IDV study 1

 •The work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant T32MH15161 and the University of New Hampshire.

•

 A STUDY OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTSIN 32 COUNTRIES

Soc 695 Family Violence Research In World Perspective Murray A. Straus

THE INTERNATIONALDATING VIOLENCE STUDY (IDVS)

IDV study 2

OBJECTIVES TODAY

AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY

You will be using this data for lab projects all semester

UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF THEORY AND HOW IT APPLIES TO THE STUDY OF FAMILY VIOLENCE

UNDERSTAND HOW THE CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES MEASURES FAMILY VIOLENCE* Shows the importance of measurement in science* Illustrates some aspects of the sociology of science

IDV study 3

IDV study 4

PURPOSE 1: ESTIMATE THE PREVALENCE OF KINDS OF PARTNER “VIOLENCE” * PHYSICAL ASSAULT

* INJURY FROM ASSAULT * SEXUAL COERCION * PSYCHOLGICAL AGGRESSION

FOR EACH TYPE PREVALENCE (%) SEVERITY CHRONICITY (How often)

MAIN PURPOSES OF THE IDVS

IDV study 5

PURPOSE 2: TEST THEORIES ABOUT THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PARTNERS

WHAT IS A THEORY?

For purposes of this course:* An explanation of why something is the way it is.

* Can be: 1. As yet untested – a set of ideas 2. Tested but not yet widely accepted3. Conclusive in the sense of the evidence is

accepted by almost all scientists in that filedBut even category 3 is always open to question

Example of theory to be tested in the next two labs:* Spanking is part of the explanation of violence* Falls in category 2

IDV study 6

SOCIAL INTEGRATION OF MEXICAN AMERICAN AND NON-MEXICAN WHITE STUDENTS

AND ASSAULTS ON DATING PARTNERS

Ignacio Luis Ramirez Texas Technological University

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Social Integration Score

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f Ass

au

lt

Non-Mexican Mexican American

ANOTHER EXAMPLE

* WHAT IS THE THEORY TESTED FOR THIS GRAPH?

* WHAT ARE TWO THEORIES OF DATING VIOLENCE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE TESTED?

IDV study 7

OTHER EXAMPLES OF THEORIES THAT CAN BE TESTED WITH INTERNATIOAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY DATA

ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITYALCOHOL ABUSEANGER MANAGEMENT SKILLDOMINANCE OF ONE PARTNERCOMMUNICATION PROBLEMSCRIMINALITYGENDER HOSTILITYGENDER INEQUALITYSELF-CONTROLSOCIAL INTEGRATIONSOCIAL STRESSVIOLENT CHILD REARINGVIOLENT CULTURAL NORMS

IDV study 8

IDV study 9

THE CONCEPT OF A “RISK FACTOR”

“RISK FACTOR” IS A SYNONYM FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE WHEN IT REFERS TO

•A CONDITION WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH AND INCREASED PROBABILITY OF A DISEASE OR PROBLEM

• EXAMPLES:–SMOKING AND DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE

(33% chance)–MALE DOMINANCE AND WIFE BEATING

(20% chance - 7 fold increase) –SPANKING AND DELINQUENCY

(24% chance - 5 fold increase)–BINGE DRINKING AND WIFE BEATING

(19% chance - 3 fold increase)

IDV study 10

SOME ILLUSTRATIVE FINDINGS

* RATES OF ASSAULT AND INJURY

* TESTS OF THEORIES ABOUT THE CAUSES

IDV study 11

PHYSICAL ASSAULT SCALE OF THE CTS2

MINOR PHYSICAL ASSAULT• Slapped my partner• Grabbed my partner• Threw something at my partner that could hurt• Twisted my partner’s arm or hair• Pushed or shoved my partner

SEVERE PHYSICAL ASSAULT• Punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt• Kicked my partner• Slammed my partner against a wall• Choked my partner• Beat up my partner• Burned or scalded my partner• Used knife or gun on my partner

