needs of the
family (or any other significant group members). In addition, the importance placed
on group needs encourages individual members to maintain harmony (Ho, 1990).
Lum (1998) suggests that an Asian American woman in a battering relationship may
focus on the daily struggles of her partner and the over-riding needs of her family
rather than on the costs she experiences as one who is battered.
Both Bui (2003) and Sorenson (1996) have conducted studies in which the
coping behaviors of Asian American battered women were addressed. In support of
the theory that collectivism plays a role in the coping process of battered Asian
American women, the Vietnamese American women in Bui’s study cited the value
of collectivism as one reason they did not seek help or resources from outsiders as a
method of intervention. One woman in particular stated, “Under our Vietnamese
family traditions, husband and wife should protect each other, and family matters
should be solved by family members, not outsiders” (Bui, 2003, p. 232). Consistent
with Bui’s findings, Sorenson found that the Asian American women in her study
stated that keeping their families together served as the primary reason for staying
with an abusive husband. However, the Asian American women in Sorenson’s study
also reported that fear for the safety of their children served as a primary motivator in
33
encouraging them to leave their abusive husbands. Thus, collectivist values of
caring for their families may encourage Asian American women to remain with their
husbands (to preserve family unity) or to leave them (if they fear for their children).
Preservation of Family Honor and Protection from “Losing Face”
Connected with Asian values of collectivism is the concept of “loss of face”
(Ho, 1990, p. 134; Lum, 1998). According to Ho (1990) and Thomas (2000), “loss
of face” implies that the individual’s entire family may lose respect or standing
within the community if one member of the family is shamed. Thus, the desire to
maintain family honor and ultimately protect the well-being of the collective may
prevent Asian American women from seeking help for abuse (Bui, 2003; Thomas,
2000). Indeed in Ho’s (1990) focus group study, she found that while many of her
Chinese American female respondents felt that leaving home temporarily in order to
avoid abuse was acceptable, they also felt that they should not seek help from
outsiders when leaving home. The primary reason they cited was that seeking help
from outsiders could bring shame upon the family. In relation to this, both Bui
(2003) and Lum (1998) found that some Asian American women fear “losing face”
and thus protect abusive husbands from public scrutiny in order to protect
themselves as an extension of the collective. From Lum’s perspective, the
underlying reason for hiding abuse rests in the notion that exposing an abusive
husband might also be experienced as exposing one’s own internal flaws as a
member of the group (or family) to which the husband belongs.

34
Patriarchal Ideology and the Role of Male Privilege
In addition to collectivism and protecting the family from “loss of face,”
researchers have specifically identified patriarchal ideology, which includes
traditional gender role ideology and male privilege, as an Asian cultural value system
that influences attitudes towards domestic violence and attitudes towards domestic
violence victims. Although patriarchal ideology is a salient part of many Asian
ethnic cultures, patriarchal ideology, traditional gender role norms, and male
privilege are not exclusive to Asian cultures (Bui, 2003; Bui & Morash, 1999; Kozu,
1999; Levinson, 1989; Moore & Stuart, 2005; Song, 1996; Xu et al., 2001). In fact,
a vast amount of literature with non-Asian American samples has supported the
relationship between patriarchal belief systems and attitudes towards domestic
violence, as well as attitudes towards domestic violence victims and prevalence of
actual battering behavior (for review see Moore & Stuart, 2005; Schwartz, Waldo, &
Daniel, 2005; Stith et al., 2003; Wolfe et al., 2004). According to Moore and Stuart:
Approval of violence comprises one component of a patriarchal ideology in
which violence against women is condoned. Thus a positive attitude toward
violence may reflect men’s ascription to patriarchal norms regarding
appropriate male behavior and relate to an increased likelihood of violence.
(p. 53)

Ultimately, previous researchers have clearly established a strong link between
tolerance in attitudes towards intimate partner violence and patriarchal ideology,
which includes beliefs about male privilege and adherence to traditional gender roles
(Levant, Hirsch, Celentano, Cozza, Hill, & MacEachern, 1992; Sugarman & Frankel,
1996).
35
Although researchers have established the relationship between patriarchal
ideology and attitudes towards domestic violence in non-Asian American samples,
relatively few empirical studies have systematically examined the complex
relationships between adherence to Asian cultural values, patriarchal ideology, and
attitudes towards domestic violence using Asian American samples. This is
surprising given the suggestion that patriarchal ideology serves as a salient value of
Asian cultures in predicting attitudes towards domestic violence and attitudes
towards domestic violence victims (Chin, 1994; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-
Kim, 1992; Xu et al., 2001; Yamawaki & Tschanz, 2005; Yick, 2000b; Yick &
Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshihama, 2000; Yoshioka et al., 2000; Yoshioka et al.,
2001). The remainder of this section will focus on the literature supporting the
relationship between patriarchal ideology and domestic violence in the Asian
American community (Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-Kim, 1992; Yamawaki,
& Tschanz, 2005; Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshihama, 2000;
Yoshioka et al., 2000; Yoshioka et al., 2001). This section will end with a critique of
the previous literature in this area of Asian American research.
A proportion of the studies that have reported findings that indicate a
relationship between attitudes towards domestic violence and patriarchal ideology
have been qualitative in nature (Ho, 1990; Yoshioka et al., 2000; Yoshihama, 2000).
Ho (1990) conducted a series of focus groups with Asian Americans from four
different Asian ethnic groups: Laotian, Khmer, Vietnamese, and Chinese. She
found that all of the ethnic groups endorsed their belief in male privilege and their
36
adherence to patriarchal ideology; however, they differed in the degree to which they
did so. For example, the Chinese Americans in Ho’s study reported that male
domination in the home was exerted via indirect cues and subtle messages while
Vietnamese Americans reported that male domination in the home was more openly
expressed. Furthermore, Laotian American and Khmer American participants
described the wife’s role in the home as even more subservient than that described
by Chinese American and Vietnamese American participants.
Parallel to the above findings, Ho (1990) found that Chinese Americans
reported the least tolerant views towards domestic violence, while Vietnamese
American, Laotian American, and Khmer American participants shared more
tolerant views towards domestic violence. One of the participants from the latter
three groups shared that, “…physical abuse of a wife once in a while is
okay…physical violence in spousal relationships is common and tolerated” (p. 142).
Laotian American and Khmer American women went on to report that women from
their communities often did not leave abusive partners due to traditional values
dictating that women should “stay home and keep quiet” (p. 143) while maintaining
subservience to their husbands.
Like Ho (1990), Yoshioka et al. (2000) conducted a focus group study with
several different Asian American ethnic groups. Improving upon Ho’s methodology,
Yoshioka et al. (2000) included a quantitative portion, specifically an instrument to
measure domestic violence attitudes in three domains. Although the majority of
Yoshioka et al.’s (2000) participants did not strongly endorse the use of violence in
37
intimate relationships, consistent with Ho, Yoshiaka et al. (2000) found that the
Southeast Asian Americans (Cambodian and Vietnamese) in their study held more
tolerant attitudes towards domestic violence than did the East Asian Americans
(Chinese and Korean) and the South Asian Americans in their study. They also
found that participants from every single ethnic group represented reported that
patriarchal ideology, in the form of male privilege and male domination, serves as a
value of salience that contributes to family dynamics in the following ways:
acceptance of the dominance of the husband and of his role as the leader of the
family; pressure to preserve the honor of the family and keep family problems
private; social pressure to maintain an intact family; acceptance of a husband’s
abusive behavior and/or his infidelity; and the tendency for Asian American women
to feel responsible for abusive situations.
Unlike Ho (1990) and Yoshioka et al. (2000), Yoshihama (2000) conducted a
focus group study with only one Asian American ethnic group: Japanese Americans.
Yoshihama’s study also differed from the other two qualitative studies in that
Yoshihama specifically included generational status of participants, which ranged
from first generation to fourth generation American. Yoshihama focused her study
on the sociocultural influences her participants perceived as influencing their
experiences of domestic violence. Specifically, Yoshihama asked her participants
whether they believed that Japanese cultural values influenced their experiences with
domestic violence and if so how they did. Strikingly across generations, the
participants in Yoshihama’s study identified several Asian values as influential in
38
coping with intimate partner violence. They included the following: expectation to
avoid conflict and accept blame for negative situations; value of endurance in hard
times; acceptance of male domination over women; maintenance of an intact family
and emphasis on collective family welfare; preservation of family honor, which
includes keeping family problems private; maintenance of Asian values across
generations; and culture as a source of strength in hard times.
Interestingly, Yoshihama’s (2000) participants specifically identified these
influences as being part of their Japanese heritage. They also discussed the
endurance of Asian values over time. As one fourth generation participant stated:
I think that being Japanese does influence the way I dealt with it [intimate
partner violence] even though I’m 4
th
generation. It still influences me on
how women are supposed to act…It’s important to sacrifice myself and my
own happiness. Especially in a relationship with a man, it’s your role to give
in to him. (p. 219)

Participants agreed that regardless of generational status, they frequently felt a
certain internal pressure to abide by Asian values. In regard to male dominance,
again, across generations, the participants in Yoshihama’s study shared their
internalization of patriarchal ideology and gender role expectations for Japanese
women. The following statements reflect the endurance of this internalization across
generations:
Japanese society is a male-dominated society. It allows men to behave any
way they want to. Over the years, I’ve learned to conform to a cultural
expectation that wives ought to defer to their husbands. (age 44, Japan-born,
p. 216)

39
Being a woman means a lot of self sacrifice. Whatever bothers him was
more important. Like my mom. She sacrifices for us—very Japanese. (age
22, 2
nd
generation U.S.-born, p. 217)

Being a Japanese woman, I sometimes feel a sense of subservience. I think
being Japanese makes me believe that a woman has a certain role in a
relationship, and a man a certain role in a relationship. As a result, it causes
me to just quietly take the abuse. (age 40, 3
rd
generation U.S. born, p. 216)

Thus, as in other studies, Yoshihama’s study supports the theory that male privilege
serves as a salient Asian cultural value in influencing Asian Americans’ attitudes
towards domestic violence.
In addition to the qualitative literature, quantitative literature has also
supported the relationship between patriarchal ideology and prevalence of domestic
violence (Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-Kim, 1992), as well as attitudes towards
domestic violence (Yamawaki & Tschanz, 2005; Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-
Siewert, 1997; Yoshioka et al., 2001). In his study of Korean American couples,
Song-Kim (1992) found that a significant proportion of the Korean American women
in his study who adhered to traditional gender role norms and patriarchal ideology
were more likely than their less traditional counterparts to experience domestic
violence. Consistent with Song-Kim, Kim and Sung (2000) found that physical
violence perpetrated by the husband upon the wife was more likely in couples that
rated their families as “female dominant” and “male dominant” respectively. In fact,
Kim and Sung found that Korean American couples in their study who reported
being male-dominant and adhering to traditionally prescribed gender roles also
reported experiencing more than four times the rate of domestic violence than their
40
less traditional counterparts. Kim and Sung’s findings suggest that Asian families
that move outside of the traditional male-dominant structure may experience more
violence than families that maintain this structure.
Interestingly, in both Song-Kim (1992) and Kim and Sung’s (2000) studies,
increased migratory stress (e.g., downward occupational mobility of the husband)
increased the likelihood of domestic violence prevalence in Korean American
relationships. Researchers of both Asian and non-Asian American couples have
suggested that this increased prevalence may be related to shifts in traditional family
roles due to acculturative stressors, and the perceived threat these shifts have on the
husband’s masculinity and relative power in the home (Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung,
2000; Moore & Stuart, 2005; Rhee, 1997; Song-Kim, 1992). In support of this view,
Yick (2000a) found that those Chinese American women in her study who were
employed were more likely than their unemployed counterparts to have experienced
minor forms of domestic violence in their lifetimes. Ho also (1990) found that
Laotian women reported more difficulties with their husbands if they were forced to
find employment, and thus alter their traditional family roles. According to Dinh,
Sarason, and Sarason (1994), shifts in family roles due to the employment of the
wife, lack of economic resources, and the introduction of Western cultural values,
contributes to conflict in Asian American family relationships. Researchers using
non-Asian American samples have also asserted that when the relative power of a
man is challenged, he may react to this perceived threat with violent behavior
(Moore & Stuart, 2005).
41
In addition to the prevalence literature, previous quantitative literature has
supported the relationship between attitudes towards domestic violence and
patriarchal ideology (Yamawaki & Tschanz, 2005; Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-
Siewert, 1997; Yoshioka et al., 2001). For example, those Japanese Americans in
Yamawaki and Tschanz’s (2005) study who adhered to more traditional gender role
beliefs were more likely than their less traditional counterparts to minimize sexual
assault in intimate partner relationships. Consistent with Yamawaki and Tschanz,
Yick (2000b) found that Chinese Americans who held more traditional gender role
beliefs also reported more tolerant views when defining intimate partner violence.
Additionally, Yick (2000b) and Yick and Agbayani-Siewert (1997) found that those
Chinese Americans who were older at the time of migration, suggesting increased
adherence to patriarchal ideology, were more tolerant in their attitudes towards
domestic violence than their younger counterparts. Specifically, older Chinese
Americans in these studies expressed more tolerance for the use of domestic violence
in situations in which the female victim caused her husband to “lose face” in front of
others.
Finally, in examining the relationship between patriarchal ideology and
attitudes towards domestic violence, Yoshioka et al. (2001) included four different
Asian American ethnic groups: Chinese American, Cambodian American, Korean
American, and Vietnamese American. Consistent with other studies, Yoshioka et al.
found that those participants who were foreign-born, suggesting an adherence to
Asian cultural values, were more likely to endorse attitudes supporting male
42
privilege as a justification for domestic violence. They were also more likely to
endorse the belief that women should endure battering behavior and that violence
was justified if a man perceived his intimate partner as provoking him in some way.
Furthermore, consistent with previous studies (Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayni-
Siewert, 1997), Yoshioka et al. found that those individuals who were older at their
time of migration, again suggesting their adherence to Asian values, were more
likely to endorse the use of violence in situations in which female victims were
perceived to have caused their partners to “lose face” in front of others.
In summary, both qualitative and quantitative studies have supported the
relationship between patriarchal ideology and attitudes towards domestic violence
(Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-Kim, 1992; Yamawaki, & Tschanz, 2005;
Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshihama, 2000; Yoshioka et al.,
2000; Yoshioka et al., 2001). However, few of these studies have systematically
assessed acculturation, and none of them have assessed acculturation from an
orthogonal perspective. Rather, these studies have either ignored the role of
acculturation altogether (Ho, 1990; Yamawaki & Tschanz, 2005) or relied on
behavioral assessments of acculturation, length of time in the U.S., and age at the
time of migration as markers of cultural assimilation (Kim & Sung, 2000; Song-Kim,
1992; Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997; Yoshihama, 2000; Yoshioka et
al., 2000; Yoshioka et al., 2001). Furthermore, previous studies have neglected to
systematically assess the relationship between acculturation and specific values of
43
salience (e.g., male privilege) in assessing attitudes towards domestic violence and
towards domestic violence victims in the Asian American community.
Acculturation, Male Privilege, and Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence Victims:
Who is to Blame?
Besides general attitudes towards domestic violence, previous research with
non-Asian American samples has established the relationship between male privilege
and attitudes towards domestic violence victims and perpetrators (McHugh & Frieze,
1997; Moore & Stuart, 2005; Silverman & Williamson, 1997; Sugarman & Frankel,
1996; Willis, Hallinan, & Melby, 1996). Specifically, this previous literature has
established that gender role attitudes supportive of male privilege can lead to the
tendency for individuals to minimize the seriousness of intimate partner violence and
for individuals to blame the victim (Willis et al., 1996). A handful of studies using
Asian American samples have also suggested a potential link between patriarchal
ideology and attitudes towards domestic violence victims (Yamawaki & Tschanz,
2005; Yick, 2000b; Yoshihama, 2000; Yoshioka et al., 2000). For example, those
Japanese American participants in Yamawaki and Tschanz’s (2005) study who
endorsed more traditional gender role beliefs, were also more likely to blame female
victims for intimate partner sexual assault. In addition, in her study with Chinese
Americans (Yick, 2000b) found that those Chinese Americans with more traditional
gender role beliefs were more likely to blame domestic violence victims and to
believe in domestic violence myths (e.g., the victim did something to deserve the
abuse). Finally, Korean American participants in Yoshioka et al.’s (2000) focus
44
group study shared their perspective that adherence to traditional Korean values of
male privilege frequently led to the tendency for Korean American women to blame
themselves for domestic violence. Ultimately, Korean American participants in this
study shared that self-blame prevented female victims from seeking help for abusive
situations.
Consistent with Yoshioka et al. (2000), Yoshihama’s (2000) qualitative study
with Japanese American women reported the tendency of Japanese American women
to blame themselves for domestic violence. Yoshihama’s participants also linked
their self-blame to traditional Asian values. As one participant stated:
My initial reaction was to take responsibility. I thought I should have been
doing something or shouldn’t have done something. Japanese upbringing
teaches you not to question things so much. Instead of questioning, I just
took responsibility for what happened. (p. 215)

