Tsoudis O, 'Do Social Sanctions Matter in Domestic Violence?: A Pilot Study'

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Journals
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Journals >> Tsoudis O, 'Do Social Sanctions Matter in Domestic Violence?: A Pilot Study' URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/2000/issue2/tsoudis2.html Cite as: Tsoudis O, 'Do Social Sanctions Matter in Domestic Violence?: A Pilot Study'

Do Social Sanctions Matter in Domestic Violence?: A Pilot Study

Olga Tsoudis*

Assistant Professor
Department of Criminal Justice
2285 Faculty/Administration Building
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202

* I would like to thank the Wayne State University Research Grant Program and the Research Stimulation Support Grant Program for funding this pilot study in 1997.

Copyright © 2000 Olga Tsoudis.
First Published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues in association with Blackstone Press Ltd.

Summary

The legal system has attempted to control domestic violence through mandatory arrests and more certain, harsher punishments. However, the legal system's sanctions have not been proven to be effective in controlling domestic violence. This pilot study explores the possible significance of social sanctions in controlling domestic violence. Two hundred respondents from a mid-western university answer a survey focusing on the strength of social sanctions and attitudes towards legal sanctions and domestic violence. Results demonstrate that a stronger social sanction environment can influence attitudes towards domestic violence. A social sanction environment is a social environment in which friends/relatives (1) strongly stigmatize domestic violence and (2) support the prosecution of domestic violence offenders. Implications regarding domestic violence and other criminal behaviours are discussed.

Introduction

Domestic violence has existed for centuries; however, we currently see a focus on preventing domestic violence. The legal system has attempted to control domestic violence through mandatory arrests and more certain, harsher punishments. However, the legal system's sanctions have not been proven to be effective in controlling domestic violence or any other criminal behaviours. Perhaps we should now focus on social sanctions in preventing domestic violence?

Past research demonstrates that an individual's behaviours can be controlled by others around them (Tittle 1977; Hollinger and Clark 1982). For example, individuals fear stealing at work due to the potential stigma and embarrassment from their co-workers. Perhaps if relatives, friends and neighbours strongly stigmatise domestic violence, it can be prevented. For example, if domestic violence is strongly stigmatised, victims may be more likely to report it and assist the prosecutor; offenders may also be less likely to commit it. Furthermore, legal sanctions may be more effective if strong social sanctions exist. There is not much research exploring these topics. This pilot study explores the possible significance of social sanctions as much more effective in controlling domestic violence. The purpose of this study is to provide evidence on the significance of social sanctions in order to promote future research in this area.

Sanctions and Domestic Violence

Deterrence theory explains the control of human behaviours through sanctions (Gibbs 1977). Different types of sanctions exist in societies, for example formal (penal) and informal (social) sanctions. Individuals do not engage in certain behaviours due to the perceived sanctions, which are defined as consequences. The United States focuses on formal sanctions in preventing criminal behaviour-prison, probation, fines. However, our society has not as extensively focused on informal sanctions, which include stigmatisation, shaming, embarrassment and disapproval from others and one's own conscience (Akers 1993; Braithwaite 1991; Grasmick et al. 1993).

In the past, deterrence theory research elaborated on the strength of formal sanctions in controlling criminal behaviours, focusing on increasing the severity and certainty of legal sanctions. The legal system has always been viewed as the most powerful deterrent. However, the weak evidence for formal sanctions should now shift the focus to informal sanctions (Sellin 1959; Bedau 1964; Andenaes 1971; Gibbs 1975; Smith & Akers 1992; Weisburd et al. 1995; Paternoster et al. 1983).

Deterrence concepts have expanded past formal deterrence to include informal deterrence. Informal sanctions control various types of negative behaviours, for example lying, cheating, killing, tormenting. These sanctions have been studied in various settings: the work place, organisations, families, places of worship, the school system, prisons and even crises of nuclear arms (Yu and Liska 1993; Hollinger 1988; Simpson and Koper 1992; Hollinger and Clark 1982; Zagare 1987). Research demonstrates that informal sanctions are strong deterrents, across these different settings for different negative behaviours.