IDV study 12

SITE TOTAL FEM/MALE% SITE TOTAL FEM/MALE%USA-LOUISIAN 44.7 (38.1 48.2) 126.5% IND-PUNE 22.2 (12.5 25.8) 206.4%MEX-JUAREZ 42.0 (30.8 44.3) 143.8% USA-LOUISIAN 21.0 (18.0 22.5) 125.0%IND-PUNE 39.0 (33.3 41.2) 123.7% USA-MISSISSP 20.5 (20.0 20.6) 103.0%CAN-LONDON 36.3 (25.9 44.2) 170.7% KOR-PUSAN 17.4 (9.9 22.2) 224.2%USA-MISSISSP 34.5 (24.0 35.7) 148.8% CAN-LONDON 15.6 (13.8 16.9) 122.5%KOR-PUSAN 33.7 (24.7 39.4) 159.5% MEX-JUAREZ 15.4 (12.8 15.9) 124.2%USA-INDIANA 33.5 (39.0 31.5) 80.8% USA-INDIANA 13.4 (18.6 11.5) 61.8%USA-TX-MEX 33.1 (34.0 32.4) 95.3% CAN-TORONTO 12.4 (8.5 14.4) 169.4%USA-TX NCDCHS 31.3 (42.4 26.8) 63.2% USA-TX-N MEX 12.3 (11.8 12.8) 108.5%BEL-FLEMISH 31.0 (26.0 32.5) 125.0% HKG-HONGKONG 11.4 (5.8 15.0) 258.6%CAN-TORONTO 30.6 (23.8 34.2) 143.7% USA-CINCINN 11.3 (12.1 10.5) 86.8%USA-TX-N MEX 30.6 (31.1 30.2) 97.1% NZL-CHRISTCH 10.6 (4.2 12.4) 295.2%NDL-AMSTRDAM 30.2 (31.4 29.7) 94.6% USA-TX NCDCHS 10.4 (21.2 6.1) 28.8%DEU-FREIBURG 29.5 (37.1 24.0) 64.7% CAN-HAMILTON 9.6 (5.4 10.3) 190.7%CAN-WINNIPEG 29.0 (38.5 27.7) 71.9% USA-TX-MEX 9.6 (10.8 8.9) 82.4%HKG-HONGKONG 28.6 (19.5 34.6) 177.4% ISR-EMEKZYRL 9.4 (9.7 9.4) 96.9%USA-NH 1 28.5 (24.7 30.2) 122.3% AUS-ADELAIDE 9.2 (9.5 9.1) 95.8%NZL-CHRISTCH 26.6 (16.7 29.2) 174.9% USA-NH 2 9.0 (9.0 9.1) 101.1%USA-NH 2 26.5 (26.1 26.6) 101.9% CAN-WINNIPEG 8.9 (16.7 8.0) 47.9%CHE-FRENCH 24.5 (30.2 22.5) 74.5% CAN-MONTREAL 8.8 (7.9 9.1) 115.2%USA-CINCINN 24.5 (22.8 26.1) 114.5% CHE-GERMAN 8.7 (7.4 9.0) 121.6%CHE-GERMAN 23.9 (18.5 25.2) 136.2% USA-NH 1 8.2 (4.3 10.0) 232.6%BRA-SAOPAULO 23.3 (22.4 23.8) 106.3% BEL-FLEMISH 8.1 (6.0 8.7) 145.0%CAN-HAMILTON 23.0 (13.5 24.5) 181.5% PRT-BRAGA 7.6 (9.4 5.0) 53.2%CAN-MONTREAL 22.8 (20.6 23.4) 113.6% DEU-FREIBURG 7.3 (10.3 5.2) 50.5%SGP-SINGAPORE 22.7 (11.6 27.8) 239.7% BRA-SAOPAULO 6.8 (8.4 6.1) 72.6%USA-PENNSLVNA 21.9 (14.0 24.3) 173.6% USA-UTAH 6.1 (4.5 7.0) 155.6%AUS-ADELAIDE 21.3 (19.1 21.8) 114.1% SGP-SINGAPORE 5.0 (1.5 6.6) 440.0%ISR-EMEKZYRL 20.8 (22.6 20.4) 90.3% USA-PENNSLVNA 4.9 (4.7 5.0) 106.4%USA-UTAH 17.7 (16.4 18.4) 112.2% CHE-FRENCH 4.5 (8.0 3.3) 41.3%PRT-BRAGA 17.1 (17.4 16.7) 96.0% NDL-AMSTRDAM 4.4 (8.6 3.0) 34.9%R: Tot-Male = 0.67, Tot-Female = 0.93, Male-Fem = 0.39 R: Tot-Male = 0.61, Tot-Female = 0.96, Male-Fem = 0.37

