Sex Roles, Vol. 40, Nos.

3/4, 1999

A ttitudes Toward Domestic Violence: Race and

Gender Issues1
Lisa M. Locke
University of South Carolina

Charles L. Richman 2
Wake Forest University

Previous research has not extensively add ressed how attitudes toward domes-
tic violence vary between ethnicities and genders. This experiment utilized
domestic violence scenarios with the husband s and wifes ethnicities varied
to form four combinations of European-A merican and African-A merican
couples. Participants were 156 European-A merican (87 female and 69 male)
and 109 African-A merican (73 female and 36 male) undergraduate introduc-
tory psycho logy students aged 18 24 years. Participants read the scenario
and completed 7 questionnaires abo ut their attitudes toward the scenario,
domestic violence, and women. Analyses showed that women relative to men
blamed the husband more for the abuse, sym pathized more with the wife,
and rated the incident as more serious, and African-American participants
sym pathized more with African-A merican victims. In addition, participants
blamed the African-A merican husband less for the abuse than the European-
American husband. Both women and European-A mericans, relative to men
and African-A mericans, had more positive views of women and disappro ved
more strongly of wife beating. This research demonstrates that participant
gender and ethnicity, as well as abuser and victim ethnicity, do have an effect
on attitudes toward domestic violence.
The numbe r of women who are batte red each year by their partne rs is
unknown because of society s perception of domestic violence as a private
1
The authors express their appreciation to Deborah Best, Steve Davis, Anthony Perry, and
the Winston-Salem Police Department for their assistance. This research was conducted as
part of an undergraduate honors thesis by the rst author at Wake Forest University. The
paper is based on a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southeaste rn Psychological
Association, April 4, 1997, Atlanta, GA. The present research was partially funded by the
Wake Forest University Graduate School and a grant from United Way of Winston-Salem,
Forsyth County to the second author.
2
To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Box 7778
Reynolda Station, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109.

227

0360-0025/99/0200 0227$16.00/0 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

228 Locke and Richman

matte r, the failure of many victims to report abuse , and the knowledge that
many police of cers and judges dismiss abuse as inconsequential. Estimate s
prepare d by the United States Bureau of Justice (Aug. 1995) sugge st that
at least one million women each year fall victim to the violence of their
husbands or boyfriends. One in ve of those victims experiences three or
more assaults in a six month period. Domestic violence does not discrimi-
nate between ethnicities or geographic locations; European-A merican, Af-
rican-A merican, and Hispanic women in urban, rural, and suburban areas
all experience abuse from their spouse s or boyfrie nds (Greene, Raitz, &
Lindblad, 1989; Lockhart, 1987; US Dept. of Justice, Nov. 1994).
In addition to these shocking estimate s, the recent O. J. Simpson
murde r case has directed the issue of domestic violence to the forefront
of the public s atte ntion. Although domestic violence has been addresse d
extensively by the media and acade mics since the 1970s, it is the Simpson
trial that has highlighted the issues of blame and ethnicity (Kozol, 1995).
According to many academics and the popular press, American society
traditionally has repressed the issue of domestic violence and ignored the
needs of batte red women. Meyers (1994) conte nds that ``news coverage
of batte ring is socially distorte d {and} rooted in assumptions, myths, and
stereotypes that link it to individual and family pathology (p. 48). Many
scholars and journalists agre e that American patriarchal society has relieved
men of much of the responsibility for their abusive acts while blaming
victims and sometimes even condoning abuse . In addition, domestic vio-
lence has been depicted as a private family matte r, and therefore something
not to be interfered with in the public sector (Douglas, 1994; Kozol, 1995;
Minor, 1994; Willis, 1994). Such attitude s and depictions, although less
prevale nt today than twenty years ago, only serve to perpetuate myths and
hinder efforts to eliminate the occurrence of abuse.
The ethnicity of those involved in domestic violence is anothe r one of
society s concerns. The O. J. Simpson case has led Americans to expand their
understanding of domestic violence from gender issues to include racial and
ethnic issues (Kozol, 1995). According to Willis (1994), white Americans
have a ``good black/bad black neurosis that affe cts how they perceive Simp-
son and other abuse rs (p. 8). Whites want ``friendly black heroes, such as
Simpson, while fearing these heroes unde rlying aggression (p. 8; see also
Kozol, 1995). Bruning (1994) points out that ``black Americans seem particu-
larly vexed by the O. J. Simpson affair because in the past black men have
been falsely accuse d by whites; black Americans are caught between de-
fending their ethnicity and condemning wife abuse (p. 11). Stereotype s of the
issues presented by the media merit scienti c investigation to determine how
blaming the victim versus the abuse r in an abusive incident interacts with the
ethnicity both of those involve d and of the observe rs.
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 229

Theoretical A pproache s

Researchers have attempted to explain peoples perceptions of bat-

tered women using theories such as Shave r s defensive attribution theory,
Heider s balance theory, and Lerner s just-world theory (Kristianse n &
Giulietti, 1990; Pierce & Harris, 1993; Schuller, Smith, & Olson, 1994).
Shave rs (1970) defensive attribution theory states that the more people
see themselves as similar to a victim, the less they will attribute responsibility
for the incident to the victim. Likewise, people ``assign responsibility {to
the victim} when personal similarity is low, secure in the knowledge that
as a different kind of person {from the victim}, you are safe (p. 106).
Heider s (1958) cognitive balance theory state s that ``if we dislike a
person we are more likely to interpret his act as a harm (p. 258). In
response to this, both Kristiansen and Giulietti (1990) and Pierce and Harris
(1993) sugge st that in order to maintain cognitive balance, people who have
positive attitude s toward women tend to blame the abuser more than the
victim. Finally, Lerner s (1980) just-world hypothe sis state s that we live in
a ``just world in which ``people get what they deserve (p. 11).
In a broade r sense, both the interpersonal power theory and feminist
theory have also atte mpted to account for the prevalence of domestic
violence and the stereotype s that maintain it (Lenton, 1995a, 1995b) . Len-
ton, citing Murray Straus as the developer of interpersonal power theory,
state s that this theory asserts that power imbalance s within the family and
stress produce d by low income and/or unemployment are the primary
contributors to wife abuse. Feminist theory, on the other hand, focuse s on
the conte xt of the patriarchal society in which these power-imbalance d
families exist. Lenton has found support for both theories, and she stresses
a need to focus on factors such as patriarchal beliefs, ethnicity, and class
when investigating domestic violence (1995a, 1995b).

