Cultural Correlates of Dating Violence in a Combined Gender Group of Latino College Students

Abstract

Prevalence rates of dating violence (DV) on college campuses are high. The documented effects of DV suggest substantial challenges across all domains of functioning; yet, DV is preventable. The research on risk and preventive factors for Latino college students is limited. This study used the social–ecological model to examine factors associated with DV at the individual, relationship, and societal levels. More specifically, we utilized structural equation modeling to build an acceptable model of physical and psychological intimate partner violence (IPV) experiences for Latino participants based on variables of gender role beliefs, acculturation, attitudes toward violence, and surveillance behavior, while considering development issues. We describe the practice and prevention implications of the study findings. Overall, the model showed excellent model fit (χ²[40] = 52.06, p < .09, root mean square error of approximation = 0.025, comparative fit index = 0.99, Tucker–Lewis Index = 0.98, and a coefficient of determination of 0.04), and several proposed pathways were found to be significant, exhibiting the utility of this model in understanding Latino Dating violence. Maternal education was found to be significantly negatively associated with Mexican orientation (β = −.13, p = .02) and indirectly associated with both DV attitudes and surveillance through Mexican orientation, suggesting protective effects for lower maternal education and higher Mexican orientation. Machismo (β = .18, p = .002) and caballerismo (β = .26, p < .001) were both related to IPV attitudes. Machismo also directly increased the risk of surveillance (β = .21, p < .001) and indirectly increased the risk of physical and psychological victimization through surveillance behavior. Mexican orientation predicted less endorsement of DV attitudes (β = −.16, p < .001) and less surveillance (β = −.09, p = .04). Victimization was predicted by caballerismo (β = −.19, p < .001) and surveillance (β = .33, p < .001).

Keywords

domestic violence cultural contexts dating violence domestic violence and cultural contexts

Dating violence (DV), a form of intimate partner violence (IPV), is defined as physical, psychological, and sexually aggressive behaviors perpetrated or experienced by a dating partner and it is prevalent on college campuses (Breiding et al., 2014; Daley & Noland, 2001). Estimates using different measures and samples suggest up to 80% of college students experience psychological abuse, 20%–30% experience physical aggression, and 15%–25% experience sexual abuse at some point in their dating relationships (Dardis et al., 2015; Fincham et al., 2008; Kaukinen, 2014; Shorey et al., 2011; Straus, 2004). DV brings a host of negative outcomes, including trauma symptoms, depression, anxiety, poor self-esteem, suicidality, high-risk sex behaviors, and substance use (Kaura & Lohman, 2007; Lamis et al., 2013; Shorey et al., 2015). The presence of symptoms may mediate problems in academic achievement, persistence, and well-being among college students (Banyard et al., 2017; Mengo & Black, 2016). Yet, DV is preventable, and more knowledge about risk and protective factors specific to the Latino population will help create culturally tailored DV prevention programs.

Factors Impacting DV Victimization and Perpetration Among Latinos

The social–ecological model acknowledges the complexity of DV by proposing multiple levels of risk and protective factors (CDC, 2022). The individual level focuses on person-level characteristics that increase the likelihood of DV occurring and includes biological factors, personal experiences, and maladaptive behaviors (Krug et al., 2002). The relationship level examines how interpersonal relationships with the individual influence the risk of DV and includes relationships with peers, intimate partners, and family members (Krug et al., 2002). The community level focuses on the examination of contexts in which these relationships happen and includes schools, churches, neighborhoods, and others (Krug et al., 2002). Lastly, the societal level includes those factors that may create tensions or disinhibit violence, including cultural and social norms (Krug et al., 2002). Consideration of DV protective and risk factors should happen while considering cultural context, especially when examining DV among minority groups. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the interplay of social–ecological factors applicable to the Latino college student population.

Sociodemographic variables and DV attitudes are known factors associated with IPV across different ethnic groups and act at the individual level. Surveillance acts at the relationship level of the social–ecological model. At the societal level, there are some unique Latino cultural factors, including acculturation, machismo, and marianismo (Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2010; Malhotra et al., 2015). Reviews of literature on Latino IPV reiterated the importance of each level of analysis and pointed to the need to explore more contextual levels (Cummings et al., 2013; Mancera et al., 2017). In addition, researchers called for the need to examine how unique aspects of Latino culture could be protective against IPV. Here, the model is used to examine Latino college student DV victimization.

Sociodemographic Variables

DV risk is associated with employment status, relationship status, education, and socioeconomic status (Stith et al., 2004). Factors associated with being a victim of DV include people living in low-income conditions, being younger, having low personal and parental educational attainment, being unemployed, and being in a romantic relationship (Caetano et al., 2005; Capaldi et al., 2012; Coker et al., 2008, Côté & Bynner, 2008; Cunradi et al., 2002; Stith et al., 2004).

Acculturation

An estimated 40% of all Latinos living in the United States are immigrants (Grieco, 2010). Acculturation involves individuals from one culture coming into another through migration and involves complex interactions between the individual’s heritage and receiving cultures (Berry, 2003; Organista et al., 2010). Acculturation can impact the balance of power in relationship dynamics, especially if one of the partners begins to endorse Anglo values, as it affects family functioning, gender roles, and family conflict (Caetano et al., 2007; DuPont-Reyes et al., 2015; Garcia et al., 2005; Grzywacz et al., 2009). The process of acculturation is linked to risk factors for IPV including unemployment, economic difficulties, isolation, alienation, and increased alcohol and substance abuse (Caetano et al., 2007; Cunradi et al., 2002).

Masculine Gender Roles

Machismo and caballerismo are Latino traditional gender roles. Machismo is a traditional Latino masculine gender role that requires men to be tough, aggressive, domineering, controlling, and womanizing (Arciniega et al., 2008); however, another masculine gender norm—called caballerismo—includes positive attributes such as being the protector of the family and embodying wisdom, spirituality, and dignity (Arciniega et al., 2008; Mirandé, 1997). In general, men’s and women’s endorsement of traditional masculine gender roles has been associated with a higher likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior (Parrot & Zeichner, 2003; Smiler, 2006; Vásquez Guerrero, 2009). Studies with community samples have identified machismo as a contextual risk factor for IPV among Latinos (Mancera et al., 2015). There is also little research documenting the impact of machismo and caballerismo on DV among Latinos using a culturally congruent and empirically based measure of this construct (Arciniega et al., 2008).