Yoshihama’s findings were striking in that Japanese American women across four
generations reported their tendency to take responsibility for the abuse. Furthermore,
they attributed their self-blame to Japanese cultural values.
In summary, previous studies with non-Asian American samples have
suggested a relationship between patriarchal ideology and attitudes towards domestic
violence victims (McHugh & Frieze, 1997; Moore & Stuart, 2005; Silverman &
Williamson, 1997; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996; Willis et al., 1996. Hsu et al., 2004).
Four studies with Asian American participants have provided some support for the
relationship between adherence to traditional Asian cultural values, patriarchal
ideology, and attitudes towards domestic violence victims (Yamawaki & Tschanz,
45
2005; Yick, 2000b; Yoshihama, 2000; Yoshioka et al., 2000). However, as with the
research regarding general attitudes towards domestic violence in the Asian
American community, none of these studies have systematically assessed
acculturation from an orthogonal perspective, nor have they systematically examined
the process by which Asian cultural values (e.g., male privilege) may influence
attitudes towards domestic violence victims.
Summary
Research indicates that adherence to traditional Asian cultural values
influences attitudes towards domestic violence; however, few studies have
systematically examined the relationship between acculturation and general attitudes
towards domestic violence. Of the studies that have addressed acculturation in
relation to general attitudes towards domestic violence, none of these studies have
assessed acculturation using an orthogonal model. These studies have primarily
relied on behavioral assessments of acculturation and rudimentary values
assessments of acculturation (e.g., length of time in the United States) in order to
determine the influence of Asian cultural values on attitudes towards domestic
violence. However, research indicates that behavioral acculturation and values
acculturation occur at different rates. As such, assessment of behavioral
acculturation may not adequately capture the influence of adherence to traditional
Asian values on attitudes towards domestic violence. Additionally, while length of
time in the U.S. serves as a marker of cultural assimilation, it is by no means a
comprehensive assessment of values acculturation. As a result, this method of
46
cultural assessment is not adequate in fully capturing an individual’s adherence to
particular values systems.
In addition to general attitudes towards domestic violence, studies suggest
that Asian values may influence attitudes towards domestic violence victims and
perpetrators. Specifically, previous literature has established that patriarchal
ideology, which includes male privilege and traditional gender role beliefs, serves as
a particular value of salience that contributes to general attitudes towards domestic
violence and attitudes towards domestic violence victims. However, no studies to
date have systematically examined the relationships between adherence to traditional
Asian values, male privilege, and attitudes towards domestic violence victims.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to examine the mechanism by which
adherence to traditional Asian values influences attitudes towards domestic violence
victims and perpetrators. Specifically, this study will examine whether attitudes
regarding male privilege as a justification for domestic violence serves as a mediator
of the relationship between values acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of
responsibility for domestic violence. Secondarily, this study will examine the
complex relationships between acculturation, attitudes towards domestic violence,
and attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. This study will move one
step beyond previous literature in assessing acculturation from an orthogonal
perspective; and then use this orthogonal assessment of acculturation in examining
general attitudes towards domestic violence. This study will also expand upon
47
previous literature in teasing apart the underlying mechanism by which acculturation
influences attribution of responsibility for domestic violence situations.
Research Questions:
This study will examine the following questions and hypotheses:
Research Question 1:
Will participants’ behavioral acculturation to American culture, behavioral
acculturation to Asian culture, and values acculturation to Asian culture predict their
attitudes towards domestic violence?
Hypothesis 1: Values acculturation to Asian culture will predict attitudes
towards domestic violence.
Research Question 2:
Will participants’ behavioral acculturation to American culture, behavioral
acculturation to Asian culture, values acculturation to Asian culture, and attitudes
towards domestic violence predict their attributions of responsibility for domestic
violence situations?
Hypothesis 2: Attitudes towards domestic violence will predict attributions
of responsibility for domestic violence.

48
Research Question 3:
Does male privilege, which is a specific value of salience for Asian cultures,
mediate the relationship between values acculturation of respondents (to Asian
culture) and attributions of responsibility for domestic violence?
Hypothesis 3: Male privilege will mediate the relationship between values
acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of responsibility for domestic violence.
49
CHAPTER III
Method
This chapter will review the methods utilized to conduct this study. First,
relevant demographic characteristics of the participants will be presented. Second,
the instruments used to collect data will be described and examined. Finally, the
recruitment of participants and the data collection process will be explained.
Participants
Participants were recruited via the internet February 2005 through May 2005
on various email listserves. The anonymous, self-report surveys were designed to be
accessed through a website link that was included in the study announcement and
were designed to be completed online. Of the 776 surveys that were completed, 29
could not be included in this study because of technical difficulty with the survey’s
website administrator. An additional 195 surveys could not be included because they
were incomplete. The final sample of 552 participants included 388 female
participants, which made up 70.3% of the sample, and 164 male participants, which
made up 29.7% of the sample. The age range of the participants (n = 552) was
between 18 to 61 years, and the overall mean age was 27.17 years (M = 27.17, SD =
6.37). The ethnic backgrounds of the participants in this study were the following:
Chinese, including Taiwanese, (n = 119; 21.6%); European American (n = 144;
26.1%); Korean (n = 80; 14.5%); Filipino (n = 35; 6.3%); Multiracial Asian (n = 25;
4.5%); Multiethnic Asian (n = 20; 3.6%); Southeast Asian (n = 18; 3.3%); Japanese
50
(n = 17; 3.1%); Asian Indian (n = 16, 2.9%); and Other, which included non-White
and non-Asian participants, (n = 78; 14.1%).
Of the 330 Asian American participants included in this study, 233 were
female, which made up 70.6% of the Asian American sample, while 97 were male,
which made up 29.4% of the Asian American sample. The majority of the Asian
American participants were born in the United States (n = 203; 61.5%) and second
generation (n = 174; 52.7%), while the non-U.S. born, Asian American participants
comprised 38.5% (n =127) of the Asian American sample. When including all
participants (n = 552), the majority of the overall sample of participants in this study
identified as second generation or above (n = 398; 72.1 %) and reported an average
number of years in the United States of 23.54 years (SD = 8.50).
The majority of participants reported being single/never married (n = 394;
71.4 %), while 145 participants (26.3%) reported being married and 13 (2.4%)
participants reported being divorced/separated/widowed. One hundred, thirty-seven
(24.8%) of the participants in this study reported an average family income
exceeding $100,000 per year. The rest of the respondents were more evenly
distributed among the other family income levels. The average number of years of
education post high school for this sample was 5.77 years (SD = 2.83).
Instruments
The survey instrument consisted of five sections: 1) Demographic and
background information (Appendix B); 2) The Revised Attitudes Toward Wife
Abuse Scale (RAWA, Appendix C); 3) Vignette: Who is Responsible for the
51
Violence? (Vignette, Appendix D); 4) The Asian Values Scale (AVS, Appendix E);
5) the Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS, Appendix
F).
Demographic and Background Information. The following demographic
information was collected at the beginning of the questionnaire: age, sex, marital
status, education level, nationality, ethnicity, generation level, length of time in the
U.S., socioeconomic status of family, annual family income, and religious affiliation.
In addition to demographic information, participants were also asked about their
current and/or past history of experience in an abusive relationship.
The Revised Attitudes Toward Wife Abuse Scale (RAWA). Yoshioka, DiNoia,
and Ullah’s (2001) Revised Attitudes Toward Wife Abuse Scale (RAWA) was used
to measure respondents’ attitudes towards domestic violence. The RAWA was
chosen for this study because of its original development specifically for use with
various Asian American populations and the fact that this study’s target population
included Asian Americans from different Asian ethnic groups. The RAWA was
originally developed by combining items from the Attitudes Toward Wife Abuse
Scale (Briere, 1987) and the Likelihood of Battering Scale (Briere, 1987) as well as
by adding items that addressed situations that might involve the justified use of
violence. The added items were based upon suggestions from professionals working
with Asian American domestic violence victims. The RAWA was developed and
tested with 507 Chinese American, Korean American, Vietnamese American, and
Cambodian American participants. As stated previously, because of the RAWA’s
52
specific development for use with Asian American populations and the particular
target population of this study, it was used to measure attitudes towards domestic
violence.
The RAWA consists of the following three subscales: (1) Situation-Specific
Approval of Violence (SSA; comprised of six items), which assesses participants’
attitudes towards a male aggressor’s use of physical force in response to his female
partner’s (perceived) negative behavior; (2) Endorsement of Male Privilege (MP;
comprised of four items), which assesses participants’ endorsement of the belief that
male privilege serves as a justification for domestic violence; and (3) Perceived Lack
of Alternatives for Battered Women (PLA; comprised of four items), which assesses
participants’ endorsement of the belief that women should endure battering behavior
at the hands of their intimate partners. The four Male Privilege (MP) and the four
Perceived Lack of Alternatives (PLA) items are answered on a 6-point Likert type
scale, and scores on both of the subscales are a sum of the responses. Higher MP
scores indicate more tolerant views of male privilege as a justification for domestic
violence, and higher PLA scores indicate endorsement of the belief that women
should endure battering behaviors from their intimate partners. The Situation-
Specific Approval of Violence (SSA) items are rated on a 4-point Likert type scale,
and items on this subscale are also a sum of the responses. As with MP and PLA
scores, higher SSA scores indicate more tolerant views of the use of physical force in
domestic violence situations that involve specific conflict around the female
partner’s (perceived) negative behavior towards the male aggressor.
53
Internal reliability for the three RAWA subscales are as follows: the
Situation-Specific Approval of Violence alpha coefficient is .88, the Male Privilege
alpha coefficient is .68, and Perceived Lack of Alternatives alpha coefficient is. 64.
In a subsequent study using a sample of 335 Chinese American and Cambodian
American participants, Yoshioka and DiNoia (M.R. Yoshioka, personal
communication, September, 7, 2002) found corresponding alpha coefficients of .89,
.70, and .66, respectively. For this study, the internal reliability for SSA (coefficient
alpha = .80), for MP (coefficient alpha = .75), and for PLA (coefficient alpha = .65)
were comparable to the ones obtained in Yoshioka et al.’s and Yoshioka and
DiNoia’s studies. Yoshioka et al. have yet to establish convergent or divergent
validity for this measure.
Vignette: Who is Responsible for the Violence? A variation of vignettes used
in Aramburu and Leigh’s (1991) study involving attributions for domestic violence
was developed for this study. Using Aramburu and Leigh’s study as a model,
participants in this study were asked to read the vignette and then answer 18
questions using a 7-point Likert type scale. Of the 18 questions, 7 questions assessed
respondents’ attribution of responsibility to Mark (Att to M) for the domestic
violence situation depicted in the vignette while 6 questions assessed respondents’
attribution of responsibility to Sonia (Att to S). The score for Attribution of
Responsibility to Mark (Att to M) was then determined by summing the responses to
the 7 questions pertaining to Mark, with higher scores indicating more attribution of
responsibility to Mark. Likewise, the score for Attribution of Responsibility to Sonia
54
(Att to S) was determined by summing the responses to the 6 questions pertaining to
Sonia, with higher scores indicating more attribution of responsibility to Sonia.
Aramburu and Leigh’s (1991) study did not include internal reliability data.
In this study, internal reliability for Att to M was alpha coefficient = .80 and internal
reliability for Att to S was alpha coefficient = .83.
Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS). Chung,
Kim, and Abreu’s (2004) Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale
(AAMAS) was used to measure behavioral acculturation in this study. The AAMAS
was selected for two reasons. First, the AAMAS was developed using a sample of
Asian Americans from different ethnic groups; thus, contributing to its utility with
Asian Americans as a whole, as well as its utility with various Asian ethnic groups.
Second, the AAMAS’s development based upon an orthogonal model of
acculturation allowed for the assessment of acculturation from a multidimensional
perspective. The multidimensional nature of the AAMAS allowed for the
assessment of acculturation from two different cultural orientations in this study:
one’s own Asian American cultural identification and one’s European American
cultural identification.
Although this study used two scales of cultural orientation assessed by the
AAMAS, the entire measure actually consists of three scales of cultural orientation:
AAMAS-Asian American (AAMAS-AA), AAMAS-European American (AAMAS-
EA), and AAMAS-Culture of Origin (AAMAS-CO). AAMAS-AA assesses
acculturation to Asian ethnic groups that are different from the respondent’s own
55
Asian ethnic group while AAAMAS-CO assesses acculturation to one’s own Asian
ethnic group. AAMAS-EA assesses acculturation to European American culture.
Only AAMAS-CO and AAMAS-EA were used to assess behavioral acculturation in
this study.
The AAMAS-CO and the AAMAS-EA each consist of 15 items, which are
answered on a 6-point Likert type scale. Scores are obtained by calculating the
average of the 15 items in each scale, with higher scores indicating a stronger
identification with the cultural orientation being measured. For the AAMAS-CO,
alpha coefficients ranged from .87 to .91; and for the AAMAS-EA, alpha
coefficients ranged from .76 to .81. Test-retest reliability over a two week period
was .89 for AAMAS-CO and .78 for AAMAS-EA. Criterion-related validity was
established through a negative correlation between the AAMAS scales and
participants’ generational status. Convergent validity was established by calculating
the correlations between the AAMAS scales and scales from two other acculturation
measures: the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA; Suinn,
Rickard-Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987) and the Cultural Identification Scale (CIS,
Oetting & Beauvais, 1991). Divergent validity was established by comparing the
AAMAS scales to the Intergenerational Conflict Inventory (ICI; Chung, 2001). For
this study, the internal reliability for the AAMAS-CO scale (coefficient alpha = .89)
and the AAMAS-EA scale (coefficient alpha = .84) were both comparable to the
ones obtained in Chung et al.’s (2004) study.
56
Asian Values Scale (AVS). Since the AAMAS is largely based upon the SL-
ASIA, which is a more behavioral measure of acculturation, Kim, Atkinson, and
Yang’s (1999) Asian Values Scale (AVS) was used to measure adherence to Asian
values. The AVS consists of 36 items and utilizes a 7-point Likert type scale. A
total score is calculated by adding the responses to the 36 items. Internal reliability
for the AVS ranges from coefficient alphas of .81 to .82 for the entire scale. Test-
retest reliability over a two week period was .83. Convergent and divergent validity
for the AVS were established through factor analysis and by comparing the AVS to
the Individualism-Collectivism Scale (Triandis, 1995) and the SL-ASIA (Suinn et
al., 1987). For this study, the internal reliability (coefficient alpha = .88) was
comparable to the internal reliability obtained in Kim et al.’s (1999) study.
Procedure
Participants were recruited via the internet February 2004 through May 2004
on various email listservs. Announcements making requests for participation in the
study were posted on the following: listservs to undergraduate and graduate students
in various universities across the United States; listservs for Asian Americans;
websites that targeted Asian Americans; websites that did not target Asian
Americans; internet web mailings (to undergraduate and graduate students) in one
southern California university. In addition, various professors at universities across
the United States were asked to send the email announcement for the study to their
students. Finally, participants in the study were encouraged to forward the
announcement to their friends and acquaintances. While the announcement for the
57
study noted that the researchers were particularly interested in recruiting Asian
American participants, the announcement also indicated that participants from
various racial/ethnic backgrounds were encouraged to complete the survey.
As an incentive to potential participants, announcements offered the
opportunity for individuals to enter a raffle for one of four $50 gift cards to
amazon.com regardless of whether they completed the survey. Individuals emailed
their raffle entry information to an email address created specifically for the purpose
of this study. All identifying information was kept separate from the survey data to
ensure confidentiality.
Individuals who decided to participate in the study selected a link embedded
in the original email announcement. This link directed individuals to the survey,
which was created on a secure website that was designed for the purpose of
collecting confidential information. Upon selecting the embedded link, participants
were directed to a description of the study and an informed consent form (Appendix
A). Participants were informed that their participation in the study was confidential,
anonymous, and voluntary, and they were given the contact information for the
primary and secondary researchers in the event that they had any questions about the
study. Individuals who were eligible and consented to participate in the study were
asked to indicate their consent by pressing an option button on the electronic consent
form that allowed them to continue on to the survey. Participants were informed that
they could discontinue the survey at any time. All collected data was transferred
from the secure website to a secure computer that was password-protected.
58
CHAPTER IV
Results
This chapter will present the results of the study, beginning with descriptive
data of the major variables, followed by results of preliminary analyses on group
differences in acculturation, history of abuse, and attitudes toward domestic violence.
The results of the preliminary analyses were then used to make subsequent decisions
about whether major research questions should be examined separately for the
different Asian American ethnic groups or combined as one overall group. Finally,
the results of multiple regression analyses and tests of the mediator models for the
three research questions will be presented.
Intercorrelations
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of all the measured
variables of the total sample size of 552 participants are presented in Table 4.1. The
means and standard deviations for the major variables by gender and ethnicity are
presented in Table 4.2. In terms of gender patterns, overall, males reported
significantly more tolerant endorsement of situation-specific approval of violence
than females. Males also reported a more tolerant view of the role of male privilege,
and they were more likely than females to believe that women should endure
battering behavior from their intimate partners. Lastly, females were more likely
than males to attribute responsibility for domestic violence to Mark, and males were
more likely than females to attribute responsibility for domestic violence to Sonia.
59
In terms of racial group differences between Asian-American participants and
non-Asian American participants, results from the Pearson product correlation
suggested that Asian American participants reported more tolerant endorsement of
situation-specific approval of violence, more tolerant views of the role of male
privilege, and they were more likely to believe that women should endure battering
behavior from their intimate partners. Non-Asian American participants were more
likely to attribute the responsibility for domestic violence to Mark than were Asian
American participants, and Asian American participants were more likely to attribute
the responsibility for domestic violence to Sonia.
In terms of within group differences along the dimensions of values and
behavioral acculturation among Asian Americans, those participants that scored
higher on the Asian Values Scale (indicating endorsement of more traditional Asian
values) and also reported higher behavioral acculturation to Asian culture reported
more tolerant endorsement of situation-specific approval of violence and more
tolerant views of the role of male privilege. However, only those who reported high
Asian Values scores were more likely to believe that women should endure battering
behavior from their intimate partners. There was no significant relationship between
behavioral acculturation to Asian culture and the belief that women should endure
battering behaviors from their intimate partners. In addition, only those who
reported high Asian Values scores, and not behavioral acculturation to Asian culture,
were more likely to attribute the responsibility for domestic violence to Sonia.
60
Results also indicated that there was a significant inverse relationship
between values acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of responsibility to
Mark, as well as a significant inverse relationship between behavioral acculturation
to Asian culture and attribution of responsibility to Mark. These findings suggested
that those who reported low Asian Values scores and low behavioral acculturation to
Asian culture scores were more likely to attribute the responsibility for domestic
violence to Mark. Additionally, those Asian American participants who reported
higher behavioral acculturation to American culture reported lower tolerant
endorsements of situation-specific approval of violence. They also attributed more
responsibility of domestic violence to Mark. However, behavioral acculturation to
American culture was not related to endorsements of male privilege or perceived
lack of alternatives.
Next, two preliminary analyses were performed to examine possible group
differences among the Asian American participants.

