View
213
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Community Matters: Intimate Partner Violence Among RuralYoung Adults
Katie M. Edwards • Marybeth J. Mattingly •
Kristiana J. Dixon • Victoria L. Banyard
Published online: 29 January 2014
� Society for Community Research and Action 2014
Abstract Drawing on social disorganization theory, the
current study examined the extent to which community-
level poverty rates and collective efficacy influenced indi-
vidual reports of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetra-
tion, victimization, and bystander intervention among a
sample of 178 young adults (18–24; 67.4 % women) from
16 rural counties across the eastern US who completed an
online survey that assessed demographic information, IPV
perpetration, victimization, bystander intervention, and
collective efficacy. We computed each county’s poverty
rate from the 2007–2011 American Community Survey.
Generalized estimating equations demonstrated that after
controlling for individual-level income status, community-
level poverty positively predicted IPV victimization and
perpetration for both men and women. Collective efficacy
was inversely related to IPV victimization and perpetration
for men; however, collective efficacy was unrelated to IPV
victimization and perpetration for women. Whereas IPV
bystander intervention was positively related to collective
efficacy and inversely related to individual-level income
status for both men and women, community-level poverty
was unrelated to IPV bystander intervention for both men
and women. Overall, these findings provide some support
for social disorganization theory in explaining IPV among
rural young adults, and underscore the importance of multi-
level IPV prevention and intervention efforts focused
around community-capacity building and enhancement of
collective efficacy.
Keywords Intimate partner violence � Bystander
intervention � Rural � Poverty � Collective efficacy � Social
disorganization
Intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs at alarmingly high
rates in US society, especially among adolescents and
young adults, which make it especially important to
understand patterns of victimization and perpetration
among this group (Black et al. 2011). Given the high rates
and deleterious consequences of IPV, there is increased
focus on understanding the correlates and predictors of IPV
perpetration, IPV victimization, and IPV bystander inter-
vention (i.e., individuals who engage in behaviors that aid
in the prevention of IPV and/or assist in victims’ recovery
from IPV experiences; Banyard 2011) in order to inform
prevention and intervention efforts. Although most
research to date has focused on the individual (e.g.,
accepting attitudes towards IPV) and relational (e.g., peer
group norms towards IPV) correlates and predictors of
aspects of IPV listed above, researchers are increasingly
recognizing the critical role of community context in
understanding, responding to, and preventing IPV (see
Cunradi 2010; Mancini et al. 2006). However, to date, most
of this research has been conducted within urban commu-
nities (see Pinchevsky and Wright 2012 for a review);
significantly less research has focused on IPV within rural
communities. Given preliminary research documenting
rural–urban differences in IPV [e.g., rural victims reported
less social support and more barriers to reporting and help-
seeking than urban victims (Logan et al. 2005, 2003)],
research is sorely needed to better understand the
K. M. Edwards (&) � K. J. Dixon � V. L. Banyard
Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH 03824, USA
e-mail: katie.edwards@unh.edu
M. J. Mattingly
Department of Sociology and The Carsey Institute, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
123
Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207
DOI 10.1007/s10464-014-9633-7
community-level correlates of IPV in rural communities,
especially among high risk and understudied groups such
as young adults. Drawing on social disorganization theory
(Shaw and McKay 1942; Pinchevsky and Wright 2012),
the current study examined the extent to which community-
level poverty rates and collective efficacy (i.e., social
cohesion among community members) influenced indi-
vidual reports of IPV perpetration, victimization, and
bystander intervention among a sample of young men and
women living in 16 rural counties across the eastern United
States (US).
Social disorganization theory (Shaw and McKay 1942)
provides a framework to understand the role that structural
economic indicators and neighborhood compositional factors
have on crime. According to the original theory and later
reformulations (e.g., Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson and
Wilson 1995), communities characterized by high levels of
poverty and low levels of collective efficacy are likely to have
high crime rates because of the community’s inability to exert
formal and informal social control. Whereas social disorga-
nization theory has been applied primarily to crimes such as
burglary, robbery, and stranger assaults, more recently it has
been applied to interpersonal violence, including IPV (see
Pinchevsky and Wright 2012, for a review). Specific to social
disorganization conceptualizations of IPV, living in an
impoverished community may increase risk for IPV through a
number of mechanisms. For example, high poverty in a com-
munity may increase stress among couples, which increases
risk for IPV. High poverty rates may also be associated with
distrust in and cynicism towards the justice system, which may
decrease the likelihood that victims will seek help for IPV (thus
increasing risk for re-victimization) (Plass 1993; Pinchevsky
and Wright 2012; Ross and Mirowsky 2009; Sampson and
Bartusch 1998). In addition to the role of community-level
poverty, collective efficacy may increase bystander interven-
tion as well as victims’ likelihood of seeking help, which could
lead to overall lower rates of IPV within a community
(Browning 2002; Pinchevsky and Wright 2012).
Previous research has examined empirically the effects of
community-level poverty and collective efficacy on IPV and
findings suggest that community-level poverty and broader
measures of community disadvantage (i.e., concentration of
poor, single-parent families, and unemployed racial minori-
ties; Wilson 1987) are positively associated with individual
reports of IPV victimization and perpetration (see Pinchevsky
and Wright 2012 for a review of studies). However, most of
this research has been conducted with urban communities.
One exception is work by Lanier and Maume (2009) who
found that community disadvantage was unrelated to female
IPV victimization in rural communities; however, male
unemployment measured at the individual-level was related to
female IPV victimization. Several studies including rural
samples have documented the positive relationships between
community-level poverty and IPV-related homicide and
femicide (Beyer et al. 2013; Madkour et al. 2010). In light of
all the research with urban communities demonstrating con-
sistent relationships between community-level poverty/
disadvantage and IPV and mixed findings with rural com-
munities between community-level poverty and IPV vari-
ables, more research with rural communities is needed to
determine whether similar patterns exist in rural communities
(Pinchevsky and Wright 2012).
In addition to community-level poverty and disadvantage,
collective efficacy has been studied in conjunction with IPV,
although to a lesser extent. Of the studies that exist, pre-
liminary research generally suggests that collective efficacy
serves as a protective factor against IPV victimization and
perpetration (see Pinchevsky and Wright 2012 for a review
of studies). However, the research is somewhat equivocal
with some studies finding null relationships between col-
lective efficacy and IPV (e.g., Frye 2007). Only two known
studies have specifically examined collective efficacy and
IPV within rural communities (DeKeseredy and Schwartz
2009; Lanier and Maume 2009). Whereas, Lanier and
Maume (2009) found that social support measured at the
individual-level was associated with a significantly lower
likelihood of female IPV victimization in quantitative
analyses, in a qualitative study of rural IPV victims of post-
separation sexual assault, Dekeseredy and Schwartz (2009)
found that 84 % of victims stated that they could not count
on their neighbors to help them solve personal problems.
DeKeseredy and Schwartz (2009) argued that high levels of
collective self-efficacy typically found in rural communities
may function to prevent some violent crimes (e.g., vandal-
ism), but not others, like IPV. Indeed, what may be per-
ceived as the ‘‘common good’’ among individuals in rural
communities may actually include behaviors that ignore or
even encourage IPV (DeKeseredy and Schwartz 2009) or
that discourage victims from coming forward to accuse
perpetrators who hold high levels of social capital in a close
knit community (DeKeseredy and Schwartz 2009). To date,
however, the research lacks a comprehensive understanding
of the role of collective efficacy on IPV victimization, IPV
perpetration, and IPV bystander intervention among rural
young adults.
The above findings support a social disorganization
framework particularly for middle and older aged adults
living in urban communities; these individuals have been
the main focus of research on this topic to date. Far less
research has examined the role of community-level pov-
erty/disadvantage and collective efficacy in IPV among
younger samples. Although they did not measure commu-
nity-level poverty and collective efficacy specifically,
Banyard et al. (2006) did find that low school attachment
and low neighborhood monitoring were associated with
increased self-reports of IPV perpetration in a sample of
Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207 199
123
middle and high school students across several rural and
urban communities. However, these variables were not
significant predictors of IPV perpetration in more complex
multivariate analyses. More research is needed on late
adolescents and young adults and that focuses more spe-
cifically on rural contexts.
Furthermore, most IPV research to date, including
research on community-level correlates of IPV, has focused
primarily on girls and women as IPV victims and boys and
men as IPV perpetrators. However, we know from previous
research that IPV victimization and perpetration rates are
similar among girls/women and boys/men and that IPV
tends to be mutual and bidirectional, especially in samples
of adolescents and young adults (see Dardis et al. 2014 for a
review). Thus, it is critical that research on the community-
level correlates of IPV include methodologies in which both
girls/women and boys/men are comprehensively assessed on
measures of IPV victimization, IPV perpetration, and IPV
bystander intervention. Broadening measures of IPV to
include both men and women as perpetrators, victims, and
bystanders is especially important in light of preliminary
research with urban youth showing that neighborhood
characteristics affect boy’s perpetration of IPV more so than
girl’s perpetration of IPV (Jain et al. 2010).
The purpose of the current study was to explore these gaps
in the literature by applying aspects of social disorganization
theory to explain IPV victimization, IPV perpetration, and
IPV bystander intervention among a sample of young adults
(18–24) living in rural counties across the eastern US. Social
disorganization variables used were county poverty rates and
individual perceptions of collective efficacy. We chose to
focus on county-level poverty because data constraints often
preclude analyses at smaller geographies, particularly in rural
places. We generally hypothesized that counties with higher
poverty rates would also have higher rates of IPV victim-
ization and perpetration. While empirical findings have been
mixed regarding the relationship between collective efficacy
and IPV within rural communities, social disorganization
theory predicts that lower perceived collective efficacy will
be associated with higher reports of victimization and per-
petration and less helpful bystander action. Given the dearth
of research on the moderating role of gender in the rela-
tionship between community-level variables and IPV vari-
ables among rural young adults, we had no a priori
hypotheses about these relationships.
Method
Participants
Two hundred three young adults (67.4 % women and
32.6 % men) from 16 rural counties across the eastern
United States completed an online survey (see Procedure
section for recruitment details). Eligibility criteria required
that participants lived in one of the 16 target rural counties
for at least four years. A minority of respondents (n = 25
out of 203; 12 %) were excluded from the analyses due to
missing data on gender and/or income as well as partici-
pants who had missing data on all IPV outcome measures
(i.e., IPV victimization, IPV perpetration, IPV bystander
intervention).
Sixty-four percent of the sample was from New Eng-
land, and 36 % of the sample was from the Southern US
including Appalachia. Based on inclusion criteria, all par-
ticipants were between the ages of 18 and 24, and the
average age was 21.05 (SD = 1.93). The sample largely
identified as Caucasian (94.4 %) and heterosexual
(88.7 %). Twenty-three point six percent of the sample
reported less than $10,000 in annual family income,
29.7 % of the sample reported between $10,000 and
$30,000, 19.6 % of the sample reported between $31,000
and $50,000, 15.2 % of the sample reported between
$51,000 and $75,000, and 11.8 % reported more than
$76,000. Over one-third (39.9 %) of the sample reported
being employed part time, 30.3 % reported being
employed full time, 20.8 % reported being unemployed
and seeking work, and 9.0 % reported not working or
seeking work. Regarding the highest level of education to
date, 4.5 % reported some high school, 3.9 % reported a
GED, 17.4 % reported a high school diploma, 53.4 %
reported some college, 6.2 % reported an associate’s
degree, 1.1 % reported a trade vocational degree, 12.9 %
reported a bachelor’s degree, and\1 % reported a master’s
degree. Regarding relationship status, 36.5 % of the sample
was single/never married, 31.5 % were in a dating rela-
tionship and not cohabiting, 19.1 % were in a dating
relationship and cohabiting, 11.8 % were married, and
1.1 % were divorced/separated/other. Nearly one in five
participants (18.7 %) of the sample had at least one child.
Measures
Demographics
A questionnaire was included to assess relevant demo-
graphic information discussed in the participant section
above. Two items from this measure, gender and annual
family income, were included as control variables in the
inferential analyses. For gender, participants identifying as
men were coded zero and participants identifying as
women were coded one. The scores on the annual family
income item were dichotomized with zero representing
low-income individuals (i.e., under $30,000 per year) and
one representing middle and high income individuals (i.e.,
over $30,000 per year).
200 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207
123
Community-Level Poverty Rate
The community-level poverty rate was obtained from the
2007–2011 American Community Survey (ACS) con-
ducted by the US Census Bureau for each of the 16
counties (US Census Bureau 2011a). As defined in the
ACS, community-level poverty was operationalized to
include the percentage of the tract’s population below the
official poverty line, $22,811 for a family comprised of two
non-elderly adults and two children in 2011 (US Census
Bureau 2011b). Across the 16 counties county-level pov-
erty ranged from less than 10 % to nearly 40 %.
Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy was measured using a widely-used
scale developed and previously validated by Morenoff and
Sampson (1997). Participants responded to the five items
(e.g., ‘‘this is a close-knit neighborhood,’’ ‘‘people around
here are willing to help their neighbors’’) on a 1 (Not at all
True) to 5 (Completely True) scale. Higher scores indicated
greater levels of collective efficacy. In the current sample,
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.
IPV Victimization and Perpetration
The physical victimization and perpetration subscales of the
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al. 1996)
were used to identify men and women who had experienced
physical IPV victimization and perpetration in the past year.
Twelve items assessed physical IPV victimization (e.g., ‘‘my
partner pushed or shoved me’’), and the same 12 items were
used to assess physical IPV perpetration (e.g., ‘‘I pushed or
shoved my partner’’). Response options for each of the items
ranged from Never (0) to More than 20 times (6). Responses
were summed separately for the physical IPV victimization
and perpetration subscales so that participants received an
overall count score for both physical IPV victimization and
perpetration. Response options were also dichotomized in
order to determine the 12-month incidence rates of both
physical IPV victimization and perpetration.
IPV Bystander Intervention
The seven IPV items from Banyard and Moynihan’s (2011)
Bystander Behavior Scale were used to determine the extent
to which individuals actually intervened in IPV situations
during the past year. Participants responded ‘‘yes’’ (coded
1) or ‘‘no’’ (coded 0) to items (e.g., ‘‘Approach a friend if I
thought they were in an abusive relationship and let them
know that I’m here to help’’ and ‘‘If I heard a friend
insulting their partner I would say something to them’’).
Responses were summed so that higher scores reflected
greater levels of IPV bystander intervention behavior. In the
current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from 16 rural counties (Rural–
Urban Continuum Codes 4–9; US Department of Agriculture
2013) in New England and the Southern US (including Ap-
palachia). The counties were chosen based on demographic
and geographic variability. Participants within each of the 16
rural counties were recruited through a variety of mediums,
including (a) emails distributed to students at local com-
munity, technical, and 4-year colleges (46 %) (b) flyers
posted at local businesses and organizations (e.g., library)
(30 %), (c) word of mouth/snowball sampling (11 %),
(d) online advertisements (e.g., Facebook, Craigslist) (7 %),
and (e) print newspaper advertisements (6 %). Participants
were directed to an online survey hosted by SurveyMon-
key� where participants first read an online consent form.
Participants who met criteria (i.e., were between the ages of
18 and 24, currently lived in one of the 16 counties, and had
lived in this county for at least 4 years) and consented to
participate completed an online survey that included the
measures listed above. Following completion of the survey,
participants received debriefing and referral information that
was county-specific. Participants also had the opportunity to
be redirected to a different website in order to enter their
name and contact information for a chance to win one of
several $100 gift cards. Participants were made aware of the
anonymous nature of their survey responses during the
informed consent process in order to encourage honest
responding. All research was conducted in compliance with
the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Means and standard deviations for IPV count variables and
collective efficacy are presented in Table 1. Rates of IPV
victimization and IPV perpetration are presented in
Table 2. Of the individuals reporting any type of IPV
during the past year, over half (62.5 %) reported both IPV
victimization and perpetration, 22.9 % reported victim-
ization only, and 14.6 % reported perpetration only.
Inferential Statistics
Analytic Overview
In order to examine the role of community-level poverty
and collective efficacy on IPV perpetration, IPV
Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207 201
123
victimization, and IPV bystander intervention we used
generalized estimating equations for Poisson distributions
given that our dependent variables were all count data.
Moreover, given the nested nature of our data, generalized
estimating equations were used to account for the nested
structure of our data—individuals nested within counties
(Hubbard et al. 2010). Such a strategy allowed us to
examine community level and individual level associations
within a single analysis. An exchangeable covariance
structure was used with robust estimates. Separate equa-
tions were conducted for each dependent variable (i.e., IPV
victimization, IPV perpetration, and IPV bystander inter-
vention). In each set of models, we examined the moder-
ating role of gender in order to determine if the influence of
community-level poverty and collective efficacy on IPV
outcome variables were similar or different for men and
women. Thus, each model included the main effects of
participant gender, participant income status, county-level
poverty, collective efficacy, and the interactions between
gender and county-level poverty and gender and collective
efficacy. Non-significant interaction terms were excluded
and the models were re-estimated. Findings from the
generalized estimating equations are shown in Tables 3, 4,
5 and summarized below.
IPV Perpetration
In the model predicting IPV perpetration, after controlling
for individual-level income status, community-level
poverty was positively associated with IPV perpetration for
both men and women. Stated another way, at equivalent
individual-level income status, young adults living in more
Table 1 Means and standard deviations of variables of interest
Women Men t valuea
Mean SD Range Mean SD Range
IPV perpetration 1.99 6.42 0–44 3.52 16.06 0–93 0.88
IPV victimization 2.45 8.07 0–54 4.83 22.43 0–162 1.00
IPV Bystander 3.46 2.37 0–7 2.79 2.40 0–7 1.67
Collective Efficacy 7.93 3.93 0–15 8.28 2.63 2–15 0.60
a No significant gender differences on IPV victimization, IPV perpetration, or collective efficacy; however, marginally significant effect for IPV
bystander intervention (p = 0.097)
Table 2 Past year incidence rates of IPV perpetration and
victimization
Women Men Chi
squarea
Any
(%)
None
(%)
Any
(%)
None
(%)
IPV
perpetration
23.9 76.1 20.4 79.6 0.26
IPV
victimization
23.4 76.6 31.5 68.5 1.22
a No significant differences in IPV rates between men and women
Table 3 Generalized estimating equation parameter estimates for
IPV perpetration
B SE OR 95 % CI
Gender 0.49 0.49 1.63 0.70–3.75
Income -0.47 0.43 0.63 0.26–1.49
Community-level poverty 0.07* \.01 1.078 1.06–1.10
Collective efficacy -.64* 0.07 0.53 0.46–0.60
Gender 9 collective efficacy 0.71* 0.14 2.04 1.54–2.69
Women 0.05 0.11 1.05 0.85–1.31
Men -0.64* 0.05 0.53 0.48–0.59
* p \ 0.001
Table 4 Generalized estimating equation parameter estimates for
IPV victimization
B SE OR 95 % CI
Gender -0.01 0.20 1.00 0.68–1.46
Income 0.09 0.52 1.09 0.40–3.02
Community-level poverty 0.12* 0.02 1.13 1.10–1.16
Collective efficacy -.37* 0.04 0.69 0.64–0.75
Gender 9 collective efficacy 0.45* 0.10 1.58 1.30–1.91
Women 0.06 0.11 1.07 0.86–1.30
Men -0.37* 0.06 0.70 0.62–0.78
* p \ 0.001
Table 5 Generalized estimating equation parameter estimates for
IPV bystander intervention
B SE OR 95 % CI
Gender 0.19 0.14 1.21 0.93–1.59
Income -0.39* 0.14 0.68 0.52–0.90
Community-level poverty 0.01 \.01 1.00 1.00–1.01
Collective efficacy 0.04* 0.02 1.04 1.01–1.07
* p \ 0.01
202 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207
123
impoverished rural communities reported higher IPV per-
petration frequencies than young adults living in less
impoverished rural communities. Whereas community-
level poverty positively predicted IPV perpetration for both
young men and women, collective efficacy was negatively
predictive of IPV perpetration for young men and unrelated
to IPV perpetration for young women. This means that for
young men, as collective efficacy increased, frequencies of
IPV perpetration decreased. Conversely, frequencies of
IPV perpetration for women were unaffected by collective
efficacy.
IPV Victimization
In the model predicting IPV victimization, after controlling
for individual-level income status, community-level pov-
erty was positively associated with IPV victimization for
both men and women. Stated another way, at equivalent
individual-level income levels, young adults living in more
impoverished rural communities reported higher IPV vic-
timization frequencies than young adults living in less
impoverished rural communities. Whereas community-
level poverty positively predicted IPV victimization for
both young men and women, collective efficacy was pre-
dictive negatively of IPV victimization for young men and
unrelated to IPV victimization for young women. This
means that for young men, as collective efficacy increased,
frequencies of IPV victimization decreased. Conversely,
frequencies of IPV victimization for women were unaf-
fected by collective efficacy.
IPV Bystander Intervention
In the model predicting IPV bystander intervention, after
controlling for individual-level income status, community-
level poverty was unrelated to IPV bystander intervention
for both men and women. Interestingly, however, higher
and moderate income individuals were less likely to report
IPV bystander intervention than lower income individuals.
Furthermore, for both men and women, collective efficacy
was positively predictive of IPV bystander intervention.
This means that for young men and women, as collective
efficacy increased, frequencies of IPV bystander interven-
tion increased.
Discussion
Grounded in social disorganization theory, the current
study examined the extent to which community-level
poverty rates and collective efficacy influenced individual
reports of IPV perpetration, victimization, and bystander
intervention among a sample of young men and women
living in rural counties across the eastern US. Although not
a primary aim of the study, it is important to comment on
the high rates of IPV documented; specifically between
one-fifth and one-third of young adults reported IPV vic-
timization and/or perpetration. Moreover, results showed
that over half of the IPV experienced was mutual, meaning
that participants were most likely to report both IPV vic-
timization and perpetration experiences as opposed to only
IPV victimization or IPV perpetration experiences. These
findings are consistent with previous studies that have
assessed rates of overall IPV and mutual IPV among young
adults (e.g., Melander et al. 2010; Straus 2007). It should
be noted, however, that the current study reflects only self-
reported prevalence. Other studies that take into account
additional variables such as motivation for use of violence
and consequences, such as injury and fear, often find
gender differences in patterns of IPV (see Dardis et al.
2014 for a review). Although these variables could not be
examined in the current study due to survey length con-
cerns, it will be important for future IPV research with
rural individuals to consider these contextual factors. On
the positive side, in the current study, both men and women
reported moderate to high levels of IPV helping behaviors.
This finding is counter to work by DeKeseredy and Sch-
wartz (2009) who found that most rural victims of post-
relationship termination sexual assault did not feel helped
by their community members. However, the finding of the
current study coincides with the broader research on
helping, which finds levels of helping to be much greater in
rural communities than urban ones (see Banyard 2011 for a
review).
Consistent with social disorganization theory, commu-
nity-level poverty predicted IPV victimization and IPV
perpetration for both men and women. Put another way,
individuals with the same family income status in different
communities demonstrated different risk for IPV with those
living in more impoverished, rural communities at greater
risk for IPV than those living in less impoverished, rural
communities. Although not directly tested in the current
study, it is important to consider some of the potential
mechanisms that may place individuals in impoverished
communities at increased risk for IPV. These mechanisms
include: (1) community-level poverty increasing stress and
maladaptive coping (e.g., drug and alcohol use) among
couples, which increases risk for IPV; (2) distrust in and
cynicism towards the justice system, which may decrease
the likelihood that victims will seek help for IPV and thus
increase risk for re-victimization; (3) lack of resources to
put towards IPV prevention and intervention efforts; (4)
community-level disadvantage hindering the creation of
social ties among residents, increasing vulnerability to IPV;
and (5) IPV increasing social isolation among community
residents, preventing the spread of community values and
Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207 203
123
norms that disapprove of IPV (Plass 1993; Pinchevsky and
Wright 2012; Ross and Mirowsky 2009; Sampson and
Bartusch 1998). It will be important for future research to
include methodologies that allow for the measurement of
these hypothesized mediators in order to provide a more
nuanced understanding of how and why community-level
poverty impacts individual-level reports of IPV victimiza-
tion and perpetration.
In addition to community-level poverty, collective effi-
cacy also significantly and positively predicted IPV vic-
timization and perpetration for men. Collective efficacy,
however, was unrelated to IPV victimization and perpe-
tration for women. Although not fully consistent with
social disorganization theory and our hypotheses, the cur-
rent study’s findings are consistent with Jain et al.’s (2010)
study of urban adolescence in which collective efficacy
was a protective factor for boys’ perpetration of IPV, but
unrelated to girls’ perpetration of IPV. Some research
suggests that individual and relational variables (e.g.,
concerns for preserving relationships) may be more salient
for girls and women’s perpetration of IPV, whereas peer-
group and social context (e.g., abusive peers, peers who
support IPV) may be more salient for boys and men’s
perpetration of IPV (Dardis et al. 2014; Jain et al. 2010;
Lewis and Fremouw 2001; Miller and White 2004; Wil-
liamson and Silverman 2001). Thus, it is possible that
social cohesion among community members, especially in
communities disapproving of violence, may serve as a
protective factor against young men’s experiences with
IPV, but that for women social cohesion is not a salient
factor in predicting IPV victimization and perpetration
occurrences. It is important to keep in mind that in our
study we only measured IPV occurrences and not the
context or outcomes associated with IPV where collective
efficacy is likely important to consider for girls and women
as well as boys and men. For example, whereas collective
efficacy may not predict young women’s experiences with
IPV victimization, we would expect that among female
victims of IPV, as well as male victims, collective efficacy
would predict help-seeking (Pinchevsky and Wright 2012).
Clearly more research is needed to replicate the current
study’s findings and better understand the complex rela-
tionships among collective efficacy, IPV experiences, and
gender.
Although collective efficacy was related to IPV vic-
timization and perpetration only for young men, collective
efficacy was related to IPV bystander intervention for both
young men and women. Some researchers have argued that
collective efficacy may operate to prevent some types of
crime such as vandalism and burglary, but not other types
of crimes that are considered private such as IPV (DeKe-
seredy and Schwartz 2009; Frye et al. 2008). However, the
current study’s findings are not consistent with these
assertions. Our findings are consistent with studies on
college campuses that found that greater sense of com-
munity was linked to greater bystander actions in sexual
assault situations (Banyard 2008) and that greater sense of
trust in campus authorities was associated with greater
intent to report instances of known violence (Sulkowski
2011). Indeed, the broader helping literature (Knafo et al.
2009) documents cross cultural differences in helping. This
work suggests that context will make a difference in
bystander action. To date, however, little work has been
done to examine contextual factors for bystanders to IPV.
In one of the few studies on this topic, Frye et al. (2008) did
not find that neighborhood characteristics were predictive
of helping related to IPV in an urban adult sample. It is
possible that collective efficacy may operate differently for
young adults where privacy norms and traditional values
may not be as salient as for older adults, and for whom
developmentally peer norms are very salient. Thus we
might expect young adults’ feelings of connectedness with
their communities to increase IPV bystander and helping
behaviors.
There are likely other important variables that would
enhance our understanding of the relationships between
collective efficacy and IPV that we did not include in our
study. For example, community norms regarding IPV could
moderate the relationship between collective efficacy and
IPV bystander intervention such that in communities
highly accepting of IPV there may be a negative relation-
ship between collective efficacy and IPV bystander inter-
vention, whereas in communities highly disapproving of
IPV there may be a positive relationship between collective
efficacy and IPV bystander intervention. Moreover, there
may be differences in how collective efficacy and IPV
bystander intervention operate depending on the type (e.g.,
physical versus sexual), severity (e.g., moderate mutual
IPV opposed to severe intimate partner terrorism), and
other characteristics of the IPV experienced and in terms of
whether the person to be helped is a friend or stranger. It
will be important for future research to include methodol-
ogies that will allow for a more nuanced understanding of
how collective efficacy operates similarly and differently
within and across communities regarding IPV bystander
intervention. Qualitative research may be especially
important in better understanding and untangling these
relationships.
In addition to collective efficacy, individual-level
income status also predicted bystander intervention for
both young men and women such that individuals with
higher and moderate income status reported less IPV
bystander intervention than individuals with lower
incomes; community-level poverty was unrelated to IPV
bystander intervention. It may be that individuals with
higher or moderate incomes may perceive that they have
204 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207
123
more to lose in terms of their reputation and prestige in the
community by helping and associating with people expe-
riencing IPV, which is often misperceived as being a
stigmatized social problem affecting lower class individu-
als (Domestic Violence Action Center 2012). This concern
may be especially pronounced in rural communities where
‘‘everyone knows everyone’s business’’ and thus helping
individuals in situations of IPV is likely to be known by
others in the community.
Although the current data add to our understanding of
how community-level poverty and collective efficacy
impact IPV among young adults in rural communities,
several limitations should be noted. The most notable limi-
tation is the small sample size both in terms of participants
and rural counties. Although the findings should be con-
sidered with caution in light of the small sample sizes, it is
promising that the findings of the current study largely align
with previous research and theory. Nevertheless, future
research is needed that includes larger samples sizes at both
the participant and community and county levels. Moreover,
the current study was limited by the lack of racial and ethnic
diversity, which is present in some rural communities. Thus,
a national study that aims to stratify rural samples across
different demographics and geographic regions is sorely
needed. We also had generally low response rates from the
most impoverished communities, which suggests that there
may need to be multiple recruitment methods (e.g., online,
mailed paper and pencil survey, telephone survey) tailored
to specific community needs and resources. As has been
noted by other researchers (e.g., Pierce and Scherra 2004),
there are many unique barriers to conducting research with
individuals living in rural communities and more attention is
needed to develop best practices for conducting research,
especially sensitive research with potential safety concerns
such as IPV, with rural communities.
Additional limitations of the current study include our
lack of inclusion of potential mediators and moderators
(previously discussed) in the relationships among com-
munity-level poverty, collective efficacy, and IPV victim-
ization, perpetration, and bystander intervention. We also
did not include a comprehensive assessment of commu-
nity-level variables that theoretically we would expect to
be related to individual-level experiences of IPV. For
example, the extent to which communities are addressing
IPV through programming, policies and other initiatives is
likely related to the incidence of IPV victimization, per-
petration, and bystander intervention as well as the extent
to which victims of IPV engage in help-seeking behaviors.
Thus, future research is sorely needed to better examine the
extent to which a number of theoretically relevant vari-
ables, such as community readiness to address IPV, impact
various individual-level aspects related to IPV. Another
limitation of the current study was that it was cross-
sectional. Future research would benefit from the inclusion
of longitudinal designs that would allow for the examina-
tion of how community-level factors impact IPV outcome
variables over time. Finally, the vast majority of the
research literature on IPV, including IPV in rural com-
munities, has utilized quantitative methodologies. Future
research would benefit from the inclusion of qualitative
methodologies which may be especially useful in under-
standing how and why community-level factors operate in
relation to IPV from the lived experiences of rural com-
munity residents.
Despite these limitations, the study has implications for
practice and policy. To date, IPV prevention programming
(e.g., Safe Dates, Foshee et al. 1998) focuses only on
individual and relational risk and protective factors.
However, the current study suggests that prevention pro-
gramming may benefit from extending beyond these inner-
most realms of the social ecological model. Multi-level
IPV intervention and prevention programming that takes
into account structural economic indicators and community
compositional factors may be most effective in helping to
prevent IPV in our communities. However, first it is
important to better understand the explanatory mechanisms
(e.g., lack of jobs for young adults, lack of community
readiness addressing IPV, lack of activities in rural com-
munities that lead to high risk behaviors such as substance
use that increase risk for IPV, or a combination of these
factors or others) underlying the relationship between
community-level poverty and IPV so that multi-level pro-
gramming can be most appropriately and effectively tai-
lored. Along these lines, Jain et al. (2010) also suggested
that community-capacity building efforts should be
expanded to include measurement and prevention strate-
gies of IPV among adolescents and young adults. More-
over, in light of the protective effect of collective efficacy
on IPV, it may be important for community-based pro-
gramming to include efforts to increase collective efficacy.
Although this has not yet been done specific to IPV pre-
vention, there are existing programs for enhancing collec-
tive efficacy that have been developed for other individuals
and communities (e.g., depression in African American
communities: Chung et al. 2009; academic achievement in
classroom communities: Brinson and Stein 2007).
Taken together, the findings in this paper highlight the
need to better understand the community context in the
landscape of IPV victimization, perpetration, and bystander
behavior. This may be especially critical in rural places
where people are often more aware of their neighbors’
business. Further research is needed to tease this out both
across and within place types. Additionally, it would be
valuable for future studies to explore additional charac-
teristics of communities and their relationship to IPV
behaviors among young adults.
Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207 205
123
Acknowledgments Funding for this project was provided by the
University of New Hampshire’s College of Liberal Arts Dean’s Office
and the Department of Psychology, as well as the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg foundation, and anonymous donors.
We would like to thank all of the young adults who participated in
this study. We would also like to thank Kateryna Sylaska, Kayleigh
Greaney, Ryan Hebert, Valerie Gauthier, Samantha Harkey, Hannah
Feintuch, Kasey Lynch, Jordan Strand, and Jennifer Clayton for their
assistance with participant recruitment efforts and data management
as well as the many individuals, agencies, organizations, and busi-
nesses that assisted us in recruiting participants for this study. Finally,
we would like to express appreciation to Matthew Price and Mac-
kenzie Harms for their assistance with data analyses.
References
Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of pro-social
bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence
and Victims, 23, 85–99. doi:10.1891/0886670823183.
Banyard, V. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence:
Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psy-
chology of Violence, 1, 216–229. doi:10.1037/a0023739.
Banyard, V. L., Cross, C., & Modecki, K. L. (2006). Interpersonal
violence in adolescence: Ecological correlates of self-reported
perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1314–1332.
doi:10.1177/0886260506291657.
Banyard, V. L., & Moynihan, M. M. (2011). Variation in bystander
behavior related to sexual and intimate partner violence preven-
tion. Psychology of Violence, 1, 287–301. doi:10.1037/a0023544.
Beyer, K. M. M., Layde, P. M., Hamberger, L. K., & Laud, P. W.
(2013). Characteristics of the residential neighborhood environ-
ment differentiate intimate partner femicide in urban versus rural
settings. The Journal of Rural Health, 29(3), 281–293. doi:10.
1111/j.1748-0361.2012.00448.x.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walter, M.
L., Merrick, M. T. et al. (2011). National Intimate Partner and
Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA:
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Brinson, D., & Stein, L. (2007). Building collective efficacy: How
leaders inspire teachers to achieve. The Center for Comprehen-
sive School Reform and Improvement, 1–6.
Browning, C. R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending
social disorganization theory to partner violence. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 64, 833–850.
Chung, B., Jones, L., Jones, A., Corbett, C. E., Booker, T., Wells, K.
B., et al. (2009). Using community arts events to enhance
collective efficacy and community engagement to address
depression in an African American community. American
Journal of Public Health, 99(2), 237–244.
Cunradi, C. B. (2010). Neighborhoods, alcohol outlets, and intimate
partner violence: Addressing research gaps in explanatory
mechanisms. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 7, 799–813. doi:10.3390/ijerph7030799.
Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2014).
An examination of the factors related to dating violence
perpetration among young men and women and associated
theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma,
Violence, and Abuse. doi:10.1177/1524838013517559.
Dekeseredy, W., & Schwartz, M. D. (2009). Dangerous exists:
Escaping abusive relationships in rural America. New Bruns-
wick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Domestic Violence Action Center. (2012). Common myths of
domestic violence. Retrieved on August 24, 2013 at http://
www.stoptheviolence.org/dv-common-myths.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G.
G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an
adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Jour-
nal of Public Health, 88(1), 45–50. doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.1.45.
Frye, V. (2007). The informal social control of intimate partner
violence against women: Exploring personal attitudes and
perceived neighborhood social cohesion. Journal of Community
Psychology, 35, 1001–1018.
Frye, V., Galea, S., Tracy, M., Bucciarelli, A., Putnam, S., & Wilt, S.
(2008). The role of neighborhood environment and risk of
intimate partner femicide in a large urban area. American
Journal of Public Health, 98, 1473–1479.
Hubbard, A. E., Aheern, J., Fleischer, N. L., Van der Laan, M., Lippman,S. A., Jewel, T., et al. (2010). To GEE or not to GEE: Comparing
population average and mixed models for estimating the associa-
tions between neighborhood risk factors and health. Epidemiology,
21, 467–474. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181caeb90.
Jain, S., Buka, S. L., Subramarian, S. V., & Molner, B. E. (2010).
Neighborhood predictors of dating violence victimization and
perpetration in young adulthood: A multilevel study. American
Journal of Public Health, 100, 1737–1744. doi:10.2105/AJPH.
2009.169730.
Knafo, A., Schwartz, S. H., & Levine, R. V. (2009). Helping strangers
is lower in embedded cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40, 875–879.
Lanier, C., & Maume, M. O. (2009). Intimate partner violence and
social isolation across the rural/urban divide. Violence Against
Women, 15, 1311–1330. doi:10.1177/1077801209346711.
Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review
of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(1), 105–127.
Logan, T. K., Evans, L., Stevenson, E., & Jordan, C. E. (2005).
Barriers to services for rural and urban survivors of rape. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 20(5), 591–616. doi:10.1177/
0886260504272899.
Logan, T. K., Walker, R., Cole, J., Ratliff, S., & Leukefeld, C. (2003).
Qualitative differences among rural and urban intimate violence
victimization experiences and consequences: A pilot study.
Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 83–92.
Madkour, A. S., Martin, S. L., Tucker Halpern, C., & Schoenbach, V.
J. (2010). Area disadvantage and intimate partner homicide: An
ecological analysis of North Carolina Counties, 2004–2006.
Violence and Victims, 25, 363–377.
Mancini, J. A., Nelson, J. P., Bowen, G. L., & Martin, J. A. (2006).
Preventing intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment, & Trauma, 13, 203–227. doi:10.1300/j146v13
n03_08.
Melander, L. A., Noel, H., & Tyler, K. A. (2010). Bidirectional,
unidirectional, and nonviolence: A comparison of the predictors
among partnered young adults. Violence and Victims, 25,
617–630. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.25.5.617.
Miller, J., & White, N. A. (2004). Gender and adolescent relationship
violence: A contextual examination. Criminology, 41,
1207–1248. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01018.x.
Morenoff, J. D., & Sampson, R. J. (1997). Violent crime and the
spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago,
1970–1990. Social Forces, 76, 31–64.
Pierce, C., & Scherra, E. (2004). The challenges of data collection in
rural dwelling samples. Online Journal of Rural Nursing and
Health Care, 4, 25–30.
Pinchevsky, G. M., & Wright, E. M. (2012). The impact of
neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization.
206 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207
123
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(2), 112–132. doi:10.1177/
1524838012445641.
Plass, P. S. (1993). African American family homicide: Patterns in
partner, parent, and child victimization, 1985–1987. Journal of
Black Studies, 23(4), 515–538.
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2009). Neighborhood disorder,
subjective alienation, and distress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 50, 49–64. doi:10.1177/002214650905000104.
Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and
(subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context
of racial differences. Law & Society Review, 32(4), 777–804.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and
crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, 774–802.
Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a theory of race,
crime, and urban inequality. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.),
Crime and inequality (pp. 37–54). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban
areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Straus, M. A. (2007). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence
by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children
and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275. doi:10.1016/j.child
youth.2007.10.004.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Develop-
ment and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family
Issues, 17(3), 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001.
Sulkowski, M. L. (2011). An investigation of students’ willingness to
report threats of violence in campus communities. Psychology of
Violence, 1, 53–65.
US Census Bureau. (2011a). State and county QuickFacts. Retrieved
June 1, 2012 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.
US Census Bureau. (2011b). Poverty thresholds. Retrieved July 25,
2013 from www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/.
US Department of Agriculture. (2013). Rural-urban continuum codes.
Retrieved August 20, 2013 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation.aspx#.
UhkkwBufuSi.
Williamson, G. M., & Silverman, J. G. (2001). Violence against
female partners: Direct and interactive effects of family history,
communal orientation, and peer-related variables. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 535–549.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the
underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:198–207 207
123
Recommended