Tolerance for Intimate Partner Violence: A Comparative Study of Chinese and American College Students

Abstract

Tolerance for intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important correlate of interpersonal violent behavior. Although a large amount of research on IPV has been conducted in the West and a growing amount of studies on IPV in Chinese societies has been observed in recent years, only a small number of studies have analyzed IPV-related attitudes from an international and comparative perspective. Drawing on survey data collected from 1,178 college students from two Chinese and two U.S. universities, this study empirically compared and contrasted factors influencing students’ levels of tolerance for IPV. The results showed that Chinese college students had a higher level of tolerance for IPV than their U.S. counterparts. Regional variation was only detected in China with students in Beijing having a greater tolerance for IPV than students in Hong Kong. Both Chinese and U.S. students’ tolerance for IPV was affected primarily by their attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based violence and perceptions of IPV causes.

Keywords

intimate partner violence tolerance for IPV gender role attitudes male dominance ideology China

Introduction

Although the awareness of violence against women has grown significantly over the past few decades, intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be one of the most widespread human rights violations and public health problems for women around the world (Chibber & Krishnan, 2011). Past IPV studies have investigated the prevalence (García-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2005; Parish, Wang, Laumann, Pan, & Luo, 2004; Straus, 2004), causes (Jewkes, 2002; Ringel & Bina, 2007; Uthman, Lawoko, & Moradi, 2009), policy and prevention (Breiding, Chen, & Black, 2014; Edleson, 2000), and associated public attitudes (Lin, Sun, Wu, & Liu, 2016; Sun et al., 2012; Wu, Button, Smolter, & Poteyeva, 2013) of such incidents. Although this broad line of inquiry greatly enhances our understanding of IPV, fewer studies have assessed IPV tolerance across different cultural contexts.

Although some emerging research suggests that tolerance for IPV varies tremendously across cultural contexts (Allen & Devitt, 2012; García-Moreno et al., 2005; Hester, 2005; Nguyen et al., 2013; Speizer, 2010), little is known about the causal mechanisms of tolerant attitudes toward IPV in any particular culture. Given that tolerance for IPV and IPV perpetration and victimization are highly correlated (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003), and tolerance for IPV influences victims’ willingness to seek professional help (Li, Wu, & Sun, 2013), social service (Wu et al., 2013), and legal intervention (Giordano, Johnson, Manning, Longmore, & Minter, 2015; Sun et al., 2012), more research to identify the cultural-specific correlates of tolerance for IPV is warranted.

The main purpose of this study is to compare and contrast tolerance of IPV between Chinese and American college students. This study represents the latest inquiry on public tolerance of IPV since Simon and colleagues’ (2001) research on the issue in the United States more than a decade and half ago. In China, although recent studies have aspects of IPV, such as perceived definition of IPV (Lin et al., 2016), blame attribution toward women (Nguyen et al., 2013), and preferred police response to IPV (Sun, Li, & Wu, 2011; Sun, Su, & Wu, 2011; Sun et al., 2012), none of them have considered tolerance for IPV as the dependent variable. China and the United States were selected as the two countries differ in their cultural and legal traditions and policies in responding to domestic violence, making the comparison theoretically and practically interesting.

Based on data collected by the International Project of Attitudes Toward Criminal Justice (IPACJ), a collaborative project involving researchers in several Chinese and U.S. universities, the present study comparatively assessed the correlates of attitudinal tolerance for IPV against women between China and the United States. Drawing on survey data collected from 1,178 Chinese and American college students, this study addresses the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Do Chinese and U.S. college students differ in their attitudes toward tolerance for IPV?

Research Question 2: What factors are significant in shaping attitudes toward tolerance for IPV?

Research Question 3: Are Chinese and U.S. college students’ IPV tolerance attitudes influenced by different variables?

IPV in the United States and China

United States

The prevalence of IPV is high in the United States. In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that approximately 4% of women (4.8 million) were physically assaulted by an intimate partner in 2009, and one in three (32.9%) women in the United States had experienced physical violence by an intimate partner in one’s lifetime (Breiding et al., 2014). The situation of IPV among college students is particularly grim (Lin et al., 2016), rendering them a high-risk population of this particular form of violence. Scores of studies confirmed that almost one third of college students have experienced physical or sexual violence in an intimate partner relationship (Amar & Gennaro, 2005; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Luthra & Gidycz, 2006; Sabina & Straus, 2008; Straus, 2004, 2008).

Compared with many studies addressing IPV prevalence, fewer studies focused on attitudinal acceptance of IPV in the United States (Nabors & Jasinski, 2009; Nguyen et al., 2013; Simon et al., 2001). Acceptance of IPV was particularly high among American males, particularly those younger than 35 (Dibble & Straus, 1980; Simon et al., 2001). These findings, however, need to be interpreted with caution as the approval of IPV is tied to the context in which the violence occurred and several of these studies are particularly dated.

Comparatively, American students seem to show less tolerant attitudes toward IPV than students from other parts of the world. Nguyen and colleagues (2013) found that American college students blame female victims less under certain IPV contexts than did their Chinese and Japanese counterparts. Studies speculate that American students’ less tolerant attitudes may be in part attributed to public awareness of the mandatory and pro-arrest statutes, and the widespread victim assistance programs and social services (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003; Sun, 2007).

China

The prevalence of IPV in China is also alarmingly high. A recent report showed that nearly 40% women who are married or in a relationship have suffered abuse (“China Media,” 2015). Tang and Lai (2008) reviewed 19 empirical studies with 49,201 adults on violence against women in China between 1987 and 2006, and reported that the lifetime prevalence of male-on-female violence was 19.7% and the last-year prevalence of such violence was 16.8%. In rural China, the prevalence of IPV has been severely underestimated as victims are more stigmatized than perpetrators due to unchallenged conservative social attitudes and a lack of social and legal disapprovals (Parish et al., 2004).

Despite the high prevalence of IPV, mainland China falls behind in legal and social responses to IPV. With respect to legal intervention, the police have been reluctant to intervene in IPV incidents (Sun, Su, & Wu, 2011; Sun et al., 2012). They regard IPV as beyond their responsibilities, and often refuse to accept and process victims’ complaints. Chinese legislation and regulatory policies for IPV had been lacking until the passage of the first antidomestic violence law in December, 2015. This law, which came into effect on March 1, 2016, prohibits domestic violence among married and co-habiting couples and those living in foster families. Courts are required to hear requests for protection by victims and to make a determination within 48 hr. Restraining orders against perpetrators, which were lacking before, are now available for victims. However, there are still gaps in the law. For instance, police responsibility and standard of conduct for intervening IPV remain unspecified. Therefore, the effect of the new law on official interventions and public attitudes and behavior toward IPV awaits future evaluations.

Moreover, there are rare options left for Chinese women to address IPV other than tolerating their current abusive partner. Although new IPV services and programs have recently surfaced in urban areas, Chinese women are less willingly to seek external help due to cultural norms and beliefs. The lack of financial means to hire lawyers or sustain themselves and their children also prevents women from seeking external support to address their problems (Tam et al., 2016).

In Hong Kong, reported incidents of IPV in 2016, including physical, sexual, and psychological abuses, were 2,471, which decreased 27% from 2015. Among the 2,471 incidents, 80% of these incidents (1,971) were physical abuses, and 84% involved female victims (Social Welfare Department, 2016). The region’s criminal justice system handles IPV using the Crime Ordinance and the Offence Against the Person Ordinance as general legal guidelines for criminal punishment. For relatively minor violations, the Domestic Violence Ordinance (DVO) is used to treat such incidents as civil cases. Under the DVO, for example, the court can issue an injunction order to protect the well-being of the victim.

A multiagency approach is preferred in dealing with domestic violence incidents in Hong Kong. The 1996 Multi-Disciplinary Guidelines for Handling Battered Spouse Cases, and the 2004 Procedural Guidelines for Handling Battered Spouse Cases serve as blueprints for better coordination among professionals of different fields in tackling domestic violence. In the 2004 guidelines, the role and tasks of relevant professionals, including those from health, social, and legal services are delineated. All related parties are required to act in accordance with the guidelines.

Other than the criminal justice response, social workers are expected to take an active role in responding to IPV in Hong Kong. The Family and Child Protective Services Unit of the Social Welfare Department is in charge of handling all statutory cases of family. Some nongovernmental organizations specializing in handling IPV also provide community education, group counseling, and hotline services for victims and batterers. Several critics of IPV policy and practice have been noted, including the lack of a mechanism for real coordinated efforts among different professionals (Chan & Lam, 2005), an inadequate effort and public resources (Tsun & Tsang, 2005), an overemphasis on family preservation while neglecting the needs of women (Chan & Lam, 2005), and the neglect of the involvement of grassroots agencies (Chan, Lam, & Cheng, 2009).

Compared with college students in the United States, Chinese students tended to hold more conservative attitudes toward IPV. For example, Chinese students more often perceived domestic violence as a private family matter, compared with their counterparts in the United States, and thus discussion or full disclosure of domestic problems outside of the home was discouraged and deemed as placing shame on the family’s reputation (Lin et al., 2016; Sun, Su, & Wu, 2011; Wu et al., 2013).

Furthermore, Chinese attitudes toward appropriate responses to IPV differ from those in Western countries. Chinese students are less likely to support a law enforcement approach to IPV than American students (Li et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2013). Chinese students were also more supportive of a traditional police response (nonintervening, belief that intervention is ineffective) to IPV and less supportive of a proactive police response (use of arrest, sympathetic to victim; see Sun, Li, & Wu, 2011; Sun, Su, & Wu, 2011). These studies suggest that Chinese tolerance for IPV may differ from that in Western societies. From this, it is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Chinese students demonstrate higher levels of tolerance of IPV than their American counterparts.

Correlates of Tolerance for IPV

Aside from country locality, previous studies have identified a number of other factors related to tolerance for IPV. This study focused on three additional groups of variables, including attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based violence, perceptions of IPV causes, and demographic attributes.

Attitudes Toward Gender Roles and Gender-Based Violence

Gender role attitudes are strong predictors of the degree of tolerant attitudes toward IPV (Haj-Yahia, 2003; Hanson, Cadsky, Harris, & Lalonde, 1997). In Africa, for example, people who held favorable attitudes toward patriarchal gender roles expressed a greater tolerance of IPV than those who disapproved (Fawole, Aderonmu, & Fawole, 2005; Koenig et al., 2003). Significant proportions of both men and women were more likely to justify IPV for a woman’s deviation from normative female roles in their societies (Hindin, 2003; Koenig et al., 2003; Rani, Bonu, & Diop-Sidibe, 2004). For example, disrespecting in-laws was an especially strong predictor of attitudes approving of IPV (Haj-Yahia, 2003).

In patriarchal societies, gender role attitudes stem largely from beliefs of male dominance. To produce and sustain patriarchal beliefs of male dominance, violence against women is justified as a mechanism to maintain women’s subordinate role and male authority over women. Indeed, a recent study has found that living in communities with strong patriarchal norms is associated with a greater tolerance for IPV (Jesmin, 2017). People who held unfavorable attitudes toward male-dominant relationships were more likely to believe that husbands’ use of violence was intentional and unjustifiable, and vice versa (Stalans & Finn, 2006). Additional evidence also indicated that patriarchal ideology was a robust predictor of attitudes supportive of IPV (Berkel, Vandiver, & Bahner, 2004; Sakall, 2001). Based on previous studies, this study expects:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Those who hold strong beliefs of male dominance have a greater level of tolerance for IPV.

Furthermore, studies suggested that people varied in their perceptions of gender equality and definitions of crime and violence, and such perceptions influenced their general understanding of IPV (see Tam et al., 2016, for a review). For example, Sun and colleagues (2012) reported that students who believed that their society had realized gender equality were less likely to prefer proactive police responses (use of arrest, sympathy toward victim) to domestic violence, and more likely to favor traditional police responses (nonintervening, belief that intervention is ineffective) to domestic violence. Wall (2014) has suggested that perceptions of gender equality may be connected to acceptance of violence against women because when individuals perceive that men and women are equally powerful in society, they are also perceived to be equal in interpersonal conflicts. When perceived equally, toleration for violence between men and women may be higher, as violence may be one socially legitimate manifestation of interpersonal conflict between equal counterparts. It should be noted, however, that the perceived level of gender equality likely does not capture the objective level of gender equality in a society. Nonetheless, it is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Those who perceive higher gender equality have a greater degree of tolerance for IPV.

In addition to perceptions of gender equality, research also supported the intuitive assumption that those who supported the criminalization of IPV offenders, or had lower tolerance for IPV, were more in favor of proactive police responses to IPV that include pro-arrest policies, sympathy toward the victim, and offering referral services (Sun, Li, & Wu, 2011; Sun, Su, & Wu, 2011). When individuals prefer proactive responses versus reactive traditional responses, where there is greater belief that police intervention is ineffective in IPV, it may suggest less tolerance because IPV may be viewed as a crime deserving of legal interventions and punitive sanctions, rather than a social problem and can be addressed by various informal social controls, such as families, employers, churches, schools, or social workers (Li et al., 2013). Tolerance of a problematic social issue is generally higher than that of a criminal one (Burney, 1999; Hancock & Matthews, 2013), for a social issue is not seen to be as serious as crime. Logically, then, when individuals prefer proactive police responses, rather than reactive police responses, it may suggest a lower tolerance of IPV. As such, it is hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Those who consider IPV as crime have a lower degree of tolerance for IPV.

Perceptions of IPV Causes

Few studies have assessed the relationship between perceptions of IPV causation and IPV attitudes. In one recent study, it was found that Chinese college students who perceived IPV to be caused by mental, psychological, or personality problems were more likely to favor legal intervention, whereas American college students who perceive IPV to be caused by drug and alcohol problems were more likely to prefer social service intervention (Wu et al., 2013). Studying perceived causes of IPV is important to understanding the context in which IPV occurs because it may help explain why individuals and societies justify IPV (Nabors & Jasinski, 2009; Simon et al., 2001; Taylor & Mumford, 2016). For instance, believing that IPV is caused by daily stress may lead to a belief that violence against women is a means for male perpetrators to vent daily pressure and frustrations. Similarly, perceiving that IPV is caused by mental problems or drug and alcohol abuse may lend support to the belief that committing IPV may be against perpetrators’ will. Such perceptions may increase victims’ and citizens’ sympathy for perpetrators, and thus yield a greater tolerance for IPV. Accordingly, we expect that

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Tolerance for IPV will likely differ by the endorsement of various causes of IPV.

Demographic Attributes

Gender

The impact of gender differences on tolerance for violence against women has been assessed extensively in past studies, with women being less tolerant than men in general (Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Hester, 2005; Nguyen et al., 2013; Perrott, Miller, & Delaney, 1997; Yamawaki, Ostenson, & Brown, 2009). Additional evidence also supports that women were more likely to support female victims in IPV (Frieze, Kogovšek, Rener, Horvat, & Šarlija, 2003), and were more likely to blame the male perpetrators than men (Giordano et al., 2015). One study found gender difference in Chinese college students with respect to their acceptance of IPV, with male college students much more likely than their female counterparts to agree that beating a woman in an intimate relationship in general, beating a woman if she disrespects her boyfriend/husband, and forcing a woman to have sex in an intimate relationship are acceptable (Hester, 2005). It is thus reasonable to hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 6 (H6): The female college students display a lower level of tolerance than their male counterparts.

Socioeconomic status

Previous studies have assessed the linkages between income, education and socioeconomic status (SES), and the acceptance of IPV (e.g., Doku & Asante, 2015; Jesmin, 2017; Simon et al., 2001; Straus, Kantor, & Moore, 1997). The findings are mixed. Straus et al. (1997) found that neither income nor education was significantly related to approval of IPV, whereas Simon et al. (2001) found that the acceptance of IPV was higher for Americans without a high school degree who had a total household income of less than $20,000. In international studies, approval of IPV was found to be highly related to economic conditions and social status. Hindin (2003) found that women in Zimbabwe with lower household wealth, schooling at a lower level than secondary, and lower occupational status were more likely to report that wife beating is justified. A recent study from Ghana also suggests that wealth is inversely related to acceptance of IPV, with women in the rich and middle wealth index categories being less likely to approve IPV compared with the poorest (Doku & Asante, 2015). Based on this, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis (H7): College students with higher SES status will show lower levels of tolerance of IPV.

Place of origin

Areas where individuals live or grow up can also affect attitudes toward IPV. However, evidence about the connection between areas and IPV attitudes is country specific. Studies conducted in the United States revealed that people from urban and rural areas did not differ much in attitudes toward IPV (e.g., Lanier & Maume, 2009; Simon et al., 2001). However, studies conducted in Chinese societies revealed that respondents in rural places report a higher degree of acceptance of IPV than their urban counterparts (Cao, 2006; Hester, 2005; Liu & Chan, 1999). It is speculated that:

Hypothesis 8 (H8): Students who are originally from urban areas are less tolerant of IPV than their nonurban counterparts.

Method

Research Project and Sites

Data used in this study were part of the information gathered by the second phase of the IPACJ aimed at examining college students’ perceptions of various aspects of domestic violence. Specifically, data collected in this second phase are instrumental to understanding college students’ attitudes toward gender roles, definitions of abusive behaviors, experiences with IPV, reasons for staying in abusive relationship, and perceptions of police response to domestic violence.

Data were gathered from Beijing and Hong Kong in China and Detroit (Michigan) and Newark (Delaware) in the United States during the fall of 2009. These cities were chosen to reflect possible cross-cultural differences between countries and regional differences within countries. One school from each city was chosen based on convenience and accessibility to the research team. The first Chinese university is a nationally ranked, public school located in Beijing. The second Chinese university, a public school located in Hong Kong, has a relatively short history but experienced rapid expansion since the 1980s. The first American university is a large size, nationally ranked public school located in a suburban city Newark, Delaware. The second American university is a large size, urban public university located in Detroit, Michigan.

Data Collection and Samples

A survey questionnaire containing approximately 100 items was first developed in English. Some of the items come from existing valid indicators suggested by previous studies (e.g., Herbert, Silver, & Ellard, 1991; Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). Several new indicators were created specifically for the unique context of a comparison study between China and the United States. The survey was translated into Chinese by two bilingual researchers using the method of back translation. The first researcher translated the English survey into Chinese, which was then translated back to English. The two English versions were compared for detecting any inconsistencies and making adjustments. The survey was then pretested on a small number of Chinese and American students.

All surveys were distributed through classrooms by the researchers with the permission and support from the instructors. Both introductory and upper-level classes were targeted to enhance the representativeness of the participating students. The researchers introduced the project to the students, answered any questions they had, and assured them their participation would be completely voluntary and nonparticipation would not bring any negative consequence to their performance in these classes. The study received institutional review board approval and procedures were followed for informed consent. No compensation provided for student’s participation. On average, the survey took students about 15 to 20 min to complete.

The classroom setting produced high response rates in the four cities. Among the 450 and 320 surveys distributed in Beijing and Hong Kong, 342 and 310 were returned. Similarly, 440 and 340 surveys were distributed in Newark and Detroit, and 417 and 312 were returned. Unusable surveys and missing data were dropped from the analysis, generating a final sample of 1,178 students, including 602 Chinese students (316 Students in Beijing and 286 Students in Hong Kong) and 576 American students (303 students in Newark and 273 students in Detroit). Although the Chinese and American samples were not randomly selected from the populations, there was a reasonable degree of congruence in terms of student sex, age, and class status between the samples and the populations of sample universities.

Measures

The dependent variable is the level of tolerance for IPV, which is an additive scale comprising six Likert-type items. These items measuring different forms of IPV were developed based principally on the revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) proposed by Straus and colleagues (see Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). The respondents were asked whether they agreed that (a) violence is justified if a partner insults, (b) battering is not grounds for a divorce, (c) violence is justified if partner cheats/commits adultery, (d) society should expect couples occasionally have minor physical fights, (e) a husband may beat his wife if she is unreasonable and starts the argument/fight, and (f) abused women tend to be those who fail to fulfill a wife’s responsibilities (strongly disagree = 1, and strongly agree = 4; Cronbach’s α = .80). A higher value of the scale indicated a greater level of tolerance of IPV.

Independent variables were divided into four groups: attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based violence, perceived causes of IPV, demographic attributes, and country localities. The first group, attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based violence, consisted of three variables: (a) male dominance, (b) perceptions of gender equality, and (c) DV (domestic violence) as crime, which were selected based on previous studies that linked them to the perceptions of dominance violence (Sakall, 2001; Stalans & Finn, 2006). The first group of variables assesses the male dominance ideology. Four items scaled items rated respondents level of agreement: (a) A son in a family should be encouraged more than daughters to go to college, (b) there are many jobs in which men should be given preference over women, (c) a father should have more authority than a mother when bringing up children, and (d) a woman should not expect to go to the same places or have the same freedom as men (strongly disagree = 1, and strongly agree = 4; Cronbach’s α = .68). A higher score indicates a stronger belief in male dominance.

The second variable in this group is perceptions of gender equality; it is a sum scale of three items: (a) Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in China (for Chinese students) or the United States (for American students), (b) society has reached the point where women and men have equal opportunities for achievement, and (c) it is difficult to understand why women’s groups are still concerned about societal limitations of women’s opportunities (strongly disagree = 1, and strongly agree = 4; Cronbach’s α = .69). A higher score indicates perceptions of a higher level of gender equality in society. The last variable in this group is DV as crime, which was measured through a single item: Domestic violence should be viewed as a crime (strongly disagree = 1, and strongly agree = 4).

The second group of variables measures respondents’ perceptions of IPV causes with five separate items. Respondents were asked whether they agree that (a) much IPV is caused by alcohol and/or drugs; (b) lots of IPV is really just a normal reaction to day-to-day stress and frustration; (c) most people who act abusively toward intimate partners have mental, psychological, or personality problems; (d) strained financial situations are a main source of IPV; and (e) IPV reflects the unequal power between partners. For all the items, response’s options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4).

The third group of variables, demographic attributes, includes gender, family SES, and area of origin.¹ Gender was a dichotomous variable (female = 1). Family SES was a factor of three items (Cronbach’s α = .68): (a) father’s and (b) mother’s highest level of education (illiteracy = 1; graduate or professional degree = 7), and (c) household (parents’) income (less than 1,000 RMB/month for China or $20,000/year for the United States = 1; 15,000 RMB/month for China or $140,000/year and above for the United States = 8). Last, area of origin was a dichotomous variable with originally from an urban area = 1, and nonurban area = 0.

Finally, a fourth set of dummy variables was created to measure country localities: Beijing, Hong Kong, Newark, and Detroit. Beijing served as the primary reference group. Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for all variables.² Collinearity diagnostics showed that no two independent variables were highly correlated with one another and all of the variance inflation factors (VIFs) were lower than 3, which is lower than the generally accepted limit of 10 (Neter, Kutner, Nachtsheim, & Wasserman, 1996). After checking the items and constructing scales used in the analysis, there was no concern for the data’s normality and outliers.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Variables in Analysis.

	Whole (N = 1,178)				China (N = 602)				USA (N = 576)				t test
	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	t test
Tolerance for IPV	10.02	3.00	6	24	10.87	2.88	6	20	9.25	2.89	6	24	10.2*
Independent variables
Attitudes toward gender role/violence
Male dominance	5.91	1.84	3	12	6.61	1.62	3	12	5.30	1.81	3	12	13.9*
Perception of gender equality	6.52	1.79	3	12	7.07	1.74	3	12	6.02	1.70	3	11	11.1*
DV as crime	3.36	0.77	1	4	3.13	0.82	1	4	3.56	0.67	1	4	−10.8*
Perception of IPV causes
Drug/alcohol	2.80	0.72	1	4	2.62	0.69	1	4	2.96	0.72	1	4	−8.8*
Daily stress/frustration	2.20	0.84	1	4	2.49	0.76	1	4	1.95	0.83	1	4	12.4*
Mental/personality problem	2.83	0.75	1	4	2.83	0.72	1	4	2.83	0.78	1	4	0
Financial stress	2.46	0.69	1	4	2.32	0.68	1	4	2.58	0.67	1	4	−6.9*
Unequal power	2.75	0.74	1	4	2.75	0.70	1	4	2.76	0.77	1	4	−0.2
Demographic attributes
Female	0.65	0.48	0	1	0.68	0.47	0	1	0.63	0.48	0	1	1.8
SES	0.00	0.95	−2.19	1.42	−0.53	0.83	−2.35	1.57	0.53	0.73	−2.12	1.60	−23.9*
Originally from urban area	0.38	0.48	0	1	0.59	0.49	0	1	0.19	0.39	0	1	16.5*
Localities
Beijing	0.25	0.43	0	1	0.53	0.50	0	1	—	—	—	—	—
Hong Kong	0.21	0.41	0	1	0.47	0.50	0	1	—	—	—	—	—
Newark	0.30	0.46	0	1	—	—	—	—	0.57	0.50	0	1	—
Detroit	0.23	0.41	0	1	—	—	—	—	0.43	0.50	0	1	—

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; DV = domestic violence; SES = socioeconomic status.

p < .05.

Results

Mean Comparisons: Differences in Chinese and American Levels of Tolerance

Mean comparisons were conducted to answer the first research question about whether Chinese and American students differed in their levels of tolerance of IPV. As shown in Table 1, the independent sample t tests showed that Chinese respondents had a significantly greater level of tolerance for IPV than American respondents, which lends support to H1. With the exceptions of gender and originally from an urban area, Chinese and American students differed significantly on all predictors. In terms of attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based violence, Chinese respondents had a stronger ideology of male dominance and perceived higher gender equality in their societies, compared with their American counterparts, and substantially lower proportions of Chinese students than American students reported perceiving DV as crime. With respect to perceptions of IPV causes, Chinese students were less likely to believe that IPV was caused by alcohol and/or drugs, or financial stress, but more likely to believe that IPV was just a normal reaction to daily stress and frustration, compared with their American counterparts. The average SES of American students was higher than that of Chinese students.

Multivariate Analysis of the Whole Sample: Significant Factors in Tolerance for IPV

Table 2 presents the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression results of the whole sample to address the second research question. Consistent with our hypotheses, respondents who reported a stronger male dominance ideology (H2) and perceived a higher level of gender equality (H3) showed a higher level of tolerance for IPV. Contrary to predictions, those who perceived DV as crime expressed a lower level of tolerance for IPV (H4). As anticipated, variation in tolerance for IPV depended on perceived causes. College students who were more likely to believe that IPV was caused by daily stress and frustration were more tolerant of IPV compared with those who believed that IPV was caused by drugs/alcohol, mental/personality problems, financial stress, or unequal power (H5). Yet, among demographics, gender (H6), SES (H7), and originally from urban area (H8) were not significantly related to IPV tolerance in the whole sample analysis; thus, our general predictions about these variables were not supported.

Table 2.

Ordinary Least Squares Analysis Summary for the Whole Sample.

Tolerance for IPV	β	SE
Attitudes toward gender role/violence
Male dominance	.22***	.05
Perception gender equality	.14***	.05
DV as crime	−.17***	.11
Perception of IPV causes
Drug/alcohol	.01	.11
Daily stress/frustration	.19***	.10
Mental/personality problem	−.03	.11
Financial stress	.05	.11
Unequal power	.03	.11
Demographic attributes
Female	−.04	.16
SES	−.02	.10
Originally from urban area	−.01	.17
Localities
Newark	−.14***	.27
Detroit	−.16***	.24
Hong Kong	−.21***	.23
R ²	.304
N	1,178

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; DV = domestic violence; SES = socioeconomic status.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

With further regard to locality, there is mixed support for the hypothesis that tolerance varies by country locality (H1). Compared with students in Beijing, respondents from Hong Kong, Newark, and Detroit showed a significantly lower level of tolerance for IPV. Additional analysis (not shown in the table) using Hong Kong respondents as a reference group showed the similar results to the above, with no significant difference of tolerance for IPV among students in Hong Kong and their counterparts in Detroit (B = .05, SD = 0.27, p = .17) and Newark (B = .07, SD = 0.31, p = .10). Finally, using Detroit as the comparison group, the analysis revealed no perceptual variation between respondents in the two American cities (Newark, B = −.02, SD = 0.23, p = .68). The explanatory variables account for 30.4% of the variance in tolerance for IPV.

Multivariate Analysis by Country: Variations in Chinese and American Tolerance for IPV

To explore the third research question, OLS regression results by country are presented in Table 3. The effects of the three variables reflecting attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based violence were significant in both the Chinese and American samples, suggesting these similarities across cultures; the t values associated with the corresponding coefficients indicated that the effects of these three variables were not different across the two countries.

Table 3.

Ordinary Least Squares Analysis Summary for Separate Samples.

	China		United States		t Value for Difference Between Coefficients^a
	β	SE	β	SE	t Value for Difference Between Coefficients^a
Attitudes toward gender role/violence
Male dominance	.22***	.07	.21***	.07	0.25
Perception of gender equality	.11**	.07	.18***	.07	−1.25
DV as crime	−.13**	.14	−.21***	.17	0.81
Perception of IPV causes
Drug/alcohol	−.03	.16	.05	.16	−3.43***
Daily stress/frustration	.16***	.15	.19***	.13	−0.32
Mental/personality problem	−.01	.16	−.05	.14	2.09**
Financial stress	.05	.17	.05	.16	0.00
Unequal power	.05	.16	.02	.14	1.40
Demographic attributes
Female	−.08*	.23	.01	.24	−2.33**
SES	−.04	.14	.05	.16	−3.60***
Originally from urban area	−.06	.22	.09*	.29	−2.68**
Localities
Hong Kong	−.27***	.25	—	—
Newark	—	—	.02	.23
R ²	.24		.26
N	602		576

Note. DV = domestic violence; IPV = intimate partner violence; SES = socioeconomic status.

Calculated based on the following equation: $t = b_{1} - b_{2} / (\sqrt{S E_{1} b_{1}^{2} + S E_{2} b_{2}^{2}})$ (Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998).

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For perceptions of IPV causes, daily stress and frustration remain similarly significant in both the Chinese and American samples; t values indicated no difference between the effects of daily stress and frustration on tolerance for IPV across the two countries. Although the beliefs that IPV is caused by drug/alcohol and/or mental/personality problem do not have significant effects on either sample, the impacts of these variables were significantly different. The effects for the belief that IPV is caused by drug/alcohol were in opposite directions across the two countries, with American college students holding positive endorsement for the notion whereas their Chinese counterparts disapproving the statement. The effect for the belief that IPV is caused by mental/personality problem is stronger in the American sample than that in the Chinese sample.

Among demographics, which were not significantly related to IPV tolerance in the whole sample analysis, gender surfaces as a significant predictor among Chinese students, with females showing lower tolerance of IPV than males. The gendered effect does not exist for American students. An analysis of the t values associated with corresponding coefficients for the demographic variables suggests significant differences between samples for gender, SES, and originally from urban area; the impacts of SES and originally from urban area for the two groups were in an opposite direction and greater for American students compared with Chinese students.

Consistent with the whole sample results, students in Hong Kong were found to have a significantly lower level of tolerance for IPV compared with their Beijing counterparts, whereas no perceptual variation was found between respondents from the two American cities. The predictors together explained nearly equal variance in Chinese students’ (R² = .24) and American students’ (R² = .26) tolerance for IPV.

Discussion

This study represents one of the first attempts to empirically compare and contrast Chinese and U.S. college students’ tolerance for IPV. This is the latest study on public tolerance of IPV since Simon and colleagues’ (2001) study of the acceptance of IPV in the United States, and it identified and compared the different and similar correlates of tolerance of IPV between U.S. and Chinese college students. Several major findings emerged. First, Chinese and American students differed in their levels of tolerance for IPV, with Chinese students being more tolerant of IPV. Compared with their American counterparts, Chinese students also displayed a stronger belief in male dominance, a higher level of perceived gender equality, a lower tendency to view IPV as a crime. Our findings echo other recent studies that showed differences in responses and understandings of IPV between the two cultures (Li et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2016; Sun, Li, & Wu, 2011; Sun, Su, & Wu, 2011). The patriarchal culture, coupled with inadequate legislation and official interventions, may have contributed to more tolerant attitudes toward IPV among Chinese college students. In contrast, lower levels of tolerance for IPV among American students suggested that they may have a better understanding of IPV as a serious social problem that violates human rights and warrants legal intervention. It may further reflect that legal intervention in IPV and assertive policing against IPV (e.g., mandatory or pro-arrest policies in most U.S. jurisdictions) may be effective in promoting public confidence in legal means to combat IPV and reduce tolerance for IPV on college campuses.

Second, regional variation in IPV tolerance is also detected across the two Chinese sites. Students in Beijing showed the greatest tolerance for IPV among the four cities’ students, whereas students in Hong Kong displayed a similar level of tolerance for IPV compared with the students in those two American cities. This result does not come as a surprise as Hong Kong has utilized a “multidisciplinary” approach to handling domestic violence, a system that addresses the problem using all resources from the legal, criminal justice, medical, and social services systems. Local residents have realized the high prevalence and seriousness of IPV in Hong Kong society and thus formed less tolerant attitudes for IPV (Li et al., 2013). These less tolerant attitudes may partially explain the current downward trend in IPV incidents in Hong Kong; The IPV cases dropped 27% over the past 2 years, decreasing from 3,381 in 2015 to 2,471 in 2016 (Social Welfare Department, 2016).

Third, attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based violence emerged as the most influential predictor in determining college students’ tolerance for IPV, regardless of country affiliation. The strong association between perceptions of male dominance and tolerance for IPV is consistent with results from previous studies (Fawole et al., 2005; Hester, 2005; Koenig et al., 2003; Nguyen et al., 2013; Stalans & Finn, 2006). Similarly, perceptions of gender equality in society and DV as crime were closely related to IPV tolerance.

As the first antidomestic violence law came into effect on March 1, 2016, and legal means to combat IPV available by the law (e.g., restraining order), Chinese citizens may increasingly rely on the legal system to address IPV and, seeing it as legitimate crime, may become less tolerant of IPV. Future studies should examine the effects of the antidomestic violence law on Chinese attitudes toward IPV.

Fourth, college students who perceived IPV as caused by daily stress and frustration consistently showed a higher level of tolerance for IPV. College students might believe that violence in an intimate relationship could be forgiven and understood under certain circumstances. Future research must take context-specific factors into account when studying IPV attitudes (Giordano et al., 2015; Tam et al., 2016; Uthman et al., 2009), but, in the meantime, a stronger public awareness that IPV is never acceptable may help challenge these widespread beliefs.

Finally, demographic characteristics exerted very limited effects on the public tolerance for IPV, except that gender emerged as a significant predictor in the Chinese sample. Chinese female students’ less tolerant attitudes were in line with previous findings revealing that women tended to sympathize more with persons of their own gender, and were thus less tolerant of IPV than men (e.g., Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Frieze et al., 2003; Nguyen et al., 2013; Yamawaki et al., 2009). The lack of gender effects on American students’ tolerance for IPV signals a success of antidomestic violence policies and programs since the 1980s. This idea warrants further scholarly attention. Despite an overall weak connection, background characteristics, particularly gender, need to be considered in future research.

Four limitations of the study deserve a mention. First, IPV in this study refers to only physical violence in an intimate partner relationship. Other important forms of IPV, such as psychological abuse and sexual abuse, were not included. Future studies should address tolerance for IPV as forms of psychological and sexual abuse, given these two forms have been identified being as common as physical abuse in an intimate partner relationship (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011; Taylor & Mumford, 2016). Second, this study only examined tolerance for IPV against women. The prevalence of IPV against men is also alarmingly high (e.g., Breiding et al., 2014), and researchers should continue to increase scholarly attention to this area of IPV. Public attitudes tend to tolerate women’s aggression against men more than men’s aggression against women (Reeves & Orpinas, 2012; RTI International, 2012). Future studies should take tolerance of IPV against men and women into consideration and identify the similar and different factors shaping tolerance for both types of IPV. Third, three attitudinal scales (male dominance, gender equality, and SES) used in this study have a Cronbach’s alpha score below the conventional cut-off point of .7. Future research should continue to refine and use survey items that have a greater internal consistency. Finally, two relevant predictors, the respondents’ personal experience with IPV and perception of the criminal justice system and health institutions were not included in the study. Future research should incorporate these important factors into analysis.

A high level of tolerance for IPV raises serious concerns for prevention and intervention practices. It places a great challenge for generating effective and publicly supported policies. Tolerance for IPV may discourage victims from seeking external help, particularly using the criminal justice system and social services to address IPV. There is no doubt that tolerance for IPV should receive a broad societal attention and be incorporated into the consideration of policy making and intervention program to change the current situation of IPV issue in China. Policies and public education should focus on changing public attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based violence and perceptions of IPV causes to reduce possible sources of high tolerance.

Looking at college student populations specifically, promoting social equality programs and launching counter-violence campaigns on college campuses could greatly strengthen college students’ awareness of the IPV problems and hopefully change students’ gender role and gender-based violence attitudes. Indeed, evaluations of school-based curricula and programs have demonstrated substantive improvement in perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, and report rate related to IPV by changing students’ attitudes supportive of IPV (Jaffe, Sudermann, Reitzel, & Killip, 1992; Wekerle &Wolfe, 1999). College students, in turn, can serve as change agents to promote similar policies and programs targeted at the general public. At the national level, following the newly passed antidomestic violence law, the Chinese government should launch more practices and services that aim at curbing gender discrimination and changing patriarchal ideologies. The government should continue its campaign efforts for improving public understanding of the causations and consequences of IPV. More educational programs will be helpful in cultivating healthy attitudes toward IPV.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Luye Li is a doctoral candidate of criminology in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware. Her research interests include public perception of intimate partner violence, police and community relationship, and law and society in Asian societies.

Ivan Y. Sun is a professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware. His research interests include police attitudes and behavior, public opinion on legal authorities, and crime and justice in Asian societies. His most recent publications have appeared in Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, and British Journal of Criminology.

Deeanna M. Button is an assistant professor in the Criminal Justice Program at Stockton University. Her research focuses on how experiences of violence and victimization are shaped by systems of inequality. Her primary area of interest focuses examining victimization experiences by gender and sexual identity.

References

Allen

Devitt

(2012). Intimate partner violence and belief systems in Liberia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3514-3531.

Amar

Gennaro

(2005). Dating violence in college women: Associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nursing Research, 54, 235-242.

Archer

Graham-Kevan

(2003). Do beliefs about aggression predict physical aggression to partners? Aggressive Behavior, 29, 41-54.

Berkel

Vandiver

Bahner

(2004). Gender role attitudes, religion, and spirituality as predictors of domestic violence attitudes in White college students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 119-133.

Breiding

Chen

Black

(2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States—2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bryant

Spencer

(2003). University students’ attitudes about attributing blame in domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 369-376.

Burney

(1999). Crime and banishment: Nuisance and exclusion in social housing. Hampshire, UK: Waterside Press.

Buzawa

(2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cao

(2006). Study on domestic violence in Hunan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Central South University, Hunan, China.

10.

Chan

Lam

(2005). Unraveling the rationale for a one-stop service under the family and child protection services units in Hong Kong. International Social Work, 48, 419-428.

11.

Chan

Lam

Cheng

(2009). Community capacity building as a strategy of family violence prevention in a problem-stricken community: A theoretical formulation. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 559-568.

12.

Chibber

Krishnan

(2011). Confronting intimate partner violence: A global health priority. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine, 78, 449-457.

13.

China media: Domestic violence. (2015, March). BBC News. Retrieve from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-31793083

14.

Dibble

Straus

(1980). Some social structure determinants of inconsistency between attitudes and behavior: The case of family violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 71-80.

15.

Doku

Asante

(2015). Women’s approval of domestic physical violence against wives: Analysis of the Ghana demographic and health survey. BMC Women’s Health, 15, Article 120.

16.

Edleson

(2000). Primary prevention and adult domestic violence. San Francisco, CA: Collaborative Violence Prevention Initiative.

17.

Fawole

Aderonmu

Fawole

(2005). Intimate partner abuse: Wife beating among civil servants in Ibadan Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 9, 54-64.

18.

Frieze

Kogovšek

Rener

Horvat

Šarlija

(2003). Gender-role attitudes in university students in the United States, Slovenia, and Croatia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 256-261.

19.

García-Moreno

Jansen

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

(2005). WHO Multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

20.

Giordano

Johnson

Manning

Longmore

Minter

(2015). Intimate partner violence in young adulthood: Narratives of persistence and desistence. Criminology, 53, 330-365.

21.

Gover

Kaukinen

Fox

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693.

22.

Haj-Yahia

(2003). Beliefs about wife-beating among Arab men from Israel: The influence of patriarchal ideology. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 193-206.

23.

Hancock

Matthews

(2013). Crime, community safety and toleration. In Pitts

Matthews

(Eds.), Crime, disorder and community safety: A new agenda? (pp. 98-127). London, England: Routledge.

24.

Hanson

Cadsky

Harris

Lalonde

(1997). Correlates of battering among 997 men: Family, history adjustment, and attitudinal differences. Violence and Victims, 12, 191-208.

25.

Herbert

Silver

Ellard

(1991). Coping with an abusive relationship: How and why do women stay? Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 311-325.

26.

Hester

(2005). Violence and sexual coercion in relationships: The views of university students in China and the UK. Berliner China-Hefte, 29, 36-47.

27.

Hindin

(2003). Understanding women’s attitudes towards wife beating in Zimbabwe. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 501-508.

28.

Jaffe

Sudermann

Reitzel

Killip

(1992). An evaluation of a secondary school primary prevention program on violence in intimate relationships. Violence and Victims, 7, 129-146.

29.

Jesmin

(2017). Social determinants of married women’s attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 3226-3244. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1177/0886260515597436

30.

Jewkes

(2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359, 1423-1429.

31.

Koenig

M. A.

Lutalo

Zhao

Nalugoda

Wabwire-Mangen

Kiwanuka

. . . Gray

(2003). Domestic violence in rural Uganda: Evidence from a community-based study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 53-60.

32.

Lanier

Maume

(2009). Intimate partner violence and social isolation across the rural/urban divide. Violence Against Women, 15, 1311-1330.

33.

Sun

(2013). Who should play a major role in responding to intimate partner violence? A comparison of Chinese and American college students’ preferences. International Social Work, 56, 743-760.

34.

Lin

Sun

Liu

(2016). College students’ attitudes toward intimate partner violence: A comparative study of China and the US. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 179-189.

35.

Liu

Chan

(1999). Enduring violence and staying in marriage: Stories of battered women in rural China. Violence against Women, 5, 1469-1492.

36.

Luthra

Gidycz

(2006). Dating violence among college men and women: Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 717-731.

37.

Nabors

Jasinski

(2009). Intimate partner violence perpetration among college students: The role of gender role and gendered violence attitudes. Feminist Criminology, 4, 57-82.

38.

Neter

Kutner

Nachtsheim

Wasserman

(1996). Applied linear statistical models. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

39.

Nguyen

Morinaga

Hanson Frieze

Cheng

Hirai

. . . Li

(2013). College students’ perceptions of intimate partner violence: A comparative study of Japan, China, and the United States. International Journal of Conflict & Violence, 7, 261-273.

40.

Offenhauer

Buchalter

(2011). Teen dating violence: A literature review and annotated bibliography. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

41.

Parish

Wang

Laumann

Pan

Luo

(2004). A population-based study of intimate partner violence in China: Prevalence, determinants, and health consequences. International Perspectives on Family Planning, 30, 174-181.

42.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.

43.

Perrott

Miller

Delaney

(1997). Attitudes towards the mandatory arrest response to domestic violence battering: Gender and institutional differences from a traditional and a women’s university. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 35-49.

44.

Rani

Bonu

Diop-Sidibe

(2004). An empirical investigation of attitudes towards wife-beating among men and women in seven sub-Saharan African countries. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 8, 116-136.

45.

Reeves

Orpinas

(2012). Dating norms and dating violence among ninth graders in Northeast Georgia: Reports from student surveys and focus groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1677-1698.

46.

Ringel

Bina

(2007). Understanding causes of and responses to intimate partner violence in a Jewish Orthodox community: Survivors’ and leaders’ perspectives. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 277-286.

47.

RTI International. (2012). Prevention in middle school matters: A summary of findings on teen dating violence behaviors and associated risk factors among 7th-grade students. Retrieved from http://www.schoolhealthcenters.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012-RJWF-Start-Strong-Prevention-Matters.pdf

48.

Sabina

Straus

(2008). Polyvictimization by dating partners and mental health among US college students. Violence and Victims, 23, 667-682.

49.

Sakall

(2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44, 599-610.

50.

Simon

Anderson

Thompson

Crosby

Shelley

Sacks

(2001). Attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence among U.S. adults. Violence & Victims, 16, 115-126.

51.

Social Welfare Department. (2016). Statistics on child abuse, battered spouse and sexual violence cases. Retrieved from http://www.swd.gov.hk/vs/english/stat.html

52.

Speizer

(2010). Intimate partner violence attitudes and experience among women and men in Uganda. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1224-1241.

53.

Stalans

Finn

(2006). Public’s and police officers’ interpretation and handling of domestic violence cases divergent realities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1129-1155.

54.

Straus

(2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-811.

55.

Straus

(2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.

56.

Straus

Hamby

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

57.

Straus

Kantor

Moore

(1997). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence. In Kantor

Jasinski

(Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspective on family violence (pp. 3-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

58.

Sun

(2007). Policing domestic violence: Does officer gender matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 581-595.

59.

Sun

(2011). Chinese and American college students’ preferences for police response to domestic violence. Policing & Society, 21, 214-232.

60.

Sun

(2011). Attitudes toward police response to domestic violence: A comparison of Chinese and American college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3289-3315.

61.

Sun

Huang

Lin

(2012). Preferences for police response to domestic violence: A comparison of college students in three Chinese societies. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 133-144.

62.

Swim

Aikin

Hall

Hunter

(1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.

63.

Tam

Schleicher

Kwok

Thurston

Dawson

(2016). Social work interventions on intimate partner violence against women in China. Journal of Social Work, 16, 228-249.

64.

Tang

Lai

(2008). A review of empirical literature on the prevalence and risk markers of male-on-female intimate partner violence in contemporary China, 1987–2006. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 10-28.

65.

Taylor

Mumford

(2016). A national descriptive portrait of adolescent relationship abuse: Results from the National Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 963-988.

66.

Tsun

Tsang

(2005). Violence against wives and children in Hong Kong. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26, 465-486.

67.

Uthman

Lawoko

Moradi

(2009). Factors associated with attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women: A comparative analysis of 17 sub-Saharan countries. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 9, 14-28.

68.

Wall

(2014). Gender equality and violence against women: What’s the connection? Melbourne: Australia Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

69.

Wekerle

Wolfe

(1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 435-456.

70.

Button

Smolter

Poteyeva

(2013). Public responses to intimate partner violence: Comparing preferences of Chinese and American college students. Violence and Victims, 28, 303-323.

71.

Yamawaki

Ostenson

Brown

(2009). The functions of gender role traditionality, ambivalent sexism, injury, and frequency of assault on domestic violence perception: A study between Japanese and American college students. Violence Against Women, 15, 1126-1142.