J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360 DOI 10.1007/s10896-015-9770-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Implementing a Strengths-Based Approach to Intimate Partner Violence Worldwide Sylvia M. Asay 1 & John DeFrain 2 & Marcee Metzger 3 & Bob Moyer 4

Published online: 31 July 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Family violence is a core social issue in every country around the world. The extent and consequence of family violence as a major problem has received increased attention around the world. The focus of the present study is not only to inform about intimate partner violence (IPV) that occurs in individual countries, but to illustrate how individuals, families, communities, and cultures use their strengths to overcome the challenges that violence presents. An analysis of 16 countries, including 17 cultures is represented and includes all seven of the world’s major geocultural areas. Qualitative methodology was used to examine the stories of intimate partner violence in which similarities and differences across cultures were discovered resulting in a theoretical discussion of findings. The International Family Strengths Model was applied to examine the family strengths, community strengths, and cultural strengths used to mitigate family violence worldwide. Individual strengths emerged as a new and important component of the model. Suggestions for change include recognition of differing solutions across cultures, the need for mediation and policy changes, and the importance of empowerment. Keywords Family . Domestic abuse . Gender . Global . International . Culture . Community * Sylvia M. Asay [email protected] 1

Department of Family Studies and Interior Design, University of Nebraska at Kearney, 905 W. 25th Street, Kearney, NE 68849, USA

2

Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

3

Voices of Hope, Lincoln, NE, USA

4

Family Violence Council, Lincoln, NE, USA

Implementing a Strengths-Based Approach to Intimate Partner Violence Worldwide Family violence is a core social issue in every country around the world (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006). There is a historical and political bias that exists in which events which occur outside the home are more significant than events that occur within the home and that what happens inside the home is private and not public (Pierotti 2013). These have helped to mask the impact of family violence. The extent and consequence of family violence as a major problem has received increased attention around the world (Darling and Turkki 2009) and it is hard to conceive how to construct strong nations without creating healthy violence-free families. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is often the most recognized form of family violence with women most often being the victim of abuse. Findings from the World Health Organization’s multi-country study on domestic abuse confirm a reported prevalence of physical or sexual violence among partners varied from 15 to 71 % among 24,097 women in 10 countries (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006). Half of the women who are involved in a homicide worldwide die from injuries inflicted by a current or former partner (McCue 2008). It has only been in the past 30 years that this kind of widespread violence against women has been regarded as a serious human rights issue internationally (Kishor and Johnson 2004; United Nations 2008). While family violence is a common experience worldwide, there are problems involved in addressing incidents that are never reported, police and other officials who do not take the reports seriously, abusers who are rarely removed or prosecuted, and legal and social services for survivors that are seriously lacking. In some countries, violence against a spouse is not considered a crime and is often considered a private matter

350

that should not involve the police or the court system (Maryniak 2000). Similarly, other types of family violence may be disregarded because they are not culturally accepted (Adams 2004). McCue (2008) suggests that there is a culture of silence that contributes to the widespread belief that family violence is private. This may be a factor in the amount of underreporting that exists from women and other family members as well as the lack of response from family, community, and government when nothing has been reported or acknowledged. In some areas of the world, family violence also has a connection to religious beliefs and practices. The culture of silence continues as some religious sects perceive women as inferior, view the marriage and other family relationships as private, refuse to allow women to leave an abusive relationship, or offer little or no help when violence occurs. Although many turn to religion for help, most religious leaders have had no training in responding to family violence. Although there is great diversity among religions, most religious leaders reluctantly support divorce or separation as the answer to intimate partner violence and view it as a private matter. Some leaders even blame the survivor for the abuse (Levitt and Ware 2006; Asay 2011). Reports of IPV vary in relation to level of economic development. More industrialized countries show a lower incidence of partner violence. Some countries report higher rates of IPV in more traditional rural areas than in urban areas (Garcia-Moreno et al 2006). Although patriarchal ideologies continue around the world, each setting holds a specific set of behaviors within the socio-cultural context that change the experience of violence for women (Menjivar and Salcido 2002). McCue (2008) suggests that these patriarchal norms and traditions affect not only the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence, but how society responds to it as well. Johnson and Ferraro (2000) advocate for caution when making assumptions about the global context in light of the complexities that separate populations. These complexities include cultural differences, various social and economic structures, and the consequences of political conflict. They suggest that the social, cultural, political layers of any society must be considered and not carelessly generalized in discussing violence in the home.

The Importance of Studying Intimate Partner Violence from a Strengths-Based Perspective The focus on family strengths brings into a more reasonable balance our understanding of how families succeed in the face of life’s inherent difficulties beginning in the 1930s with Woodhouse’s (1930) study of 250 successful families during the Great Depression. Otto’s work on strong families and family strengths followed (Gabler and Otto 1964; Otto 1962,