Past research supports the deterrent effect of reactions from others (Tittle 1977; Hollinger and Clark 1982.) Bachman, Paternoster and Ward (1992) looked at social sanctions and sexual assault. Respondents feared the response from others who found out about their behaviours. Pate and Hamilton (1992) studied the deterrence of formal and social sanctions on domestic violence. The deterrent effect of formal sanctions was largely based on the mediation of social sanctions. Arrest may seem to be deterrent; however, the existence of social sanctions associated with the arrest actually deters the offender.

The relationship between social sanctions and domestic violence has been not extensively researched. This study focuses on the significance of a strong social sanction environment on domestic violence. These social sanctions include stigmatisation, shaming of domestic violence, strong disapproval of domestic violence, and strong support against the offender through support of prosecution. All of these would result in embarrassment for the offender. Furthermore, a strong social sanction environment would provide support for the victim to prosecute.

Perhaps domestic violence continues because social sanctions are not severe? Legal sanctions are increasing in severity and certainty, but are they effective if social sanctions are non-existent? A strong social environment connected with the legal system may be more effective. Do domestic non-violence couples associate in communities where there are strong social sanctions? Do they have friends/relatives who strongly sanction domestic violence? Do they have friends/relatives who support prosecution of the offender? Do social sanctions influence support and co-operation of the legal system? Do social sanctions influence the victim's willingness to prosecute the offender? Do social sanctions influence overall attitudes toward domestic violence? These are some questions which this pilot study attempts to explore, in order to promote future research in this area.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1:

Individuals with a stronger social sanction environment will less likely know someone involved in domestic violence. These individuals associate with others who are against domestic violence, thus decreasing victimization in their social environment.

Hypothesis 2:

Individuals with a stronger social sanction environment will less likely support domestic violence in any situation. In other words, their attitudes will be less tolerant of any domestic violence. They will not differentiate domestic violence if the couple is (1) interracial, (2) same sex or (3) married.

Hypothesis 3:

Individuals with a stronger social sanction environment will less likely fear victimization. These individuals will feel more comfortable and safe in their environment due to the strong social sanctions.

Hypothesis 4:

Individuals with a stronger social sanction environment will have more positive perceptions of the legal system. Due to support from family and friends, there is less of a focus on the legal system. Individuals with a weaker social sanction environment will have more negative perceptions of the legal system.

Hypothesis 5:

Individuals with a stronger social environment will be more likely to assist in prosecuting the offender. These individuals will have the support from family and friends against domestic violence to prosecute a domestic violence offender.

Methods

Two hundred undergraduate students voluntarily filled out a survey on identity, attitudes on legal sanctions, the strength of social sanctions, and perceptions of domestic violence. These respondents are included to explore the possibility of the significance of social sanctions. We are not stating that our respondent pool is representative of the general population. However, these respondents' social environments vary on social sanctions. They give us insight to promote future research in this area.

Measurements

Measures include demographic information, such as sex, age, race, marital status and education level. Sex is coded as 0=male, 1=female. Race is coded as 0=White, 1=African-American, 2=Hispanic. Age is coded as 1=less than 20, 2=20-30, 3=31-40, etc. Education is coded as 1=freshman.....5=more than three years of college. Marital status is coded as 1=married, 2=single, divorced, 3=single, widowed, 4=single.

Perceptions of social sanctions and legal sanctions are measured on 11 point Likert scales. Most of the scale endpoints ranges from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The following are some measures in the survey.

Social Sanctions

The following measures are implemented to measure strength of social sanctions existing from friends and relatives, in other words, support against domestic violence.

These five measures are combined into a scale of social sanctions to measure the strength of the social sanction environment. Correlations between these variables are in Table 1. All of the correlations are significant at the .05 level.

Table 1 Correlations for Social Sanctions Measures

V3=When it is known that a family member is experiencing domestic violence,
some friends and/or relatives avoid getting involved.

Legal Sanctions

The following are measures implemented to measure involvement with legal sanctions and attitudes towards legal sanctions.

