Domestic Violence Victimization among South Asian Immigrant Men and Women in the United States

Abstract

Domestic violence is a pernicious social problem in the United States and a cause of national concern. The South Asian culture disempowers individuals experiencing domestic violence from recognizing and reporting victimization. Structural inequities may also discourage reporting victimization. These issues have led to inconsistent findings of domestic violence prevalence rates. Additionally, domestic violence studies with South Asians in the United States have predominantly focused on women, omitting men from this purview of research. The purpose of this study was to examine domestic violence victimization rates as well as their correlates among South Asian immigrant men and women. The sample for this cross-sectional study included 468 South Asians across the 50 U.S. states. Descriptive statistics were used to establish rates of domestic violence victimization. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to examine the correlates of domestic violence victimization. All of the sociodemographic information was added in step 1, and acculturation and gender-role attitudes were added as covariates in step 2.

The most prevalent type of domestic violence victimization was physical violence (48%), followed by emotional (38%), economic (35%), verbal (27%), immigration-related (26%), in-laws related (19%), and ultimately sexual abuse (11%). Prevalence rates were higher for women than for men in each type of violence. According to the logistic regression results, education, generational position, family type, and employment were significant correlates of domestic violence victimization. Prior to development of prevention programs by community agencies, it is essential to understand the nature and prevalence of domestic violence experiences among South Asians. The victimization of men in addition to women adds to the novelty of this research study and paves the way for practitioners and scholars to engage in conversations about providing both male and female victims of domestic violence with the needed resources and support. The article will discuss implications for research, practice, and policy.

Keywords

domestic violence South Asians quantitative victimization multisite United States

Domestic violence (DV) has devastating effects on individuals and communities, including South Asian (SA) communities in the United States (Nagaraj et al., 2018). Although SAs are one of the most rapidly growing immigrant groups in the United States, establishing DV victimization rates among these groups has thus far been limited. Whereas past research points to a lifetime prevalence rate of 18% to 40% for any type of DV (e.g., physical, sexual, psychological) (Hurwitz et al., 2006; Raj et al., 2006; Soglin et al., 2020), community experts assert that the victimization rates among SAs in the United States are, in fact, much higher (Mahapatra, 2012; Rai & Choi, 2018). SAs include individuals from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Sri Lanka. There are currently 5.4 million SAs in the United States (South Asian Americans Leading Together [SAALT], 2019). Although SAs are heterogeneous due to differences in immigration status, language, and religion, they also share some cultural similarities (Agha & Rai, 2020; Reddy, 2019).

DV is physical, sexual, or psychological harm perpetrated on one partner by the other (Black et al., 2011). Owing to the multifaceted nature of the SA culture, along with values of patriarchy, collectivism, and male dominance, DV manifests in several distinctive ways within this community, some similar to the manifestations in other immigrant groups (Aboulhassan & Brumley, 2019; Ahn, 2002; Goel, 2005; Sabri et al., 2018; Yoshihama et al., 2012). For example, because many SA couples live with their in-laws, they can experience DV by either an intimate partner or partner’s extended family (Rianon & Shelton, 2003; Soglin et al., 2020). However, within the DV studies conducted with SAs, scholars have predominantly focused on physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by the intimate partner, limiting the understanding of other distinct ways in which DV is perpetrated.

The inconsistency in DV victimization rates reflects the methodological limitations of past studies such as (a) use of Western or culturally unresponsive instruments that do not capture the distinct types of DV victimization in SA families, (b) exclusion of men from DV research, and (c) grouping of SAs with other Asian ethnic groups. These constraints limit the understanding of cultural complexities within the SA community (Nagaraj et al., 2018; Yoshihama et al., 2011; Rai & Choi, 2018; Rai, 2020) and prevent researchers from demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of DV victimization and its correlates among SA immigrants. Given these limitations, the present study’s goal was to examine DV victimization rates and individual-level correlates of DV victimization among both SA men and women. The evidence generated through these individual-level correlates can help practitioners create targeted DV awareness intervention strategies by focusing on specific subgroups (e.g., older, less educated, or more acculturated individuals) and engage with both men and women.

Domestic Violence Victimization Among South Asians

Although DV is a problem confronted by many communities, the unique cultural nuances of the SA culture, amalgamated with immigration stressors, increase this community’s vulnerability. As with other immigrants, many SAs strive to retain their cultural values, including strict gender norms. As such, the community has attempted to retain traditional gender-role attitudes that favor SA men, perpetuating inequalities between men and women (Dasgupta, 2000, 2007). Therefore, DV can be an issue confronting SAs immigrants from both 1st (individuals who came to the United States at age 13 or older) and 1.5+ or higher generation (individuals immigrants who were either born in or moved to the United States before age 13).

Research has so far only reported SA women’s DV victimization. To our knowledge, there have been no studies that examined DV victimization rates for SA men. In the study conducted by Mahapatra (2012), with 215 participants, 38% of SA women reported experiencing psychological, sexual, or physical abuse in the past year. In a study by Hurwitz et al. (2006), about 21% of the 208 SA women reported experiencing lifetime physical and sexual abuse. In Raj and Silverman’s (2002) study with 160 SA women, 40.8% reported experiencing some type of lifetime abuse from their male partner.

Additionally, in a study conducted by Raj et al. (2006), 6% of women reported emotional abuse by in-laws in the past year, which was higher than emotional abuse through their partners. Soglin et al. (2020) observed that, out of 127 SA women in their study, 23.3% screened positive for physical abuse, whereas 28.4% screened positive for non-physical abuse, including abuse by in-laws, in their lifetime. Despite the power of in-laws in SA families, there is limited empirical evidence capturing this form of abuse (Raj et al., 2006; Soglin et al., 2020). All these studies were conducted with both 1st and 1.5+ generation individuals; however, none highlighted specific differences across generational positions. Scholars and practitioners opine that DV in SA communities is severely underreported and has not been comprehensively examined, furthering the need for the present study (Mahapatra, 2012; Rai, 2020).

Correlates of Domestic Violence Victimization Experiences

Few studies have examined the influence of individual correlates on DV victimization among SAs in the United States. Despite the inclusion of correlates such as age, income, and education in models, scholars have not provided a conclusive relationship between these correlates and DV victimization experiences among SAs (Bhanot & Senn, 2007; Mahapatra, 2012). Generally speaking, young age has been regarded as a significant correlate of DV experience (Black et al., 2011; Romans et al., 2007). In Yoshihama et al.’s (2011) study of Asian women, 1.5+ generation women experienced victimization at a much younger age than women from the 1st generation. Research about DV implicates poverty or low income as a risk factor associated with DV experience due to heightened stress (Jewkes, 2002). However, the relationship between income and DV victimization is still unclear among SAs. Studies about the relationship between DV and education also point toward some uncertainty. A few studies build a case for a strong relationship, indicating that the experience of violence decreases with an increase in education (Ackerson et al., 2008; Boy & Kulczycki, 2008), whereas another study indicates a curvilinear relationship denoting an initial direct relationship that decreases over time (Jewkes, 2002).

In DV research among SAs, religion and religiosity have been noted to have an important influence. Several SA religious practices and scriptures have been used to justify DV. These religious edifices reinforce gender-roles by idolizing the husband and forcing women to stay subservient to men, thus increasing women’s likelihood of experiencing DV (Ayyub, 2000; Goel, 2005). Of note is that religion has also been viewed as a protective factor (Ahmad et al., 2013; Sabri et al., 2018). However, religion and religiosity have not been included as DV correlates among SAs.

