ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Female Immigrant Victims of Domestic Violence:A Comparison between Immigrants from the FormerSoviet Union in Israel and Israeli-Born Women

Eugene Tartakovsky & Sabina Mezhibovsky

Published online: 31 May 2012# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract This study aimed to understand patterns of physicaland psychological violence and the system of social supportamong female immigrants from the Former Soviet Union inIsrael who are suffering from domestic violence. Immigrantwomen receiving help in Centers for the Treatment and Pre-vention of Domestic Violence and in shelters for batteredwomen (n074) were compared with Israeli-born women re-ceiving help in the same Centers and shelters (n0107). Immi-grant and Israeli-born women reported similar levels ofphysical and psychological violence, and the immigrants’utilization of formal and informal systems of social supportwas similar to that among Israeli-born women. However,immigrant women were threatened more frequently with ex-pulsion from Israel, and their partners were alcoholicallyintoxicated more often than the partners of Israeli-born wom-en. Non-Jewish women were more frequently threatened withexpulsion from Israel, and they reported a lower level of socialsupport received from parents and friends.

Keywords Domestic violence against women . Socialsupport . Immigrants . Former Soviet Union . Israel

Domestic violence against women occurs in all countries andsocioeconomic groups; however, its prevalence and manifes-tations vary widely (Straus 2004; Watts and Zimmerman2002). During the last few decades, the number of immigrants

in the world has been rapidly growing; therefore, understand-ing the socio-cultural specificity of domestic violence againstwomen among different immigrant groups is becoming in-creasingly important (Dumont and Lemaître 2005; Field andCaetano 2004; Menjivar and Salcido 2002; Raj and Silverman2002). The present study focuses on Jewish immigrants fromthe former Soviet Union (FSU) in Israel. About 1.5 millionJews and their relatives (from a population of about 2 millionwho lived in the Soviet Union) left the FSU since the fall ofthe Communist regime in 1989 (Tolts 2009). About 900,000of them immigrated to Israel; others settled in the USA,Canada, Germany, and other countries (CBSI 2010). Untilnow, domestic violence against women has not been investi-gated in this population. In the present study, female immi-grants from the FSU in Israel were compared with Israeli-bornwomen in terms of the levels of physical and psychologicalviolence they experienced, their perceived social support, andvarious socio-demographic characteristics. The study wasconducted among women who received psychosocial help inCenters for the Treatment and Prevention of Domestic Vio-lence and in shelters for battered women.

Domestic Violence Against Immigrant Women

Theoretical Considerations Both the general public andresearchers often assume that immigrants have higher rates ofdomestic violence than the majority population. This assump-tion is based on two theories: the subculture of violence theoryand the structural inequality theory (Field and Caetano 2004;Sokoloff and Dupont 2005). The subculture of violence theoryargues that certain cultural groups are more accepting of vio-lence against women as a means of conflict resolution and as aculturally appropriate means of punishing women for theirtransgression of culturally sanctioned norms of behavior

E. Tartakovsky (*)The Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel-Aviv University,P.O.B. 39040, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israele-mail: etartakov@hotmail.com

S. MezhibovskyJewish Family and Child Services,Toronto, Canada

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572DOI 10.1007/s10896-012-9447-z

(Sokoloff and Dupont 2005; Yoshihama 1999). Cultures thatpermit domestic violence against women are often labeledpatriarchal (Taylor et al. 2001). In addition to supportingdomestic violence, patriarchal cultural norms may negativelyaffect women’s ability to seek psychosocial help. For instance,adherence to norms of upholding family honor and particularlyits male members makes it difficult for female victims ofdomestic violence to blame their husbands before law enforce-ment agencies or social workers (Kasturirangan et al. 2004).The subculture of violence theory applied to the case of immi-gration assumes that some immigrants come from cultures thatsupport violence against women, and that immigrants continueto adhere to these cultural norms in the host country.

Structural inequality theory assumes that structural fac-tors in a given society (e.g., undereducation, unemployment,poverty, low prospective for socioeconomic advantage, anddiscrimination) are responsible for the increased levels ofdomestic violence prevalent in certain socio-economic andethnic groups. Families with a lower socio-economic statusexperience increased stress, because their stressors are morenumerous and severe, and they have fewer resources availableto cope with these stressors. Stress caused by structural factorsmay lead to increased frustration, disharmony in interpersonalrelationships, and violence (Field and Caetano 2004).

Structural inequality theory assumes that the effect ofstructural factors on immigrant families is essentially similarto their effect on domestic violence among low-status familiesbelonging to the majority ethnic group (Sokoloff and Dupont2005). However, the theory also assumes that immigrationmay exacerbate domestic violence, because immigrants oftenexperience a decrease in their socio-economic status andfinancial instability in the host country as compared with theirsituation in the country of origin (Raj and Silverman 2002). Inaddition, the task of socio-cultural adaptation to the hostcountry may require changes in the relationship patterns inthe family, which may also cause distress and conflict(Kasturirangan et al. 2004; Slonim-Nevo et al. 1999).

Structural inequality theory also assumes that an immigrantstatus may create special difficulties for women trying to escapeabusive relationships, because it increases their isolation fromthe larger society. Immigrant women may be restricted to theirfamilies by language barriers, limited information on the hostsociety, and fear of discrimination (Burman and Chantler 2005;Johnson and Ferraro 2000). For the same reasons, immigrantwomen may experience a greater difficulty in utilizing psycho-social services than women belonging to the majority ethnicgroup, or evenminority womenwho are permanent residents ofthe country. Finally, women whose immigration status is tied tothe status of their spouse may fear losing their immigrationstatus and be deported (Kasturirangan et al. 2004).

Empirical Findings Most studies conducted in the USAhave found consistent cross-racial differences in domestic

violence against women. A study using a representative USsample (Tjaden et al. 1999) found that throughout their life,Asian women suffered the least from domestic violence(13 %), followed by Anglo women (21 %), African-American women (26 %), and American Indians and AlaskaNatives (31 %). Another study found that 12 % of Anglos,17 % of Hispanics, and 23 % of blacks reported at least oneincident of male-to-female partner violence in the past year(Caetano et al. 2000). At the same time, in most studies, whenthe socioeconomic characteristics (such as education levelsand occupational status) were accounted for, the level ofviolence among blacks and Hispanics was similar to that ofnon-Hispanic white women (Farmer and Tiefenthaler 2003;Johnson and Ferraro 2000; Rodriguez et al. 2001; Torres1991). Several studies conducted in the US have indicatedthat the stress of immigration may exacerbate domestic vio-lence against women. Thus, a representative study ofMexicanwomen demonstrated that domestic violence against themincreased after their immigration to the United States (Lownand Vega 2001). Additionally, the highest rate of domesticviolence was found among women who were undocumentedimmigrants or conditional residents married to citizens orpermanent residents of the United States (Anderson 1993).