Table 4.1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
SD
1. Sex -.02 .06 .01 -.11 .00 -.01 -.16*** -.34*** -.22*** .11* -.09*
2. Yrs in US 23.54 8.50 --- .36*** -.27*** -.22*** -.38*** .31*** -.17*** -.08 -.09* .16*** -.06
3. Gen 2.57 1.49 --- -.66*** -.26*** -.28*** .13* -.11* -.14** -.10* .14** -.21***
4. Asian --- .279*** .10 -.06 .13** .21*** .12** -.24*** .28***
5. AVS 3.69 1.49 --- .32*** -.09 .31*** .40*** .23*** -.23*** .24***
6. AM-CO 4.13 .87 --- .03 .17** .11* .09 -.22*** .08
7. AM-EA 4.80 .63 --- -.11* .05 -.03 .14** -.01
8. SSA 1.15 .33 --- .38*** .28*** -.28*** .15***
9. MP 1.77 .85 --- .39*** -.32*** .30***
10. PLA 1.76 .69 --- -.32*** .19***
11. Att to M 5.13 .63 --- -.49***
12. Att to S 4.15 1.22 ---
Note. All scores are scaled scores. 1: Sex (1 = Male, 2 = Female); 2: Yrs in US; 3: Gen = Generational Status; 4: Asian (0 = non-Asian, 1 =
Asian); 5: AVS = Asian Values Scale; 6: AM-CO = AAMAS Culture of Origin Behavioral Acculturation; 7: AM-EA = AAMAS European
American Behavioral Acculturation; 8: SSA = Situation-Specific Approval of Violence; 9: MP = Male Privilege; 10: PLA = Perceived Lack of
Alternatives; 11: Att to M = Attribution to Mark; 12: Att to S = Attribution to Sonia.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
61
Table 4.2
Means and Standard Deviations for Major Variables by Gender and Ethnicity
SSA MP PLA AVS AAMAS-CO AAMAS-EA
Attribution to
Mark
Attribution to
Sonia
Race/ Ethnic
Group
N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Chinese
American
119 1.20 .39 1.82 1.82 .81 1.82 3.86 .57 4.30 .77 4.68 .65 4.93 .64 4.46 1.50
Korean
American
80 1.12 .23 2.23 2.23 .98 2.23 3.92 .62 4.11 .77 4.89 .57 5.10 .61 4.50 1.18
Filipino
American
35 1.28 .37 1.85 1.85 1.00 1.85 3.85 .63 4.42 .81 4.78 .60 4.98 .77 4.34 1.08
European
American
126 1.08 .23 1.47 1.47 .63 1.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.33 .52 3.70 1.16
Gender N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Male 159 1.23 .39 2.22 .97 1.99 .85 3.80 .62 4.13 .93 8.81 .62 5.03 .63 4.31 1.27
Female 368 1.12 .29 1.58 .71 1.67 .58 3.64 .69 4.13 .85 4.80 .64 5.17 .62 4.08 1.19
Note. All scores are scaled scores. SSA = Situation-Specific Approval of Violence, MP = Male Privilege, PLA = Perceived Lack of Alternatives, AVS =
Asian Values Scale, AAMAS-CO = AAMAS Culture of Origin Behavioral Acculturation, AAMAS-EA = AAMAS European American Behavioral
Acculturation.
62
63
Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary analyses were conducted to decide whether major research
questions should be examined separately for the different Asian American ethnic
groups or if the Asian American groups should be combined into one overall group.
As stated previously, the term “Asian American” refers to individuals from over 25
different countries, with unique cultural systems, migration histories, and migration
experiences (Uba, 1994). In addition, previous studies (Ho, 1990; Yoshioka et al.,
2001) have reported differences in attitudes towards domestic violence among Asian
American participants from different Asian ethnic backgrounds. As such, the
following preliminary analyses were conducted in order to determine whether the
Asian American participants in this study reported significant differences that might
impact the analyses of the major research questions. Additionally, because of the
potential differences between the Asian American participants and European
American participants, European American participants were included in the relevant
preliminary analyses.
Asian American Group Differences in Acculturation
In the preliminary analyses, to ensure enough power in the subsequent
analyses only those Asian American ethnic groups with more than 30 participants
were included. They were the following groups: Chinese Americans (including
Taiwanese Americans, hereafter referred to as “Chinese Americans”), n = 119,
Korean Americans, n = 80, and Filipino Americans, n = 35. One hundred, forty-four
64
(144) European American participants were included in the second preliminary
analysis in examining group differences for all major variables.
Two hundred, thirty-four (234) Asian American participants were included in
the first preliminary analysis to investigate whether there were ethnic group
differences in values acculturation to Asian culture, behavioral acculturation to Asian
culture, and behavioral acculturation to American culture. A one-way MANOVA
was conducted. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in values
acculturation to Asian culture, behavioral acculturation to Asian culture, and
behavioral acculturation to American culture among the three Asian American ethnic
groups under examination (Chinese Americans, Korean Americans, and Filipino
Americans), [Wilks’ 9 = .95, F (6, 458) = 2.03, p = .06]. Therefore, in subsequent
analyses examining the relationship between acculturation and attitudes towards
domestic violence, the individual ethnic groups were combined into one overall
Asian American group.
Racial and Ethnic Group Differences for All Major Variables
In examining the group differences among the European American group and
the three Asian American groups in their attitudes towards domestic violence, the
study also examined the effects of participants’ history of abuse to evaluate whether
it would need to be controlled for in the subsequent analyses. A 4 (3 Asian ethnic
groups and one White group) by 2 (history of abuse) by 3 (Situation Specific
Approval of Violence, Male Privilege, Perceived Lack of Alternatives) MANOVA
was performed. Results (see Table 4.3 and Table 4.4) indicated that, while there
65
were no significant differences in attitudes toward domestic violence based on
history of abuse, [Wilks’ 9 = .99, F (3, 268) = 1.69, p = .17], there were group
differences in attitudes towards domestic violence, [Wilks’ 9 = .87, F (9, 896) = 6.04,
p = .00].
Table 4.3
Group Differences Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance for Attitudes towards Domestic
Violence with Significant Post Hoc Tests
Source 9 F df P Significant post hoc test
History of Abuse .99 1.69 3 .17
Race/Ethnic Group .87 6.04 9 .00
SSA 4.98 3 .00
Chinese American,
Filipino American
> European American
MP 12.33 3 .00
Chinese American,
Korean American
> European American
Korean American > Chinese American
PLA 6.16 3 .00 Chinese American > European American
Note. SSA: Situation Specific Approval of Violence, MP: Male Privilege, PLA: Perceived Lack of
Alternatives

Table 4.4
Means and Standard Deviations for Attitudes towards Domestic Violence
SSA MP PLA
Race/ Ethnic Group N M SD M SD M SD
Chinese American 119 1.20 .39 1.82 .81 1.90 .71
Korean American 80 1.12 .23 2.23 .98 1.86 .78
Filipino American 35 1.28 .37 1.85 1.00 2.00 .74
European American 144 1.08 .23 1.47 .63 1.66 .58
Note. All scores are scaled scores. SSA: Situation Specific Approval of Violence, MP: Male
Privilege, PLA: Perceived Lack of Alternatives

Dunnett T3 post hoc tests with significant Levene’s tests of equality results
further revealed that, while there were no ethnic differences among the three Asian
American groups in their endorsements of situation-specific approval of violence and
perceived lack of alternatives, both Chinese American and Filipino American
66
participants reported higher endorsements of situation-specific approval of
violence than European American participants. Chinese American participants were
also more likely to believe that women should endure battering behavior from their
intimate partners (perceived lack of alternatives) than their European American
counterparts. Regarding tolerant views of the role of male privilege in the use of
physical force in domestic violence situations, Chinese American participants and
Korean American participants reported significantly more tolerant views than their
European American counterparts. Furthermore, Korean American participants
reported even more tolerant views of the role of male privilege in domestic violence
than Chinese American participants.
Due to the lack of significance of history of abuse and within group
differences among the Asian American participants in their values acculturation to
Asian culture, behavioral acculturation to Asian culture, and behavioral acculturation
to American culture, as well as most of their attitudes towards domestic violence, all
the Asian American participants (n = 330) were included in the subsequent analyses
for the main research questions, rather than conducting separate analyses for each
Asian American ethnic group.
67
Research Question 1
Do behavioral acculturation to American culture, behavioral acculturation to Asian
culture, and values acculturation to Asian culture predict Asian Americans’ attitudes
towards domestic violence?
Three separate simultaneous multiple regression analyses were performed for
each subscale of the RAWA (Situation-Specific Approval of Violence [SSA],
Endorsement of Male Privilege [MP], and Perceived Lack of Alternatives for
Battered Women [PLA]) in order to examine the following relationships: Asian
Americans’ behavioral acculturation to American culture and their attitudes towards
domestic violence; Asian Americans’ behavioral acculturation to Asian culture and
their attitudes towards domestic violence; and Asian Americans’ values acculturation
to Asian culture and their attitudes toward domestic violence. Table 4.4 presents the
summary of the regression analyses statistics.
Table 4.5
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for RAWA
Variables R
2
FB SE Z p
Situation-Specific Approval of Violence .12 15.20 .000
Asian Values Acc*** .15 .03 .27 .000
Asian Behavioral Acc* .06 .02 .13 .017
American Behavioral Acc -.04 .03 -.08 .151

Male Privilege .13 16.24 .000
Asian Values Acc*** .48 .08 .34 .000
Asian Behavioral Acc .04 .06 .02 .552
American Behavioral Acc* .15 .08 .10 .049

Perceived Lack of Alternatives .06 6.83 .000
Asian Values Acc*** .25 .07 .22 .000
Asian Behavioral Acc .05 .05 .05 .348
American Behavioral Acc .05 .06 .05 .399
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
68
The results revealed that, across the three different scales measuring
attitudes towards domestic violence, values acculturation to Asian culture was the
one variable that was significant in predicting all three subscales of the RAWA,
Situation-Specific Approval of Violence (SSA), Endorsement of Male Privilege
(MP), and Perceived Lack of Alternatives for Battered Women (PLA). In other
words, those Asian American participants who adhered to more traditional Asian
values, reported more situation-specific approval of violence, had more tolerant
views of the role of male privilege in the use of physical force in domestic violence
situations, and were more likely to believe that women should endure battering
behavior from their intimate partners. In addition, behavioral acculturation to Asian
culture was significant in predicting participants’ situation-specific approval of
violence, and behavioral acculturation to American culture was significant in
predicting participants’ endorsement of the role of male privilege in domestic
violence situations. In other words, those Asian American participants with a higher
degree of behavioral acculturation to Asian culture reported a higher degree of
situation-specific approval of violence, while those with a higher degree of
behavioral acculturation to American culture were more likely to endorse the role of
male privilege in domestic violence situations.
Overall, approximately 12% of the variances in Situation-Specific Approval
of Violence were explained by participants’ values acculturation and behavioral
acculturation to Asian culture, approximately 13 % of the variances in Male
Privilege were explained by participants’ values acculturation to Asian culture and
69
behavioral acculturation to American culture, and approximately 6% of the
variances in Perceived Lack of Alternatives were explained by values acculturation
to Asian culture, which was also the only significant predictor in this domain.
Research Question 2
Do Behavioral Acculturation to American Culture, Behavioral and Values
Acculturation to Asian Culture, and Attitudes towards Domestic Violence predict
Asian Americans’ attributions of responsibility for Domestic Violence Situations?
To examine this research question, two separate simultaneous regression
analyses were run. One regression analysis examined Asian Americans’ attribution
of responsibility for a domestic violence situation to Mark, and the other regression
analysis examined Asian Americans’ attribution of responsibility for the domestic
violence situation to Sonia. Table 4.6 presents the summary of these regression
analyses statistics.
Table 4.6
Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Attribution of Responsibility
Variables R
2
FB SE [ P
Attribution to Mark .22 14.88 .000
Asian Values Acc .02 .36 .02 .741
Asian Behavioral Acc** -.13 .04 -.17 .002
American Behavioral Acc* .12 .05 .11 .027
Situation-Specific Approval** -.35 -.11 -.19 .001
Male Privilege* -.09 .04 -.12 .048
^ Perceived Lack of Alternatives*** -.19 .05 -.20 .000

Attribution to Sonia .10 5.86 .000
Asian Values Acc .17 .10 .09 .122
Asian Behavioral Acc .03 .08 .02 .727
American Behavioral Acc -.05 .10 -.03 .610
Situation-Specific Approval .04 .20 .01 .854
^Male Privilege** .26 .08 .21 .001
Perceived Lack of Alternatives .14 .09 .09 .142
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
70
The results for the entire Asian American sample revealed that, among all
the predictors, the only one that was not significant in predicting one’s likely hood to
attribute responsibility to Mark was participants’ acculturation to Asian values.
Those Asian Americans who reported lower behavioral acculturation to Asian
culture, higher behavioral acculturation to American culture, less situation-specific
approval of violence, less endorsement of the role of male privilege in domestic
violence situations, and less endorsement of the belief that women should endure
battering in their intimate relationships, assigned more attribution of responsibility
for domestic violence situations to Mark. Among all five significant predictors,
perceived lack of alternatives (PLA) had the greatest beta value. This finding
suggested that PLA was the most significant predictor of Asian Americans’
attribution of responsibility to Mark in the domestic violence situation when also
considering participants’ acculturation and attitudes toward domestic violence.
When conducting the analyses separately by gender, the above results held
true for female Asian American respondents; however, the results differed for male
Asian American respondents. For the male Asian American respondents, situation-
specific approval of violence (SSA) was the only significant predictor of attribution
to Mark. Specifically male participants who expressed less endorsement of
situation-specific approval of violence assigned more responsibility to Mark for the
domestic violence situation. This finding suggests that SSA was the most significant
predictor of Asian American males’ attribution of responsibility to Mark when also
considering participants’ acculturation and attitudes towards domestic violence. The
71
potential reasons and implications of the gender differences evidenced in this
analysis will be discussed further in Chapter V.
Interestingly, when examining the relationship between acculturation,
attitudes toward domestic violence, and attribution of responsibility for the domestic
violence situation to Sonia, the only significant predictor was the participants’
likelihood to endorse the role of male privilege in domestic violence situations, with
male privilege accounted for approximately 9% of the variance. Those Asian
American participants who reported a higher degree of endorsement of the role of
male privilege in domestic violence situations attributed more responsibility to Sonia
in this study.
As with attribution to Mark, results for attribution to Sonia held true for
female Asian American participants but differed for male Asian American
participants. For male Asian Americans, perceived lack of alternatives (PLA), and
not male privilege, served as the only predictor of attribution to Sonia. Specifically,
those Asian American males who endorsed the belief that women should endure
battering behavior from their intimate partners also assigned more responsibility for
the domestic violence situation to Sonia. The implications of the gender differences
in this analysis will be discussed further in Chapter V.