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360

1963). The family strengths perspective is a world-view or orientation toward life and families that is positive and optimistic and grounded in research conducted around the world. Family problems are not ignored, but are seen as vehicles for testing our capacity as families and reaffirming our vital human connections with each other. Not until the 1970s did family strengths research begin to gain momentum (Casas et al 1984; DeFrain and Asay 2007; DeFrain et al. 1994; DeFrain and Stinnett 2002; Olson et al. 2011; Stinnett and DeFrain 1985; Stinnett and O’Donnell 1996; Stinnett and Sauer 1977; Xie et al. 1996). Researchers in 38 countries, to date, have found remarkable similarities from culture to culture when studying family strengths. Six major qualities of strong families have emerged from the research and include: showing appreciation and affection for each other; commitment; positive communication; spending enjoyable time together; sharing a sense of spiritual well-being and values; and the ability to manage stress and crisis effectively. Understanding family strengths requires understanding the cultural contexts in which families live. People live within the context of their family, their extended family, the community, and the broader national culture that cannot be easily understood, labeled, or judged. Numerous external factors enmesh and influence families, sometimes proving helpful and useful to individual families, but at other times proving harmful and demanding. A positive and useful approach to conceptualizing families from a global perspective links family strengths, community strengths, and cultural strengths and demonstrates how families use these strengths to meet the many challenges they face (DeFrain and Asay 2007). The International Family Strengths Model incorporates all three levels of strength in an analysis of the strengths and challenges of families in 18 countries. In addition to the six major qualities of a strong family identified and outlined above, a number of important community and cultural strengths were identified. Community strengths are infused in the immediate neighborhood or area in which the family lives. These strengths include: a supportive social environment that genuinely values families and a general willingness and natural generosity infused in the community to help when families are in need; an effective educational delivery system; religious communities for families seeking this kind of support; family-service programs developed by government and non-governmental organizations for families who cannot find the help they need from their own extended family, friends and neighbors; and a safe, secure, and healthy environment. Cultural strengths cover a broader area than just a local community and have developed over a long period of time in social and historical context. Cultural strengths include: a rich cultural history; shared cultural meanings; a stable political process; a viable economy; and an understanding of the global society.

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360

The stability of the families is dependent almost solely on the strengths of the individual family and their immediate community. Even though there may be chaos in the larger environment, the family can continue to nurture each other and to function as an effective family, though their cultural heritage is being threatened. Using the International Family Strengths Model (DeFrain and Asay 2007), equilibrium would be represented by the intersection of only family strengths and community strengths. When political order is re-established, cultural strengths will again have a positive influence within the family. This illustrates the truly amazing ways that families all over the world are able to use their strengths to triumph over even the most horrendous conditions and insecure situations. Strengths also help families who live in relative prosperity and freedom to rise above complacency and the subtle erosion of the family. Although the previous attempts illustrate how individuals and their close relationships connect to their community and culture within the context of IPV and do provide valuable information about the perpetrators and risk factors for survivors (Heise 1998; Krug et al. 2002), very little thought is given to the factors that are present that can help an individual and their family to rise above the challenges of IPV. Much of the literature presented on IPV around the world focuses on how control is maintained by the perpetrator through the persistent use of various tactics such as threats, coercion, economic and verbal abuse, and isolating victims from support and help, in addition to violence. This literature points to the failures of the government or embedded social structures to recognize the abuse that is occurring and to support effective interventions and changes because they fail to recognize the abuse (Jayakody et al. 2008; Levitt and Merry 2009; Pierotti 2013; Yount and Rashad 2008).

Methodology Much of the literature about IPV worldwide focuses on a particular community or culture or a handful of countries. In addition, the emphasis is placed on current demographics and the fluctuations of IPV incidence over time rather than a plan for change. The focus of the present study is not only to inform about the prevalence and incidence of violence that occurs in individual countries, but to demonstrate how individuals and families, communities, and cultures use their strengths to overcome the challenges that IPV presents. An analysis of the countries represented, along with an examination of the stories of IPV are used to make new discoveries about the individuals and families who find themselves involved. The current study examines IPV worldwide by sampling 16 countries including 17 cultures representing all seven of the world’s major geocultural areas - Africa (South Africa, Botswana, and Kenya); Asia (China, India, and Korea); Europe

351

(Greece, Moldova, and Russia); Latin America (Brazil and Mexico); The Middle East (Israel/Palestine); North America (Canada and the United States); and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). The research team, assembled by the authors from each country, linked more than 50 people and included academic researchers and community service workers specializing in family violence. Researchers from each country were asked to identify and interview at least one individual who had found a way to rise above their tragic situation and struggle toward a better life for themselves and their families to provide a case study example within that context. Researchers were asked not only to examine the problems of family violence in each country, but to uncover solutions. Family violence was viewed from multiple perspectives of the individual involved in the violence, the family, the community, and the culture. The authors used the data from each country to form a theoretical discussion of findings from this work group. For this study, intimate partner violence is considered not only physical acts of violence, including sexual violence, but also abusive behaviors such as intimidation, coercion, threats, and isolating victims from friends, family members and others that could provide support and help as well as preventing victims from receiving information that might be helpful. In addition, although the majority of victims tend to be women, men can also be viewed as potential victims. In order to preserve diverse approaches to investigating IPV, researchers from the 16 countries were asked to examine IPV in their country from a strengths-based macro-perspective, focusing on existing research, statistics, and experiences; and from a strengths-oriented micro-perspective, by focusing on one individual who succeeded in building a new life. Each represented a unique perspective on the common problem of IPV worldwide. Qualitative methodology was chosen for this study as it is the most appropriate method for the nature of the subject. Within this project, both grounded theory and case study traditions were used. Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggest that grounded theory is a way of thinking about and conceptualizing data and that existing theory can be expanded and modified as new data becomes available to compare. For this study, previous research that resulted in developing the International Family Strengths Model (DeFrain and Asay 2007) was used as a starting point to examine IPV worldwide. Although it may have been possible to statistically analyze quantitative data among the countries such as in a meta-analysis, the phenomenon of IPV provides familiar and intricate details that are difficult to display using quantitative methods. In addition, using case studies or stories of victims allowed the researchers to uncover new information that emerged through the stories that were told. These stories allowed the researchers to increase their understanding of family violence using what Stake (1995) describes as particularization (p. 39),

352

seeing the case as both unique as well as shared in attempt to see a more complete picture of IPV in their country. Findings regarding IPV from a global perspective with a strengths-based orientation were derived from qualitative analyses. All 16 countries’ research reports were reviewed and analyzed, and shared findings were formed. Researchers were able to include a variety of data including a review of literature and government documents, historical analysis of family violence within their country, interviewing those involved in services, and a case study that was used for analysis. The authors worked together to discuss emerging patterns and themes and used open coding to select themes that were conceptually connected or found in existing literature. Once the themes were identified, authors then used axial coding to organize and develop conclusions in which everyone was in agreement. In an effort to further validate general conclusions, these global findings were returned to the researchers of each of the 16 countries for review, modification, or clarification where necessary.