These findings seem to corroborate the structural inequalitytheory of domestic violence. However, some other studiesconducted in the US support the subculture of violence theory.Torres (1991) found that Hispanic women tended to endurebattering for a longer time than Anglo and African-Americanwomen, and Mexican American women, more than Anglowomen, tended to view some forms of domestic violence asnormal and acceptable. In addition, Field and Caetano (2004)found that when the variables of urbanity, income, employ-ment, and occupation status were controlled, Hispanics stilldemonstrated a higher prevalence of domestic violenceagainst women than Anglos. Some researchers suggest thatthe subculture of violence and structural inequality theoriesmay be supplementary rather than contradictory (Raj andSilverman 2002). Thus, several recent studies have indicatedthat both men and women with lower levels of education andoccupational status demonstrated more patriarchal socialnorms, tended to blame their wives for their violence againstthem, and viewed violence against women as more acceptable(Ahmad et al. 2004; Haj-Yahia 2003; Sakalli 2001).

Domestic Violence Against Women in Russia and Israel

No data is available regarding domestic violence in theSoviet Union. Furthermore, no data is available regardingdomestic violence among Jews in the FSU. However, sev-eral recent studies have provided data regarding domesticviolence against women in post-perestroika Russia. Empir-ical studies conducted in Moscow and St. Petersburg

562 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572

indicate that the life prevalence of domestic violence againstwomen in Russia is about 27 % (Cubbins and Vannoy 2005;Stickley et al. 2008a, b), which is higher than in the US andother western developed countries (Caetano et al. 2000;Horne 1999; Pridemore 2002). The results obtained in thesestudies have indicated that similar factors affect domesticviolence against women in Russia and the US. A lower levelof education (of both the women and their partners), unem-ployment, and blue-collar occupations were associated withhigher levels of violence. In addition, alcohol abuse by thepartner was associated with a higher level of domesticviolence against women in both Russia and the US. How-ever, the level of alcohol consumption is much higher inRussia than in the US and most other developed countries,and it is partly responsible for the higher level of domesticviolence in Russia as compared to western developedcountries (Horne 1999; Pridemore 2002). Another importantdifference between the FSU and developed countries is inthe system of psychosocial help provided for victims ofdomestic violence. Unlike in the US and other developedcountries, psychosocial services aimed at treating domesticviolence did not exist in the Soviet Union, and the first crisiscenter for female victims of domestic violence was openedonly in 1992 in Moscow (Horne 1999). Twenty years afterthe beginning of Perestroika, only a dozen such centers existin Russia, which probably explains why Russian womensuffering from domestic violence report friends as their mainsource of social support (Cubbins and Vannoy 2005).

Recent studies have indicated that the yearly prevalence ofdomestic physical violence in Israel is 10–13 % (Eisikovits etal. 2004; Muhlbauer 2006), which is slightly lower than thefigures found in the US (Caetano et al. 2000). The domesticviolence rate is lower in the Jewish than in the Arab Israelipopulation. The rate of violence among immigrants from theFSU is similar to that found in the Israeli-born population ingeneral, and it is slightly higher than that in the Jewish Israeli-born population (Eisikovits et al. 2004). The proportion ofimmigrants from the FSU receiving psychosocial help inshelters and Centers for the Treatment and Prevention ofDomestic Violence and in shelters for battered women issimilar to their proportion in the Israeli population, which in2010 was 14 % (CBSI 2010; Meir et al. 2011).

Jewish Immigrants from the FSU to Israel

Certain socio-demographic characteristics of the immigrantsfrom the FSU in Israel differentiate them from most of theimmigrant groups that have been studied in the context ofdomestic violence. First, they are “Diaspora immigrants”, i.e.in their country of origin most of them belonged to an ethnicminority group (Jewish), which is the majority group in thehost country. Because of their ethnic and religious closeness to

the dominant group in the host country, Diaspora immigrantsreceive larger social support from the government and societyand suffer less discrimination than other groups of immigrants(Leshem and Lissak 1999; Remennick 2003). However, about30 % of immigrants from the FSU to Israel are relatives ofJews, but they are not Jewish (Remennick 2004; Tolts 2009).They have full rights as Israeli citizens; however, they aresometimes discriminated against, especially concerning issuesof citizenship and matrimony, which in Israel are under theauspices of the religious authorities (Leshem and Lissak 1999).

The second distinctive feature of the immigration from theFSU to Israel is its mass character, which ensures that mostimmigrants have families and friends in Israel that can providethemwith social support (Slonim-Nevo et al. 1999). However,about one third of the immigrants from the FSU left their first-degree relatives in their country of origin (Remennick 2004).The mass character of the immigration from the FSU enabledimmigrants to create a large Russian-speaking community inIsrael, which provides them with much social support(Leshem and Lissak 1999); however, the large Russian-speaking community may also delay the integration of immi-grants from the FSU into Israeli society. Recent studies havedemonstrated that social contacts between immigrants fromthe FSU and the Israeli-born population are limited (cf.Leshem and Lissak 1999). A study that investigated intimaterelationships among immigrants from the FSU in Israel foundthat only 15% of immigrant women and 10% ofmen reportedever having romantic relationships with Israeli-born partners,and only 2 % had a permanent Israeli-born partner (Remen-nick 2003, 2004). Although studies conducted in differentcountries indicate that most first-generation immigrants marrytheir fellow immigrants, the Israeli rate of intercultural rela-tionships is much lower than the corresponding numbersfound in the US and Australia, which indicated that more than25 % of first-generation Caucasian immigrants had localpartners (Gregory and Meng 2005; Kalmijn 1998).

The third distinctive feature of the immigrants from theFSU in Israel is their high level of education and employmentin general and of women in particular. About 53 % of immi-grant men and 56 % of immigrant women have 13 or moreyears of schooling (Kushnirovich 2007), which is higher thanthe rate of 43 % among both men and women in the Israelipopulation (CBSI 2010). According to the latest data (CBSI2010), about 65 % of immigrant men and 60 % of immigrantwomen of working age are employed, and these proportionsare similar to those found among Israeli-born men and womenof working age, which are 65 % and 66 % accordingly.

