Prevalence, antecedent causes and consequences of domestic violence in Myanmar

Asian Journal of Social Psychology

(2005)

8

: 244–271

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychologyand the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2005

Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKAJSPAsian Journal of Social Psychology1367-2223Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2005December

200583244271Original Article

Domestic violence in MyanmarNilar Kyu and Atsuko Kanai

Correspondence:

Atsuko Kanai, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University,Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan. Email: [email protected]

Prevalence, antecedent causes and consequences of domestic violence in Myanmar

Nilar Kyu and Atsuko Kanai

Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

The present study explored women’s experiences of domestic violence in Myanmar.In particular, the study examined the relation between antecedents and outcomesof their experiences as well as influences of attribution styles, response styles anddifferent types of violence on their experiences. Using the Myanmar version of theRevised Conflict Tactic Scale, survey data from a representative sample of 286 womenin Myanmar were conducted. Results indicated that 27% of women experiencedphysical assault and 69% of women experienced psychological aggression in a 1-yearperiod. The factors associated with increased risks of violence included witnessingparental violence, husbands’ unemployment, husbands’ frequent alcohol use, andwomen’s feminism attitudes. Severe physical assault was a strong predictor ofnegative outcomes and formal intervention. Formal intervention was related to fewernegative outcomes.

Key words: domestic violence, marital violence, Myanmar, physical assault,psychological aggression, spouse abuse.

Introduction

Domestic violence is one of the most prevalent forms of violence against women, and it imposesan enormous burden for women throughout the world. It can be physical, psychological and sexual.It occurs in all countries and transcends social, economic, religious, and cultural groups. In mostcountries, between 20 and 36% of women are physically or sexually assaulted and between 40and 75% of women are psychologically assaulted by their husbands or other intimate male partners(Smith, 1987; Straus & Sweet, 1992; Hoffman

et al.

, 1994; Ratner, 1998; Yoshihama, 1999;Tjaden, 2000; Weingourt

et al.

, 2001; Jewkes

et al.

, 2002; Koeing, 2003).In contrast to other countries, research on the elimination of domestic violence in Myanmar

is still in its initial stages. Myanmar is a country in South-east Asia where women represent about50% of a total population of around 50 million people. Myanmar comprises seven States andseven Divisions. The predominant religion is Theravada Buddhism with 90% of the populationbeing Buddhists (Khin Win Shwe, 2002). Until recently, domestic violence was considered largelya private matter and hidden as a shameful secret. However, in 1996, the Myanmar governmentcreated a national committee called the ‘Myanmar National Committee for Women’s Affairs’(MNCWA), with the aim of implementing the Beijing Platform for Action and future programsfor women’s advancement. Violence against women has been included in the six areas taken by

Domestic violence in Myanmar

245


the Myanmar National Working Committee for Women’s Affairs, the general goal of which is thereduction of all forms of violence suffered by women (MNCWA, 1997). Recently, the research onviolence against women was conducted in all States and Divisions in Myanmar. The researchfindings revealed that mental violence ranged from 4 to 21% and physical violence ranged from3 to 15% (Khin Win Shwe, 2002). Violence against women is increasingly recognized as aproblem with serious medical and social consequences and has become a prominent issue inMyanmar. Counseling centers are established in every State and Division to help victims ofviolence.

More research is needed to explore the prevalence rate of domestic violence in the Myanmarcommunities. The present study was designed to contribute to the understanding of the nature ofdomestic violence in Myanmar by exploring the relations between various antecedent variablesand outcomes variables. In addition, the study explored influences of victims’ attributions andresponse styles on the types of domestic violence involved.

Antecedent causes of domestic violence

Domestic violence between intimate partners is caused by a combination of risk factors. A numberof reviews suggest that the strongest and most consistent factors include experiencing and/orwitnessing parental violence, low socioeconomic status, husbands’ unemployment and frequentalcohol use, and women’s low assertiveness (Gelles, 1980; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Feldman& Ridley, 1995). Researchers have discussed intimate partner violence as a learned social behaviorfor both men and women and transmitted across generations. Studies have shown that childrenwho experience or witness family violence are more likely to become perpetrators or victims ofviolence in adulthood (Gelles, 1974; Kalmuss, 1984; Demaris, 1990; Macmillan & Gartner, 1999).These children learn to accept violence as victims of abuse as well as abusers of violence. Gelles(1976) theorized that women who have been victims of family violence may be provoking theirown victimization in their current families by repeating the patterns they learned when they weregrowing up.

Although domestic violence occurs across the socioeconomic spectrum, low income andpoverty are among the strongest and most consistent correlates of male-to-female domesticviolence (Gelles, 1974; Straus

et al.

, 1980; Hoffman

et al

., 1994; Jewkes, 2002). Moreover,unemployment of the male partner has been commonly found to be correlated with domesticviolence, as might be predicted from both family stress and comparative resource theories (Gelles,1974; Dutton, 1988; Johnson, 1995). Resource deprivation that accompanies unemploymentshould thus increase risks of spousal violence. Alcohol use is another factor that has been foundto be positively related to violence (Gelles, 1974; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Kaufman Kartor& Straus, 1990a).

Social isolation of the women has been shown to be a risk factor for domestic violence,preceding the onset of abuse (Gelles, 1974; 1976; Jewkes

et al

., 2002). Temporal issues needclarification, as abusive men often restrict their partners’ movement and contact with others sothat abused women become isolated. This isolation is compounded by the effect of abuse onwomen’s mental state, which can result in women withdrawing into themselves. In addition, thiscan contribute to the problem of compassion fatigue in women who are asked to play a supportiverole (Heise

et al.

, 1999). Jewkes

et al

. (2002) have argued that women who hold more liberal ideasabout gender roles are at a greater risk of violence. Women who are more prepared to acceptpatriarchy have, thus far, experienced abuse at a lesser degree (i.e. have never been beaten).Findings from the MNCWA survey indicated that the main causes of violence in Myanmarare financial problems, alcohol, disharmony with in-laws and adultery. Other causes are

246



unemployment, lack of education of both husband and wife, early marriage, and large family size(Khin Win Shwe, 2002).

Coping responses to domestic violence

A woman’s response to abuse is often limited by the coping resources and numerous constraintsagainst using the resources they have. Some of the reasons women do not leave or use effectivecoping strategies include a lack of support from family and friends, economic hardship, and fearof retaliation from and escalation of abuse by intimate partners. Others include their belief thattheir husband will change for the better, that divorce stigmatizes, and that children need theirfathers’ support (Gelles, 1976; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Stube & Barbour, 1983; Herbert

et al.

,1991; Nurius

et al.

, 1992; Carlson, 1997; Holtzworth-Munroe

et al.

, 1997; Glantz

et al.

, 1998;Cribb & Barnett, 1999; Nylen & Heimer, 1999). In addition, limited access and availability ofservices, lack of knowledge and information about available services, and familial and culturalconstraints often discourage women from seeking appropriate help from formal organizations(Gelles, 1976; Tang, 1997; Glantz

et al

., 1998; Cribb & Barnett, 1999; Khrishnan

et al.

, 2001).Causal attribution of abuse may also be a factor in preventing women from leaving abusive partnersor using effective coping strategies. Andrews and Brewin (1990) suggested that women who failto leave abusive partners or to cope effectively use self-blame more often than they blame theirpartners. Moreover, women’s traditional sex role belief is related to greater reluctance to reportabuse and the likelihood that a woman would stay with a relationship even after violence begins(Holtzworth-Munroe

et al

., 1997; Jewkes

et al

., 2002). Women who have had prior experienceswith violent relationships are more likely to cope passively or to stay with abusive partners (Gelles,1976).

Despite these obstacles, some women eventually seek help from formal systems or leaveviolent partners. Studies suggest a number of factors that motivate women to seek intervention orto leave abusive relationships. These include women’s awareness that the abuse is escalating infrequency or severity, that her abusive partner will not change, and when violence begins to takea toll on the children as well as emotional and logistical support of family and friends (Gelles,1976; Stube & Barbour, 1983; Kaufman Kartor & Straus, 1990b; Cribb & Barnett, 1999).

According to the literature, women often go through several stages before they realize thatabusers are solely responsible for the abuse and that their abusers will not change. These stagesinclude identification of periods of denial, self-blame, and endurance. (Stube & Barbour, 1983;Carlson, 1997; Holtzworth-Munroe

et al

., 1997; Johnson & Ferrara, 2000).

Consequences of the violence

Previous research shows that domestic violence has been linked to a variety of short-term andlong-term outcomes. Several survey studies reported that women who have received bothpsychological and physical assault by male partners show evidence of depression and anxiety,feelings of helplessness, disruption of interpersonal relationships, post-traumatic stress disorder,suicide ideation, and suicide attempts (Andrews & Brown, 1988; Astin

et al.

, 1993; Tang, 1997;Kaslaw

et al.

, 1998; Gutierrez

et al.

, 2000). Physical injuries range from minor injuries, such asbruises, sprains and scratches, to severe injuries, such as multiple fractures, internal injuries, andloss of consciousness (Ratner, 1998).

Browne (1993) reported that approximately 21% of all American women using emergencysurgical services suffer from the physical effects of partner abuse. A number of other studies alsoshowed that chronic fatigue and tension, intense startle reactions, disturbed sleep, eating patterns,


247


and nightmares occur in female victims (Herman, 1992; Goodman

et al.

, 1993). EDK Associates,The Body Shop and YWCA’S (1997) nationwide survey reported that the effects of violence donot remain at home and the psychological violence follows women into their workplace. Nearlyfour in 10 (37%) American women who have experienced domestic violence reported that thisabuse had an impact on their work performance.

As stated by Browne (1993), ‘although even one assault can have permanent negative effects,the severity and repetition of violence clearly affects resulting psychological adjustment’ (p. 1080).National surveys revealed that severely assaulted women averaged almost double the days spentin bed due to illness and had much higher rates of psychological distress than other women,including headaches, depression, and suicide attempts (Gelles & Straus, 1990). A number ofstudies also found that severity and frequency of spousal violence was strongly related to increasesin depression, lowered self-esteem, and severity of PTSD symptoms (Hilberman, 1980; Mitchell& Hodson, 1983; Follingstad

et al.