72
Research Question 3
Do Attitudes Regarding Male Privilege Mediate the Relationship between
Acculturation to Asian Values and Attribution of Responsibility in Domestic Violence
Situations?
Tests of mediator models were performed to answer this research question
and to examine if the hypothesized model is valid. According to Baron and Kenny
(1986), a variable is defined as a “mediator” when it specifies the mechanism by
which an independent variable (or predictor) influences a dependent variable (or
outcome variable). Figure 4.1 illustrates the relationships among the predictor
(values acculturation to Asian culture), the mediator (endorsement of male
privilege), and the outcome variables (attribution of responsibility for domestic
violence) proposed in this study.
Figure 4.1 Mediation Conceptual Model

Acculturation: AVS
Path c Attribution of
Responsibility for
Domestic Violence
Acculturation: AVS
Attitudes toward DV:
Male Privilege
Path a Path b
Path c’
Attribution of
Responsibility for
Domestic Violence
73
According to MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002),
the most common method for testing mediation in psychological research was
developed by Kenny and his colleagues (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997;
Judd & Kenny, 1981; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). This method stipulates that,
to show a significant mediating relationship, Path a, Path b, and Path c should be
significant. In addition, the difference between Path c and Path c’ (the mediating
effect) should also be significant. The Sobel posthoc test is often performed to test
the significance of the mediating effect.
To test the mediation model, the following two hierarchical multiple
regression analyses were performed: one to test the mediation model for Attribution
of Responsibility to Mark and one to test the mediation model for Attribution of
Responsibility to Sonia. Results of the regression analyses are illustrated in Figures
4.2 and 4.3 (path coefficients are standardized regression coefficients, or ?), as well
as in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7
Summary of Mediation Model Statistics for Direct and Mediated Effects of Endorsement of Male
Privilege in Domestic Violence Situations
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients/
Direct Effect
Mediated
Effect
a sa b Sb B ? c cC
Attribution to Mark
48 07 .18 04 35 .25
-
.19 .11 3.71 000
Attribution to Sonia
48 07 31 07 35 24
.
20 12 .61 000
Note. a = Unstandardized coefficient of path a, from predictor to mediator; sa = standard error of a;
b = Unstandardized coefficient of path b, from mediator to mediator; sb = standard error of b; ?a =
standardized coefficient of path a; ?b = standardized coefficient of path b; ?c = direct effect from
predictor to outcome before mediation, or the standardized coefficient for path c; ?cC = direct effect
from predictor to outcome after mediation, or the standardized coefficient for path cC; SE = standard
error; z = z statistics of mediated effect after Sobel post hoc tests.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

74
Results of the first mediator model analyses revealed that for the overall
Asian American sample examined in this study, attitudes regarding male privilege in
domestic violence situations was found to have significant and complete mediating
effects on the relationship between their acculturation to Asian culture and their
attributions of responsibility to Mark. In other words, without considering the role of
male privilege in their attitudes towards domestic violence, Asian American
participants’ acculturation to Asian values had a significant direct effect on their
attribution of responsibility to Mark. More specifically, those Asian American
participants with lower endorsement of traditional Asian values attributed more
responsibility to Mark in the domestic violence situation. However, when adding
their attitudes regarding male privilege in domestic violence situations, the direct
effects of Asian traditional values were no longer significant. Those who were less
likely to endorse male privilege in domestic violence situations attributed more
responsibility to Mark, and this effect completely mediated the relationship between
Asian traditional values and attribution of responsibility to Mark. The complete
mediating effects of the endorsement of male privilege in domestic violence
situations has great implications in regard to domestic violence intervention and
prevention, which will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

75
Figure 4.2 Mediation Model of Attribution of Responsibility to Mark

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Figure 4.3 Mediation Model of Attribution of Responsibility to Sonia