Marianismo

This gender role prescribes that women should reflect the attributes of the Virgin Mary, such as seeing sexuality as a way to procreate as well as virtue, humility, spirituality, and self-sacrifice (Rondón, 2003). Latina women are expected to be forgiving, noncritical, and to maintain family harmony (Castillo et al., 2010). Marianismo may make women vulnerable to IPV and may keep them in abusive relationships (Kelly, 2009; Vandello and Cohen, 2003).

Being Surveilled

Surveillance is a control tactic used as an attempt to direct or manipulate a partner’s actions (Ehrensaft et al., 1999). Surveillance may entail checking phones, mail, and location throughout the day. Dutton and Goodman (2005) proposed that coercive control tactics have perceived negative consequences if the victim does not comply with the perpetrator’s demands. Usually, such consequences include violence or intimidation, which may lead the victim to comply with the demands to avoid negative outcomes (Dutton et al., 2006; Hamberger et al., 2017). Surveillance of a partner is problematic because it impinges on the victim’s right to make decisions, limits independence, and erodes self-image (Ehrensaft et al., 1999; Hamberger et al., 2017). In their study, Mechanic and Colleagues (2000) found that 81% of women who were being surveilled by a partner experienced physical violence by those partners Therefore, we view surveillance as a precursor to violent behaviors.

DV Attitudes

Tolerant DV attitudes are one of the most consistent predictors of DV victimization and perpetration among college students (Dardis et al., 2013, 2015; Edwards et al., 2009). Individuals with more tolerant DV attitudes are more likely to experience DV victimization and to interpret aggressive or coercive partner behaviors as normative (Gover, et al., 2008; Fincham et al., 2008; Murnen et al., 2002). There is consistent evidence in the literature linking DV attitudes among college students to DV victimization (Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Courtain & Glowacz, 2020; Dardis et al., 2013; Murnen et al., 2002).

Current Study

The current study examined a series of individual, relationship, and societal level factors associated with DV among Latino college students consistent with the social–ecological model proposed by Krug et al. (2002). Specifically, we examined the association of the following variables: father education, mother education, age, marianismo, caballerismo, machismo, Anglo orientation, Mexican orientation, attitudes toward DV, and surveillance behavior. We hypothesized that sociodemographic variables (father’s and mother’s education and age) would be related to adherence to gender roles (marianismo, caballerismo, and machismo) and acculturation (Anglo and Latino orientation). Gender role and acculturation variables were hypothesized to be positively related to DV attitudes and experiencing surveillance and these, in turn, positively related to DV victimization. These relationships are diagrammed in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model predicting victimization of Latino college students.

Method

Participants and Procedures

A total of 496 college students were invited to participate in undergraduate and graduate courses at a Hispanic Serving Institution located on the US–Mexico border. Approximately 96% of the population within the county where the university is located identify as Latino (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Participants were informed of the study via class announcements and registered to attend a group survey session that occurred outside of their class time. All instruments were completed using paper-and-pencil questionnaires. All participants received a $20 gift card upon completion of the study materials. Criteria for participation in the research were as follows: (a) being 18 years of age or older at the time of participation and (b) being enrolled in at least one undergraduate or graduate course at the university.

A total of 435 (88%) participants reported being born in the United States. Of the foreign-born participants, a total of 49 (84%) were born in Mexico, 7 (12%) were born in another Latin American country, and 2 (<1%) were born in another foreign country but identified as Latino/a. Additional demographic information is listed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Demographic Characteristics (N = 496).

Variable	N (%)
Gender
Male	178 (36%)
Female	316 (64%)
Did not answer	2 (<1%)
Place of Birth
United States	435 (88%)
Mexico	49 (10%)
Other Latin American country	7 (1%)
Other foreign country	2 (<1%)
Did not answer	3 (<1%)
Marital status
Single/dating	407 (82%)
Living with partner/cohabitating	42 (9%)
Married	27 (6%)
Separated/divorced	12 (2%)
Did not answer	7 (1%)
College classification
Freshman	44 (9%)
Sophomore	68 (14%)
Junior	129 (26%)
Senior	148 (30%)
Did not answer	107 (21%)
Romantic relationship status
Currently in a romantic relationship	254 (51%)
Not currently in a romantic relationship	208 (42%)
Did not answer	34 (7%)
Father’s education
Less than high school	172 (35%)
High school/GED	124 (25%)
Some college	108 (22%)
College degree	70 (14%)
Graduate degree	13 (3%)
Did not answer	9 (1%)
Mother’s education
Less than high school	178 (36%)
High school/GED	112 (23%)
Some college	125 (25%)
College degree	52 (11%)
Graduate degree	20 (4%)
Did not answer	8 (1%)

GED: General Education Development.

Measures

Traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale

The Traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale includes 20 items that assess the extent to which a person endorses machismo and caballerismo (Arciniega et al., 2008). Although scoring methods vary (Terrazas-Carrillo et al., 2023; see Ojeda & Piña-Watson, 2014, for an example study utilizing a four-point Likert scale), responses to this measure are generally indicated on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Very strongly disagree to 7 = Very strongly agree). The highest machismo score and caballerismo score is 70, with higher scores representing a stronger endorsement of each construct. These scores are typically averaged. Examples of items for the machismo scale are “Men are superior to women,” and “It is important not to be the weakest man in a group.” Examples of items for the caballerismo scale are “Men must display good manners in public,” and “The family is more important than the individual.” Generally, prior studies have indicated that reliability indices are good, with traditional machismo reporting a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 and caballerismo .80 and the development study (Arciniega et al., 2008) established validity by examining correlations of both machismo and caballerismo subscales with constructs including satisfaction with life, aggressiveness, emotional connection, dominance, affiliation, arrests, fights, and alcohol use. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability was α = .89 for the machismo subscale, and α = .90 for the caballerismo subscale).

Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II

This 30-item instrument measures behavioral orientation toward Mexican and Anglo cultures (Cuellar et al., 1995). The items load on two independent subscales: the Anglo orientation scale (13 items) and the Mexican orientation scale (17 items). Possible responses range from 1 = Not at all to 5 = Almost Always/Extremely Often. Each scale is averaged; higher average scores in each scale represent a stronger endorsement of each of the subscales. Examples of items on the Anglo orientation scale include “I speak English” and “I enjoy English language TV.” Examples of items on the Mexican orientation scale include “I speak Spanish” and “I enjoy reading books in Spanish.” Construct validity was assessed by finding that higher indices of acculturation are found among immigrants present in the United States for many generations. In this study, the Anglo orientation had an internal consistency of Cronbach’s α = .70 and the Mexican had an internal consistency of Cronbach’s α = .90.

Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales

This instrument focuses on the measurement of attitudes toward physical, psychological, and sexual violence toward both men and women (Price & Byers, 1999). A total of 70 items were loaded on six scales specifically measuring permissiveness toward physical, psychological, and sexual DV toward men and women and recording responses using a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = Agree Strongly to 4 = Disagree strongly). Attitudes toward sexual violence were not calculated due to over 62% missing data on these items due to a survey error. The physical and psychological DV attitudes subscales were calculated by first reverse scoring responses to indicated items on the scale and then summing them up; higher scores in each of the scales indicate more permissive or tolerant DV attitudes. Examples of items for the physical violence DV attitudes subscale are “A guy should not hit his girlfriend,” and “A girl should break up with a guy when he hits her.” Examples of items on the psychological DV attitudes scale include “A guy should not tell his girlfriend what to do,” and “A girl should always change her ways to please her boyfriend.” Construct validity was assessed by obtaining high correlations between Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scale scores and traditional gender role ideology, and rates of victimization and perpetration of DV within the same sample used to validate the measure (Price & Byers, 1999). In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability for the physical DV attitudes subscale was .94 and for the psychological DV attitudes scale it was .94.

Control Tactics Scale-2

This instrument asks 78 questions assessing the behavior of both partners in a relationship (Straus et al., 1996). The Control Tactics Scale-2 (CTS-2) provides information on five scales including physical assault, psychological aggression, negotiation, injury, and sexual coercion. Responses to CTS-2 items are recorded using seven categories that represent frequency (0 = This has never happened to 7 = Not in the past year, but it did happen before). The CTS-2 is scored by summing up the midpoints for the response categories chosen by the participant (Straus et al., 1996). We created subscales by adding up scores for items that indicated minor or severe victimization for the physical and psychological subscales by the author (Straus et al., 1996). The resulting subscales include minor physical victimization, severe physical victimization, minor psychological victimization, and severe psychological victimization. Sexual victimization was excluded since attitudes toward sexual violence were not measured. Higher scores on each of the subscales indicate higher levels of victimization. Examples of items for the minor physical victimization subscale include “I threw something at my partner that could hurt” and “I twisted my partner’s arm or hair.” Examples of items for the severe physical victimization subscale included “I used a knife or gun on my partner” and “I choked my partner.” Examples of items for the minor psychological victimization subscale include “I insulted or swore at my partner” and “I shouted or yelled at my partner,” while examples for the severe psychological victimization subscale include “I destroyed something belonging to my partner” and “I accused my partner of being a lousy lover.” Construct validity was assessed by establishing strong correlations with theoretically related variables such as incidence of sexual coercion, injury, and social integration (Straus et al., 1996). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for minor physical victimization was .83, and it was .93 for severe physical victimization. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for minor psychological victimization was .74, and it was .78 for severe psychological victimization.

Marianismo Beliefs Scale

This instrument measures the extent to which a respondent believes Latino women should adhere to marianismo values (Castillo et al., 2010). The 24-item instrument has five subscales: family pillar, virtuous and chaste, subordinate to others, silencing self to maintain harmony, and spiritual pillar. Responses are recorded using a four-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree). Scores for each subscale are created by summing up the responses to items belonging to each subscale. Higher scores on each of the subscales indicate higher endorsement of that specific marianismo construct. Examples of items from the Marianismo Beliefs Scale (MBS) include “A Latina should be pure” and “A Latina should be faithful to her partner.” Construct validity was assessed by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis that showed the MBS is multidimensional, with each scale having a unique impact (Castillo et al., 2010). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha reliability indices for each of the subscales were: .81 for the marianismo family pillar, .83 for the virtuous and chaste pillar, .64 for the subordinate to men subscale, .85 for the self-silencing, and .88 for the spiritual pillar.

Surveillance Scale

The surveillance scale from the Coercive Control Scale (CCS; Dutton et al., 2006) is a 13-item measure of whether a partner is engaging in surveillance by checking phones, checking clothing, documents, or stalking their partner. Answers are recorded by selecting “Yes” or “No” to a variety of statements. Examples of items include whether a partner has “Checked or opened your mail or personal papers/journal,” or “Spied on, followed, or stalked you.” The scale is obtained by adding one point for each “Yes” answer and zero points for each “No” answer. Higher scores indicate higher levels of surveillance. The validity of the CCS scales in the original study was assessed by examining relationships between all scales and levels of IPV reported by participants (Dutton et al., 2006). Further validity evidence was established by finding that CCS scores are significantly associated with measures of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, IPV threat appraisal, and fear (Dutton et al., 2006). In this study, the Surveillance scale had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .72.

Analytic Strategy

As the purpose of the current study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of cultural and attitudinal variables, including gender role beliefs on IPV victimization, structural equation modeling analyses were completed using STATA (StataCorp LLC, Version 15) following the framework for structural regression models and exploratory structural equation modeling outlined in Kline (2011). All other descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated using SPSS (IBM, Version 26). Specifically, the goal was to determine whether an acceptable model of physical and psychological IPV experiences for Latino participants could be built primarily on gender role beliefs, level of acculturation, attitudes toward violence, and surveillance while also considering the temporal development of these variables.