These four measures are combined into a scale of legal sanctions to measure the strength of the legal system. The correlations between these variables are in Table 2. All of the correlations are significant at the .05 level.

The first two measures are used to measure cooperation with the legal system. The last two measures are used to measure perceptions(attitudes) about the legal system.

Table 2 Correlations for Legal Sanction Measures

Fear of Victimization

Know Someone in Domestic Violence

Results

Data was analyzed through regression models. These models controlled for sex, race, age, education and marital status.

Table 3 Regression Models for Hypotheses 1 and 2

Hypothesis 1:

A logistic regression is used to test this hypothesis since the measure is a dichotomous variable. Education significantly influences the likelihood of having a friend who has been a victim of domestic violence (p<.05). The strength of the social sanction environment also influences the likelihood of having a friend who has been a victim of domestic violence (p<.0001). The stronger the social sanction environment, the less the likelihood of having a friend who has been a victim of domestic violence.

Hypothesis 2:

Individuals with a stronger social sanction environment will less likely support domestic violence in any situation. In other words, they will less likely be tolerant of any domestic violence.

The strength of the social sanction environment significantly influences attitudes about domestic violence(p<.0001). The legal sanctions perceptions do not have a significant influence. Individuals with stronger social sanctions believe that 1. marital rape exists (p<.0001), 2. are against treating interracial couples differently from other couples in domestic violence (p <.0001) and 3. support equal treatment for homosexual couples involved in domestic violence (p<.0001).

Education (p<.05), age (p<.05) and sex (p<.05) are also significant for views on marital rape. The higher the education level, the stronger the agreement that marital rape does exist. The younger the respondent, the stronger the agreement that marital rape does exist. Females more so than males agree that marital rape exists.

Table 4 Regression Models for Hypotheses 3 and 4

Hypothesis 3:

Individuals with a stronger social sanction environment will less likely fear victimization. These individuals will more likely feel comfortable and safe in their environment due to the strong social sanctions.

Sex of respondent (p<.01) and strength of social sanctions (p<.0001) significantly influence fear of victimization. Females fear victimization more so than males. The stronger the social sanctions, the less fear of victimization. In other words, individuals with friends and relatives strongly against domestic violence are less likely to fear victimization. These individuals feel safer and have more social support. In addition, the interaction variable (social sanctions * legal sanctions) is also significant (p<.0001). The level of fear is influenced by perceptions of legal sanctions depending on the strength of the social sanctions. This demonstrates that perceptions of the legal system influence the fear of victimization. However, these perceptions are interrelated with the social sanctions.

Hypothesis 4:

Individuals with stronger social sanctions have more positive perceptions about the legal system (p<.001). These individuals in a stronger social sanction environment are more likely to state that the legal system is more harsh (p<.0001). Education, race and sex were also significant (p<.0001). The higher the level of education, the more positive the perceptions of the legal system. Females have less positive perceptions and support of the legal system.

Table 5 Regression Models for Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5:

Individuals with a stronger social sanction environment will be more likely to prosecute the offender. These individuals will have the support from family and friends against domestic violence to prosecute a domestic violence offender.

Social sanctions significantly influence agreement to be a witness (p<.0001) and to call the police (p<.0001). The stronger the social sanction environment, the more agreement to cooperate with the legal system. The education level also influences agreement to be a witness (p<.05). The higher the education level, the more agreement to be a witness. Sex is also significant; however, not in the same direction for the different ways in which to assist the legal system. Men are less likely than women to be a witness(p<.01); however, men are more likely to call the police (p<.0001). In other words, women are more likely to be a witness, yet less likely to call the police.

Conclusions

Evidence of significant social sanctions indicates that society must not be passive with regards to domestic violence; instead it must strongly stigmatise those who engage in domestic violence. This will not only decrease violent behaviours, but it will also support victims in prosecuting offenders. Furthermore, this indicates the need to change attitudes in our society regarding expectations and roles in relationships/ marriages, and definitions of appropriate and inappropriate behaviours. Punishment from the legal system is not the only answer to solving domestic violence. Formal and informal sanctions need to be interrelated in order to decrease domestic violence. Extensive future research must focus on the interrelation between legal and social sanctions.