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Acculturation: AVS
.20*** Attribution of
Responsibility for
Domestic Violence
Acculturation: AVS
Attitudes toward DV:
Male Privilege
.35*** .24***
-.12*
Attribution of
Responsibility to Sonia
Acculturation: AVS
-.19*** Attribution of
Responsibility for
Domestic Violence
Acculturation: AVS
Attitudes toward DV:
Male Privilege
.35*** -.25***
-.11
n.s.
Attribution of
Responsibility to Mark
76
Results for the attribution of responsibility to Sonia were similar to the
results of attribution of responsibility to Mark, in that although the mediation effects
were not complete, they were still significant. Without considering the participants’
attitudes regarding male privilege in domestic violence situations, the Asian
American participants’ traditional Asian values had a significant direct effect on their
attribution of responsibility to Sonia. More specifically, those with more traditional
Asian values attributed more responsibility to Sonia in this study. However, after
considering their attitudes regarding male privilege in domestic violence situations,
the direct effects of their traditional Asian values became less significant. In other
words, their endorsement of male privilege in domestic violence situations had
partial mediating effects on the relationship between traditional Asian values and
attribution of responsibility to Sonia. The implications of this mediating effect will
also be discussed in later chapters.
As with results for Research Question 2, results for the mediator models
proposed in this study differed by gender. When the analyses were conducted
separately by gender, the models held true for Asian American females, with the
mediating effect of male privilege becoming complete in attribution of responsibility
to Sonia, rather than remaining partial as in the results for the overall Asian
American sample. However, when analyses were conducted separately for male
participants, the models no longer held true. When considering male participants,
although the models met the first three criteria for mediation, Sobel post tests
indicated that the mediation effects, or the decrease in the effects of AVS on
77
attribution to Mark and Sonia, respectively, were not significant (Z = -1.4039 <
1.96, Z = 1.95 < 1.96, respectively). These findings suggest that male privilege does
not serve as a significant mediator between values acculturation to Asian culture and
attribution of responsibility for Asian American men. The potential reasons for, and
implications of, the differences in results based on gender will be discussed further in
Chapter V.
78
CHAPTER V
Discussion and Implications
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships between
acculturation, attitudes towards domestic violence, and attributions of responsibility
for domestic violence among Asian Americans. Of particular interest in this study
was determining whether the value of male privilege as a justification for domestic
violence could be considered as a mediating variable in explaining the relationship
between values acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of responsibility for
domestic violence. This chapter will explore the study’s results, its limitations, and
the implications of its findings. In addition, this chapter will offer suggestions
regarding future directions for research in this under-studied aspect of Asian
American mental health.
Discussion of Primary Findings
Discussion of Findings for Mediation Fit for Attribution of Responsibility in
Domestic Violence Situations
The present study hypothesized that attitudes towards domestic violence
would mediate the relationship between values acculturation to Asian culture and
attributions of responsibility for domestic violence. More specifically, the present
study hypothesized that general belief that male privilege serves as a justification for
domestic violence (an attitude towards domestic violence) would serve as a
mechanism through which adherence to traditional Asian cultural values influences
who is held responsible for domestic violence situations. Overall, the findings
79
regarding mediation fit for attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor or to
the female victim in a domestic violence situation supported the main hypothesis.
Results suggested that attitudes regarding male privilege as a justification for
domestic violence serve as the mechanism through which values acculturation to
Asian culture influences attributions of responsibility for domestic violence.
Although this study is unique in systematically investigating the relationships
between cultural values, attitudes towards domestic violence, and attributions of
responsibility for domestic violence among Asian Americans, findings in previous
studies are consistent with the findings of this study (McHugh & Frieze, 1997; Willis
et al., 1996). Interestingly, in this study, while the mediating effect of attitudes
regarding male privilege was complete when considering attribution of responsibility
to the male aggressor, the mediating effect of attitudes regarding male privilege was
partial when considering attribution of responsibility to the female victim. This
difference in attribution based on gender will be discussed in greater detail in the
following sections.
When considering attitudes regarding male privilege as a mediator of values
acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of responsibility to a male aggressor,
the findings supported the main hypothesis. More specifically, in this study less
endorsement of male privilege as a justification for domestic violence led to greater
attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor, and this mediating effect was
complete. This finding suggests that values regarding male privilege as a
justification for domestic violence serve as the mechanism through which adherence
80
to traditional Asian values influences attribution of responsibility to male
aggressors. Other studies using non-Asian American samples have suggested that
when considering male privilege and masculinity, a prevailing norm for men is that it
is acceptable to use violence against women, particularly against women with whom
one is engaged in an intimate relationship (Moore & Stuart, 2005; Sugarman &
Frankel, 1996). Additionally, other researchers have found that gender-role attitudes
supporting male privilege are the most significant predictors of attitudes supporting
the use of violence against women (McHugh & Frieze, 1997).
When considering attitudes regarding male privilege as a mediator of values
acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of responsibility to a female victim, the
findings were consistent with the main hypothesis. Specifically, in this study, more
adherence to traditional Asian values led to greater attribution of responsibility to the
female victim; however, when considering people’s values regarding male privilege
as a justification for domestic violence, the direct effect of traditional Asian values
was less significant. These findings indicate that the relationship between values
acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of responsibility for domestic violence
is partially mediated by the value of male privilege as a justification for domestic
violence, suggesting that the value of male privilege is one mechanism through
which adherence to traditional Asian values influences attribution of responsibility to
female victims.
As found in this study, when considering attribution of responsibility to
female victims, prior studies have found that individuals who endorse gender-role
81
attitudes that support male privilege are more likely to blame the female victim
(Willis et al., 1996). Prior researchers have also reported that many factors play into
people’s attitudes regarding who is “to blame” in domestic violence situations (Stith
et al., 2003). As discovered in Stith et al.’s (2003) meta-analytic review of the
domestic violence literature, the findings of this study, namely that male privilege
serves as a partial mediator, indicate that several factors may contribute to attitudes
regarding attribution of responsibility to female victims of domestic violence.
Overall, the findings indicate that attitudes regarding male privilege as a
justification for domestic violence are the mechanism through which Asian cultural
values influence Asian Americans’ beliefs regarding who is “to blame” for domestic
violence situations. Interestingly, while male privilege served as a complete
mediator when assessing attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor, it served
as a partial mediator when assessing attribution of responsibility to the female
victim. This finding suggests that while male privilege as a justification for domestic
violence may suffice in liberating male aggressors from their responsibility in
domestic violence situations, male privilege alone does not account for the level of
responsibility attributed to female victims.
Discussion of Gender Differences in Mediation Fit
Several explanations may account for the differences in attribution to the
male aggressor and to the female victim. One possible explanation is that
individuals may hold different standards for men versus women, based on societal
expectations, when evaluating their “bad behavior” in domestic violence situations
82
(Stith et al., 2003; Willis et al., 1996). Another explanation may be that the
various factors that contribute to individuals’ attributions of responsibility for
domestic violence may reflect itself more in evaluations of female victims rather
than in evaluations of male aggressors. Finally, the differences in attribution towards
the male aggressor and the female victim may reflect differences in respondents’
attitudes based upon their own gender and the influence their respective gender has
on their life experiences. Support for this final option will be discussed in the
remainder of this section.
Results support the view that gender of respondents influenced the findings
of the primary analyses. When the mediator models proposed in this study were re-
analyzed separating the respondents by gender, the findings were different from the
findings for the overall sample. Specifically, the model for attribution of
responsibility to the male aggressor only held true for female respondents, although
the model approached significance for male respondents. Similarly, the model of
attribution of responsibility to the female victim only held true for female
respondents, although the model approached significance for male respondents.
Furthermore, when considering only the female Asian American respondents in
assessing attribution of responsibility to the female victim, the strength of male
privilege as a mediator increased, such that male privilege completely mediated the
relationship between values acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of
responsibility to the female victim. This finding is in contrast to the partial
mediation found for the overall sample.
83
At least two explanations may account for the differences found in the
primary analyses based on participants’ gender. First, the differences may simply
reflect a sampling bias. Of the Asian Americans (n = 330) who participated in this
study, 70.6% (n = 233) were female while only 29.4% (n = 97) were male. Thus, the
smaller number of Asian American males in this study may have contributed to a
lack of power in the statistical analyses. This lack of power may have influenced the
strength of the mediation fit for the male sample. Additionally, the combining of the
male and female participants in the overall analyses may have contributed to a
dilution in the strength of mediation fit for the female sample. The second
explanation for the differences in results by gender is that these differences may
accurately reflect actual gender differences in attribution of responsibility for
domestic violence. Numerous studies with Asian and non-Asian American samples
have supported the view that men and women differ in their attitudes towards
domestic violence and in their perceptions of who is “to blame” for domestic
violence situations (Berkel et al., 2004; Finn, 1986; Mori et al., 1995; Yick, 2000b).
Consistent with previous studies, this study may accurately reflect gender differences
in perceptions regarding who is “to blame” for domestic violence.
Overall, the findings of the primary analyses highlight the complexity of
individuals’ perceptions of responsibility in intimate partner relationships, in that a
particular element of cultural value (male privilege), which is also a salient value in
many Asian cultures, served as the mechanism through which Asian Americans who
adhered to more traditional Asian values developed ideas about who is to blame
84
when domestic violence occurs. Interestingly, for the overall Asian American
sample, the mediating influence of attitudes regarding male privilege as a
justification for domestic violence differed in degree when considering attribution of
responsibility to the male aggressor and to the female victim. More specifically,
attitudes regarding male privilege as a justification for domestic violence served as a
complete mediator in attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor while it
served as a partial mediator in attribution of responsibility to the female victim.
Results also indicated potential differences in attitudes based upon the gender of the
respondents. Findings suggested that when assessing attribution of responsibility for
domestic violence by gender of respondents, Asian Americans may hold different
standards for aggressors and victims based upon their own gender as well as the
gender of those involved in domestic violence situations. Ultimately, the findings of
the primary analyses suggest that when assessing attribution of responsibility for
domestic violence, attitudes regarding male privilege play a significant role in Asian
Americans’ perceptions of who is “to blame.” The implications of these findings
will be discussed in later sections.
Discussion of Secondary Findings
The primary crux of this study rested upon the theory that particular elements
of cultural value systems (e.g., male privilege) impact general attitudes towards
domestic violence; and in turn, that these attitudes towards domestic violence (e.g.,
male privilege is a justification for domestic violence) serve as the mechanism
through which cultural values influence attributions of responsibility in domestic
85
violence situations. This study sought to examine the intersection of attitudes
towards domestic violence, attributions of responsibility for domestic violence, and
adherence to Asian cultural values (as differentiated from adherence to Asian
behaviors and American behaviors) among Asian Americans. The secondary
analyses conducted in this study were performed as part of a step-by-step process
designed to highlight the complex relationships between cultural values, general
attitudes towards domestic violence, and attribution of responsibility for domestic
violence. Ultimately, the secondary analyses were conducted to provide systematic
progression to the primary analyses, and one is encouraged to read the secondary
findings while continuing to consider the findings of the primary analyses.
Discussion of Values Acculturation to Asian Culture as a General Predictor
of Attitudes towards Domestic Violence
Results as a whole supported the hypothesis that values acculturation to
Asian culture would be the most salient predictor of attitudes towards domestic
violence. As stated previously, this study examined attitudes towards domestic
violence by evaluating participants’ responses in the following three domains: (1)
Male Privilege (MP), with higher scores indicating more tolerant views of male
privilege as a justification for domestic violence; (2) Perceived Lack of Alternatives
(PLA), with higher scores indicating endorsement of the belief that women should
endure battering behaviors from their intimate partners; and (3) Situation-Specific
Approval of Violence (SSA), with higher scores indicating more tolerant views of
the use of physical force in domestic violence situations that arise out of some
86
perceived provocation by the female victim. Although behavioral acculturation to
Asian culture and behavioral acculturation to American culture significantly
predicted attitudes towards domestic violence to a certain extent, of all three types of
acculturation measured, only values acculturation to Asian culture significantly
predicted all three domains of attitudes towards domestic violence included in this
study.
Results suggest that values acculturation to Asian culture serves as a stronger
predictor of attitudes towards domestic violence than do behavioral acculturation to
American culture and behavioral acculturation to Asian culture. This may be due to
values acculturation to Asian culture more adequately tapping into particular values
of salience that contribute to attitudes towards domestic violence than do behavioral
acculturation to Asian culture and behavioral acculturation to American culture.
According to Kim et al. (1999) measures of acculturation that address more
behavioral aspects of acculturation do not necessarily reflect the degree to which
individuals adhere to certain cultural values. In fact, Kim et al. found that values
acculturation for Asian American individuals occurred much more slowly than did
behavioral acculturation. In addition to Kim et al., other researchers have pointed
out that behavioral acculturation occurs much more quickly than does values
acculturation (LaFromboise et al., 1993; Sodowsky et al., 1995; Szapocznik &
Kurtines, 1980; Szapocznik et al., 1978). According to Szapocznik and Kurtines
(1980) individuals who migrate to a different culture are likely to quickly adapt
behaviorally in order to survive economically; however, they are less likely to adopt
87
the values of their new (majority) culture to such a quick degree due to the lack of
extrinsic motivation. The findings of the current study are consistent with previous
literature in supporting the view that values acculturation and behavioral
acculturation are separate constructs. Additionally, the findings of this study suggest
that values acculturation is a more salient predictor of attitudes towards domestic
violence than is behavioral acculturation.
While no prior studies have systematically addressed acculturation from the
orthogonal approach used in this study, results of prior studies are reflective of the
findings of the current study (Yick, 2000a; Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert,
1997). For example, previous researchers have found that acculturation as measured
behaviorally was not predictive of attitudes towards domestic violence while also
finding that length of time in the United States and age of migration, both predictors
of values acculturation to Asian and to American cultures, did predict attitudes
towards domestic violence (Yick, 2000a; Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert,
1997; Yoshioka et al., 2001). Yoshioka et al. (2001) found that the age at which
Asian Americans migrated to the United States was significantly related to domestic
violence attitudes. In particular, Yoshioka et al. found that the older an individual
was at the time of migration, the more likely they were to endorse the use of
domestic violence in specific situations. In addition, Yick (2000a; 2000b) and Yick
and Agbayani-Siewert (1997) found that older Asian Americans were more likely
than their younger counterparts to be more tolerant of the use of domestic violence as
a means of problem-solving in intimate relationships. As stated, age of migration
88
and length of time in the United States serve as predictors of values acculturation
to Asian culture. As such, these studies support the notion that values acculturation
to Asian culture is somehow associated with more tolerant views towards domestic
violence; however, one should note that, overall, the majority of Asian Americans in
these studies did not view domestic violence as a positive means of negotiating
conflict in intimate partner relationships.
Discussion of Behavioral Acculturation to Asian and American Cultures as
Predictors of Attitudes towards Domestic Violence
As can be seen from the findings of this study, the relationship between
different dimensions of acculturation and attitudes towards domestic violence is
complex. While values acculturation to Asian culture was the only dimension of
acculturation that significantly predicted all three domains of attitudes towards
domestic violence, both behavioral acculturation to Asian culture and behavioral
acculturation to American culture significantly predicted one domain each of
attitudes towards domestic violence. Specifically, behavioral acculturation to Asian
culture, along with values acculturation to Asian culture, significantly predicted
more tolerant views of the use of physical force in domestic violence situations
involving specific conflict around the female victim’s perceived provocation of the
male aggressor (SSA). And behavioral acculturation to American culture, along with
values acculturation to Asian culture, significantly predicted the endorsement of
male privilege as a justification for domestic violence (MP). Interestingly, both
dimensions of behavioral acculturation only predicted their respective attitudes
89
towards domestic violence when considered in conjunction with values
acculturation. As discussed earlier, this may be a reflection of values acculturation
to Asian culture more adequately tapping into values that contribute to attitudes
towards domestic violence than do behavioral acculturation to Asian culture and
behavioral acculturation to American culture. Ultimately, values acculturation to
Asian culture may capture values of salience that are not completely captured by the
more behavioral assessments of acculturation.
As stated, increased endorsement of behaviors associated with Asian culture
(along with adherence to traditional Asian values) significantly predicted more
tolerant views of domestic violence situations in which the female victim was
perceived as having provoked the male aggressor, which is referred to as the
situation-specific approval of violence (SSA) dimension of attitudes towards
domestic violence in this study. This finding is consistent with previous studies that
have utilized Asian American samples, and may reflect a belief on the part of Asian
Americans that more severe methods of recourse are justified when a woman causes
her intimate partner to “lose face” in front of others (Foo & Margolin, 1995; Mori et
al., 1995). In the current study, in particular, the vignette used to assess attribution
of responsibility presented a scenario in which the female victim may have been
perceived as “humiliating” her partner and causing him to “lose face” in front of
others.
In their study, Foo and Margolin (1995) found that Asian American students
were more likely than their European American counterparts to believe that domestic
90
violence was justified in instances in which female victims caused their male
partners to “lose face.” They cited embarrassing the male aggressor in front of
others and cheating on the male aggressor as two potential situations in which
domestic violence may be justified, supporting the view that Asian Americans may
feel a heightened sensitivity to issues in which the “face” of a person is diminished.
However, other researchers have posited that domestic violence may arise out of a
system in which any man, not just an Asian American man, feels that his power in a
relationship is threatened or challenged (Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002; Levant
et al., 1992; Moore & Stuart, 2005). These researchers state that a core characteristic
of masculinity is the avoidance of appearing weak, suggesting that maintaining
power and control in intimate relationships is important to men (Levant et al., 1992;
Moore & Stuart, 2005).
Interestingly, the current study found that behavioral acculturation to
American culture (along with values acculturation to Asian culture) significantly
predicted the endorsement of male privilege as a justification for domestic violence.
In other words, those individuals who reported an adherence to behaviors associated
with American culture also reported more tolerant views of the use of male privilege
as a justification for domestic violence. This finding is interesting in that behavioral
acculturation to American culture, and not behavioral acculturation to Asian culture,
predicted the endorsement of male privilege as a justification for domestic violence.
This finding may reflect the difference between the relatively rapid behavioral
acculturation of Asian Americans to American culture in contrast to their relatively
91
slower process of values acculturation to American culture (see earlier sections for
discussion; Kim et al., 1999; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Sodowsky et al., 1995;
Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980; Szapocznik et al., 1978).
Although the current findings may reflect the difference in rates of behavioral
acculturation to American culture versus values acculturation to American culture,
the current findings may also suggest that a particular value (e.g., male privilege)
that is present in both Asian and American cultures may serve as a value of salience
in predicting attitudes towards domestic violence. Various studies utilizing
European American samples have found that the construct of male privilege is
related to attitudes towards domestic violence (Jakupcak et al., 2002; McHugh &
Frieze, 1997; Moore & Stuart, 2005). For example, McHugh and Frieze (1997)
found that male privilege was the most consistent predictor of attitudes supporting
intimate partner violence while Jakupcak et al. (2002) found that traditional
masculine ideology, which includes beliefs regarding male privilege, was most
predictive of attitudes towards domestic violence. In addition, studies with both
European American and Asian American participants have found that the actual
prevalence of domestic violence is significantly greater in male-dominant
relationships, suggesting that ideology supporting male privilege is connected to
prevalence of domestic violence (Jakupcak et al., 2002; Kim & Emery, 2003; Kim &
Sung, 2000).
As predicted, values acculturation to Asian culture was the only type of
acculturation that significantly predicted all three domains of attitudes towards
92
domestic violence (MP, SSA, PLA) addressed in this study, suggesting that values
acculturation to Asian culture is more relevant than measures of behavioral
acculturation when examining acculturation in predicting attitudes towards domestic
violence. Although values acculturation to Asian culture appeared to be the
strongest predictor of attitudes towards domestic violence, behavioral acculturation
to Asian culture and behavioral acculturation to American culture each predicted one
domain of attitudes towards domestic violence (SSA and MP, respectively);
however, they did so only in conjunction with values acculturation to Asian culture.
Findings also suggested that Asian Americans may endorse more tolerant views
towards domestic violence if the female victim causes the male aggressor to “lose
face” in front of others. Finally, findings suggested that particular ideologies that are
present in both Asian and American cultures may influence general attitudes towards
domestic violence in the Asian American community.
Discussion of Acculturation and Attitudes towards Domestic Violence as
Predictors of Attributions of Responsibility for Domestic Violence
In addition to examining the relationships between different types of
acculturation and general attitudes towards domestic violence, the secondary
analyses of this study included an examination of the relationships between different
types of acculturation, general attitudes towards domestic violence, and attributions
of responsibility for domestic violence. In other words, values acculturation to Asian
culture, behavioral acculturation to Asian culture, behavioral acculturation to
American culture, and participants’ attitudes towards domestic violence in three
93
domains (MP, PLA, and SSA) were included in examining the most salient
predictors of attribution of responsibility for domestic violence situations. Findings
were consistent with the hypothesis that attitudes towards domestic violence (MP,
PLA, and SSA) would be the strongest predictors when assessing attributions of
responsibility for a domestic violence situation. Specifically, for the overall sample,
attitudes towards domestic violence (PLA and MP, respectively) served as the
strongest predictors in participants’ attributions of responsibility to the male
aggressor and to the female victim, respectively. These findings will be discussed in
more detail in the remainder of this section.
Consistent with the hypothesis, attitudes towards domestic violence were the
strongest predictors of attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor for both the
overall sample and for the sample by gender. When considering the overall sample,
of all the variables included in this analysis, the two strongest predictors of
attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor were PLA and SSA, which were
two of the domains that assessed attitudes towards domestic violence. In other
words, those individuals who were least likely to believe that women should endure
battering behavior from their partners (PLA) and those individuals who were least
likely to believe that domestic violence is justified in situations in which the female
victim is perceived to have provoked the male aggressor (SSA), respectively, were
more likely to attribute responsibility for domestic violence to the male aggressor.
Although PLA and SSA, respectively, served as the strongest predictors in
attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor, the remaining domain assessing
94
attitudes towards domestic violence (MP) and the two measures of behavioral
acculturation (AMAAS-CO and AMAAS-EA) were also significant predictors of
attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor. More specifically, those
individuals who least endorsed the view that male privilege serves as a justification
for domestic violence (MP), who reported less affiliation with Asian culture
behaviorally, and who reported more affiliation with American culture behaviorally
attributed more responsibility to the male aggressor in this study.
As with the primary analyses, the secondary analyses for attribution of
responsibility to the male aggressor differed by gender of respondents. When
considering only female Asian Americans, the variables that predicted attribution of
responsibility to the male aggressor were similar in pattern to the overall sample,
with PLA serving as the strongest predictor. Furthermore, as with the overall
sample, MP, AMAAS-CO, and AMAAS-EA served as significant predictors for the
female Asian American participants. Interestingly, SSA was not a significant
predictor for Asian American females; however, it was the only significant predictor
for Asian American males. Again, these differences by gender may reflect a
sampling bias or they may reflect the reality of differences in perspective based upon
differences in gender experiences.
There has been no empirical publication to-date that has systematically
examined the role of acculturation and attitudes towards domestic violence when
examining Asian Americans’ views regarding who they hold responsible for
domestic violence situations. Nor have prior studies with Asian Americans
95
systematically examined the extent to which male aggressors are held responsible
for domestic violence. In one study, researchers conducted a series of focus groups
with Asian American men and women during which participants were asked to share
their views regarding why domestic violence occurs in Asian American families
(Yoshioka et al., 2000). An overwhelming majority of participants in this study
reported viewing the perpetration of domestic violence as a longstanding
characterological problem on the part of the husband and/or a situational reaction on
the part of the husband. Although Yoshioka et al.’s study revealed that Asian
Americans may identify male aggressors as having certain character traits or
situational reasons that contribute to their violent behavior, in contrast to the current
study, their study did not include an examination of the role of acculturation, general
attitudes towards domestic violence, or systematic assessment of attribution of
responsibility.
As predicted, and similar to the results for the male aggressor, attribution of
responsibility to the female victim was most strongly predicted by attitudes towards
domestic violence for the overall sample and for the sample by gender. However,
unlike results for attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor, for the overall
sample, attribution of responsibility to the female victim was significantly predicted
by only one attitude towards domestic violence: the belief that male privilege serves
a justification for domestic violence (MP). Moreover, when considering the overall
sample, attribution of responsibility to the female victim was not predicted by any of
the other dimensions that assessed attitudes towards domestic violence (PLA, SSA)
96
or by any of the measures of acculturation (AMAAS-AS, AMAAS-EA, AVS).
When considering the sample by gender, consistent with other analyses, the
results held true only for female participants, with MP serving as the only predictor
of attribution to the female victim; however, for male participants, PLA served as the
only predictor of attribution to the female victim. Again, this difference may reflect
a sampling bias or actual differences in perspective between men and women. Of
note, however, is that regardless of gender, attitudes towards domestic violence were
the strongest predictors of attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor and to
the female victim. Furthermore, regardless of gender, neither values acculturation
nor behavioral acculturation served as significant predictors of attributions of
responsibility to the male aggressor or to the female victim.
When considering MP as a predictor of attribution of responsibility to the
female victim, findings in this study suggested that Asian Americans who more
strongly endorsed the view that male privilege serves as a justification for domestic
violence were more likely to attribute responsibility to the female victim. This
finding is consistent with previous literature using Asian American samples (Mori et
al., 1995; Yick, 2000b) as well as non-Asian American samples (McHugh & Frieze,
1997; Moore & Stuart, 2005; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996; Willis et al., 1996). For
example, Mori et al. (1995) found that Asian American students who endorsed more
traditional gender-role beliefs held more negative, “blaming” attitudes towards
female victims than did Asian Americans who held less traditional values regarding
male privilege. Additionally, Yick (2000b) found that a significant percentage of
97
Asian Americans held negative views towards domestic violence victims. In
Yick’s study, although the majority of Asian Americans did not endorse the use of
domestic violence as a means of conflict negotiation, up to half of participants
reported believing the following about domestic violence victims: the victim must
have committed some infraction that warranted the abuse, that the victim actually
caused the abuse, and that domestic violence victims could easily leave abusive
relationships. Of particular interest, was that those participants who held more
egalitarian views regarding women were less likely to endorse negative views
towards domestic violence victims, suggesting that views regarding male privilege
may influence Asian Americans’ perceptions of domestic violence victims (Yick,
2000b). As with the current findings, previous literature with Asian and non-Asian
American samples suggests that male privilege plays a role in people’s perceptions
about whether female victims are responsible for intimate relationship violence.
Interestingly, in this study, regardless of gender, values acculturation to Asian
culture was not a significant predictor of attribution of responsibility to the male
aggressor or to the female victim. This finding is in contrast to the findings
regarding general attitudes towards domestic violence in that the most salient
predictor of general attitudes towards domestic violence was adherence to traditional
Asian cultural values. The combination of these findings suggests that adherence to
Asian cultural values per se is not necessarily indicative of who individuals hold
responsible for domestic violence situations, although adherence to traditional Asian
cultural values seems to influence general attitudes towards domestic violence.
98
Furthermore, these findings support the primary analyses in that they suggest that
adherence to traditional Asian cultural values influences attitudes regarding male
privilege as a justification for domestic violence (an attitude towards domestic
violence), which further influences attribution of responsibility to the male aggressor
or to the female victim. In other words, attitudes towards domestic violence (e.g.,
that male privilege serves as a justification for domestic violence) mediates the
relationship between adherence to traditional Asian cultural values and attribution of
responsibility for domestic violence.
Discussion of Additional Noteworthy Findings
Racial/Ethnic Group Differences
In addition to the findings of the primary and secondary analyses of this
study, other important differences emerged when considering the sample of all
participants (Asian American and non-Asian American). Results in this study
indicated that Asian American participants, overall, reported more tolerance in their
general attitudes towards domestic violence than did their non-Asian American
counterparts. Various studies with Asian American and non-Asian American
samples have reported the connection between increased endorsement of male
privilege and increased tolerance of domestic violence (Ho, 1990; McHugh & Frieze,
1997; Moore & Stuart, 2005; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996; Willis et al., 1996;
Yoshioka et al., 2001). As such, Asian Americans’ seeming “tolerance” towards
domestic violence, particularly when compared to their non-Asian American
counterparts, may reflect their adherence to patriarchal values and to values
99
supporting male privilege. This assertion has been supported by at least two
studies in which Asian Americans were asked to discuss their views regarding
domestic violence (Ho, 1990; Yoshioka et al., 2001).
Although, as a whole, Asian Americans appeared to be more tolerant of
general attitudes towards domestic violence than their non-Asian American
counterparts, findings in this study also reflected differences among Asian American
ethnic groups (Chinese American, Filipino American, and Korean American). First,
when compared to European American participants, only Chinese American and
Filipino American participants, and not Korean American participants, reported more
endorsement of the view that domestic violence is justified when the male aggressor
perceives provocation on the part of the female victim. Second, when compared to
European American counterparts, only Chinese American and Korean American
respondents reported increased endorsement of the view that male privilege serves as
a justification for domestic violence. Furthermore, Korean Americans reported even
more agreement with the view that male privilege serves as a justification for
domestic violence than did their Chinese American counterparts. Consistent with the
current findings, previous studies have reported differences in domestic violence
attitudes among different Asian American ethnic groups (Ho, 1990; Yoshioka et al.,
2000; Yoshioka et al., 2001). Researchers have speculated that these differences in
attitudes towards domestic violence occur due to slight differences in gender role
norms among Asian countries of origin (Ho, 1990; Rhee, 1997; Yoshioka et al.,
2000; Yoshioka et al., 2001), the differential influence of varying migration histories
100
among Asian Americans, and differential adaptation to acculturative stressors
among Asian American families (Rhee, 1997; Song, 1996; Song-Kim, 1992;
Yoshioka et al., 2001). Overall, the findings in this study highlight the complexity of
differences among Asian American ethnic groups and serve as a reminder that
findings of one Asian American group are not necessarily applicable to all others.
In addition to general attitudes towards domestic violence, Asian American
participants in this study were also more likely to attribute responsibility for
domestic violence to the female victim, while their non-Asian American counterparts
were more likely to place the “blame” on the male aggressor. These findings are
consistent with previous studies that have compared Asian and non-Asian American
samples (Foo & Margolin, 1995; Mori et al., 1995; Yamawaki & Tschanz, 2005). In
previous studies, Asian Americans were more likely to believe that domestic
violence was justified when the female victim caused the male aggressor to “lose
face” in front of others. As in these previous studies, the current study utilized a
vignette in which the female victim may have been perceived as causing her intimate
partner to “lose face” in a public venue. As a result, the current findings may reflect
Asian Americans’ sensitivity to the “loss of face,” and may have contributed to their
increased tendency to “blame the victim” in this study.
Gender Differences
Consistent with previous studies using Asian American and non-Asian
American samples, male participants in this study were more tolerant in their
attitudes towards domestic violence than their female counterparts (Berkel et al.,
101
2004; Yick, 2000b; Yoshioka et al., 2000). In addition, male participants were
more likely than female participants to place the “blame” for domestic violence on
the female victim, while female participants were more likely to place the “blame”
on the male aggressor. These findings are also consistent with previous studies using
both Asian American and non-Asian American samples (Monson, Langhinrichsen-
Rohling, & Binderup, 2000; Mori et al., 1995; Nayak, Byrne, Martin, & Abraham,
2003; Yick, 2000b; Yick & Agbayani-Siewert, 1997). These findings may reflect
gender role socialization and a trend in modernized countries in which women have
been shifting from more traditional gender role attitudes in order to achieve and
maintain educational, occupational, and economic opportunity (Berkel et al., 2004;
Finn, 1986). Men, however, may be less apt to buy in to the shift from more
traditional gender role ideology due to the lack of advantage the shift has for them,
particularly in relation to the potential power that they might have to relinquish
(Finn, 1986). Furthermore, Asian American men may exhibit an even stronger
difficulty with the process of shifting to more egalitarian gender role attitudes due to
the salience of the patriarchal system in this community.
Implications
The current study examined acculturation, attitudes towards domestic
violence and attribution for domestic violence among Asian Americans. This study
was unique in addressing all three of these variables in examining domestic violence
in the Asian American community. Furthermore, this study found significant
connections between acculturation, attitudes, and attribution of responsibility, which
102
hold great implications for theory, research, and practice in Asian American
domestic violence. The implications in each of these areas will be discussed in the
following sections.
Theoretical Implications of Primary and Secondary Analyses
The findings from this study hold important implications for theory regarding
domestic violence in the Asian American community. Previous theory regarding
domestic violence in general has postulated that violence against women arises out
of a patriarchal system that serves to maintain male domination over women
(Dobash & Dobash, 1979). When applying this theory to Asian Americans, previous
theorists have asserted that Confucian-based ideology, which confers superior status
to males, may place Asian American families at particular risk for domestic violence
(Bui & Morash, 1999; Chan & Leong, 1994; Fong, 1998; Kozu, 1999; Shon & Ja,
1982; Song, 1996). They have further asserted that in addition to patriarchal
ideology, other Asian cultural values (e.g., preserving family honor, collectivism)
may serve to perpetuate domestic violence and limit resources for Asian American
domestic violence victims (Ho, 1990; Lum, 1998; Rhee 1997; Sorenson, 1996). Few
studies, however, have actually examined the role of adherence to traditional Asian
values in examining domestic violence in the Asian American community. As a
result, the current study’s assessment of acculturation using an orthogonal,
multidimensional approach and its examination of the relationships between
acculturation, attitudes towards domestic violence, and attribution of responsibility
for domestic violence, serves as a relevant tool in examining the salience of
103
adherence to traditional Asian cultural values in Asian American domestic
violence theory.
Using previous theory as a foundation, the current study’s primary analysis
examined attitudes towards domestic violence as a mediator of the relationship
between values acculturation to Asian culture and attribution of responsibility for
domestic violence. As discussed earlier, previous researchers have theorized that the
patriarchal ideology of Asian American cultures, combined with other Asian values
and acculturative stressors, may place Asian Americans at risk for domestic violence
(Chan & Leong, 1994; Crites, 1991; 1994; Ho, 1990; Kim & Sung, 2000; Rhee,
1997; Sorenson, 1996). However, none of the prior literature has included an
examination of the mechanism by which Asian American values, particularly
patriarchal ideology, actually influence attitudes towards domestic violence and
attitudes towards domestic violence perpetrators and victims.
This study moved beyond previous theory by hypothesizing a specific
relationship between Asian cultural values, attitudes towards domestic violence, and
attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. This study hypothesized that
adherence to traditional Asian cultural values would influence attitudes towards
domestic violence in a particular domain, specifically, that male privilege serves as a
justification for domestic violence. Furthermore, this study hypothesized that
attitudes regarding male privilege as a justification for domestic violence would
serve as the mechanism by which adherence to traditional Asian cultural values
influences attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. Results supported the
104
mediation model hypothesized in this study. In addition, the findings for
mediation fit in this study supported previous theory regarding the connection
between adherence to Asian cultural values and attitudes towards domestic violence.
The implications of these findings in terms of research and practice will be discussed
in more detail in a later section. The remainder of this section, however, will discuss
additional theoretical implications of the secondary analyses conducted in this study.
In addition to the primary analysis of this study, the secondary analyses
provide relevant theoretical implications in understanding Asian American domestic
violence. In support of existing theory, the current study found that adherence to
traditional Asian values strongly predicted attitudes towards domestic violence
among Asian Americans, with stronger adherence to Asian values predicting more
tolerant views towards domestic violence. This study was unique in examining
acculturation using multidimensional and orthogonal approaches. Based upon these
theories, acculturation was assessed on three different dimensions: values
acculturation to Asian culture, behavioral acculturation to Asian culture, and
behavioral acculturation to American culture. In addition, acculturation was
assessed between and within Asian American ethnic groups (multidimensionality),
as well as between Asian American and European American racial groups
(orthogonality). In support of the multidimensionality of acculturation, results
indicated that of all three types of acculturation, values acculturation to Asian culture
was the most relevant in predicting attitudes towards domestic violence, with more
adherence to traditional Asian cultural values predicting more tolerant views towards
105
domestic violence. Furthermore, this relationship held for first generation Asian
American participants, who comprised 38.5% of the Asian American sample, and for
second generation Asian American participants, who comprised the majority (61.5%)
of the Asian American sample.
Interestingly, while values acculturation was the most relevant predictor of
general attitudes towards domestic violence, it was not a significant predictor of
attribution of responsibility for domestic violence to the male aggressor or to the
female victim. Rather, general attitudes towards domestic violence were the most
salient predictors of attribution of responsibility. These findings support the primary
analysis in that they suggest that while values acculturation to Asian culture
influences general attitudes towards domestic violence, which includes male
privilege as a justification for domestic violence, values acculturation does not
directly influence attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. Rather, values
acculturation to Asian culture seems to influence attribution of responsibility via
attitudes towards domestic violence. In the current study, the particular attitude
towards domestic violence that was influenced by values acculturation to Asian
culture was the belief that male privilege serves as a justification for domestic
violence. Overall, not only do the findings from the primary and secondary analyses
have significant implications for expanding current theory, they also have significant
implications for research and practice, which will be discussed further in the
following sections.

