436420

20Fras and AngelViolence Against Women

The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.

VAWXXX10.1177/10778012124364

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Article
Violence Against Women

Beyond Borders: 18(1) 529

The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Comparative Quantitative sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077801212436420
Research on Partner http://vaw.sagepub.com

Violence in the United

States and Mexico

Sonia M. Fras1 and Ronald J. Angel2

Abstract
We employ two surveys to identify similarities and differences in the risk of abuse among
poor urban Mexican-origin women in the United States and Mexico. While the two
surveys reveal basic structural similarity in the predictors of partner violence, the rate of
violence among Mexican women is far lower than among either foreign-born or native-
born Mexican origin women in the United States. While these differences may reflect
reality, we argue that survey data must be interpreted cautiously and with an understanding
of the cultural, economic, and political context in which the information is collected as well
as methodological differences between the surveys.

Keywords
comparative research, culture and measurement, domestic abuse, Mexico, partner violence

During the 20th century increasing international migration, rapid improvements in elec-
tronic media, and the internationalization of social problems have made the world a much
smaller place. The grinding poverty and serious political and social disorganization that
afflicts many developing nations and that remained largely invisible to the citizens of the
developed world in previous decades are today brought to their attention on a daily basis.
The same is true for the serious violence that afflicts so much of humanity. Today it is

1
National Autonomous University of Mexico, Regional Center for Multidisciplinary Research
2
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:
Sonia M. Fras, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Regional Center for Multidisciplinary
Research Avd. Universidad s/n, Circuito 2, Col. Chamilpa, 62210 Cuernavaca, Morelos (Mexico)
Email: sfrias@correo.crim.unam.mx
6 Violence Against Women 18(1)

almost impossible to ignore the genocide in the Sudan, sectarian violence in Iraq, or the
murder of dozens of young women on the Mexican side of the U.S./Mexico border. It is
also difficult to ignore the fact that in these and many other tragedies women, minority
group members, and the poor are those who suffer at the hands of more powerful others.
In this analysis we examine the phenomenon of domestic violence among poor Mexican-
origin women in the United States and Mexico to illustrate the pervasiveness of the phe-
nomenon as well as to illustrate the complexities involved in conducting cross-national
research and interpreting survey data on the extent and nature of partner abuse collected
in different cultural, social, and political contexts. One of the main challenges faced by
researchers conducting comparative quantitative international studies of partner violence,
or any other socially conditioned phenomenon, is the development of comparable theoreti-
cal definitions as well as measurement tools that permit meaningful comparisons (Garca-
Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2005). To illustrate the difficulties inherent in
quantitative comparative research, we employ two surveys in the United States and Mexico
to analyze the phenomenon of partner violence among poor women. Since complete theo-
retical and operational comparability cannot be attained, the use of such data requires inter-
pretation and an understanding of the potential effects of the cultural, economic, and
political contexts on the definition, conceptualization, and reporting of violent acts.
Despite the difficulties inherent in the attempt to understand the roots of violence in
different cultural, economic, and political contexts, the problem of violence against women
is both universal and serious, and attempts to develop more informed ways of carrying out
such research are justified. To do so we are forced to employ the data available. Carrying
out new quantitative studies of any topic in several countries is a costly task that even with
good translation does not guarantee comparability. At the very least, the use of two similar
surveys carried out in different countries with women of similar linguistic and cultural
backgrounds allows us to keep certain important aspects of culture reasonably constant.
We argue that in comparative analysis the interpretation of results must be accompanied by
a discussion of issues related to the meaning and validity of comparative quantitative data
as well as a thorough understanding of the target cultures (Rogler, 1999).
Cultural anthropologists who study preliterate cultures first had to learn the language
and write a grammar. The same basic challenge confronts the contemporary comparative
researcher. Language, with all of the subtleties of meaning and potential for confusion its
use entails, remains the main barrier to, as well as the only entry way into, another culture.
Even demographers, who count live births and other supposedly objective population phe-
nomena, face serious barriers posed by the inevitable subjective and contextual nature of
all human communication. One cannot simply assume that complex social phenomena
have similar causes and consequences, or even that they are manifested in similar ways in
different cultural and social contexts. The extent of comparability must be investigated and
established, or at the very least recognized to be problematic in each case (Angel, 2006;
Rogler, 1999).
The interpretive problem becomes immediately obvious in the data we are about to
present, which show that rates of physical abuse among poor Mexican migrant and Mexican
American women in three large American cities in the United States are significantly higher
Fras and Angel 7

than rates of abuse among poor urban women in Mexico. Such differences may in fact
reflect reality. On the other hand, they may represent methodological artifacts that result
from different study designs, or they may be the product of different culturally based mean-
ing systems and reporting tendencies. The core objective of this article is to use comparable
survey data from the United States and Mexico to explore the correlates of physical vio-
lence among low-income women and explain the differences across countries using three
potentially useful theoretical perspectives, a family violence perspective, an acculturation
perspective, and a feminist perspective. We also discuss the potential impact of method-
ological differences in the two surveys.

The Universality and Cultural Meaning

of Domestic Violence: Problems of Comparability
The capacity to engage in violence against another person may be a universal human trait,
and one would certainly be hard-pressed to identify a society without some level of vio-
lence. As a social phenomenon, domestic violence is particularly useful for the illustration
of the problems inherent in cross-cultural research. Although violence against women may
be universal (Heise & Garca-Moreno, 2002; Krahe, Bieneck, & Moller, 2005), the ways
in which it is defined, identified, and responded to are not. It is possible that what are seen
as serious acts of physical or psychological abuse in one culture may be viewed as less
serious or of no social significance in another, or at least not a matter of public concern.
The extent to which acts committed against an intimate female partner by a male are
labeled as abusive or socially sanctioned are potentially influenced by general levels of
violence, culturally based gender roles, and the specific context in which the potential
abuse occurs (Levinson, 1989; Sagot, 2000). All of these factors are likely to confound
actual behaviors with cultural norms and individual reporting tendencies (Krane, 1996).
Current conventions for the translation and validation of survey instruments cannot them-
selves be validated, nor can one demonstrate unambiguously that they insure true phenom-
enological equivalence, or in this case that similar behaviors are similarly attended to and
similarly reported in a questionnaire. Although it is clearly possible to translate question-
naires, even good translations do not address the issue of normative structures and mean-
ing. To deal with these confounding factors the cultural and structural context must be
taken into consideration in all comparative studies. Cross-national quantitative research is
even more complicated given potential methodological differences, such as differing con-
texts in which surveys are administered, interviewing practices, differences in sampling
frames, the relationship of events of research interest to other local and national events, and
variations in the ways violence and abuse are defined (Heise & Garca-Moreno, 2002;
Walby & Myhill, 2001).
To date, the possibility of objectively measuring similar aspects of subjective reality
across major cultural and linguistic barriers remains elusive (Hagemann-White, 2001). For
the most part, research on domestic violence is dominated by English-language publications,
and researchers in other countries tend to rely on the extensive literature on violence in the
United States to motivate and frame their analyses (see Krahe et al., 2005; Krane, 1996). In
8 Violence Against Women 18(1)

most cases theoretical paradigms as well as research instruments and methodologies are
imported directly, with little consideration for the potential of significant cultural differ-
ences and the social construction of the phenomenon of interest (Gelles & Cornell, 1983;
Hagemann-White, 2001).