Although both men and women can experience DV, the deep-rooted cultural values, inherent patriarchy, and rigid gender-role attitudes among SAs, make women more prone to experiencing violence (Dasgupta, 2000, 2007; Sabri et al., 2018). Patriarchal attitudes toward gender roles are not unique to SAs. Gender inequity and the manifestations of gender-role stereotypes have led to unbalanced gender roles in most American families since the early 1800s (Ruggles, 2015). Other immigrant groups such as Arab Americans and East Asians have also displayed patriarchal beliefs that create differences in gender-role expectations and power inequities between genders (Aboulhassan & Brumley, 2019; Ahn, 2002; Ruggles, 2015; Yoshihama et al., 2020). For SAs, in addition to the prevalence of patriarchal values and strict gender roles, circumstantial factors such as visa-related dependencies and patrilocality nature of residences increase the vulnerability of SA women in particular (Balgamwalla, 2013; Mahapatra & Rai, 2019). In SA families, women are expected to be nurturing wives, caring mothers, and perfect homemakers, whereas men are expected to work hard and provide for the family (Dasgupta, 2007). If women deviate from this role, men have the right to use violence to discipline their wives and force them back into their gender-specific roles to ensure cultural continuity (Ahmad-Stout et al., 2018; Rai, 2020). Hence, women may frequently dismiss experiencing violence as “cultural.” In the study conducted by Ahmad et al. (2004), 53% of women approved patriarchal beliefs and did not acknowledge their own experience of violence. In a scoping review by the authors (Rai & Choi, 2018), they identified conservative gender-role and IPV supporting attitudes as a consistent risk factor of DV victimization in the SA culture.

Acculturation, such as familiarity with the American lifestyle and language, may also make SA women susceptible to experiencing DV (Abraham, 2005; Adam & Schewe, 2007). Scholars such as Bhanot and Senn (2007) found that low levels of acculturation are related to restrictive gender-role behaviors, thus enhancing the risk of DV victimization in a foreign country. Although enhanced acculturation can be a protective factor for SA women in the context of adapting to life in America, it can become a risk factor in relation to DV, because women may become egalitarian and start asserting their authority in their intimate relationships (Sabri et al., 2018; Yoshihama et al., 2011). Therefore, for women who may be 1.5 or higher generation, threatening the status quo may put them at risk of experiencing DV.

The collectivist nature of SA families can influence the institution of marriage as well as the role of in-laws within the family. Marriage within the SA culture is very different from marriage in American culture due to cultural norms and the extent of family involvement. Often in the SA culture, marriage is arranged by the parents, without the couple even having the opportunity to engage with or see each other in person (Goel, 2005; Purkayastha, 2000). With such limited involvement, couples may often have had only minimal conversations with each other (Dasgupta, 2000; Goel, 2005; Mahapatra & Rai, 2019). Because this practice has its roots in the traditional SA values, it can occur among 1st and 1.5+ generation families (Ralson, 1997). These collectivist traditions enhance the role of in-laws (the male partner’s parents) in SA marriages, leading to abuse by them (Ahmad et al., 2004). Issues concerning dowry demands can often lead to victimization by in-laws (Balgamwalla, 2013; Goel, 2005).

For individuals born in the United States, having social supports in the United States, can be a protective factor because it can provide an opportunity to stay connected with friends and disclose abuse. Nevertheless, informal support systems can often discourage disclosing experiences of abuse and seeking external help (Yoshihama et al., 2011; Rai, 2020). Overall, research about protective factors among SAs has been limited (Sabri et al., 2018). For 1st generation immigrant women, who arrive in a new country, in most cases without friends or family, are solely bound to their husbands for economic, emotional, and immigration-related support (Balgamwalla, 2013, 2014; Bhandari & Sabri, 2020; Mahapatra, 2012). This dynamic creates a power differential, hampering the woman's position and increasing her risk of DV victimization. Hence, as will be shown by this study, it is important to examine the influence of these correlates concerning DV victimization.

Current Study

Notwithstanding the focus of past studies, there is a need for a study with a large sample from all 50 U.S. states to examine the prevalence and correlates of DV victimization experiences among SA men and women. The present study includes two main research questions: (a) What are the prevalence rates of DV victimization among both SA immigrant men and women in the United States? and (b) What are the correlates of DV victimization among SA immigrants in the United States?

Methods

current study relied on a cross-sectional study design (Engel & Schutt, 2013), and data were collected through an online Qualtrics survey. The survey was translated into Hindi, a common SA language, using back translation methods (Mahapatra, 2012). However, no one took the survey in Hindi. The institutional review board of the authors’ university approved all research procedures. The consent form explained to participants that their participation in the study was voluntary, and they could exit the survey at any time. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be of SA origin (through family lineage or history), 18 years or older, and currently residing in the United States. There were no restrictions in terms of generational position or immigration status.

Study Participants and Procedures

The researchers used three sampling methods. First, study participants were recruited through convenience sampling by posting the study information on social media, culturally specific grocery stores, and beauty salons and sharing the survey link with participants known to the researchers. Second, study participants were recruited through snowball sampling. We asked participants who took part in the study to share the survey with other SAs known to them. Both convenience and snowball sampling techniques are important to use with difficult to access populations (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). In appreciation for their time, participants recruited through these sampling methods were each eligible to sign up for a $5 Amazon gift card using a separate link at the end of the survey.

Additionally, participants were recruited through Qualtrics research panels using quota sampling. This type of sampling allows for the recruitment of participants according to fixed quotas (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). The first author, who is Indian, was able to administer the survey to the Indian subgroup. Recruiting participants via Qualtrics panels allowed for collecting additional survey responses from non-Indian subgroups within the SA community across all 50 U.S. states. These panels provided the researcher an opportunity to recruit a diverse sample of participants, approximating their representation in the population of 5.4 million SAs in the United States. Participants who were recruited via the Qualtrics panels were eligible to receive incentives based on a point system. They could redeem points for gift cards, sky miles, and rewards. Two follow-up emails were sent to participants recruited via all methods (Aday & Cornelius, 2006). Data were collected over six weeks in the summer of 2019. It took approximately 15–20 minutes to complete the survey.

Instrumentation

Dependent variable. A modified version of the Indirect Experiences with Domestic Violence Subscale-Revised was used to measure DV victimization among SA men and women. The original subscale is part of the Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence Questionnaire-Revised (PADV-R) developed by Yick (1997) for Asian Americans. The Indirect Experiences subscale was initially developed to measure indirect experiences of DV, separately about friends and family experiencing DV. The entire subscale consisted of 12 close-ended questions, in two sets of identical six items each, about friends and family. In Yick’s (1997) study, the six original questions pertained to friends and family members who had experienced any form of physical, verbal, emotional, or sexual abuse by their partner. All responses were “yes/no.” Yick (1997) reported two separate reliability coefficients for this subscale when she tested it with Chinese Americans; one for the friends, and the other for the family members. The Kuder-Richardson coefficient in Yick’s study was 0.74 for the friends and 0.72 for the family section.

In the present study, we used only one set of six questions to measure SA men’s and women’s direct DV victimization experiences. Cultural adaptation of instruments is important to account for cultural differences and sociocultural nuances of minority communities (Agha & Rai, 2020; White et al., 2013). The original scale was developed for Chinese immigrants (Yick, 1997) and subsequently tested with Korean immigrants (Ahn, 2002); therefore, cultural adaptation was necessary before it was used with SA participants. For this purpose, nine additional items about immigration-related abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse, and in-laws abuse were added to the subscale. Questions on economic abuse were added since it was not part of the original subscale. Further, there was only one item measuring emotional abuse in the original subscale, which warranted the addition of two new items. These additions reflect the diverse tactics of abuse common in immigrant communities, specifically SA households. The power and control wheel, which elucidates the types of abuse for immigrants (Futures Without Violence, n.d.), along with the lead author’s positionality and practice experience in conducting research and engaging with SA communities, were utilized to develop the additional questions.

Following recommendations by Aday and Cornelius’ recommendations (2006), a pilot survey was conducted before the actual study. We conducted the pilot survey with n = 14 participants. To reserve SA immigrants in the United States for the actual study, the pilot study was conducted with SAs from other foreign countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Poland.

At the end of the survey, participants had the option of responding to three questions to provide feedback about the utility of the questions, as well as their length and clarity. Participant feedback indicated that the survey could benefit from language that did not blame “men” and would be more visually appealing with page breaks added. In response to participant feedback, the sentence “_______ causes a man to use violence on his wife” was changed to “______causes an individual to use violence on their spouse/partner.” Similar changes were made throughout the survey to ensure gender-neutral language use and avoid attributing blame to a specific gender. Subsequently, we also received informal feedback on the new questions from community partners known to the researcher about the newly added questions.

In total, the scale in the present study consisted of 15 items (see Table 3, discussed later in the article), measuring seven distinct types of DV. Cumulative DV experience scores were calculated for all participants using frequencies for each DV experience type. The overall cumulative score was dichotomized (0 = no experience of DV, 1 = experience of any type of DV) for the multivariate analyses. Ahn (2002), who tested a single set of six questions with Korean American immigrants, reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80. The Cronbach’s alpha for this subscale was 0.93 in the present study, including all old and new items.

Independent variables. Based on existing literature on correlates of DV among SAs in the United States, we included potentially relevant factors for DV victimization. Independent variables (IVs) in the study were acculturation, gender-role attitudes, and sociodemographic information.

Acculturation. This study measured acculturation using the short version of the Marin and Marin acculturation scale (Marin et al., 1987). This instrument consists of 12 questions. The questions are scored from 1 to 5 (1 = only native language, 2 = native language better than English, 3 = both languages equally, 4 = English better than native language, 5 = only English). Higher mean scores indicated higher levels of acculturation. This scale was initially developed by Marin et al. (1987) for the Hispanic population. It has been tested with SAs by Yoshioka et al. (2003), who found a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.78, and Mahapatra (2012), who reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.89 in the present study.

Gender-role attitudes. We measured gender-role attitudes utilizing the 15-item modified version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS; Yoshihama et al., 2014). Yoshihama et al. (2014) developed a 15-item adapted version of the AWS by contrasting and comparing the 15-item AWS (Spence & Helmreich, 1978) with the 22-item AWS scale (Nelson, 1988). The scores ranged from 1 to 6 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree somewhat, 4 = agree somewhat, 5 = agree, 6=strongly agree). In the present study, higher mean scores indicated conservative gender-role attitudes. Yoshihama et al. (2014) reported a reliability coefficient of 0.74 for women and 0.75 for men. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.88 in our study.

Sociodemographic variables. We collected demographic information through questions created by the authors. The variables were categorized as follows: gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age (0 = 18-35, 1 = 36 and older), education (0 = less than high school, 1= high school, vocational training or undergraduate degree, 2 = master’s degree or higher), household income (0 = less than $95,000, 1 = $95,001 and more), family type (0 = nuclear, 1 = joint/extended), religiosity (0 = not religious, 1= religious), generational position (0 = 1st generation, 1 = 1.5+ generation), employment (0 = not working, 1 = working), ethnicity (0 = Indian, 1 = Pakistani, 2 = Nepali, 3 = Bangladeshi, 4 = other). The “other” ethnicity category included SAs from Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan. Generational position was categorized as 1st versus 1.5+ because of the similarity in life experiences among immigrants born in the United States (2nd, 3rd generation, for example) and those who moved to the United States in their preteenage period (1.5 generation). The experiences of those belonging to the 1st generation are different than those from the 1.5 or higher group due to the recentness of their move to the United States (Yoshihama et al., 2011). Income was coded as more or less than $95,000 because the median income for SAs is as high as $110,000 (Pew Research Center, 2017; Rai et al., in press). Initially, religiosity was measured by asking participants about the extent of their religiosity ranging from not religious, not too religious, fairly religious, and very religious. The response categories of several variables, such as age, education, household income, employment, religiosity, and ethnicity, were combined due to poor within-cell distribution (Walker & Smith, 2020).

Data Analysis Plan

To avoid data duplication, IP addresses and participant birth dates were screened before conducting the study analyses. This information was subsequently removed to ensure confidentiality. SPSS version 24 and Stata version 17 were used to test for logistic regression analysis assumptions, analyze for missing data, and examine relationships at the univariate and bivariate level (Berkman & Reise, 2012). Chi-square tests were used prior to beginning the analysis to examine differences in sociodemographic variables among participants recruited by the researcher and those recruited via Qualtrics panels regarding sociodemographic variables. There were no statistically significant differences across the two samples. Frequencies were noted for the categorical IVs. The missingness in the IVs was less than 5% of the total. There were no issues with the assumptions of logistic regression. At the bivariate level, chi-square and point biserial correlation were used to examine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables (Calderwood, 2012).

Domestic violence prevalence rates were calculated by examining frequencies of victimization experience for each type of DV for men and women, separately. For the multivariate analysis, we utilized hierarchical logistic regression to examine the correlates of DV victimization experiences. Two different models were tested using SPSS version 24 (Berkman & Reise, 2012). We included sociodemographic variables in model 1 and acculturation and gender-role attitudes in model 2. Although acculturation and gender-role attitudes have been examined in the past, it is essential to examine their effects along with those of other IVs included in the study. Nagelkerke’s R² was used to assess the variance explained (Field, 2005). We examined the reliability of the Indirect Experiences with Domestic Violence Subscale-Revised, Marin and Marin acculturation scale, and the AWS scale by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha values. The acceptable Cronbach’s alpha reliability values are a minimum of 0.7 (Bland & Altman, 1997).

Results

Sample Characteristics

The sample (N = 468) for the study came from all 50 states and all seven SA ethnic groups. A breakdown by region indicates that 38.3% were from the South, 23% from the Northeast, 25% from the West, and 13.7% from the Midwest. The five states with the most participants were Texas, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, and California. Overall, 56% of the sample were women, 64.2% were between the ages of 18 and 35 years, and 70.2% were Indians. About 37.8% had no education or lower than high school education, and 60.5% had an income less than $95,000. About 70% of the participants were 1st generation immigrants, and 82.1% lived in a nuclear family. Most participants were employed (75.4%) at the time of taking the survey and were religious (54.8%). The mean acculturation score was 3.06 (SD = 0.69), and the mean gender-role attitudes score was 2.64 (SD = 0.84). Table 1 provides detailed sample characteristics.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics and Distribution of Study Variables (N = 468).

	Total Sample		DV Experiences Yes
Variables	n	%	n	%	Chi-Square
Gender					0.145
Male	198	44	84	42.4
Female	252	56	146	57.9
Education					13.226**
No school or less than high school	175	37.8	57	32.6
High school, vocational or undergraduate degree	113	24.5	61	53.9
Master’s degree or higher	174	37.7	75	43.1
Age					4.315*
18-35	291	64.2	112	38.5
36 and more	162	35.8	78	48.1
Household income					0.538
Less than $95,000	271	60.5	117	43.2
95,001 and more	176	39.5	71	40.3
Generational position					19.769***
1st generation	314	70.2	112	35.7
1.5+ generation	133	29.8	75	56.4
Family type					14.206***
Nuclear	366	82.1	141	38.5
Joint/extended	81	17.9	47	58.0
Employment					8.090**
Not working	111	24.6	35	31.5
Working	341	75.4	154	45.2
Religiosity					0.055
Not religious	204	45.2	86	42.2
Religious	247	54.8	103	41.7
Ethnicity					10.505*
Indian	313	70.2	119	38.0
Pakistani	52	11.7	21	40.4
	Total Sample		DV Experiences Yes
Variables	n	%	n	%	Chi-Square/Point Biserial r
Nepali	23	5.2	10	43.5
Bangladeshi	28	6.3	16	57.1
Others	30	6.6	19	63.3
Gender-role attitudes	441	-	-	-	0.132**
Acculturation	436	-	-	-	0.105*

Note. *p < .05,**p < .01, ***p < .001.

The DV percentages exceed 100 because they have been calculated from the total for each category instead of the total sample (N = 468).

Bivariate Relationships

At the bivariate level, education [χ² (2) = 13.226, p < .01], age [χ² (1) = 4.315, p < .05], generational position [χ² (1) = 19.769, p < .001], family type [χ² (1) = 14.206, p < .001], employment [χ² (1) = 8.090, p < .01], ethnicity [χ² (4) = 10.505, p < .05], acculturation (r = 0.105, p < .05), and gender-role attitudes (r = 0.132, p < .01) had a statistically positive significant relationship with DV victimization experiences (Table 1).

Domestic Violence Victimization Prevalence

As seen in Table 2, the most prevalent form of lifetime DV victimization for the overall sample was physical violence (48%), followed by emotional (38%), economic (35%), verbal (27%), immigration-related (26%), in-laws related (19%), and finally sexual violence (11%). The most commonly experienced form of physical abuse was “being pushed/grabbed by partner/spouse.” Of the participants, 41% of male and 57% of female participants reported experiencing physical abuse (n = 224). Emotional abuse (n = 176) was reported by 35% of male and 43% of female participants. The most commonly experienced form of emotional abuse was “not allowed by spouse to meet/speak to friends or family.” Economic abuse (n = 163) was reported by 29% of male and 42% of female participants. The most commonly experienced type of economic abuse was, “not allowed to spend money without approval from spouse/partner.” Verbal abuse (n = 128) was reported by 22% of male and 34% of female participants. Immigration-related abuse (n = 123) was reported by 25% of male and 29% of female participants. The most commonly experienced immigration-related abuse was “felt threatened about being deported by spouse/partner.” In-laws abuse (n = 90) was reported by 19% of male and 21% of female participants. Last, sexual abuse (n = 50) was reported by 10% of male and 12% of female participants (Tables 2 and 3). We used the Survey Monkey and American Research Group margin of error calculators to determine the margin of error for prevalence rates, which was between 4.5% and 5% for the present sample.

Table 2.

Types of Domestic Violence Victimization among South Asians in the Sample (N = 468).

Type of Violence	Experienced by Sample (n) Out of N = 468	Experienced by Sample Out of N = 468 (%)
Physical	224	48%
Emotional	176	38%
Economic	163	35%
Verbal	128	27%
Immigration	123	26%
In-laws	90	19%
Sexual	50	11%

Note. The percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole numbers for precision.

Table 3.

Domestic Violence Prevalence Rates and Gender Differences (N = 468).

Type of DV Experience	Specific Type of DV Experience Total (N)	Specific Type of DV Experience for Men (n)	Specific Type of DV Experience for Men of All Men (%)	Specific Type of DV Experience for Women (n)	Specific Type of DV Experience for Women of all women (%)
Physical abuse
Been pushed/grabbed by partner/spouse	106	36	41%	70	57%
Been threatened with a gun/knife by spouse/partner	37	11		26
Been slapped by spouse or partner	81	34		47
Emotional abuse
Not allowed by spouse/partner to leave the house	54	18	35%	36	43%
Not allowed by spouse/partner to meet/speak to friends or family	74	30		44
Felt threatened by spouse/partner about children being taken away	48	21		27
Economic abuse
Felt that you would be unable to secure or keep job because of pressure from spouse/partner	54	20	29%	34	42%
Not allowed by spouse/partner to have a personal bank account	44	15		29
Not allowed to spend money without approval from spouse/partner	65	22		43
Verbal abuse
Been verbally insulted by spouse/partner	128	43	22%	85	34%
Immigration abuse
Not allowed by spouse/partner to keep custody of immigration papers (passport and green card)	37	13	25%	24	29%
Not allowed to maintain legal residency because spouse/partner failed to file legal papers and/or residency documents	39	17		22
Felt threatened about being deported by spouse/partner	47	20		27
In-laws abuse
Been insulted verbally/physically/emotionally by in-laws	90	38	19%	52	21%
Sexual abuse
Been forced to have sex with spouse/partner	50	20	10%	30	12%

Note. Total men in the sample= 198.

Total women in the sample= 252.

Hierarchical Logistic Regression to Examine the Correlates of DV Victimization

In model 1, those with a high school education/vocational training or undergraduate degree had 2.758 times higher odds of experiencing DV compared to those with no school or less than high school education [OR = 2.758, p < .01, (95% CI 1.389, 5.475)]. Individuals who belonged to the 1.5+ generation had 1.743 times higher odds of experiencing DV than those from the 1st generation [OR = 1.743, p < .05, 95% (CI = 1.034, 2.939)]. Those individuals who belonged to joint families or lived with extended families had 2.322 times higher odds of experiencing DV compared to those who lived in nuclear families [OR = 2.322, p < .01, (95% CI 1.251, 4.307)]. Last, individuals who were employed had 1.805 times higher odds of experiencing DV than those not working [OR = 1.805, p < .05, (95% CI 1.045, 3.118)]. Overall, the model was statistically significant [χ² (13) = 49.756, p < .001], explaining 16.5% of the variance. The model correctly classified 65.2% of the cases (Table 4).

Table 4.

Hierarchical Logistic Regression of the Correlates of Domestic Violence Experience (N = 379).

Variable	DV Experiences			DV Experiences
	SE	OR	95% CI	SE	OR	95% CI
Gender (Ref: male)	0.237	1.096	0.689-1.745	0.242	1.168	0.727-1.877
Education (Ref: no school or less than high school)
high school, vocational or undergraduate degree	0.350	2.758**	1.389-5.475	0.364	3.192**	1.401-5.574
Master’s degree or higher	0.300	1.424	0.791-2.565	0.334	1.747	0.908-3.360
Age (Ref: 18-35)	0.240	1.533	0.957-2.454	0.244	1.571	0.975-2.533
Household income (Ref: less than $95,000)	0.245	1.018	0.629-1.646	0.249	1.048	0.643-1.706
Generational position (Ref: 1st generation)	0.266	1.743*	1.034-2.939	0.286	1.460*	0.834-2.557
Family type (Ref: nuclear family)	0.315	2.322**	1.251-4.307	0.320	2.275**	1.215-4.257
Employment (Ref: not working)	0.279	1.805*	1.045-3.118	0.282	1.705*	0.982-2.960
Religiosity (Ref: not religious)	0.237	0.956	0.691-1.521	0.244	0.985	0.611-1.588
Ethnicity (Ref: Indian)
Pakistani	0.380	1.233	0.586-2.595	0.383	1.226	0.578-2.600
Nepali	0.550	0.733	0.249-2.153	0.557	0.704	0.236-2.096
Bangladeshi	0.658	1.242	0.475-3.247	0.504	1.096	0.408-2.943
Other	0.100	2.284	0.854-6.114	0.528	1.707	0.606-4.807
Acculturation				0.181	1.316	0.923-1.877
Gender-role attitudes				0.291	1.213	0.871-1.688
Constant	0.376	0.203		0.898	0.050
Pseudo R²	0.165			0.174
Chi square	49.756***			52.872***
(-)2 log likelihood	471.630			468.513

Note. *p < .001, **p < .01, ***p < .05, Pseudo R² = Nagelkerke R².

In model 2, gender-role attitudes and acculturation were added as correlates in addition to the sociodemographic variables. The findings of all the correlates in model 2 were similar to those in model 1. Individuals with a high school education/vocational training or undergraduate degree had 3.192 times higher odds of experiencing DV than those with no school or less than high school education [OR = 3.192, p < .01, 95% (CI 1.401, 5.574)]. Individuals who belonged to the 1.5+ generation had 1.460 times higher odds of experiencing DV than those belonging to the 1st generation [OR = 1.460, p < .05, 95% (CI 0.834-2.557)]. Individuals in a joint/extended family had 2.275 times higher odds of experiencing DV than those from nuclear families [OR = 2.275, p < .01, 95% (CI 1.215, 4.257)]. Last, those who were working had 1.705 times higher odds of experiencing DV than those who were unemployed [OR = 1.705, p < .05, 95% (CI 0.982, 2.960)]. Both acculturation and gender-role attitudes were not related to DV victimization. Overall, the model was statistically significant [χ² (15) = 52.872, p < .001)], explaining 17.4% of the variance. The variance in model 2 was not much higher than that observed in model 1, indicating that gender-role attitudes and acculturation did not add unique variance. The model classified 66.20% of the cases correctly (Table 4).

Discussion

The current study filled gaps in the South Asian DV literature. First, the study was an integral step in questioning the women-centered nature of the present South Asian DV literature. The study collected survey responses from both women and men, becoming the first study to make comparisons about DV victimization rates among SA men and women in the United States. This study is vital in highlighting domestic violence victimization among men, questioning the dichotomization of men as “perpetrators” and women as “victims” (Stemple & Meyer, 2014). Furthermore, this study's implications are critical in encouraging scholars and practitioners to focus on men within research and engage with them through interventions. Second, scholars studying DV within SA communities have primarily looked at physical, sexual, and psychological/emotional abuse (Mahapatra, 2012; Raj & Silverman, 2002). The present study deconstructs the distinctive power and control tactics within the SA community by examining economic, immigration-related, and in-laws abuse, in addition to physical, emotional, verbal, and sexual DV.

This study confirms past empirical evidence about SA women’s physical DV victimization experience being the most prevalent form of DV (Hurwitz et al., 2006; Mahapatra, 2012). The rates of SA women’s emotional and sexual DV experiences were higher than those in past studies (Mahapatra, 2012; Raj & Silverman, 2002; Soglin et al., 2020). Two studies by Raj et al. (2006) and Soglin et al. (2020) have examined abuse by in-laws among SA women in the United States. Because the study by Soglin et al. (2020) combined several types of non-physical abuse, including in-laws abuse, into a single category, no specific rates for in-laws abuse were available. The current study findings point to a subsequently higher prevalence rate in abuse perpetrated by in-laws: 19% compared to 6% in Raj et al. (2006). Prevalence rates for immigration and economic abuse among SAs have been unavailable until now; to our knowledge, this is the first study that elucidates these rates among SA men and women.

Although there is limited evidence about the prevalence rates for men in general, the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (2020) found that one in three men experience physical violence, and one in four men experience sexual violence. Data from the National Center for Victims of Crime (2018) indicated that 47% of men will experience psychological aggression, 28% of men will experience physical violence, and 7% of men will experience sexual violence in their lifetime. Among Indian South Asians in the United States, 19.5% of 154 respondents (male and female) reported experiencing at least one type of IPV from the Conflict Tactics Scale (Leung & Cheung, 2008). Differences by gender were not reported. In our sample, although the rates of victimization for each type of DV were higher for women than for men, victimization among men was not negligible. The victimization rates for men ranged from 41% for physical abuse to 10% for sexual abuse, compared to 57% for physical abuse to 12% for sexual abuse among women. The patriarchal SA culture creates a power imbalance among men and women, subsequently increasing women’s dependency on men (Dasgupta, 2007; Purkayastha, 2000). Scholars and experts have noted that this increased dependency enhances women’s vulnerability to experiencing DV. South Asian DV scholars have continued to focus on the experiences of women. However, the present study’s findings demonstrate that it is essential to examine DV among SA men.

Economic (29% in men vs. 42% in women), in-laws-related (19% in men and 21% in women), and immigration-related (25% in men vs. 29% in women) DV victimization prevalence rates stand out the most in this study. The victimization rates for men had remained unreported with regards to these specific forms of DV until this study. A recent report, highlighted victimization rates for in-laws abuse among women (13% for Asians including South Asians, 4% for Hispanic/Latinos, 3% for Whites, and 1% for African/Blacks) utilizing the 2010 National Non-Residential Domestic Violence Services and Supports Study (Yoshihama et al., 2020). The rates of in-laws abuse were highest for Asian women compared to other ethnic groups. The patrilocal nature of SA marriages often requires a woman to move in with her husband’s family (Mahapatra & Rai, 2019). Marriage is viewed as an integration of two families in the SA community rather than merely a union of two individuals (Bhandari, 2020). The husband’s family usually has the upper hand in making familial decisions, thereby increasing women’s risk of being victimized by their in-laws (Goel, 2005; Raj et al., 2006; Soglin et al., 2020). However, in the current study, both men and women experienced DV by their in-laws at about the same rates (19% for men vs. 21% for women). This finding may indicate that a similar portion of SA men and women experience in-laws abuse and that it may not be rare for men to move in with their in-laws and spouse. This may also mean that men may be dependent on their female spouses for immigration and economic reasons, lowering their status in the family and exposing them to in-laws abuse.

Empirical evidence within the SA diaspora continues to point toward an economic imbalance within SA households favoring men (Gupte, 2015; Rai, 2020). Economic control has often been cited as a tactic of DV perpetration. It was surprising to see that economic victimization was prevalent and high among men. Study findings show that close to one-third of men in the present study experienced economic abuse, possibly implying that a good portion of SA men are economically dependent on women, which has not been previously captured.

It has been documented that SA immigrant women’s legal status is tied to that of their husbands (Balgamwalla, 2013, 2014). Usually, the male partner/husband is responsible for sponsoring the woman for up to three years after she moves to the United States. Despite this idea that women are dependent on their male partners for legal status, in our study, men’s experience of immigration-related DV experience was as high as 25%, which is only slightly lower than the rate for women (29%). The reason for this high victimization rate could be that some 1st generation immigrant men in the study sample were dependent on their female partners for sponsorship and experienced immigration-related abuse. Therefore, visa dependency of women on men may not be the norm in all SA families.

This study finding is integral in suggesting that DV does not necessarily have to be limited to women among SA populations. Husbands or male partners can be victims of DV in the SA community (Desai, 2017). This victimization often goes unnoticed, leading to a lack of data on prevalence rates. By furthering the narrative about gender-role stereotypes and men being stronger, we may be disempowering men from reporting the victimization that could be occurring among 1st and 1.5+ generation men (Pfeifer, 2020; Sheltering Wings, n.d.).

Along with examining the DV victimization rates, this study contributes to identifying the correlates of DV victimization. It was interesting to note that acculturation and gender-role attitudes, which have been found to be correlates of DV victimization in the past (Bhanot & Senn, 2007; Mahapatra, 2012), were not significant in the present study. This may be because the participants in the present study reported high levels of acculturation and liberal gender-role attitudes. The sample’s composition may have limited the variability in participant responses, leading to the insignificance of both gender-role attitudes and acculturation as correlates. On the other hand, high levels of acculturation and liberal gender-role attitudes may have served as protective factors among our study participants. It is difficult to say this with certainty since there has been minimal research on protective factors within the SA community (Ahmad et al., 2013; Sabri et al., 2018); therefore, further research is encouraged.

Education, immigrant generational position, family type, and employment were significant correlates of DV victimization among study participants. The broader DV literature has not been consistent regarding the influence of education on DV victimization. Education has often been used as a control variable in studies conducted with SA participants, making its effect on the model unknown (Bhanot & Senn, 2007). Although scholars (Boy & Kulczycki, 2008) have considered low levels of education to be a risk factor of DV victimization, Jewkes (2002) asserted that, with increased education, the risk of DV victimization increases up to a certain point, after which it declines. Our study confirms Jewkes’ assertation that individuals in the middle education category were at a higher risk of DV victimization than those with less than high school or no education, whereas participants with the highest level of education were not. Those with a high school diploma, vocational training, or an undergraduate degree may acquire new skills and become independent, threatening the status quo in SA households.

While gender was not statistically significant in our study, the prevalence rates were higher for women than men in our study. For women, seeking education may be seen as a threat to the status quo, which may increase their likelihood of victimization. Jewkes (2002) explained this curvilinear relationship by stating that individuals, especially women starting to seek education, may become empowered to challenge gender-norms without fully understanding the impact of their actions, leading to an increased risk of victimization. Those with the highest education level in our sample were not at a higher risk of DV victimization than those in the lowest education level. This could be because they can better comprehend and tackle the effects of challenging gender-norms after seeking more education, reducing their risk of victimization. It could also be because they may have more knowledge about help-seeking resources. In this case, education could be serving as a protective factor. However, further investigations are needed to draw conclusive inferences.

It was observed that participants who belonged to the 1.5+ immigrant generation were more likely to be victimized than those who were 1st generation immigrants. While not reported in the results, we conducted an independent samples t-test and observed that generational position was significantly related to gender-role attitudes. Individuals belonging to the 1.5+ generation had more conservative gender-role attitudes than those belonging to the 1st generation. This could explain why individuals belonging to the 1.5+ generation could be experiencing DV victimization as compared to those belonging to the 1st generation. This finding may be surprising, but past evidence has indicated that 1.5+ generation may be more traditional than the 1st generation, especially those of whom have lived in the United States only for a few years (Gupte, 2015). Individuals of the 1.5+ generation may be more motivated to safeguard the sociocultural norms of their or their parents’ home country, resultantly succumbing to violence. Individuals in the SA community may often experience abuse in the name of culture (Rai & Choi, 2018). Even if those belonging to 1.5+ generation did have social support systems in the United States, their support systems may consist of friends and family members, who may be available to listen but could be discouraging individuals experiencing abuse from seeking help. Hence, in this case, it is possible that social support may not be a protective factor, as seen in the study by Sabri et al. (2018). To our knowledge, studies have thus far not examined generational position as a correlate of DV victimization but rather looked at legal status as a proxy variable (Raj et al., 2005).

Individuals from joint families had higher odds of being DV victims than those who lived in nuclear families. This finding corroborates past research suggesting that individuals living with their in-laws are more prone to experiencing DV due to dowry demands, interference in daily affairs, or emotional control (Balgamwalla, 2013; Goel, 2005; Raj et al., 2006). This may be true of individuals belonging to 1st and 1.5+ generation, who are living with their in-laws. It is important to note that both men and women experienced abuse by in-laws in this study. Despite past empirical evidence highlighting the influence of patriarchal values on DV victimization, this finding is important because it suggests the need for a deeper interpretation of the SA culture. More specifically, it is imperative to examine the role of in-laws and the tactics of abuse used by them in SA marriages that target both men and women.

Last, those who were employed had a greater likelihood of experiencing DV victimization than those who were not employed. This finding is interesting because it might be expected that having a job would increase feelings of freedom and reduce dependency. However, according to SA scholars such as Abraham (2000) and Dasgupta (2007), the pressure to conform to gender-roles may force SA women to remain accountable to their spouse/partner. Women who are employed and try to increase their freedom and independence but are married to men who are averse to losing control may experience victimization. Men who are victimized could be relying on dependent visas or green cards through their spouses. Therefore, regardless of their employment status, they could be pressured to remain under the financial control of their spouses and/or in-laws.

The present study is the first to include a variety of correlates of DV victimization among SAs in the United States. This study paves the way for future scholars and researchers to include these correlates in subsequent models and study their effects on both men and women to build a cohesive body of literature. It is noteworthy that, despite heterogeneity among South Asians, “the diaspora coalesces as a collective identity within Western societies because of broad cultural similarities.” (Reddy, 2019, p. 2). However, the specific cultural traditions and values within specific South Asian subgroups are often left disaggregated. As scholars and practitioners interested in providing culturally responsive services to specific subgroups, we must focus on disaggregating findings across subgroups in the future (Rai, 2020; Rai et al., in press; Yoshihama et al., 2011).

Limitations

Domestic violence research continues to be critical within immigrant communities. Despite the valuable contributions of the present study, some limitations need to be discussed. First, given the SA culture’s complexity, several other tactics that have not been included in the study could translate into violence. Therefore, it is imperative for future researchers to expand on the existing instrument and include other forms of violence that confront SA men and women. Second, the study relied on a cross-sectional design that disallows temporal sequencing and drawing causal inferences. It would be helpful to note victimization experiences over a period of time through a longitudinal approach, which was missing from this study. The time at which violence was experienced—earlier on or later in the relationship, could have implications for prevention efforts, on which future researchers are encouraged to focus. Third, the mean scores for acculturation and gender-role attitudes indicated high levels of acculturation and liberal gender-role attitudes among study participants. The skewness in mean scores could limit the generalizability of this study. Further, the fact that a higher proportion of participants were from the South, specific states, younger, wealthier, more educated could also impact the generalizability. Fourth, dichotomizing some variables could have led to the creation of superfluous binaries, which may have impacted the results. However, because of the fewer cases in certain categories, combining these categories was essential (Walker & Smith, 2020). Fifth, due to multicollinearity issues, participants' legal status could not be included in the study as a covariate. Future investigators are encouraged to include this variable and examine its relationship to DV victimization.

About 70% of the participants belonged to the Indian subgroup. Although this represents their proportion among SAs in the United States (5.4 million SAs), it may limit this study's generalizability to other subgroups. Future researchers are encouraged to oversample from other SA subgroups to examine within-group variations. Despite the shared values across South Asians, it is vital for scholars to focus on demonstrating disaggregated findings. Along the same lines, research instruments must also be sensitive to group differences (Agha & Rai, 2020). Last, the online survey was conducted in English and Hindi, which assumed some level of education and access to a computer. However, by utilizing diverse recruitment strategies, we attempted to reach a varied range of participants. Future studies are encouraged to collect data in other languages using diverse means of data collection, such as pen and paper surveys, qualitative interviews, and focus groups. Despite some of these shortcomings, this study is valuable in that it contributes to expanding our current understanding of DV as it affects both SA men and women. This study is also representative of the demographics and geographical distribution of SAs across the United States to some extent, enhancing its utility.

Implications

This study has several implications for DV research, practice, and policy, in addition to creating new knowledge about the different types of DV victimization experiences and prevalence rates among SA men and women. Testing the modified version of the Indirect Experiences with Domestic Violence Subscale-Revised for the first time with the SA community helps establish its reliability with SAs. Helping professionals (e.g., counselors, social workers, advocates, nurses, and police officers) are bound to have frequent contact with victims, and it is crucial for them to be properly trained. The novel findings about differences in DV victimization rates among SA men and women across generations (1 and 1.5+), education level, family type, and employment status, as well as the unique tactics of DV in SA families, can be useful in adding to the curricula used to train students belonging to the helping profession (Rai et al., 2019). Researchers and practitioners can liaise with educators to help provide mock simulation activities that can enhance students’ preparedness.

Findings on immigration and in-laws-related abuse among SAs have critical implications for practitioners. Immigration-related and in-laws’ abuse are in some ways implicit within the SA culture. Additionally, dowry demands and hierarchical relationships between parents and children may perpetuate in-laws abuse for both SA men and women. Therefore, it is essential for practitioners to incorporate these types of abuse to design culturally sensitive interventions for SA communities, that can motivate more immigrant victims to report cases of DV and seek help.

The study findings strongly suggest that DV is not a problem that only SA women face. Developing DV interventions targeting both men and women will allow men facing DV to feel supported. Minimizing the experiences of males who are experiencing victimization can discourage male victims from seeking help. Creating open spaces for men to dialogue and share their experiences will also help remove the taboo that men may face in acknowledging their abuse experiences. Engaging in community awareness and thinking about ways in which men can be encouraged to come forward with their experiences is a pivotal step in providing male victims the support they need. Finally, the finding that employed individuals face more victimization calls for an urgent alliance between employers and practitioners. Employers with a large number of SAs can be trained to screen for DV and provide counseling to potential victims.

Service providers for immigrants tend to offer services for 1st generation immigrants only. However, as seen in the present study, those belonging to 1.5+ generation were at a higher risk of victimization than 1st generation immigrants. Therefore, it is vital to include services that are available to all SAs irrespective of their generational positions. Practitioners are also encouraged to collaborate with hospitals and the criminal justice system to make them aware of the unique attributes of DV among SA immigrants. Building updated screening tools for service providers can increase reporting and provision of appropriate services to individuals victimized by their partners/in-laws. Further, given the study findings, training service providers to appropriately screen both men and women is essential.

The discussion of our implications cannot be complete without highlighting the structural challenges faced by immigrants, including many South Asians. Immigrants often face discrimination and xenophobia. Remarks about illegal immigration and frequent changes in visa regulations have instilled fear among immigrants for the past few years (Chisthi & Bolter, 2020; Rai et al., 2020). The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, were a turning point that caused hatred toward Muslims and SA immigrants (Husain & Howard, 2017; Joshi, 2006). Also, because of their turbans and long beards, Sikh-Americans have faced religion-based discrimination since 9/11. More than 300 cases of hate crimes were perpetrated against Sikhs alone following the 9/11 attacks (Suri & Wu, 2017). The hatred for immigrants also led to the shooting of two Indian engineers in Kansas in 2017 (Eligon et al., 2017). Anti-Asian violence has also been perpetuated by the spread of the COVID-19 virus (Lee & Yadav, 2020).

Anti-immigration policies may have also made immigrants fearful of accessing the criminal justice system and seeking support in case of DV victimization (Yoshihama et al., 2011; Rai et al., in press). Individuals on dependent visas are fearful of reporting victimization because they think that the police will take away their immigration documents and deport them, as well as their partners. In addition to facing DV within families, SAs face structural racism and systemic inequality, which may force them to remain silent about their victimization experiences.

The findings of this study are crucial in informing policy-level changes. The legal status of many immigrants is tied to that of their spouses on the primary visa. Necessary documentation for seeking a driver’s license, opening a bank account, or obtaining a work visa, for example, is often dependent on the spouse who is the primary visa holder. This control by the primary visa holders enables them to have power over their dependents. Changes to the H-4 dependent visa rule that would provide independent visa options are critical. Improved accessibility to and awareness of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) will allow immigrant DV victims to benefit from the provisions of the Act, which can offer legal support and respite. Access to informational materials about the VAWA explaining that its provisions apply to both men and women can encourage male victims to use this legislation's provisions.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding its limitations, the present study contributes to an understudied area. Examining DV victimization rates as well as making comparisons across genders is one of its most significant contributions. These findings may encourage collaborations between researchers and practitioners while designing awareness programs inclusive of both men and women. As a research community, we have spent extensive time viewing DV as a problem faced by women alone. This study is integral in reopening gendered conversations concerning DV. The study results can also pave the way for immigrant scholars to study distinct forms of abuse in diverse immigrant groups. Overall, the present study is an important step forward in DV research with immigrant communities and a needed paradigm shift in DV research.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Orion Mowbray and Dr. Jennifer Elkins at the University of Georgia for their support in this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author(s) disclosed the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: I would like to thank the Charlayne Hunter-Gault Giving Voice to the Voiceless Program for their research award that partially supported this project.

ORCID iD

Abha Rai

Author Biographies

Abha Rai, PhD, MSW, is an assistant professor at the School of Social Work at Loyola University Chicago. Her research focuses on gender-based violence issues and immigration stressors among immigrant communities. She is interested in quantitative research, program evaluation and designing community interventions leading to macrolevel systemic changes, which can be translated into practice.

Y. Joon Choi, PhD, MSW, MA, is an associate professor at the University of Georgia School of Social Work. Her scholarship focuses on women’s health, with emphasis on intimate partner violence, substance use, and cancer. She is interested in exploring how the intersectionality of women affects various health issues, as well as developing and testing the efficacy of the interventions in promoting women’s health.

References

Aboulhassan

, & Brumley

K. M.

(2019). Carrying the burden of a culture: Bargaining with patriarchy and the gendered reputation of Arab American women. Journal of Family Issues , 40(5), 637-661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18821403

Abraham

(2000). Speaking the unspeakable: Marital violence among south Asian immigrants in the United States . Rutgers University Press.

Abraham

(2005). Domestic violence and the Indian diaspora in the United States. Indian Journal of Gender Studies , 12(2-3), 427-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/097152150501200212

Ackerson

L. K.

, Kawachi

, Barbeau

E. M.

, & Subramanian

S. V.

(2008). Effects of individual and proximate educational context on intimate partner violence: A population-based study of women in India. American Journal of Public Health , 98(3), 507-514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.113738

Adam

N. M.

, & Schewe

P. A.

(2007). A multilevel framework exploring domestic violence against immigrant Indian and Pakistani women in the United States. Journal of Muslim Mental Health , 2(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564900701238468

Aday

L. A.

, & Cornelius

L. J.

(2006). Designing and conducting health surveys: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). Jossey Bass.

Agha

, & Rai

(2020). Notes from the field: Culturally adapted research methods for South Asian participants. Professional Development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education , 23(1), 27-31. http://www.profdevjournal.org/articles/231027.pdf

Ahmad

, Rai

, Petrovic

, Erickson

P. E.

, & Stewart

D. E.

(2013). Resilience and resources among South Asian immigrant women as survivors of partner violence. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health , 15(6), 1057-1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-013-9836-2

Ahmad

, Riaz

, Barata

, & Stewart

D. E.

(2004). Patriarchal beliefs and perceptions of abuse among South Asian immigrant women. Violence Against Women , 10(3), 262-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801203256000

10.

Ahmad- Stout

, Nath

S. R.

, & Khoury

N. M.

(2018). Experiences of intimate partner violence: Findings from interviews with South Asian women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(3-4), NP1941-1964NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517753850

11.

Ahn

(2002). The perceptions of and attitudes toward partner abuse among first-generation Korean-Americans: Their relationships to the incidence of partner abuse . [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Louisiana State University.

12.

Ayyub

(2000). Domestic violence in the South Asian Muslim immigrant population in the United States. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless , 9(3), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009412119016

13.

Balgamwalla

(2013). A woman’s place: Dependent spouse visa holders and the legacy of coverture. https://law.ubalt.edu/centers/caf/pdf/Sabrina%20Balgamwalla.pdf

14.

Balgamwalla

(2014). Bride and prejudice: How US immigration law discriminates against spousal visa holders. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law, & Justice , 29(1), 24-71. https://www.immigrationresearch.org/system/files/Bride_and_Prejudice.pdf

15.

Berkman

E. T.

, & Reise

S. P.

(2012). A conceptual guide to statistics using SPSS . SAGE Publications.

16.

Bhandari

(2020). Identification of abuse experiences of South Asian women in the US and women in Mumbai, India. Health Care for Women International , 41(6), 649-672. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2020.1725765

17.

Bhandari

, & Sabri

(2020). Patterns of abuse among South Asian women experiencing domestic violence in the United States. International Social Work , 63(1), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872818767250

18.

Black

M. C.

, Basile

K. C.

, Breiding

M. J.

, Smith

S. G.

, Walters

M. L.

, Merrick

M. T.

, Chen

, & Stevens

M. R.

(2011). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

19.

Boy

, & Kulczycki

(2008). What we know about intimate partner violence in the Middle East and North Africa. Violence Against Women , 14(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207311860

20.

Bland

J. M.

, & Altman

D. G.

(1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ , 314(7080), 572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572

21.

Bhanot

, & Senn

(2007). Attitudes towards violence against women in men of South Asian ancestry: Are acculturation and gender role attitudes important factors? Journal of Family Violence , 22(1), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-006-9060-0

22.

Calderwood

K. A.

(2012). Teaching inferential statistics to social work students: A decision-making flow chart. Journal of Teaching in Social Work , 32(2), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2012.670065

23.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among men . https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nisvs/men-ipvsvandstalking.html

24.

Center for Victims of Crime. (2018). Intimate partner violence . https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_IPV_508_QC.pdf

25.

Chisthi

, & Bolter

(2020, November 20). The “Trump effect” on legal immigration levels: More perception than reality? Migration Information Source . https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-effect-immigration-reality

26.

Dasgupta

S. D.

(2000). Charting the course: An overview of domestic violence in the South Asian community in the United States. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless , 9(3), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009403917198

27.

Dasgupta

S. D.

(2007). Body evidence: Intimate violence against South Asian women in America . Rutgers University Press.

28.

Desai

(2017, May 10). When husbands are victims of domestic violence. Times of India . https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/when-husbands-are-victims-of-domestic-violence/articleshow/26031858.cms

29.

Eligon

, Blinder

, & Najar

(2017, February 24). Hate crime is feared as 2 Indian engineers are shot in Kansas. The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/world/asia/kansas-attack-possible-hate-crime-srinivas-kuchibhotla.html

30.

Engel

R. J.

, & Schutt

R. K.

(2013). The practice of research in social work (3rd ed.). SAGE.

31.

Field

(2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE.

32.

Futures Without Violence. (n.d.). Forms of domestic violence that immigrant women experience. https://s3-amazonaws-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/fwvcorp/wp-content/uploads/20160121105935/Power-control-wheel-eng-4-w-description.pdf

33.

Goel

(2005). Sita’s Trousseau: Restorative justice, domestic violence, and South Asian culture. Violence Against Women , 11(5), 639-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205274522

34.

Gupte

(2015). The role of ‘honor’ in violence against South Asian women in the United States [Manavi Occasional Paper No. 11]. Manavi. http://www.masum-india.org.in/images/honor.pdf

35.

Hurwitz

E. J.

, Gupta

, Liu

, Silverman

J. G.

, & Raj

(2006). Intimate partner violence associated with poor health outcomes in U.S. South Asian women. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health , 8(3), 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-006-9330-1

36.

Husain

, & Howard

(2017). Religious microaggressions: A case study of Muslim Americans. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work , 26(1-2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2016.1269710

37.

Jewkes

(2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet , 359(9315), 1423-1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5

38.

Joshi

(2006). The racialization of Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism in the United States. Equity & Excellence in Education , 39(3), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680600790327

39.

Lee

& Yadav

(2020, May 21). The rise of anti-Asian hate in the wake of Covid-19. Social Science Research Council . https://items.ssrc.org/covid-19-and-the-social-sciences/the-rise-of-anti-asian-hate-in-the-wake-of-covid-19/

40.

Leung

, & Cheung

(2008). A prevalence study on partner abuse in six Asian American ethnic groups in the USA. International Social Work , 51(5), 635-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872808093342

41.

Mahapatra

(2012). South Asian women in the U.S. and their experience of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence , 27(5), 381-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9434-4

42.

Mahapatra

& Rai

(2019). Every cloud has a silver lining but… “pathways to seeking formal-help and South-Asian immigrant women survivors of intimate partner violence.” Health Care for Women International , 40(11), 1170-1196. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2019.1641502

43.

Marin

, Sabogal

, Marin

B. V.

, Otero-Sabogal

, & Perez

E. J.

(1987). Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences , 9(2), 183-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863870092005

44.

Nagaraj

N. C.

, Vyas

A. N.

, McDonnell

K. A.

, & DiPietro

(2018). Understanding health, violence, and acculturation among south Asian women in the US. Journal of community health , 43(3), 543-551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0450-4

45.

Nelson

(1988). Reliability, validity, and cross-cultural comparisons for the simplified attitudes towards women scale. Sex Roles , 18(5-6), 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288291

46.

Purkayastha

(2000). Liminal lives: South Asian Youth and Domestic Violence. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless , 9(3), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009408018107

47.

Pew Research Center. (2017). Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population . https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-about-asian-americans/

48.

Pfeifer

(2020, February 11). Men as victims of domestic violence: “I was paralyzed.” https://www.dw.com/en/men-as-victims-of-domestic-violence-i-was-paralyzed/a-55472456

49.

Rai

(2020). Indirect Experiences with Domestic Violence and Help-giving among South Asian Immigrants in the United States. Journal of Community Psychology , 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22492

50.

Rai

, & Choi

Y. J.

(2018). Socio-cultural risk factors impacting domestic violence among South Asian immigrant women: A scoping review. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 38, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.12.001

51.

Rai

, Choi

Y. J.

, & Khandare

(2019). State of domestic violence content in MSW curriculum in the U.S. Perspectives on Social Work , 15(1), 15-27. https://www.uh.edu/socialwork/academics/phd/doctoral-journal/perspectives-onsocial-worksummer2019rev.pdf

52.

Rai

, Choi

Y. J.

, Yoshihama

& Dabby

(in press). Help-seeking among battered immigrant Filipina, Indian, and Pakistani women in the United States: Perceived Barriers and Effective Response . Violence and Victims.

53.

Rai

, Perkins

& Grossman

(2020). The effects of COVID-19 on domestic violence and immigrant families. Greenwich Social Work Review , 2(1), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.21100/gswr.v1i2.1161

54.

Raj

, Livramento

K. N.

, Santana

M. C.

, Gupta

, & Silverman

J. G.

(2006). Victims of intimate partner violence more likely to report abuse from in-laws. Violence Against Women , 12(10), 936-949. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206292935

55.

Raj

, Silverman

J. G.

, McCleary-Sills

, & Liu

(2005). Immigration policies increase South Asian immigrant women’s vulnerability to intimate partner violence. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association (1972) , 60(1), 26-32.

56.

Raj

, & Silverman

(2002). Intimate partner violence amongst South Asian women in Greater Boston. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association , 57(2), 111-114.

57.

Ralson

(1997). Arranged, “semi-arranged” and “love” marriages among South Asian Immigrant women in the diaspora and their non-migrant sisters in India and Fiji: A comparative study. International Journal of Sociology of the Family , 27(2), 43-68. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23070640

58.

Reddy

S. M.

(2019). “If we’re not serving our own community, no one else would”: The lived experience of providers in ethnically similar therapeutic dyads at South Asian women’s organizations. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work , 28(1), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2019.1570894

59.

Rianon

N. J.

, & Shelton

A. J.

(2003). Perception of spousal abuse expressed by married Bangladeshi immigrant women in Houston, Texas, USA. Journal of Immigrant Health , 5(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021052212981

60.

Romans

, Forte

, Cohen

M. M.

, Du Mont

, & Hyman

(2007). Who is most at risk for intimate partner violence? A Canadian population-based study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 22(12), 1495-1514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507306566

61.

Ruggles

(2015). Patriarchy, power, and pay: The transformation of American families, 1800-2015. Demography , 52(6), 1797-1823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0440-z

62.

Sabri

, Simonet

, & Campbell

J. C.

(2018). Risk and protective factors of intimate partner violence among South Asian immigrant women and perceived need for services. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , 24(3), 442-452. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000189

63.

Sheltering Wings. (n.d.). When men and victims of domestic abuse. https://shelteringwings.org/2019/11/25/when-men-are-victims-of-domestic-abuse/

64.

Stemple

, & Meyer

I. H.

(2014). The sexual victimization of men in America: New data challenge old assumptions. American Journal of Public Health , 104(6), e19-e26. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946

65.

South Asian Americans Leading Together. (2019, April). Demographic snapshot of South Asians in the United States . https://saalt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SAALT-Demographic-Snapshot-2019.pdf

66.

Soglin

L. F.

, Ragavan

, Immaneni

, & Soglin

D. F.

(2020). Assessing intimate partner violence in South Asian women using the Index of Spousal Abuse. Violence Against Women , 26(6-7), 697-711. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077801219842945

67.

Spence

J. T.

, & Helmreich

R. L.

(1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents . University of Texas Press.

68.

Suri

, & Wu

(2017, March 7). Sikhs: Religious minority target of hate crimes. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/asia/sikh-hate-crimes-us-muslims/index.html

69.

Trochim

W. M.

K., & Donnelly

J. P.

(2008). Research methods knowledge base (3rd ed). Thomson Custom Publishing.

70.

Walker

D. A.

, & Smith

T. J.

(2020). Logistic regression under sparse data conditions. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods , 18(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1604190660

71.

White

J. W.

, Yuan

N. P.

, Cook

S. L.

, & Abbey

(2013). Ethnic minority women’s experiences with intimate partner violence: Using community-based participatory research to ask the right questions. Sex roles , 69(3-4), 226-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0237-0

72.

Yick

A. G.

(1997). Chinese-Americans’ perceptions of and experiences with domestic violence and factors related to their psychological well-being (Order No. 9823585) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California]. Dissertation Abstracts International.

73.

Yoshihama

, Bybee

, Dabby

, & Blazevski

(2011). Lifecourse experiences of intimate partner violence and help-seeking among Filipina, Indian, and Pakistani Women: Implications for justice system responses (p. 123). National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236174.pdf

74.

Yoshihama

, Dabby

, & Luo

(2020, October). Facts and stats report, updated and expanded 2020. Domestic Violence in Asian and Pacific Islander Homes . https://s3-amazonaws-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/gbv-wp-uploads/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/27210551/Facts-stats-rpt-updated-expanded-Oct20201.pdf

75.

Yoshihama

, Blazevski

, & Bybee

(2014). Enculturation and attitudes towards intimate partner violence and gender roles in an Asian Indian population: Implications for community-based prevention. Society for Community Research and Action , 53(3-4), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9627-5

76.

Yoshihama

, Ramakrishnan

, Hammock

, & Khaliq

(2012). Intimate partner violence prevention program in an Asian immigrant community: Integrating theories, data and community. Violence Against Women , 18(7), 763-783. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212455163

77.

Yoshioka

M. R.

, Gilbert

, El-Bassel

, & Baib-Amin

(2003). Social support and disclosure of abuse: Comparing South Asian, African American, and Hispanic battered women. Journal of Family Violence , 18(3), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023568505682