106
Research Implications of Primary and Secondary Analyses
The current study’s multidimensional method of assessing acculturation
highlighted the significance of looking beyond behavioral adaptation to internal,
values-oriented assimilation. Several researchers have asserted that behavioral
acculturation occurs more quickly than values acculturation due to the necessity for
migrant individuals to adapt behaviorally in order to survive economically in the new
culture (Kim et al., 1999; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Sodowsky et al., 1995;
Szapocznik et al., 1978). This may be particularly relevant for Asian Americans,
who as a group have been identified as assimilating so successfully into U.S. culture
that they have been dubbed the “model minority” (Fong, 1998). In fact, Preisser
(1999) and Thomas (2000) implicate the “model minority” myth for the lack of
research on domestic violence in this community, as well as for the lack of available
resources for Asian American domestic violence victims.
In the current study, values acculturation to Asian culture was more relevant
than both types of behavioral acculturation in predicting attitudes towards domestic
violence. This finding supports the view that behavioral adaptation, no matter how
“successful,” is not necessarily indicative of values adaptation. As such, researchers
and clinicians must look beyond the seeming positive behavioral adaptation of the
Asian American “model minority” in order to address the potential underlying
emotional struggles that may come with a more slowly changing values system. The
exploration of these struggles requires more accurate assessment of values
107
acculturation, rather than reliance on the more behaviorally-based assessments
that have been traditionally used in Asian American research and practice.
Applied Implications of Primary and Secondary Analyses
In addition to theory and research, the primary findings of this study are
relevant when considering clinical practice with Asian American domestic violence
victims. Previous researchers have posited that Asian American women typically
blame themselves when they are physically victimized (Hsu et al., 2004). Self-
blame, combined with other Asian culture values (e.g., preserving the honor of the
family, maintaining harmony in the home) may impact Asian Americans’ ability to
seek help for domestic violence situations (Bui, 2003; Hsu et al., 2004). This may be
particularly true if, as suggested by this study, Asian American men and women who
are more values acculturated to Asian culture tend to more strongly endorse values
regarding male privilege, which further impact their attitudes towards domestic
violence and ultimately towards domestic violence victims. Victims may be less
likely to seek help if they adhere to a cultural system that endorses patriarchal
ideology, which may contribute to the perception that domestic violence victims are
accountable for the violence. Indeed, previous researchers have found that Asian
American women have reported fear of disclosing domestic violence due to fear of
social exposure and stigmatization—not only of themselves but of their entire
families (Bui, 2003; Hsu et al., 2004).
Besides the primary findings of this study, the secondary findings are also
relevant to clinical practice with Asian American domestic violence victims. The
108
secondary findings walk hand-in-hand with the primary findings in that they
provide additional support for the importance of assessing adherence to traditional
Asian cultural values when working with domestic violence victims and their
families. To add even more complexity to this picture, researchers have found that
external acculturative stressors, in addition to familial difficulty negotiating shifts in
cultural expectations, may interact to contribute to domestic violence in the Asian
American community (Bui, 2003; Dinh et al., 1994; Hsu et al., 2004; Kim & Sung,
2000; Lee, 2003; Song-Kim, 1992; Yoshioka et al., 2000). Thus, clinicians must pay
particular attention to the underlying values and the potential “threats” to these
values that accompany the migration process. This may prove to be particularly
complex with Asian Americans who are frequently perceived as adapting well to
American culture and who may go to great lengths to keep family problems from
being exposed to others (Bui et al., 2003; Yoshioka et al., 2000). This may also
prove to be complex due to the fact that the process of acculturation is different for
every individual.
Limitations of Study
One must consider several limitations when interpreting the results of this
study. These limitations include areas that potentially influence the internal validity
and external validity of the study. They also include areas regarding measurements
used in the study. First, this study utilized a self-report questionnaire that could be
accessed via the internet. Self-report questionnaires can be vulnerable to biased
responses from individuals who prefer to endorse socially desirable answers. This
109
may be particularly true for studies that address such sensitive topics as domestic
violence. In addition, Schmidt (1997) has noted that internet-based surveys may be
more vulnerable to individuals who intentionally provide incorrect responses. To
address the potential problem of inaccurate and/or biased responses, this study
employed strategies to maintain participants’ confidentiality as well as anonymity in
order to encourage honesty on the part of participants (see Method section for more
detailed information). For example, the instruments for this study were posted on a
secure website and responses were protected by a dedicated server. Also, individuals
were invited to participate in the study; however, they were not required to take part
in the study or even to complete the survey if they felt uncomfortable with answering
any of the questions.
The second limitation of this study involved the sampling procedure, which
may influence the generalizability of its findings. This study utilized a web-based
survey, which necessitated that individuals have computer access, familiarity with
computers, and familiarity with the internet. These factors may have biased the
sample to include individuals with certain demographic characteristics: For
example, more highly educated individuals who are familiar with computer
technology; individuals with more financial means due to the need for computer
access; and generationally “younger” individuals who are more familiar with
computer technology. In addition, the survey was presented in English, which may
have biased the sample to include more acculturated individuals. As such, the
findings of this study cannot be generalized to all Asian American groups,
110
particularly those of different generational levels and those who may not have
sufficient English proficiency to have participated in this study.
This study faced a third limitation in the form of Asian American ethnic
group differences. The imbalance in the number of participants from different Asian
American ethnic groups in this study, such that some Asian American ethnic groups
were represented in larger numbers than others, may have influenced the study’s
analyses and affected the generalizability of this study’s findings. The larger number
of representation of certain Asian American ethnic groups may contribute to this
study’s findings being more applicable to some Asian American groups than others.
In addition, the smaller number of participants in some Asian American ethnic
groups may have affected the power of the analyses, and potentially significant
ethnic group differences may not have emerged in the preliminary analyses. This
affected the study in that due to the lack of actual significant statistical differences
between Asian American ethnic groups in the preliminary analyses, the primary and
secondary analyses did not compare the different Asian American ethnic groups.
One should note, however, that preliminary analyses did suggest that potential
differences in attitudes towards domestic violence may exist between different Asian
American ethnic groups. The analyses suggested this in that varying Asian
American ethnic groups showed significant differences from their non-Asian
American counterparts in the three domestic violence attitudinal domains. In other
words, the same Asian American ethnic groups did not exhibit statistical differences
from their non-Asian American counterparts in exactly the same pattern across the
111
different domains of attitudes towards domestic violence. In addition, in at least
one domain (MP), one Asian American ethnic group (Korean American) showed an
even more tolerant attitude than did another Asian American ethnic group (Chinese
American), both of whom were significantly different from their non-Asian
American counterparts. However, the strength of the difference between the Korean
American group and the Chinese American group, while apparent, was not
significant. Previous studies have supported the view that there may be ethnic group
differences in attitudes towards domestic violence among different Asian American
ethnic groups (Ho, 1990; Yoshioka et al., 2000; Yoshioka et al., 2001). These
differences may have been missed due to the imbalance in numbers of Asian
Americans from different ethnic groups. Overall, the limitations in these areas
contribute to difficulty with generalizing this study’s results to individuals of all
different Asian American backgrounds.
This study’s fourth limitation rested in the imbalance of participants by
gender. Female participants in this study comprised the majority of the sample. The
smaller number of male participants may have contributed to a lack of power. As a
result, findings in this study may not adequately reflect the experience of male
participants. Furthermore, the imbalance in male and female participants may have
led to an inaccurate picture of the potential differences between male and female
respondents.
This study faced a fifth limitation in terms of validity due to the method of
measurement used in this study. First, while three of the instruments used in this
112
study were developed for use with Asian Americans (AMAAS, AVS, and
RAWA) and exhibit adequate to strong reliability and validity, results from the study
suggest that at least one subscale of the RAWA (PLA) warrants further examination
to determine if it strongly predicts attitudes towards domestic violence in its
specified domain. Additionally, none of the instruments used in this study have been
validated using a web-based method. As such, additional studies using these
instruments in a web-based method may serve to bolster support for the validity of
these measures.
Finally, an additional measurement issue in this study involved the
instrument used to assess attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. Due to
the lack of available measures for attribution of responsibility, this study modified a
method used in a previous study that reported high reliability (Aramburu & Leigh,
1991). However, comparison to the previous study is difficult due to the variations
made in order to accommodate the research needs of this study. Although internal
reliability for the measure used in this study was high, further examination of the
measure needs to be conducted in order to verify the reliability and validity of the
instrument used.
Future Directions
The current study’s support of the theory that Asian Americans appear to
have more tolerant attitudes towards domestic violence has significant implications
for future directions. Numerous studies with non-Asian American samples have
determined that attitudes condoning and/or justifying the use of domestic violence
113
strongly predict the actual occurrence of domestic violence (Byers & Eno, 1991;
Delsol & Margolin, 2003; Silverman & Williamson, 1997; Stith et al., 2003;
Sugarman & Frankel, 1996; Wolfe et al., 2004). However, few, if any, studies of
domestic violence in the Asian American community have addressed the connection
between attitudes condoning violence and the potential impact of these attitudes on
actual battering behavior. As such, future studies examining the connection between
attitudes and behavior may be beneficial in identifying and meeting the needs of
domestic violence victims in the Asian American community.
Future studies that address the mechanisms by which values affect attitudes
and behaviors in Asian American domestic violence may also be helpful in
developing appropriate clinical intervention and prevention education in this
community. While this study highlighted the differentiation between behavioral
acculturation and values acculturation in predicting attitudes towards domestic
violence among Asian Americans, it may be fruitful to continue to explore the
intersection of cultural values, family relationships, and external forces in addressing
Asian American domestic violence attitudes and behavior. Various studies have
found that economic instability and difficulty with role negotiation contribute to the
prevalence of domestic violence with migrant and non-migrant populations
(Caetano, Schafer, Clark, Cunradi, & Raspberry, 2000; Kim & Sung, 2000; Kiser &
Black, 2005; Yick, 2000a). As such, cultural values alone cannot be implicated for
the occurrence of domestic violence; however, how particular cultural values interact
with the pressures of economic survival and the negotiation of family relationships,
114
particularly with families from different cultures of origin, may contribute a great
deal to the understanding of domestic violence in the Asian American community.
This understanding, in turn, can contribute to culturally sensitive intervention and
prevention education with Asian American families.
Finally, “Asian American” refers to individuals from a large number of
countries and to individuals who may have vastly different family histories of
migration. As such, future studies that include a larger sample of Asian Americans
from various different Asian American ethnic groups and of various generational
backgrounds may serve to uncover nuances in values and experiences that provide
clinicians with relevant information in working with Asian American domestic
violence victims from different ethnic groups. In addition, future studies that include
other forms of abuse (e.g., emotional abuse), as well as abuse perpetrated by both
men and women, may benefit researchers and clinicians in expanding their
understanding of Asian American intimate partner violence.
Conclusion
This study examined the intersection of acculturation, attitudes towards
domestic violence, and attribution of responsibility for domestic violence among
Asian Americans. This study was unique in proposing a particular mechanism by
which adherence to Asian culture influences attribution of responsibility for
domestic violence, and the findings of the study supported the hypothesized mediator
model. In addition, the findings of this study were consistent with previous theory
and research regarding the connection between cultural values and attitudes towards
115
domestic violence in the Asian American community. This study moved one
step further in differentiating between values acculturation and behavioral
acculturation in assessing attitudes towards domestic violence. Secondary findings
suggested that values acculturation is the most relevant predictor of attitudes towards
domestic violence, while attitudes towards domestic violence are the most relevant in
predicting attribution of responsibility for domestic violence. Secondary findings
supported the primary findings regarding the mediator model: Namely, that attitudes
towards domestic violence (male privilege) serve as the mechanism by which
adherence to traditional Asian values influences attribution of responsibility for
domestic violence.
This study highlighted the importance of accurately assessing cultural values
in examining Asian Americans’ attitudes towards domestic violence, rather than
focusing solely on the positive behavioral adaptation of this seeming “model
minority.” This study also highlighted the importance of recognizing the ways in
which cultural values may influence attitudes towards domestic violence perpetrators
and victims. Perceptions of domestic violence victims, in particular, may be vital in
understanding the help-seeking patterns of Asian American domestic violence
victims, particularly since Asian Americans are frequently fearful of social exposure
and stigmatization for perceived “bad behavior” (Bui, 2003; Hsu et al., 2004).
Overall, the current study provided a relevant expansion on existing Asian
American domestic violence literature. This study’s findings contributed to the
development of Asian American domestic violence theory in the areas of cultural
116
values, attitudes towards domestic violence, and attribution of responsibility for
domestic violence. Of particular importance was the differentiation between
behavioral acculturation and values acculturation in determining their relevance in
predicting domestic violence attitudes and attributions of responsibility. These
findings are part of a step to better understand not only attitudes towards domestic
violence in the Asian American community, but also culturally appropriate methods
of assessment, intervention, and prevention.
117
References
Abraham, M. (2000). Isolation as a form of marital violence: The South Asian
immigrant experience. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3),
221-236.