The analysis began by examining the demographic variables that may initially (developmentally) influence participants’ scores on cultural and attitudinal variables, especially as they involved the influence of the participants’ parents. Parents’ educational levels were examined first. We hypothesized that education level would play a proxy for several other metrics not assessed including the parental age, parents’ own potential scores on cultural and attitudinal variables that could latently influence participants’ scores on these measures. For example, we thought more highly educated Latino parents living in the United States may be less adherent to traditional Latino cultural values due to exposure to powerful acculturative forces (Schwartz et al., 2010) and, thus, influence the participant’s scores. Relatedly, parents’ educational levels were correlated to reflect research suggesting that couples tend to select similarly educated spouses and intimate partners (Caetano et al., 2005; Capaldi et al., 2012). Participant age was included as a demographic variable covariate as some researchers have pointed out potential relationships between age and certain gender attitudes such as hypermasculinity (Vásquez Guerrero, 2009) and masculine gender role conflict (Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995; Vásquez, 2014), as well as to control for potential generational variables. Parental education level and participants’ age were correlated as we expected that parents’ higher education levels would be negatively correlated with participant age.

Second, causal pathways were created from parental education and participants’ age to the Latino cultural attitude variables that may positively predict attitudes toward violence and surveillance. These included the gender role beliefs of marianismo, caballerismo, machismo and the acculturation variables of Anglo orientation, and Mexican orientation. Gender role belief variables and attitudinal variables were expected to vary in concert and thus correlated with each other although these are left off the model figures for ease of legibility. For example, we expected that someone with traditional views regarding the role of women in family and society (marianismo) would also be more likely to hold traditional views of men in society (machismo or caballerismo). In turn, this could covary with the levels of participants’ acculturation (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Structural equation modeling results predicting victimization of Latino college students.

Third, causal pathways were created from the Latino cultural variables (i.e., gender role beliefs and acculturation) directly to the experiences of physical and psychological victimization as well as indirectly through an attitudinal variable and through participants’ experiences of surveilling behavior (i.e., surveillance, which has been noted as “central” and a “requirement” for both “coercion” and “rewarding power” by IPV perpetrators; Dutton & Goodman, 2005, p. 745), as research has directly and indirectly linked both of these variable to physical and psychological victimization (Mechanic et al., 2000). Preliminary model results indicated that attitudes toward physical and psychological violence were collinear (r = .96, p < .001; or above .90, Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Vásquez et al., 2012). Thus, only attitudes toward physical violence in our model is included, while attitudes toward psychological violence is excluded. As psychological IPV and physical IPV are often closely related (in this sample rs ranging between .4 and .7; Straus et al., 1996), we initially modeled one latent variable called physical and psychological victimization factor and allowed it to predict both the physical victimization variables (minor physical victimization, severe physical victimization) and the psychological victimization variables (minor psychological victimization, severe psychological victimization). However, because the physical and psychological victimization latent factor only weakly predicted minor psychological victimization (less than .6), it was removed to improve model fit.

Several fit indices are reported for the final model including chi-square (χ²), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI). Generally accepted criterion values for fit indices were followed (see Kline, 2011) and the coefficient of determination (CD) was used as an overall measure of explanatory power (analogous to R²) for the models (Nagelkerke, 1991). Degrees of freedom are also calculated and reported, as appropriate, per the recommendations of Goodboy and Kline (2017).

Regarding statistical assumptions, structural equation modeling utilizing the maximum likelihood method of estimation has a strong assumption of normality and severe violations of normality can inflate test statistics giving erroneous results (Boomsma & Hoogland, 2001; Kline, 2011; Yuan et al. 2005). Yet, in many areas of study such as violence research, it “would not be reasonable to even expect that the observed data would follow a normal distribution in the population” (Curran et al., 1996, p. 16). Thus, the assumption of multivariate normality was tested for these data utilizing the Doornik-Hansen chi-square (χ²) test. As multivariate normality was violated (ps < .05) for all but one variable, analyses were run with both default standard error types and robust error types; however, no meaningful differences were found in the path coefficients and thus, fit indices for default standard error types are included here to assist the reader in properly evaluating model fit.

Nonsignificant chi-square values (Kline, 2011), RMSEA values below 0.05 and values above 0.95 for CFI and TLI (see Xia & Yang, 2019), indicate excellent model fit; although, thoughtfulness and caution should be used when evaluating these indicators such that they are not considered in isolation from each other or without sound theoretical underpinning (Kline, 2011; see also Debowska et al., 2021; Powers et al., 2017).

Results

Demographic statistics are listed in Table 1. Descriptive statistics for all variables are listed in Table 2. Analysis of variance showed that men endorsed higher levels of physical IPV attitudes compared to women, higher levels of machismo compared to women, higher levels of caballerismo compared to women, lower Mexican cultural orientation) compared to women, higher levels of marianismo—subjection to men compared to women, higher levels of marianismo—silence compared to women (see Table 2 for descriptive summary and F-test results). The preliminary multivariate analysis of covariance demonstrated no additional explanatory contribution of gender when included in a multivariate analysis examining the relationship between physical IPV attitudes, machismo, marianismo, caballerismo, acculturation, and physical and psychological victimization (p = .81). In other words, identifying as man or woman did not significantly predict physical and psychological victimization scores, so the sample of men and women was combined for structural equation modeling analysis.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and F-test Results for Comparison by Gender for Variables Included in Final Model.

Variable	M _m	M _w	SD _m	SD _w	F	p
Mother education	2.94	3.14	1.42	1.55	2.06	.15
Father education	2.92	3.13	1.41	1.52	2.41	.40
Age	26.81	25.88	4.09	5.45	4.01	.05
Machismo	2.80	1.84	1.33	0.98	81.60	.00***
Caballerismo	6.31	5.90	0.99	1.15	15.87	.00***
Anglo orientation—Acc.	50.37	50.48	6.24	5.42	0.044	.83
Mexican orientation—Acc.	66.04	68.95	12.64	11.82	6.45	01*
Physical IPV attitudes	71.58	57.64	18.91	27.04	34.46	.00***
MV—Physical	2.33	2.03	4.97	4.99	0.411	.52
SV—Physical	1.49	1.53	5.14	5.87	0.007	.93
SV—psychological	1.74	1.75	3.88	4.27	0.002	.97
Marianismo—subjection	8.64	7.87	3.43	3.84	4.87	.03*
Marianismo—silence	9.94	8.63	3.90	3.31	15.04	.00***
Surveillance	2.02	1.61	2.65	2.56	2.77	.10

Note. N = 496. M_m = mean for men; MV—physical = minor victimization—physical; M_w = mean for women; SD_m = standard deviation for men; SD_w = standard deviation for women; SV—P = severe victimization—physical; SV—psychological = severe victimization—psychological.