Prior Research

Theory

Evidence supporting these theories in studie s of wife abuse is con ict-

ing. Kristiansen and Giulietti s (1990) ndings suggest that men s percep-
tions of wife abuse stem from their more negative attitudes toward women,
while women s perceptions are due more to their need to gain control over
their own possible victimization. Schuller, Smith, and Olson (1994) found
support for the just-world hypothesis, stating that those people who have
230 Locke and Richman

weak just-world beliefs are less likely to blame the victims of domestic
violence than those who believe strongly in a just world.

G ender an d Attitudes Toward Wom en

Almost all research concerning domestic violence has found an effect

of gender. In comparison to men, women are less likely to blame the female
victim and more likely to attribute responsibility for the incident to the
male abuse r. (Harris & Cook, 1994; Pierce & Harris, 1993; Schuller et. al.,
1994) . Harris and Cook (1994) found that women sympathized more with
the victim, regardle ss of similarity between the victim and participant.
Whether male or female, as attitude s toward women become more positive ,
people tend to blame the abuse r more than the victim (Kristianse n &
Giulietti, 1990; Stith, 1990; Willis, Hallinan, & Melby, 1996) .

Ethnicity

The variation of attitude s toward domestic violence when the abused

and the abuse r are of different vs. same ethnicity and when the ethnicity
of the experimental participants is varie d has not been investigate d (Willis
et al., 1996) . Lockhart (1987) asserted that although the media and statistics
may sugge st that incidences of domestic violence are highe r among African-
Americans than Europe an-A mericans, the differing rates of violence are
actually a function of socioeconomic status and cultural differences. Thus,
attitude differences between ethnic groups toward domestic violence should
not be due to actual rate s of occurre nce, but rather due to stereotype s.
European-A mericans stereotype s of the inherent aggressiveness of
African-Ame ricans could affect opinions toward abuse rs and victims
(Baughman, 1971; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994; Weitz & Gordon, 1993). Baugh-
man (1971) attributes this belief to the elevate d rate of violence and aggre s-
sion in African-Ame rican society that is actually due to their life experiences
and circumstance s but is interpreted as being a part of their genetic make up.
According to Tedeschi and Felson (1994), some people ``may also treat
black offenders more leniently because they expect such behavior from
blacks (p. 232). Kozol (1995) sugge sts that the traditional taboo against
African-Ame rican men being sexually involved with Europe an-Ame rican
women only heighte ns the negative opinions encounte red in instance s of
domestic violence and rape . Based on such observations, it seems that if
European-A mericans and African-Ame ricans have different perceptions
of the actual and pote ntial aggre ssiveness of the two ethnic groups, their
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 231

perceptions could affe ct their attitudes toward wife abuse and toward the
punishme nt that the abuse r should face.
Research concerning the effects of ethnicity on attitude s has been
conducte d more in studie s of rape than in studies of domestic violence. In
the former, African-A merican victims and African-A merican rapists are
believed less and blamed more than Europe an-A merican victims and rapists
(Willis, 1992). Additionally, if the victim, African-Ame rican or Europe an-
American, has been in a relationship with an African-A merican perpetrator,
she is perceived as less truthful. Giacopassi and Dull (1986) assume that
gender and ethnicity are at the root of attitude differences. They state that
``each race and sex is more likely to judge the othe r, whether victim or
offe nder, more harshly (p. 74), because of the tendency to ``reject state -
ments that re ect negative ly on individuals who have characte ristics similar
to themselves (p. 72).
Pierce and Harris (1993) investigate d this theory by varying the eth-
nicity of the husband in their domestic violence scenarios, and hypothesize d
but failed to con rm that the assault would be perceived more seriously if
the abuse r were African-A merican. However, these investigators did not
indicate the ethnicity of the wife in their scenarios, and the majority of the
participants were Europe an-A merican; both factors could have affe cted
the results.
Willis et al. (1996) extended Pierce and Harris research by varying
both the ethnicity of the abuse r and the victim in their scenarios. They
found that the ethnicity of the victim affe cted participants attitude s toward
the incident, rating it as less abusive and the abuse r as less responsible
when the woman was African-A merican, especially when she was in a
relationship with a European-A merican man. Again, however, the respon-
dents were primarily Europe an-Ame rican; these trends need to be investi-
gate d with African-Ame rican participants to determine who is stereotyp-
ing whom.

Hypothe ses

Since little research has been conducte d to determine how ethnicity

affe cts men s and women s attitude s toward domestic violence, the present
research varie d the ethnicity of the husband in the scenario (white/black)
and the ethnicity of the wife in the scenario (white/black). The variables
of participant ethnicity (white/black) and participant gender (male/female)
were also included in the analysis. Based on Shave rs (1970) defensive
attribution theory and Heiders (1958) cognitive balance theory, men rela-
tive to women (regardless of ethnicity) were predicted to be less sympathe tic
232 Locke and Richman

toward the victims. It was also expected that there would be a difference
between ethnic groups, with African-A merican men and women sympathiz-
ing more with African-A merican victims and Europe an-Ame rican men and
women sympathizing more with Europe an-A merican victims. This effect
should be moderate d by the participants gender, with members of one
ethnicity sympathizing more with their own ethnicity, but women (relative
to men) within that ethnicity sympathizing more with the victim than the
abuse r.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 156 Europe an-A merican (87 female and 69 male) and
109 African-A merican (73 female and 36 male) unde rgraduate introductory
psychology stude nts aged 18 24 years. Ninety-eight percent of the under-
graduate participants were unmarrie d. The participants originated from
various regions of the country; they received course credit for their partici-
pation. Three southe astern unive rsities participated in the study in the
spring and summer of 1996. Thirty-six participants were eliminated from
the data analyse s due to incomplete data or incorrect reporting of the
husband s and/or wife s ethnicity.