Social environments expressing views against domestic violence will result in support for victims, in turn, resulting in more reported crimes and successful prosecutions of domestic violence offenders. Domestic violence occurs; however, many times it is unreported. When it is reported, the state has difficulty in successfully prosecuting an offender due to the lack of co-operation from the victim. Social sanctions will result in an increase in citizen co-operation towards the legal system, resulting in more offenders being punished. Furthermore, a strong social sanction environment may result in more victims gaining the empowerment to leave the offender.

In addition, the strong social sanction environment may influence the behaviours of individuals likely to engage in domestic violence. Individuals may be less likely to hurt their partner in an environment of stigma and shaming.

From this study, we gain preliminary information from many individuals not in domestic violence situations. Future studies can explore domestic non-violence couples, questioning both partners, in order to understand why they have not engaged in domestic violence. This information can then be applied to prevent domestic violence.

The significance of education in the regression models indicates that individuals with a higher education level are more likely to sanction domestic violence. Education is one way to increase social sanctions against domestic violence. Educating communities will result in an increase in stigma against domestic violence.

The significance of sex indicates that men and women are socialised differently. Perhaps men are uncomfortable with being a witness during a trial; however, they will call the police to stop the situation. Women are less likely to call the police, perhaps because they are fearful of their partner. Women are also more fearful of victimisation and have less positive perceptions of the legal system.

It is important to remember that this is a pilot study with a respondent pool of two hundred undergraduate students. The study's focus was to explore any possible significance of social sanctions. Since there is evidence of the strength of social sanctions, we hope that this promotes future studies to elaborate on social sanctions. Future studies can interview actual offenders and victims asking them about their social sanction environments. Future studies can also study other nations which focus on social sanctions more so than legal sanctions. This study provides us with preliminary evidence that this is an area which needs to be significantly explored.

Bibliography

Andenaes, J (1971) 'The moral or educative influence of criminal law' 24 Journal of Social Issues 17-31.

Baumeister, R and Tice, D (1985) 'Self-esteem and responses to success and failure' 53 Journal of Personality 450-467.

Becker, C (1981) 'Old and New: Japan's Mechanisms for Crime Control and Social Justice' 27Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 283-296.

Burke, P and Franzoi, S (1986) 'Studying situations and identities using experiential sampling' 53 American Sociological Review 559-568.

Choice, P, Lamke, L and Pittman, J (1995) 'Conflict Resolution Strategies and Marital Distress as Mediating Factors in the Link between Witnessing Interparental Violence and Wife Battering'10 Violence and Victims 107-119.

Ellis, D and Stuckless, N (1992) 'Preseparation Abuse, Marital Conflict Mediation, and Postseparation Abuse Mediation Quarterly 205-225.

Hollinger, R C and Clark, J P (1982) 'Formal and Social Controls of Employee Deviance'23 Sociological Quarterly 333-343.

Jensen, G and Erickson, M. L. (1978) 'The Social Meaning of Sanctions' in Krohn, M and Akers, R (eds.)Crime Law and Sanctions (Beverly Hills: Sage) p 119-136.

Jensen, G, Erickson, M and Gibbs, J (1978) 'Perceived Risk of Punishment and Self-Reported Delinquency'57 Social Forces 57-75.

Kersten, J (1993) 'Street Youths, Bosozoku, and Yakuza: Subculture Formation and Societal Reactions in Japan' 39 Crime and Delinquency 277.

Kuhne, H (1981) 'Criminality and Its Repression in Japan: A Socio-cultural and Criminological Analysis' 14 Criminologie 31-50.

Pate, A M and Hamilton, E (1992) 'Formal and Social Deterrents to Domestic Violence: The Dade County Spouse Assault Experiment'57 American Sociological Review 691-697.

Paternoster, R, Saltzman, L, Waldo, G and Chiricos, T (1983) 'Perceived Risk and social control: do sanctions really deter?' 17 Law and Society Review 457-80.