Partner Violence in Mexico and the United States

Even if establishing precise comparative risk estimates for domestic violence remains
elusive, there can be little doubt that in both Mexico and the United States the home
remains one of the most dangerous places for women. Theoretically, one might expect
high levels of violence in Latin American cultures because of the privileging of masculine
gender roles and their strong traditions of familism and patriarchy (see Vandello & Cohen,
2003). The stereotype of Mexican machismo, a behavioral orientation characterized by
an extreme form of masculinity that includes subjugation of women also adds to that
expectation (Daz-Olavarrieta & Sotelo, 1996). Although the term machismo has different
meanings and connotations in different locations, observers have noted that it is a core
value in Mexico (Guttmann, 1996).
Whether or not they are accurate in all of their details, these stereotypes lead to a set of
expectations concerning comparative levels of violence between Mexico and the United
States. If the abuse of women is tolerated or even encouraged by a culture that tolerates or
encourages machismo we would expect the prevalence of abuse to be lower in the United
States than in Mexico, since machismo is less accepted and more likely to be socially stig-
matized in the United States. Certain researchers have found that the higher ethnic identi-
fication as Mexican in the United States is associated with higher scores on scales designed
to measure machismo (Abreu, Goodyear, Campos, & Newcomb, 2000). On the other hand,
one common stereotype holds that immigrant males from Mexico bring the culture of
machismo with them (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1992). The retention of this hypermasculine ori-
entation might lead to a higher probability of abuse by immigrant males than the native
born. One might even expect that the stresses of migration, the low social status that most
immigrant Mexican men experience, and their minority status in the host country to
increase the tendency to display machismo, especially when both genders are unable to
fulfill their culturally prescribed roles (Morash, Bui, & Santiago, 2000; Perilla, Bakerman,
& Norris, 1994; Torres, 1998).
Although machismo is a popular concept and one that is even used in scholarly dis-
course, it lacks theoretical precision or specificity. The definition of machismo is often
tautological with an exclusive focus on violence and aggression (Arciniega, Anderson,
Tovar-Blank, & Tracey, 1998). Certain conceptualizations of machismo, on the other hand,
identify it as including both positive and negative characteristics (Torres, Solberg, &
Carlstrom, 2002). Some have differentiated between traditional machismo and caballer-
ismo (Arciniega et al., 1998), which might be translated as chivalrous behavior, and others
have demonstrated the multidimensionality of the concept and its variation across Hispanic
groups (Torres et al., 2002). To be useful theoretically and analytically the concept would
clearly have to be better specified and dimensionalized.
Fras and Angel 9

Whether or not machismo plays a role, women in Mexico as elsewhere are at risk of
victimization. In a nationally representative survey conducted in Mexico in 2003, Encuesta
Nacional sobre la Dinmica de las Relaciones en los Hogares (ENDIREH, or National
Survey of the Dynamics of Domestic Relations), 9.3% of Mexican women reported that
they had experienced physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner during the
12 months preceding the survey (INEGI & INMUJERES, 2004). This figure is consistent
with those of other studies using national representative samples in Mexico (Castro &
Casique, 2006). Moreover, they are also very similar to those reported in most U.S. national
representative surveys, which typically report rates of 8% to 11% (see Gelles, 2000; Wilt
& Olson, 1996).
For many years, gender-based stereotypes of macho Mexican men and submissive
Mexican women led to the assumption that immigrant women were at higher risk of vic-
timization than nonmigrant women since they are culturally closer to Mexico (for a review
see Menjvar & Salcido, 2002). Empirical research, though, has shown this stereotype to be
inaccurate. Among Mexican-origin women in the United States, those born in Mexico are
at lower risk of partner violence, both during the 1-year reference period employed in most
studies and over their lifetimes, than native-born Mexican-origin women (Firestone,
Lambert, & Vega, 1999; Fras & Angel, 2005; Kaufman Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo,
1994; Lown & Vega, 2001; Morash et al., 2000).

Theoretical and Methodological Explanations

for Potential Similarities and Differences
in Rates of Partner Violence

The data we present below suggest that the prevalence of partner violence among poor
urban women in Mexico is lower than the rate among Mexican migrants in the United
States, and it is even lower than rates among Mexican Americans who were born in the
United States. Making substantive sense of these differences is not straightforward.
Theoretically, these differences might be approached from three conceptual frameworks:
the family violence perspective, acculturation theory, and a feminist perspective. Before
proceeding let us relate these three perspectives to the problem of domestic violence.

The Family Violence Perspective

From the family violence perspective, domestic violence is a learned behavior as well as
a response by the aggressor to sociostructural and sociocultural stressors (Hamptom,
1999). Research informed by this perspective reveals a profile of victimization that is very
similar in the United States and Mexico that suggests that violence is a learned behavior.
Researchers in this tradition find that younger age and low educational levels increase the
risk of victimization (Castro, Peek-Asa, & Ruiz, 2003; Daz-Olavarrieta, Ellertson, Paz,
Ponce de Len, & Alarcn-Segovia, 2002; Heyman & Smith Slep, 2002; Oropesa, 1997;
Pozo del, Castro, & Rquer, 2004; Rivera, Allen, Chvez, & vila, 2006; Weaver, Kilpatrick,
10 Violence Against Women 18(1)

Resnick, Best, & Saunders, 1997). Situational or factors that are part of the immediate
context in which the abuse occurs are also important. These factors include interactions
with others as well as the subjective meanings assigned to those interactions. These factors
interact with and reflect relationship characteristics related to the distribution of power
within the household, gender ideology, and the gender role expectations of the partners
that give rise to differential risk profiles among couples (Casique, 2004; Firestone, Harris,
& Vega, 2003; Oropesa, 1997; Pozo del et al., 2004; Smith, 1990).
Other system-level factors include formal and informal social structures that influence
or determine an individuals behavioral options. Violence results from elevated levels of
stress and the lack of available resources to deal with it as well as the general deprivation
and frustration that accompany poverty and social marginality (Castro et al., 2003; Cunradi,
Caetano, & Schafer, 2002; MacMillan & Gartner, 1999; Oropesa, 1997; Pozo del et al.,
2004; Villarreal, 2007). Much evidence in both Mexico and the United States supports the
proposition that in the absence of material and social resources violence often represents
the only means by which a male can achieve his domestic objectives (de Oliveira & Garca,
1992; Kaufman Kantor et al., 1994).

The Acculturation Perspective

Some observers have hypothesized that the risk of violence might be affected by the pro-
cess of acculturation. The acculturation process continues beyond the experiences of the
migrant generation to affect subsequent generations as they become more deeply incorpo-
rated into the host culture and society. Unfortunately, the impact of acculturation on part-
ner violence remains unclear. Certain studies of Mexican immigrant families suggest that
sex roles become more egalitarian as part of the acculturation process (Hondagneu-Sotelo,
1992). It is possible that the migration process results in the adoption of more egalitarian
gender roles that are able to coexist with elements of traditional culture. On the other hand,
certain studies suggest that the mixing of cultures and contexts can result in serious
stresses that lead to higher levels of domestic violence (Firestone et al., 1999; Garca,
Hurwitz, & Kraus, 2005) although in some cases the relationship between partner violence
and acculturation is nonlinear (Caetano, Schafer, Clark, Cunradi, & Raspberry, 2000). The
migration and acculturation processes are clearly complex and include many potentially
countervailing forces, some of which may work to increase stresses and male insecurity
and the risk of violence, and others that may operate to redefine gender roles and empower
women.
Acculturation must be understood in relation to the cultural and social contexts in which
migrants arrive. Even if the migration and acculturation processes erode some aspects of
patriarchy and give women more power in the household, at the individual level some
patriarchal beliefs and behaviors can persist (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1994). In the new context
in which women gain more prerogatives and status both within and outside the household
men may feel threatened and resort to violence as a means of attempting to maintain patri-
archal control over women (Hirsch, 2003; Morash et al., 2000). The process of accultura-
tion can refer to the experiences of international migrants, or to those of more local migrants
Fras and Angel 11

or those who move from one cultural context to another within a single nation. In addition
to conceptual difficulties, the measurement of acculturation is complex since the concept
includes several dimensions. For our purposes we employ language, one of the most salient
dimensions of culture.
In Mexico between 7% and 13% of the population speak an indigenous language
(Janssen & Martnez Casas, 2006), reflecting the reality that the Mexican population is
largely of mixed ancestry. As a consequence, the classification of indigenous or nonindig-
enous is not conceptually or operationally straightforward. Yet the distinction is important
in terms of the risk of violence. Qualitative studies of indigenous communities suggest that
violence against female partners is viewed as a husbands right and a legitimate disciplin-
ary mechanism (Alberti Manzanares, 2004; Hernndez-Castillo, 2004; Prez Robledo,
2004; Vallejo Real, 2004). Other evidence from recent surveys suggests that indigenous
women are at a lower risk than nonindigenous women of experiencing partner violence
(Pozo del et al., 2004; Villarreal, 2007). How the assimilation of indigenous populations
into the mainstream mestizo culture affects the risk of violence, then, remains unclear. We
hypothesize, though, that the acculturative stresses associated with rapid and dramatic
changes in culture might increase the risk of violence.

