Because of their restricted access to financial
resources, couples undergoing economic distress are more likely to
live in disadvantaged neighborhoods than are financially well-off
couples. The link between individual economic distress and community-
level economic disadvantage raises the possibility that these two
conditions may combine or interact in important ways to influence the
risk of intimate violence against women. This study examined whether
the effect of economic distress on intimate violence was stronger in
disadvantaged or advantaged neighborhoods or unaffected by
neighborhood conditions. The researchers intended to answer the
following questions: (1) How do measures of community correlate with
the prevalence, frequency, severity, and duration of intimate
violence? (2) To what extent do different forms of economic distress
influence the use of violence by men against women in intimate
relationships? (3) How do changes in economic distress influence the
initiation, maintenance, desistence, and escalation of violence by men
in intimate relationships and to what extent do known precursors of
violence mediate the impact of changes in economic distress on
violence? (4) Does change over time in economic distress influence
intimate violence independently of community context and household
characteristics, or does it interact with these factors to produce
varying risk levels for women located in different types of areas and
households? (5) Are the effects of community context and economic
distress on intimate violence more pronounced for minority women, or do
they operate independently of race and other demographic
characteristics?
The data used for this project came from the first
and second waves of the National Survey of Families and Households
(NSFH) conducted by the Center for Demography and Ecology at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison [NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILIES AND
HOUSEHOLDS: WAVE I, 1987-1988, AND WAVE II, 1992-1994 (ICPSR
6906)]. The NSFH was designed to cover a broad range of family
structures, processes, and relationships with a large enough sample to
permit subgroup analysis. The first wave of the NSFH was conducted in
1988 and included a national probability sample of 13,017
respondents. Information was collected regarding the respondent's
family living arrangements in childhood, marital and cohabiting
experiences, education, fertility, alcohol use, employment history,
kin contact, and economic and psychological well-being. Five years
after the original interview, the sample from the first wave was
reinterviewed. This project was a secondary analysis of data drawn
from Waves 1 and 2 of the NSFH and from the 1990 United States
Census. From the NSFH, the researchers abstracted data on conflict and
violence among couples, as well as data on their economic resources
and well-being, the composition of the household in which the couple
lived, and a large number of socio-demographic characteristics of the
sample respondents. From the 1990 Census, the researchers abstracted
tract-level data on the characteristics of the census tracts in which
the NSFH respondents lived.
Not applicable.
Families and households in the United States.
Individuals.
NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS: WAVE I,
1987-1988, AND WAVE II, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 6906)
survey data
Demographic information contains each respondent's
race, sex, age, education, income, relationship status at Wave 1,
marital status at Wave 1, cohabitation status, and number of children
under 18. Using variables abstracted from both Wave 1 and Wave 2 of
the NSFH and the 1990 Census, the researchers constructed new
variables, including degree of financial worry and satisfaction for
males and females, number of job strains, number of debts, changes in
debts between Wave 1 and Wave 2, changes in income between Wave 1 and
Wave 2, if there were drinking and drug problems in the household, if
the female was injured, number of times the female was victimized, the
seriousness of the violence, if the respondent at Wave 2 was still at
the Wave 1 address, and levels of community disadvantage.
Not applicable.
Several Likert-type scales were used.