Findings A variety of findings emerge as a result of the data provided. Table 1 provides a compilation of some of the information provided by researchers in 16 countries represented in this study and relevant to the following discussion. Some key findings that emerge from this study start with the similarities across cultures. These include common forms of violence, violence includes those from all social class and ages, women are more often the victims, and abuse tends to include not only partners but children as well. Based on the information gathered about IPV within their countries, researchers in all 16 countries found that violence is a serious problem in their culture. However, the teams also reported that denial of the extent of the problem exists to a greater or lesser degree in all countries, including the unwillingness to acknowledge that the bulk of intimate partner violence is committed by males and that the permission to use this violence unchecked has been rooted in beliefs about men’s and women’s roles in families. These ideas closely follow the previous research findings and point to the failure of many governments to establish effective laws and policies (Jayakody et al. 2008; Levitt and Merry 2009; Pierotti 2013; Yount and Rashad 2008). Causes of Abuse Broadly speaking, the causes of IPV worldwide are quite similar. However, because of cultural, historical, and environmental differences these similarities are relatively unique within each country, culture, and family. Commonly cited causes of IPV include: 1) a history of violence from generation to generation; 2) alcoholism and other forms of substance abuse; and 3) male dominance. The more

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360

developed countries have come to recognize that issues of power and control are the underlying causes of violence. Issues such as alcohol abuse, poverty, and urbanization are identified as risk factors that can increase the incident or severity of violence rather than the cause. This agrees with current literature (Arthur and Clark 2009; Graham et al. 2011; Johnson and Ferraro 2000; Jewkes 2002). Patriarchal Beliefs and Gender Equity In the area of IPV, the most compelling example focuses on patriarchal beliefs, which set up a hierarchy with men at the top and women with less status. By objectifying women in families and making them inferior to men, a patriarchal belief system gives justification for abusive behavior. These patriarchal beliefs are deeply embedded in all cultures. Abusers rarely disclose their abuse, in part because they believe they are justified in using violence. A number of general statements can be made: family violence occurs behind closed doors; all cultures can be skillful at ignoring the problem of family violence; and adequate statistics on IPV are often difficult to find. These findings agree with previous research about the role that patriarchal views play in the connection to IPV (Kishor and Johnson 2004; Levitt and Ware 2006; Menjivar and Salcido 2002; McCue 2008). Efforts to recognize and end, or at least reduce, IPV run into deep and long-held cultural beliefs, including the notion that patriarchy makes a family strong. These traditional beliefs create and support hierarchical, male-dominant structures in business, politics, government, education, health organizations, religious institutions, and families and these structures are commonly seen as insuring a natural social order. However, considerable friction arises between opposing belief systems at all social levels, pitting a belief in the traditional family system against the changing lives of women. As a result, conflicts arise not just within a family, but between families and their broader culture, or between community interests and cultural traditions. Cultural norms where women are viewed as the property of men such as in India or where the supremacy of men is legitimized by religion such as in Israel (Younes 2014), as well as laws that favor patriarchy such as in Botswana (Mberengwa et al. 2014), are all examples of friction that exist in society. A consistent issue unfolding in all countries, albeit in different ways, is the struggle to define the roles of men and women around the world. The research teams found that gender roles are changing steadily, generally leading to the formation of more equal relationships in which women’s roles are steadily becoming less subservient to men. As countries improve communication and grow their economies, women gain greater access to birth control, marry at later ages, and have fewer children. As a result, increasing numbers of women can pursue higher education and a career, resulting in greater individual autonomy. In turn, power

Response differs across all 50 states

Diverse population with strong ties to religion and culture

Discrimination and increased violence in society creates more vulnerability for women

Very few studies exist on family violence

One out of 3 households have experienced continuous episodes of violence

Violence that does not Patriarchal traditions; the family is Societal instability; include direct physical private sphere and self-regulating; unemployment; alcoholism; injury is viewed as normal violence is hidden and unreported; emotional deprivation; shame is brought to the family witnessed violence as child Patriarchal norms; alcohol and Very little recorded data Patriarchal family is changing but drug addiction; poverty and exists on violence still traditional; violence is hidden unemployment; media; low and unreported; issues for the levels of education family are private; friends and family are consulted first

United States

Israel (Jewish)

Israel (Arab)

Brazil

Mexico

Russia

Greece

Aboriginals and immigrants do not have access to services or do not utilize

Canada

Patriarchal views see violence against women as acceptable in the family and in other spheres

patriarchal and religious social system; women are protected within marriage; family violence is seen as private matter and unreported. Islamic law sets standards of family life; extended family important; reputation and honor rests on the discipline of family members and justifies violence (honor killings Patriarchal rights to power; women are to serve and obey; the family is idealized as a place of security and protection

Many victims have family support

Male privilege; religious women and those following traditional gender roles are less likely to leave abusive situations

Male’s rights; acceptance of violence and seen as private and is underreported; victims have family support

Bicultural country of indigenous peoples and colonization immigrants

New Zealand

Inequality In men’s and women’s roles; risk factors include poverty

Witnessed violence as child; risk factors include mental health, alcohol/ drug abuse, and inequality

Religious and patriarchal views; marginalization in society

Religious and patriarchal views; migration

Need for power and control

Need for power control; risk factors include anger and substance abuse

Temporary loss of control/ temper; risk factors include patriarchal norms, alcohol, peer pressure, pornography, media, and witnessing violence as a child Loss of power and control; witnessed violence as child