Paternoster, R, Bachman, R and Ward, S (1992) 'The Rationality of Sexual Offending: Testing a Deterrence/Rational Choice Conception of Sexual Assault' 26 Law and Society 343-372.

Qualls, W J (1987) 'Household Decision Behavior: The Impact of Husband's and Wives' Sex Role Orientation' 14 Journal of Consumer Research 264-279.

Salem, R G and Bowers W J (1970) 'Severity of Formal Sanctions as a Deterrent to Deviant Behavior' 5 Law and Society Review 21-40.

Straus, M, Hotaling, G and Coser L (1980) The Social Causes of Husband-Wife Violence (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press).

Swann, W B (1983) 'Self-Verification: Bringing Social Reality into Harmony with Self' in Suls, J and Greenwald, A (eds). Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum) pp33-66.

Swann, W (1987) 'Identity Negotiation: Where Two Roads Meet' 53 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1038-51.

Tittle, C R (1977) 'Sanction Fear and the Maintenance of Social Order' 55 Social Forces 579-594.

Weisburd, D, Waring, E and Chayet, E (1995) 'Specific deterrence in a sample of offenders convicted of white-collar crimes' Criminology 587-607.

Westermann, T and Burfeind, J (1991) Crime and Justice in Two Societies: Japan and the United States (California: Brooks/ Cole Publishing).

	V1	V2	V3	V4	V5
V1	1.00	.66	.46	.52	.41
V2	.66	1.00	.46	.50	.40
V3	.46	.46	1.00	.52	.25
V4	.52	.50	.52	1.00	.50
V5	.41	.40	.25	.50	1.00

	V1	V2	V3	V4
V1	1.00	.98	.48	.51
V2	.98	1.00	.51	.53
V3	.48	.51	1.00	.93
V4	.51	.53	.93	1.00

	Dependent Variables
	H1	H2	H3	H4
Independent Variables	know	interracial	same sex	marital rape
Sex	.42(.32)	.09(.38)	.09(.70)	.18*(.64)
Race	.01(.01)	-.14(.09)	.10(.17)	.09(.16)
Age	.05(.05)	.11(.28)	.02(.52)	-.18*(.47)
Educ	-.30*(.13)	-.07(.16)	-.01(.31)	.17*(.28)
Marital	-.03(.02)	.03(.11)	.04(.21)	.05(.18)
Social Sanctions	-.01**** (.01)	.24**** (.02)	.52**** (.04)	.45**** (.04)
F	----	3.82*	13.99*	5.91*
R2	----	.10	.34	.18
Chi-square	18.37
-2 Log	254.96

	Dependent Variables
	H3	H4	H4
Independent Variables	fear	system punishes	overall support for legal system
Sex	-.19*(.57)	.06(.65)	-.13*(2.11)
Race	-.03(.14)	.11(.16)	.13*(.52)
Age	.06(.39)	-.15(.48)	.11(1.5)
Educ	-.02(.23)	.32****(.28)	.19*(.91)
Marital	.04(.15)	.02(.19)	-.03(.62)
Social Sanctions	-.33**** (.04)	.50**** (.04)	.62* (.12)
Legal Sanctions	-.13(.04)	-----	-----
Legal Sanctions * Social Sanctions	1.00**** (.00)	-----	-----
F	26.18****	9.14****	21.30****
R2	.56	.25	.44

	Dependent Variables
	H5	H5
Independent Variables	witness	police
Sex	-.21**(.65)	.29****(.67)
Race	.13*(.16)	.08(.17)
Age	-.12(.48)	-.14(.49)
Educ	.16*(.28)	.12(.29)
Marital	-.05(.19)	-.11(.20)
Social Sanctions	.56****(.04)	.51****(.04)
F	20.44****	20.00****
R2	.42	.42

		[2000] 2 Web JCLI

United Kingdom Journals

Do Social Sanctions Matter in Domestic Violence?: A Pilot Study

Olga Tsoudis*

Summary