The Present Study

The present study aimed to understand socio-demographiccharacteristics, patterns of physical and psychological violence,

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572 563

and the system of social support among female immigrantsfrom the FSU in Israel suffering from domestic violence. Toachieve this goal, level of education and employment status ofwomen receiving help in Centers for the Treatment and Pre-vention of Domestic Violence and in shelters for batteredwomen and of their partners were compared with thecorresponding characteristics of women and men in the generalpopulation in Israel. In addition, socio-demographic character-istics of immigrant women receiving help in the Centers andshelters and of their partners were compared with thecorresponding characteristics of Israeli-born women receivinghelp in the same Centers and shelters and of their partners.Finally, the levels of domestic violence and perceived socialsupport were compared in the two groups. Based on the resultsof previous studies and an analysis of the specific situation offemale immigrants from the FSU in Israel, the following mainhypotheses were formulated:

1. Immigrant and Israeli-born victims of domestic violenceand their partners would have a lower education leveland employment status than the general population.However, immigrant victims of domestic violence andtheir partners would have a higher education level andemployment status than Israeli-born victims of domesticviolence and their partners.

2. The positive effects of the immigrants’ higher educationlevel and employment status would counterbalance thenegative effects of the higher levels of alcohol abuseand difficulties associated with adjustment in Israel.Therefore, the levels of physical and psychological vi-olence among immigrants would be similar to those inthe non-immigrant population.

3. Among immigrant women, there would be more violenceassociated with alcohol abuse, and partners of immigrantwomen would threaten them more often with expulsionfrom Israel. Non-Jewish immigrant women and womenwho have been living in Israel for less time would bethreatened with expulsion from Israel more often.

4. No difference was expected between immigrant andIsraeli-born women in the social support received fromfriends and the social workers. However, immigrantwomen would report a lower level of social supportreceived from the family, because parents of some ofthem would be living abroad.

Method

Participants

One hundred eighty one women participated in the presentstudy: 74 were born in the FSU and 107 were born in Israel.The participants received psychosocial help in Centers for

the Treatment and Prevention of Domestic Violence (133)and in shelters for battered women (48). The participants’age varied from 19 to 70. Immigrant women lived in Israelfor an average of 15.7 years (SD010.0). Among the 74immigrant women, 37 had relationships with their presentpartners before immigrating to Israel. Of them, 16 women(43 %) reported that violence against them began beforeimmigrating, and 21 women (57 %) reported that violencebegan after their immigration. None of the women whosuffered from domestic violence before immigration re-ceived psychosocial help in the FSU.

Procedure

From a list of 86 Centers for the Treatment and Preventionof Domestic Violence and 13 shelters for battered women inIsrael (Meir et al. 2011), 23 places were chosen that weresituated in cities and towns with a substantial number ofimmigrants from the FSU (about 10 % or more of the totalcity population, CBSI 2010; Kushnirovich 2007). Theresearchers or research assistants visited each chosen Centeror shelter on a prearranged day of the week, approached all theimmigrants from the FSUwho came to the Center or shelter onthat day, and asked them to participate in the study. A similarnumber of Israeli-born women who were present at the Centeror shelter were asked to participate in the study. About 90% ofthe women approached agreed to participate. The participantscompleted the questionnaires at their convenience, before orafter their therapeutic sessions. Signed informed consent wasobtained from all participants. The study was supervised by theResearch Department of the Ministry of Social Affairs andSocial Services and by the Ethics Committee of the School ofSocial Work at Tel Aviv University.

Measures

The study used self-report anonymous questionnaires. Thequestionnaires were prepared in Russian and Hebrew. Thesimilarity of the two versions was ensured by translation andback translation procedures completed by two bilingualprofessionals. The internal consistency of the instrumentswas measured using Cronbach alpha separately for theimmigrant and non-immigrant samples.

Physical Violence Against Women Physical violence againstwomen was measured by the Physical Assault Scale of theRevised Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus et al. 1996). This scaleconsists of ten items describing physically violent behaviorsthat are health- or life-threatening (e.g., “My partner hit me ortried to hit me with something”). The participants evaluatedhow frequently the described behaviors happened during thelast year on a 5-point scale, from 0—‘never’ to 4—‘veryfrequently.’ This scale has been used in different countries,

564 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572

including Russia and Israel, and has demonstrated high valid-ity and reliability (e.g., Cubbins and Vannoy 2005; Eisikovitset al. 1993; Stickley et al. 2008a, b). In the present study,internal consistency of the scale was high in both the immi-grant and non-immigrant samples (.93; .94).

Psychological Violence Against Women Psychological vio-lence against women was measured by the PsychologicalMaltreatment ofWomen Inventory (Tolman 1989). This ques-tionnaire consists of 58 items that measure non-physicalaspects of women’s abuse by their husbands, partners, orboyfriends. The scale items reflect behaviors and statementsthat demean women (“I am treated like I’m inferior”), isola-tion from resources and other people (“I was not allowed toleave the house”), demands for subservience (“I was orderedaround”), and rigid observation of traditional sexual roles(“My partner would become upset if the household choreswere not done”). The participants evaluated how frequentlythe abuse happened during the last year on a 5-point scale,from 0—‘never’ to 4—‘very frequently.’ Internal consistencyof the scale was high in both the immigrant and non-immigrant samples (.94; .97). To account for specific typesof violence against immigrant women from the FSU, twoitems were added to the scale: one item measured the frequen-cy of the partner’s threats to expel the woman from Israel, andanother measured the frequency of the partner being alcohol-ically intoxicated when violent.

Perceived Social Support Perceived social support wasmeasured by the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived So-cial Support (Zimet et al. 1988). This questionnaire consists of12 items, which are divided into three subscales relating tosocial support received from family, friends, and the socialworker providing the woman with psychosocial help in aCenter or shelter. Item examples: “My family really tries tohelp me”; “I have friends with whom I can share my joys andsorrows”; “My social worker is around when I am in need.”The participants assessed to what degree the scale’s itemsaccurately reflected their situation, from 1—‘absolutely incor-rect for me’ to 5—‘absolutely correct for me.’ The scale hasbeen used for assessing social support among immigrantsfrom the FSU in Israel (Ritsner et al. 2000). Internal consis-tency of the scales of perceived social support was high inboth the immigrant and non-immigrant samples: from family(.91; .96), friends (.94; .96), and the social worker (.92; .97).