, 1991; Astin

et al

., 1993; Ratner, 1998).The phenomenon of self-blame has attracted considerable attention in recent years, particularly

in relation to depression (Andrews & Brewin, 1990). An recent review suggests that batteredwomen with good coping and problem-solving skills are expected to show fewer negativepsychological effects from battering than women without such skills (Holtzworth-Munroe

et al

.,1997). Moreover, studies found that less active coping and more avoidance coping were relatedto more severe psychological consequences (Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Kemp

et al.

, 1995).The MNCWA research findings revealed that the health consequences of physical and mental

violence in Myanmar are swollen forehead, bruises, broken bones, anger, frustrations and deephurtful feelings (Khin Win Shwe, 2002).

Because little is known about domestic violence in Myanmar, the present study was designedto explore the nature of domestic violence in the Myanmar community, drawing upon previousresearch in the domestic violence literature to identify variables that are likely to be antecedentsand consequences of domestic violence. This study thus included: (i) antecedent variables(household income, husbands’ unemployment and frequent alcohol use, and witnessed and/orexperienced parental violence); (ii) coping responses (i.e. social, formal, and non-intervention);and (iii) outcome variables (i.e. work, physical, and psychological), and the relations among themand the types of domestic violence (i.e. minor physical assault, severe physical assault, minorpsychological aggression, and severe psychological aggression). In addition, influences of self-role beliefs, and attribution styles were explored.

The present study is exploratory in nature, because, to the best of our knowledge, this is thefirst study to examine antecedents, consequences and coping responses in relation to both the typeof domestic violence and the attribution of blame in Myanmar. Based on the previous literature,we generated the following hypotheses:

1

Domestic violence is more likely to occur when the household income is low.

2

Domestic violence is more likely to occur when men are not employed.

3

Domestic violence is more likely to occur when men frequently use alcohol.

4

Domestic violence is more likely to occur to women who have witnessed violence betweenher parents and/or who have been physically punished as a child.

5

Domestic violence is more likely to occur to women who lack strong social support.

6

Domestic violence is more likely to occur to women who have non-traditional sex roleattitudes.

7

The more severe types of violence a woman experiences, the greater the levels of outcome;i.e. psychological, physical and work effects, she will report.

8

The more severe the violence, the more likely that a woman will seek outside intervention.

9

Women who endorse self-blame will be more likely to use non-intervention.

248



10

Women who endorse self-blame will be more likely to report psychological outcomes.

11

Women who receive formal intervention will show fewer negative outcomes than women whoreceive non-intervention.In addition, we proposed to investigate an additional research question. This is related to males

possessing more then one wife. According to the battered women of case studies in Myanmar,violence often erupts when a wife realizes that her husband has another wife as his first wife.When women learn of this marital problem, it often leads to arguments, resulting in violence. Astatement by an acquaintance, who was also a victim of abuse, illustrated the following points,‘When my husband tried to marry me, he had never mentioned his real marital status. I knew onlywhat he said because he transferred from another city and moved here. At that time, he waspretending to be single. Eventually, I simply believed and accepted. . . . You know someway, ourmarriage was undeniable and unchangeable. When I might reconsider the past event in which myhusband lied about his real marital status, I felt guilty about what I decided at that time. That’swhat really hurts. It was a deceitful marriage that really hurts.’ Based on these arguments, thefollowing research question was posed:

Research Question:

Is domestic violence more likely to happen to women who have beenfooled into marriage without truly knowing the partner?

Method

Participants

Participants were married women 18–59 years old who lived in five wards in the ChanayethazanTownship of Mandalay, the second largest city of Myanmar. They were selected in a three-stagestratified cluster sampling design with the census block as the primary sampling unit and thehousehold as the secondary sampling unit. The original sample was stratified by socioeconomicstatus (lower, middle, and higher) compiled by the ward office. From 2001 candidates from thisprocess, 350 cases were selected by choosing every third household containing a woman. Theresearcher and research assistants then visited each potential participant and asked her to completea questionnaire parcel. The final sample included 286 participants (overall response rate of 82%).

The survey took place in the homes of the participants. The questionnaire parcel included thefollowing materials: (i) a covering letter explaining the study and requesting participation; (ii) thequestionnaire; and (iii) a return envelope. Moreover, we read a paragraph to each informantthat explained the purpose of the study and the types of questions asked of them. In addition,the paragraph explained the anonymity of responses as well as the voluntary nature of theirparticipation. They were also told that they could terminate their participation at any time evenafter they had agreed to participate.

Of the 350 Myanmar women approached to participate in the study, only 17% of women,mostly from high socioeconomic status families, refused to participate. Lack of time or interestwas the primary reason for their refusal. The final sample comprised 286 women, with lower andmiddle class households being overrepresented.

Measures

Experiences of domestic violence

The Myanmar version of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), devised by Straus (1996),was used to measure physical and psychological violence. The Conflict Tactics Scale (1979, 1996)


249


is the most widely used measure of partner aggression. It identifies specific tactics used in conflictbetween intimate partners. Despite widespread use, this scale has been criticized for differencesin the severity of violence (Straus, 1990; Ratner, 1998). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)includes 39 items for the five subscales (negotiation, psychological aggression, physical assault,sexual coercion, and injury). The internal consistency reliability of the CTS2 scales ranges from0.79 to 0.95. The two subscales of psychological aggression and physical assault were used forthe present study. Psychological aggression refers to the use of verbal and/or non-verbal acts thatsymbolically hurt the other or to the use of threats to hurt the other. Physical assault refers to anact carried out with the intention or perceived intention of physically hurting another person(Straus, 1979). Respondents were presented with the following statement, ‘Here is a list of thingsyour husband might have done when he had a conflict or disagreement with you. Please circle thenumber for each of the things listed below to show how often he did it in the past year.’ Each itemwas rated on the frequency of occurrence during the past year: never, once, twice, 3–5, 6–10, 11–20, and more than 20 times. The descriptions were translated into Myanmar by the author andchecked by a bilingual Myanmar professor against the original version to ensure the conceptualequivalence of the Myanmar version to the original version.

Feminism attitude

The questionnaire included the 19-item Attitudes toward Feminism Scale (FEM; Smith

et al.

,1975), which was translated into Myanmar. The descriptions were translated into Myanmar by theauthor and checked by a bilingual Myanmar professor against the original version to ensure theconceptual equivalence of the Myanmar version to the original version. This scale used five-pointLikert-type items ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (0) to ‘strongly agree’ (4) to measureacceptance or rejection of central beliefs of feminism and the acceptance or rejection of traditionalsex-role beliefs.

Past experience with violence

A woman’s past experience with violent relationships was examined with three items that assessedif she had witnessed conflict and/or violence between her parents when she was a child, wasphysically punished as a child, or had prior relationships involving conflicts and/or violence. Theformer two items were scored on a five-point scale (never, rarely, occasionally, often, or veryoften), while the latter item was scored on a dichotomous scale (yes/no).

Attribution for abuse

Based on past research (Andrews & Brewin, 1990; Herbert

et al

., 1991), new items were developedto investigate an abused woman’s causal attribution for abuse. Using five-point scales, respondentswere asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with six attribution items.Items developed represented abused women’s attribution of the cause of abuse to herself (e.g. myhusband usually abuses me in response to something I have done), to her partner (e.g. my husbandabuses me because he is by nature an abusive person), or to situational factors (e.g. my husbandwould abuse me less if he did not have so many pressures).

Coping responses

In this survey, respondents were asked in a checklist format to indicate their response to each ofthe offensive behaviors. Ten specific coping responses included separating, returning home and

250



seeking help from parents, seeking help from friends, calling police, seeking legal interventions,seeking counseling, negotiating, putting up with violence, running away and hiding, and defendingoneself or resisting the violence. These were scored 1 (I did this) or 2 (I did not do this).

Consequence of domestic violence

To measure the consequence of violence; that is, psychological effects, physical effects, and workeffects, using a three-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 2 (very), respondents rated thedegree to which they felt each of 17 psychological effects;

alpha

=

0.95 (e.g. feel angry, bothered,suffer, sadness, fear, low self-esteem nervousness and anxiety). They also rated (on the same scale)three physical consequences;

alpha

=

0.76 (illness, infection, bruises or lesions) and one workeffect (repeated absence from work).

Demographic questions

Demographic variables included age, educational levels of the husband and wife, monthlyhousehold income, and the number of children. Additional items were included to assess women’semployment status, their personal income ratio, and social support. Social support was measuredwith items such as, ‘Do you have anyone with whom you can share your innermost thoughts andfeelings or problems?’ ‘Do you have someone (e.g. father, brother, or the whole family) who couldprovide strong social support?’ Other variables examined their partners’ employment status, theirpartners’ heavy alcohol/drug use (yes/no), sexual conflict (over sex), interest or attention towardother people, and whether they had been fooled into marriage without truly knowing the partner.

Results

Characteristics of the respondents

Of the 286 participants, approximately 60% of women were under 40 years and 40% were between40 years and 60 years of age. For educational attainment, 51% had grade 8 or less of schoolingand 21% had graduated from university or above. For their husbands’ educational attainment, 37%had grade 8 or less and 21% had graduated from university. As for employment status, 48% ofwomen were not working and 38% were working full-time. Six percent of the husbands were notworking and 76% were working full time. Sixty-eight percent of women have fewer than fourchildren and 23% had four or more children. The total household income ranged from Ks 15 000or less (51% of the sample) to Ks 30 001 or more (14% of the sample) per month. In terms of theproportion of income earned by women, 48% of them did not have any personal income and 20%of women earned 41% or more of their household income. Thirty-one percent of women reportedthat their husbands frequently used alcohol and 3% used drugs. Twenty-five percent of the womenreported that their husbands showed interest in or attention towards other people. Seven percentof the women reported that they had sexual conflicts with their husbands. Thirty-five percent hadprior close relationships that involved violence. Sixty-four percent of the women had father/brotheror the whole family who could provide strong social support. Eleven percent of women reportedthat they had been fooled into the marriage without truly knowing their partner.