Gender inequality exists; leaving home increases chances of poverty and instability

Traditional values include individualism and competitiveness

Australia

Cause of violence

Family response

Compilation of country specific data. (Asay et al. 2014a, b)

Country/ Culture Uniqueness

Table 1

Domestic Violence Act provides support but access is complex

A debate continues about the definitions of family violence

The National Domestic Violence Summit; The Family Law Act

Government response

Federal Laws include policy funding and coordination among states

Most believe violence should be punished but implementation of penalties are slow

Fifth Global Conference for Women in Beijing began discussions; although some laws were ratified, there has been little change

No formal laws have been passed against family violence

No explicit/systematic policy has been created but the National System for Integral Family Development (DIF) have programs and shelters

National Institute for Women successful in promoting changes locally and in public education; active NGOs No coordination of efforts among social services and organizations; limited shelters or support A few shelters and consultation centers have been established; lack of cooperation with police; National Council on Greek

Law No. 11.340 deterring and preventing domestic and familial violence against women (Maria da Penha Law)

No formal social sanctions are in place outside of criminal activity

If convicted, light sentence for Prevention of Violence in the serious offenders; removal Family Law of the perpetrator from the family, protection order, mandatory treatment If convicted, light sentence for Prevention of Violence in the serious offenders; removal of Family Law the perpetrator from the family, protection order, and mandatory treatment

Arrest and conviction; mandatory intervention programs

Mandatory arrest (single or dual A series of policies and arrest) and incarceration; procedural changes within the mandatory treatment programs; criminal justice system coordinated prosecution model

There is a shift away from viewing the man as a perpetrator to men as partners in prevention strategies

Accountability for perpetrators

Law provide for police protection, medical attention, and shelters; Human Rights Hotline

Family Violence Courts in local districts provide advocacy, legal help, accommodations, education, and financial assistance Shelters and transition housing in urban areas; counseling and advocacy available; coordinated social services; specialized Domestic Violence Courts Shelters, crisis lines, and advocacy centers; coordinated community response with victim safety at the core Religious laws provide for mediation in family disputes; social services are available but are resisted because of mistrust of secular society Abuse is mediated by family members; reputation and honor are compromised if services are utilized

Diversity requires different responses; collaboration is being sought across sectors; education for young people; prevention programs

Community response

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360 353

Patriarchy is emphasized and gender stereotypes continue; preservation of the family and its social image are important

Social transformation from communism has connections to violence

Rapidly developing and economically stable country

Confucian philosophy views women as inferior

Complex culture and religious traditions influence family violence

Family violence rate is twice that of the global average; vulnerability to HIV/AIDS is significant

Religion promotes gender inequality; one in 5 women are subjected to violence

Diverse family customs, structures, and religion; lower status for women and the right for men to be violent

Moldova

South Korea

China

India

South Africa

Botswana

Kenya

Patriarchal norms and male proprietary rights; migration and urbanization; stress; economic instability; witnessed violence as child; alcohol abuse

Cause of violence Women engaged in some activities; active NGOs Very few shelters and little support for victims especially in rural areas; active NGOs are present; need for training for clergy and police

Community response

Police work with perpetrators to develop preventative measures; mandatory rehabilitative programs

Accountability for perpetrators

Confucianism society and Patriarchal attitudes; stress; Women’s crisis hotline, counseling Restraining orders; required patriarchal norms; violence is witnessing parental violence; centers and shelters; Bfamily education for perpetrators private; women seen as a alcohol; women’s rights of sisterhood^ serves as commodity and often see support system violence as their fault; few choose separation or divorce as it brings guilt and shame Violence is considered private Traditional marriage beliefs; Community mediation is sought Lawsuits can be filed but most drug abuse before the services are involved; do not utilize hotlines are available; Women’s Federation of China advocates for services Family dignity and status in society Special Cells for women and Convictions include up to 3 years is paramount; Patriarchal views; children; NGOs are present; incarceration or fine for boys are considered assets and women’s organizations physical or mental cruelty of girls liabilities; extended family is push for public awareness wife by husband or in-laws; important; violence is seen as 7 years incarceration for private; dowry price discourage Bdowry death^ women in from seeking help Marriage is sealed through Iobola; Patriarchal norms; increase Reconciliation is left to family, women are subordinate in women’s rights church, and traditional structures; poor treatment by police; bribery; NGOs provide some services Customary law and mediation Marriage must be preserved; Patriarchal norms; increased within tribes handle domestic women who rebel in marriage urbanization and migration; violence (Kgotla Community are punished diminishing influence of the Courts); women rely on extended family; increase in informal social networks; limited women’s rights services, NGOs are present Violence is allowed to continue Urbanization; risk factors A few shelters are available; the because of property rights for include patriarchal views, International Federation of men; both men and women agree poverty, alcohol abuse and Women Lawyers offer legal help; that men should be able to the HIV/AIDS epidemic Gender Violence Recovery punish their wives Center provide medical assistance

Family response

Country/ Culture Uniqueness

Table 1 (continued)

Commission on the Law of Marriage and Divorce asked for changes in laws but has not happened; No laws are in place but some policies reduce prevalence

Some laws are in place

Government collaboration with community structures has begun and some laws are in place

Fifth Global Conference for Women in Beijing began discussions; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Women

Act on Domestic Violence Prevention and Victim Protection; 3rd Women’s Policy Plan

Family Code outlines the rights/responsibilities of family relationships; Preventing and Combating Family Violence laws; National Program on Ensuring Gender Equity; Implementation is slow

Government response

354 J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360

dynamics in families change, challenging historic entitlements mostly held by men. As these power dynamics evolve, they come in conflict with traditional beliefs about the entitlement to use coercive, power-over control tactics by those in power. These beliefs are well established and lead to the use of violence. For example in the South Korean context, researchers talk about the Bpatriarchal thinking process … that incorrectly presumes that men control the family^ (Chung and Ok 2014, p.83). In Botswana, unwritten customary law does not recognize women as equal partners to men (Mberengwa et al. 2014). Researchers in Moldova reported about the idea that most women agree with traditional gender roles in which the man is the head of the household who should not be questioned (Asay et al. 2014a, b). Studies in sub-Saharan Africa, find that women are more likely than men to condone wife-beating as acceptable discipline (Mberengwa et al. 2014; Nkosi and Daniels 2014; Njue et al. 2014). This causes IPV to continue to be prevalent and is a barrier to change. The Russian researcher reveals that men who do not predominate in the home are called Bhenpeckers,^ an offensive term given to men who let their wives run the family (Zubkov 2014). Several of the researchers revealed that the family is seen as a private institution and that violence is tolerable behind the closed doors of the home, including China and in India where what happens in the home is Babove public scrutiny^ (Xia et al. 2014; Kashyap and Panchal 2014). The Mexican case study is not unlike other stories where the abused woman is reluctant to bring her concerns to officials because, BI feel it is my problem, and no one can help me. And that’s it, I stayed that way^ (Esteinou 2014, p. 161). These changes impact not only families, but the broader community and culture.

Social Change Can Lead to Violence Social changes can occur when abuse is identified and there is an attempt to address the problem within society. Because families and the broader culture in which they live are deeply embedded in patriarchy, revealing abuse and identifying abusers can be dangerous. While encouraging victims to leave abusive situations is necessary, their safety can be compromised without cultural changes that support the victims’ right to live in a safe environment. This can come from the communities’ unwillingness to recognize their responsibility to provide a safe place that may result in a lack of shelters for victims. Intimate partner violence inflicts considerable harm to its victims, both physical and psychological, and though victims often fight back, they too often cannot overcome because they lack needed community resources. Women stay in violent relationships for many reasons, including fear, economic hardship or lack of financial autonomy, inadequate support services, the feeling that they have nowhere to go, and the belief that somehow they deserve what is happening to them. Furthermore, social change can lead to violence, as those in

355

positions of power may not be in favor of the needed changes. When victims attempt to leave, the danger is likely to increase. In addition, societies in transition may be likely incubators of IPV. Many observers believe that the global economic downturn has led to an increase in family violence. And in other ways, global economic change such as the migration from rural to urban areas can disrupt long-held family patterns. Accountability Holding perpetrators accountable is often poorly addressed. While there have been considerable efforts initiated to help victims of abuse, frequently strategies to hold perpetrators accountable draw less interest, including creating and implementing interventions. Little mention was made by our research teams about programs for perpetrators in the socalled developed countries, except the hope that they will be held accountable for their actions, including jail time. None of our research teams mentioned successful programs to rehabilitate perpetrators. The attention, rather, focused on stopping the perpetrator from brutalizing the rest of the family and to protect the rest of the family from continuing harm. While some of the countries represented in the study draw on local community or family mediation, it is difficult to assess the level of accountability for perpetrators. For example, in South Africa, reconciliation is often left up to the family or the church to resolve and accountability is determined and carried out by traditional structures not connected to the government (Nkosi and Daniels 2014). These conventions are not regulated or reported and outcomes are unknown. These findings are consistent with other studies where the focus is on the role of local control (Smith and Ross 2004; Merry 2001).

The International Family Strengths Model Modified From the beginning of the study, the conceptual framework focused on family strengths, community strengths, and cultural strengths of the International Family Strengths Model (DeFrain and Asay 2007). Using this model, the assumption was made that Individual Strengths would emerge within family strengths as no one in the world stands completely alone and that individually, everyone in the world is a part of some kind of family. However, in the analysis, individual strengths emerged as strong predictors in the ability for a victim of IPV to rise above the situation and move forward from a position of strength. It became clear that developing individual strengths are critical in helping to end family violence and should be elevated to its own category (See Table 2). Cultural Strengths Around the world, the organizations and individuals working with violence are increasingly successful at developing strategies to utilize cultural strengths to improve safety for victims. There is considerable cultural diversity in

356 Table 2

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360 Individual, family, community, and cultural strengths: tools for an optimal response to family violence

Individual strengths • Self-respect and grace under pressure • Survival skills (e.g., courage, resourcefulness, resilience, tenacity, planning for safety) • Strategic thinking (e.g., problem-solving skills, recognizing available resources, the ability to follow through) • Commitment to her family • Being a loving parent (e.g., willingness to sacrifice for her children, and protect them) • Good ethical values and an understanding of social justice • Spiritual well-being (hope and a vision for change)

Family strengths • Appreciation and affection for each other • Commitment • Positive communication • Enjoyable time together • A sense of spiritual well-being and shared values • The ability to manage stress and crisis effectively

Community strengths • A supportive social environment that values families • An effective educational delivery system • Religious communities for families seeking this kind of support • Family-service programs and coordinated responses • A safe, secure and healthful environment • Accountability for perpetrators