Mate rials

Scenario

Each participant read a ctitious scenario, adapte d from Kristiansen &

Giulietti (1990) and typed on an of cial Winston-Sale m, NC, police report.
The scenario depicted the husband beating his wife, with the ethnicity of
the husband and the wife varie d to produce four different scenarios white
husband/white wife, white husband/black wife, black husband/white wife,
and black husband/black wife. The scenario consiste d of the following para-
graph:
``Of cer responded to a reported assault in a lower-class neighborhood.
Upon arrival, the female reported that she had been assaulted by her hus-
band, the suspe ct. She state d that an argume nt over house hold responsibilit-
ies had instigate d the assault (at this point suspe ct adde d that female had
gone out to lunch with a friend instead of cleaning the house and buying
groce ries). The suspe ct allegedly pushed his wife to the oor and struck her
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 233

repeatedly in the facial area with a closed st. Of cer observed female had a
puffe d-up eye, bruised forehead, and bloody nose. Medical attention was
accepted by the female. Female wished to prose cute, and suspe ct was placed
under arrest. Suspe ct was heard calling his wife a ``lazy bitch.

Questionnaires

A series of six questionnaires were used to assess participants opinions

about the abusive incident depicted in the scenario as well as general
opinions about women, wife abuse , and racial stereotype s.
1. The Scenario Knowledge Scale (SKS). This scale involve d simple
true-false stateme nts about the scenario and was used as a manipulation
check to insure that the participants understood the scenario. The SKS was
used only to eliminate those participants who did not correctly identify the
ethnicities of the husband and wife or who failed to correctly identify critical
aspe cts of the scenario; participants received no composite score and the
SKS was not used in the analyse s. Sample true-false stateme nts from this
scale include ``John Jones is a black man and ``Linda Jones suffe red a
puffe d-up eye, bruised forehead, and bloody nose.
2. The Scenario Opinion Scale (SOS). This scale, adapted from
Pierce & Harris (1993), was used to assess the participants attitude s about
the scenario. The scale was divided into three subscale s for scoring, one
scale each for the opinions of the incident (3 items), the husband John (7
items), and the wife Linda (6 items). Participants rate d each stateme nt or
question on a 5-point Likert scale, from ``not at all (1) to ``extre mely
(5). The lower the total score on each subscale (some items being reverse
scored), the less sympathy and more blame the participant attribute d to
the husband or the wife, or the less seriously the participant viewed the
abusive incident. Scores could range from 7 to 35 for the Opinion of Hus-
band, 6 to 30 for Opinion of Wife, and 3 to 15 for Opinion of Incident. A
composite score comprising all three subscales was not calculate d since
each subscale measure d a different construct.
Sample items from the Opinion of Husband subscale include ``How
responsible was John Jones for the incident? and ``How much do you
sympathize with John Jones? . Sample items from the Opinion of Wife
subscale include ``How responsible was Linda Jones for the incident? and
``Ove rall, how much do you like Linda Jones? . Finally, sample items from
the Opinion of Incident subscale include ``How serious was the incident?
and ``How violent was this incident? .
3. The In ventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating (IBAWB). The Saun-
ders, Lynch, Grayson, & Linz (1987) IBAWB was used to assess partici-
234 Locke and Richman

pants attitudes about the acceptability of wife beating. The authors of the
inventory created it to assess attitude s and beliefs using ve subscale s, but
for the purpose s of this study the scores on the subscale s were combined
to form one total score; the authors found both the subscale s and the
composite scale to have acceptable reliability and validity.
Example s of the 7-point Likert-scale stateme nts include ``sometimes
it is okay for a man to beat his wife and ``women feel pain and no pleasure
when beaten up by their husbands, where 1 was ``strongly agre e, 4 was
``neither agre e nor disagre e, and 7 was ``strongly disagre e. Three ller
items were included. Some items were reverse-score d so that a high compos-
ite score (up to 266) indicate d that wife beating was not acceptable , and a
low composite score (down to 38) indicate d that it was acceptable .
4. The McConahay, Hardee, and Batts (1981) Racism Scale. This scale
was used to assess the degree of participants racial stereotype s and atti-
tude s. The scale is a sound method of assessing people s racial attitude s,
with test-rete st correlations of .93 and .87. There were seven items for each
subscale, all on a 5-point Likert-scale in which 1 indicated ``strongly agre e,
3 indicated ``not sure, and 5 indicate d ``strongly disagre e. Fourte en ller
items were also included.
Sample items include ``it is a bad idea for blacks and whites to marry
one anothe r and ``blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal
rights. A high composite score on this scale (up to 70) indicate d fewer
negative racial attitudes while a low composite score indicate d more nega-
tive racial attitude s.
5. The Attitudes Toward Wom en Scale Short Form (AWS). The
Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1973) AWS was used to determine whether
participants had positive or negative views about women. Spence and Helm-
reich (1978; as cited in Bailey, Less, & Harrell, 1992) designed this scale
to ``assess attitude s toward the rights, roles, and privileges women ought
to have and was not intended to be a measure of global attitude s toward
women (p. 315). Daugherty and Dambrot (1986) found the 25-item scale
to have acceptable alpha (.89) and split-half (.86) reliabilities. Examples of
the 4-point Likert-scale state ments include ``swearing and obscenity are
more repulsive in the speech of a woman than a man and ``a woman
should be as free as a man to propose marriage . In this case a score of 1
indicated ``agre e strongly and a 4 indicate d ``disagre e strongly. Some
items were reverse-score d so that a high composite score (up to 100) indi-
cated positive attitude s toward women, and a low composite score (down
to 25) indicate d negative attitude s.
6. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Because of the sensi-
tive and possibly transpare nt nature of the questionnaire s administe red,
this scale was used to determine whether participants were responding in
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 235