Experiences of domestic violence

One hundred and ninety-eight women (69%) had experienced one or more incidents of domesticviolence by their intimate partners in the past 12 months. Psychological aggression was the most


251


common event, with 69% of the respondents reporting at least one incident. Of those who didexperience psychological abuse, 62% of women reported at least one form of minor psychologicalaggression and 35% of women reported at least one form of severe psychological aggression.Physical assault was substantially less common among respondents, but nearly 27% of the womenstudied reported at least one act of physical assault. Of those who experienced physical assault,25% of women reported at least one form of minor physical assault and 17% reported at least oneform of severe physical assault. The most common type of violence reported by women wasshouting or yelling (52%), insulting (40%), doing/saying something spiteful (38%), and stompingout of the room (38%). However, 6% of the total sample had been either beaten up by their partnersor, in some cases, their partners had actually used weapons against them. These results are basedon the responses from the women who experienced abuse of some sort that had occurred at leastonce in the previous year. The fact that the incidence rate for total strife is equal to the rate forpsychological aggression indicates that women who experienced physical assault also experiencedone or more acts of psychological aggression. Finally, 93% of the abused women did not take anyformal action. Thirty-five percent of the sample simply stated, ‘I put up with the violence.’Calculating the proportion of abused women who experienced any of the specific outcomes relatedto each of the three negative outcome factors, 94% experienced psychological outcomes, 34%experienced physical outcomes, and 15% experienced work-related outcomes from domesticviolence.

Factor analyses

Revised conflict tactic scale.

A factor analysis (principal factor with varimax rotation) of theMyanmar version of Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), devised by Straus

et al.

(1996), wasconducted. We found that the structure of the conflict tactics scale consisted of four factors, basedon the eigenvalues. The cumulative percentage of variance accounted for by the four factors was63%. Items used for further analyses are shown in Table 1 with their loadings (more than 0.51) initalics, and the rest are listed as residual items.

The first factor revealed in the analysis was severe physical assault. The acts involved in thisfactor include six items. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for this scale was 0.88. Theanalysis revealed a second factor which was labeled as minor physical assault. This factor involvedfive assault acts. The reliability coefficient for this scale was 0.83. The factor of severe physicalassault for the Myanmar study was found to be similar to that conceptualized by Straus

et al

.(1996), except for ‘burned or scalded me on purpose’, which was deleted owing to a lack ofvariance (this behavior does not happen frequently in Myanmar), and ‘twisted my arm or hair’,which was apart from minor physical assault in the analysis by Straus

et al

. (1996), and fell intothe severe physical assault factor for this Myanmar study. In contrast, ‘Slammed me against wall’,which was included in the severe physical assault category in the analysis by Straus

et al

. (1996),had loadings on the minor physical assault factor for the Myanmar study. These results suggestthat Myanmar women consider twisting of arm or hair as severe physical assault and slammingagainst a wall as minor physical assault.

The third factor included four items, which can be thought of as a minor psychologicalaggression scale, just as it had been conceptualized by Straus

et al

. (1996). The Cronbach’s alphareliability coefficient for this scale was 0.79.

The fourth factor included four items. The items in this factor could be regarded as severepsychological aggression suggested by Straus

et al

. (1996). The reliability coefficient for this scalewas 0.72.

252



The attitudes toward feminism scale.

From a factor analysis of the attitudes toward feminismscale (FEM; Smith

et al.

, 1975), 13 items with factor loadings of more than 0.35 were selectedand aggregated into a single scale while the remaining six items were regarded as residual. Thereliability coefficient for this scale was 0.73.

Attribution for abuse.

A factor analysis of attribution for abuse yielded three factors. Thecumulative percentage of variance accounted for by the three factors was 80%. The first factorwas composed of two items. The composite score of these two items was taken as a scale forsituational blame. The second factor was composed of two items. The composite score of theseitems served as a scale for partner blame. The final factor consisted of two items. The compositescore in this case was called self-blame. The reliability coefficients for situational blame, partnerblame, and self-blame were 0.86, 0.75, and 0.56, respectively.

Coping response.

From a factor analysis of coping response, we extracted three factors. Thepercentage of cumulative proportion of variance was 68%. The first factor contained four items:

Table 1

Items from the revised conflict tactics scales and varimax rotated factor loadings

StatementFactor

1Factor

2Factor

3Factor

4

h

2

Factor 1: Severe physical assaults (alpha = 0.88)Choked me 0.85 0.11 −0.09 0.15 0.77Used knife or gun on me 0.78 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.66Beat me 0.75 0.07 0.33 −18 0.71Twisted my arm or hair 0.71 0.47 0.01 0.11 0.73Punched or hit me with something that could hurt 0.59 0.42 0.33 0.21 0.68Kicked me 0.55 0.51 0.02 0.12 0.58

Factor 2: Minor physical assaults (alpha = 0.83)Slapped me 0.15 0.82 0.14 0.03 0.72Threw something at me that could hurt 0.22 0.67 0.25 0.44 0.75Pushed or shoved me 0.30 0.63 0.51 0.18 0.79Grabbed me 0.35 0.60 0.22 0.13 0.55Slammed me against wall 0.40 0.51 0.15 0.11 0.45

Factor 3: Minor psychological aggression (alpha = 0.79)Did/said something to spite me 0.25 0.19 0.77 0.17 0.73Shouted or yelled at me 0.04 0.34 0.71 0.10 0.63Stomped out of the room −0.04 0.01 0.68 0.36 0.58Insulted or swore at me 0.16 0.47 0.58 0.28 0.66

Factor 4: Severe psychological aggression (alpha = 0.72)Accused me of being a lousy lover 0.33 0.09 0.16 0.74 0.70Destroyed something belonging to me −0.06 0.02 0.37 0.72 0.66Called me fat or ugly −0.05 0.44 0.10 0.64 0.62Threatened to hit or throw something at me 0.15 0.50 0.34 0.54 0.69

Residual itemsBurned or scalded me on purpose 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sum of square 3.71 3.68 2.84 2.41 12.64Percentage of variance (N = 286) 18.6 18.4 14.2 12.1 63.2

Domestic violence in Myanmar 253


temporarily separated, running away and hiding from the aggressor, returning home and seekinghelp from parents/other family members, and seeking help from friends or relatives. Thecomposition score of this factor was called social intervention. The second factor contained threeitems: seeking legal intervention, calling police, and seeking counseling from the social serviceagency. We called the composite score of this second factor formal intervention. The third factorconsisted of three items such as: enduring, resisting and negotiating. The composite score of theseitems served as a scale of non-intervention. The reliability coefficients for social intervention,formal intervention and non-intervention were 0.83, 0.81, and 0.70, respectively.

Correlations analyses

Means, standard deviations and the correlation matrix calculated among measures are shown inTable 2. Household income was not significantly correlated with any type of domestic violence:minor physical assault (r = 0.03, ns), severe physical assault (r = 0.01, ns), minor psychologicalaggression (r = 0.01, ns), and severe psychological aggression (r = 0.02, ns). Husbands’employment status showed a significant correlation with minor physical assault (r = 0.19,p < 0.01), severe physical assault (r = 0.26, p < 0.001), and severe psychological aggression(r = 0.15, p < 0.05), but not with minor psychological aggression (r = 0.07, ns). Husbands’ alcoholuse was significantly correlated with all types of domestic violence: minor physical assault (r =−0.28, p < 0.001), severe physical assault (r = −0.24, p < 0. 001), minor psychological aggression(r = −0.31, p < 0.001), and severe psychological aggression (r = −0.22, p < 0.001). Witnessingparental violence was significantly correlated with minor physical assault (r = 0.18, p < 0.01),minor psychological aggression (r = 0.30, p < 0.001), and severe psychological aggression(r = 0.22, p < 0.001), but not with severe physical assault (r = 0.08, ns). Being physically punishedas a child was significantly correlated with minor physical assault (r = 0.17, p < 0.01), minorpsychological aggression (r = 0.23, p < 0.001), and severe psychological aggression (r = 0.25,p < 0.001), but again not with severe physical assault (r = 0.04, ns). Strong social support was notsignificantly correlated with any type of domestic violence: severe physical assault (r = 0.04, ns),minor physical assault (r = 0.07, ns), severe psychological aggression (r = 0.10, ns), and minorpsychological aggression (r = 0.01, p < 0.05). Feminism attitude had a significant positivecorrelation with severe physical assault (r = 0.13, p < 0.05), but not with minor physical assault(r = −0.01, ns), nor with minor psychological aggression (r = −0.05, ns). Moreover, feminismattitudes had a significant negative correlation with severe psychological aggression (r = −0.13,p < 0.05).

Severe physical assault was strongly correlated with psychological (r = 0.58, p < 0.001),physical (r = 0.55, p < 0.001), and work (r = 0.37, p < 0.001) outcomes. Moreover, severe physicalassault was significantly and strongly correlated with formal intervention (r = 0.47, p < 0.001),moderately with social intervention (r = 0.39, p < 0.001), and mildly with non-intervention(r = 0.27, p < 0.001).

Self-blame was significantly correlated only with psychological outcomes (r = 0.13, p < 0.05),but not with physical (r = 0.07, ns) and work (r = 0.02, ns) outcomes. Moreover, self-blame wassignificantly correlated only with non-intervention (r = 0.14, p < 0.05), but not with social(r = 0.09, ns) and formal (r = 0.00, ns) interventions.