Cultural strengths • A rich cultural history that gives meaning, direction, and inspiration for dealing with life’s challenges • Shared cultural meanings (e.g., symbols, folk wisdom) that build a sense of common identity among people • A stable political process • An understanding of society from a global context

how these strategies are implemented. However, all share the common focus on creating safety through social networks. Using the International Family Strengths model, it is difficult to apply concepts of building the strengths of families when there is such a cultural imbalance of power and the idea of equality between men and women is not in place. However, all cultures establish rules against causing harm to others that include punishments. The key challenge regarding family violence has been to find a way to use those cultural beliefs related to violence regardless of the cultural beliefs about the roles of men and women. Efforts are occurring in all countries, but at varying levels of success. When laws protecting all family members from violence are enacted on the national level indicating a broad national consensus in the way the culture views IPV, there is a chance that these laws over time will filter down to the local level and policies will be created to protect victims. There appears to be a relationship between the culture’s communication and economic growth and the pace of developing community and cultural support for improved safety within families. The more connected and intertwined countries become internationally, the greater the improvement. For example, laws and policies were enacted following global initiatives such as the Fifth Global Conference for Women in Beijing in 1995, mentioned by researchers in Mexico (Esteinou 2014) and Greece (Kaldi-Koulikidou and Plevraki 2014), and the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women in 1993 mentioned by researchers in Australia (Schubert et al. 2014) and New Zealand (Dickey 2014). Developed countries such as the United States and Canada have more laws and policies and have more services available. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from outside the country are working in more emerging countries where governmental resources and intervention are

limited. Certain areas within countries that are less advanced in terms of communication and economic growth appear to be more likely to cling to entitlement beliefs about the use of violence within families. In these culturally isolated areas, evolving cultural strengths and community strengths from outside are less likely to penetrate and aid to victims is less likely to develop. Researchers reported that safety is compromised by the lack of communication with the outside world, blocking social improvements to stop IPV. Societies with severe economic problems, crime, alcohol and other drug abuse, an epidemic of HIV/AIDS, gangs, and other significant signs of disorder and breakdown also compound difficulties. Societies in transition where there is dramatic out-migration from stable agricultural communities to relatively unstable urban settings lacking jobs, decent housing, and good schools are especially precarious environments. And even relatively stable societies stricken by the recent global economic crisis are also likely to see an increase in IPV as a result of the economic downturn. In many ways, a woman and a family caught up in an unstable society may face events totally beyond their control. Cultural strengths, in sum, can make a tremendous difference in the ability to regulate IPV. Community Strengths On the community level, public agencies and organizations that recognize the problem of domestic violence and work together in a well-coordinated effort to manage these problems are essential. Communities that see IPV as a threat to the public good rather than a right of privacy given by default to male family members, are important to successfully meeting these problems head on. And public institutions and police forces that are reluctant to help and look the other way are in strong contrast to communities who offer protection for citizens, even behind closed doors.

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360

Some examples of concerted efforts by the community can be found in India where the Special Cells are created to work together on issues or in New Zealand where family courts are set up to address therapeutic jurisprudence specifically to help victims of domestic violence (Dickey 2014). In Botswana, the researchers describe the kgotla, a traditional community court that can informally handle issues of domestic violence, which is especially effective and empowering when the members are knowledgeable about the subject (Mberengwa et al. 2014). In China, the researchers report about a concerted education effort that has been established in Taiwan by the Ministry of Education (Xia et al. 2014). These specific types of efforts are likely to thrive in a healthy community. When people in communities are interested in the well-being of others, they are more likely to demand that community programs are created and set in place to meet the needs of those who cannot meet their own needs, and are willing to pay for such programs. As in the Kenya case, we see the contrast between the individual orientation of western countries and the communitarian orientation of the African nations as the issues of domestic violence are based on the community values and dictates rather than on individual psychopathology that is often blamed for the violence (Njue et al. 2014). Family Strengths All families have strengths, even though not every family is strong. But even in the most troubled family there can be significant strengths demonstrated by family members. These strengths can be seen as the foundation upon which a new and better life can be built. Key themes emerged about the family’s role and response for victims among the various cultures represented. Family strengths were evident when the family worked together to help and support the victim of violence. Hope is demonstrated by family members who protect and nurture each other when confronted by a violent member of the family. Among the cases examined, many offered examples of family members coming alongside victims with support and help. The case from the United States reveals the woman’s own words about her sister’s support, BMy youngest sister never stopped calling me^ (Metzger and Moyer 2014, p. 210). Unfortunately, the cultural shame brought on the family in a violent situation becomes a barrier for many women. Examples of this can be found within the cases such as Greece where parents of an abused woman Bfeared the gossip of neighbors^ (KaldiKoulikidou and Plevraki 2014, p. 103) or in India where it is believed that BBeti ka ghaar to sasural hi hai^ (a daughter’s place is in her matrimonial home) and the parents were afraid of the taunts they would receive from their caste community (Kashyap and Panchal 2014, p. 75). Besides looking at strengths in the nuclear family, it is important to consider the strengths of the extended family and the role this larger family can play in helping a woman escape a

357

desperate situation. Relying on the strengths of the broader family, members step in when necessary and help to rescue the woman from imminent danger. These kinds of support help the woman regain her self-esteem and resilience over time. Individual Strengths The strengths of individuals include women who had the ability to move ahead and use their own personal strengths such as the ability to think through their options carefully and enlist people who could help them. In the Korean story, the woman was able to form a new family of sisterhood (a modern-day version of pumasi and iutsachon in Korean culture) among survivors of marital violence (Chung and Ok 2014). Women who rise above domestic violence also seem to be the kind of people who find a way to be optimistic about their future and look on the bright side of the situation as they make plans to move forward. One woman in the Canadian context was identified as proactive in making plans to keep herself and her children safe (Nason-Clark et al. 2014). Sometimes the movement for change begins with the woman herself, sometimes the woman interacting with another supportive person. The case from China reveals the importance of Bstrong and constant support from outside^ in being able to leave an abusive situation (Xia et al. 2014, p. 62). Sometimes the woman bears the abuse stoically, but when the perpetrator attacks her children she rises up to protect them. The case from New Zealand points out a woman who stayed in a relationship for 14 years and left for the safety of her twin boys and their siblings, not for her own (Dickey 2014). The cases from around the world collected for this research project reveal that individuals and families can use their strengths to great advantage as they link with supportive communities and cultural values that identify with the better perspectives of our world. However, this is just the beginning of our understanding of how strengths play a role in the ability for individuals to overcome IPV. Just as with the International Family Strengths Model, when one or more of the various levels of strengths are not present, other strengths can compensate. For example, when a culture is slow to recognize the rights of women who are being abused and there are very few community strengths in place to help, a woman’s individual strengths can still be developed and used to help her through the difficulties she faces. The journey will be more challenging of course, but still possible to undertake. Likewise, the victim is isolated and away from family and may not have the benefit of family strengths to see them through. Without family strengths, including the understanding and support of family, the victim may need to rely on available community strengths to help get away from the abuser. All areas of strengths are critical in helping to escape abuse, though many are forced to make a change in their lives without all the available resources that would be useful to them in the process.