Results

Statistical analyses were conducted in several stages. First,the education and employment status of the battered womenparticipating in the present study were compared with the

corresponding characteristics of the general population inIsrael. This was done separately for the immigrant and theIsraeli-born participants. Second, socio-demographic charac-teristics of immigrant women suffering from domestic vio-lence were compared with the corresponding characteristics ofIsraeli-born women receiving help in the same Centers andshelters. Third, the levels of domestic violence and perceivedsocial support were compared in the two groups. Finally,multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to testfor the effects of different predicting factors on the levels ofdomestic violence and perceived social support among wom-en suffering from domestic violence.

Compared to the general population, a lower proportionof battered women had a post-secondary education: amongimmigrant women (42 % vs. 56 %; χ205.98; p0 .014) andamong Israeli-born women (16 % vs. 43 %; χ2032.0;p0 .000). Similarly, a lower proportion of partners of bat-tered women had a post-secondary education than men inthe general population: among partners of immigrant wom-en (18 % vs. 53 %; χ2037.3; p0 .000) and among partnersof Israeli-born women (6 % vs. 43 %; χ2061.0; p0 .000).Compared to the general population, a similar proportion ofbattered immigrant women of working age were employedoutside the home (61 % vs. 60 %; χ20 .14; p0 .704). How-ever, among Israeli-born women a smaller proportion ofbattered women was employed outside the home (45 % vs.66 %; χ2021.3; p0 .000). Compared to the general popula-tion, a similar proportion of the battered women’s abusivepartners were employed outside the home: among partnersof immigrant women (61 % vs. 65 %; χ20 .26; p0 .609) andamong partners of Israeli-born women (66 % vs. 65 %;χ20 .09; p0 .769). In addition, the proportion of immigrantwomen whose partner was Israeli-born was comparedamong battered immigrant women and in the general popu-lation of immigrant women. Among battered immigrantwomen there was a higher proportion of women whosepartner was born in Israel (34 % vs. 2 %; χ20381; p0 .000).

The socio-demographic characteristics of immigrantwomen suffering from domestic violence were comparedwith the corresponding characteristics of Israeli-born wom-en suffering from domestic violence (Table 1). The immi-grant women suffering from domestic violence were slightlyyounger than the Israeli-born women (M(SD)immigrants035.7(8.70); M(SD)Israeli-born039.0(10.1); t(179)02.25; p0 .026);however, no significant difference in the age of their part-ners was found: (M(SD)immigrants041.7(9.11); M(SD)Israeli-born042.6(10.6); t(179)0 .55; p0 .581). The age disparitybetween women and their partners was larger among immi-grant than Israeli-born women: M(SD)immigrants06.00(6.36);M(SD)Israeli-born03.58(5.47); t(179)02.74; p0 .007. Com-pared to Israeli-born women, a higher proportion of immi-grant women had a post-secondary education (42 % vs.16 %; χ2015.2; p0 .000) and were employed outside the

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572 565

home (61 % vs. 45 %; χ204.46; p0 .035). When comparingthe women’s partners, it was found that a higher proportionof immigrant women’s partners had a post-secondary edu-cation (18 % vs. 6 %; χ206.66; p0 .010); however, they didnot differ in their employment status from the partners ofIsraeli-born women (61 % vs. 66 %; χ20 .58; p0 .445).

To examine whether the immigrant women differed fromthe Israeli-born women regarding the level of domesticviolence, the scores of the scales measuring different aspectsof domestic violence in the two groups were comparedusing t-tests. After that, to control for the differences be-tween the two groups in terms of age, education, and em-ployment status, the differences on the level of domesticviolence were tested using ANCOVA. Table 2 presents themeans and SDs of the two groups, along with the t-testresults. The results obtained demonstrated that immigrantwomen lived together with their abusive partner for lessyears as compared to the Israeli-born women (M(SD)immigrants010.6(8.35); M(SD)Israeli-born014.3(9.66); t(179)02.69; p0 .008). However, this result was probablyobtained because immigrant battered women were youngeron average than their Israeli counterparts, and the women’s

age was significantly related to the years of living with theabusive partner (r0.80). The proportion of years of abuseout of the total number of years living together with theabusive partner was similar among the immigrant andIsraeli-born women (M(SD)immigrants0 .95(.68); M(SD)Israeli-born0 .84(.30); t(179)01.45; p0 .141).

No significant difference between the two groups wasfound in the levels of physical violence either in directcomparison (M(SD)immigrants01.47(1.04); M(SD)Israeli-born01.53(1.07); t(179)0 .39; p0 .694) or when controlling forsocio-demographic variables (F(1; 172)0 .29; p0 .593). Sim-ilarly, no significant difference between the two groups wasfound in the levels of psychological violence either in directcomparison (M(SD)immigrants02.51(.65); M(SD)Israeli-born02.47(.84); t(178)0 .37; p0 .715) or when controlling forsocio-demographic variables (F(1; 172)0 .10; p0 .755). Atthe same time, immigrant women reported significantlymore threats of expulsion from Israel by their partners (M(SD)immigrants01.14(1.65); M(SD)Israeli-born0 .13(.57); t(179)05.82; p0 .000), and their partners were more frequentlyalcoholically intoxicated when violent (M(SD)immigrants01.59(1.70); M(SD)Israeli-born01.05(1.51); t(179)02.28; p0 .024).

Table 1 Socio-demographiccharacteristics of immigrant andIsraeli-born women sufferingfrom domestic violence

Socio-demographic characteristics Immigrantwomen

Israeli-bornwomen

Statistical testof difference

Characteristics of the battered women:

Age, M(SD) 35.7(8.70) 39.0(10.1) t(179)02.25; p0 .026

Education (% of women with apost-secondary education)

42 % 16 % χ2015.2; p0 .000

Employment status (% of employed) 61 % 45 % χ204.46; p0 .035

Ethnicity (% of non-Jewish) 40 % 2 % χ2045.0; p0 .000

Characteristics of the abusive partners:

Partner’s age, M(SD) 41.7(9.11) 42.6(10.6) t(179)0 .55; p0 .581

Partner’s education (% with apost-secondary education)

18 % 6 % χ206.66; p0 .010

Partner’s employment status (% of employed) 61 % 66 % χ20 .58; p0 .445

Partner’s ethnicity (% of non-Jewish) 23 % 4 % χ2015.8; p0 .000

Partner’s place of birth (% of Israeli-born) 34 % 96 % χ2082.5; p0 .000

Table 2 Measures of domesticviolence among immigrant andIsraeli-born women sufferingfrom domestic violence

Measures of domestic violence Immigrant women,M(SD)