a socially desirable manner (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). This scale has
excellent internal consiste ncy and correlates fairly well with other social
desirability scales. Eleven true-false state ments that indicate d social desir-
ability were selected from a total of 33; items that appe ared particularly
relevant to unde rgraduate participants were used in order to obtain a more
accurate rating of social desirability and to reduce the total numbe r of
items to which participants were required to respond.
Example s of such state ments include ``it is sometimes hard for me to
go on with my work if I am not encouraged and ``I m always willing to
admit it when I make a mistake . The more state ments that participants
respond to in a socially desirable manne r, the more likely they are to
respond to other scales in a way that is deemed socially acceptable rathe r
than in a manne r consiste nt with their true opinions. Scores could range
from 0 to 11 on this scale.

Procedure

Participants volunte ered to participate in a study entitled ``Couples.

Each experimental session was limited to 50 participants. The scenario and
questionnaire packe ts were distribute d blindly so that the experimenter
did not know which participants received which form, and approximate ly
25% of the participants received each type of scenario. After signing the
informed consent form, participants were asked to read the police report
carefully and then to respond hone stly to all of the questionnaire s. Partici-
pants were permitted to refer to the scenario whenever necessary while
completing the SKS and SOS. After the SKS and the SOS were completed,
the remaining four questionnaire s were administe red in random order.

RESULTS

A 4-way MANCOVA was conducte d, with the Opinion of Husband,

Opinion of Wife, and Opinion of Incident scales as the dependent variable s,
and participant gender, participant ethnicity, husband ethnicity, and wife
ethnicity as the independent variables. The participants social desirability
scores served as the covariate, since they could not be controlled for experi-
mentally. Since the covariate was not signi cant in any of the analyse s, it
will not be discusse d furthe r ( ps . .05).
There were three signi cant effects on the opinion scales in the multi-
variate analyse s, as measure d by the Wilks Lambda criterion: main effect
of participant gender ( F (3, 246) 5 6.74, p 5 .0001, h 2 5 .08), main effect
236 Locke and Richman

of husband ethnicity ( F (3, 246) 5 2.78, p 5 .04, h 2 5 .03), and an interaction

between the two main effects ( F (3, 246) 5 5.57, p 5 .001, h 2 5 .06). All
models in the univariate analyse s were signi cant: Opinion of Incident scale
( F (16, 248) 5 1.73, p 5 .04, h 2 5 .10), Opinion of Husband scale ( F (16,
248) 5 1.88, p 5 .02, h 2 5 .11), and Opinion of Wife scale ( F (16, 248) 5
3.04, p 5 .0001, h 2 5 .16). The three opinion scales were signi cantly
correlated (Table I).
A 4-way MANCOVA was also conducte d using the attitude scales
(Racism Scale, IBAWB, and AWS) as the dependent variables; participant
gender and ethnicity, and husband and wife ethnicity as the independent
variable s; and social desirability as the covariate. Again, the covariate was
not signi cant in any of the analyse s, so it will not be discusse d furthe r
( ps . .05).
There were four signi cant effects on the attitude scales in the multivar-
iate analyse s, as measure d by the Wilks Lambda criterion: main effect of
participant ethnicity ( F (3, 246) 5 19.42, p 5 .0001, h 2 5 .19) , main effect
of participant gender ( F (3, 246) 5 15.61, p 5 .0001, h 2 5 .16), an interaction
between participant ethnicity and husband ethnicity ( F (3, 246) 5 3.30,
p 5 .02, h 2 5 .04), and an interaction between husband ethnicity and wife
ethnicity ( F (3, 246) 5 4.02, p 5 .008, h 2 5 .05). All models in the univariate
analyse s were signi cant: Attitude s Toward Women Scale ( F (16, 248) 5
2.45, p 5 .002, MSE 5 87.17, h 2 5 .14), Racism Scale ( F (16, 248) 5 2.33,
p 5 .003, MSE 5 59.79, h 2 5 .13), and Inventory of Beliefs About Wife
Beating ( F (16, 248) 5 5.53, p 5 .0001, MSE 5 345.61, h 2 5 .26). The three
attitude scales were also signi cantly correlated (Table I).

Opinion of Wife

There were two main effects and three interactions on this scale (refer
to Table II for F statistics) . First, there was a main effect of participant

Table I. Pearson Correlation Matrix of Scenario Opinion Scales and Attitude Scales
Scale WBI Racism IBAWB Incident Husband Wife
WBI .31 b
.46 b
.31 b 2 .45 b
.48 b
Racism .49 b .18 b 2 .15 a .10
IBAWB .16 b 2 .15 a .20 b
Incident 2 .39 b .45 b
Husband 2 .59 b
Wife
p,
a
.05.
p,
b
.01.
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 237

Table II. Univariate Analyse s of Scenario Opinion Scales Using a 4-way MANCOVA
Scale Signi cant Effects F df p h 2

Opinion of Wife Participant gender 18.10 1,248 .0001 .07

Husband ethnicity 6.24 1,248 .01 .03
Participant gender 3 husband 9.01 1,248 .003 .04
ethnicity
Participant ethnicity 3 wife 4.87 1,248 .03 .02
ethnicitya
Participant gender 3 husband 3.72 1,248 .055 .02
ethnicity 3 wife ethnicitya
Opinion of Husband Participant gender 12.92 1,248 .001 .05
Husband ethnicity 6.61 1,248 .01 .03
Opinion of Incident Participant gender 3.72 1,248 .055 .02
Participant ethnicity 3 wife 3.81 1,248 .05 .02
ethnicitya
Participant gender 3 husband 4.01 1,248 .05 .02
ethnicity 3 wife ethnicitya
a
These analyse s were not signi cant in the multivariate analyse s and must be interpreted
with caution.