358

Suggestions for Change Following the analysis of the research collected across the 16 countries, there are some conclusions that emerge that are important in bringing to the attention of those who work with IPV. The first conclusion discovered is that different cultures will find different solutions. Traditional cultures will be more likely to try to keep the family together. More contemporary cultures in economically developed nations will be more likely to encourage women and children to seek shelter and leave their partners. Secondly, mediation has proven to be a useful tool, especially in traditional societies. In more traditional cultures where the cohesiveness of the family is seen as more important than the rights of the individual – especially the rights of women and children – the approach to dealing with IPV is likely to focus on mediation of a more peaceful situation in the family. The elders in the family or the community are likely to intervene and help find a peaceful solution to the family’s problems. Negotiation, reconciliation, and coexistence are emphasized, preserving the peace in the community. Devotion and politeness are encouraged in the discussions and mediators are not allowed to be harsh or rude toward complainants. Dissolution of the marital relationship is discouraged, for this would have consequences that would reverberate in countless ways throughout the community. For example, the solution to the problem is likely to include submission of the wife and children to the husband’s will, and perhaps the admonition that the husband not be so harsh in his behavior toward his subordinate family members. Third, empowerment is key. Implementing strategies and education to help victims of IPV to develop individual strengths will empower them to rise above their circumstances and move forward in abusive situations. In practical terms, advancing programs where individual strengths can be developed and fostered will go a long ways in helping to empower someone who may not have the skills to avoid getting into negative relationships or to rise above the violence that surrounds them. Fourth, there are ways to balance individual rights and the needs of the group. I-ness and We-ness can be overemphasized when talking about cultures. No culture could function effectively long-term by being totally oriented toward individual rights. Likewise, no culture could function effectively long-term totally oriented toward the well-being of the group at the expense of the well-being of the individual. Most cultures find a workable balance between I-ness and Weness in addressing the issues and concerns for family violence. Finally, stopping IPV also requires changes in policy. Macro level support from communities and cultures in the form of changes in laws, policies, and procedures must occur to support efforts for change on the micro level of individuals and families. These measures to define IPV, delineate procedures for dealing with it, protect victims, increase the rights of

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360

women in families, develop systems of punishment for perpetrators, and increase the economic, political and social status of women are spreading steadily around the world. Often, however, even when laws are passed or policies changed, implementation lags as many people in various institutions in society resist change and continue to look the other way.

Summary and Conclusions Limitations exist in this study that should be acknowledged. Seventeen cultures cannot begin to tell the story of family violence worldwide. The individual cases that were utilized represent only a fraction of cases that could help to tell the story of violence around the world. In addition, certainly not all those who are involved in violence are resilient. It should also be acknowledged that interpretation of the data by U.S. authors in developing the set of themes represented in the study could show bias, given the lens in which they view the data. Moreover, the method of identifying themes was largely driven by the theoretical model of International Family Strengths which may have biased the authors’ conclusions. More research is needed to further investigate the findings of this study and to expand information that surrounds this topic. The findings of the global research team for this study clearly demonstrate that change is a series of dynamics among cultures, communities, families, and individuals. Change begins with the individual and hopes for of a better life for themselves and their children. And change comes when that individual has the courage and vision to reach out and seek help from others who will support their journey. The process of change quickens if they are fortunate enough to live in an immediate community which supports their need for a shelter from danger; the process of change is enhanced if community members are skilled in leading victims to education and services. And change is legitimized when the broader culture on the national level values human rights and creates laws to support all individuals and their children in an egalitarian and supportive environment. Family violence without a doubt is a serious problem from a global perspective today. Around the world, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse is a major threat to family well-being. The process of change from country to country will be a long and arduous journey. Major changes are happening on all levels changes in the lives of individuals who are seeking a better world for themselves and their children; changes in how communities support these victims in their quest; and changes on the national cultural level as new laws and policies are written. A global conversation has begun about how to create strong families. Being aware of the extreme challenges that some family members experience with IPV, change cannot come fast enough.