Israeli-bornwomen, M(SD)

Statistical test ofdifference

Years living with the abusive partner 10.6(8.35) 14.3(9.66) t(179)02.69; p0 .008

Years of abuse 8.11(6.15) 11.9(9.48) t(179)03.28; p0 .001

Proportion of years of abuse from thetotal number of years living togetherwith the abusive partner

.95(.68) .84(.30) t(179)01.45; p0 .141

Physical violence 1.47(1.04) 1.53(1.07) t(179)0 .39; p0 .694

Psychological violence 2.51(.65) 2.47(.84) t(178)0 .37; p0 .715

Partner threatened to expel the womanfrom Israel

1.14(1.65) .13(.57) t(179)05.82; p0 .000

Partner was intoxicated when violent 1.59(1.70) 1.05(1.51) t(179)02.28; p0 .024

566 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572

These differences between the immigrant and Israeli-bornwomen remained significant when controlling for socio-demographic variables: for the threat of expulsion (F(1;172)025.2; p0 .000) and for the partner’s alcoholic intoxica-tion (F(1; 172)07.08; p0 .009).

Among immigrants, women who were not Jewish werethreatened with expulsion from Israel more often than Jew-ish women (M(SD)non-Jewish02.34(1.72); M(SD)Jewish0 .36(1.03); t(70)06.24; p0 .000); the difference remained signif-icant when controlling for age, education, and employmentstatus (F(1; 65)039.2; p0 .000). Among immigrant women,length of time in Israel was negatively correlated with thefrequency of being threatened with expulsion (r0−.47;p0 .000). However, when age, education, and ethnicity(Jewish vs. non-Jewish) were controlled, the connectionbetween time in Israel and the threat of being expelled fromIsrael became not significant (β0−.24, p0 .057). A furtheranalysis revealed a negative correlation between time inIsrael and the number of non-Jewish women who haveimmigrated from the FSU to Israel (r0−.58, p0 .000), whichmeans that a larger number of non-Jewish women haveimmigrated from the FSU to Israel during recent years.

Multiple regression analyses were conducted in order toinvestigate the relationship between age, education, employ-ment status, and the partner’s alcoholic intoxication, andphysical and psychological aspects of domestic violenceamong both immigrant and Israeli-born women (Table 3).The only significant effect was found between the partner’salcoholic intoxication and the level of physical violencereported by the women (β0 .22, p0 .003).

Table 4 presents the findings regarding the social supportsystem of the female victims of domestic violence, compar-ing immigrant and Israeli-born women. No significant dif-ference was found between immigrant and Israeli-bornwomen in the time that elapsed since the onset of theviolence until initial contact with a psychosocial service(in both populations it was about seven years). The women

in the study were in treatment for an average of one and ahalf years, and no significant difference was found betweenimmigrant and Israeli-born women. No significant differ-ence was found between the two groups in the social supportreceived from family, friends, or social workers. In bothgroups, perceived social support received from the socialworker was greater than that received from the family:among immigrants (M(SD)social worker03.12(1.05); M(SD)family02.15(1.30); t(70)05.41; p0 .000) and Israeli-born women: (M(SD)soc ia l worke r s 03.02(1.19); M(SD)family02.32(1.40); t(106)04.39; p0 .000). In addition,in both groups, the social support received from the socialworker was greater than that received from friends: amongimmigrants (M(SD)social workers03.12(1.05); M(SD)friends02.44(1.30); t(70)03.91; p0 .000) and Israeli-born women(M(SD)social workers03.02(1.19); M(SD)friends02.32(1.27); t(106)04.95; p0 .000). The number of close friends (twoor three) was similar among immigrant and non-immigrantwomen; however, less people in the immigrant women’ssurroundings knew about the violence as compared tothe Israeli-born women (M(SD)immigrants04.09(1.72);M(SD)Israeli-born04.62(1.54); t(179)02.14; p0 .034).

To investigate the effect of socio-demographic factors onperceived social support a series of multiple regressionanalyses were conducted in the combined sample of immi-grant and Israeli-born women (Table 5). The predictingvariables included age, education, employment status, eth-nicity, immigration status, and the parents’ residence (Israelvs. abroad); the predicted variables included perceived so-cial support from family, friends, and social worker. Ahigher level of perceived social support from family wasassociated with Jewish ethnicity (β0 .29, p0 .003) andparents’ residence in Israel (β0 .30, p0 .004). A higher levelof perceived social support from friends was associated withJewish ethnicity (β0 .22, p0 .030). Perceived social supportfrom the social worker was not related to any socio-demographic variable.

Table 3 Summary of multipleregression analyses predictinglevels of domestic violence

Codes for categorical variables:Ethnicity: 0-non-Jewish; 1-Jewish. Employment status: 1-employed; 2- unemployed. Im-migration status: 1-Israeli born;2-immigrant. Education: 1-secondary; 2-tertiary.

* p < .05; ** p < .01;*** p < .001

Predicting variables Physical violence Psychological violence

B S.E. β B S.E. β

Age −.01 .01 −.10 .00 .01 .00

Employment status .24 .16 .11 .22 .12 .14

Ethnicity −.16 .24 −.06 .01 .18 −.01

Immigration status −.08 .19 .04 .01 .14 .00

Education −.01 .18 −.01 .13 .14 −.07

Partner was intoxicated when violent .15 .05 .22** .06 .04 .13

R2 .07 .04

Adjusted R2 .04 .01

F(df), p F(6; 174)02.23, p0 .043 F(6; 174)01.24, p0 .290

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572 567

Discussion

In the present study, socio-demographic characteristics offemale victims of domestic violence and their abusive part-ners were compared with the corresponding characteristicsof women and men in the general population (both immi-grant and non-immigrant) in Israel. The results obtaineddemonstrated that the education level of battered womenand their abusive partners (both immigrants and Israeli-born) were lower than in the general population. Theseresults are in line with the findings of previous studiesconducted in the US, Russia, and Israel (Caetano et al.2000; Cubbins and Vannoy 2005; Eisikovits et al. 2004;Johnson and Ferraro 2000). A higher level of educationmay increase women’s resilience to domestic violence intwo ways. First, women who have a higher level of educa-tion have greater personal and social resources that protectthem from some of the risks of domestic violence. Secondly,highly educated women tend to choose men who are also

highly educated, and who are therefore less prone to beingviolent (Farmer and Tiefenthaler 2003; Johnson and Ferraro2000; Levendosky et al. 2004).

