Original reports
Neighborhood Poverty as a Predictor of Intimate Partner Violence Among White, Black, and Hispanic Couples in the United States: A Multilevel Analysis

An earlier version of this paper was presented at a poster session of the American College of Epidemiology Annual Scientific Sessions, San Francisco, CA, September 1998.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-2797(00)00052-1Get rights and content

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study assessed the contribution of neighborhood poverty, measured at the census tract level, to the risk of male-to-female and female-to-male partner violence (MFPV, FMPV) among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States.

METHODS: As part of the 1995 National Alcohol Survey, a representative sample of married/cohabiting couples was obtained through a multistage, multicluster household probability sampling frame. The outcome variables, MFPV and FMPV, were measured through the Conflict Tactics Scale, Form R. Sociodemographic, psychosocial, and alcohol consumption covariates that were statistically significant through bivariate analysis were retained as individual-level predictors. Neighborhood poverty, indicating residence in a census tract where greater than 20% of the population lived below the Federal poverty line, was assessed by appending 1990 Census data to the primary data set. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed, with separate analyses performed for each outcome (MFPV, FMPV) among the white, black, and Hispanic couples.

RESULTS: Couples residing in impoverished neighborhoods are at increased risk for both MFPV and FMPV. The association between residence in an impoverished neighborhood and MFPV was statistically significant for black couples (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.87; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.36, 6.07). The association between residence in an impoverished neighborhood and FMPV was statistically significant for black couples OR = 2.35; 95% CI 1.18, 4.71 and white couples OR = 4.12; 95% CI 1.94, 8.75.

CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of the socioenvironment, such as neighborhood poverty, are associated with the risk of partner violence, particularly among black couples. Policies aimed at reducing community poverty may contribute to effective partner violence prevention strategies.

Introduction

Spousal violence research over the past 30 years has identified a complex array of individual-, household-, and societal-level factors associated with its occurrence 1, 2, 3, 4. While some researchers have analyzed the role of macro-level correlates (e.g., indices of gender inequality at the state level, societal norms approving marital aggression) 5, 6, 7, most studies have focused on the sociodemographic (e.g., age, income, education level) and psychological characteristics (e.g., level of marital discord, verbal aggression) of the perpetrator and/or victim of partner violence without explicitly modeling the role of socioenvironmental or ecologic factors. For example, Sorenson et al., in their multivariate analysis of data from the National Survey on Families and Households, found that urban dwellers were 40% more likely to report physical violence in their marriage in the previous year than suburban dwellers (8). In their study, there were no a priori assumptions concerning the possible association between characteristics of the urban environment (e.g., population density, levels of crime) and the occurrence of partner violence. Rather, residence in an urban (or suburban/rural) area was treated as an individual sociodemographic characteristic.

A growing body of epidemiologic research over the last 10 years has investigated the association between socioenvironmental factors and various health outcomes and behaviors 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. In particular, community socioeconomic characteristics, such as levels of neighborhood poverty and area unemployment, have been linked to numerous individual-level health outcomes. For example, residence in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area (typically measured at the census tract level) has been shown to be associated with increased risk of having a low birthweight infant (19); alcohol-related problems among black men (22); initiation of sexual activity during adolescence (17); household criminal victimization 14, 15; prevalence of coronary heart disease and coronary risk factors (23); and all-cause mortality 9, 10. The publication of these studies has been paralleled by articles and monographs highlighting the utility and methodology of contextual models 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 that seek to incorporate community or aggregate-level characteristics into a multilevel framework of individual- and group-level predictors of individual risk (25).