gender. Women, compare d to men, had more sympathy and less blame for
the wife ( M 5 24.89 and 23.22, respectively). There was also a main effect
of husband ethnicity, in which participants had more sympathy for the wife
with a Europe an-A merican husband ( M 5 24.55) than with an African-
American husband ( M 5 23.88).
The two-way participant gender by husband ethnicity interaction was
signi cant in the univariate and multivariate analyses (Table II). Women
had the most sympathy for the wife with an African-Ame rican husband,
while men had the least sympathy for the same wife (Table III). Both men
and women rated the wife with the Europe an-A merican husband similarly.
There was also a two-way interaction between participant ethnicity
and wife ethnicity. This interaction must be interpreted cautiously because
it was only signi cant in the univariate analyse s (Table II). It showed
that relative to European-A mericans, African-Ame ricans had the most
sympathy for the African-A merican wife ( M 5 25.04), and the least sympa-
thy for Europe an-Ame rican wife ( M 5 23.36). Europe an-A mericans rate d

Table III. Two-Way Interactions on Opinion of Wife Scale in 4-Way MANCOVA a

Participant Gender European-American Husband African-American Husband
Women 24.76 25.04
Men 24.25 22.08 b
a
Higher scores indicate more sympathy/less blame for the wife.
Tukeys post-hoc showed this mean is signi cantly different from the others at p 5
b
.01.
238 Locke and Richman

the wife similarly regardle ss of her ethnicity ( M 5 24.32, African-A merican

wife; M 5 24.76, Europe an-A merican wife).
Finally, there was a trend toward a three-way interaction between
participant gender, husband ethnicity, and wife ethnicity (Table II). Since
this interaction was only signi cant in the univariate analyse s, and its
p 5 .055, it will not be discussed furthe r.

Opinion of Husband

There were two main effects on the Opinion of Husband scale (Table
II). There was a main effect of participant gender in which women ( M 5
8.65), relative to men ( M 5 9.55), blamed the husband more and sympa-
thized with him less. There was also a main effect of husband ethnicity, in
which participants blamed the Europe an-A merican husband ( M 5 8.77)
more and sympathized with him less than the African-A merican husband
( M 5 9.27). There were no interactions on this scale, ps . 10.

Opinion of Incident

There was a marginally signi cant main effect of participant gender

on this scale (Table II). Women, compare d to men, rated the incident as
more serious ( M 5 12.73 and 12.21, respectively). There were two interac-
tions that must be interpreted cautiously because they were only signi cant
in the univariate analyse s, and their h 2 s were only .02 (Table II). First,
there was an interaction between participant ethnicity and wife ethnicity,
in which African-Ame ricans rate d the incident with the African-A merican
husband most seriously, and Europe an-A mericans rate d it least seriously
in that instance ( M 5 12.92 and 12.11, respectively).
Second, there was a three-way interaction between participant gender,
husband ethnicity, and wife ethnicity (Table II). In this instance , women
relative to men tended to rate the incident most seriously when the couple
was Europe an-Ame rican ( M 5 13.30 and 12.30, respectively). Men relative
to women tended to rate the incident least seriously when the couple was
African-Ame rican ( M 5 11.86 and 12.53, respectively). Again, these results
must be interpreted with caution due to their lack of multivariate signi -
cance.

Sam e-Ethnicity vs. Mixe d-Ethnicity Couples

As a furthe r exploration of the effects of husband and wife ethnicity

on the Scenario Opinion Scales, an additional 3-way MANCOVA was
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 239

conducte d using participant gender, participant ethnicity, and scenario cou-

ple ethnicity (as well as social desirability as the covariate ). The scenario
couple variable had four levels: same-ethnicity couple (white/white and
black/black) and mixed-ethnicity couple (black/white and white/black); this
analysis served as a more general measure of the effects of ethnicity in the
scenarios. Since the covariate was not signi cant in this analysis, it will not
be discusse d further ( ps . .05).
There were two signi cant multivariate effects in these analyse s: 1.)
Main effect of participant gender, F (3, 246) 5 6.74, p 5 .0001, h 2 5 .08; 2.)
Interaction between participant gender and couple ethnicity, F (9, 598.85) 5
2.62, p 5 .006, h 2 5 .03. All models in the univariate analyse s were signi -
cant: Opinion of Incident scale ( F (16, 248) 5 1.73, p 5 .04, MSE 5 2.98,
h 2 5 .10), Opinion of Husband scale ( F (16, 248) 5 1.88, p 5 .02, MSE 5
4.16, h 2 5 .11), and Opinion of Wife scale ( F (16, 248) 5 3.04, p 5 .0001,
MSE 5 9.94, h 2 5 .16).
There was a signi cant univariate and multivariate main effect of gen-
der on all three scales, with the same trends as previously reporte d for
each (Tables II and IV). In each, women relative to men sympathized with
the wife more and the husband less, and rate d the incident more seriously.
Finally, there was a couple ethnicity by participant gender interaction
on the Opinion of Wife scale (Table IV). Women had the most sympathy
for the wife in the African-A merican couple, while men had the least
sympathy in the same instance ( M 5 25.84 and 21.38, respectively). It
should be note d that all of these results are quite similar to the 4-way
MANCOVA and only serve to demonstrate that there are few discrepancies
between analyzing the husband and wifes ethnicities separately versus to-
gether.