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360

References Adams, B. (2004). Families and family study in international perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1076–1088. doi:10.1111/j. 0022-2445.2004.00079.x. Arthur, C., & Clark, R. (2009). Determinants of domestic violence: a cross-national study. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 35(2), 147–167. Asay, S. M. (2011). Awareness of domestic violence within the evangelical community: Romania and Moldova. Journal of Family Violence, 26(20), 131–138. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9350-4. Asay, S. M., Bodrug-Lungu, V., & Robila, M. (2014a). Family violence in Moldova. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengthsbased approach (pp. 108–121). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10. 4135/9781483387635. Asay, S. M., DeFrain, J., Metzger, M., & Moyer, B. (Eds.). (2014). Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483387635. Casas, C. C., Stinnett, N., Williams, R. C., DeFrain, J., & Lee, P. A. (1984). Identifying family strengths in Latin American families. Family Perspectives, 18, 11–17. Chung, G. H., & Ok, S. W. (2014). Marital violence in South Korea. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 81–92). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. Darling, C. A., & Turkki, K. (2009). Global family concerns and the role of family life education: an ecosystematic analysis. Family Relations, 58, 14–27. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00531.x. DeFrain, J., & Asay, S. M. (Eds.). (2007). Strong families around the world: Strengths-based research and perspectives. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. DeFrain, J., & Stinnett, N. (2002). Family strengths. In J. J. Ponzetti et al. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of marriage and family (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference Group. DeFrain, J., DeFrain, N., & Lepard, J. (1994). Family strengths and challenges in the South Pacific: an exploratory study. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 24(2), 25–47. Dickey, E. C. (2014). Family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 234– 248). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. Esteinou, R. (2014). Family violence in Mexico. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 152–164). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. Gabler, J., & Otto, H. (1964). Conceptualization of family strengths in the family life and other professional literature. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26, 221–223. doi:10.2307/349735. Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A. M. F., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. H. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. The Lancet, 368, 1260–1269. doi:10.1016/S01406736(06)69523-8. Graham, K., Bernards, S., Wilsnack, S. C., & Gmel, G. (2011). Alcohol many not cause partner violence bust is seems to make it works: a cross national comparison of the relationship between alcohol and severity of partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1503–1523. doi:10.1177/0886260510370596. Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: an integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. doi:10.1177/ 1077801298004003002. Jayakody, R., Thornton, A., & Axinn, W. G. (Eds.). (2008). International family change: Ideational perspectives. New York: Taylor & Francis.

359 Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359, 1423–1429. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5. Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948–963. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x. Kaldi-Koulikidou, T., & Plevraki, S. (2014). Domestic violence against women in Greece. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 94–107). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. Kashyap, L., & Panchal, T. (2014). Family violence from and Indian perspective. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengthsbased approach (pp. 67–80). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/ 9781483387635. Kishor, S., & Johnson, K. (2004). Profiling domestic violence: A multicountry study. Calverton: ORC Macro. Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (Eds.). (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Levitt, P., & Merry, S. (2009). Venacularization on the ground: local use of global women’s rights in Peru, China, India and the United States. Global Networks, 9(4), 441–461. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009. 00263.x. Levitt, H. M., & Ware, K. N. (2006). Religious leaders’ perspectives on marriage, divorce, and intimate partner violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 212–222. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006. 00283.x. Maryniak, I. (2000). Something to think about. Index on Censorship, 29(2), 76–82. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00263.x. Mberengwa, L. R., Maundeni, T., & More, K. K. (2014). Domestic violence in Botswana: Factors that help women overcome abuse. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 15–28). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. McCue, M. L. (2008). Domestic violence (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Menjivar, C., & Salcido, O. (2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence: common experiences in different countries. Gender and Society, 16(6), 898–920. doi:10.1177/089124302237894. Merry, S. E. (2001). Rights, religion, and community: approaches to violence against women in the context of globalization. Review of Law and Society, 35(1), 39–88. doi:10.2307/3185386. Metzger, M., & Moyer, B. (2014). Family violence in the United States: A community and a country respond. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 200–213). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. Nason-Clark, N., Fisher-Townsend, B., McMullin, S., & Holtmann, C. (2014). Family violence in Canada. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 182–199). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. Njue, J. R., Rambo, D., Smart, L. S., Latonia, A. N., & Mbirianjau, W. (2014). Domestic violence in Kenya: Strengths-based research. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengthsbased approach (pp. 29–50). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/ 9781483387635. Nkosi, B., & Daniels, P. S. (2014). Family violence from a global perspective: Strengths-based research and case studies—the case of South Africa. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengthsbased approach (pp. 2–14). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/ 9781483387635.

360 Olson, D. H., DeFrain, J., & Skogrand. (2011). Marriages and families: Intimacy, strengths, and diversity (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Otto, H. A. (1962). What is a strong family? Marriage and Family Living, 24, 77–81. doi:10.2307/348232. Otto, H. A. (1963). Criteria for assessing family strength. Family Process, 2, 329–339. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1963.00329.x. Pierotti, R. S. (2013). Increasing rejection of intimate partner violence: evidence of global cultural diffusion. American Sociological Review, 78(2), 240–265. doi:10.1177/0003122413480363. Schubert, L., Crofts, P., & Bird, K. (2014). Good things come to those who wait: Striving to address domestic and family violence in Australia. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengthsbased approach (pp. 216–233). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10. 4135/9781483387635. Smith, A., & Ross, L. (2004). Introduction: native women and state violence. Social Justice, 31(4), 1–7. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Stinnett, N., & DeFrain, J. (1985). Secrets of strong families. Boston: Little, Brown. Stinnett, N., & O’Donnell, M. (1996). Good kids. New York: Doubleday. Stinnett, N., & Sauer, K. (1977). Relationship characteristics of strong families. Family Perspective, 11(3), 3–11. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

J Fam Viol (2016) 31:349–360 United Nations. (2008). Good practices in legislation on violence against women: Report of the expert group meeting. Vienna: United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women & United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Woodhouse, C. G. (1930). A study of 250 successful families. Social Forces, 8, 511–532. doi:10.2307/2570367. Xia, Y., Wang, C., Luo, S., Wang, H., & Zhang, X. (2014). Domestic violence in a Chinese context: Who gets the blame? In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 52–66). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. Xie, X., DeFrain, J., Meredith, W., & Combs, R. (1996). Family strengths in the People’s Republic of China. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 26(2), 17–27. Younes, M. N. (2014). Contextualizing oppression and family violence in Israel: Israeli and Palestinian experiences. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 166–180). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635. Yount, K. M., & Rashad, H. (Eds.). (2008). Family in the Middle East: Ideational change in Egypt, Iran, and Tunisia. Oxford: Routledge. Zubkov, V. L. (2014). Violence in the modern Russsian family. In S. M. Asay, J. DeFrain, M. Metzger, & B. Moyer (Eds.), Family violence from a global perspective: A strengths-based approach (pp. 122– 137). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483387635.