Values significant at .05.

Values significant at the .01.

***

Values significant at the .001.

Structural Equation Model

Overall, model indices indicated excellent fit (χ²[40] = 52.06, p < .09, RMSEA = 0.025, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, and a CD of 0.04; please see Figure 1 for the conceptual framework). Maternal education inversely predicted Mexican orientation (β = −.13, p = .02) and reduced risk for both DV attitudes and surveillance through Mexican orientation, suggesting protective effects for lower maternal education and higher Mexican orientation. Machismo (β = .18, p = .002) and caballerismo (β = .26, p < .001) both positively predicted physical IPV attitudes. However, physical IPV attitudes did not significantly predict either surveilling behavior or physical/psychological victimization. Machismo also directly increased the risk of surveillance (β = .21, p < .001) and indirectly increased the risk of physical and psychological victimization through surveillance behavior. Mexican orientation predicted lower endorsement of DV attitudes (β = −.16, p < .001) and lower surveillance (β = −.09, p = .04). Caballerismo reduced the risk of victimization (β = −.19, p < .001), while surveillance (β = .33, p < .001) increased the risk of victimization. Participant age, marianismo, Anglo orientation, and paternal education were unrelated to any other variables studied.

Discussion

The current study examined a theoretically and empirically grounded model of DV victimization among Latino college students that addresses the interplay of social–ecological factors. Given prior evidence of the importance of gender roles and acculturation (Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2010; Malhotra et al., 2015; Mancera et al., 2015), we hypothesized that these would influence DV attitudes and experiencing surveillance, and ultimately DV victimization. Overall, the model showed excellent model fit and several proposed pathways, but not all, were found to be significant, exhibiting the utility of this model in understanding Latino DV.

First, we hypothesized that demographic variables would be related to gender role attitudes and acculturation. This largely did not hold in the model, with only maternal education negatively relating to Mexican orientation. While higher levels of education are thought to expose mothers to more egalitarian gender norms and thus influence their children’s gender role ideology (Davis & Greenstein, 2009), this may not be the case for Latino mothers living in Latino-dominant neighborhoods, which could influence gender role ideology. Perhaps for Latino college students, who are in their mid-20s, other influences could drive gender role beliefs and acculturation such as exposure to varying contexts outside of the home and neighborhood. Nonetheless, lower maternal education was related to higher levels of Mexican orientation which could reflect recent immigration, limited opportunities for educational advancement, or stronger maintenance of cultural traditions among lower socioeconomic groups.

The second part of the model suggested that gender role ideology and acculturation, reflecting the cultural and social norms of the macrolevel, would predict DV attitudes and surveillance. Several significant paths, namely DV attitudes were predicted by caballerismo, machismo, and Mexican orientation and surveillance was predicted by machismo and Mexican orientation. Gender role ideologies pertaining to masculinity (machismo and caballerismo) were both found to be related to permissive DV attitudes, although caballerismo is generally portrayed as the “positive” aspect of Latino male gender roles. Hence, adherence to dominant masculine gender role ideology, whether rooted in aggression and emotional avoidance, or protection of women and children, was associated with permissive DV attitudes. These findings are in line with work on ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 2001), which seeks to maintain dominance over women through either hostile or benevolent sexism. A recent meta-analysis found that both forms of sexism were significantly related to DV attitudes, although hostile sexism was more strongly so (Agadullina et al., 2022). It seems that espousing male-specific gender norms is related to tolerating violence in relationships—two constructs both reflective of non-egalitarian relationships between women and men. However, machismo was related to experiencing surveillance which reflects the controlling and domineering nature of such beliefs about men’s “rights” to women, which in this case manifested in surveilling behavior (Hamberger et al., 2017).

Nonetheless, adherence to a Mexican orientation (e.g., Spanish language use, celebrating Mexican holidays) was related to nontolerant DV attitudes and a lower likelihood of experiencing surveillance. This is in line with research showing the benefits of ethnic identity such as self-esteem and well-being (Smith & Silva, 2011). Mexican orientation, or adherence to Mexican culture, could be beneficial to the extent is it related to values of familismo [familism] and respeto [respect]. For example, being proud of Mexican identity was related to familism and respect among Latino adolescents (Knight et al., 2010). These values reinforce nonviolent supportive relationships, absent of condoning violence or surveilling behavior. Similarly, acculturation and acculturative stress among Latino college students were related to deteriorating familism and parental respect over time, increasing the risk for alcohol use (Gil et al., 2000). The link between familism and prosocial behavior has also been empirically supported with both mother and adolescent familism values being related to prosocial behavioral tendencies (Calderón-Tena et al., 2011). Thus, as in other work on Latino youth (Sabina et al., 2020), a strong Latino orientation seems to be protective of violence. Specifically, Latino youth who had high Latino orientations were less likely to have any victimization and peer and sibling victimization in the last year in a national study. In our study, the influence of Mexican orientation on victimization was indirect via surveillance behaviors.

DV victimization itself was positively predicted by surveillance only. Surveillance is often a precursor to the physical and psychological DV included in the model and this significant path is in line with prior research regarding coercive control (Hamberger et al., 2017). Adherence to caballerismo was the only variable predictive of lower levels of DV victimization. In other words, caballerismo here shows a different relationship than the one present with DV attitudes—espousing caballerismo was related to lower levels of DV victimization. So, while the ideology may support the use of violence, it was not related to experiencing violence in our sample. This again echoes findings around benevolent sexism. A recent meta-analysis found while benevolent sexism was positively associated with DV attitudes, it was negatively related to violent behavior (Agadullina et al., 2022). As they point out, benevolent sexism could inform violent ideology, but does not relate to violent behavior, which could be triggered by other variables. However, even if a direct relationship does not exist, it would be premature to label caballerismo (or benevolent sexism) as unqualifiedly protective against DV, since it tends to exist alongside other forms of gender ideology and sexism and reinforces paternalistic ideals that are related to violence (such as machismo).