Social intervention was significantly positively correlated with psychological (r = 0.52,p < 0.001), physical (r = 0.36, p < 0.001), and work (r = 0.38, p < 0.001) outcomes. Non-intervention was significantly positively correlated with psychological (r = 0.57, p < 0.001),physical (r = 0.29, p < 0.001) and work (r = 0.30, p < 0.001) outcomes. Formal intervention wassignificantly positively correlated with psychological (r = 0.33, p < 0.001) and physical (r = 0.18,

254 Nilar Kyu and Atsuko Kanai


Table 2 Correlations between measures used for the study (N = 286)

Mean (SD) Range 1 2 3

1. Age 2.29 (0.97) (1–4) –2. Education 2.26 (1.63) (1–6) −0.04 –3. Children† 1.08 (0.28) (1–2) −0.22*** 0.25*** –4. Number of children 2.40 (1.67) (0–9) 0.52*** −0.30*** −0.44***5. Employment status‡ 2.10 (0.92) (1–3) −0.10 −0.27*** −0.066. Household income 24 235 (29 634) (2500–300 000) 0.01 0.26*** 0.117. Personal income 2.09 (1.20) (1–4) 0.05 0.29*** 0.038. Husband’s education 2.44 (1.55) (1–6) 0.04 0.60*** 0.16**9. Husband’s employment status‡ 1.30 (0.58) (1–3) 0.21*** 0.01 −0.05

10. Husband’s alcohol use§ 1.69 (0.46) (1–2) 0.09 0.04 0.0111. Husband’s drug use§ 1.97 (0.18) (1–2) 0.08 −0.03 0.0612. Attention to other people§ 1.75 (0.43) (1–2) 0.08 −0.00 −0.0013. Sexual conflict§ 1.93 (0.25) (1–2) 0.07 −0.00 0.0814. Social support§ 1.56 (0.50) (1–2) 0.07 −0.00 −0.0615. Prior relationship with

violence§

1.65 (0.48) (1–2) 0.15* 0.22*** 0.07

16. Strong social support (father)§ 1.36 (0.48) (1–2) 0.26*** −0.11 −0.0717. Fooled into marriage§ 1.89 (0.31) (1–2) 0.10 −0.15* −0.18**18. Witnessed parental violence 1.08 (1.11) (0–4) −0.20*** −0.05 −0.0219. Physically punished as a child 0.99 (1.11) (0–4) −0.20*** −0.13* −0.0220. Feminism attitude (α = 0.73) 1.35 (0.73) (0–4) −0.03 0.30*** 0.13*21. Minor physical assault

(α = 0.83)0.25 (0.64) (0–6) −0.07 −0.04 0.01

22. Severe physical assault(α = 0.88)

0.12 (0.42) (0–6) −0.02 0.03 0.02

23. Minor psychologicalaggression (α = 0.79)

1.01 (1.18) (0–6) −0.16** −0.01 −0.07

24. Severe psychologicalaggression (α = 0.72)

0.40 (0.77) (0–6) −0.11 −0.12* −0.04

25. Psychological outcomes(α = 0.95)

0.35 (0.42) (0–2) −0.21*** 0.02 0.05

26. Physical outcomes (α = 0.71) 0.16 (0.36) (0–2) −0.13* 0.10 0.0427. Work outcomes 0.14 (0.43) (0–2) −0.07 −0.04 0.0428. Social intervention (α = 0.83) 1.10 (0.25) (1–2) −0.16** −0.02 −0.0129. Formal intervention (α = 0.80) 1.02 (0.12) (1–2) 0.01 −0.04 −0.0530. Non-intervention (α = 0.70) 1.34 (0.38) (1–2) −0.20*** 0.05 0.0831. Self-blame (α = 0.56) 1.70 (1.47) (0–4) 0.01 −0.08 0.0232. Partner blame (α = 0.75) 0.88 (1.29) (0–4) −0.11 −0.08 −0.0533. Situational blame (α = 0.86) 1.72 (1.64) (0–4) −0.08 −0.11 −0.02



4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age2. Education3. Children†

4. Number of children –5. Employment status‡ 0.05 –6. Household income −0.02 −0.08 –7. Personal income −0.09 −0.76*** 0.13* –8. Husband’s education −0.26*** −0.11 0.25*** 0.18** –9. Husband’s

employment status‡

0.13 0.00 −0.09 0.08 0.04 –

10. Husband’s alcoholuse§

0.09 0.05 −0.01 −0.05 0.04 0.00 –

11. Husband’s drug use§ −0.00 −0.05 −0.17** −0.04 −0.03 −0.04 0.0212. Attention to other

people§

0.05 0.01 −0.05 −0.02 0.02 0.04 0.10

13. Sexual conflict§ −0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.12*14. Social support§ −0.01 −0.11 −0.00 0.04 0.07 0.05 −0.0315. Prior relationship

with violence§

−0.08 −0.00 0.01 0.01 0.17** 0.07 0.16**

16. Strong social support(father)§

0.14* −0.07 −0.04 0.06 −0.06 0.12* −0.03

17. Fooled intomarriage§

0.10 0.16** −0.08 −0.11 0.06 −0.07 0.05

18. Witnessed parentalviolence

−0.11 −0.09 0.02 0.07 −0.04 0.02 −0.10

19. Physicallypunished as a child

−0.11 0.06 −0.10 −0.00 −0.14* −0.03 −0.14*

20. Feminism attitude −0.12 −0.07 0.04 0.12* 0.25*** 0.01 0.0121. Minor physical

assault−0.00 −0.03 0.03 0.04 −0.05 0.19** −0.28***

22. Severe physicalassault

0.04 −0.09 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.26*** −0.24***

23. Minor psychologicalaggression

0.03 −0.03 0.01 0.01 −0.09 0.07 −0.31***

24. Severe psychologicalaggression

0.05 −0.01 0.02 0.01 −0.16** 0.15* −0.22***

25. Psychologicaloutcomes

−0.04 −0.15* 0.00 0.12* −0.09 0.12* −0.33***

26. Physical outcomes −0.04 −0.13* −0.01 0.11 −0.02 0.11 −0.16**27. Work outcomes −0.06 −0.09 −0.09 0.08 −0.10 0.11 −0.1128. Social intervention −0.04 −0.02 −0.01 0.07 −0.15* −0.01 −0.22***29. Formal intervention 0.17** −0.11 0.14* 0.10 −0.08 0.08 −0.0730. Non-intervention −0.03 −0.16** 0.14* 0.17** 0.02 −0.04 −0.26***31. Self-blame 0.00 0.05 −0.08 −0.03 −0.05 0.08 −0.17**32. Partner blame 0.08 0.04 −0.07 −0.02 −0.11 0.06 −0.25***33. Situational blame 0.04 0.13* −0.03 −0.15* −0.09 −0.04 −18**

Table 2 Continued



11 12 13 14 15 16 17


4. Number of children5. Employment status‡

6. Household income7. Personal income8. Husband’s education9. Husband’s employment

status‡

10. Alcohol use§

11. Drug use§ –12. Attention to other

people§

0.04 –

13. Sexual conflict§ −0.05 0.22*** –14. Social support§ 0.08 0.10 0.10 –15. Prior relationship

with violence§

0.21*** 0.15* 0.16** 0.20** –

16. Strong socialsupport (father)§

0.09 0.06 0.14* 0.17** 0.07 –

17. Fooled intomarriage§

0.07 0.09 0.22*** 0.08 0.10 0.02 –


0.07 −0.21*** −0.16** −0.13* −0.31*** −0.12* −0.09

19. Physically punishedas a child

0.14* −0.06 −0.09 −0.14* −0.35*** −0.08 −0.06

20. Feminism attitude −0.02 −0.03 −0.01 0.07 0.12* −0.08 −0.0321. Minor physical

assault−0.10* −0.19** −0.19** −0.10 −0.22*** 0.07 −0.22***

22. Severe physicalassault

−0.14* −0.21*** −0.09 −0.02 −0.15* 0.04 −0.25***


−0.12 −0.07 −0.32*** −0.13* −0.27*** 0.01 −0.29***


−0.11 −0.12* −0.06 −0.11 −0.28*** 0.10 −0.14*


−0.14* −0.26*** −0.28*** −0.17** −0.36*** −0.06 −0.32***

26. Physical outcomes −0.14* −0.21*** −0.07: −0.13* −0.19** 0.00 −0.25***27. Work outcomes −0.04 −0.24*** −0.12 −0.19** −0.12* −0.02 −0.22***28. Social intervention 0.04 −0.23*** −0.28*** −21*** −0.27*** −0.06 −0.14*29. Formal intervention 0.03 −0.05 −0.28*** −0.04 −0.18** −0.01 −0.28***30. Non-intervention −0.09 −0.18** −0.20** −0.14* −0.34*** −0.17** −0.20***31. Self-blame −0.02 0.03 0.07 0.05 −0.06 −0.03 0.0232. Partner blame −0.02 −0.18** −0.09 −0.07 −0.14* 0.10 −0.13*33. Situational blame −0.06 −0.11 −0.04 −0.11 −0.13* 0.07 −0.08

Table 2 Continued



18 19 20 21 22 23 24



6. Household income7. Personal income8. Husband’s education9. Husband’s employment

status‡

10. Alcohol use§

11. Drug use§

12. Attention to otherpeople§

13. Sexual conflict§

14. Social support§

15. Prior relationship withviolence§

16. Strong social support(father)§

17. Fooled into marriage§


–


0.39*** –

20. Feminism attitude −0.16** −0.11 –21. Minor physical assault 0.18** 0.17** −0.01 –22. Severe physical assault 0.08 0.04 0.13* 0.76*** –23. Minor psychological

aggression0.30*** 0.23*** −0.05 0.62*** 0.45*** –


0.22*** 0.25*** −0.13* 0.62*** 0.46*** 0.63*** –

25. Psychological outcomes 0.29*** 0.24*** −0.02 0.60*** 0.58*** 0.63*** 0.54***26. Physical outcomes 0.22*** 0.12* 0.02 0.38*** 0.55*** 0.37*** 0.38***27. Work outcomes 0.16** 0.11 0.06 0.25*** 0.37*** 0.24*** 0.29***28. Social intervention 0.19*** 0.18** 0.04 0.36*** 0.39*** 0.30*** 0.33***29. Formal intervention 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.34*** 0.47*** 0.30*** 0.21***30. Non-intervention 0.28*** 0.21*** 0.04 0.30*** 0.27*** 0.45*** 0.35***31. Self-blame 0.05 0.00 −0.04 0.10 0.10 0.15* 0.0632. Partner blame 0.08 0.19** −0.03 0.34*** 0.27*** 0.25*** 0.19**33. Situational blame 0.13* 0.09 −0.25*** 0.13* 0.01 0.21*** 0.22***

Table 2 Continued



25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32



6. Household income7. Personal income8. Husband’s

education9. Husband’s

employment status‡

10. Alcohol use§

11. Drug use§

12. Attention toother people§

13. Sexual conflict§

14. Social support15. Prior relationship

with violence§

16. Strong social support§

17. Fooled into marriage§



20. Feminism attitude21. Minor physical assault22. Severe physical assault




–

26. Physical outcomes 0.68*** –27. Work outcomes 0.56*** 0.57*** –28. Social intervention 0.52*** 0.36*** 0.38*** –29. Formal intervention 0.33*** 0.18*** 0.12 0.40*** –30. Non-intervention 0.57*** 0.29*** 0.30*** 0.39*** 0.21*** –31. Self-blame 0.13* 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.14* –32. Partner blame 0.28*** 0.16* 0.13* 0.19** 0.20*** 0.12 0.18** –33. Situational

blame0.21*** 0.11 0.13* 0.09 −0.00 0.12 0.20*** 0.35***

†(have = 1, have not = 2), ‡(working full-time = 1, working part-time = 2, not working = 3), §(yes = 1, no = 2).*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Table 2 Continued



p < 0.01) outcomes, but not with work outcomes (r = 0.12, ns). Further, fooled into marriagewithout truly knowing the partner was significantly correlated with all types of violence: minorphysical assault (r = −0.22, p < 0.001), severe physical assault (r = −0.25, p < 0.001), minorpsychological aggression (r = −0.29, p < 0.001), and severe psychological aggression (r = −0.14,p < 0.05).

Analysis of variances

In order to examine antecedent causes of domestic violence more precisely, scores on each scalewere examined by husbands’ employment status. The results of ANOVA and multiple comparisontests by Tukey’s method showed that women of non-working husbands had reported more severephysical assault, F2,279 = 10.37, p < 0.001, than women of full-time and part-time workers. Inaddition, women of the non-working husbands group had reported more minor physical assault,F2,280 = 5.54, p < 0.01, and severe psychological aggression F2,280 = 3.76, p < 0.05, than women ofthe full-time working husbands group. There was no effect of husbands’ employment statuson minor psychological aggression. There were no significant differences among husbands’employment status categories in relation to negative outcomes, coping responses, and attributionsof blame.

Table 3 shows the summary of means and standard deviations computed for each group ofwomen who have witnessed parental conflict/violence. Results of ANOVA and multiple comparisontests with Tukey’s method are also presented. The women who witnessed parental violence often/very often reported more minor physical assault than those who have never witnessed parental

Table 3 Means and SD of domestic violence-related variables for the four different witnessed parental conflict/violence groups, with the results of ANOVA and multiple

comparison tests by Tukey’s methods

Scale

0Never

(N = 129)

1Rarely

(N = 34)

2Occasionally

(N = 100)

3 Often/Very often

(N = 22) F-value

Feminism attitudes 1.42 (0.77) 1.54a (0.74) 1.26 (0.69) 1.00b (0.50) 3.51*Minor physical assault 0.15a (0.58) 0.23(0.42) 0.31 (0.63) 0.64b (1.09) 4.06**Severe physical assault 0.11 (0.51) 0.06 (0.14) 0.12 (0.27) 0.32 (0.59) 1.88Minor psychological

aggression0.67a (0.94) 1.05a (1.34) 1.24c (1.20) 1.92b (1.48) 10.11***

Severe psychologicalaggression

0.25a (0.68) 0.26a (0.45) 0.54c (0.89) 0.83b (0.84) 5.56**

Psychological outcome 0.26a (0.37) 0.25a (0.35) 0.42ab (0.42) 0.76b (0.56) 10.89***Physical outcome 0.12a (0.33) 0.09a (0.21) 0.19a (0.37) 0.47b (0.55) 6.79***Work outcome 0.09 (0.36) 0.09 (0.29) 0.17 (0.45) 0.33 (0.73) 2.28Social intervention 1.07a (0.20) 1.07 (0.20) 1.14 (0.28) 1.24b (0.32) 3.97**Formal intervention 1.02a (0.12) 1.00a (0.00) 1.01a (0.05) 1.11b (0.29) 5.33**Non-intervention 1.24a (0.34) 1.24a (0.36) 1.45c (0.39) 1.52b (0.36) 8.81***Self-blame 1.50a (1.49) 2.33b (1.47) 1.76(1.41) 1.68 (1.44) 2.79*Partner blame 0.82 (1.33) 0.80 (1.31) 0.89 (1.20) 1.23 (1.49) 0.66Situational blame 1.42a (1.63) 1.86 (1.66) 2.06b (1.63) 1.59 (1.52) 2.90*

When superscript letters differ, there was a statistically significant means difference between groups.*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.



violence. Moreover, the women who witnessed parental violence often/very often reported moreminor and severe psychological aggression than those who rarely or never witnessed parentalviolence. There was no effect of witnessing parental violence on severe physical assault. Inaddition, other interesting results were found. As shown in Table 3, women who witnessed parentalviolence often/very often reported fewer feminism attitudes than those who rarely witnessedparental violence. Women who witnessed parental violence often/very often reported morephysical or psychological effects and more responses by intervention or non-intervention than theothers. Women who rarely witnessed parental violence reported more self-blame than those whonever witnessed parental violence.

Table 4 provides a summary of means and standard deviations for different groups of womenwho were physically punished as a child. In addition, it presents results of ANOVA and multiplecomparison tests with Tukey’s method. The women who were physically punished as a child often/very often reported more minor physical assault, minor psychological aggression and severepsychological aggression than women who were never physically punished as a child. Results alsoshowed that there was no effect of physical punishment as a child on severe physical assault.Concerning other scales, women who were physically punished as a child often/very often reportedmore psychological effects than any other group and more physical outcomes than women whowere rarely physically punished as a child. Moreover, women who were physically punished as achild occasionally reported more response by social intervention than those never physicallypunished as a child. Women who were physically punished as a child often/very often reportedmore response by non-intervention than those never punished as a child. Women who werephysically punished as a child rarely reported more self-blame than those occasionally punishedas a child.

Table 4 Means and SD of domestic violence-related variables for the four different physically punished as a child groups, with the results of ANOVA and multiple comparison

tests by Tukey’s methods

Scale

0Never

(N = 145)

1Rarely

(N = 28)

2Occasionally

(N = 86)

3 Often/very often

(N = 26) F-value

Feminism attitudes 1.37 (0.80) 1.61a (0.85) 1.30 (0.61) 1.05b (0.45) 2.79*Minor physical assault 0.18a (0.58) 0.14 (0.31) 0.33 (0.69) 0.53b (0.94) 2.99*Severe physical assault 0.13 (0.50) 0.02 (0.07) 0.12 (0.29) 0.23 (0.47) 1.16Minor psychological

aggression0.80a (1.07) 0.93a (0.89) 1.15 (1.27) 1.8b (1.43) 6.26***

Severe psychologicalaggression

0.25a (0.64) 0.44a (0.49) 0.46a (0.92) 0.99b (0.89) 7.59***

Psychological outcome 0.29a (0.40) 0.29a (0.34) 0.40a (0.38) 0.68b (0.60) 6.95***Physical outcome 0.14 (0.36) 0.07a (0.17) 0.22 (0.52) 0.34b (0.48) 2.76*Work outcome 0.09 (0.36) 0.07 (0.26) 0.18 (0.37) 0.17 (0.56) 1.76Social intervention 1.06a (0.19) 1.08 (0.22) 1.16b (0.31) 1.17 (0.29) 3.75*Formal intervention 1.02 (0.11) 1.01 (0.06) 1.01 (0.11) 1.06 (0.19) 0.94Non-intervention 1.26a (0.35) 1.37 (0.39) 1.38 (0.38) 1.54b (0.41) 4.84**Self-blame 1.66 (1.54) 2.40a (1.38) 1.52b (1.34) 1.87 (1.47) 2.48Partner blame 0.59a (1.17) 1.38b (1.58) 1.10b (1.30) 1.19 (1.30) 5.04**Situational blame 1.62 (1.65) 1.78 (1.55) 1.68 (1.62) 2.31 (1.74) 1.33

When superscript letters differ, there was a statistically significant means difference between groups.*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.



Multiple regression analyses

In order to examine a series of hypotheses further, antecedents and effects of domestic violenceon coping response and negative outcomes were explored. Table 5 shows a summary of thehierarchical multiple regression analysis using the four types of domestic violence as dependentvariables. Characteristic of wives, past experiences with violence, feminism attitudes,characteristic of husbands, marital relations, and social support served as independent variables inthis order. To explain minor physical assault, significant positive contributions were found inhusbands’ employment status, frequent alcohol use, interest in or attentions towards other people,and being fooled into marriage without truly knowing the partner variables. Significant negativeweights were found for the social support variables. To explain severe physical assault, significantpositive beta weights were found for feminism attitudes, husband’s employment status, frequentalcohol use, interest in or attentions towards other people, and being fooled into marriage withouttruly knowing the partner. To explain minor psychological aggression, significant positivecontributions were found for witnessing parental conflict/violence when a child, frequent alcoholuse, sexual conflict, and being fooled into marriage without truly knowing the partner variables.To explain severe psychological aggression, significant positive beta weights were found forhusbands’ employment status, frequent alcohol use variables, as well as significant negativeweights for father, brother, or family social support.

In order to examine the effects of domestic violence and attributions styles, a hierarchicalmultiple regression analysis was conducted by introducing response styles as dependent factorsin addition to characteristics of wives, past experiences with violence, feminism attitudes,characteristics of husbands, marital relation variables, and social support variables. To explainsocial intervention, significant positive beta weight was found for severe physical assault variable.To explain formal intervention, significant positive contribution was found by severe physicalassault. However, to explain non-intervention, significant positive beta weight was found for minorpsychological aggression.

To explain social, formal, and non-intervention, no significant beta weight was found for anytype of attributions. To explain non-intervention, however, self-blame, partner blame, andsituational blame added in the order indicated here, the adjusted increment of R2, from R7

2 to R82,

was found to be 0.03, which was significant at the 0.05 level.In order to examine the effect of type of domestic violence, attributions and response styles,

a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted by introducing outcomes as dependentfactors in addition to demographic variables. To explain psychological outcomes, significantpositive contributions were found for severe physical assault, minor psychological aggression,social intervention, and non-intervention variables. To explain physical outcomes, significantpositive contributions were found for severe physical assault and social intervention, as well assignificant negative weights for minor physical assault and formal intervention. To explain workoutcome, significant positive beta weights were found for severe physical assault and socialintervention, as well as significant negative weights for minor physical assault and formalintervention.

To explain physical, psychological and work outcome, no significant beta weight was foundfor any type of attributions. To explain psychological outcome, however, self-blame, partner blame,and situational blame added in the order indicated here, the adjusted increment of R2, from R7

2 toR8

2, was found to be 0.02, which was significant at the 0.05 level.In summary, the results shown in Table 5 indicate that negative outcome variables can be

predicted by the social intervention or non-intervention responses which, in turn, are explainedpartly by severe physical assault after controlling for demographic variables.



Tab

le 5

Su

mm

ary

of

reg

ress

ion

co

nd

uct

ed f

or

typ

es o

f d

om

esti

c vi

ole

nce

, re

spo

nse

s st

yle

and

ou

tco

me

as d

epen

den

t va

riab

les

(N =

265

)

Inde

pend

ent

vari

able

s

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

Dom

estic

vio

lenc

e R

espo

nse

styl

esO

utco

mes

Min

or

phys

ical

Seve

re

phys

ical

Min

or

psyc

holo

gica

lSe

vere

ps

ycho

logi

cal

Soci

alFo

rmal

Non

ePs

ycho

logi

cal

Phys

ical

Wor

k

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of w

ife

Age

−0.0

8−0

.09

−0.1

2−0

.14

−0.1

4−0

.02

−0.1

0−0

.07

−0.0

70.

09E

duca

tion

−0.0

3−0

.02

0.09

0.02

0.02

−0.0

8−0

.06

0.09

0.11

−0.0

7C

hild

ren†

−0.0

10.

01−0

.02

−0.0

2−0

.02

−0.0

30.

080.

020.

040.

01N

umbe

r of

chi

ldre

n0.

020.

100.

130.

070.

070.

110.

120.

010.

03−0

.12

Em

ploy

men

t st

atus

‡−0

.00

−0.1

0−0

.01

−0.0

1−0

.01

−0.0

10.

01−0

.08

−0.0

6−0

.06

Hou

seho

ld i

ncom

e0.

06−0

.01

−0.1

0.07

0.07

0.16

*0.

09−0

.05

−0.0

7−0

.05

Prop

ortio

n of

inc

ome

earn

ed b

y w

ife

−0.0

1−0

.08

−0.0

80.

01−0

.01

0.07

0.17

−0.0

2−0

.01

0.01

R12

0.02

0.02

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.08

**0.

12**

*0.

09**

*0.

050.

03A

djus

ted

R12

−0.0

1−0

.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.05

**0.

09**

*0.

07**

*2

0.01

Past

exp

erie

nce

with

vio

lenc

ePr

ior

clos

e re

latio

nshi

p w

ith v

iole

nce§

−0.0

6−0

.04

−0.0

7−0

.12

−0.1

2−0

.15*

−0.1

7**

−0.0

5−0

.01

0.03

Witn

ess

pare

ntal

con

flic

t w

hen

a ch

ild0.

03−0

.03

0.18

**0.

090.

09−0

.03

0.04

0.02

0.14

*0.

04

Phys

ical

ly p

unis

hed

as a

ch

ild0.

100.

030.

110.

130.

13−0

.06

0.04

0.04

0.02

−0.0

1

R22

0.06

0.03

0.15

***

0.12

***

0.12

***

0.11

**0.

24**

*0.

21**

*0.

10**

0.06

Adj

uste

d R

220.

03−0

.00

0.12

***

0.09

***

0.08

***

0.07

**0.

21**

*0.

18**

*0.

07**

0.02

R22 –R

220.

04*

0.01

0.10

**0.

08**

0.08

**0.

03*

0.12

**0.

12**

0.05

**0.

05**

Figu

re o

ther

tha

n R

’s a

re s

tand

ardi

zed

beta

coe

ffici

ents

.† (h

ave

child

ren

= 1,

do

not

have

chi

ldre

n =

2), ‡ (w

orki

ng f

ull-

time

= 1,

wor

king

par

t-tim

e =

2, n

ot w

orki

ng =

3),

§ (yes

= 1

, no

= 2)

.*p

< 0

.05,

**p

< 0

.01,

***

p <

0.00

1.



Fem

inis

m a

ttitu

des

0.05

0.15

*0.

02−0

.05

−0.0

5−0

.04

0.05

−0.0

1−0

.02

−0.0

4R

320.

070.

050.

15**

*0.

12**

*0.

12**

*0.

11**

0.24

***

0.21

***

0.11

**0.

06A

djus

ted

R32

0.03

0.00

0.11

***

0.09

***

0.08

***

0.07

**0.

21**

*0.

18**

*0.

07**

0.02

R32 –R

220.

010.

02*

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of h

usba

ndH

usba

nd’s

edu

catio

n0.

010.

05−0

.03

−0.0

7−0

.19*

−0.0

00.

08−0

.04

−0.0

2−0

.04

Hus

band

’s e

mpl

oym

ent

stat

us‡

0.22

***

0.28

***

0.09

0.17

**−0

.01

−0.0

3−0

.04

0.05

−0.0

10.

07

Alc

ohol

use

§−0

.20*

**−0

.19*

**−0

.25*

**−0

.14*

−0.1

10.

08−0

.14*

−0.0

10.

020.

05D

rug

use§

−0.0

6−0

.12

−0.1

0−0

.05

0.14

*0.

17**

−0.0

0−0

.04

−0.0

50.

02In

tere

st o

r at

tent

ion

to

othe

r pe

ople

§

−0.1

4*−0

.23*

**0.

07−0

.06

−0.0

70.

05−0

.15*

−0.0

50.

00−0

.12

R42

0.18

***

0.24

***

0.23

***

0.19

***

0.22

***

0.14

**0.

30**

*0.

35**

*0.

19**

*0.

15**

Adj

uste

d R

420.

13**

*0.

19**

*0.

18**

*0.

14**

*0.

16**

*0.

08**

0.26

***

0.31

***

0.13

***

0.09

**R

42 –R32

0.11

**0.

19**

0.08

**0.

07**

0.10

**0.

030.

06**

0.14

**0.

08**

0.09

**

Mar

ital-

rela

ted

vari

able

Sexu

al c

onfli

ct§

−0.0

40.

08−0

.19*

*0.

07−0

.22*

**−0

.14*

0.01

−0.0

20.

02−0

.02

Fool

ed i

nto

mar

riag

e w

ithou

t kn

owin

g th

e pa

rtne

r§

−0.1

3*−0

.19*

*−0

.21*

**−0

.10

0.04

−0.2

3***

−0.0

9−0

.02

−0.0

8−0

.17*

R52

0.20

***

0.27

***

0.31

***

0.20

***

0.25

***

0.25

***

0.32

***

0.39

***

0.22

***

0.18

***

Adj

uste

d R

520.

14**

*0.

22**

*0.

26**

*0.

15**

*0.

19**

*0.

20**

*0.

27**

*0.

35**

*0.

16**

*0.

12**

*R

52 – R

420.

02*

0.03

**0.

08**

0.01

0.03

**0.

11**

0.02

*0.

04**

0.03

*0.

03*

Inde

pend

ent

vari

able

s

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

Dom

estic

vio

lenc

e R

espo

nse

styl

esO

utco

mes

Min

or

phys

ical

Seve

re

phys

ical

Min

or

psyc

holo

gica

lSe

vere

ps

ycho

logi

cal

Soci

alFo

rmal

Non

ePs

ycho

logi

cal

Phys

ical

Wor

k

Figu

re o

ther

tha

n R

’s a

re s

tand

ardi

zed

beta

coe

ffici

ents

.† (h

ave

child

ren

= 1,

do

not

have

chi

ldre

n =

2), ‡ (w

orki

ng f

ull-

time

= 1,

wor

king

par

t-tim

e =

2, n

ot w

orki

ng =

3),

§ (yes

= 1

, no

= 2)

.*p

< 0

.05,

**p

< 0

.01,

***

p <

0.00

1.



Soci

al s

uppo

rtH

as s

omeo

ne w

ho c

an

shar

e th

e pr

oble

m§

−0.0

7−0

.00

−0.0

4−0

.07

−0.1

5*0.

04−0

.06

−0.0

3−0

.05

−0.1

1

Has

fat

her/

brot

her/

fam

ily

who

cou

ld l

end

soci

al

supp

ort§

0.15

*0.

070.

090.

14*

−0.0

1−0

.04

−0.1

2*0.

010.

05−0

.01

R62

0.22

***

0.28

***

0.33

***

0.22

***

0.26

***

0.26

***

0.34

***

0.40

***

0.23

***

0.20

***

Adj

uste

d R

620.

16**

*0.

22**

*0.

27**

*0.

15**

*0.

20**

*0.

19**

*0.

28**

*0.

35**

*0.

16**

*0.

13**

*R

62 – R

520.

02*

0.01

0.02

*0.

02*

0.01

0.01

0.02

*0.

010.

010.

02

Type

s of

dom

estic

vio

lenc

eM

inor

phy

sica

l as

saul

t−0

.06

−0.1

3−0

.16

0.05

−0.3

4***

−0.2

4*Se

vere

phy

sica

l as

saul

t0.

35**

*0.

46**

*0.

090.

23**

0.68

***

0.42

***

Min

or p

sych

olog

ical

ag

gres

sion

−0.1

00.

060.

29**

*0.

21**

0.11

−0.0

1

Seve

re p

sych

olog

ical

ag

gres

sion

0.17

0.02

0.11

0.02

0.11

0.10

R72

0.36

***

0.37

***

0.41

***

0.61

***

0.45

***

0.28

***

Adj

uste

d R

720.

29**

*0.

30**

*0.

35**

*0.

57**

*0.

39**

*0.

20**

*R

72 – R

720.

10**

0.11

**0.

07**

0.21

**0.

22**

0.08

**

Inde

pend

ent

vari

able

s

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

Dom

estic

vio

lenc

e R

espo

nse

styl

esO

utco

mes

Min

or

phys

ical

Seve

re

phys

ical

Min

or

psyc

holo

gica

lSe

vere

ps

ycho

logi

cal

Soci

alFo

rmal

Non

ePs

ycho

logi

cal

Phys

ical

Wor

k

Figu

re o

ther

tha

n R

’s a

re s

tand

ardi

zed

beta

coe

ffici

ents

.† (h

ave

child

ren

= 1,

do

not

have

chi

ldre

n =

2), ‡ (w

orki

ng f

ull-

time

= 1,

wor

king

par

t-tim

e =

2, n

ot w

orki

ng =

3),

§ (yes

= 1

, no

= 2)

.*p

< 0

.05,

**p

< 0

.01,

***

p <

0.00

1.

Tab

le 5

Con

tinue

d



Attr

ibut

ions

of

blam

eSe

lf-b

lam

e0.

060.

020.

08−0

.00

0.00

−0.0

4Pa

rtne

r bl

ame

−0.0

00.

07−0

.08

−0.0

10.

00−0

.04

Situ

atio

nal

blam

e0.

05−0

.05

0.05

0.09

0.03

0.13

R82

0.37

***

0.38

***

0.44

***

0.63

***

0.46

***

0.30

***

Adj

uste

d R

520.

29**

*0.

30**

*0.

37**

*0.

58**

*0.

39**

*0.

21**

*R

82 – R

720.

010.

010.

03*

0.02

*0.

010.

02

Res

pons

e st

yles

Soci

al i

nter

vent

ion

0.18

***

0.16

*0.

22**

Form

al i

nter

vent

ion

0.05

−0.1

4*−0

.22*

*N

on-i

nter

vent

ion

0.24

***

0.01

0.12

R92

0.69

***

0.48

***

0.36

***

Adj

uste

d R

920.

64**

*0.

40**

*0.

27**

*R

92 –R82

0.06

**0.

02*

0.06

**

Inde

pend

ent

vari

able

s

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

Dom

estic

vio

lenc

e R

espo

nse

styl

esO

utco

mes

Min

or

phys

ical

Seve

re

phys

ical

Min

or

psyc

holo

gica

lSe

vere

ps

ycho

logi

cal

Soci

alFo

rmal

Non

ePs

ycho

logi

cal

Phys

ical

Wor

k

Figu

re o

ther

tha

n R

’s a

re s

tand

ardi

zed

beta

coe

ffici

ents

.† (h

ave

child

ren

= 1,

do

not

have

chi

ldre

n =

2), ‡ (w

orki

ng f

ull-

time

= 1,

wor

king

par

t-tim

e =

2, n

ot w

orki

ng =

3),

§ (yes

= 1

, no

= 2)

.*p

< 0

.05,

**p

< 0

.01,

***

p <

0.00

1.



Discussion

Consistent with previous research findings in the USA, our respondents indicated that domesticviolence frequently occurs in Myanmar. The present study’s findings that 69% and 27% of thewomen reported experiencing psychological aggression and physical assault, respectively, areroughly equal to the average numbers reported in previous studies (40 to 75% for psychologicalaggression and 20 to 36% for physical assault) (Smith, 1987; Straus & Sweet, 1992; Hoffmanet al., 1994; Ratner, 1998; Yoshihama, 1999; Tjaden, 2000; Weingourt et al., 2001; Jewkes et al.,2002; Koeing, 2003). Our findings document substantially higher rates of physical andpsychological wife abuse than found in the MNCWA study in Myanmar (Khin Win Shwe, 2002).It should be noted that some methodological factors may have contributed to the higher incidenceof violence in this study. First, the current sample was drawn from Mandalay rather than froma representative national sample. Second, the variance in the general socioeconomic status isrestricted because women from high socioeconomic status were somewhat underrepresented.Straus et al. (1980) found that women from higher SES families report lower levels of violence.If the women from this group had been included in the same proportion in the sample, the overallrate of violence may have been somewhat lower. However, in accordance with the MNCWA study,we found that minor psychological aggression was the most frequently reported with minorphysical assault and severe psychological aggression being less frequent and severe physicalassault being a relatively rare occurrence.

The results of ANOVA and regression analyses indicate that types of domestic violence arecorrelated with various negative outcomes, coping responses, husbands’ unemployment, husband’sfrequent alcohol use, women witnessing parental violence, lack of strong social support, womenholding feminism sex role attitudes and women who had been fooled into marriage without trulyknowing the partner. These results suggest the validity of the Revised Conflict Tactic Scale whentranslated from the original English questionnaire (Straus et al., 1996) and tested on Myanmarwomen. Although these results are highly plausible, important issues remain unexplored in thepresent study.

Factor analysis conducted for the Myanmar version of the revised conflict tactic scale foundthat four factor dimensions have sufficiently high reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72to 0.88). However, the severity weights of physical assault items for the Myanmar study werefound to be slightly different to what had been conceptualized by Straus et al. (1996). The CTShas been criticized for limiting its severity of weights (Straus, 1990; Ratner, 1998). In contrast,Myanmar women may consider that twisting of arm or hair is severe, whereas they view beingslammed against a wall as minor. It may be possible that in Myanmar, traditionally, most womenvalue their long hair as a symbol of womanhood or grace. When men pull or twist the women’slong hair it might hurt more than for shorter hair and likely cause greater physical suffering. Thisneeds further examination.

The results indicated that no significant correlation is found for low income and domesticviolence. The findings do not offer much support for our hypothesis 1, and previous researchfindings (Straus et al., 1980; Hoffman et al., 1994; Khin Win Shwe, 2002). Lack of variabilityin household income in our sample (reflecting low income among respondents in this sample)made this relation difficult to assess. In contrast, the present study showed that husbands’unemployment was the best predictor of minor physical assault, severe physical assault and severepsychological aggression. These results are similar to those of previous studies showing that theemployment effect on spousal violence is a symbolic resource rather than a solely economicresource (Macmillan & Gartner, 1999). This suggests that domestic violence reflects efforts todominate and control women in marital relationships more than the stress and frustration of



economic deprivation. Overall, the results of ANOVA and regression suggest that husbands’unemployment was strongly related to domestic violence experience. Thus, hypothesis 2 waspartially supported.

The present study also showed that all types of domestic violence are positively associatedwith men who frequently use alcohol, as has been previously suggested (Kaufman Kartor & Straus,1990a; Hoffman et al., 1994; Jewkes et al., 2002; Khin Win Shwe, 2002). Thus, our hypothesis 3was supported.

Analysis of variance revealed that except for severe physical assault, the women whowitnessed and experienced parental violence often/very often had the highest domestic violencetendencies among all other groups. Regression analysis revealed that the magnitude of theaggregated ‘past experience’ effect on minor physical assault, minor psychological and severepsychological aggressions (0.04, 0.10, and 0.08, respectively) remained just as large as that of allthe wife’s characteristic variables combined (−0.01, 0.02, and 0.02, respectively). However, theresults indicated that when controlling for other factors, witnessing parental violence as a childhad a significant effect on minor psychological aggression only. It is likely that husbands’characteristics may have been a sufficient cause of domestic violence quite independently; forexample, characteristics of the man with whom the woman is involved are better predictors of awoman’s risk of becoming a victim than are characteristics of the woman herself (Hotaling &Sugarman, 1986). Thus, hypothesis 4 was generally supported.

Our results also showed that women who lack strong support from their fathers, brothers orwhole family tend to experience minor physical assault and severe psychological aggression. Aprevious study found similar results, which suggests that social isolation raises the risk of severeviolence between spouses (Gelles, 1974). Thus, hypothesis 5 was generally supported.

Previous research (Jewkes et al., 2002) has indicated that domestic violence is stronglyrelated to women who hold liberal ideas about gender roles. While our findings from theregression analysis were in accordance with this, our results suggested that women who holdfeminism attitudes tend to experience severe physical assault. Thus, hypothesis 6 was partiallysupported.

Our findings indicated that women who had been fooled into marriage without truly knowingthe partners tend to experience minor physical assault, severe physical assault and minorpsychological aggression. These findings are consistent with our research question. For a longtime, Myanmar Buddhist men customarily married more than one partner. The existing lawcontinues to allow a man to have more than one wife. However, recent Myanmar societies feelthat a man should marry only one woman (Mya Sein, 2000). Parents and relatives would not allowtheir daughters, sisters, or nieces to marry men who are already married. Myanmar women arealso afraid to become a second wife. Becoming a second wife may be likely to happen whenmarried men who wish to have more than one wife try to hide their true marital status. When thewomen learn the truth about their marital status, they feel sadness or complain, which may leadto conflicts and violence.

Our results support hypothesis 7 that domestic violence has a serious impact on womenespecially on physical, work and psychological well-being as well as causing severe physicalassault. These results are similar to those of previous studies (Hilberman, 1980; Mitchell &Hodson, 1983; Gelles & Straus, 1990; Follingstad et al., 1991; Astin et al., 1993; Ratner, 1998).However, minor psychological aggression was also significantly related with psychologicaloutcome. It is likely that in our study, minor psychological aggression experienced by womenwas the most frequent occurrence. As hypothesized, Table 5 reveals that the best predictor ofwhether or not a wife seeks intervention is violence severity (Gelles, 1976). Thus, women whoseek social and formal intervention are strongly influenced by the level of violence. The less



severe the violence, the less frequently a woman will seek outside intervention. Hypothesis 8 wassupported.

It was also hypothesized that women who endorse self-blame would be more likely to usenon-intervention and that self-blame would be associated with psychological outcomes. However,the findings do not provide much support for hypotheses 9 and 10. The results of regressionanalysis showed no significant effects of self-blame on non-intervention and psychologicaloutcome after control of other factors. It may be also likely that the minority and severity of theirobjective situation may in itself have been a sufficient cause of non-intervention and psychologicaloutcome.

Moreover, the present study showed that outcomes were related to whether the respondentssought formal intervention or not. Our findings indicated that social intervention and non-intervention are related to high negative outcomes, suggesting that the impact of domestic violencemight be decreased by formal intervention. Previous studies have found similar findings andsuggest that less active coping and more avoidance coping were related to more severepsychological consequences (Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Kemp et al., 1995). Thus, hypothesis 11was supported. Unfortunately, however, few of the abused women are actually taking action.

Conclusion

This study may be helpful to better understand domestic violence in Myanmar, and ultimately tohelp create effective programs to prevent and remedy domestic violence in Myanmar. It suggeststhat domestic violence among Myanmar women is not a rare event, and examination of antecedentsassociated with domestic violence revealed that husbands’ characteristics are the most importantcorrelates. Our findings show that intervention aimed at reducing alcohol consumption,empowering women’s roles, and changing the marital laws are likely to have important corollarybenefits in terms of reducing levels of violence between intimate partners. Moreover, our resultssuggest frequently witnessing parental violence as children and experiencing social isolation arealso important factors. In addition, the results of this study provide clear evidence that domesticviolence is related to a variety of negative outcomes. Women experienced more undesirablepersonal than work outcomes from violence. Thus, women primarily felt the effects of violenceas psychological and physical distress. Further, our results suggest that formal intervention is lesslikely to be associated with all types of negative outcomes of domestic violence experiences.However, our results showed that only 6% of respondents used formal interventions. These findingssuggest the need for disseminating information on where to seek assistance for women at risk.Programs may need to be developed and implemented at the community level, including school,religious institutions, community centers, and the workplace.

As a primarily exploratory study, ours had a number of weaknesses and limitations thatconstrain its generalization. First, the study was based on introspective reports from the women.Without direct information from the husbands, results about their behaviors may be biased in thatthe women may overreport violence by their husbands. Second, the sampling plan for this studyis basically volunteer sampling with randomized household sample. This limits the generalizationof the study. Future studies must attempt to include a more representative sample from thecommunity. Furthermore, this study did not consider numerous variables that may be importantin providing a thorough understanding regarding domestic violence within Myanmar. For example,this research did not assess types of abuse such as sexual abuse, economic abuse etc. Finally, morework is needed in order to understand the subtle relation among the characteristics of domesticviolence, and their impact and victims’ responses.



References

Andrews, B. & Brewin, C. R. (1990). Attributions of blame for marital violence: A study of antecedentsand consequences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 754–767.

Andrews, B. & Brown, G. W. (1988). Marital violence in the community: A biographical approach.British Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 305–312.

Astin, M. C., Laerence, K. J. & Foy, D. W. (1993). Posttraumatic stress disorder among battered women:Risk and resiliency factors. Violence and Victims, 8, 17–27.

Browne, A. (1993). Violence against women by male partners: prevalence, outcomes, and policyimplications. American Psychologist, 48, 1077–1087.

Carlson, B. E. (1997). A stress and coping approach to intervention with abused women. FamilyRelations, 46, 291–298.

Cribb, J. & Barnett, R. (1999). Being bashed: Western Samoan women’s responses to domestic violencein Western Samoa and New Zealand. Gender Place and Culture: A Journal of FeministGeographyraphy, 6, 49–62.

Demaris, A. (1990). The dynamics of generational transfer in courtship violence: A biracial exploration.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 219–231.

Dutton, D. G. (1988). Profiling of wife assault of women: Preliminary evidence for a trimodal analysis.Violence and Victims, 3, 5–29.

EDK Associates, The Body Shop and YWCA. (1997). One in four American women has experienceddomestic violence. Women’s Healths Weekly, 16–17.

Feldman, C. M. & Ridley, C. A. (1995). The etiology sand treatment of domestic violence betweenadult partners. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 317–348.

Follingstad, D. R., Brennan, A. F., Hause, E. S., Polek, D. S. & Rutledge, L. L. (1991). Factors moderatingphysical and psychological symptoms of battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 81–95.

Gelles, R. J. (1974). The Violent Home. A Study of Physical Aggression Between Husbands and Wives.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gelles, R. J. (1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 659–668.Gelles, R. J. (1980). Violence in the family: A review of research in the seventies. Journal of Marriage

and the Family, 42, 873–883.Gelles, R. J. & Straus, M. A. (1990). The medical and psychological costs of family violence. In: M.

A. Straus & R. J. Gelles, eds. Physical Violence in American Families, pp. 425–430. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Glantz, N. M., Halperin, D. C. & Hunt, L. M. (1998). Studying domestic violence in Chiapas, Mexico.Qualitative Health Research, 8, 377–392.

Goodman, L. A., Koss, M. P. & Russo, N. F. (1993). Violence against women: Physical and mentalhealth effects. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 2, 79–89.

Gutierrez, P. M., Thakker, R. R. & Kuczen, C. (2000). Exploration of the relationship between physicaland/or sexual abuse attitudes about life and death, and suicidal ideation in young women. DeathStudies, 24, 675–688.

Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending Violence Against Women: PopulationReports, Vol. 27, Number 4. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Herbert, T. B., Silver, R. C. & Ellard, J. H. (1991). Coping with an abusive relationship: I. How andwhy do women stay? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 311–325.

Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.Hilberman, E. (1980). Over view: The ‘wife-batter’s wife’ reconsidered. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 137, 1336–1347.Hoffman, K. L., Demo, D. H. & Edwards, J. H. (1994). Physical wife abuse in a Non-Western society:

An integrated theoretical approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 131–146.Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N. & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband

violence: The psychological effects of husband violence on battered women and their children.Aggression and Violence Behavior, 2, 179–213.



Hotaling, G. T. & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). An analysis of risk makers in husband to wife violence:The current stats of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101–124.

Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet, 359, 1423–1429.Jewkes, R., Levin, L. & Penn-Kekana, L. (2002). Risk factor for domestic violence: Findings from a

South African cross-sectional study. Social Science and Medicine, 55, 1603–1617.Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence

against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.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.Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 46, 11–19.Kaslaw, N. J., Thompson, M. P., Meadows, L. A., et al. (1993). Factors that mediate and the link

between partner abuse and suicidal behavior in African American women. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 66, 533–540.

Kaufman Kartor, G. & Straus, M. A. (1990a). The ‘Drunken Bum’ theory of wife beating. In: M. A.Straus & R. J. Gelles, eds. Physical Violence in American Families, pp. 203–224. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction.

Kaufman Kartor, G. & Straus, M. A. (1990b). Response of victims and the police to assaults on wives.In: M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles, eds. Physical Violence in American Families, pp. 473–487. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Kemp, A., Green, B. L., Hovanitz, C. & Rawlings, E. I. (1995). Incidence and correlated ofposttraumatic stress disorder in battered women: Shelter and community samples. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 10, 43–55.

Khin Win Shwe. (2002). Global and Myanmar Perspective: Violence Against Women. Yangon,MNCWA: Myanmar.

Khrishnan, S. P., Hilbert, J. C. & Vanleeuwen, D. (2001). Domestic violence and help-seeking behaviorsamong rural women: Results from a shelter-based study. Family and Community Health, 24, 28–38.

Koeing, M. A. (2003). Domestic violence in rural Uganda: Evidence from a community-based study.Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 53–50.

Macmillan, R. & Gartner, R. (1999). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force participation andthe risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 947–958.

Mitchell, R. E. & Hodson, C. A. (1983). Coping with domestic violence: Social support andpsychological health among battered women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 629–654.

Mya Sein. (2000). Myanmar Customary Law, 9th edn. Yangon: Myanmar.Myanmar National Committee For Women’s Affairs. (1997). Myanmar National Action Plan for the

Advancement of Women. Yangon, MNCWA: Myanmar.Nurius, P. S., Furrey, J. & Berliner, L. (1992). Coping capacity among women with abusive partners.

Violence and Victims, 9, 229–243.Nylen, L. & Heimer, G. (1999). Sweden’s responses to domestic violence. FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, 68, 19–24.Ratner, P. A. (1998). Modeling acts of aggression and dominance as wife abuse and exploring their

adverse health effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 453–465.Smith, M. D. (1987). The incidence and prevalence of women abuse in Toronto. Voilence and Victims,

2, 178–187.Smith, E. R., Ferree, M. M. & Miller, F. D. (1975). A short scale of attitudes toward feminism.

Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 51–56.Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CTS) Scale.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.Straus, M. A. (1990). The Conflict Tactics Scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity

and reliability. In: M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles, eds. Physical Violence in American Families,pp. 49–73. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.



Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J. & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the AmericanFamily. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Press.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Bony-McCoy, S. & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict TacticsScales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

Straus, M. A. & Sweet, S. (1992). Verbal/symbolic aggression in couples: Incidence rates andrelationships to personal characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 346–357.

Stube, M. J. & Barbour, L. S. (1983). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: Economicdependence and psychological commitment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 785–793.

Tang, C. (1997). Psychological impact of wife abuse: Experiences of Chinese women and their children.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 466–475.

Tjaden, P. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to female and female-to male intimate partnerviolence as measured by the national violence against women survey. Violence Against Women, 6,142–161.

Weingourt, R., Maruyama, T., Sawada, I. & Yoshino, J. (2001). Domestic violence and women’s mentalhealth in Japan. International Nursing Review, 48, 102–108.

Yoshihama, M. (1999). Domestic violence against women of Japanese descent in Los Angeles twomethods of estimating prevalence. Violence Against Women, 5, 869–889.

Prevalence, antecedent causes and consequences of domestic violence in Myanmar

Documents

Transcript of Prevalence, antecedent causes and consequences of domestic violence in Myanmar