The results of the present study indicate that female immi-grants from the FSU in Israel as well as their partners have ahigher education level than their Israeli-born counterparts. Thisdifference is similar in the general population and amongvictims of domestic violence. In addition, immigrant batteredwomen have a higher employment rate than Israeli-born wom-en suffering from domestic violence. Previous studies havedemonstrated that groups with a higher education level andemployment status tend to have relatively lower levels ofdomestic violence (e.g., Caetano et al. 2000; Tjaden et al.1999). However, the present study found that immigrants fromthe FSU in Israel and Israeli-born women had similar levels ofphysical and psychological violence. This indicates that otherfactors increase the level of domestic violence among immi-grants from the FSU in Israel and thus counterbalance thepositive effect of their high education and employment status.

Table 4 Measures of psychoso-cial support among immigrantand Israeli-born women suffer-ing from domestic violence

Measures of psychosocial support Immigrant women,M(SD)

Israeli-bornwomen, M(SD)

Statistical test ofdifference

Asking for help since the violencebegan, in years

6.62(6.04) 7.66(8.80) t(179)0 .88; p0 .378

Time in treatment, in years 1.54(.99) 1.51(.96) t(179)0 .18; p0 .857

Perceived support from family 2.15(1.30) 2.32(1.40) t(179)0 .85; p0 .398

Perceived support from friends 2.44(1.30) 2.32(1.27) t(179)0 .63; p0 .533

Perceived support from the social worker 3.12(1.05) 3.02(1.19) t(179)0 .52; p0 .605

Number of close friends 2.64(1.12) 2.91(1.22) t(179)01.52; p0 .129

Number of people who know about theviolence

4.09(1.72) 4.62(1.54) t(179)02.14; p0 .034

Proportion of women whose parents areliving in Israel, %

53 % 99 % χ2059.9; p0 .000

Table 5 Summary of multiple regression analyses predicting perceived social support

Predicting variables Support from family Support from friends Support from the social worker

B S.E. β B S.E. β B S.E. β

Age −.01 .01 −.09 −.01 .01 −.10 .00 .01 .02

Employment status −.10 .20 −.04 −.20 .19 −.08 −.14 .17 −.06

Ethnicity 1.03 .35 .29** .73 .33 .22* .10 .30 .03

Immigration status −.26 .26 −.09 −.20 .25 −.08 .26 .22 .12

Education .38 .23 .12 .36 .23 .13 .22 .20 .08

Parents’ residence 1.01 .34 .30** .28 .34 .09 .20 .30 .07

R2 .10 .06 .02

Adjusted R2 .06 .03 .01

F(df), p F(6; 174)03.06, p0 .007 F(6; 174)01.98, p0 .071 F(6; 174)0 .56, p0 .763

Codes for categorical variables: Ethnicity: 0-non-Jewish; 1-Jewish. Employment status: 1- employed; 2- unemployed. Immigration status: 1-Israeliborn; 2-immigrant. Education: 1-secondary; 2-tertiary. Parents’ residence: 1-abroad; 2- in Israel.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

568 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572

One of these factors may relate to alcohol consumption.Alcohol consumption is universally associated with a higherrate of domestic violence (Caetano et al. 2000; Johnson2000). Russia has one of the highest levels of alcoholconsumption in the world (McKee 1999), and previousstudies have demonstrated that immigrants from the FSUin Israel consume more alcohol than the Israeli-born popula-tion (Isralowitz et al. 2002). The results of the present studycorroborated previous findings and indicated that the partnersof the immigrant women, more often than the partners of theIsraeli-born women, were alcoholically intoxicated when vi-olent. In addition, the frequency of being intoxicated whenviolent was associated with a higher level of physical violenceagainst both the immigrant and Israeli-born women.

Another factor that may counterbalance the positive ef-fect of high education and employment among women fromthe FSU in Israel is their immigration status. In the presentstudy, in 57 % of the couples that had intimate relationshipsbefore immigration, violence began only after their arrival toIsrael. This finding confirms the theoretical assumption thatthe stress of immigration increases family conflicts that maylead to violence (Lown and Vega 2001; Slonim-Nevo et al.1999). Moreover, the context of immigration may be relatedto some specific forms of domestic violence. Thus, in thepresent study, immigrant women were often threatened bytheir partners with expulsion from Israel; among Israeli-bornwomen, this form of violence was very rare. Non-Jewishimmigrant women were more frequently threatened withexpulsion from Israel than their Jewish counterparts. Thesefindings support the theoretical assumption that women’svulnerability associated with their immigration statusincreases their risk of being subject to domestic violence(Anderson 1993; Kasturirangan et al. 2004). These findingsalso confirmed that women belonging to un-privileged im-migrant groups are the most vulnerable (Sainsbury 2006). InIsrael, non-Jewish immigrants constitute an un-privilegedimmigrant population. Therefore, this group may requiremore help from social workers and other professionals.

In the present study, about one third of the immigrantfemale victims of domestic violence had intimate partnerswho were born in Israel. This number is fifteen times higherthan the corresponding number in the general population(Remennick 2003). In addition, among immigrant victims ofdomestic violence, the age disparity between the woman andher partner was significantly higher than the correspondingdifference among Israeli-born victims of domestic violence.It is possible that some immigrant women enter relationshipswith Israeli men seeking assistance in their adjustment in thehost country, while Israeli men perhaps seek an immigrantpartner because suchwomen aremore vulnerable and thereforemay be more easily controlled (Menjivar and Salcido 2002).However, while the Israeli partners have a stronger commandof the language and a larger social capital, immigrant women

from the FSU usually have a higher education and goodchances of finding employment outside the home (Remennick2004). It is probable that this imbalance of resources leads toconflict and violence in cross-cultural couples.

The results obtained in the present study indicate that theutilization of formal systems of social support was very sim-ilar among immigrant and Israeli-born women. No differencebetween the two groupswas found for time that elapsed beforeseeking psychosocial help, the length of time in therapy, andin the level of social support received from social workers.Among both immigrant and Israeli-born women, social sup-port received from the social workers was greater than thesupport received from families and friends. These findingscontradicted the results of some previous studies that haveindicated that immigrant women underuse psychosocial serv-ices (Burman and Chantler 2005; Johnson and Ferraro 2000).It is possible that the relatively high education level of femaleimmigrants from the FSU and their employment outside thehome enabled them to be better informed about domesticviolence psychosocial services. In addition, almost all thepsychosocial services in Israel have Russian-speaking socialworkers, thus increasing the rapport with immigrant clientsand decreasing their fear of discrimination (Meir et al. 2011).Finally, domestic violence psychosocial services are well pub-licized in the Russian-speaking media in Israel, whichincreases their availability for immigrant women (Caspi etal. 2002). Thus, the availability of domestic violence psycho-social services in Israel perhaps enabled immigrant womenwho were unable to receive psychosocial help for domesticviolence in their country of origin to receive it in Israel.