There were several nonsignificant paths that deserve discussion. First, DV attitudes was not related to experiencing DV victimization. Social psychological research has shown that attitudes are not perfect predictors of behavior, and a more complex model that accounts for motivations and contextual supports for enacting attitudes may be needed (e.g., theory of reasoned action, Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Moreover, one study that examined this association found a moderate relationship between violent attitudes and behavior (Seddig & Davidov, 2018). Other notable nonsignificant paths include no significant paths to or from Anglo orientation, which has been found in previous research to be related to victimization (Sabina et al., 2020). Lastly, there were no significant findings for marianismo, which from previous work is theorized to influence Latino DV attitudes (Malhotra et al., 2015; Terrazas-Carrillo & Sabina, 2019).

The final model centers on the influence of male gender role ideology (i.e., caballerismo had direct negative effect on victimization and machismo had an indirect effect through surveillance), Mexican orientation (indirect effect through surveillance), and surveillance (direct positive effect) as predicting DV victimization of Latino college students. Clearly, multiple levels of variables from the more culturally grounded variables of acculturation and gender roles to the more behavioral-based variable of surveillance influence the outcome of victimization. The findings here reiterate the importance of these contextual variables for Latino young adults and point to possible intervention points.

There are several limitations to the current study. Demographics of the sample may have played a role in the findings. The sample was skewed toward women (64%) and US-born Latinos (88%), which may not reflect the college-attending Latino population in the United States. The university setting is a Hispanic Serving Institution, which would indicate participants likely lived in high-density Latino neighborhoods, or enclaves, which could play a role in cultural retention. Second, to fully examine the socioecological model, it would be necessary to model effects beyond the individual level, such as the influence of state and national policies, which was beyond the scope of the current study. Lastly, while gender influences are likely at play, the current dataset did not allow for such comparisons.

Nonetheless, this study marks an important contribution to the field of Latino DV. This study is one of the few to test an explanatory model including culturally relevant variables. It shows the importance of cultural retention and gender roles in our understanding of DV victimization and encourages these to be built into research, prevention, and intervention efforts with Latino young adults. In addition, the sample came from a Hispanic-Serving Institution and included almost 500 students. Quantitative measures of culturally related constructs are also an important strength as much of the work around these variables has been qualitative. Together, the results of this study help tie in multiple influences on the victimization experiences of Latino college students.

Future work should examine these relationships considering differences among Latinos, including by gender, sexual identity, immigrant status, generation, and residential segregation, among others. Important avenues for further study include the similarities and distinctions between various masculinity gender ideologies such as machismo, caballerismo, hypermasculinity, masculine gender role conflict and others, especially in relation to behavioral outcomes versus solely attitudinal ones. Researchers should explore the protective qualities of Mexican orientation—for example testing the hypothesized relationship with familism and other prosocial values—among college students.

Implications

The implications of this study include the importance of addressing masculine gender roles, their dynamics, and their ramifications with Latinos. In studies of DV prevention with the majority of non-Latino populations, programs have noted insignificant or lower effects with males, which is common across DV prevention programming (Debnam & Temple, 2021; Foshee, 1996; Hokoda et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2015; Wincentak et al., 2017). Even in our culturally tailored DV prevention program for Latinos differential effects for men and women were found (Sabina et al., 2020). The current study’s results suggest that for Latinos, addressing masculine gender roles should be part of any prevention programming tailored to their specific needs. The World Health Organization recommends using gender-transformative approaches that promote equitable relationships between men and women (Barker et al., 2007). Thus, DV prevention programming with Latinos should strive to develop gender-transformative approaches that address the harmfulness of traditional norms of masculinity and emphasize women’s empowerment (Barker et al., 2007).

Mexican cultural retention could also serve to support victims of DV and prevent involvement in violent relationships. The inclusion of culture-positive content could be important for Latino youth to maintain a positive self-concept and have resources to deal with stressful situations (Gonzales et al., 2009). Emphasis can be placed on early warning signs of abusive relationships, such as surveillance behavior, which is easily overlooked in our high-technology and public posting cultural context. It is important to understand and leverage the multiple influences on DV victimization among Latino youth, ranging from attitudes, behaviors, and cultural beliefs.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605231198241 – Supplemental material for Cultural Correlates of Dating Violence in a Combined Gender Group of Latino College Students

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605231198241 for Cultural Correlates of Dating Violence in a Combined Gender Group of Latino College Students by Elizabeth Terrazas-Carrillo, Chiara Sabina, Desi A. Váquez and Ediza Garcia in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Elizabeth Terrazas-Carrillo

Chiara Sabina

Ediza Garcia

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Elizabeth Terrazas-Carrillo, PhD, is an associate professor of Counseling Psychology at Texas A&M International University. Her research involves Training bilingual counselors, exploring place-making and well-being, and intimate partner violence among ethnic minority women in the United States and Latin America.

Chiara Sabina, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Social Work at Rutgers University and an associate director of the Center for Research on Ending Violence. Her research employs a contextual, strengths-based perspective with respect to interpersonal violence focusing on understudied groups, the influence of cultural variables, help-seeking responses, and examination of the service-delivery system.

Desi Vásquez, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Texas A&M International University. His current areas of research include trauma and dissociation, gender and cultural psychology, and care access in clinical sports neuropsychology.

Ediza Garcia, PsyD, is an associate professor of Counseling Psychology at Texas A&M International University and serves as the Director of the Master of Arts in Counseling Psychology (MACP) program. Her research aims at enhancing resilience via culturally relevant preventive interventions utilizing a trauma-informed lens.

References

Agadullina

Lovakov

Balezina

Gulevich

O. A.

(2022). Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(6), 819–859. http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2855

Arciniega

G. M.

Tovar-Blank

Z. G.

Tracey

T. J. G.

Anderson

T. C.

(2008). Toward a fuller conception of machismo: Development of a traditional machismo and caballerismo scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.19

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Banyard

Hamby

Grych

(2017). Health effects of adverse childhood events: Identifying promising protective factors at the intersection of mental and physical well-being. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.011

Barker

Ricardo

Nascimento

(2007). Engaging men and boys in changing gender-based inequity in health: Evidence from programme interventions. World Health Organization.

Berry

J. W.

(2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In Chun

K. M.

Organista

P. B.

Marin

(Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17–37). American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/10472-004

Boomsma

Hoogland

J. J.

(2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. Structural equation models: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog, 2(3), 139–168.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization–National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C.: 2002), 63(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302634

Bryant

S. A.

Spencer

G. A.

(2003). University students’ attitudes about attributing blame in domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026205817132

10.

Caetano

Ramisetty-Mikler

Field

C. A.

(2005). Unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Violence and Victims, 20(4), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.20.4.393

11.

Caetano

Ramisetty-Mikler

Vaeth

P. A. C.

Harris

T. R.

(2007). Acculturation stress, drinking, and intimate partner violence among Hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(11), 1431–1447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507305568

12.

Calderón-Tena

C. O.

Knight

G. P.

Carlo

(2011). The socialization of prosocial behavioral tendencies among Mexican American adolescents: The role of familism values. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(1), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021825

13.

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231–280. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231

14.

Castillo

L. G.

Perez

F. V.

Castillo

Ghosheh

M. R.

(2010). Construction and initial validation of the Marianismo Beliefs Scale. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 23(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515071003776036

15.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022). The social ecological model: A framework for prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/social-ecologicalmodel.html

16.

Coker

A. L.

Sanderson

Cantu

Huerta

Fadden

M. K.

(2008). Frequency and types of partner violence among Mexican American college women. Journal of American College Health, 56, 665–673. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.56.6.665-674

17.

Côté

Bynner

J. M.

(2008). Changes in the transition to adulthood in the UK and Canada: The role of structure and agency in emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260801946464

18.

Cournoyer

R. J.

Mahalik

J. R.

(1995). Cross-sectional study of gender role conflict examining college-aged and middle-aged men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.1.11

19.

Courtain

Glowacz

(2020). Exploration of dating violence and related attitudes among adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, 2975–2998. https://doi.org10.1177/0886260518770185

20.

Cuellar

Arnold

Maldonado

(1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863950173001

21.

Cummings

A. M.

Gonzalez-Guarda

R. M.

Sandoval

M. F.

(2013). Intimate partner violence among hispanics: A review of the literature. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9478-5

22.

Cunradi

C. B.

Caetano

Schafer

(2002). Socioeconomic predictors of intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 17(4), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020374617328

23.

Curran

P. J.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

(1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16

24.

Daley

E. M.

Noland

V. J.

(2001). Intimate partner violence in college students: A cross-cultural comparison. International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 4, 35–40.

25.

Dardis

C. M.

Edwards

K. M.

Kelley

E. L.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2013). Dating violence perpetration: The predictive roles of maternally versus paternally perpetrated childhood abuse and subsequent dating violence attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 22, 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1-80/10926771.2013.743948

26.

Dardis

C. M.

Dixon

K. J.

Edwards

K. M.

Turchik

J. A.

(2015). An examination of dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 16(2), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013517559

27.

Davis

S. N.

Greenstein

T. N.

(2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920

28.

Debnam

K. J.

Temple

J. R.

(2021). Dating matters and the future of teen dating violence prevention. Prevention Science, 22, 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01169-5

29.

Debowska

Boduszek

Jones

A. D.

Willmott

Sherretts

(2021). Gender-based violence-supportive cognitions in adolescent girls and boys: The function of violence exposure and victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), 1233–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517741628

30.

DuPont-Reyes

Fry

Rickert

Davison

L. L.

(2015). Adolescent relationship violence and acculturation among NYC Latinos. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(7), 1543–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-014-1659-9

31.

Dutton

M. A.

Goodman

Schmidt

R. J.

(2006). Development and validation of a coercive control measure for intimate partner violence: Final technical report. National Institute of Justice (2001-WT-BX-0503).

32.

Dutton

M. A.

Goodman

L. A.

(2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 52(11–12), 743–756. https://doi.org10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6

33.

Edwards

K. M.

Desai

A. D.

Gidycz

C. A.

VanWynsberghe

(2009). College women’s aggression in relationships: The role of childhood and adolescent victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01498.x

34.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Heyman

R. E.

O’Leary

K. D.

Lawrence

(1999). Feeling controlled in marriage: A phenomenon specific to physically aggressive couples? Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.13.1.20

35.

Fincham

F. D.

Cui

Braithwaite

Pasley

(2008). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence in dating relationship. Psychological Assessment, 20, 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.260

36.

Foshee

(1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/11.3.275-a

37.

Garcia

Hurwitz

E. L.

Kraus

J. F.

(2005). Acculturation and reported intimate partner violence among Latinas in Los Angeles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(5), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504271582

38.

Gil

A. G.

Wagner

E. F.

Vega

W. A.

(2000). Acculturation, familism, and alcohol use among Latino adolescent males: Longitudinal relations. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4), 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(200007)28:4<443::AID-JCOP6>3.0.CO;2-A

39.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(2001). Ambivalent sexism. In Zanna

Mark P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). Academic Press.

40.

Gonzales

N. A.

Fabrett

F. C.

Knight

G. P.

(2009). Acculturation, enculturation, and the psychological adaptation of Latino youth. In Villarruel

F. A.

Carlo

Grau

J. M.

Azmitia

Cabrera

N. J.

Chahin

T. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latino psychology: Developmental and community-based perspectives (pp. 115–134). SAGE.

41.

Gonzalez-Guarda

R. M.

Ortega

Vasquez

De Santis

(2010). La mancha negra: Substance abuse, violence, and sexual risks among Hispanic males. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 32, 128–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945909343594

42.

Goodboy

A. K.

Kline

R. B.

(2017). Statistical and practical concerns with published communication research featuring structural equation modeling. Communication Research Reports, 34(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2016.1214121

43.

Gover

A. R.

Kaukinen

Fox

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314330

44.

Grieco

E. M.

(2010). Race and Hispanic origin of the foreign-born population in the United States: 2007. American Community Survey Reports. https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acs-11.pdf

45.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Rao

Gentry

Marin

Arcury

T. A.

(2009). Acculturation and conflict in Mexican immigrants’ intimate partnerships: The role of women’s labor force participation. Violence Against Women, 15(10), 1194–1212.

46.

Hamberger

L. K.

Larsen

S. E.

Lehrner

(2017). Coercive control in intimate partner violence. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 37, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.003

47.

Hokoda

Del Campo

M. M.

Ulloa

E. C.

(2012). Age and gender differences in teen relationship violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 21(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2012.659799

48.

Kaukinen

(2014). Dating violence among college students: The risk and protective factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521321

49.

Kaura

S. A.

Lohman

B. J.

(2007). Dating violence victimization, relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9092-0

50.

Kelly

U. A.

(2009). “I’m a mother first”: The influence of mothering in the decision-making processes of battered immigrant Latino women. Research in Nursing and Health, 32(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20327

51.

Kline

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

52.

Knight

G. P.

Gonzales

N. A.

Saenz

D. S.

Bonds

D. D.

Germán

Deardorff

Roosav

M. W.

Updegraff

K. A.

(2010). The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale for Adolescents and Adults. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 444–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609338178

53.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

(2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11133-0.

54.

Lamis

D. A.

Leenaars

L. S.

Jahn

D. R.

Lester

(2013). Intimate partner violence: Are perpetrators also victims and are they more likely to experience suicide ideation? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 3109–3128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513488691

55.

Malhotra

Gonzalez-Guarda

R. M.

Mitchell

E. M.

(2015). A review of teen dating violence prevention research: What about Hispanic youth? Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 16, 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014537903

56.

Mancera

B. M.

Dorgo

Provencio-Vasquez

(2015). Risk factors for Hispanic male intimate partner violence perpetration. American Journal of Men’s Health, 11(4), 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988315579196.

57.

Mancera

B. M.

Dorgo

Provencio-Vasquez

(2017). Risk factors for hispanic male intimate partner violence perpetration. American Journal of Men’s Health, 11(4), 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988315579196

58.

Mechanic

M. B.

Weaver

T. L.

Resick

P. A.

(2000). Intimate partner violence and stalking behavior: Exploration of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutely battered women. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 55–72.

59.

Mengo

Black

B. M.

(2016). Violence victimization on a college campus: Impact on GPA and school dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 18(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115584750

60.

Mirandé

(1997). Hombres y machos: Masculinity and Latino culture. Westview Press.

61.

Murnen

S. K.

Wright

Kaluzny

(2002). If “Boys will be Boys,” the girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11), 359–375.

62.

Nagelkerke

N. J. D.

(1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient off determination. Biometrika, 78(3), 691–692.

63.

Ojeda

Piña-Watson

(2014). Caballerismo may protect against the role of machismo on Mexican day laborers’ self-esteem. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033450

64.

Organista

P. B.

Marin

Chun

K. M.

(2010). The psychology of ethnic groups in the United States. SAGE.

65.

Parrot

D. J.

Zeichner

(2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.70

66.

Powers

R. A.

Cochran

J. K.

Maskaly

Sellers

C. S.

(2017). Social learning theory, gender, and intimate partner violent victimization: A structural equations approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(17–18), 3554–3580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517710486

67.

Price

L. E.

Byers

S. E.

(1999). The attitudes towards dating violence scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of Family Violence, 14(4), 351–375.

68.

Rondón

M. B.

(2003). From Marianism to terrorism: The many faces of violence against women in Latin America. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 6, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-003-0169-3

69.

Sabina

Cuevas

C. A.

L. Y.

(2020). Multiple dimensions of acculturation and the victimization of Latino adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(2), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000338

70.

Schwartz

S. J.

Unger

J. B.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Szapocznik

(2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019330

71.

Seddig

Davidov

(2018). Values, attitudes toward interpersonal violence, and interpersonal violent behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00604

72.

Shorey

R. C.

Brasfield

Zucosky

Febres

Stuart

(2015). The relation between alcohol use and psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration among male college students. Violence Against Women, 21, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214564689

73.

Shorey

R. C.

Stuart

G. L.

Cornelius

T. L.

(2011). Dating violence and substance use in college students: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.08.003

74.

Smiler

A. P.

(2006). Conforming to masculine norms: Evidence for validity among adult men and women. Sex Roles, 54, 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9045-8

75.

Smith

T. B.

Silva

(2011). Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of color: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021528

76.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001

77.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811. https://doi.org/1177/1077801204265552

78.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001

79.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

80.

Taylor

B. G.

Mumford

E. A.

Stein

N. D.

(2015). Effectiveness of “Shifting Boundaries” teen dating violence prevention program for subgroups of middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, S20–S26. https://doi.org/1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.004

81.

Terrazas-Carrillo

Sabina

(2019). Dating violence attitudes among Latino college students: An examination of gender, machismo, and marianismo. Violence and Victims, 34(1), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-17-00172

82.

Terrazas-Carrillo

Vásquez

D. A.

Garcia

(2023). Group cohesion in psychoeducational groups with Latinos: Examining cultural correlates. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 73(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.2022.2141248

83.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Webb county quick facts. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/48479

84.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

(2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.997

85.

Vásquez Guerrero

D. A.

(2009). Hypermasculinity, intimate partner violence, sexual aggression, social support, and child maltreatment risk in urban men taking parenting classes. Child Welfare, 88(4), 135–156.

86.

Vásquez

D. A.

de Arellano

M. A.

Reid-Quinones

Bridges

A. J.

Rheingold

A. A.

Stocker

R. P.

(2012). Peritraumatic dissociation and peritraumatic emotional predictors of PTSD in Latino Youth: Results from the hispanic family study. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 13(5), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2012.678471

87.

Vásquez

D. A.

Newman

J. L.

Frey

L. L.

Caze

T. J.

Friedman

A. N.

Meek

W. D.

(2014). Relational health and masculine gender role conflict in the friendships and community relationships of bisexual, gay, and straight men. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 8(2), 124–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2014.895662

88.

Wincentak

Connolly

Card

(2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040194.

89.

Xia

Yang

(2019). RMSEA, CFI and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 409–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2

90.

Yuan

Bentler

P. M.

Zhang

(2005). The effect of skewness and kurtosis on mean and covariance structure analysis: The univariate case and its multivariate implication. Sociological Methods & Research, 34(2), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124105280200

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB