Intimate partner violence relationship dissolution among couples with children: the counterintuitive role of “Law and Order” neighborhoods

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between intimate partner violence (IPV) relationship dissolution and neighborhood concentrated disadvantage, ethnic heterogeneity, residential instability, collective efficacy, and legal cynicism. Data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) Longitudinal survey were used to identify 658 cases of IPV in Wave 1. A generalized boosting model (GBM) was used to determine the best proximal predictors of relationship dissolution from the longitudinal data. Controlling for these predictors, logistic regression of neighborhood characteristics from the PHDCN community survey was used to predict IPV relationship dissolution in Wave 2. Counterintuitively, the authors find that neighborhoods high in legal cynicism have a greater likelihood of IPV relationship dissolution, controlling for other variables in the logistic regression model. However, analyses did not find that IPV relationship dissolution was related to neighborhood concentrated disadvantage, ethnic heterogeneity, residential instability, and collective efficacy. C

The Geography of Child Maltreatment: A Spatiotemporal Analysis Using Bayesian Hierarchical Analysis With Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation

“…Quite possibly, in socially advantaged neighborhoods, child abuse and neglect remain undetected because residents are less interested in recognizing or reporting it or it may be more likely to be ignored, overlooked, and misconstrued. This is in accordance with a recent study suggesting that neighborhoods willing to control crimes in public spaces (i.e., neighborhoods characterized by low levels of social vulnerability) may have a traditional more “hands off” approach to family violence (Emery, Jolly, & Wu, 2010).…”

Neighborhood-Level Factors Associated with Physical Dating Violence Perpetration: Results of a Representative Survey Conducted in Boston, MA

“…24,32,53,54 The lack of institutional resources may also limit the community's ability to implement social order in general. 55 Evidence that violent crime reductions result when communities develop a larger base of positive local institutions (e.g., youth centers), while preventing an influx of negative ones (e.g., bars), supports this possibility. 52 …”

Neighborhoods and Intimate Partner Violence: A Decade in Review

“…Moreover, there has been relatively little work in the past 10 years regarding immigration (even though it has been a major force of social change in the U.S. for ethno-racial compositions and residential mobility) and there are few data available to quantify the impact of immigration status and/or neighborhood immigrant rates on IPV (Emery et al, 2010;Erez & Harper, 2018;Gracia et al, 2014Gracia et al, , 2015Wright & Benson, 2010). The work available has shown mixed results, with some studies suggesting no effect of neighborhood immigration on IPV rates (e.g., Emery et al, 2010;Gracia et al, 2014Gracia et al, , 2015, others suggesting that it might actually prevent or reduce the levels of IPV (Wright & Benson, 2010;Xie et al, 2018), and still others suggesting that the relationship may depend on the gender of the victims (Soller & Kuhlemeier, 2019). The mechanisms underlying the relationship, such as organizational structures, cultural differences in the treatment of IPV, social ties between neighbors, and/or a hesitancy to report this violence, are receiving more attention, but are still poorly understood at this point (Xie & Baumer, 2019).…”

“…Finally, little research over the past decade has examined the role of community culture and IPV: Emery et al (2010) found that areas with higher levels of legal cynicism (a measure of culture) did, in fact, experience higher levels of IPV relationship dissolution, and Wright and Benson (2010) reported that IPV rates were lower in communities where cultural norms support outside interventions for IPV (i.e., where residents do not believe that IPV is a private matter). This line of research suggests that the type of violence and specificity of norms matter a great deal to the results that are uncovered, but more research is needed on this topic.…”

“…In some ways, this is likely the most theoretically developed (and studied) aspect with regard to IPV. As noted above, economic deprivation and indicators of contextual disadvantage have continued to be examined in the IPV literature (e.g., Bonomi et al, 2014; Diem & Pizarro, 2010; Gracia et al, 2014, 2015), but cultural contexts might also involve beliefs about violence, violence in relationships, and/or the appropriateness of intervening on family matters such as IPV (e.g., Cools & Kotsadam, 2017; Emery et al, 2010; Voith, 2019). Peitzmeier et al (2016) found that norms promoting gender equality in roles and relationships were protective against IPV perpetration; in combination with others’ work on gender stratification and/or gender resources and status (Cools & Kotsadam, 2017; Jackson, 2015, 2016; Xie, Lauritsen, et al, 2012), these lines of inquiry offer significant avenues for further development.…”