The immigrants’ utilization of informal systems of socialsupport was similar to that found among Israeli-born women.The two groups reported similar levels of social support receivedfrom the family. This finding was unexpected, because almostone-half of the immigrant women’s parents lived abroad. It ispossible that immigrant women remain connected with theirparents abroad via inexpensive telecommunication services suchas phone calls and the internet. Still, women who had no parentsin Israel reported a lower level of social support received fromthe family than those women whose parents lived in Israel. Inthe present study, more women who were non-Jewish hadparents living abroad, due to the Israeli immigration policy thatseverely limits non-Jewish immigration to Israel. Therefore,women living without their parents in general, and non-Jewishwomen in particular, have limited support from their parents andare therefore especially vulnerable to domestic violence.

The number of close friends was similar among immi-grant and Israeli-born women and the two groups reportedsimilar levels of social support received from friends. It isprobable that the large Russian-speaking community in Is-rael enabled immigrants to quickly rebuild the social net-works they left in their country of origin (Leshem andLissak 1999; Slonim-Nevo et al. 1999). However, in the

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572 569

present study non-Jewish women reported a lower level ofsupport received from their friends as compared to Jewishwomen suffering from domestic violence. It is probable thatbecause Israel is an officially Jewish state, non-Jews havemore limited social networks and may be able to mobilizeless social support when needed. In the present study, asmaller number of people in the immigrant women’s sur-roundings were aware of their suffering from domesticviolence, compared to the Israeli-born women. It is possiblethat cultural norms formed in the FSU prevent telling otherpeople about one’s family problems; however, the presentstudy did not investigate the cultural norms of immigrantsfrom the FSU. This issue requires further research.

Limitations

The present study has several limitations. The research samplewas relatively small, decreasing the power of the statisticaltests, and not allowing some potentially meaningful connec-tions between the variables to be revealed. In addition, be-cause of the small sample, comparisons could not be madebetween immigrants from different republics of the FSU. Thesubculture of violence theory was not tested in the presentstudy, since the study did not investigate attitudinal aspects ofdomestic violence, which might vary cross-culturally and thusaffect domestic violence and the utilization of social supportsystems among immigrant and non-immigrant women in dif-ferent ways. Further studies may focus on how the values ofimmigrants from the FSU (both women and men) relate totheir attitudes towards women and domestic violence. Anoth-er limitation is that the study used self-report questionnairesand only the voice of the women was heard. Further studies ondomestic violence in immigrant groups should gather infor-mation from women’s partners and social workers in additionto that received from the women.

Conclusion

Despite its limitations, the present study contributes to thetheoretical understanding of psychosocial processes relatedto domestic violence against immigrant women. The resultsobtained corroborated the structural inequality theory ofdomestic violence. They demonstrated that women whoare less educated, belong to an underprivileged ethnicgroup, and have a partner abusing alcohol are at a greaterrisk of being subject to domestic violence. However, theresults obtained also indicate that the level of domesticviolence and the utilization of social support systems maybe similar among immigrant and non-immigrant women.The present study indicates that the level of domestic vio-lence and the utilization of systems of social support in eachimmigrant group results from a unique profile of the

immigrants’ socio-demographic characteristics and specificcircumstances of the immigrants’ adjustment in the hostcountry. Each immigrant group has a specific combinationof these factors that may increase their resilience or makethem more susceptible to domestic violence.

Policy makers and social workers should analyze thespecific situation of each immigrant group in order to de-velop culturally attuned programs of psychosocial help. It isdangerous to either belittle or exaggerate domestic violencein immigrant groups. Belittling the prevalence of domesticviolence against women among immigrants may lead toallocating insufficient resources for helping immigrantwomen. On the other hand, exaggeration of domestic vio-lence against women among immigrants may be associatedwith a belief that domestic violence is inherent in a specificculture and thus cannot be altered (Sokoloff and Dupont2005). In addition, it may lead to stigmatization of immi-grants as pathologically prone to violence and, therefore,dangerous for the host society. Finally, the assumption thatimmigrant women avoid psychosocial services may de-crease the motivation of the services’ workers to reach outto immigrant women and keep them in treatment (Menjivarand Salcido 2002). The results of the present study revealthe dual role that immigration plays for immigrant victimsof domestic violence. On one hand, it increases the stressthat may exacerbate domestic violence in immigrant cou-ples. On the other hand, it opens an opportunity to receivepsychosocial help for those women who suffered domesticviolence but were unable to receive psychosocial help intheir country of origin. Further studies are much needed inorder to investigate the effect of immigration on domesticviolence in various immigrant groups.

References

Ahmad, F., Riaz, S., Barata, P., & Stewart, D. E. (2004). Patriarchalbeliefs and perceptions of abuse among South Asian immigrantwomen. Violence Against Women, 10(3), 262–282.

Anderson, M. J. (1993). A license to abuse: the impact of conditionalstatus on female immigrants. Yale Law Journal, 102(6), 1401–1430.

Burman, E., & Chantler, K. (2005). Domestic violence and minoritisa-tion: legal and policy barriers facing minoritized women leavingviolent relationships. International Journal of Law and Psychia-try, 28(1), 59–74.

Caetano, R., Cunradi, C. B., Clark, C. L., & Schafer, J. (2000).Intimate partner violence and drinking patterns among Whites,Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of SubstanceAbuse, 11(2), 123–138.

Caspi, D., Adoni, H., Cohen, A. A., & Elias, N. (2002). The red, thewhite, and the blue: the Russian media in Israel. Gazette, 64(6),537–556.

Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel [CBSI]. (2010). Statistical abstractof Israel, 2010. Jerusalem: CBSI.

Cubbins, L. A., & Vannoy, D. (2005). Socioeconomic resources,gender traditionalism, and wife abuse in urban Russian couples.Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 37–52.

570 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572

Dumont, J.-C., & Lemaître, G. (2005). Counting immigrants andexpatriates in OECD countries: a new perspective. PopulationDivision, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,United Nations Secretariat. New York. http://www.un.org/esa/popu la t ion /migra t ion / tur in /Sympos ium_Tur in_f i l e s /P09_Dumont&Lemaitre.pdf

Eisikovits, Z., Guttmann, E., Sela-Amit, M., & Edleson, J. L. (1993).Women battering in Israel: the relative contributions of relation-ship adjustment, conflict and social support. The American Jour-nal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(2), 313–317.

Eisikovits, Z., Winstok, Z., & Fishman, G. (2004). The first Israelinational survey on domestic violence. Violence Against Women,10(7), 729–748.

Farmer, A., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2003). Explaining the recent decline indomestic violence. Contemporary Economic Policy. Retrievedfrom :http://www.nasams.org/DMS/Documents/1195248210.25/Explaining%20Decline%20in%20Domestic%20Violence.pdf

Field, C. A., & Caetano, R. (2004). Ethnic differences in intimatepartner violence in the US general population: the role of alcoholuse and social status. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 5(4), 303–317.

Gregory, R. G., & Meng, X. (2005). Intermarriage and the economicassimilation of immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(1),135–175.

Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2003). Beliefs about wife beating among Arab menfrom Israel: the influence of their patriarchal ideology. Journal ofFamily Violence, 18(4), 193–206.

Horne, S. (1999). Domestic violence in Russia. American Psychologist,54(1), 55–61.

Isralowitz, R., Straussner, L., Vogt, I., & Chtenguelov, V. (2002). Apreliminary exploration of immigrant substance abusers from theformer Soviet Union living in Israel, Germany and the United States:a multi-national perspective. Journal of Social Work Practice in theAddictions, 2(3/4), 119–136.

Johnson, H. (2000). The role of alcohol in male partners’ assaults onwives. Journal of Drug Issues, 30(4), 725–740.

Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violencein the 1990s: making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 62(4), 948–963.

Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns,trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(2), 395–421.

Kasturirangan, A., Krishnan, S., & Riger, S. (2004). The impact ofculture and minority status on women’s experience of domesticviolence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 5(4), 318–332.

Kushnirovich, N. (2007). Yearbook of immigrants in Israel 2006:statistical abstract. Emeck Khefer: Ruppin Academic Center,Institute for Immigration and Social Integration, Israel. (InHebrew).

Leshem, E., & Lissak, M. (1999). Development and consolidation ofthe Russian community in Israel. In S. Weil (Ed.), Roots androuts: Ethnicity and migration in global perspective (pp. 36–171).Jerusalem: Magnes.

Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., Theran, S. A., Trotter, J. S., von Eye,A., & Davidson, W. S. (2004). The social networks of womenexperiencing domestic violence. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 34(1/2), 95–109.

Lown, E. A., & Vega, W. A. (2001). Prevalence and predictors ofphysical partner abuse among Mexican American women.American Journal of Public Health, 91(3), 441–445.

McKee, M. (1999). Alcohol in Russia. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 34(6),824–829.

Meir, A., & Talay, S., & Hanoch-Achdut, M. (2011). Programs inprevention and treatment of domestic violence and help to femalesexual workers. Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services,Department of Individual and Social Services. Jerusalem, Israel.(In Hebrew).

Menjivar, C., & Salcido, O. (2002). Immigrant women and domesticviolence: common experiences in different countries. Gender andSociety, 16(6), 898–920.

Muhlbauer, V. (2006). Domestic violence in Israel: changing attitudes.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087(2), 301–310.

Pridemore, W. A. (2002). Vodka and violence: alcohol consumptionand homicide rates in Russia. American Journal of Public Health,92(12), 1921–1930.

Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence against immigrant women:the role of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimatepartner violence. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 367–398.

Remennick, L. (2003). What does integration mean? Social insertion ofRussian immigrants in Israel. Journal of International Migrationand Immigration, 4(1), 23–49.

Remennick, L. (2004). Providers, caregivers, and sluts: women with aRussian accent in Israel. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’sStudies, and Gender Issues, 8(1), 87–114.

Ritsner, M., Modai, I., & Ponizovsky, A. (2000). The stress-supportpatterns and psychological distress of immigrants. Stress andHealth, 16(3), 139–147.

Rodriguez, E., Lasch, K. E., & Lee, C. J. (2001). Family violence,employment status, welfare benefits, and alcohol drinking in theUnited States: what is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology andCommunity Health, 55(3), 172–178.

Sainsbury, D. (2006). Immigrants’ social rights in comparativeperspective: welfare regimes, forms in immigration and immigrationpolicy regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3), 229–244.

Sakalli, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish collegestudents: the effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. SexRoles, 44(4), 599–610.

Slonim-Nevo, V., Sheraga, Y., & Mirsky, J. (1999). A culturally sen-sitive approach to therapy with immigrant families. The case ofJewish emigrants from the former Soviet Union. Family Process,38(4), 445–462.

Sokoloff, N. J., & Dupont, I. (2005). Domestic violence at the inter-sections of race, class, and gender: challenges and contributions tounderstanding violence against marginalized women in diversecommunities. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 38–64.

Stickley, A., Kislitsyna, O., Timofeeva, I., & Vagero, D. (2008).Attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women inMoscow, Russia. Journal of Family Violence, 23(6), 447–456.

Stickley, A., Timofeeva, I., & Sparen, P. (2008). Risk factors forintimate partner violence against women in St. Petersburg, Russia.Violence against Women, 14(4), 483–495.

Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners bymale and female university students worldwide. Violence AgainstWomen, 10(7), 790–811.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-Mccoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): developmentand preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3),283–316.

Taylor, W. K., Magnussen, L., & Amundson, M. J. (2001). The livedexperience of battered women. Violence Against Women, 7(5),563–585.

Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (1999). Comparing violenceover the life span in samples of same-sex and opposite-sexcohabitants. Violence and Victims, 14(4), 413–425.

Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychologicalmaltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence andVictims, 4(3), 159–177.

Tolts, M. (2009). Mixed marriage and post-Soviet aliyah. In S. Reinharz& S. DellaPergola (Eds.), Jewish intermarriage around the world(pp. 89–104). New Brunswick, USA and London, UK: TransactionPublishers.

J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572 571

Torres, S. (1991). A comparison of wife abuse between two cultures:perceptions, attitudes, nature and extent. Issues in Mental HealthNursing, 12(1), 113–131.

Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against wom-en: global scope and magnitude. Lancet, 359(9313), 1232–1237.

Yoshihama, M. (1999). Domestic violence against women of Japanesedescent in Los Angeles: two methods of estimating prevalence.Violence Against Women, 5(8), 869–897.

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). Themultidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41.

572 J Fam Viol (2012) 27:561–572