A ttitude Scale A nalyses

The Attitude s Toward Women scale had two main effects (see Table
V for F statistics): 1.) Participant gender: compared to men, women held

Table IV. Univariate Analyses of Scenario Opinion Scales Using a 3-way MANCOVA
Scale Signi cant Effects F df p h 2

Opinion of Wife Participant gender 18.10 1,248 .0001 .07

Couple ethnicity 3 4.29 3,248 .005 .05
participant gender
Opinion of Husband Participant gender 12.92 1,248 .0001 .05
Opinion of Incident Participant gender 3.72 1,248 .055 .02
240 Locke and Richman

Table V. Univariate Analyses of Attitude Scales Using a 4-Way MANCOVA

Scale Signi cant Effects F df p h 2

AWS Participant gender 16.54 1,248 .0001 .06

Participant ethnicity 7.20 1,248 .008 .03
Husband 3 wife ethnicity 4.12 1,248 .04 .02
IBAWB Participant gender 41.14 1,248 .0001 .14
Participant ethnicity 30.01 1,248 .0001 .11
Husband 3 wife ethnicity 11.23 1,248 .001 .04
Participant ethnicity 3 husband 6.66 1,248 .01 .03
ethnicity 3 wife ethnicitya
Participant gender 3 husband 5.95 1,248 .02 .02
ethnicity 3 wife ethnicitya
Racism Participant ethnicity 6.05 1,248 .02 .02
Scale
Participant ethnicity 3 husband 9.84 1,248 .002 .04
ethnicity
Participant ethnicity 3 wife 3.96 1,248 .05 .02
ethnicitya
a
These analyse s were not signi cant in the multivariate analyses and must be interpreted
with caution.

more positive and liberal views of womens roles in society ( M 5 84.48

and 79.69, respectively); 2.) Participant ethnicity: Europe an-A mericans,
compare d to African-A mericans, held more positive views of women
( M 5 83.78 and 80.87, respectively). There was also an interaction between
husband ethnicity and wife ethnicity (Table V). Participants held the most
positive attitude s toward women with the African-Ame rican husband/E uro-
pean-A merican wife couple ( M 5 83.53) and the least positive attitude s
with the Europe an-A merican couple ( M 5 81.08).
The IBAWB also had main effects of participant gender and ethnicity
(Table V). The main effect of gender showed that relative to men ( M 5
218.65), women ( M 5 231.93) disapprove d more strongly of wife beating.
Additionally, Europe an-Ame ricans ( M 5 231.31) relative to African-
Americans ( M 5 220.01) disapproved more of wife beating.
There were three interactions on the IBAWB, two of which were not
signi cant in the multivariate analyse s and so will be interprete d with
caution (Table V). First, there was an interaction between husband ethnicity
and wife ethnicity: participants disapproved most of wife beating with a
European-A merican husband/A frican-A merican wife couple ( M 5 230.10),
and disapprove d least with a European-A merican couple ( M 5 223.08).
This interaction was signi cant univariate ly and multivariately.
The two three-way interactions on the IBAWB were: 1.) Participant
ethnicity by husband ethnicity by wife ethnicity (Table V); 2.) Participant
gender by husband ethnicity by wife ethnicity (Table V). These interactions
will not be interpreted furthe r due to their lack of multivariate signi cance.
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 241

The Racism Scale had a main effect of participant ethnicity; relative

to European-A mericans ( M 5 56.96), African-A mericans ( M 5 59.40) had
more positive racial attitudes (Table V). There were two interactions on this
scale: 1.) Participant ethnicity by husband ethnicity: compared to Europe an-
Americans, African-Ame ricans had more positive racial attitude s when the
husband was African-Ame rican ( M 5 57.39 and 61.53, respectively) (Table
V); 2.) Participant ethnicity by wife ethnicity (Table V). This interaction
will not be interpreted furthe r due to its lack of multivariate signi cance.

DISCUSSION

Scenario Opinion Scales

Young peoples stereotype s about wife beating vary as a function of

their gender, but according to our data, participants social desirability
scores do not affe ct these stereotype s. Consistent with previous research
(Pierce & Harris, 1993) and our hypothese s, women relative to men blamed
the husband more and the wife less, and likewise sympathize d with the
husband less and the wife more. Women also rate d the incident more
seriously than men did. These ndings emphasize the gender differences
inherent in attitude s toward domestic violence. Women, perhaps because
they are more likely to become victims of such violence, and because of
their need to support their own gender, are more likely to sympathize with
an abuse victim. Men, who may have a need to defend their gender from
criticism or who may not understand what constitute s abuse , blame the
abusive husband less than women.
Also consiste nt with the hypothe ses were the ndings that the hus-
band s and wifes ethnicities in uenced the participants response patte rns.
African-Ame rican husbands were blamed less than Europe an-Ame rican
husbands, and participants had more sympathy for the wife when her hus-
band was Europe an-A merican than when he was African-A merican. These
ndings can pote ntially be explained through participants stereotypes that
African-Ame rican men are expected to be more violent and uncontrolled
and therefore perceived less to blame for their aggre ssive behaviors (Baugh-
man, 1971; Kozol, 1995; Willis et. al., 1996). The composite nature of the
scales prohibits con rmation of this interpretation, however.
As expected, husband and wife ethnicity interacte d with participant
gender on the Opinion of Wife and Opinion of Incident scales. Compare d
to women, men exhibite d signi cantly less sympathy for the wife with
an African-A merican husband. Furthe r, men s ratings of the wife with a
European-A merican husband were signi cantly more sympathe tic than
242 Locke and Richman

their ratings of the wife with an African-A merican husband, especially in

the African-A merican couple scenario. When women rated the wife with
the African-Ame rican husband, however, they responde d more sympathe ti-
cally toward her than toward the wife with the European-A merican hus-
band. The patte rn of men relative to women having less sympathy for the
wife was only present when the husband was African-A merican; when the
husband was Europe an-Ame rican, men and women rated the wife similarly.
Women relative to men also rate d the incident more seriously when it was
a Europe an-A merican couple, while men relative to women rate d it least
seriously when it was an African-Ame rican couple.
It is possible that both men and women base d their attitude s on the
same stereotype , that African-A merican men are more aggressive . How-
ever, this stereotype may have led the women to be more sympathe tic with
the abuse victim (they assumed the African-A merican husband to be more
violent than the European-A merican one) and the men to be less sympa-
thetic with the same victim. Kozol (1995) describes this stereotype , as
related speci cally to the O. J. Simpson case, as being about ``the sexually
criminal African-A merican male and the dange rs he poses for white femi-
ninity that historically have circulated in American society (p. 647). The
present ndings simply furthe r specify this stereotype along gender lines.
In addition to the ndings concerning gender, hypothese s about partici-
pant ethnicity were supporte d in the signi cant univariate interaction be-
tween participant ethnicity and wife ethnicity on the Opinion of Wife and
Opinion of Incident scales. The interaction showed that African-Ame rican
relative to Europe an-Ame rican participants sympathize d more with the
African-Ame rican wife and less with the Europe an-A merican wife, and
they rate d the incident more seriously with an African-A merican wife.
Conversely, Europe an-Ame ricans exhibited similar amounts of sympathy
for both wives, regardle ss of ethnicity, while rating the incident least seri-
ously when the wife was African-A merican. Hence, African-Ame rican par-
ticipants tend to sympathize more with victims of their own ethnicity, while
European-A mericans may not make as much of a distinction between victim
ethnicities. These ndings must be considered trends and interprete d with
caution, however, because they were only signi cant in the univariate
analyse s.
These ndings are consiste nt with Shaver s (1970) defensive attribu-
tion theory and Heider s (1958) cognitive balance theory people are
more likely to sympathize with victims who are similar to themselves
and blame people who are dissimilar to themselves. This patte rn is evident
in the present data showing that women relative to men sympathized more
with women, and that African-A merican participants sympathize d more
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 243

with victims of their own ethnicity. Although no interactions between

all four independent variables were evident, the trends evidenced in the
2-way and 3-way interactions provide support for the hypothe sis that
gender and ethnicity of participants and scenario couple can affect
attitude s toward domestic violence. Further study concerning these vari-
ables is needed, however, due to the lack of multivariate signi cance
in many instances.
The furthe r exploration of the effects of husband and wife ethnicity
yielded similar results. When analyse s were conducte d between same-
ethnicity and mixed-ethnicity couples, participant gender and couple eth-
nicity were signi cant. Women relative to men were more sympathe tic
toward the wife, less sympathe tic toward the husband, and rated the incident
more seriously. Participants had more sympathy for the wife and more
blame for the husband in the Europe an-A merican husband/A frican-A meri-
can wife condition, and less sympathy for the wife and more blame for
the husband in the African-Ame rican husband/E urope an-A merican wife
condition. Additionally, women relative to men had more sympathy for
the wife in the African-A merican couple condition. While these results
may appear to be redundant with the 4-way MANCOVA, they serve to
strengthe n the ndings that opinions about domestic violence can be af-
fected by the ethnicity of the husband and wife involve d, especially in
interracial marriage s. Since a corrected alpha was not used, however, the
results should still be interpreted with caution.

A ttitude Scales

Also consiste nt with the hypothe ses were the ndings that women
relative to men demonstrate d more positive attitudes toward women and
more negative attitudes toward wife beating, especially with the African-
American couple. These ndings serve to con rm previous ndings about
the validity of the scales. The signi cant effects of participant ethnicity
also con rmed hypothese s. Europe an-Ame rican participants, relative to
African-Ame ricans, held more positive views of women and exhibited
stronge r disapproval of wife beating. Also, African-Ame ricans disapproved
least of wife beating with the Europe an-A merican couple; since this nding
was only signi cant univariate ly, it should be interpreted cautiously. Finally,
as expected, African-A merican participants showed evidence of more posi-
tive racial attitude s than European-A mericans, especially when the husband
was African-A merican.
A major limitation to the results concerning attitude scales is the
244 Locke and Richman

manne r in which some attitude s vary with the experimental manipulation.

Normally, such attitude s are expected to be stable over time, regardle ss of
any independent variables presented. In some instances in this research,
however, attitude s did vary according to experimental condition (e.g. the
IBAWB with husband and wife ethnicity). This leads to the question of
whether the signi cant results were due to the experimental manipulation
itself or attitude differences inherent in the participants. Given the small
sample size (especially African-A merican participants), it was not possible
to include the attitude scales as additional factors (rathe r than dependent
variable s) in the analyse s. It must also be conside red that the effect sizes
of the interactions are quite small compare d to the main effects. Therefore,
many of the aforeme ntione d ndings, even when signi cant both multivari-
ately and univariate ly, must be interpreted with caution.
There were several othe r possible limitations to this research. 1.) The
blatant nature of some questions may have prevented the observation of
non-socially desirable response s. Even with the social desirability scale
embedded within the questionnaire s, participants could have presented
themselves in a less conservative and less socially desirable light. Jean and
Reynolds (1984) found that the AWS is ``subject to the effects of social
desirability and females are able to present themselves liberally or conser-
vative ly when instructe d to do so (p. 811). However, since social desirability
was not a signi cant covariate in any of the analyse s, the proble m may not
be as serious as previously thought. 2.) It is possible that the description
of the couple in the scenario as being from a lower-class neighborhood
could have in uenced participants feelings of blame or sympathy for the
victim and abuser. To fully investigate the effect of class, researche rs should
vary couple SES in their scenario descriptions, as well as participants SES.
The forme r effects have been recently reported by Richman and Waldrop
(1998). 3.) Future research should inquire about participants personal
experiences with domestic violence. If these young, college-age d partici-
pants have only been expose d to domestic violence through the media,
they may have very different attitudes from people who have experienced
or witnessed abuse rsthand. Other studies have used police of cers and
social workers as participants who interact with abuse rs and victims in their
jobs, and these sample s may offe r different results than what we found in
our college sample (McKeel & Sporakowski, 1993; Ross & Glisson, 1991;
Saunde rs, 1995; Stith, 1990) . Relating people s attitude s to their personal
experiences with abuse would also be a helpful tool in learning about how
such attitudes are forme d.
The present study is an initial syste matic atte mpt to vary husband and
wife ethnicity using male and female participants from two different ethnic
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 245

groups. More research should be done in this area to determine the nature
and origin of differing attitude s toward and stereotypes of domestic vio-
lence. The more data researchers have on such variable s, the more readily
scholars will be able to support (or fail to support) theories such as the
interpersonal power theory and the feminist theory of domestic violence.
The present data concerning attitude s toward domestic violence is
useful for several reasons: 1.) The knowledge that there are gender and
ethnicity attitudinal differences toward domestic violence should help us
develop educational and intervention programs to meet the needs and
backgrounds of the participants, whether they are police of cers, social
workers, acade micians, counse lors, or batte rers (McKeel & Sporakowski,
1993; Ross & Glisson, 1991; Saunde rs, 1995; Stith, 1990) . 2.) Service provid-
ers need to be aware of their own and society s biases toward minority
groups in order to improve their training and provide better treatme nt for
abuse rs and victims (Williams, 1992). 3.) Awareness about stereotyping can
also be useful in guiding jury selection and rehabilitation programs in
domestic violence court cases (Harris & Cook, 1994). 4.) The negative
stereotypes toward othe rs on the basis of gender and ethnicity may need
to be reduced prior to the removal of accepting attitude s toward wife
abuse . Research that identi es and explains such stereotype s is vital to
their elimination.

REFERENCES

Bailey, W. T., Less, E. A., & Harrell, D. R. (1992). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale
(AWS) and global attitudes toward women. Journal of General Psychology, 119, 315 317.
Baughman, E. (1971). African-Am erican Americans: A psychological analysis. New York:
Academic Press.
Bruning, F. (1994, July 25). Wife beating: A nations obsession. Maclean s, p.11.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe , D. (1964). The appro val motive: Studies in evaluati ve dependence.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Daugherty, C. G., & Dambrot, F. H. (1986). Reliability of the Attitudes Toward Women
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurem ent, 46, 449 453.
Douglas, S. (1994, August). Blame it on battered women. The Progressi ve, p. 15.
Giacopassi, D., & Dull, R. (1986). Gender and racial differences in the acceptance of rape
myths within a college population. Sex Roles, 15, 63 75.
Greene, E., Raitz, A., & Lindblad, H. (1989). Jurors knowledge of battered women. Journal
of Family Violence, 4, 105 125.
Harris, R. J., & Cook, C. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the
batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553 565.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Jean, P. J., & Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Sex and attitude distortion: Ability of females and
males to fake liberal and conservative positions regarding changing sex roles. Sex Roles,
10, 805 815.
246 Locke and Richman

Kozol, W. (1995). Fracturing domesticity: Media, nationalism, and the question of feminist
in uence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 20, 646 667.
Kristiansen, C., & Giulietti, R. (1990). Perceptions of wife abuse: Effects of gender, attitudes
toward women, and just-world beliefs among college students. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 14, 177 189.
Lenton, R. (1995a). Power versus feminist theories of wife abuse. Canadian Journal of Crimi-
nology, 37, 305 330.
Lenton, R. (1995b). Feminist versus interpersonal power theories of wife abuse revisite d.
Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 567 574.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundam ental delusion. New York: Ple-
num Press.
Lockhart, L. (1987). A reexamination of the effects of ethnicity and social class on the incidence
of marital violence: A search for reliable differences. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
49, 603 610.
McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It
depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Con ict Resolution, 25, 563 579.
McKeel, A. J., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1993). How shelter counselors views about responsibility
for wife abuse relate to services they provide to battered women. Journal of Family
Violence, 8, 101 112.
Meyers, M. (1994). News of battering. Journal of Communication, 44, 47 63.
Minor, D. (1994, Oct./Nov.). NOW taps Simpson case to ght abuse of women. Public Relations
Journal, pp. 16 17.
Pierce, M., & Harris, R. J. (1993). The effect of provocation, ethnicity, and injury description
of mens and womens perceptions of a wife-battering incident. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 767 790.
Richman, C. L., & Waldrop, A. E. (1998, May). Socio-economic status and perceptions of
domestic violence. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
Ross, M., & Glisson, C. (1991). Bias in social work interve ntion with battered women. Journal
of Social Service Research, 14, 79 105.
Saunders, D. G. (1995). The tendency to arre st victims of domestic violence: A preliminary
analysis of of cer characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 147 158.
Saunders, D., Lynch, A., Grayson, M., & Linz, D. (1987). The inventory of beliefs about wife
beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes.
Violence and Victims, 2, 39 57.
Schuller, R., Smith, V., & Olson, J. (1994). Jurors decisions in trials of battered women who
kill: The role of prior beliefs and expert testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
24, 316 337.
Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibil-
ity assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101 113.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Attitudes toward
Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 219 220.
Stith, S. M. (1990). Police response to domestic violence: The in uence of individual and
familial factors. Violence and Victims, 5, 37 49.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington,
DC.: American Psychological Association.
United States Department of Justice. (1994, November). Violence between intimates. Bureau
of Justice Statistics: Selected Findings, 1 10.
United States Department of Justice. (1995, August). Violence against women: estimates from
the redesigned survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Selected Findings, 1 8.
Weitz, R., & Gordon, L. (1993). Images of African-American women among Anglo college
students. Sex Roles, 28, 19 34.
Williams, O. J. (1992). Ethnically sensitive practice to enhance treatment participation of
African-American men who batter. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary
Human Services, 73, 588 595.
Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence 247

Willis, C. (1992). The effect of sex role stereotype, victim and defendant ethnicity, and prior
relationship on rape culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 26, 213 226.
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, 475 491.
Willis, E. (1994, July 5). Good African-Americans and bad African-Americans. Village Voice,
p. 8.