While there is considerable evidence that individual- and household-level indicators of low socioeconomic status (measured through unemployment, blue-collar occupational status, and level of education and income) are associated with intimate partner violence 8, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, few studies have explored whether couples residing in impoverished neighborhoods are at greater risk for partner violence than couples residing in more affluent areas. A recent ecologic study by Miles-Doan and Kelly that examined rates of police-reported partner violence within 131 census tracts in Duval County, Florida found that median rates of partner violence were nine times higher in concentrated poverty tracts than in non-poverty tracts (35). O'Campo and colleagues (36) analyzed neighborhood- and individual-level predictors of male partner violence during the childbearing year using data from 157 women residing within 76 census tracts in Baltimore, Maryland. Their findings indicate that women residing in census tracts in the lowest quartile of per capita income were four times more likely to report partner violence than women residing in census tracts in the highest quartile of per capita income. An association of similar magnitude was found for women residing in census tracts characterized by high vs. low unemployment rates. These effects were independent of individual-level income. Although they were confined to discrete geographic areas, these two studies provide limited evidence that residence in an impoverished neighborhood may be associated with the occurrence of intimate partner violence.

The present study, based on a national probability sample of married and cohabiting couples in the 48 contiguous states, seeks to test the hypothesis that couples who reside in impoverished neighborhoods are at increased risk for partner violence, after controlling for individual- and household-level factors, compared to couples residing in non-impoverished neighborhoods. Specifically, this study aims to assess the contribution of neighborhood poverty (measured at the census tract level) to the risk of partner violence among a national sample of white, black and Hispanic couples.

Section snippets

Sampling

Subjects were selected through a multistage area household probability sampling procedure from individuals 18 years of age or older living in households in the 48 contiguous states. Only married or cohabiting couples were included for the final stage of selection. The sample had 100 PSUs (primary sampling units based on counties or groups of counties), and included over-samples of black and Hispanic couples. There were 1925 eligible couples selected for the survey; 1635 couples participated for

Bivariate Association Between Neighborhood Poverty and Partner Violence

The study found significant differences across racial/ethnic groups in the proportion of couples living in impoverished neighborhoods χ2 = 44.25, 2df, p < 0.0001. Approximately half of the black and Hispanic couples (47% and 54%, respectively) resided in impoverished neighborhoods as measured through the 1990 Census. Only 11% of white couples, however, resided in such neighborhoods. The pair-wise association between the occurrence of partner violence and residence in an impoverished

The Role of Neighborhood Poverty

As noted in a previous analysis of this study population (44), the 12-month prevalence of interpersonal violence among married and cohabiting couples varied significantly by race/ethnicity, with black couples reporting the highest rates, followed by Hispanics and whites, respectively. The current analysis indicates that the contribution of neighborhood poverty to the risk of partner violence also varies by race/ethnicity. Although a positive association was observed within each racial/ethnic

Conclusion

The results of the analysis lend support to the hypothesis that characteristics of the socioenvironment, such as neighborhood poverty, are associated with the occurrence of intimate partner violence. These findings are consistent with the results of the multilevel analysis reported by O'Campo et al. (36), although that study was based on a sample consisting of pregnant, mostly African-American women residing within the city of Baltimore, Maryland. The present study is the first contextual

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by an Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Research Grant (grant no. 914053) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (grants no. RO1AA10908 and R37AA10908). The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of Paul Gruenewald, Ph.D.

References (64)

  • C. Duncan et al.

    Context, composition and heterogeneityUsing multilevel models in health research

    Soc Sci Med.

    (1998)
  • J. Lynch et al.

    Why do poor people behave poorly? Variation in adult health behaviours and psychosocial characteristics by stages of the socioeconomic lifecourse

    Soc Sci Med.

    (1997)
  • J. Fagan et al.

    Violence between spouses and intimatesPhysical aggression between women and men in intimate relationships

  • M.A. Straus et al.

    Physical violence in American familiesRisk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families

    (1990)
  • M.A. Straus et al.

    Behind closed doorsViolence in the American family

    (1980)
  • E. Stark et al.

    Spouse abuse

  • M.A. Straus et al.

    Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys

    J Marriage Family.

    (1986)
  • M.A. Straus

    State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds in relation to assaults on wives in the United States

    J Comp Family Studies.

    (1994)
  • K.A. Yllo et al.

    Patriarchy and violence against wivesthe impact of structural and normative factors

  • S. Sorenson et al.

    Violence and injury in marital argumentsRisk patterns and gender differences

    Am J Public Health.

    (1996)
  • M. Haan et al.

    Poverty and healthprospective evidence from the Alameda County study

    Am J Epidemiol.

    (1987)
  • R.T. Anderson et al.

    Mortality effects of community socioeconomic status

    Epidemiol.

    (1996)
  • Y. Ben-Shlomo et al.

    Does the variation in the socioeconomic characteristics of an area affect mortality?

    BMJ.

    (1996)
  • G.A. Kaplan

    People and placesContrasting perspectives on the association between social class and health

    Intl J Health Services.

    (1996)
  • G.A. Kaplan et al.

    Inequality in income and mortality in the United StatesAnalysis of mortality and potential pathways

    BMJ.

    (1996)
  • T.D. Miethe et al.

    Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization

    Soc Forces.

    (1993)
  • D.A. Smith et al.

    Household characteristics, neighborhood composition and victimization risk

    Soc Forces.

    (1989)
  • R.J. Sampson et al.

    Neighborhoods and violent crimeA multilevel study of collective efficacy

    Science.

    (1997)
  • K.L. Brewster et al.

    Social context and adolescent behaviorthe impact of community on the transition to sexual activity

    Soc Forces.

    (1993)
  • N. Krieger

    Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical recordsValidation and application of a census-based methodology

    Am J Public Health.

    (1992)
  • P. O'Campo et al.

    Neighborhood risk factors for low birthweight in Baltimorea mulitlevel analysis

    Am J Public Health.

    (1997)
  • S.A. Reijnveld et al.

    Higher prevalence of mental disorders in socioeconomically deprived urban areas in the NetherlandsCommunity or personal disadvantage?

    J Epidemiol Comm Health.

    (1998)
  • J. Wang et al.

    Needle transfer among injection drug usersA multilevel analysis

    Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse.

    (1998)
  • R. Jones-Webb et al.

    Alcohol-related problems among black, Hispanic and white menThe contribution of neighborhood poverty

    J Stud Alcohol.

    (1997)
  • A.V. Diez-Roux et al.

    Neighborhood environments and coronary heart diseasea multilevel analysis

    Am J Epidemiol

    (1997)
  • S.A. Robert

    Community-level socioeconomic status effects on adult health

    J Health Social Behavior.

    (1998)
  • M. Von Korff et al.

    Multi-level analysis in epidemiologic research on health behaviors and outcomes

    Am J Epidemiol.

    (1992)
  • A.V. Diez-Roux

    Bringing context back into epidemiologyVariables and fallacies in multilevel analysis

    Am J Public Health.

    (1998)
  • J.J. Hox et al.

    Multilevel analysis methods

    Soc Methods Res.

    (1994)
  • G.R. Iversen

    Contextual Analysis

    (1991)
  • G. Kaufman Kantor et al.

    The `drunken bum' theory of wife beating

  • E. Aldarondo et al.

    Risk marker analysis of the cessation and persistence of wife assault

    J Consult Clinical Psych.

    (1996)
  • Cited by (318)

    • Association of psychosocial adversity and social information processing in children raised in a low-resource setting: an fNIRS study

      2022, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
      Citation Excerpt :

      Different measures of caregiving have been shown to mediate these associations including inductive discipline (i.e., the use of reasoning to explain parents' actions) and maternal warmth (Choe et al., 2013), maternal responsivity (Wade et al., 2015) and maternal negative and uninvolved interactions (Winer and Thompson, 2011). More specifically, rates of risk factors that are likely to alter a child’s early social environment, including mental illness, spousal violence, stress and family conflict, have been shown to be negatively correlated with socioeconomic status (SES), exposing the children living in low SES families to greater risk for atypical socioemotional developmental trajectories (Cunradi et al., 2000; Evans and English, 2002; Evans and Kim, 2010; Lund et al., 2010; Ridley et al., 2020; Sareen et al., 2011). The link between SES and measures of social cognition and socioemotional development has been widely documented across the 20th century.

    • Defining trauma, adversity, &amp; toxic stress

      2022, Not Just Bad Kids: The Adversity and Disruptive Behavior Link
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text