The Feminist Perspective

From a feminist perspective violence is fostered by patriarchy, a structured hierarchical
relation between men and women in which men are dominant and women subordinated.
This structural inequality generates a culture in which violence against women is tolerated
or even considered normative (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). It is possible that differences in
levels or the nature of patriarchy might account for cross-national differences in partner
violence. Research informed by a liberal feminist perspective in the United States reveals
that differing levels of patriarchy are associated with regional differences in rates of part-
ner violence (Straus, 1994; Yllo, 1984). The association appears to be similar in Mexico
where differences in patriarchy at the state level interact with individual-level characteris-
tics to affect the risk of victimization for women (Fras, 2008). The average levels of
structural equality or structural patriarchy differ in the United States and Mexico, a fact
that might account for at least a portion of the differences in rates of violence (Di Noia,
2002; Fras, 2008, 2009; Straus, 1994).

Methodological Explanations
Finally, the potential impact of the research methodologies employed to estimate the
extent of violence in comparative studies may well result in artifacts or at least serious
biases. Walby and Myhill (2001) enumerates seven methodological considerations central
to comparative research focused on violence against women. These include (a) the social
context in which the survey is administered; (b) the interviewing practices employed;
(c) training and the degree of matching characteristics of the interviewer and interviewee;
(d) the sampling frame from which the sample is drawn; (e) the mode of enquiry, which
12 Violence Against Women 18(1)

refers to the way in which the questions are asked, for example, mail questionnaires, tele-
phone interviews, face-to-face interviews or computer-assisted self-administered instru-
ments; (f) the operationalization of basic concepts; and (g) the necessity of situating the
violent event in relation to other life events. In addition, specific historical events, such as
the passage of laws penalizing partner violence or the opening of shelters for battered
women, could potentially affect the reporting of violent acts by victims (Hagemann-White,
2001). For comparisons to be valid or interpretable, such methodological and situational
factors must be accounted for (Krahe et al., 2005; Krane, 1996; Saltzman, 2004).

Data and Analytic Approach

Given the fact that the prevalence of partner violence among Mexican origin women
varies both by country and, within the United States, by nativity, the following analyses
begins with an assessment of gross differences in rates of reported partner abuse between
women in Mexico and women in the United States, and then proceeds to an examination
of the impact of nativity for those in the United States. We also examine several potential
explanations that might account for cross-national differences derived from the family
violence, contextual and methodological perspectives. The analyses are based on two
roughly comparable surveys, one collected in Mexico and the other in three cities of the
United States.
The survey in the United States, Welfare, Children and Families Study (WCF; http://
www.jhu.edu/~welfare/) is the first wave of a study of poor families in Boston,
Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, and San Antonio, Texas, three cities with diverse ethnic
and racial composition conducted in 1999 (see Winston et al., 1999, for further details).
Boston and Chicago have large Mexican-origin populations. San Antonio is 52% Mexican
origin as is 18% of the population of Chicago. Only 1% of the population of Boston is of
Mexican origin. The sample consisted of families living in poor neighborhoods with
incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level. Approximately 77% of the families,
predominantly minority, had incomes below the poverty line. Around 40% of the women
were receiving welfare at the beginning of the study (Winston et al., 1999). The interviews
were conducted in Spanish or English and the survey collected detailed demographic,
employment, and welfare program participation, information of the respondents experi-
ences of partner violence, and much more.
The Mexican survey, the National Survey of Household Relationship Dynamics
(Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinmica de las Relaciones en los Hogares, ENDIREH), was
conducted in 2003 by the Mexican National Institute of Statistics, Geography and
Informatics (INEGI: Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica) as a
response to a request of the Womens National Institute (INMUJERES: Instituto Nacional
de las Mujeres). The ENDIREH is a nationally representative sample of women 15 years
and older. It is also representative of 11 states that partially financed their own state-level
representative samples: Baja California, Coahuila, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Hidalgo, Michoacn,
Fras and Angel 13

Nuevo Leon, Quintana Roo, Sonora, Yucatan, and Zacatecas. The ENDIREH collected
extensive information on different forms of partner violence, decision sharing, and gender
roles in Mexican households from October 20 to November 14, 2003 (see INEGI &
INMUJERES, 2004, for more details about the sample and survey methodology). Analyses
based on these data employ sample weights to compensate for the complex sampling
design.
Interviewers, who included both males and females in the United States, but only
females in Mexico, received extensive interviewer training. In both countries respondents
were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. The domestic violence section of the WCF
was self-administered using AUDIO-CASI in which the respondent read the probes on a
computer screen or heard them though earphones. This method, which does not require
responding to a person, results in higher reported rates when the phenomenon under study
is socially stigmatized. In Mexico, respondents were asked the questions by the inter-
viewer. Both surveys assess partner violence using a modified version of the Conflict
Tactics Scale (CTS) designed by Straus (1990). The CTS has been widely used in cross-
cultural research, including a 2005 World Health Organization (WHO) report (Garca-
Moreno et al., 2005).
In the following analyses we employ subsamples of poor urban women from both of
these two surveys. Although poor women in Mexico are much poorer in absolute terms
than women of Mexican origin in the United States, in both countries these women are in
the lowest socioeconomic strata and are thus among the worst off economically and socially
in relative terms. As we mentioned, the WCF targets poor families. For the present analysis
we selected 571 Mexican-origin women in the data set. Twenty-nine percent of these
women reported that they had been born in Mexico, and 71% percent reported that they had
been born in the United States.
Our subsample from the Mexican ENDIREH includes women from the lowest socio-
economic stratum based on a classification scheme developed by Echarri (see Castro,
Rquer, & Medina, 2004, pp. 159-160). This classification scheme is based on three house-
hold characteristics. The first is average years of education of the members of the house-
hold. This measure includes both those who have completed their education and those still
in the educational system by imputing the expected number of years of school they will
complete based on their age and gender. The second household characteristic refers to the
occupational status of the household member with the highest potential income based on
the average for his or her occupation. The third household characteristic consists of basic
household amenities such as indoor running water and electricity, the structural character-
istics of the home, the number of people per room, and the availability of a kitchen. Based
on these three characteristics, households are assigned to one of four economic strata: very
low, low, middle, and high. Thirty-three percent of the ENDIREH sample falls into the
very low socioeconomic stratum. This proportion is similar to the estimate of 34.7%
reported from the 2000 Mexican Census and is the subsample that we use in the following
analyses.
14 Violence Against Women 18(1)

Measures
In both surveys we focus on victimization during the year preceding the interview. The
dependent variable is based on a variation of the CTS. The CTS consists of questions
concerning acts that typically occur in violent relationships. The CTS and its revision,
CTS2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) have been adapted for use in
Mexico (Castro et al., 2003; Castro, Peek-Asa, Garca, Ruiz, & Kraus, 2003; Peek-Asa,
Garca, McArthur, & Castro, 2002). Abuse was identified on the basis of answers to the
questions presented in Table 1. Respondents who reported at least one episode were coded
as having experienced physical violence.
We include several independent variables derived from the family violence and accul-
turation perspectives. These variables allow us to assess potential similarities and differ-
ences in the predictors of victimization between the two countries. These include
demographic, socioeconomic, abuse background characteristics, as well as indicators of
acculturation. Given cross-national differences in income levels, educational attainment,
and other variables, exact comparability is not possible. Among the sociodemographic
variables, in the ENDIREH we categorize education into three levels: (a) less than primary
(which includes illiterate women); (b) primary, which is equivalent to elementary school in
the United States; and (c) more than primary. For the foreign-born sample in the WCF we
also divide education into three categories: (a) primary or less, (b) secondary (seventh to
ninth grades), and (c) high school or its equivalent and more than high school. For native-
born Mexican Americans, who tend to be more educated than their Mexican-born counter-
parts we categorize education as (a) less than high school, (b) high school or high school
equivalency, and (c) more than high school. In both surveys, employment is coded 1 if the
respondent worked for pay during the week preceding the interview and 0 otherwise. In
both surveys marital status is coded 1 if the respondent is currently married and 0 other-
wise. The age of the woman is a continuous variable measured in years.
Abuse background includes measures concerning the respondents experience of physi-
cal violence during childhood or adolescence. It is coded 1 if any abuse was reported and
0 otherwise. Measures of acculturation are specific to each survey and subsample. In the
ENDIREH, indigenous is coded 1 if the respondent speaks an indigenous language. As in
the United States where many Latin-origin second-generation immigrants no longer speak
Spanish, in Mexico many individuals who do not speak their native language share a great
deal culturally with their native language speaking coethnics. Despite the limitations of the
language-based definition, though, we employ it because it is likely to identify the most
culturally ethnic individuals. Because of its centrality to cultural identity, language ability
and use are major components of acculturation scales (e.g., Cuellar, 1995).
For foreign-born respondents in the WFC, years since migration is a continuous mea-
sure of the number of years the woman has lived in the United States and English profi-
ciency is an index of self-rated ability to speak, read, and write English (Cronbachs = .95).
For native-born respondents in the WCF language is coded 1 if English is the respondents
primary language and 0 otherwise.
Fras and Angel 15

Table 1. Specific Violent Acts Identified in the ENDIREH and WCH

WCH
ENDIREH
Mexican Native-
Mexicans migrants born
English Spanish % % %

Thrown an object Aventar objeto 3.41 Thrown something 11.76 19.75

Pushed or pulled Empujar o jalar del 8.12 Pushed, grabbed, or 15.69 27.50
your hair out pelo shoved
Tied up Amarrar 0.25
Kicked Patear 2.80 Slapped, kicked, bit, 11.11 17.46
punched
Hit with the hands Golpear con 6.92 Beaten 4.58 11.25
or an objecta manos u objeto
Tried to suffocate or Tratado de 1.51 Choked/burned .65 5.49
choke ahorcar o asfixiar
Used a weapon or Uso de arma o 2.26 Used a weapon or 1.31 5.39
threatened to use a amenaza (any of threatened to use
weapon the categories a weapon against
below) you
Attacked you with a Agredir con 1.13
knife or pocketknife cuchillo o navaja.
Shoot you with a Disparado con 0.09
weapon arma
Threatened you with Amenazado con 2.10
a weapon (knife, arma (cuchillo,
pocketknife, gun or navaja, pistola,
rifle) rifle)
% Any physical 11.19% 20.26% 32.67%
violence
N 5,567 153 401
a. Golpear is translated into English as hit or beat when the subject has the intention of hurting the
recipient of the action. It is translated as punch when the fists are involved.

Results
Analysis Based on the Family
Violence and Acculturation Perspectives
The first stage of our analysis consists of descriptive statistics for each of the samples. In
the second part we estimate three sets of logistic regressions (one for each subsample) to
compare the correlates of partner abuse among Mexican women and the two nativity
16 Violence Against Women 18(1)

groups in the United States. Again, in both countries our samples consist of women who
occupy the lowest rungs in the system of social stratification. Table 1 presents frequencies
for each type of abuse in the three subsamples. Mexican native-born women in the United
States report the highest levels of each type of abuse in almost all categories, while women
in Mexico report the lowest levels. Foreign-born U.S. residents fall in between. In Mexico,
however, there are more women who report that their partner has used a weapon to harm
them or has threatened to do so than Mexican migrants in the United States. These differ-
ences may reflect differences in the way the question concerning weapons are asked in the
two surveys. In the Mexican survey a broader range of weapons (knife, pocket knife, gun,
or rifle) is mentioned, while in the WCF these differences are collapsed into the category
weapon. In the WCF sample one in five foreign-born Mexican-origin women experienced
some form of physical violence during the study period. Among native-born Mexican-
origin women nearly one in three women experienced physical abuse (32.6%). In com-
parison, only 11% of poor urban women in Mexico reported abuse.
The characteristics of women who suffered violence during the 1-year reference period
are presented in Table 2. In all three samples nonmarried women and those who had expe-
rienced violence during childhood or adolescence reported higher levels of abuse than
married women and those who had not been abused in childhood or adolescence. Younger
women reported higher levels of abuse than older women. Speaking the dominant language
in both countries is associated with a greater risk of violence. Mexican-origin foreign-born
women in the United States who are not proficient in English and native-born women for
whom Spanish is their first language report lower levels of violence than those who are
more fluent English speakers. In Mexico, women who speak an indigenous language report
lower levels of abuse than Spanish speaking women.
Among Mexican women, those with higher levels of education and those who are
employed are more likely to report partner violence than less educated and unemployed
women. Among Mexican-origin women in the United States, education and employment
are not associated with partner violence for either the foreign- or the native-born. Among
foreign-born women in the United States, those who have been there the longest report
higher levels of abuse than those who arrived more recently.
In the second part of our analyses we performed several logistic regressions informed
by the family violence and acculturation perspectives to assess the major correlates of hav-
ing experienced any act of physical violence during the 12 months preceding the survey.
Table 3 presents the odds ratios associated with each independent variable. Married women
living in Mexico had 49% lower odds of experiencing physical violence during the 1-year
reference period than their unmarried counterparts. Age and being married reduce the odds
of experiencing violence in all three subsamples. Among women in the United States for
whom the odds of violence are higher than for women in Mexico, the protective effect of
being married is stronger: 82% lower odds for the foreign-born and 74% lower for the
native-born. Although the risk of experiencing partner violence seems to decrease with
age, the effect is greater for the foreign-born than for the native-born. Having experienced
physical abuse at an early age increases the odds of partner abuse by 109% for Mexicans,
and 161% for Mexican Americans. For the foreign-born Mexicans in the United States,
however, the coefficient is not significant.

Table 2. Characteristics of Low-Income Women in the United States and Mexico by Partner Abuse During the Last 12 Months. Weighted
Descriptive Statistics (Means and Percentages)
United States (WCF)

MEXICO (ENDIREH) Mexican immigrants Native-born

Violence No violence Column % Violence No violence Column % Violence No violence Column %

Education*** Education (ns) Education (ns)

Less than primary 7.81 92.19 21.48 Primary or less 14.58 85.42 27.74 Less than high school 21.6 78.40 42.35
and illiterate
Primary 12.92 87.08 60.54 Secondary 36.98 63.02 27.98 High school or equivalent 23.90 76.10 41.60
More than primary 13.14 86.86 17.97 High school or more 22.93 77.07 44.28 More than high school 17.96 82.04 16.05
Married*** ** ***
No 18.97 81.03 26.07 46.49 53.51 30.59 30.02 69.98 52.09
Yes 9.36 90.64 73.93 14.88 85.12 69.41 13.22 86.78 47.91
Agea*** 34.99 41.29 ** 31.35 34.08
(14.72) (16.32) 32.64 35.61 (7.07) (11.46)
Employment
No 11.50 88.50 79.39 27.96 72.04 67.22 23.00 77 65.33
Yes 13.25 86.75 20.61 17.54 82.46 32.78 20.04 79.96 34.67
Family violence before 18*** *** 17.12 82.88
No 8.59 91.41 56.4 24.51 75.49 84.11 38.68 61.32 22.51
Yes 16.09 83.91 43.6 24.76 75.24 15.89 23.00 77.00 65.33
Speaks indigenous language** English proficiency* English is first language***
No 12.32 87.68 87.45 7.77 6.57 No 21.44 78.56 31.63
Yes 8.67 91.33 12.55 (4.92) (3.45) Yes 22.22 77.78 68.37
Years since migrationa
19.57 15.69
(10.43) (9.76)

% 88.71 11.29 5299 79.74 20.26 153 67.33 32.67 401

Note: Rows percentage top 100%. Statistical test of group differences: Chi-square for categorical variables and F test for continuous variables (age, English proficiency, and years
since migration).
a. M, SD in parentheses.