Aramburu, B., & Leigh, B.C. (1991). For better or worse: Attributions about
drunken aggression toward male and female victims. Violence and Victims,
6(1), 31-41.

Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence. (2005, July). Fact sheet:
Domestic violence in Asian communities. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from the
Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence Web site:
http://www.apiahf.org/apidvinstitute

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1173-1182.

Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2000). Manifesta: Young women, feminism, and
the future. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Berkel, L.A., Vandiver, B.J., & Bahner, A.D. (2004). Gender role attitudes, religion,
and spirituality as predictors of domestic violence attitudes in white college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 119-133.

Berry, J.W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A.M. Padilla
(Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9-25).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., & Dasen, P.R. (1992). Cross-cultural
psychology: Research and application. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Bhattacharya, G. (1998). Drug use among Asian Indian adolescents: Identifying
protective/risk factors. Adolescence, 33, 169-185.

Briere, J. (1987). Predicting self-reported likelihood of battering: Attitudes and
childhood experiences. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 61-69.

Bui, H.N. (2003). Help-seeking behavior among abuse immigrant women. Violence
Against Women, 9(2), 207-239.

118
Bui, H.N., & Morash, M. (1999). Domestic violence in the Vietnamese
immigrant community: An exploratory study. Violence Against Women, 5,
769-795.

Byers, E.S., & Eno, R.J. (1991). Predicting men’s sexual coercion and
aggression from attitudes, dating history, and sexual response. Journal of
Psychology and Human Sexuality, 4, 55-70.

Caetano, R., Schafer, J., Clark, C.L., Cunradi, C.B., & Raspberry, K. (2001).
Alcohol-related intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic
couples in the U.S. Alcohol Research and Health, 25(1), 58-65.

Chan, S., & Leong, C.W. (1994). Chinese families in transition: Cultural conflicts
and adjustment problems. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless,
3(3), 263-281.

Chin, K.L. (1994). Out-of-town brides: International marriage and wife abuse
among Chinese immigrants. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,
25(1), 53-69.

Chun, E. (1990). The Korean battered spouse: Where to go for help. KoreAm
Journal, 1(3), 22-23.

Chung, R. H. G. (2001). Gender, ethnicity, and acculturation in intergenerational
conflict of Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 7, 376-386.
Chung, R.H.G., Kim, B.S., & Abreu, J.M. (2004). Asian American
Multidimensional Acculturation Scale: Development, factor analysis,
reliability and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
10(1), 66-80.

Crites, L. (1991). Cross-cultural counseling in wife beating cases. Response to the
Victimization of Women and Children, 13(77,4), 8-12.
Davidson, T. (1978). Conjugal Crime. New York, NY: Hawthorne Press.

Delsol, C., & Margolin, G. (2004). The role of family-of-origin violence in
men’s marital violence perpetration. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(2004),
99-122.

119
Dinh, K.T., Sarason, B.R., & Sarason, I.G. (1994). Parent-child relationships in
Vietnamese immigrant families. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(4), 471-
488.

Dobash, R.E., & Dobash, R.P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the
patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Family Violence Prevention Fund. (2006). The facts on domestic violence.
Retrieved May 31, 2006, from the Family Violence Prevention Fund Web
site: http://www.endabuse.org

Finn, J. (1986). The relationship between sex role attitudes and attitudes supporting
marital violence. Sex Roles, 14(5-6), 235-244.

Fong, T.P. (1998). The contemporary Asian American experience: Beyond the
model minority. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Foo, L., & Margolin, G. (1995). A multivariate investigation of dating aggression.
Journal of Family Violence, 10, 351-377.

Frey, W.H. (1991). Are two Americas Emerging? Population Today, 19, 6-8.

Gelles, R.J. (1978). Methods for studying sensitive family topics. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 48(7), 408-424.

Graves, T.D. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 23, 337-350.
Ho, C.K. (1990). An analysis of domestic violence in Asian American communities:
A multicultural approach to counseling. Women and Therapy, 9(1-2),
129-150.

Holmbeck, G.N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in
the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from child-clinical and
pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 65(4), 599-610.

Hsu, F.L.K. (1967). Under the ancestor’s shadow: Kinship, personality, and
social mobility in China. Taipei: Rainbow Bridge Book Company.
Hsu, E., Davies, C.A., & Hansen, D.J. (2004). Understanding mental health needs of
Southeast Asian refugees: Historical, cultural, and contextual challenges.
Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 193-213.
120
Hudson, W.W., & McIntosh, S.R. (1981). The assessment of spouse abuse: Two
quantifiable dimensions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 873-885.

Ja, D.Y., & Aoki, B. (1993). Substance abuse treatment: Cultural barriers in the
Asian-American community. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 25(1), 61-71.

Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of masculine ideology and
masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 97-106.

Jang, D., Lee, D., Morello-Frosch, R. (1991). Domestic violence in the immigrant
and refugee community: Responding to the needs of immigrant women.
Response to the Victimization of Women and Children, 13(4), 2-7.

Judd, C.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in
treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5(5), 602-619.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A. & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology.
In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology: Vol. 1 (4
th
ed., pp. 233-265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kibria, N. (1990). Power, patriarchy, and gender conflict in the Vietnamese
immigrant community. Gender and Society, 4, 9-24.

Kim, B.S.K., & Abreu, J.M. (2001). Acculturation measurement: Theory, current
instruments, and future directions. In J.G. Ponterotto, J.M. Casas, L.A.
Suzuki, & C.M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2
nd

ed., pp. 394-424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, B.S.K., Atkinson, D.R., & Yang, P.H. (1999). The Asian Values Scale:
Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 342-352.
121
Kim, B.S.K., & Hong, S. (2004). A psychometric revision of the Asian Values Scale
using the Rasch Model. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 37, 15-27.

Kim, J.Y., & Emery, C. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and
marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197-219.

Kim, J.Y., & Sung, K.T. (2000). Conjugal violence in Korean American families: A
residue of the cultural tradition. Journal of Family Violence, 15(4),
331-345.

Kiser, L.J., & Black, M.M. (2005). Family processes in the midst of urban poverty:
What does the trauma literature tell us? Aggression and Violent Behavior,
10(2005), 715-750.

Kozu, J. (1999). Domestic violence in Japan. American Psychologist, 54(1), 50-54.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H.L.K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412.

Lee, S.B. (2003). Working with Korean-American families: Multicultural
hermeneutics in understanding and dealing with marital domestic violence.
The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 159-178.

Lee, R.M., Choe, J., Kim, G., & Ngo, V. (2000). Construction of the Asian
American Family Conflicts Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
211-222.

Levant, R.F., Hirsch, L., Celentano, E., Cozza, T., Hill, S., MacEachern, M.
(1992). The male role: An investigation of norms and stereotypes. Journal
of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325-337.

Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Lum, J.L. (1998). Family violence. In L.C. Lee & N.W.S. Zane (Eds.), Handbook
of Asian American Psychology (pp. 505-525). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
122
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V.
(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening
variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83-104.

Maitri. (2006). Domestic violence statistics for the United States. Retrieved May
31, 2006, from the Maitri Web site: http://www.maitri.org/dvstats.html

Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Marin, B.V., Otero-Sabogal, R. (1987). Development of a
short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Special issue: Acculturation research.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 83-205.

McHugh, M.C., & Frieze, I.H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A
review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1-16.

Monson, C.M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Binderup, T. (2000). Does "no" really
mean "no" after you say "yes"? Attributions about date and marital rape.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(11), 1156-1174.
Moore, T.M., & Stuart, G.L. (2005). A review of the literature on masculinity
and partner violence. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6(1), 46-61.

Mori, L., Bernat, J.A., Glenn, P.A., Selle, L.L., & Zarate, M.G. (1995). Attitudes
toward rape: Gender and ethnic differences across Asian and Caucasian
college students. Sex Roles, 32, 457-467.

National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence:
Research report. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from
http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/181867

Nayak, M.B., Byrne, C.A., Martin, M.K., & Abraham, A.G. (2003). Attitudes
toward violence against women: A cross-nation study. Sex Roles, 49(7-8),
333-342.

Oetting, E.R., & Beauvais, F. (1991). Orthogonal cultural identification theory: The
cultural identification of minority adolescents. International Journal of the
Addictions, 25(5A & 6A), 655-685.

Olmedo, E. L. (1979). Acculturation: A psychometric perspective. American
Psychologist, 34, 1061-1070.
123
Padilla, A.M. (1980). The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in
acculturation. In A.M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and
some new findings (pp. 47-84). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

Pagelow, M.D. (1992). Adult victims of domestic violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 87-120.

Pizzey, E. (1974). Scream quietly or the neighbors will hear. London: Penguin
Books.

Ponterotto, J. G., Baluch, S., & Carielli, D. (1998). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-
Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA): Critique and research
recommendations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 31, 109-123.

Preisser, A.B. (1999). Domestic violence in South Asian communities in America.
Violence Against Women, 5(6), 684-699.

Ramirez, M. (1984). Assessing and understanding biculturalism-multiculturalism in
Mexican-American adults. In J.L. Martinez, & R.H. Mendoza (Eds.),
Chicano psychology (2
nd
ed., pp. 77-93). New York, NY: Academic Press,
Inc.

Rhee, S. (1997). Domestic violence in the Korean immigrant family. Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, 24(1), 63-77.

Rimonte, N. (1989). Domestic violence among Pacific Asians. In Asian Women
United of California (Ed.), Making waves: An anthology of writings by and
about Asian American women (pp. 327-336). Boston, MA: Beacon.

Schmidt, W.C. (1997). World-Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential
problems, and solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and
Computers, 29, 274-279.

Schwartz, J.P., Waldo, M., & Daniel, D. (2005). Gender-role conflict and self-
esteem: Factors associated with partner abuse in court-referred men.
Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6(2), 109-113.

Segal, U.A. (2000). A pilot exploration of family violence among nonclinical
Vietnamese. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(5), 523-533.

124
Segall, M.H., Dasen, P.R., Berry, J.W., & Poortinga, Y.H. (1990). Human
behavior in global perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology.
New York, NY: Pergamon.

Shon, S.P., & Ja, D.Y. (1982). Asian families. In M. McGoldrick, J.K. Pearce, & J.
Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (pp. 208-228). New York,
NY: Guilford.

Silverman, J.G., & Williamson, G.M. (1997). Social ecology and entitlements
involved in battering by heterosexual college males: Contributions of family
and peers. Violence and Victims, 12, 147-164.

Sodowsky, G.R., Kwan, K.K., & Pannu, R. (1995). Ethnic identity of Asians in
the United States. In J.G. Ponterotto, J.M. Casas, L.A. Suzuki, & C.M.
Alexander (Eds.). Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 123-154).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Song, Y.I. (1996). Battered women in Korean immigrant families: The silent
scream. New York, NY: Garland.

Song-Kim, Y.I. (1992). Battered Korean women in the urban United States. In S.
Furuto, R. Biswas, D.K. Chung, K. Murase, & F. Ross-Sheriff (Eds.), Social
work practice with Asian-Americans (pp. 213-226). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Sorenson, S.B. (1996). Violence against women: Examining ethnic differences and
commonalities. Evaluation Review, 20(2), 123-145.

Stith, S.M., Smith, D.B., Penn, C.E., Ward, D.B., & Tritt, D. (2003). Intimate
partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-
analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(2004), 65-98.

Straus, M.A. (1992). Sociological research and social policy: The case of family
violence. Sociological Forum, 7, 211-237.

Sue, S., Fujino, D., Hu, L., Takeuchi, D., & Zane, N. (1991). Community mental
health services for ethnic minority groups: A test of the cultural
responsiveness hypothesis. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology,
59(4), 533-540.

Sugarman, D.B., & Frankel, S.L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 13-40.

125
Suinn, R.M., Rickard-Figueroa, K., Lew, S., & Vigil, P. (1987). The Suinn-Lew
Asian self-identity acculturation scale: An initial report. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 47, 401-407.

Szapocznik, J., & Kurtines, W.M. (1980). Acculturation, biculturalism, and
adjustment among Cuban Americans. In A.M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation:
Theory, models, and some new findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W.M., & Fernandez, T. (1980). Bicultural involvement and
adjustment in Hispanic-American youths. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 4, 353-365.

Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M.A., Kurtines, W.M., & Aranalde, M.A. (1978). Theory
and measurement of acculturation. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 12,
113-120.

Takaki, R. (1998). Strangers from a different shore. New York, NY: Little, Brown,
& Company.

Tan, C.I. (1997). Executive director’s report. New Moon: A Newsletter from the
Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence, 6(1), 1-2.
Thomas, E.K. (2000). Domestic violence in the African-American and Asian-
American communities: A comparative analysis of two racial/ethnic minority
cultures and implications for mental health service provision for women of
color. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 37(3-4), 32-43.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental
health. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

United States Census Bureau (1990). 1990 United States Census [Online].
Retrieved May 31, 2006, from http://www.census.gov

United States Census Bureau (2000). 2000 United States Census [Online].
Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.census.gov

Wachholz, S., & Miedema, B. (2000). Risk, fear, harm: Immigrant women’s
perception of the “policing solution” to woman abuse. Crime, Law, and
Social Change, 34(3), 301-317.

126
Willis, C.E., Hallinan, M.N., & Melby, J. (1996). Effects of sex role
stereotyping among European American students on domestic violence culpability
attributions. Sex Roles, 34(7-8), 475-491.

Wolfe, D.A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A.L., & Grasley, C. (2004).
Predicting abuse in adolescent dating relationships over one year: The role of
child maltreatment and trauma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3),
406-415.

Xu, X., Campbell, J.C., & Zhu, F.C. (2001). Intimate partner violence against
Chinese women: The past, present, and future. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse,
2(4), 296-315.

Yamawaki, N., & Tschanz, B.T. (2005). Rape perception differences between
Japanese and American college students: On the mediating influence of
gender role traditionality. Sex Roles, 52(5-6), 379-392.

Yick, A.G. (2000a). Predictors of physical spousal/intimate violence in Chinese
American families. Journal of Family Violence, 15(3), 249-267.

Yick, A.G. (2000b). Domestic violence beliefs and attitudes in the Chinese
American community. Journal of Social Service Research, 27(1), 29-51.

Yick, A.G. (2001). Feminist theory and status inconsistency theory: Application to
domestic violence in Chinese immigrant families. Violence Against Women,
7(5), 545-562.

Yick, A.G., & Agbayani-Siewert, P. (1997). Perceptions of domestic violence in a
Chinese American community. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(6),
832-846.

Yoshihama, M. (1999). Domestic violence against women of Japanese descent in
Los Angeles: Two methods of estimating prevalence. Violence Against Women,
5(8), 869-897.
Yoshihama, M. (2000). Reinterpreting strength and safety in a socio-cultural
context: Dynamics of domestic violence and experiences of women of
Japanese descent. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(3-4), 207-229.

Yoshioka, M.R., Dang, Q., Shewmangal, N., Chan, C., Tan, C.I. (2000). Asian
family violence report: A study of the Chinese, Cambodian, Korean, South
Asian, and Vietnamese communities in Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Asian
Task Force Against Domestic Violence, Inc.
127
Yoshioka, M.R., DiNoia, J., & Ullah, K. (2001). Attitudes toward marital violence:
An examination of four Asian communities. Violence Against Women, 7(8),
900-926.

128
APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Ruth H. Gim Chung,
Ph.D., and Jane Y. Yang, M.S.Ed., from the Division of Counseling Psychology in
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. The data
collected in this study will be used for Jane Y. Yang’s dissertation. You were
selected as a possible participant in this study because you are 18 years of age or
older. Although this study’s primary focus is on the perspectives of Asian
Americans/Pacific Islanders, there is also a strong interest in the perspectives of
individuals from other racial and ethnic backgrounds. A total of 300 subjects will be
selected from those respondents who are 18 years of age or older to participate.
Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn
more about individuals’ perspectives regarding physical conflict in romantic
relationships and whether these perspectives are related to one’s race/ethnicity and
cultural values.

Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview questions
will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to complete a web-based survey that includes questions about
your demographic background and your perspectives on physical conflict in
romantic relationships. In addition, you will be asked to read a short vignette in
which physical conflict occurs and answer questions regarding the events that occur
in the vignette. Finally, you will be asked to complete questions regarding your
cultural values. The entire survey should take approximately 30 minutes to
complete.
Examples of survey questions include the following:
1. A wife should move out of the house if her husband hits her.
2. Some women seem to ask for beatings from their husbands.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Because of the sensitive nature of physical conflict in intimate relationships, and the
potential reactions you may have to the vignette and different questions regarding
physical conflict in the survey, you may experience temporary emotional discomfort
or distress. Your participation in filling out this online survey is completely
voluntary, and you may omit any questions which make you extremely
uncomfortable. In addition, you may withdraw from the study at anytime by closing
129
the window. If you experience any emotional discomfort and need further
assistance, you may contact Jane Y. Yang or Ruth H. Gim Chung at (213) 740-3255.
You may also contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 or
1-800-787-3224 (TTY).

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The potential benefits of this study include an increased awareness of one’s own
cultural values in general and one’s own perspectives on the resolution of conflict in
intimate relationships. Benefits to society include a better understanding of how
cultural and racial/ethnic differences impact individuals’ perspectives regarding
physical conflict in intimate relationships. In addition, this study may aid in
increasing society’s awareness of the potential differences between different Asian
American ethnic groups and other racial/ethnic groups when addressing the use of
physical conflict in intimate relationships. You will not directly benefit from
participating in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Regardless of whether or not you decide to participate in this study or fully complete
this survey, you may choose to enter a lottery to win one of four $50.00 gift
certificates for Amazon.com by emailing Jane Y. Yang at jyy38@yahoo.com with
your name and primary contact information. You do not have to complete the survey
or participate in this study in order to be entered into the lottery. If you are not
eligible for this study, you may still enter the lottery. Your name and contact
information will not be connected to the survey data in anyway and will be kept
completely confidential in a password-protected database.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.

After completion of the final questionnaire page, your responses will be
automatically and anonymously entered into a secured database housed with
www.surveymonkey.com. Your answers will not be connected with you in this
database, and this database will only be password-accessible to Jane Y. Yang, who
will create and hold the password. When all the data has been collected, it will be
emailed to Jane Y. Yang whose email and computer are password-protected.
Following analysis of the data, it will be destroyed in approximately the summer of
2004. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.

130
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact:

Jane Y. Yang, M.S.Ed., Doctoral Candidate
Division of Counseling Psychology
University of Southern California
WPH 1003
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4031
(213) 740-3255
jyy38@yahoo.com

Ruth H. Gim Chung, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair
Division of Counseling Psychology
University of Southern California
WPH 1003C
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4031
(213) 740-3255
rchung@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECT’S BILL OF RIGHTS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL
STUDIES
Any person who is requested to consent to participate as a subject in a research study
involving a psychosocial study, or who is requested to consent on behalf of another,
has the right to:

1. Be informed of the nature and purpose of the study.
2. Be given an explanation of the procedures to be followed in the study.
131
3. Be given a description of any attendant discomforts and risks reasonably
to be expected from your/your child’s participation in the study.
4. Be given an explanation of any benefits reasonably to be expected from
your/your child’s participation in the study.
5. Be given a disclosure of any appropriate alternatives that might be
advantageous to you/your child, and their relative risks and benefits.
6. Be informed of avenues of resources, if any, available to you/your child after
the study procedure if complications should arise.
7. Be given an opportunity to ask any questions concerning the study or the
procedures involved.
8. Be instructed that consent to participate in the study may be withdrawn at any
time, and that you/your child may discontinue participation in the study
without prejudice.
9. Be given a copy of this form and the signed and dated written study consent
form.
10. Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to participate
in the study without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit,
duress, coercion, or undue influence on your decision.

132
APPENDIX B
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

DIRECTIONS: Please check the items that describe who you are or fill in the requested
information.

1. Age _____ 2. Gender: ____Male ____Female

3. Marital status: ____Single ____Married ____Divorced/Separated

4. How many years of education do you have after high school? ____________

5. In what country were you born?____________________________________

6. In what country are you currently living?_____________________________

7. In what state/province do you currently live?__________________________

8. If you live in the United States, how long have you lived there? __________years

7. What generation are you?
__________ 1
st
generation (if you are NOT born in the U.S.)
__________ 2
nd
generation (if you are born in the U.S. but your parent(s) are not)
__________ 3
rd
generation (if at least one parent is born in the U.S.)
__________ 4
th
generation (if at least one grandparent is born in the U.S.)
__________ above 4
th
generation

8. What is your racial/ethnic identification?

_____ Asian Indian _____ Cambodian _____ Chinese _____ Filipino
_____ Hmong _____ Japanese _____ Korean _____ Laotian _____ Taiwanese
_____ Vietnamese _____ Pacific Islander
_____ Other Asian (specify) _______________________________________
_____ African American (specify) __________________________________
_____Chicano/Latino/Hispanic (specify) _____________________________
_____ European American (specify) _________________________________
_____ Middle Eastern/Arabic (specify) _______________________________
_____ Native American (specify) ____________________________________
133
9. How would you describe the socioeconomic class background of your family?
_____ Working class _____ Middle class _____ Upper class
_____ Lower middle class _____ Upper middle class

10. What is your annual family income?
_____ less than $20,000 _____ $60,001-70,000
_____ $20,001-30,000 _____ $70,001-80,000
_____ $30,001-40,000 _____ $80,001-90,000
_____ $40,001-50,000 _____ $90,001-100,000
_____ $50,001-60,000 _____ over $100,000

11. Which religion do you practice?
____None ____Buddhism ____Protestant
____Catholic ____Hindism ____Islam
____Judaism ____Confucianism
Other _________________________ (please specify)

12. How often do you attend religious services?
____More than once weekly ____Once every few months
____Once weekly ____Approximately once a year
____Once a month
134
APPENDIX C

REVISED ATTITUDES TOWARD WIFE ABUSE SCALE

We would like to know how true or false you find the following statements. Circle the
number that best fits how you feel.

Very True
Somewhat
True
True
False
Somewhat
False
Very False
1.A wife should move out of the house if her
husband hits her
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. A man is never justified in hitting his wife 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. A husband should have the right to discipline his
wife
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. A man is ruler of his home 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. A man should be arrested if he hits his wife 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. A man is entitled to sex with his wife whenever
he wants it
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Wife beating is grounds for divorce 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. Some women seem to ask for beatings from their
husbands
1 2 3 4 5 6
Now we would like to know under what circumstances you believe a husband would be justified in
hitting his wife. Circle the number that best fits how you feel.

Very
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Slightly
Likely
Not at all
likely
9. If his wife had sex with another man 1 2 3 4
10. If his wife refused to cook and keep the house
clean
1 2 3 4
11. If his wife refused to have sex with him 1 2 3 4
12. If his wife made fun of him at a party 1 2 3 4
13. If his wife told friends that he was sexually
pathetic
1 2 3 4
14. If his wife nags him too much 1 2 3 4

135
APPENDIX D

VIGNETTE: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE?

DIRECTIONS: Please read the scenario below and then answer the following questions.

Mark and Sonia have been dating for several years. They just recently got engaged
and are going to be married within the next year. One evening, they planned a date for
dinner and a movie and agreed to meet at their favorite restaurant at 5:30. Mark arrived on
time and had to wait more than half an hour for Sonia’s arrival. When Sonia finally got
there, she casually greeted Mark without mentioning her tardiness. Mark was annoyed by
her lateness, but said nothing, expecting her to apologize.
After Sonia sat down, Mark tried to catch the waiter’s attention so they could order
dinner, but he couldn’t catch the waiter’s eye. “Damn, this waiter must be blind!” he said.
Sonia easily got the waiter’s attention and when he came to the table, she ordered dinner.
“I’ll order the same thing too,” said Mark. Sonia giggled and said, “Well, a little flirting sure
doesn’t hurt, does it?”
Mark became very upset. “Hey, I don’t like that, Sonia--Where have you been for
the past half hour? You were supposed to be here at 5:30, and it’s after 6:00!” Sonia shot
back, “Will you just get off my back? You’re always criticizing me. Why don’t you relax
for a change?” Mark responded, “Hey, I just asked you a simple question. I’ve been sitting
here since 5:30 with nothing to do but wait around. We’re going to have to rush through
dinner or be late for the movie.” Sonia snapped back, not very nicely, “So what? We can go
to a later one, can’t we?” Mark replied, “Easy for you to say, you haven’t been sitting here
for a half hour. What’s the matter with you anyway? You just waltz in here like it’s no big
deal that I’ve been sitting here alone. It’s rude, Sonia.” Sonia yelled, “You should talk
about rude. And I couldn’t care less how long you’ve been waiting.” Mark glared at her and
said, “Well I have been waiting, for too damn long, wondering where you’ve been. I’ll bet
you were late because you were with Dave. I saw the two of you together last week. I can’t
believe you’d do that with my best friend.” “What are you talking about?” asked Sonia.
“You know what I’m talking about. I saw it with my own eyes, so don’t try to lie,” accused
Mark. “Look, Mark,” Sonia retorted, “You don’t own me. I should go out with Dave--he
sure is less of an idiot than you are.”
“Listen you--“ Mark yelled. “We might as well forget our date--you’re too upset,”
said Sonia as she stood and started to leave. “And you’re--Where do you think you’re going
now?” demanded Mark, as he got up and grabbed onto Sonia’s sleeve. “Leave me alone!”
she responded angrily, “You’re such a jerk!” Mark yelled, “Shut up, you! You’re not going
anywhere!” Sonia yelled back, “Get your hands off me, you bastard! Let me go!” Mark
grabbed her by the wrist and struck her face hard. Sonia screamed and fell to the floor. The
waiter put himself in front of Mark, asking them to cool off and go home. They went home
separately. Sonia’s face was swollen and she had a small cut on her upper lip.

136
Here are some questions about Sonia and Mark and what happened between them.
Please answer the questions by circling the answer that most closely describes your thoughts
or feelings about the event.

1. How much was Mark’s behavior caused by his own character/personality?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely
2. How much was Mark’s behavior caused by something about Sonia?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely
3. How much was Mark’s behavior caused by something about the situation Mark and Sonia
were in?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely

4. How likely do you think it is that other men in Mark’s situation would react as Mark did?
Very Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Likely
5. How responsible was Mark for what happened?
Not at all Responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Responsible
6. How much do you blame Mark for what happened?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely
7. How socially acceptable was Mark’s behavior to you?
Not at all Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Acceptable
8. How socially acceptable do you think Mark’s behavior would be to most other people?
Not at all Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Acceptable
9. How responsible was Sonia for what happened?
Not at all Responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Responsible
10. How much do you blame Sonia for what happened?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely
137
11. How socially acceptable was Sonia’s behavior to you?
Not at all Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Acceptable
12. How socially acceptable do you think Sonia’s behavior would be to most other people?
Not at all Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely Acceptable
13. How much was Mark hurt?
Not at all Hurt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Seriously Hurt
14. How much was Sonia hurt?
Not at all Hurt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Seriously Hurt
15. How bad was Mark’s behavior?
Not at all Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Bad
16. How bad was Sonia’s behavior?
Not at all Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Bad
17. Have you ever been involved in a relationship that you thought was abusive?
_____Yes, I am currently.
_____Yes, I used to be.
_____No, I have not.

138
APPENDIX E

ASIAN VALUES SCALE

DIRECTIONS: Use the scale below to indicate the extent to which you agree with
the value expressed in each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Mildly Neither Agree Mildly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree or Disagree Agree Agree Agree

_____1. Educational failure does not bring shame to the family.

_____2. One should not deviate from familial and social norms.

_____3. Children should not place their parents in retirement homes.

_____4. One need not focus all energies on one's studies.

_____5. One should be discouraged from talking about one's accomplishments.

_____6. One should not be boastful.

_____7. Younger persons should be able to confront their elders.

_____8. When one receives a gift, one should reciprocate with a gift of equal or greater
value.

_____9. One need not follow one's family's and the society's norms.

_____10. One need not achieve academically in order to make one's parents proud.

_____11. One need not minimize or depreciate one's own achievements.

_____12. One should consider the needs of others before considering one's own needs.

_____13. Educational and career achievements need not be one's top priority.

_____14. One should think about one's group before oneself.

_____15. One should be able to question a person in an authority position.

_____16. Modesty is an important quality for a person.

_____17. One's achievements should be viewed as family's achievements.

139
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Moderately Mildly Neither Agree Mildly Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree or Disagree Agree Agree Agree

_____18. Elders may not have more wisdom than younger persons.

_____19. One should avoid bringing displeasure to one's ancestors.

_____20. One need not conform to one's family's and society's expectations.

_____21. One should have sufficient inner resources to resolve emotional problems.

_____22. Parental love should be implicitly understood and not openly expressed.

_____23. The worst thing one can do is to bring disgrace to one's family reputation.

_____24. One need not remain reserved and tranquil.

_____25. The ability to control one's emotions is a sign of strength.

_____26. One should be humble and modest.

_____27. Family's reputation is not the primary social concern.

_____28. One need not be able to resolve psychological problems on one's own.

_____29. Following familial and social expectations are important.

_____30. One should not inconvenience others.

_____31. Occupational failure does not bring shame to the family.

_____32. One need not follow the role expectations (gender, family hierarchy) of one's
family.

_____33. One should not make waves.

_____34. Children need not take care of their parents when the parents become unable to
take care of themselves.

_____35. One need not control one's expression of emotions.

_____36. One's family need not be the main source of trust and dependence.

140
APPENDIX F

ASIAN AMERICAN MULTIDIMENSIONAL ACCULTURATION SCALE
DIRECTIONS: Use the scale below to answer the following questions. Please circle
the number that best represents your view on each item. Please note that reference to
“Asian” hereafter refers to Asians in America and not Asia. IF YOU ARE NOT
ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER OR MULTIRACIAL ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER,
PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE.

Not very well Somewhat Very well
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. How well do speak the language of --
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English? 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. How well do you understand the language of --
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English? 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. How well do you read and write in the language of --
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English? 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. How often do you listen to music or look at movies and magazines from
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. How much do you like the food of -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. How often do you eat the food of -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. How knowledgeable are you about the history of -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

141
Not very well Somewhat Very well
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. How knowledgeable are you about the culture and traditions of -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. How much do you practice the traditions and keep the holidays of -
a. your own Asian ethnic culture? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream culture? 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. How much do you identify with -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. How much do you feel you have in common with people from -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. How much do you interact and associate with people from -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. How much would you like to interact and associate with people from -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. How proud are you to be part of -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. How negative do you feel about people from -
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Relationship of gender role conflict and acculturation to willingness to seek psychological help among Asian American and European American men

PDF

Sex-role orientation, gender role attitudes, and acculturation as predictors of psychological well-being

PDF

The neglected side of domestic violence research: case studies of female aggressors in intimate partnerships

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

Asset Metadata

Creator Yang, Jane Y. (author)

Core Title The role of acculturation in Asian Americans' attitudes towards domestic violence and of male privilege as a mediator in placing blame

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Counseling Psychology)

Publication Date 09/28/2006

Defense Date 07/11/2006

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Acculturation and domestic violence,Acculturation and relationship violence,Asian American Acculturation and domestic violence attitudes,Asian American acculturation and intimate partner violence attitudes,Asian American acculturation, patriarchal ideology, and domestic violence attitudes,Asian American domestic violence attitudes,Asian American intimate partner violence attitudes,Asian American relationship violence attitudes,Asian culture, patriarchal ideology, and domestic violence,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Chung, Ruth, H. (committee chair), Goodyear, Rodney K. (committee member), Iwamura, Jane Naomi (committee member)

Creator Email janey38@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m51

Unique identifier UC199339

Identifier etd-Yang-20060928 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-16398 (legacy record id),usctheses-m51 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Yang-20060928.pdf

Dmrecord 16398

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Yang, Jane Y.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu