moving beyond the individual: examining the effects of...

12

Click here to load reader

Upload: hoangdien

Post on 13-Nov-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 32, Nos. 3/4, December 2003 ( C© 2003)

Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effectsof Domestic Violence Policies on Social Norms

Laura F. Salazar,1,3,4 Charlene K. Baker,1 Ann W. Price,1 and Kathleen Carlin2

To be effective, criminal justice policies should affect the underlying social norms for which thepolicies were enacted. This study sought to determine whether public perceptions of criminaljustice policies on domestic violence affected social norms. Two waves of data were collectedvia a telephone survey where a random probability sample of 973 residents was drawn from4 communities. A structural equation model was tested and confirmed. Results provided strongsupport for the hypothesis that perceptions of criminal justice policies have direct effects onattitudes toward criminal justice response, and indirect effects on victim-blaming attitudes,both underlying social norms related to domestic violence. The enactment of criminal justicepolicies, therefore, may have an impact beyond victims and perpetrators and lead to a trans-formation of the community through the emergence of new social norms. Public awarenesscampaigns designed to disseminate criminal justice policies may be instrumental in provokingsocial change.

KEY WORDS: domestic violence; social norms; criminal justice policy; social change.

INTRODUCTION

Although some research has shown a declinein the number of women victimized by an intimatepartner (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000), womencontinue to be the victims at an alarming rate. Inci-dence estimates reveal that women experience nearly1 million victimizations per year at the hands of theirspouse or an intimate partner (Bureau of JusticeStatistics, 2000), and one in every three women in thiscountry will experience intimate violence in their life-time (Koss et al., 1994). Intimate partner violence ismore likely to occur than street violence or strangerviolence (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Straus &Gelles, 1990), and women are more likely to be as-saulted or killed by an intimate partner than any other

1Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Georgia.2Men Stopping Violence, Atlanta, Georgia.3School of Public Health, Department of Behavioral Sciences andHealth Education, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

4To whom correspondence should be addressed at Rollins Schoolof Public Health, Behavioral Sciences and Health Education,1518 Clifton Road, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia 30322; e-mail:[email protected].

type of assailant (Browne & Williams, 1993; Bureauof Justice Statistics, 2000; Johnson, 1998). Researchhas indicated that 52% of all female homicide vic-tims were murdered by current or former husbands orboyfriends (Browne & Williams, 1993) and that 72%of all victims killed by intimates were women (Bureauof Justice Statistics, 2000; U.S. Department of Justice,1994). There have been social and legal changes in thehandling of domestic violence, but these data under-score the fact that more remains to be done.

In the past 30 years battered women’s sheltersand batterer treatment programs have proliferated,whereas law enforcement and judicial changes suchas proarrest and no-drop prosecutorial policies havebeen implemented (Friedman & Schulman, 1990;Iovanni & Miller, 2001). Public opinion regarding do-mestic violence has shifted (Klein, Campbell, Soler,& Ghez, 1997). Previously, domestic violence wasviewed as a “private, family matter” where the statehad no obligation to intervene, and it was gener-ally believed that women somehow provoked theabuse used against them. Today, men’s violenceagainst women is not generally considered a pri-vate matter. Explanations that attempt to blame

253 0091-0562/03/1200-0253/0 C© 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

Page 2: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

254 Salazar, Baker, Price, and Carlin

women for their own victimization are not as per-vasive (Klein et al., 1997). Further, there is generalconsensus that men who commit violence againstwomen should have consequences imposed by thecriminal justice system (Edwards, 1987; Hilton, 1993;Kingery, 1985; Koski & Mangold, 1988; Sigler, 1989).Yet, public opinion pertaining to what type of crim-inal justice intervention to be imposed is equivo-cal. Survey research has revealed that dependingupon the level of injury and the frequency of vio-lence, community members support an array of out-comes delineated as either nonpunitive or punitive.Counseling or treatment for the batterer (Choi &Edleson, 1995; Edwards, 1987; Kingery, 1985; Kleinet al., 1997; Stalans & Lurigio, 1995), and court-ordered mediation for the couple (Stalans & Lurigio,1995) were stated as the preferred consequencesand are considered nonpunitive. Arrest (Choi &Edleson, 1995; Family Violence Prevention Fund,1993; Robinson, 1999), prosecution (Robinson, 1999;Stalans & Lurigio, 1995), and jail time (Choi &Edleson, 1995) were regarded as acceptable sanc-tions, but only for the most serious offenses and areconsidered punitive. Moreover, research has shownthat public support for either nonpunitive or punitiveinterventions vary by the age, gender, income level,and victim-blaming attitudes of those surveyed (Choi& Edleson, 1995; Edwards, 1987; Klein et al., 1997;Koski & Mangold, 1988; Robinson, 1999; Stalans &Lurigio, 1995). Thus, it appears there is little consen-sus among community members on how the criminaljustice system should best respond to domestic vio-lence, although it appears the majority support non-punitive responses (Kingery, 1985).

Despite public opinion, the trend in legaldevelopment and criminal justice policy leans towardspunitive sanctions, however. For example, punitive in-terventions (e.g., arrest, prosecution) have been im-plemented in many jurisdictions. Rather then stem-ming from public sentiment, these changes have beenattributed largely to an organized domestic violencemovement (Friedman & Shulman, 1990; Ghez, 2001;Iovanni & Miller, 2001). Even so, some researchersstill maintain that law enforcement policy reflects cur-rent social norms (Johnson & Sigler, 1995; Stalans &Lurigio, 1995), whereas other researchers suggest thatpeople take their cues regarding the seriousness of be-havior from the criminal justice system and that lawsreflect emerging social norms (Hingson & Howland,1989). In either case, directionality of the relation-ship may be an important point to consider becauseof the implications associated with each perspective.

For example, if the “policy reflects norms” relation-ship is true, then an assumption may be made thatnothing more needs to be done regarding changingpublic opinion because ostensibly, the public holdsattitudes that view domestic violence as a criminalact. Alternatively, if the direction of the relationshipis reversed such that policy influences norms, then dis-semination of policy may serve to influence new socialnorms regarding domestic violence.

Theoretical Perspectives on Policiesand Social Norms

There is considerable variability with respect todefining social norms and although there is no consen-sus (Hechter & Opp, 2001), in this paper social normsare operationally defined as statements of “ought” thatconvey how people should behave in a given contextalong with the implied consequences of not conform-ing. Stemming from social interactions, these state-ments over time, may be internalized and functionas rules that govern conduct and behavior in par-ticular situations (Schwartz, 1977). Within the con-text of domestic violence, examples of social normsare: “women should behave in a certain way so asto not provoke men”; “men should control womenthrough force in certain instances”; and “law en-forcement should treat domestic violence as a pri-vate matter.” If we adhere to the view that policieslead to the development of new norms that are un-supportive of domestic violence (e.g., people shouldcall 911 for domestic disturbances; men who batterwomen should be held responsible; batterers shouldbe arrested and sanctioned), then it would be plau-sible that as these norms take hold (i.e., become in-ternalized and function to direct behavior), domes-tic violence would decrease. Moreover, this changewould occur beyond individual batterers directly af-fected by the new policies to include the public atlarge.

From a community psychology perspective, thetheoretical view that policies influence norms sug-gests that systems-level change (e.g., implementationof no-drop prosecutorial policy) may lead to socialchange, regardless of the current zeitgeist surround-ing the issue. In this way, domestic violence policiesmay have an impact beyond perpetrators and victimswho directly experience such policies. But why focuson changing society when a majority does not engagein domestic violence? Perhaps we should simply con-centrate on recidivism rates. Unquestionably, we are

Page 3: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

Moving Beyond the Individual 255

concerned with both protecting women and under-standing how policy affects them directly. Yet, thecommunity is the social environment in which indi-viduals engage in particular behaviors. Social changeefforts to combat domestic violence may be justified,therefore, based on the perspective that because in-dividuals who commit domestic violence are part ofcommunities, then community norms must either sup-port it or fail to sanction it. Consequently, without anemphasis on changing the community’s norms we can-not hope to change the individuals who are embeddedwithin it (Maton, 2000).

To better understand the process by whichchanges within a system may lead to changes within acommunity, aspects of deterrence and social influencetheories will be examined (Cialdini, 1995; Hingson &Howland, 1989; Meares & Kahan, 1998; Stark, 1993).Deterrence theory posits that the criminal justice sys-tem will impose meaningful consequences for com-mitting certain behaviors and, theoretically, in doingso, prevent people from committing those behaviorsso as to avoid the negative consequences (Stark, 1993;Zimring & Hawkins, 1973). In addition to receivingconsequences as a means of shaping behavior, laws re-garding domestic violence may provide new standardsby which individuals can gauge their behavior and thebehavior of others. This suggests that following imple-mentation of new laws, individuals may be influencedby social networks or by a legitimate authority suchas the criminal justice system—a major tenet of so-cial influence theory (Cialdini, 1995; Friedkin, 2001).Thus, the enactment of new policy regarding domes-tic violence cases will convey the criminal nature ofdomestic violence, but more important is that the newpolicy may influence the underlying social norms andserve as a means for enacting social change (Stark,1993).

Hingson and Howland (1989) applied this theo-retical perspective to the issue of drunk-driving. Theyposited a model for understanding the complex in-teraction between a social issue, legislation, and so-cial change by describing the context in which drunk-driving legislation was passed and also delineating theimmediate and long-term effects. First, a social issueis highlighted (e.g., drunk-driving). With the emphasison a particular issue, awareness is raised, and activismfor change begins. In their example, Mothers againstDrunk Driving (MADD) and Remove IntoxicatedDrivers (RID) were the activist groups lobbying forchange. Public debate and media attention lead to theformation of political consensus to enact legislation.The immediate or direct effect of the legislation is de-

terrence whereby those who engage in drunk-drivingeither stop or decrease their behavior, resulting infewer drunk-driving deaths. This immediate effect ofdeterrence works through individuals’ fear of punish-ment. In the long-term, those effects may dissipate ifthe legislation does not also have an impact on thesocial norms surrounding the behavior. Conversely, ifthe legislation influences social norms resulting in thedevelopment of new behaviors, then new norms mayemerge.

Statistics showing a decrease in drunk-driving in-cidents may serve as a rough proxy in determiningwhether legislation has been instrumental in the emer-gence of new norms that frown upon drunk-driving.The number of arrests for driving under the influ-ence (DUI) peaked in 1983 with 1.9 million arrestsand led to the passage of drunk-driving legislation(Hingson & Howland, 1989). Compared to 1983, theper capita rate of arrest for DUI in 1996 was 34%lower and declines in DUI arrest rates had occurredfor every age group (Greenfeld, 1998). In the past10 years, overall DUI arrests have declined by 24%whereas the number of highway fatalities attributableto alcohol-related accidents has dropped by about7,000 annually, a 29% decrease (Greenfeld, 1998). Al-though these statistics do not constitute empirical evi-dence, it is plausible that the passage of drunk-drivinglegislation in the 1980s continues to have an impacton DUI incidents of today and suggests that the leg-islation has had an effect on the underlying socialnorms.

Policymakers and advocates both agree that achange in underlying social norms are positive in-direct effects of implementing such policies becausethe impact goes beyond the individual cases affectedby them (Corsilles, 1994). A caveat must be made,however, regarding the supposition of this relation-ship between policies and social norms. Although thisrelationship seems likely especially if we examine his-tory (e.g., drunk-driving legislation, civil rights laws,school integration, sexual harassment policies), it isnevertheless based on a theoretical view that impliescause and effect. Research examining the effective-ness of criminal justice policies on reducing targetedbehaviors such as traffic crashes, drunk-driving, juve-nile delinquency, neighborhood crime, and even petclean-up (Evans, 1987; Hingson & Howland, 1989;Meares & Kahan, 1998; Sampson & Cohen, 1988;Webley & Siviter, 2000) has suggested that effec-tiveness or compliance may be linked to the pol-icy’s effect on social norms underlying the behavior(Hingson & Howland, 1989; Meares & Kahan, 1998),

Page 4: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

256 Salazar, Baker, Price, and Carlin

however, this link often has not been tested empiri-cally. If the newly implemented law or policy does not“work through” existing social norms and lead to theemergence of new norms, then there is an increasedprobability the new law will be ineffective (Meares& Kahan, 1998). One example of such a case isProhibition.

Application of this model to the issue of domes-tic violence can reveal the temporal order of socialchange that occurred over the past 30 years whilealso examining the interaction between domestic vio-lence and the implementation of domestic violencepolicies. Domestic violence became a social issuein the 1970s when the women’s movement broughtattention to the fact that husbands were beatingwives and society did not offer sanctuary for victimsnor provide sanctions for perpetrators (Friedman &Shulman, 1990). Awareness of the issue led to theorganization of a domestic violence movement, andultimately to the enactment of new criminal justicepolicies such as mandatory and presumptive arrestpolicies, no-drop prosecution policies, granting oftemporary protective orders from civil court, and thedevelopment of specialized domestic violence pro-grams within the criminal justice system (Iovanni &Miller, 2001). The question remains, however, as towhether these changes have had a direct impact ondomestic violence incidence rates, underlying socialnorms, or both. Trends in domestic violence rates overthe past 10 years have documented a decrease andit appears new social norms regarding domestic vio-lence may have emerged (see Klein et al., 1997), whichsuggest a relation between domestic violence poli-cies and underlying social norms. Alternatively, therehas been much research examining the effectivenessof arrest policies (Berk & Newton, 1985; Buzawa &Austin, 1993; Buzawa & Buzawa, 1993; Feder, Jolin,& Feyerherm, 2000; Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2001;Schmidt & Sherman, 1993; Sherman & Berk, 1984;Tolman & Weisz, 1995) and some research examiningthe effects of varying prosecutorial policies (Davis,Smith, & Nickels, 1998; Fagan, Friedman, Wexler, &Lewis, 1984; Feder et al., 2000; Ford & Regoli, 1993);however, this research has revealed mixed results(Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2001). For example, somestudies have shown arrest to be an effective deter-rent against future offending (Berk & Newton, 1985;Sherman & Berk, 1984), whereas other studies indi-cate arrest is effective only for a certain profile basedon offender characteristics (e.g., employed, White,and Hispanic; Buzawa & Buzawa, 1993; Schmidt &Sherman, 1993). Still other studies have shown that

arrest may backfire, where violence increases follow-ing arrest, or that arrest has no effect on future vio-lence (Schmidt & Sherman, 1993). Some evaluationsof prosecutorial practices indicate that prosecutionversus no prosecution has no deterrent effect on fu-ture violence (Davis, Smith, & Nickels, 1998; Faganet al., 1984). Yet, Ford and Regoli (1992) found intheir evaluation of prosecutorial policy that prosecu-tion resulted in less future violence. With such con-flicting findings, it is important to examine whetherdomestic violence policies directly affect underlyingsocial norms, as there has been little or no empiricalresearch conducted in this area.

The present study was initiated as part of alarger longitudinal research project to evaluate acommunity-based intervention designed to increasecriminal justice sanctions for domestic violence perpe-trators. The intervention was conceptualized by MenStopping Violence (MSV) and targeted two crimi-nal justice systems in Georgia. This study examinedwhether social norms pertaining to domestic violence(e.g., men should be arrested for domestic violence,and men shouldn’t be held responsible for batteringin certain instances) are directly and/or indirectly af-fected by public perceptions of criminal justice systempolicies on domestic violence. To fulfill study aims,a structural equation model was conceptualized andtested using two waves of data collected in 1998 and1999. We hypothesized that perceptions of criminaljustice policy regarding domestic violence cases wouldhave direct effects on two social norm constructs:attitudes toward criminal justice response and victim-blaming attitudes. We also hypothesized that percep-tions of policy would have an indirect effect on victim-blaming attitudes through attitudes toward criminaljustice system response. This theoretical model wasconsidered exploratory in that the hypothesized rela-tionships were based on previous literature suggestingthat criminal justice policy effectiveness is associatedwith the policy’s effect on underlying social norms(Hingson & Howland, 1989; Meares & Kahan, 1998).In addition, the hypothesized indirect effect of poli-cies on victim-blaming attitudes was based on previ-ous research that revealed victim-blaming attitudeswere related to attitudes towards criminal justice in-tervention (Edwards, 1987; Koski & Mangold, 1988),and also on the fact that victim-blaming attitudes suchas “women should be blamed in certain instances” and“men should be allowed to beat their wives at times”reflect social norms with biblical references (Salazar,2001). Thus, victim-blaming attitudes are norms thatare deeply rooted and may be more resistant to

Page 5: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

Moving Beyond the Individual 257

the direct influences of recent domestic violencepolicies.

METHOD

Setting

Four counties in the state of Georgia were sam-pled: Douglas, Paulding, Floyd, and Newton. As thisstudy was part of a larger, evaluation study, two coun-ties, Douglas and Paulding, were intervention sites;Floyd and Newton counties were nonequivalent con-trol counties. Douglas and Floyd counties could bedescribed as primarily urban; Paulding and Newtonprimarily rural (Government Information SharingProject, 1998).

Because the sample was drawn equally from thefour counties, population parameters from all fourcounties were collapsed so that the following descrip-tion reflects an average of the four counties. Datafrom census figures (Government Information Shar-ing Project, 1998) indicated that 83% of the popu-lation was White and 17% were Black with a totalpopulation of approximately 256,899 (M = 64,225).Forty-nine percent of the population was male, and51% was female. The mean age was 32 years.

Design and Sampling Procedure

A random probability sample was generated us-ing random digit dialing techniques. Data collectionfrom all four counties was conducted simultaneouslyto control for historical effects. A CATI (ComputerAssisted Telephone Interviewing) system was used toconduct the telephone survey. This system automatesthe process of conducting large telephone surveys,which reduces systematic bias by ensuring a randomprobability sample. In addition, the system allows in-terviewers to input the data directly, thereby reducingdata entry error and improving the overall quality ofthe data.

A screening process was used to insure that thehousehold was located in the correct county; that therespondent was 18 years of age or older; and thatthe respondent had the most recent birthday of thosepresent in the household to insure randomness of re-spondent within households. The consent form wasread over the phone, and verbal consent was obtained.The interviewer then explained to the participant thatall answers given should reflect their honest opinion

regarding domestic violence. To increase the relia-bility of the instrument, the following definition ofdomestic violence was provided: “When I talk aboutdomestic violence, I am including hitting, slapping,kicking, choking, and pushing. When I refer to wifeor girlfriend, I am including ex-wives, and also part-ners who are not married.” The response categorieswere then described, and the interviewer proceededto administer the survey.

For Wave 1, of the 1,541 calls made to valid num-bers, 973 interviews were completed, resulting in aresponse rate of 63%. For Wave 2, of the 1,291 callsmade to valid numbers, 982 interviews were com-pleted for a 76% response rate.

Sample

Wave 1

The sample of 973 adults ranged in age from18 to 90 (M = 43.7, SD= 15.0) and more than halfwere women (65%). The respondents were predomi-nantly White (92%) and 67% were married.

Wave 2

The sample of 968 adults had a mean age of44.6 years with a standard deviation of 14.8. The rangewas 18–93 years of age. Sixty-seven percent were fe-male, more than half were married (66%), and 87%were White.

Measures

All survey items were developed by the evalua-tion team, representatives from MSV, and two rep-resentatives from the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC). The survey consisted of threemeasures: Victim-Blaming Attitudes, Attitudes To-ward Criminal Justice Response, and Perceptions ofCriminal Justice System Policies (which was com-prised of perceptions of law enforcement response,judicial response, and judicial disposition subscales).All measures used the same 5-point response formatthat ranged from 1 (never true) to 5 (all of the timetrue).

Victim-Blaming Attitudes were measured byasking respondents to reply to two items: “Men whocommit acts of domestic violence do so because theyare provoked by their wife/girlfriend” and “There areacceptable reasons for a man to commit domestic

Page 6: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

258 Salazar, Baker, Price, and Carlin

violence.” The correlation coefficient between the twoitems was .24 for both Waves.

Attitudes Toward Criminal Justice Responsewere measured by four items that assessed respon-dents’ attitudes toward how they thought the crimi-nal justice system (i.e., law enforcement and the courtsystem) should respond to domestic violence in theircounty. Items included: “Law enforcement shouldcome to the scene in response to a domestic vio-lence complaint,” “A man should be arrested for com-mitting domestic violence against his wife/girlfriend,”“Men arrested for domestic violence should be pros-ecuted,” and “Men who have been found guilty of do-mestic violence should be sentenced to jail or prison.”Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the scalewas .71 at Wave 1 and .73 at Wave 2.

Perceptions of Criminal Justice System Policiesmeasure was comprised of three indices. The first, lawenforcement response, was measured by six items thatassessed respondents’ perceptions of law enforcementpolicies regarding domestic violence in their county.The specific items for this index were: “It is againstthe law to commit domestic violence,” “Law enforce-ment will respond to a domestic violence call,” “Aman will be arrested for committing domestic vio-lence,” “Law enforcement will conduct a thoroughinvestigation,” “Law enforcement will settle the dis-pute,” and “A woman will be protected from an abu-sive husband/boyfriend by law enforcement.” The in-ternal consistency for this scale was estimated at .70 atWave 1 and at .71 at Wave 2. The second index, judicialresponse, was defined as respondents’ perceptions ofjudicial system policies to domestic violence in theircounty. This 5-item scale had an alpha of .72 and .74for Waves 1 and 2, respectively and included the fol-lowing items: “Men who commit domestic violenceare prosecuted,” “Court protection is provided for vic-tims,” “Men who commit domestic violence are foundguilty,” “A woman can get a restraining order againstan abusive husband/boyfriend,” and “A woman willbe protected from an abusive husband/boyfriend bylaw enforcement and/or the court system.” The thirdindex, judicial disposition, was measured by five itemsthat assessed respondents’ perceptions of court systemsanctions for men found guilty of domestic violence.Specific items included: “Men found guilty of domes-tic violence are sentenced to jail or prison time,” “Menfound guilty of domestic violence are sentenced to re-ceive mental health counseling,” “Men found guilty ofdomestic violence are sentenced to perform commu-nity services,” “Men found guilty of domestic violenceare sentenced to probation,” and “Men found guilty

of domestic violence are fined.” Internal consistencyfor this index was estimated at .63 and at .65 for Waves1 and 2, respectively.

Overview of Path Analysis

The Linear Structural Relations Program(LISREL 8; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) was used toexamine the direct and indirect effects of Perceptionsof Criminal Justice System Policies on Victim-Blaming Attitudes and Attitudes Toward CriminalJustice Response. A LISREL model involves theassessment of two parts: a measurement model anda structural equations model. The former modeldescribes how well the observed variables serve asa measurement instrument for the latent variables,whereas the latter model indicates how well thehypothesized causal relationships fit the data. Inthis study, an assessment of the structural equationsmodel using data collected in Wave 1 was made; datacollected in Wave 2 were used to confirm the model.In the structural equations model, LISREL estimatesthe beta, gamma, and lambda parameters dependingupon the path using maximum likelihood methods,as well as t values for those parameters and R2 foreach equation. Model fit indices are examined andinclude the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI),the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Normed FitIndex (NFI), with values above .90 indicative of goodmodel fit; and the Root Mean Squared Residual(RMSR), with smaller values (e.g., <.10) indicativeof model fit.

RESULTS

Bivariate Relations Among Study Variables

Pearson correlations of the study variables anddemographic variables are provided in Table I. Cor-relation coefficients of demographic variables wereexamined to determine their inclusion in the model ascovariates. As indicated, age was related positively toAttitudes toward Criminal Justice Response such thatolder people indicated that the criminal justice sys-tem should intervene. Gender had an association withAttitudes toward Criminal Justice Response, wherewomen were more likely than men to support puni-tive responses (e.g., a man should be arrested; a manshould be prosecuted, etc). Furthermore, men weremore likely to blame women for the abuse, and alsomore likely to perceive that law enforcement and the

Page 7: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

Moving Beyond the Individual 259

Table I. Intercorrelations of Observed Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age — .02 .03 .09∗∗ .04 .06 .03 .052. Gendera .06 — .05 .24∗∗∗ −.17∗∗∗ −.09∗∗ −.08∗ −.033. Marital status .10∗∗ .03 — .09∗∗ −.17∗∗∗ −.04 −.13∗∗∗ −.14∗∗∗4. Attitudes CJS −.05 .26∗∗∗ .03 — −.28∗∗∗ .14∗∗∗ .10∗∗ .055. V-B attitudes .14∗∗∗ −.22∗∗∗ −.02 −.31∗∗∗ — .02 .06 .066. LE response .10∗∗ −.11∗∗∗ −.05 .12∗∗∗ .07∗ — .78∗∗∗ .45∗∗∗7. Judicial response .10∗∗ −.15∗∗∗ −.02 .04 .13∗∗∗ .75∗∗∗ — .51∗∗∗8. Judicial outcome .00 −.11∗∗∗ −.12∗∗∗ −.03 .14∗∗∗ .40∗∗∗ .47∗∗∗ —

Note. Intercorrelations for Wave 1 (N = 966) are presented above the diagonal. Intercorrelations for Wave 2(N = 968) are presented below the diagonal.aGender was coded (0) for men and (1) for women.∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

judiciary in their community were not responsive todomestic violence. Married respondents, more so thannonmarried respondents, indicated that the criminaljustice system should intervene and that women werenot to blame for the abuse. Nonmarried respondentsperceived that the judiciary was less responsive to do-mestic violence cases and that if there were criminaljustice intervention, then men found guilty receivedfewer sanctions.

Structural Equation Model

Wave 1 Analysis

A correlation matrix comprised of polychoriccorrelations for ordinal variables and Pearson corre-lations for continuous variables was used as the in-put for this analysis. The hypothesized model (seeFig. 1) indicated that the three observed variables,Law Enforcement Response, Judicial Response, andJudicial Disposition were measures of a latent con-struct called Perceptions of Criminal Justice SystemPolicies that directly affected Attitudes TowardCriminal Justice Response, directly affected Victim-Blaming Attitudes, and indirectly affected Victim-Blaming Attitudes. To control for effects of covari-ates, age, gender, and marital status were added tothe model.

The results revealed that the model fit thedata as indicated with AGFI = .97, NFI = .95, andRMR = .03. The path between Perceptions ofCriminal Justice System Policies and Attitudes To-ward Criminal Justice Response was statistically sig-nificant (t = 4.58, p < .001), such that respondentswho perceived the criminal justice system to ac-tively intervene (e.g., arrest, prosecute, sentence, etc.)

were more likely to hold attitudes supportive ofthese interventions. The path between Perceptions ofCriminal Justice System Policies and Victim-BlamingAttitudes was not significant (t = 1.89, ns). Thepath between Attitudes Toward Criminal Justice Re-sponse and Victim-Blaming Attitudes was significant(t = −7.79, p < .001) and revealed that respondentswho supported punitive criminal justice responses(e.g., arrest and prosecution) were less likely to holdwomen responsible for the abuse. Perceptions ofCriminal Justice System Policies had a significant in-direct effect on Victim-Blaming Attitudes (β = −.04,p < .01.) as well. Overall, the model accounted for9% of the variance in Attitudes Toward CriminalJustice Response and 11% of the variance in Victim-Blaming Attitudes.

Fig. 1. Structural equation model of the effects of criminal justicepolicies on social norms. Values are standardized regression coef-ficients. Note. Paths of covariates to relevant constructs, althoughincluded in the analysis, are not shown. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

Page 8: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

260 Salazar, Baker, Price, and Carlin

Wave 2 Analysis

A confirmatory analysis was conducted to deter-mine how well the model fit the data collected thefollowing year. The same model was tested with theomission of the direct path between Perceptions ofCriminal Justice System Policies and Victim-BlamingAttitudes. The model fit the data well, as indicated byan AGFI of .96, NFI of .96, and RMR of .04. Congru-ent with the Wave 1 data, all hypothesized pathwayswere statistically significant and the model accountedfor 9% of the variance in Attitudes Toward CriminalJustice Response and 14% of the variance in Victim-Blaming Attitudes.

DISCUSSION

In an era where many criminal justice systemsare formulating and evaluating policies regarding do-mestic violence cases, it would be prudent to considerthe effect of proposed policies on not only the victimsand perpetrators, but also on the social norms of thecommunity for several reasons. First, one theoreticalperspective asserts that policy effectiveness is linkedto its influence on underlying social norms. Therefore,a comprehensive evaluation of policies should includean examination of its relation to social norms. Second,Maton’s challenge for community psychology to en-hance our understanding of social environments en-tails a look at the interaction between individuals andmultiple environments within which individuals areembedded (Maton, 2000). In this instance, if criminaljustice system policies are to be effective on the indi-vidual level, then the community in which the policiesare enacted must be considered. Therefore, a deter-mination of the effects of criminal justice system poli-cies regarding domestic violence on underlying socialnorms serves to expand the boundaries of communitypsychology and to reveal whether or not these policiesmay be transforming the social environment in whichthey were enacted. Thus, this study was conductedto examine the hypothesis underlying the theoreti-cal view that domestic violence policies affect socialnorms, and also to better understand the social en-vironment in which these policies and social normscoexist.

The results indicate that attitudes supportive ofcriminal justice system response are directly influ-enced by the perception that the criminal justice sys-tem actively intervenes and provides punitive sanc-tions. The attitude that women are to blame for their

abuse is indirectly affected by perceptions of crimi-nal justice system policies through attitudes towardcriminal justice system response. These findings, con-sistent with our predictions, provide preliminary sup-port for the theoretical view that domestic violencepolicies may affect underlying social norms and serveto transform the social environment in which domes-tic violence occurs.

The finding that perceptions of criminal justicepolicies that are punitive are associated with attitudestoward criminal justice response, which echo thatperception, implies that people’s attitudes may beshaped by policy. Given that previous researchhas revealed community support for punitive-typeresponses is weak (Choi & Edleson, 1995; Edwards,1987; Kingery, 1985; Klein et al., 1997; Stalans &Lurigio, 1995), these findings suggest that to garnercommunity support for punitive-type policies, thepublic should be made aware of the enactment ofthese policies, perhaps through community-leveleducation efforts (e.g., media campaign).

Consistent with previous research (Edwards,1987; Koski & Mangold, 1988), we found a signifi-cant relation between victim-blaming attitudes andattitudes toward criminal justice response; however,victim-blaming attitudes are not directly affected byperceptions of criminal justice policies. Rather victim-blaming attitudes are indirectly affected through at-titudes toward criminal justice response. This findingprovides support for the belief that victim-blamingattitudes, which have historical references, are moreentrenched and resistant to change than attitudestoward criminal justice system response; therefore,victim-blaming attitudes may not be affected directlyby policy. This finding indicates that we can expectto see change within the former only when we ob-serve change within the latter. Public educational ef-forts such as media campaigns that aim to disseminatecriminal justice policies regarding domestic violenceshould also focus attention on men’s and community’sresponsibility for domestic violence so as to directlyaffect victim-blaming attitudes that still pervade. In-deed, a media campaign called, “There’s no excusefor domestic violence” was effective in changing at-titudes toward criminal justice intervention for per-petrators and in increasing perceptions that domesticviolence is a serious social issue (Klein et al., 1997). Al-though constructing effective messages requires theconsideration of many factors (see Klein et al., 1997,for a discussion), one example of a public service an-nouncement (PSA) that expands upon the “There’sno excuse” campaign could involve a criminal justice

Page 9: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

Moving Beyond the Individual 261

representative such as a judge conveying a messageappropriate for a particular community: “in my juris-diction, men who beat women are held responsible:they are arrested, prosecuted, and if convicted, thenthey are sentenced to jail time. Domestic violence isno longer a private family matter; it’s a matter for thecommunity and for the law.”

Implications

Over the past 30 years, with increased organi-zation and numbers, social activism surrounding do-mestic violence has expanded from raising awarenessto influencing legislators, and presently, to insuringthat existing policies are enforced. For the future, theresults from this study imply that social activists, tocontinue to make strides, should consider increasingefforts to inform the public about existing and newlyimplemented policies. This is not to say that socialactivists should discontinue lobbying efforts directedtoward enactment of new policies, but rather theyshould also consider how dissemination of policiesmay influence the emergence of new social norms.Consequences of promulgation of policy, therefore,may be twofold: serve to evoke social change and alsocreate an environment more receptive to lobbyingefforts.

The results of this study may also have implica-tions for the criminal justice system. Criminal jus-tice actors (e.g., judges, prosecutors, defense attor-neys, and police) responsible for implementing andfollowing through on policies may be influenced bysocial norms as well. Consequently, policies that arecontrary to social norms may be nullified due to thediscretion allowed when making decisions to arrest,prosecute, and pass sentences (Kessler, 1997; Schmidt& Steury, 1989; Shaver, Gilbert, & Williams, 1975).In fact, research examining the behaviors of law en-forcement and the judiciary provides support for thisassertion. For example, officers’ victim-blaming atti-tudes, the victim’s use of alcohol, provocation by thevictim (Stalans & Finn, 1995), and traditional views ofwomen’s roles (Feder, 1997) were found to influencearrest decisions. Furthermore, it has been suggestedthat differential prosecutorial treatment of domesticviolence cases stems from prosecutors’ own stereo-types of battered women (Lerman, 1986), offendercharacteristics (Hirschel & Hutchison, 2001), or vic-tim characteristics (Hirschel & Hutchison, 2001), andthat prosecutors rationalize their decisions not toprosecute by blaming the victim and assuming that

women provoke the abuse (Simon, 1995). Thus, inthis context, the determination that policies affect so-cial norms implies an iterative process that under-lies a more complex model of associations among so-cial norms, the community, and the criminal justicesystem. The public takes its cues from the behav-iors of the system. In turn, the system is com-prised of individuals who are affected by underlyingsocial norms and also control how policies are ex-ecuted, thus continuing the cycle. To insure imple-mentation of policies and to avoid unintended crimi-nal justice outcomes, wide-spread dissemination andeducational efforts should be directed toward thecommunity.

Moreover, to further assure consistency betweennorms and policy, educational efforts should targetnot only the community but also system personnel.Indeed, many interventions target the criminal justicesystem with the goal of changing behaviors of an un-responsive system (e.g., Lawrenz, Lembo, & Schade,1988; Tolman & Weisz, 1995). The system may needeither policy changes or better compliance with exist-ing policy. In either case, typically, the long-term goalis to decrease recidivism rates among batterers andis illustrative of an individual-level strategy not con-ducive to broader social change. Yet, if it is determinedthat policies influence social norms, and can lead tothe emergence of new norms, then such interventionscan serve to not only change affected individuals, butalso and more importantly, to serve as a means tosocial change (Corsilles, 1994).

Limitations

The primary methodological concern with thisresearch is the correlational design. Although thisstudy used structural equation modeling to evalu-ate a hypothesized theoretical model, which impliesdirectionality among the tested variables, the dataused are cross-sectional; therefore, caution must beused in interpreting the findings. It may be possiblethat community attitudes toward criminal justice re-sponse may affect public perceptions of how the crimi-nal justice system actually responds. Likewise, victim-blaming attitudes may influence attitudes toward howthe criminal justice system should respond. On theother hand, because the model was confirmed usingdata collected in the following year, and there weresignificant indirect effects, the probability of alterna-tive explanations seems less likely. Nevertheless, inthe future, before new policies are enacted, research

Page 10: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

262 Salazar, Baker, Price, and Carlin

should examine social norms prior to implementation,and using longitudinal designs, determine the direc-tion of the relationship.

Another issue is generalizability and relates tothe use of survey research using the telephone. Arandom probability sample was drawn from countypopulations that are representative of the U.S. popu-lation in terms of urban and rural settings, race, andgender (Government Information Sharing Project,1998); however, women were somewhat oversampled.This may affect generalizability. An oversampling ofwomen is common in many telephone surveys for var-ious reasons (Frey, 1989). It is possible that there weredifferential refusal rates between men and women, orperhaps women are home more often than men. Atany rate, because men were somewhat underrepre-sented within the sample, these results may not gen-eralize to the larger population.

Another issue related to telephone survey re-search is the inability to reach households that arewithout telephones. Albeit a small percentage, peoplewithout telephones often represent a segment of thepopulation that is of low socioeconomic status (SES).The sample obtained in this study, therefore, may notbe representative of a community population. More-over, women in particular, who are of low SES, rep-resent a high-risk group for domestic violence vic-timization (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998); therefore, thesample may not reflect the true population percent-ages of battered women. Although the goal of thisstudy was not to assess the specific attitudes of bat-tered women or of men who perpetrate violence, bynot measuring victimization and perpetration statusesof respondents, we were unable to control for the ef-fects of these experiences and as a result may haveincurred specification error in our model.

It is also important to note that the model ac-counted for 11% (Wave 1) and 14% (Wave 2) of thevariance in victim-blaming attitudes, and 9% (Waves 1and 2) of the variance in attitudes toward criminal jus-tice system response. Although in the social sciencesthese are considered medium effect sizes (Cohen,1992), a discussion is warranted. One reason for thelack of variance accounted for in victim-blaming at-titudes may be related to measurement. The victim-blaming construct was measured by only two itemsand suggests the presence of unsystematic variancethat decreases the explanatory power of the model.

From a broader perspective, however, the lack ofvariance accounted for also indicates the importanceof including other factors that may be related to so-cial norms underlying domestic violence. A variety

of contextual factors have been shown to be risk fac-tors for domestic violence. For example, O’Campoet al. (1995) tested a multilevel model that includedboth individual-level variables such as social sup-port, partner’s drug use, and demographics, as wellas community-level variables such as social class (i.e.,per capita income, unemployment rates, and homeownership) and environmental stress as predictors ofpartner-perpetrated physical violence. Community-level variables were found to be significant predictorsof risk, as well as moderators between individual-levelvariables and risk of violence. These findings suggestthat if community-level factors are related to perpe-tration, then it is plausible that these same factorsmay be related to the accompanying underlying socialnorms. Other variables that may also improve sub-stantially the explanatory model for social norms arewitnessing parental violence as a child, being a victimof child abuse, or other sociodemographic variablessuch as race and religious affiliation. By incorporatingmultiple factors from across domains, more variancemay be accounted for while also revealing the contextin which the results from this study may be placed andfurther understood.

CONCLUSION

Legislative changes to domestic violence policiesare rapidly occurring in various parts of the coun-try. To garner support for these changes, communi-ties in which changes are being implemented mustbe educated about the nature of the reforms. Pub-lic awareness campaigns can be used to accomplishthis task. Educating the community about newly im-plemented domestic violence policies may serve toinfluence the underlying social norms, and is impor-tant on two levels. First, research suggests that com-munity norms contribute to the general socioculturalclimate, which can act to encourage or discourage do-mestic violence (Goodman, Koss, Fitzerland, Russo,& Keita, 1993). Moreover, community norms are in-fluenced by the criminal justice system’s response,which depending upon its policies, can condone, con-demn, or ignore such behavior (Brygger & Edleson,1987). Thus, it is clear that if a legitimate authority,such as the criminal justice system does not condone,but rather condemns domestic violence, then com-munity norms may change so as to be aligned withthe views of the system. Second, if social norms lagbehind policy, then the criminal justice system maynot have the full support of either the community

Page 11: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

Moving Beyond the Individual 263

or of its personnel when attempting to arrest, prose-cute, or sentence men who commit domestic violence.Future endeavors should focus on the design and eval-uation of massive community-wide educational inter-ventions that disseminate and promote policies ondomestic violence. Such initiatives may serve to elimi-nate tacit support for domestic violence, while engen-dering a sense of community commitment for zerotolerance. The long-term result may be a significantcontribution toward ameliorating domestic violence.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Mary Finn, Kenzie Cameron,and the reviewers for their helpful commentsand suggestions on this manuscript. This researchwas supported by a Cooperative Agreement (U50/CCU411282-02) between the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention and Men Stopping Violence.

REFERENCES

Berk, R. A., & Newton, P. J. (1985). Does arrest really deter wifebattery? An effort to replicate the findings of the Minneapo-lis Spouse Abuse Experiment. American Sociological Review,50(2), 253–262.

Browne, A., & Williams, K. R. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethalviolence: Trends from 1976 through 1987. Gender and Society,7(1), 78–98.

Brygger, M. P., & Edleson, J. L. (1987). The Domestic AbuseProject: A multisystems intervention in woman battering. Jour-nal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(3), 324–336.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Criminal victimization 2000:Changes 1999–2000 with trends 1993–2000 (NCJ PublicationNo. 187007). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice.

Buzawa, E. S., & Austin, T. (1993). Determining police responseto domestic violence victims: The role of victim preference.American Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 610–623.

Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (1993). The scientific evidence isnot conclusive: Arrest is no panacea. In R. J. Gelles & D. R.Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp.337–356). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Choi, A., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). Advocating legal interventionin wife assaults: Results from a national survey of Singapore.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(3), 243–258.

Cialdini, R. B. (1995). Principles and techniques of social influence.In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 257–282).New York: McGraw Hill.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1),155–159.

Corsilles, A. (1994). No-drop policies in the prosecution of domes-tic violence cases: Guarantee action or dangerous solution?Fordham Law Review, 63, 853–881.

Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Nickles, L. B. (1998). The deterrenteffect of prosecuting domestic violence misdemeanors. Crimeand Delinquency, 44(3), 434–442.

Edwards, C. (1987). Public opinion on domestic violence: A reviewof the New Jersey survey. Response, 10(1), 6–9.

Evans, L. (1987). Factors controlling traffic crashes. Journal of Ap-plied Behavioral Science, 23(2), 201–218.

Fagan, J., Friedman, E., Wexler, S., & Lewis, V. (1984). Nationalfamily violence evaluation final report (Vol. 1). San Francisco:Ursa Institute.

Family Violence Prevention Fund. (1993). Men beating women:Ending domestic violence. San Francisco: Author.

Feder, L. (1997). Domestic violence and police response in a pro-arrest jurisdiction. Women and Criminal Justice, 8, 79–98.

Feder, L., Jolin, A., & Feyerherm, W. (2000). Lessons from tworandomized experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime andDelinquency, 46(3), 380–400.

Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1992). The preventive impact of poli-cies for prosecuting wife batterers. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G.Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic violence: The changing criminal jus-tice response (pp. 181–207). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1993). The criminal prosecution of wifeassaulters: Process, problems, and effects. In N. Z. Hilton (Ed.),Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and evaluations.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Frey, J. H. (1989). Survey research by telephone (2nd ed.). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Friedkin, N. E. (2001). Norm formation in social influence networks.Social Networks, 23(3), 167–189.

Friedman, L. N., & Shulman, M. (1990). Domestic violence: Thecriminal justice response. In A. J. Lurigio, W. G. Skogan, &R. C. Davis (Eds.), Victims of crime: Problems, policies, andprograms (pp. 87–103). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ghez, M. (2001). Getting the message out: Using media to changesocial norms on abuse. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson, &R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women(pp. 417–438). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goodman, L. A., Koss, M. P., Fitzgerald, L. F., Russo, N. F., & Keita,G. P. (1993). Male violence against women: Current researchand future directions. American Psychologist, 48, 1054–1058.

Government Information Sharing Project. (1998). USA Counties1998, population, total and selected characteristics [Data file].Retrieved from Galileo Web site: http://neptune.libs.uga.edu/

Greenfeld, L. A. (1998). Alcohol and crime: An analysis of nationaldata on the prevalence of alcohol involvement in crime (NCJ168632). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Hechter, M., & Opp, K. D. (2001). Social norms. New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Hilton, N. Z. (1993). Legal responses to wife assault: Current trendsand evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hingson, R., & Howland, J. (1989). Alcohol, injury, and legal con-trols: Some complex interactions. Law, Medicine and HealthCare, 17(1), 58–68.

Hirschel, D., & Hutchison, I. W. (2001). The relative effects of of-fense, offender, and victim variables on the decision to pros-ecute domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women, 7(1),46–59.

Iovanni, L., & Miller, S. L. (2001). Criminal justice system responsesto domestic violence: Law enforcement and the courts. In C.M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebookon violence against women (pp. 303–328). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Johnson, H. (1998). Rethinking survey research on violence againstwomen. In R. E. Dobash & R. P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethink-ing violence against women (pp. 23–51). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Johnson, I. M., & Sigler, R. T. (1995). Community attitudes: Astudy of definitions and punishment of spouse abusers andchild abusers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(5), 477–487.

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equationmodeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Kessler, D. (1997). The role of discretion in the criminal justice sys-tem. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Page 12: Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/moving beyond the... · Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects

P1: JLS

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp] pp1034-ajcp-475548 October 24, 2003 10:22 Style file version May 31, 2002

264 Salazar, Baker, Price, and Carlin

Kingery, D. W. (1985). Public policy on domestic violence: An exam-ple of policy lag. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meetingof the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Washington,D.C. Abstract retrieved March 27, 2000, from SociologicalAbstracts database.

Klein, E., Campbell, J. C., Soler, E., & Ghez, M. (1997). Ending do-mestic violence: Changing public perceptions/Halting the epi-demic. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koski, P. R., & Mangold, W. D. (1988). Gender effects in attitudesabout family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 3(30), 225–237.

Koss, M. P., Goodman, L. M., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., Keita, G.P., & Russo, N. F. (1994). No safe haven: Male violence againstwomen at home, at work, and in the community. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Lawrenz, R., Lembo, J. F., & Schade, T. (1988). Time series analysisof the effect of a domestic violence directive on the number ofarrests per day. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 493–498.

Lerman, L. G. (1986). Prosecution of wife beaters: Institutional ob-stacles and innovations. In M. Lystad (Ed.), Violence in thehome: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 250–295). Philadel-phia: Brunner/Mazel.

Maton, K. I. (2000). Making a difference: The social ecology ofsocial transformation. American Journal of Community Psy-chology, 28(1), 25–57.

Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2001). The effects of ar-rest on intimate partner violence: New evidence from the SpouseAssault Replication Program. Washington, DC: National Insti-tute of Justice.

Meares, T. L., & Kahan, D. M. (1998). Law and (norms of) orderin the inner city. Law and Society Review, 32(4), 805–837.

O’Campo, P., Gielen, A. C., Faden, R. R., Xue, S., Kass, N., & Wang,M. (1995). Violence by male partners against women duringthe childbearing year: A contextual analysis. American Journalof Public Health, 85(5), 1092–1097.

Robinson, A. L. (1999). Conflicting consensus: Public reaction toa domestic violence pro-arrest policy. Women and CriminalJustice, 10(3), 95–120.

Salazar, L. F. (2001). The utility of using an individual-level strat-egy to affect social change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Georgia State University, Atlanta.

Sampson, R. J., & Cohen, J. (1988). Deterrent effects of the policeon crime: A replication and theoretical extension. Law andSociety Review, 22, 163–189.

Schmidt, J., & Steury, E. H. (1989). Prosecutorial discretion in filingcharges in domestic violence cases. Criminology, 27(3), 487–510.

Schmidt, J. D., & Sherman, L. W. (1993). Does arrest deter domesticviolence? American Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 601–609.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. InL. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-ogy (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press.

Shaver, K. G., Gilbert, M. A., & Williams, M. C. (1975). Socialpsychology, criminal justice, and the principle of discretion: Aselective review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,1(3), 471–484.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effectsof arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review,49, 261–272.

Sigler, R. T. (1989). Domestic violence in context: An assess-ment of community attitudes. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Simon, L. M. J. (1995). A therapeutic jurisprudence approach tothe legal processing of domestic violence cases. Psychology,Public Policy, and Law, 1(1), 43–79.

Stalans, L., & Lurigio, A. (1995). Public preferences for the court’shandling of domestic violence situations. Crime and Delin-quency, 41(4), 399–413.

Stalans, L. J., & Finn, M. A. (1995). How novice and experienced of-ficers interpret wife assaults: Normative and efficiency frames.Law and Society Review, 29, 287–321.

Stark, E. (1993). Mandatory arrest of batterers: A reply to its critics.American Behavioral Scientist, 36(5), 651–680.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in Americanfamilies: Risk factors and adaption to violence in 8,145 families.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998, November). Prevalence, inci-dence, and consequences of violence against women: Find-ings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Na-tional Institute of Justice, Research in Brief, NCJ No. 172837).Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

Tolman, R. M., & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated community inter-vention for domestic violence: The effects of arrest and prose-cution on recidivism of woman abuse perpetrators. Crime andDelinquency, 41(4), 481–495.

Webley, P., & Siviter, C. (2000). Why do some owners allow theirdogs to foul the pavement? The social psychology of minorrule infraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(7),1371–1380.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1994, January). Violence againstwomen. A national crime victimization survey report (NCJ-145325). Rockville, MD: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Zimring, R. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threatin crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.