17
+p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
18 Violence Against Women 18(1)

Table 3. Weighted Logistic Regression Models of the Predictors of Abuse Among Mexican-
Origin Women in the United States and Mexico

United States (WCF)
MEXICO
(ENDIREH)a Mexican immigrantsb Native-bornc
Odds Odds Odds
ratio (e) SE ratio (e) SE ratio (e) SE
Education (more than primary) Education (high school or Education (more than high
more) school)
Less than 0.77* .16 Primary or 0.56 .67 Less than high 0.87 .33
primary less school
Primary 1.07 .11 Secondary 1.83 .46 High 1.61 .33
school or
equivalent
Married 0.51*** .09 0.18*** .46 0.26*** .24
Age 0.97*** <.01 0.90** .04 0.95*** .01
Work for pay 1.07 .10 0.56 .47 0.73 .23
Family violence 2.09*** .09 1.40 .65 2.61*** .25
before 18
Years since 1.12** .04
migration
Speaks 0.76 .15 English 0.81** .10 English is first 0.67 .25
indigenous proficiency language
language
Intercept 0.93 .15 3.14 1.56 0.90 .61
Note: Reference categories in parentheses.
a. N = 5,366 women; 580 experienced physical violence of any sort during the 12 months preceding the
interview; 4,786 experienced no violence.
b. N = 153 women; 31 experienced physical violence of any sort during the 12 months preceding the
interview; 122 experienced no violence.
c. N = 401 women; 131 experienced physical violence of any sort during the 12 months preceding the
interview; 270 experienced no violence.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .00.

Although employment has been found to have both positive and negative effects on
violence in previous research, it is insignificant in these analyses. Among Mexicans, the
least educated women (illiterate and those who did not finish primary school) have 33%
lower odds of experiencing partner violence than those with primary education or more. In
the U.S. subsamples, education is not significantly associated with partner violence. The
acculturation variables suggest that the effect of higher levels of assimilation into the main-
stream culture vary between countries. In Mexico, women who speak an indigenous lan-
guage are less likely to report abuse than those who do not. By contrast, among foreign-born
U.S. residents, the risk of experiencing partner violence increases by 12% for each additional
Fras and Angel 19

year the woman has been in the United States. However, with increasing English profi-
ciency, the odds of experiencing partner violence decrease.

The Potential Effects of Survey Methodologies

and the Sociocultural and Patriarchal Context
As we noted in our introduction, methodological differences and the different sociocul-
tural contexts in which individuals are embedded are clearly potential sources of the cross-
national differences we observe. In this section we focus first on the mode of inquiry
employed, and then on the sociocultural and political contexts in which the surveys took
place. The context in which the survey was conducted could have resulted in underreport-
ing in Mexico. Studies focused on general crime or victimization tend to find lower rates
of partner violence than studies focused more specifically on family violence or on more
general and broad topics (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997; Walby & Myhill, 2001). Neither of the
surveys required respondents to identify themselves as battered or abused. Rather, they
were asked about specific acts that they had experienced at the hands of their intimate
partner.
In the WCF, the domestic violence questions were part of a broader survey that had as
an objective the collection of extensive information concerning the lives of poor families.
The ENDIREH study was framed as a study of household dynamics. However, more than
half of the questionnaire dealt with issues of domestic conflict and the incidence of behav-
iors that could be labeled violent. Although neither of the surveys was focused specifically
on crime, the focus on domestic violence in the ENDIREH was more prominent than in the
WCF. Although it is possible, therefore, that aspects of the methodology itself influenced
respondents answers, the fact that the set of questions regarding physical violence came
before questions regarding other types of abuse might have reduced this potential effect for
these questions.
The second source of methodological variation between the two surveys is related to
the data collection procedures used. In the U.S. survey, the domestic violence section was
self-administered using AUDIO-CASI. In Mexico, the entire survey was administered by
an interviewer. The use of a computer appears to increase the willingness of respondents
to report sensitive information (Hagemann-White, 2001). The use of such techniques is
expensive, of course, and often requires that the respondent be literate. Since 11% of
Mexican women are illiterate (Inegi, 2001) the use of AUDIO-CASI or other expensive
methodologies often is not possible. The use of different methodologies for collecting the
data on domestic violence might have resulted in lower reported rates in the Mexican
survey.
The structural and sociocultural environments, which include different patriarchal
norms, might explain the higher rates of reported violence in our U.S. samples. The United
States and Mexico differ greatly in the enactment of legislation related to partner violence,
the willingness of the police to intervene, the services available to victims of domestic
violence, and the level of public awareness and the nature of the public discourse concern-
ing the seriousness of such violence. As result, the cultural climate and the structural
20 Violence Against Women 18(1)

acceptance of violence could well influence the likelihood that women report certain
behaviors as abusive, either because they are not perceived as abusive or because of the
stigma associated with such behaviors.
Almost two decades separate the first legislative initiatives related to domestic violence in
the two countries. In the United States, the battered womens movement, which evolved dur-
ing 1960s as part of the womens movement, exerted pressure on the State to deal with the
issue in both civil and criminal law. During the late 1970s, several initiatives from womens
rights groups impelled the federal government to act. In 1990, after much debate, Congress
approved the first federal law dealing with domestic violence, the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994. Among other innovations, it increased federal resources devoted to partner vio-
lence initiatives and provided grants for educational and social programs aimed at the preven-
tion of domestic violence. It also extended law enforcement initiatives related to domestic
violence (see Orloff, 2003; Tieffenthaler, Farmer, & Sambira, 2005).
In contrast, it was not until 1997 that the Federal District modified its civil and penal
codes to include reforms related to family violence (Borjn Lpez-Coterilla, 2000;
Fras, 2009). While the Federal Districts Ley de Prevencin y Atencin a la Violencia
Intrafamiliar (Family Violence Prevention and Assistance Law), as well as similar legisla-
tion passed by several Mexican states, formally sanction domestic violence, few mecha-
nisms for enforcing such laws exist, the laws themselves have little impact, and available
resources for victims of partner violence are few. In addition, family violence legislation in
Mexico often has two contradictory goals. On one hand, the states seek to preserve the
family as a social institution. On the other hand, the stated objective of domestic violence
legislation is the protection of women and other members within the family. These contra-
dictory objectives reflect a long-standing familistic tradition, patriarchal ideology, and the
paternalism of the State. The result is that despite an official ideology that condemns vio-
lence against women, inadequate resources are devoted to prevention or enforcement
(Fras, 2009).
Mexico has not yet passed specific federal legislation related to domestic violence.
Domestic violence regulations are included in other federal laws. In 2006, the Federal
Congress passed the General Law for Equity between Men and Women, which assigned to
the individual states the responsibility of addressing gender violence. In 2007, 10 years
after the enactment of the first Family Violence Prevention and Assistance Law, the
General Law for Womens Access to a Life Free of Violence was passed. It included mea-
sures for protecting women from an array of forms of violence that include family violence,
sexual harassment in the workplace and schools, community violence, and institutional
violence.
As a result of these historical and structural differences, the legal recourses for abused
women differ substantially between the two countries. In the United States, special domes-
tic violence courts have jurisdiction over partner abuse cases; police officers enforce the
law rather than acting as mediators; once brought, formal charges cannot be dropped even
if the victim wishes to; and victims can request restraining orders and apply for posttrial
relief aid (see review by Mirchandani, 2005). By contrast, Mexican legislation (in the
states where it exists) tends to promote conciliation procedures and settlement agreements
Fras and Angel 21

to be carried out by several public agencies, including the police. The procedure for
requesting protective orders is lengthy and complicated and to date there is little public aid
for women who bring charges against their abusers (Fras, 2009; Torres-Falcn, 2004). As
of May 2005, four Mexican states had passed no domestic violence legislation and partner
abuse was not categorized as a felony in six states.
The number of services available to abused women is also very different in the two
countries. In the United States, domestic violence shelters have been around for several
decades. As of 2000 the National Directories of Domestic Violence Programs registered
1,386 shelters (Tieffenthaler et al., 2005). In contrast, it was not until 1996 that the first
shelter opened its doors in the small city of Aguascalientes, Mexico. As of May 2004, the
National Womens Institute reported the existence of only 32 shelters for battered women
in Mexico. While some states have additional publicly funded or nongovernmental shel-
ters, others lack any refuge at all. Abused women in Mexico face serious difficulties if they
make their victimization public. Public authorities discourage or even deny womens rights
to press domestic violence charges against their partners (Fras, 2009; Hirsch, 2003;
Salcido & Adelman, 2004; Torres-Falcn, 2004). In some cases, rather than serving as
sources of support for abused women, families blame the victim and discourage their
attempts to leave their abuser (Salcido & Adelman, 2004).
It also appears that as result of the different patriarchal climates the acceptance of vio-
lence against women varies between countries and possibly within each country. In some
Mexican communities, wife beating is widely regarded as normal male behavior, or even
as justified discipline (Glantz, Halperin, & Hunt, 1998; Hernndez-Castillo, 2004). When
migrants arrive to the United States they are often surprised that domestic violence laws
exist and that these laws are actually enforced (Perilla, 1999). The cultural climate and the
structural acceptance of violence may affect how women perceive violence (see Peek-Asa
et al., 2002), again resulting in differential propensities to report certain behaviors as
violence.

Discussion
This analysis has revealed much of substance and of method in comparative research on
family violence. Among the poor women in our study, the Mexican subsample reported a
far lower rate of partner abuse (11%) than either the foreign-born or the native-born U.S.
subsamples (20% and 33%, respectively). Although these rates may reflect reality, both
theoretical and practical considerations lead us to suspect that the reported rate of abuse in
Mexico is too low. The lesson is that any estimate of the prevalence of domestic violence
must be interpreted cautiously since, as we have argued, cultural, political, and even eco-
nomic differences between Mexico and the United States result in important differences
between countries in the framing and reporting of violence. In all likelihood, substantial
cultural and social differences within nations, such as those associated with race and eth-
nicity, also influence norms related to gender role behavior and the occurrence and report-
ing of violence. Cultural, economic, and political differences among socially distinct
subgroups, combined with methodological difficulties such as instrument adaptation and
22 Violence Against Women 18(1)

sample selection, may easily result in misinterpretation or artifacts when dealing with self-
reported subjective information in substantially different cultural and social contexts.
Even when one employs the most rigorous methodological tools, interpretation is nec-
essary and such interpretation requires knowledge of the culture and language in which
studies are conducted. It also requires knowledge of the social and political context in
which actions are labeled deviant and either sanctioned or tolerated. As we have described,
the political and legal contexts in which domestic violence is socially and legally defined
in Mexico and the United States, and the ways in which the police and other agents and
agencies of social control respond to it, differ greatly. In Mexico, although public and legal
discourses condemn partner violence, institutional inaction often reflects a tacit acceptance
of the status quo. As we explained, contradictory policies that on one hand seek to preserve
the family and on the other supposedly protect women from domestic abuse result in
the ineffective enforcement of domestic violence laws. In such a context women are less
likely to report victimization than in contexts in which abusive acts are officially sanctioned.
Despite revealing rather substantial differences in overall rates or victimization between
Mexico and the United States, our data indicate that the sociodemographic profiles of the
victims of domestic violence are largely similar in both countries. In both countries, mar-
riage and being older are protective factors. Age is a protective factor even among Mexican-
origin women born in the United States. These findings contradict previous reports of no
association between age and the risk of partner violence (Firestone et al., 1999; Harris,
Firestone, & Vega, 2005). The reasons for the difference between our findings and these
contradictory results are not obvious and may reflect differences in samples and methodology
or the other difficulties in assessing the true level of violence that we have mentioned.
Another of our findings that contradicts certain earlier research relates to education. In
certain studies in both Mexico and the United States, higher levels of education have been
associated with a higher risk of abuse (see, for example, Harris et al., 2005). Our data
revealed no education effect in the U.S. subsample. Even in the United States, the sample
is poor, and their limited range of education potentially explains our finding. The associa-
tion between education and the risk of violence in the Mexican sample, though, is counter-
intuitive. In our sample of very poor urban dwellers in Mexico, those women with the
lowest levels of education had a lower risk of violence than women with more education.
At this point we can only resort to speculation to attempt to explain these patterns. A cul-
tural or social class perspective might lead us to hypothesize that less educated women in
Mexico are more likely than more educated women to conform to traditional gender role
expectations, which might place them at lower risk of violence, or they may not report
violence even if it occurs, especially since they are unlikely to have the resources to resist
or escape. Given the overdetermined nature of the phenomenon of partner violence, several
factors are no doubt at work, and in-depth qualitative investigations would be necessary to
untangle the multiple and interrelated causes of the risk individual women face.
Our findings concerning the effect of physical abuse in childhood or adolescence in the
Mexican sample and in the native-born Mexican-origin U.S. sample again reveal some dif-
ferences among subgroups. For women in Mexico and those women of Mexican origin
who were born in the United States, those who were victimized in childhood or adolescence
Fras and Angel 23

were more likely to report abuse in adulthood. For Mexican-origin women who were born
in Mexico but who are now living in the United States, there was no association between
the experience of early life violence and adult abuse. This contradictory finding hints at the
likely complexity of the meaning of violence and the impact of acculturation on its report-
ing. In the U.S. sample, acculturation, measured as the number of years since the respon-
dent migrated to the United States, is associated with a higher risk of partner abuse, while
increased English proficiency counteracts this effect.
Further evidence concerning the role of acculturation emerges from the Mexican sam-
ple. In Mexico, those who speak an indigenous language (7.2% of the population; Inegi,
2001), which may indicate a lower level of acculturation into mainstream Mexican culture,
report lower levels of partner violence. Again, it may be the case that these women are
more likely to conform to traditional gender role expectations and face a lower risk of
abuse, or they may be less likely to perceive or report abusive acts by their male partners.
Of course, migration and acculturation involve many other stressors associated with the
experience of physical and cultural change. The effects of these interacting factors on the
actual experience of abuse and on its reporting are likely complex and not easily discerned
in a survey.
The family violence and the acculturation perspectives offer some possibilities for
interpreting differences among the three subsamples. The sociodemographic characteris-
tics of economically unprivileged women vary substantially between the two countries.
Even though all of the women in our subsamples are of Mexican origin, a fact that controls
to some extent for cultural factors, we cannot disregard the potential influence of the socio-
cultural context and the patriarchal nature of Mexican society. The association among
explanatory variables, such as employment and marital status (married vs. cohabiting), and
abuse could be influenced by the level of patriarchy as certain data suggest (Fras, 2009).
These possibilities suggest the need for more sophisticated analyses, including qualitative
and quantitative studies, based on theoretical models that combine micro and macro-structural
analyses of partner violence. Future research instruments need to include measures of
social desirability since there are cross-country variations that seem to affect the reporting
of stigmatized behaviors such as partner violence (Straus, 2004; Straus & Ramirez, 2007).
Our study has clear limitations. The surveys are not contemporaneous, nor are they
based on the same instruments. In addition, our analysis focuses on poor urban samples in
both Mexico and the United States. Our specific findings cannot be generalized to other
social strata or other groups. The problems inherent in assessing the levels of violence,
though, probably can be generalized although the specific effects of culture, social class,
and economic and political contexts are necessarily historically and locationally specific.
This research has practical implications for those working with Mexican-origin families
in the United States or conducting research with them. Poor women with low levels of
education and few occupational skills remain dependent even on an abusive partner.
Poverty and patriarchal social norms clearly increase the risk of violence and undermine a
womans ability to escape it or bring charges against the abuser. Noncitizen Mexican-
origin women in the United States might fear deportation or legal problems if they report abuse.
Given their marginal status, they occupy an objectively disadvantaged position relative to
24 Violence Against Women 18(1)

their male partner. Disclosing abuse might result in an increased risk of experiencing vio-
lence. Providing protection or therapy to these women requires a clear understanding of
their vulnerability and the potential that efforts to assist them might make their situation
worse if those who would help do not understand the situation. Some of these implications
might be applied as well to other ethnic groups such as Asians.
This research sheds light on some of the complexities involved in conducting cross-
national research and interpreting survey data concerning social phenomena that are
culturally, socially, and politically embedded. It highlights the necessity of a sophisticated
understanding of the political, economic, and social system differences that constrain indi-
vidual opportunities for action and their observed and self-reported behavior. These objec-
tive constraints are very likely to manifest themselves cognitively and directly affect
responses to survey probes. Attention to the accuracy of translation is unlikely to suffi-
ciently account for these differences. In all likelihood, an adequate comparative methodol-
ogy probably requires a qualitative component to help understand differences in meaning
for which translation alone cannot account. As our analysis illustrates, understanding the
cultural and social context in which survey or any research is conducted is a central consid-
eration in comparative research methodology. The lack of such an understanding places
impenetrable interpretive barriers between the researcher and the social and cultural reality
under study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Abreu, J. M., Goodyear, R. K., Campos, A., & Newcomb, M. D. (2000). Ethnic belonging
and traditional masculinity ideology among African Americans, European Americans, and
Latinos. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 75-86.
Alberti Manzanares, P. (2004). Qu es la violencia domstica para las mujeres indgenas
en el medio rural? [What is domestic violence for indigenous women in rural areas?] In
T. Fernndez de Juan (Ed.), Violencia contra la mujer en Mxico (pp. 19-49). Mxico DF:
Comisin Nacional de Derechos Humanos.
Angel, R. J. (2006). Narrative and the fundamental limitations of quantification in cross-cultural
research. Medical Care, 44(Suppl. 3), S31-33.
Arciniega, G. M., Anderson, T. C., Tovar-Blank, Z. G., & Tracey, T. J. G. (1998). Toward a
fuller conception of machismo: Development of a traditional machismo and caballerismo
scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 19-33.
Borjn Lpez-Coterilla, I. (2000). Mujer vctima, mujer victimaria. El caso de la violencia
domstica [Female victim, female victimizer. The case of domestic violence]. Mxico DF:
Comisin Nacional de los Derechos Humanos.
Fras and Angel 25

Caetano, R., Schafer, J., Clark, C. L., Cunradi, C. B., & Raspberry, K. (2000). Intimate partner
violence, acculturation, and alcohol consumption among Hispanic couples in the United
States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 30-45.
Casique, I. (2004). ndices de empoderamiento femenino y su relacin con la violencia de gnero
[Indices of empowerment and its relation to gender violence]. In R. Castro, F. Rquer, &
M. E. Medina (Eds.), Violencia de gnero en las parejas Mexicanas. Resultados de la
ENDIREH 2003 (1st ed., pp. 75-107). Mexico DF: Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres.
Castro, R., & Casique, I. (2006). Violencia de pareja contra mujeres en Mxico: En busca de
datos consistentes [Partner violence against women in Mexico: In Search of consistent
data]. In R. Lozano Ascencio, A. Del Ro, E. Azaola Garrido, R. Castro, F. Pamplona
Rangel, M. Atrian Salazar & M. Hjar-Medina (Eds.), Informe nacional sobre violencia y
salud (pp. 123-163). Mxico, DF: Secretara de Salud & UNIFEM.
Castro, R., Peek-Asa, C., Garca, L., Ruiz, A., & Kraus, J. F. (2003). Risks for abuse against
pregnant Hispanic women: Morelos, Mexico and Los Angeles County, California. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25, 325-332.
Castro, R., Peek-Asa, C., & Ruiz, A. (2003). Violence against women in Mexico: A study of
abuse before and during pregnancy. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1110-1116.
Castro, R., Rquer, F., & Medina, M. E. (Eds.). (2004). Violencia de gnero en las parejas Mexi-
canas. Resultados de la ENDIREH 2003 [Gender violence in Mexican couples. ENDIREH
2003 Results]. Mexico, DF: INMUJERES.
Cuellar, I. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the
original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.
Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., & Schafer, J. (2002). Socioeconomic predictors of intimate partner
violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Family
Violence, 17, 377-389.
de Oliveira, O., & Garca, B. (1992). Jefas de hogar y violencia domstica [Heads of household
and domestic violence]. Revista Interamericana de Sociologa, 6, 179-200.
Di Noia, J. (2002). Indicators of gender equality for American states and regions: An update.
Social Indicators Research, 59, 35-77.
Daz-Olavarrieta, C., Ellertson, C., Paz, F., Ponce de Len, S., & Alarcn-Segovia, D. (2002).
Prevalence of battering among 1,780 outpatients at an internal medicine institution in Mexico.
Social Science & Medicine, 55, 1589-1602.
Daz-Olavarrieta, C., & Sotelo, J. (1996). Domestic violence in Mexico. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 275, 1937-1941.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy.
New York: Free Press.
Firestone, J. M., Harris, R. J., & Vega, W. A. (2003). The impact of gender role ideology, male expec-
tancies, and acculturation on wife abuse. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 549-564.
Firestone, J. M., Lambert, L. C., & Vega, W. A. (1999). Intimate violence among women of
Mexican origin: Correlates of abuse. Journal of Gender, Culture and Health, 4, 119-134.
Fras, S. M. (2008). Diferencias regionales en violencia domstica en Mxico: El rol de la
estructura patriarcal [Regional differences in domestic violence in Mexico: The role of the
patriarchal structure]. In R. Castro & I. Casique (Eds.), Estudios sobre cultura, gnero y
violencia contra las mujeres (pp. 81-136). Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico: CRIM-UNAM.
26 Violence Against Women 18(1)

Fras, S. M. (2009). Gender, the state and patriarchy: Partner violence in Mexico. Saarbrcken,
Germany: VDM.
Fras, S. M., & Angel, R. J. (2005). The risk of partner violence among low-income Hispanic
subgroups. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 552-564.
Garca-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. (2005). WHO
Multi-country Study on Womens Health and Domestic Violence against Women. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Garca, L., Hurwitz, E. L., & Kraus, J. F. (2005). Acculturation and reported intimate violence
among Latinas in Los Angeles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 569-590.
Gelles, R. J. (2000). Estimating the incidence and prevalence of violence against women. Vio-
lence Against Women, 6, 784-804.
Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1983). Introduction: An international perspective on family vio-
lence. In R. J. Gelles & C. P. Cornell (Eds.), International perspectives on family violence
(pp. 1-22). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Glantz, N. M., Halperin, D. C., & Hunt, L. M. (1998). Studying domestic violence in Chiapas,
Mexico. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 377-392.
Guttmann, M. C. (1996). The meanings of macho: Being a man in Mexico City. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Hagemann-White. (2001). European research on the prevalence of violence against women.
Violence Against Women, 7, 732-759.
Hamptom, R. L. (1999). Family violence: Prevention and treatment. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Harris, R. J., Firestone, J. M., & Vega, W. A. (2005). The interaction of country of origin, accul-
turation, and gender role ideology on wife abuse. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 463-483.
Heise, L. L., & Garca-Moreno, C. (2002). Violence by intimate partners. In E. Krug, L. L.
Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi, & R. Lozano Ascencio (Eds.), World report on violence
and health (pp. 89-121). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Hernndez-Castillo, A. (2004). El derecho positivo y la costumbre jurdica: Las mujeres ind-
genas de Chiapas y sus luchas por el acceso a la justicia [Positive law and legal practice:
Indigenous women of Chiapas and their struggle for access to justice]. In M. Torres-Falcn
(Ed.), Violencia contra las mujeres en contexto urbanos y rurales (pp. 335-377). Mxico,
DF: El Colegio de Mxico.
Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead to
adulthood family violence? Journal of the Marriage and Family, 64, 684-870.
Hirsch, J. S. (2003). A courtship after marriage (1st ed.). Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1992). Overcoming patriarchal constraints: The reconstruction of gender
relations among Mexican immigrant women and men. Gender & Society, 6, 393-415.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (1994). Gendered transitions: Mexican experiences of immigration.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Inegi. (2001). XII censo General de poblacin y vivienda, 2000. Tabulados bsicos [XII Gen-
eral Census of Population and Housing, 2000. Basic tabulations]. Aguascalientes, Mxico:
Author.
Fras and Angel 27

INEGI, & INMUJERES. (2004). ENDIREH: Encuesta sobre la dinmica de las relaciones en
los hogares Tabulados bsicos [ENDIREH: Survey on the dynamics of relationships within
households. Basic tabulations]. Aguascalientes, Mxico: Author.
Janssen, E., & Martnez Casas, R. (2006). Una propuesta para estimar la poblacin indgena en
Mxico a partir de los datos censales [A proposal to estimate the indigenous population in
Mexico based on census data]. Estudios Demogrficos y Urbanos, 21, 457-471.
Kaufman Kantor, G., Jasinski, J. J., & Aldarondo, E. (1994). Sociocultural status and incidence
of marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9, 207-222.
Krahe, B., Bieneck, S., & Moller, I. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence
from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807-827.
Krane, J. E. (1996). Violence against women in intimate relations: Insights from cross-cultural
analyses. Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review, 33, 435-465.
Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
Lown, A. E., & Vega, W. A. (2001). Prevalence and predictors of physical partner abuse among
Mexican American women. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 441-445.
MacMillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1999). When she brings home the bacon: Labor force participation
and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of the Marriage and the Family, 61,
947-958.
Menjvar, C., & Salcido, O. (2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence: Common experi-
ences in different countries. Gender & Society, 16, 898-920.
Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. (1997). If violence is domestic, does it really count? Journal of
Family Violence, 12, 293-311.
Mirchandani, R. (2005). Whats so special about specialized courts? The state and social change
in Salt Lake Citys domestic violence court. Law and Society Review, 39, 379-417.
Morash, M., Bui, H. N., & Santiago, A. M. (2000). Cultural-specific gender ideology and wife
abuse in Mexican-descent families. Domestic Violence: Global Responses, 7(1), 67-91.
Orloff, L. (2003). Women immigrants and domestic violence. In P. Strum & D. Tarantolo
(Eds.), Women immigrants in the United States (pp. 49-56). Washington, DC: Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Oropesa, R. (1997). Development of marital power in Mexico. Social Forces, 75, 1291-1317.
Peek-Asa, C., Garca, L., McArthur, D., & Castro, R. (2002). Severity of intimate partner abuse
indicators as perceived by women in Mexico and in the United States. Women and Health,
35, 165-180.
Prez Robledo, F. M. (2004). Pegar de balde/pegar con razn: Aproximacin etnogrfica
a las prcticas violentas hacia las mujeres en comunidades tojobales [Paste free/paste
rightly ethnographic approach to the violent practices against women in tojobales com-
munities]. In T. Fernandez de Juan (Ed.), Violencia contra la mujer en Mxico (pp. 51-68).
Mexico DF: Comisin Nacional de Derechos Humanos.
Perilla, J. L. (1999). Domestic violence as a human rights issue: The case of immigrant Latinos.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 107-133.
Perilla, J. L., Bakerman, R., & Norris, F. H. (1994). Culture and domestic violence: The ecology
of abused Latinas. Violence and Victims, 9, 325-339.
28 Violence Against Women 18(1)

Pozo del, B. E., Castro, R., & Rquer, F. (2004). Anlisis multivariado de los distintos tipos de
violencia [Multivariate analysis of the different types of violence]. In R. Castro, F. Rquer
& M. E. Medina (Eds.), Violencia de gnero en las parejas Mexicanas. Resultados de la
ENDIREH 2003 (1st ed., pp. 172-215). Mexico, DF: INMUJERES.
Rivera, L., Allen, B., Chvez, R., & vila, L. (2006). Abuso fsico y sexual durante la niez y
revictimizacin de las mujeres Mexicanas durante la edad adulta [Physical and sexual abuse
during childhood and revictimization of Mexican women during adulthood]. Salud Pblica
de Mxico, 48(Suppl. 2), S268-S278.
Rogler, L. H. (1999). Methodological sources of cultural insensitivity in mental health research.
American Psychologist, 54, 424-433.
Sagot, M. (2000). Ruta crtica de las mujeres afectadas por la violencia intrafamiliar en
Amrica Latina [Critical path of women affected by domestic violence in Latin America].
Washington, DC: UNPAHO.
Salcido, O., & Adelman, M. (2004). He has me tied with the blessed and damned papers:
Undocumented-immigrant battered women in Phoenix, Arizona. Human Organization, 63,
162-172.
Saltzman, L. E. (2004). Definitional and methodological issues related to transnational research
on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 10, 812-830.
Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of the feminist hypothesis.
Violence and Victims, 5, 257-273.
Straus, M. A. (1990). The Conflict Tactics Scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on
validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American
families (pp. 49-74). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A. (1994). State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds in rela-
tion to assaults on lives in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25,
7-24.
Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female univer-
sity students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-881.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Con-
flict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of
Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2007). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronic-
ity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and the
USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281-290.
Tieffenthaler, J., Farmer, A., & Sambira, A. (2005). Services and intimate partner violence in
the United States: A county-level analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 565-578.
Torres, J. B. (1998). Masculinity and gender roles among Puerto Rican men: Machismo on the
U.S. mainland. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 16-26.
Torres, J. B., Solberg, S. H., & Carlstrom, A. (2002). The myth of sameness among Latino men
and their machismo. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 163-181.
Torres-Falcn, M. (2004). Violencia contra las mujeres y derechos humanos [Violence against
women and human rights]. In M. Torres-Falcn (Ed.), Violencia contra las mujeres en con-
textos urbanos y rurales (pp. 307-334). Mexico, DF: El Colegio de Mxico.
Fras and Angel 29

Vallejo Real, I. R. (2004). Usos y escenificaciones de la legalidad ante litigios de violencia

hacia la mujer maseual en Cuetzalan, Puebla [Uses and performances of lawful litigation
against violence against women maseual in Cuetzalan, Puebla]. In M. Torres-Falcn (Ed.),
Violencia contra las mujeres en contextos urbanos y rurales (pp. 379-414). Mexico DF: El
Colegio de Mexico.
Vandello, J., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that
perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997-1010.
Villarreal, A. (2007). Womens employment status, coercive control, and intimate partner vio-
lence in Mexico. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 418-434.
Walby, S., & Myhill, A. (2001). New survey methodologies in researching violence against
women. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 502-522.
Weaver, T. L., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., Best, C. L., & Saunders, B. E. (1997). An
examination of physical assault and childhood victimization histories within a national prob-
ability sample of women. In G. Kaufman Kantor & J. J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness:
Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 35-48). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wilt, S., & Olson, S. (1996). Prevalence of domestic violence in the United States. Journal of
the American Medical Womens Association, 51(3), 77-82.
Winston, P., Angel, R. J., Burton, L. M., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Cherlin, A. J., Moffitt, R.
A., et al. (1999). Welfare, children and families: A three-city study. Overview and design.
Retrieved from http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/overviewanddesign.pdf
Yllo, K. (1984). The status of women, marital equality, and violence against wives. Journal of
Family Issues, 5, 307-320.

Bios
Sonia M. Fras, PhD, is a researcher at the Regional Center for Multidisciplinary Research
(National Autonomous University of Mexico) where she conducts research about violence
against women and children, discrimination and sexual harassment against women. She is the
author of Gender, The State and Patriarchy: Partner Violence in Mexico (VDM 2009) and
Between Agency and Structure: Resisting Patriarchy Within the State in Mexico (forthcom-
ing in Womens Studies International Forum). She is coauthor of the report Estudio sobre
Violencia contra la Infancia en Mxico (UNICEF 2010).

Ronald J. Angel, PhD, is professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin. With
Laura Lein and Jane Henrici he coauthored Poor Families in Americas Health Care Crisis
(Cambridge, 2006), and with his wife, Jacqueline Angel, he coauthored Painful Inheritance:
Health and the New Generation of Fatherless Families (University of Wisconsin Press, 1994);
Who Will Care for Us? Aging and Long-term Care in Multicultural America (New York
University Press, 1997); and Hispanic Families at Risk: The New Economy, Work, and the
Welfare State (Springer, 2009). He served as editor of the Journal of Health and Social
Behavior from 1994 to 1997.