Table 4A. Overall Assault Perpetration (%) Table 4B. Severe Assault Perpetration (%)(MALE FEMALE) (MALE FEMALE)

PHYSICAL ASSAULT RATES

IDV study 13

CTS2

IDV study 14

TOTAL INJURY SEVERE INJURYSITE TOTAL FEM/MALE% SITE TOTAL FEM/MALE %

IND-PUNE 20.0 (13.0 22.4) 171.7% IND-PUNE 12.5 (8.7 13.9) 159.2%CAN-LONDON 19.3 (13.8 23.4) 169.5% CAN-LONDON 8.9 (10.3 7.8) 75.3%USA-LOUISIAN 18.0 (17.1 18.5) 108.5% USA-LOUISIAN 7.6 (15.4 3.8) 24.7%USA-INDIANA 14.8 (25.4 10.8) 42.3% USA-INDIANA 7.4 (13.6 5.1) 37.6%USA-WASH DC 12.1 (15.4 11.4) 74.3% USA-TX NCDCHS 5.3 (9.7 3.7) 37.8%USA-TX-N MEX 11.5 (9.9 12.8) 129.3% USA-CINCINN 5.0 (9.0 1.2) 13.7%MEX-NORTHERN 10.4 (7.9 10.9) 138.7% USA-WASH DC 4.9 (0.0 5.8) 0.0%KOR-PUSAN 10.1 (8.9 10.9) 123.5% KOR-PUSAN 4.4 (2.5 5.6) 219.8%USA-TX NCDCHS 9.7 (19.4 6.1) 31.5% USA-MISSISSP 3.9 (8.3 3.4) 40.2%CAN-TORONTO 9.5 (8.6 10.0) 115.7% CAN-TORONTO 3.3 (3.7 3.1) 84.6%USA-CINCINN 9.3 (12.7 6.1) 48.2% USA-TX-N MEX 3.1 (5.0 1.6) 32.5%USA-MISSISSP 9.3 (16.0 8.5) 53.1% CAN-HAMILTON 3.0 (5.4 2.6) 47.9%GBR-SCOTLAND 8.0 (5.9 8.4) 142.5% ISR-EMEKZYRL 2.7 (3.2 2.5) 78.3%CAN-HAMILTON 7.8 (5.4 8.2) 150.6% USA-TX-MEX 2.5 (6.6 0.0) 0.0%USA-TX-MEX 7.6 (8.8 6.9) 77.9% DEU-FREIBURG 2.4 (4.4 1.0) 23.6%NZL-CHRISTCH 7.1 (8.3 6.7) 80.9% HKG-HONGKONG 2.3 (5.8 0.0) 0.0%BEL-FLEMISH 6.7 (5.0 7.3) 145.0% USA-NH 2 2.1 (3.1 1.8) 59.1%CAN-MANITOBA 6.5 (6.3 6.5) 104.0% BRA-SAOPAULO 1.9 (2.4 1.7) 69.7%USA-NH 2 6.3 (7.5 5.9) 79.2% USA-PENNSLVNA 1.9 (5.7 0.6) 10.8%ISR-EMEKZYRL 5.9 (8.1 5.4) 66.7% MEX-NORTHERN 1.8 (2.6 1.6) 60.5%HKG-HONGKONG 5.5 (5.8 5.3) 91.5% CHE-GERMAN 1.6 (0.0 2.0) 0.0%DEU-FREIBURG 5.4 (8.6 3.1) 36.5% GBR-SCOTLAND 0.9 (0.0 1.1) 0.0%USA-NH 1 5.0 (3.9 5.5) 140.8% USA-NH 1 0.8 (0.4 1.0) 227.9%CAN-MONTREAL 4.8 (9.5 3.5) 36.3% CAN-MANITOBA 0.7 (0.0 0.8) 0.0%BRA-SAOPAULO 4.2 (3.6 4.4) 123.8% CAN-MONTREAL 0.7 (1.6 0.4) 26.7%SGP-SINGAPORE 3.6 (4.4 3.3) 76.1% CHE-FRENCH 0.5 (2.0 0.0) 0.0%PRT-BRAGA 3.5 (5.9 0.0) 0.0% SGP-SINGAPORE 0.5 (1.5 0.0) 0.0%USA-PENNSLVNA 3.2 (7.6 1.8) 24.4% BEL-FLEMISH 0.5 (2.0 0.0) 0.0%CHE-GERMAN 3.1 (0.0 3.9) 0.0% AUS-ADELAIDE 0.4 (0.0 0.5) 0.0%AUS-ADELAIDE 2.9 (0.0 3.6) 0.0% NDL-AMSTRDAM 0.0 (0.0 0.0) 0.0%NDL-AMSTRDAM 2.2 (8.6 0.0) 0.0% NZL-CHRISTCH 0.0 (0.0 0.0) 0.0%USA-UTAH 2.2 (3.0 1.8) 58.5% PRT-BRAGA 0.0 (0.0 0.0) 0.0%CHE-FRENCH 1.5 (2.0 1.3) 67.3% USA-UTAH 0.0 (0.0 0.0) 0.0%

R: Tot-Male= .73, Tot-Female=.96, Male-Female=.53

(MALE,FEMALE) (MALE, FEMALE)

R: Tot-Male= .76, Tot-Female= .91, Male-Female= .49

IDV study 15

Assault Severe Perpetration

24%22%20%18%16%14%12%10%8%6%4%2%

Inju

ry T

otal

Per

petra

tion

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

MEX-JUAR

BRA-SAOP

CAN-HAMICAN-WINN

CAN-LOND

CAN-MONT

CAN-TORO

USA-NH 1

USA-TX-M

USA-TX-N M

USA-UTAH

USA-CINC

USA-NH 2

USA-MISS

USA-LOUI

USA-TX-NC

USA-INDI

USA-PENN

IND-PUNE

HKG-HONG

KOR-PUSA

SGP-SINGAUS-ADEL

NZL-CHRI

NDL-AMSTCHE-FREN

CHE-GERMPRT-BRAG

BEL-FLEM

DEU-FREIISR-EMEK

FIGURE 1. THE HIGHER THE PERCENT WHO SEVERELY ASSAULTED A PARTNER, THE MORE PARTNERS WHO WERE INJURED (TOTAL)

r = 0.85

SCATTER PLOT EXAMPLE

IDV study 16

CTS2

IDV study 17

CONCLUSIONS

• HIGH RATES OF ASSAULT AND INJURY IN ALL COUNTRIES

• RATES OF PERPETRATION BY WOMEN AND MEN ARE SIMILAR,

EXCEPT MEN CAUSE MORE INJURY

• THE INJURY DATA SHOWS THAT MANY ASSAULTS ARE NOT TRIVIAL

• RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER STUDIES OF STUDENTS

• THERE ARE LARGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

– Presumably these are because of cultural and social organizational

differences between the national contexts

– We will test that theory in the lab projects

IDV study 18

STRENGTHS OF THE IDV STUDY Well-validated instrument to measure partner violence – the Conflict Tctics

Scales or CTS. Used in over 40 countries with respondents of all socioeconomic levels, including low education rural and urban populations and university students.

Unusually wide range of risk factors. The personal and relationships profile

or PRP measure 23 variables associated with partner violence

Procedures were tested with more than 1,000 students at three different universities in the USA and in Ciudad Juarez in Mexico.

Includes a scale to control for reluctance to disclose socially undesirable

behavior such as PV (Social Desirability scale)

30 nations provide the opportunity to examine the effect of socio-cultural differences on risk factors for dating-violence, including sites in all major world regions.

Locally salient issues for each site. Example: El Paso Texas site -- level of

acculturation for a predominantly Mexican American sample.

IDV study 19

LIMITATIONS OF THE IDVS

• NOT A RANDOM SAMPLE OF ANY SPECIFIC UNIVERSE“Random”“Universe”Implications

• NO ASSURANCE THAT TRANSLATIONS WERE DONE CORRECTLY

• EVEN IF TRANSLATED CORRECTLY, CONCEPT MAY NOT BE MEANINGFUL IN ALL CULTURAL CONTEXTS

• PROCEDURES WERE BIZARRE FOR STUDENTS IN SOME COUNTRIES

• WEAK OR NO EVIDENCE OF VALIDITY FOR MOST OF THE MEASURES OF RISK FACTORS

• NOT ENOUGH CASES IN A FEW COUNTRIES

• OTHER?

IDV study 20

WHY THE IDVS IS WORTH DOING DESPITE THE LIMITATIONS

• NO OTHER DATA ON PV THAT IS COMPARABLE INTERNATIONALLY

• PERMITS TESTS OF MANY THEORIES

IDV study 21

POINTS TO BE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND

• THE TWO MAIN PURPOSES OF THE IDVS AND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS

• AN EXAMPLE OF A RESULT FROM EACH PURPOSE

• WHAT A SCATTER PLOT AND REGRESSION LINE ARE (WILL BE CLEAR WHEN WE DO LAB C)

• THE CONCEPT OF “RISK FACTOR” AND AN EXAMPLE

• THE CONCEPT OF A “SOCIAL CAUSE”

• THE CONCEPT OF MULTIPLE CAUSATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

• LIMITATIONS OF THE IDVS

• WHY THE STUDY IS WORTH DOING DESPITE THOSE LIMITATIONS

IDV study 22

END FOR SOC 695 (2007)

IDV study 23

SOME FINDINGS ON RISK FACTORS FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST A DATING PARTNER

Each Tests A Theory About What Is Related To Or Causes Partner Violence

Data On Risk Factors Is From The Personal And Relationships Profile

IDV study 24

THE PERSONAL AND RELATIONSHIPS PROFILE (PRP)

PSYCHOLOGICAL RISK FACTORS ASP ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY BOR BORDERLINE PERSONALITY CH CRIMINAL HISTORY DEP DEPRESSION GHM GENDER HOSTILITY TO MEN GHW GENDER HOSTILITY TO WOMEN NH NEGLECT HISTORY PTS POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SC SELF-CONTROL SD SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS SI SOCIAL INTEGRATION SUB SUBSTANCE ABUSE STR STRESSFUL CONDITIONS SAH SEXUAL ABUSE HISTORY VA VIOLENCE APPROVAL VS VIOLENT SOCIALIZATION SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP RISK FACTORS (BEHAVIOR TOWARDS OR BELIEFS ABOUT THE PARTNER) AM ANGER MANAGEMENT CP COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS CON CONFLICT DOM DOMINANCE JEL JEALOUSY NA NEGATIVE ATTRIBUTION RC RELATIONSHIP COMMITMENT RD RELATIONSHIP DISTRESS

IDV study 25

DOES LOW SOCIAL INTEGRATION INCREASE THE RISK OF HITTING A PARTNER?

SOCIAL INTEGRATION SCALE ITEMS

Commitment I have goals in life that I try to reach I give up easily on difficult projects (R) Criminal Beliefs It’s all right to break the law as long as you don’t get hurt (R) To get ahead, I have done some things which are not right (R) Delinquent Peers I spend time with friends who have been in trouble with the law.(R) I have friends who have committed crimes (R) Involvement I attend a church, synagogue, or mosque once a month or more I rarely have anything to do with religious activities (R) Kin Network Availability I have family members who would help me out if I had a problem I share my thoughts with a family member

IDV study 26

SOCIAL INTEGRATION OF MEXICAN AMERICAN AND NON-MEXICAN WHITE STUDENTS

AND ASSAULTS ON DATING PARTNERS

Ignacio Luis Ramirez Texas Technological University

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Social Integration Score

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f Ass

au

lt

Non-Mexican Mexican American

IDV study 27

CRIMINAL HISTORY SCALE ITEMS PROPERTY CRIME VIOLENT CRIME EARLY ONSET CRIME

Before age 15, I stole or tried

to steal something worth more than $50.00

Before age 15, I stole money

(from anyone, including family)

Before age 15, I physically

attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them

Before age 15, I hit or threatened to hit my parents

LATER CRIME

Since age 15, I have stolen or

tried to steal something worth more than $50.00

Since age 15, I have stolen

money (from anyone, including family)

Since age 15, I physically

attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them

Since age 15, I hit or threatened to hit someone who is not a member of my family.

IDV study 28

IDV study 29

ARE COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS

PART OF THE PROBLEM?`

IDV study 30

E

IDV study 31

RISK FACTORS FOR PSYSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION

(VERBAL ATTACKS)

* RISK FACTORS ARE SIMILAR TO RISK FACTORS FOR PHYSICAL ASSAULT

* PROBABLY BECAUSE PSYCHOLGICAL AND PHYSICAL ATTACKS ARE HIGHLY

CORRELATED

IDV study 32

CTS2

IDV study 33

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Relationship Length (in months)

Pre

dic

ted P

rob

ab

ility

Psych A

gg

r T

ota

l

Males

Females

THE LONGER THE RELATIONSHIP, THE GREATER THE PROBABILITY OFPSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION

IDV study 34

THE PREVIOUS FOUR GRAPHS ILLUSTRATE

TESTS OF FOUR THEORIES• SOCIAL INTEGRATION• CRIMINAL HISTORY• COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS• LENGTH OF THE RELATIONSHIP

ALSO ILLUSTRATES THE INTER-RELATION OF THE SOCIAL AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES

IDV study 35

WHAT IS A THEORY

For Purposes Of This Course

* AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY SOMETHING EXISTS, OCCURS, OR CHANGES

* “PROVEN” OR ESTABLISHED THEORY VERSUS HYPOTHESIZED THEORY

• Proven means that the accumulated the evidence has reached the point where there is a concensus among scientists that the theory is correct. Examples: Heliocentric theory of the solar system

EvolutionBirds descended from dinasors now proven

* ANY THEORY ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR THAT IDENTIFIES ONLY ONE CASUSE IS PROBABLY WRONG

In the sense of incomplete because almost all behavior has multiple causes. Examples:

Drinking problemsMale dominance Social learning

IDV study 36

THE CONCEPT OF A “RISK FACTOR”

“RISK FACTOR” IS A SYNONYM FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLE WHEN IT REFERS TO

•A CONDITION WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH AND INCREASED PROBABILITY OF A DISEASE OR PROBLEM

• EXAMPLES:–SMOKING AND DEATH FROM SMOKING RELATED DISEASE

(33% chance)–MALE DOMINANCE AND WIFE BEATING

(20% chance - 7 fold increase) –SPANKING AND DELINQUENCY

(24% chance - 5 fold increase)–BINGE DRINKING AND WIFE BEATING

(19% chance - 3 fold increase)

IDV study 37

IDV study 38

CONCLUSIONS•VIOLENCE AGAINST DATING PARTNERS HAS MANY “CAUSES” (“RISK FACTORS”)

•THE “CAUSES” OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PARTNERS ARE SIMILAR FOR MEN AND WOMEN

•EACH ADDITONAL RISK FACTOR INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF VIOLENCE, BUT NONE GUARANTEE VIOLENCE

•MOST OF THE RISK FACTORS ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE CHANGED. SO PREVENTION OF FAMILY VIOLENCE IS A REALISTIC SOCIAL POLICY GOAL