1

Trinidadian university students’ responses to a fictional domestic violence scenario: The role of gender and study major.

It is only recently that intimate partner homicide has been considered a major social problem in the Caribbean. When women are the victims of this violence they occasionally kill their intimate partner during domestic disputes. These cases raise numerous psycho-legal challenges for society and the legal system, and the response to these reveals much about societal beliefs about gender roles, violence against women, and how it should be responded to. In an effort to explicate these issues among a group of relevant future professionals, this study examined university students’ (from law and psychology programs) responses to a fictional domestic violence scenario. After presenting the fictional case, students were asked open ended questions about their reactions and impressions, and were then asked to attribute blame to the various parties. These results were then scrutinized for patterns according to respondent gender and chosen area of study. The results reveal numerous trends that underline the need for particular kinds of content to be incorporated into the training of these professional groups who are likely to come into contact with domestic violence victims and perpetrators. Although aspects of Caribbean law are changing with regards to domestic violence and gender stereotypes, it is evident that these future professionals maintain some beliefs that are likely to have implications for policy, practice, and client outcomes.

Homicide of an intimate partner is the most common type of murder within the family in the United States. (Jensen 2001). It is homicide occurring between current or former dating, cohabiting, common-law and formally married heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples (Browne, William & Dutton 1999). This type of homicide has been recognized throughout the world as a major social problem that has been linked to domestic violence because abused women as well as, abusive men often tend to kill their intimate partner during domestic disputes (Browne 1987; Pagelow 1992).

This realization of the serious implications of intimate partner homicide resulted in a number of scholars and practitioners researching the prevalence of wife beating and the homicides committed, not only by male partners, but by female abused partners (Browne 1987; Chimbos 1978; Walker 1989). These individuals noted that there was a conspicuous lack of information in

this area and, as a result, their efforts to gather data began (Stout & Brown 1995; Chimbos 1978).

Recent research has placed emphasis on highlighting instances of intimate partner homicide committed by battered women (Stout & Brown 1995). These women are often not the main perpetrators or precipitators of this category of homicide and homicide in general since most homicides are often committed by males (Brown 1987; Stout 1991). Their homicidal act however, is the least likely end result to a domestic dispute (La Violette & Barnett 2000). Consequently, this act has been a major concern to society, since it challenges society’s view of women as caretakers and nurturers who are expected to give sustenance and love to those under their care (La Violette & Barnett 2000; Busch 1999).

This phenomenon of domestic violence and the homicides that occur as a result is

2

therefore a critical area for sustained enquiry. As a result, the aim of the study is to examine the relationship between respondents’ gender, area of study and responses towards a domestic violence scenario. Further, the belief of respondents’ (law and psychology students) about attributions of blame for the recurring violence as well as the death of the perpetrator will be explored since these individuals may also hold views that may prohibit them from interacting with or intervening in the lives of domestic violence victims who may eventually become their clients.

This study therefore seeks to provide additional data and further explore the attitudes of law and psychology students who are aspiring to become future professionals. It also seeks to add to the existing studies in this area because there is a dearth of local research on intimate partner abuse, and homicide that occurs between intimate partners. There is a significant association between participants’ area of study and spontaneous labelling of the situation as domestic violence. As a result, the following hypotheses were framed; there is a significant difference in male and female students’ attribution of blame to the victim for the recurring violence, psychology rather than law students will less likely blame the perpetrator for the violence, law students will significantly more likely blame the victim for the death of the perpetrator and psychology students will more likely believe that the victim should be charged.

Domestic violence is the phrase used to describe a variety of actions that occur in family relationships (Machera 2000). It is the term used generally to cover violence that occurs between a victim and perpetrator who has some form of personal and family relationship or previous intimate relationship

(Davies 1994). It is defined as the abuse of children, older people, spouses and others in the home, by other members of the family or other residents (Barker 2000). It is also applied to violence between siblings, parent and child or child to parent (James 1996) and is defined in the Domestic Violence Act of Trinidad and Tobago (1999) as physical, sexual, emotional, psychological or financial abuse committed by a person against a spouse, child, or any other person who is a member of the household or dependant. The term is used to refer to any act of violence that occurs in the context of marriage, cohabitation, visiting type relationships, or dating lesbian, gay or heterosexual couples (Brown et al 1999; Mooney 2000).

In examining definitions of domestic violence, it is evident that there is a lack of consistency that exists between researchers and policy makers, over what should be included under this definition (Mooney 2000). Consequently, some acts committed by intimate partners are often not considered to be of a violent nature. This is apparent in the various definitions that are used; definitions that are often formulated with the partial cultural and sub-cultural beliefs and values of policy makers who are socialized in a particular culture, where acceptance of certain violent acts are the norm in any relationship (Gelles 1997).

Some researchers have debated whether the term domestic violence should be used at all (De Keseredy & Hinch 1991; Kashani & Allan 1998; Smaoun 2000). They argue that it is essential to have a more specific terminology and definition for violence that occurs between intimate partners and across a range of relationships (Mooney 2000; Kashani & Allan 1998). As a result, various researchers have preferred to use terms which specifically identifies the abuse of a woman by an intimate partner, such as ‘wife battering’, ‘wife abuse’, ‘wife beating’,

3

‘woman abuse’.(James 1996; Flowers 2000; De Keseredy & Hinch 1991). Other popular terms used are ‘spouse abuse’, ‘intimate partner abuse’ and ‘partner abuse’. This they claim is necessary because only then can there be recognition and rejection of violent acts that were previously accepted as normal. Additionally, it is indicated that each type of relationship may involve different issues which can be comprehensively addressed by matching them to specific policies that can better address them (Mooney 2000).

The inconsistencies that exists regarding the definition of domestic violence, together with various difficulties in determining the accuracy of prevalence rates makes it difficult to estimate the actual occurrence of violence between intimate partners (United Nations 1995). This problem can also be partly attributed to the low-level of reporting by victims and perpetrators who are often hesitant to disclose their experience of violence within the relationship for reasons such as fear, shame and lack of confidence in the agencies that publicly state they represent their cause (Kilpatrick 2004). Additionally, the statistics gathered from police records and other official sources frequently under-represent this problem because officials may fail to record the incident in a way that is meaningful for research purposes (United Nations 1995). Self reporting surveys are also not void of problems because the level of violence women suffered may either be over-estimated or under-estimated by them. Telephone surveys repeatedly exclude women who do not have access to a telephone, whereas field surveys may be hampered by methodological limitations such as problems with sampling techniques and sampling errors that are often not representative of the entire population being studied (United Nations 1995; West 2004).

Although these problems with determining the accurate estimates of prevalence rates exists, available statistics derived from general or special population studies, and based on reports by victims and/or perpetrators still indicate that domestic violence, especially violence against a woman is a severe problem that is widespread in many countries around the world.

Several researchers, in an effort to understand the causes of intimate partner violence have focused on the personality traits of the abuser and the abused victim in explaining the dynamic that produce an abusive situation (Flowers 2000; Smaoun 2000; Creque 1995; United Nations 1995). Whereas, others may look at explanations such as the use of alcohol and illicit drugs, frustration, stress, the actions of the victim and previous exposure to violence in childhood (Flowers 2000, United Nations 1995). Another assumption of the cause of domestic violence was postulated by Gelles (1972) in his social structural theory which revealed, that domestic violence is a direct response to two main factors. For example, structural stress (low income in the family due to unemployment) or cultural values and norms that sanctions violence in relationships as a way of life. A final explanation for the cause of domestic violence is the power and control theory which describes the violence existing between intimates as a result of one person exerting power and control over another (Flowers 2000). A popular public perception is the belief that leaving an abusive relationship is an effective solution for battered women. People perceive that it is a guarantee that the abuse will stop. As a result, they frequently ask, ‘why didn’t they leave?’ or ‘why didn’t they leave one day when their abuser was away?’ These questions appear to place

4

responsibility for ending the violence on women rather than on the batterers and they imply that something is wrong with women who do not leave abusive relationships (Fiene 1995). They are also based on the false notion that they don’t leave or don’t try to leave. As a result, with or without the knowledge of the intensity of the abuse, they are frequently encouraged by members of the community to remain and work it out or they did not leave because they did not have viable alternatives, such as, moving to another town or secret refuge (LaViolette & Barnett 2000).

These battered women are blamed or at least harshly criticized by some members of the community for not leaving the abusive relationship and/or they are perceived to have brought the problems of violence upon themselves (LaViolette & Barnett 2000). Additionally, their prior leaving is blamed for the subsequent and intensified violence of their abuser (LaViolette & Barnett 2000). The batterers may also blame their victim for the battering, claiming that their partner set them up to be violent (Browne 1987).

At times, these women even begin to blame themselves for the abuse, denying the magnitude of the abusive events that occurred, blaming themselves for tolerating it or blaming themselves for being unable to control its continuance (Gilbert & Webster 1982; Petretic-Jackson et al 2002). It is in core of this dilemma that battered women may respond in a violent manner to their partner during a dispute.

Battered women kill during periods of intense conflict such as physical fights, arguments, confrontation, sexual and emotional abuse which has escalated to the point where they feel their life; the lives of her children or significant other/s are in danger (Jurik & Russ 1990). This risk of

homicide often increases with the most recent abusive episode (O’Kane 2005).

As a result, over the last two decades a number of legislators in various jurisdictions have enacted innovative laws governing this type of violence for example, laws that authorize the court to prohibit marital rape {example, the Trinidad and Tobago Sexual Offences Act 1999; amemded). Other laws have been passed to authorize law enforcement officers to make an arrest in cases of domestic violence; to make an arrest without a warrant when there is a violation of a protective order; to transport the victim to the hospital; and/or to inform the victim of legal options available (Flowers 2000). Laws that sanction the court to order a batterer to change his behaviour, to evict him from the home shared with the victim, or those that require the batterer to pay compensation or impose a sentence for the violation of a protection order have also been enacted (example the Trinidad and Tobago Domestic violence Act 2000; amended; Flowers 2000).

However, despite these legislative remedies, domestic violence continues to be a social problem. In a number of cases, victims realized that their abusive domestic situation did not stop, even when they attempted to seek legal remedies. Consequently, some women without the adequate support of formal agencies and in an effort to defend themselves or their loved ones during a conflict killed their intimate partner.

Numerous lawyers, throughout history, attempting to effectively represent ‘these women’, had previously concealed the abuse fearing that it will be used against them in the court of law (Stark 1990). This was done because battered women’s actions regularly did not fit the requirements for the law of self defense (Bannister 1991). The law allows a person to use reasonable force

5

against another person when the individual believes that he or she is in imminent danger of bodily harm. However, the force used by battered women to defend themselves may exceed the force used by their partner (Bannister 1993). As a result, the use of self defense laws for battered women who killed their abusive partner, did not reflect the reality of the abuse they experienced (Stout 1991). Consequently, many women who killed their partner had been charged and sentenced for murder or manslaughter. As a result of this, many lawyers discovered that they needed to find a good justification defense to successfully defend their battered clients.

The defense was eventually provided through the use of a justification defense called the battered woman’s syndrome which is a sub-category of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder that is characterized by a distinct pattern of psychological and physical abuse inflicted by an abusive partner (Walker 1987; Walker 1992). It explains what happens in a violent intimate relationship, why battered women stay and why it is reasonable for them to feel danger outside the state of imminent harm (Downs 1996). The degree of abuse they experienced is highlighted in the testimonies of many expert witnesses (example, learned helplessness) who give support to the perception that the woman’s life was in danger at the time of the homicidal act (Wilson 1993). The utilization of this defense often grants battered women a fair trial (Walker 1992). As a result of this syndrome, legal practitioners may frequently appeal for leniency in the penalties that may be levied to the battered women they represent. This however, does not provide a guarantee for battered women who kill because although the concept has been accepted by the courts, the legal understanding of battered woman has been tremendously whittled since only a few

women fit the description. Most women who are battered therefore do not qualify as helpless and often face severe penalties as a result (Jones 1994).

In more recent history, members of the legal and judicial systems have been required to play a more active role in responding to domestic violence situations (Buwaza & Buwaza 1990). Although their responsibilities are often outlined in the law, police officers’ continue to be reluctant to respond to domestic violence reports, which has led to the under enforcement of the law and the failure of the legal system to provide adequate protection for the victim and to prosecute the offender (Edwards 1989). This reluctance may be due to some police officers’ personal experience with domestic violence incidents as an abuser, victim or witnesses and their own beliefs surrounding the abuse of intimate partners (Jenkins and Davidson 2001). Alternatively, it may be due to the lack of follow through by many victims (Bachman 1994; LaViolette and Barnett 2000). Additionally, police officers’ belief that intimate partner violence is a situation that is best handled within the home (Erez and Belklap; 1995) resulted in these officers attaching a low level of priority to these incidents (Edwards 1989). Further, they often delayed responding to such calls in a timely fashion (Buwaza and Buwaza 1990; (Edwards 1989).

Buwaza and Buwaza (1990) noted that the judicial system also offers little assistance in bringing a resolve to domestic violence disputes. As a result, members of the judiciary convey a message to both the victim and the offender that they will do nothing to stop the violence that occurs in intimate relationships (Roberts and Kurst-Swanger (2002). This response by judicial officers, indirectly give support to the patriarchal structure of the family, which perpetrates the use and acceptance of abuse

6

in relationships from one generation to the next (Buwaza and Buwaza 1990).

In circumstances where women sought to legally defend themselves against their batterer, judges tended to be more sympathetic to perpetrators despite their bullying and violent behaviour (Buwaza & Buwaza 1996). They often ruled in favour of perpetrators, thus minimizing the violent behavior against them and blame the victims for the abuse (Buwaza & Buwaza 1996; Edwards 1989). They further victimized these victims by asking them what they did to provoke the violence (Roberts & Kurst-Swanger 2002). Consequently, battered women’s trust in relying on the justice system for safety diminished (Buzawa & Buzawa 1990).

Attribution theory provides the theoretical framework for this study. It was first written by Fritz Heider in his book “The Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships (Heider 1958; Aronson et al 2003) which played an important role in the origination and definition of attribution theory. This theory is concerned with how individuals interpret events and how this relates to their thinking and behavior (Jones et al 1972). It assumes that people try to determine why people do what they do, i.e., attribute causes to behavior. Thus, a person seeking to understand why another person did something may attribute one or more causes to that behaviour (example, (1) the person must perceive or observe the behavior, (2) the person must believe that the behavior was intentionally performed, and (3) then the person must determine if they believe the other person was forced to perform the behavior (in which case the cause is attributed to the situation) or not (in which case the cause is attributed to the other person) (Jones et al 1972).

Our attributions are also driven by our emotional and motivational drives. As such, very real self serving attributions involve blaming other people and avoiding personal accusation (Weiner 1986). Attributions are also made to defend what we perceive as attacks which often results in us pointing to injustices in the world (Harvey and Weary 1985). Additionally, we often seek to distance ourselves from thoughts of suffering the same plight by blaming victims (those persons victimized by us and those victimized by others) for their fate and also tend to ascribe less variability to other people than ourselves, seeing ourselves as more multifaceted and less predictable than others. This may take place because we can see more of what is within us (and spend more time doing this) (Harvey and Weary 1985).

METHODOLOGY

The sample consisted of students in the third year of either psychology or law. The area of study (either psychology or law) and the year of study were the main requirements for their participation. These specific requirements were necessary to ensure that these future professionals would have already been exposed to specific domestic violence terminology and would have been aware of the phenomenon of domestic violence.

Out of the 100 questionnaires that were distributed to students, 95 were returned completed. This yielded an overall response rate of 95% with the rate of response for each area of study ranging from 100% (for psychology students) and 90% (for law students). The ages of the participants ranged from 20 years to 47 years with 89% between the ages of 20 -29 years, 7.7% between 30 – 39 and 3.3% forty years and over. Male respondents represented 21% of the sample and female respondents 79% of

7

the respondents. Participants represented the following ethnicities 32% African, 45% Indian, 20% Mixed and 1% Other and 1% did not respond to this question. Law students make up 47% and psychology students 52% of the sample. Respondents were also asked to specify whether they had any other university qualifications, only 6 % of all respondents indicated that they had such qualifications. This question was asked because no psychology student had law or no law student has psychology as an additional qualification.

Table 1

Age categories of law and psychology students

Age categories

Law students

Psychology students

Overall number of students per category

20 – 29 42 39 81

30 – 39 3 4 7

40 – 49 0 3 3

No response 4

Minimum age

(years)

20 20

Maximum age (years)

36 47

Average age

(years)

21.6 27.6

Materials

Respondents were provided with a copy of the statement of intent of the study which outlined the aims of the study, and gave

information about confidentiality and anonymity. This statement also gave details about the need for individuals to participate in the study. Added to this each eligible member was provided with a copy of the study questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three sections, demographics (gender, age, and ethnicity.) Additionally, respondents were asked to identify their primary area of study or major and whether they had any other University qualifications).

An account of a hypothetical domestic violence scenario (section two), and questions examining the attitudes of respondents in relation to the individuals and circumstances described in the scenario (section three).

Procedure

Initially, the version of the questionnaire was created by this researcher and research supervisor. The questions were informed by the literature as a means of exploring the issues presented in the hypothetical domestic violence scenario. Questions were also developed to explore participants’ beliefs about this prevalent societal problem. Upon completion, a pilot survey was conducted with a clerical worker at the Faculty of Social Science, University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago. Relevant changes were made to the questionnaire based on the responses provided and the identification of any typing errors or ambiguous questions that may not have been recognized prior to the pilot.

Immediately following the pilot stage, the researcher identified the group of students considered eligible for the study. As discussed previously, the study was conducted over a two day period for psychology students and a three day period for law students. This was due to the number of students enrolled in each class and the

8

schedule of classes for both 3rd year students who are majoring in either law or psychology. Permission was obtained from the Head of the Psychology Unit at the University of the West Indies who introduced the researcher to a lecturer of two third year courses. Arrangements were then made to conduct the survey with the students in those classes. Further, permission was obtained from the Administrator of the Institute of Law and Academic Studies who allowed a field officer to conduct the survey at their school. At both Institutions, the survey was conducted during the break period of each class.

All participants received a copy of the statement of intent of the study and the study’s questionnaire. Participants were also told that the survey was examining their views and the findings would be presented in aggregate form and would be used to inform this research paper. Participants were also informed of the measures utilized to maintain their anonymity and were asked to immediately return the questionnaire upon its completion. The return of the completed questionnaire which was done in class and handed to this researcher (psychology students) and a field officer (law students) signified their consent to participate in the study. An equal number of questionnaires were distributed to both groups of students to ensure that approximately the same number of students completed the questionnaires.

A total of fifty questionnaires were personally distributed by this researcher to third year psychology students of two separate psychology classes at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad. This process of distribution was done over a two day period. Another fifty questionnaires were distributed over a three day period by a field officer to 3rd year law

students of the Institute of Law and Academic Studies located at Chaguanas, a central region in Trinidad. The distribution of questionnaires depended on the number of students enrolled in each class and the days these classes were scheduled (every day or every other day).

Upon completion of the data collection stage, the responses on the questionnaires were coded and recorded for subsequent analysis and interpretation. Qualitative data were transcribed into a Microsoft Word Document as a verbatim full text record of each participant’s responses. This procedure allowed the researcher to identify frequent themes or categories in the responses of participant. Once the common categories were identified, this information was entered into the SPSS 12.0 for Windows program as a series of dummy variables. This allowed patterns in the qualitative data to be linked to other variables. Responses to other items were entered as continuous data.

Further, the researcher sought to validate the inter-coder or inter-rater reliability of the qualitative data coding. Assistance was provided by the research supervisor for this process. The research supervisor was provided with a data file containing the responses of the participants together with the sample of response categories previously developed by the researcher. The categories were reviewed by my Supervisor who sought to see whether the responses placed under a given category were accurate. Response categories were then revised by this researcher because initially they were too broad and relevant data for analysis would have been lost. The revised categories were examined by my Supervisor who approved it and returned it to me. The purpose of this process was to examine the reliability of the response categories. Upon examination of the categories an agreement between the raters was reached.

9

HYPOTHESIS 1: There is a significant association between participants’ area of study and spontaneous labeling of the situation as domestic violence.

Students’ reaction to Domestic Violence on the basis of area of study_____________________________________________________

Law Psychology

N = 45 N = 50

Interpretive Comment Emotional Response

49% 40%

 Emotional Response Interpretive Comment

35% 34%

 Domestic Violence Domestic Violence

27% 18%

Incidence Incidence

9% 12%

______________________________________________________

Note: Since participants were able to include more than one reason for their response, so any column % may exceed 100%

Analysis of row percentages revealed that law and psychology students were not evenly likely to rate the scenario as domestic violence (27% compared to 18%) (χ² (df = 1; N = 95) = 1.033; p .309).

Law and psychology students’ description of the situation indicated that both groups of participants were not evenly likely to be comparable in their description of the situation as domestic violence; they were also not evenly likely to rate the situation

emotionally (35% as compared to 40%) (χ² (df = 1; N = 95) = .199; p = .656). Further, they were not evenly comparable in their indication of the incidence of the situation (9% as compared to 12%) (χ² (df = 1; N = 95) = ; p = .66) as well as not comparable in their ratings for applying their own interpretations to the situation (49% as compared to 34%) (χ² (df = 1; N = 95) = 2.170; p = .66).

Chi-square analyses revealed that there was no significant association between these factors (χ² (df = 1; N = 95) = 1.0; p = .30). Although there is no significant association, it is not significant enough to warrant discarding one variable. It is however; close enough to warrant an analysis of row proportion. Overall, these results demonstrated that when violence occurs in a relationship both law and psychology respondents are not evenly likely to label the situation in similar ways.

HYPOTHESIS 2: There is no significant difference in male and female students’ attribution of blame to the victim and the perpetrator for the recurring violence.

Mean Scores of the participants’ attribution of blame to the Victim and Perpetrator

______________________________________________________M

SD

______________________________________________________

Blame victim for recurring violence 24.3 5.3

Blame perpetrator for recurring violence 56 21.5

An examination of the average level of blame to the victim and the perpetrator for the recurring violence reveals that there is a

10

significant difference in the attribution of blame to both individuals for the recurring violence.

A oneway Anova analyses was conducted to assess if there was a difference in the average blame scores attributed to the victim on the basis of gender. There was however, no statistically significant difference between the average level of blame ascribed to the victim for the recurring violence by law and psychology students in the sample (F (df = 1, n = 92) = .58; p =.45).

Oneway Anova analyses assessment of the average blame scores ascribed to the victim for the recurring violence revealed there were no statistically significant difference between the attributions of blame to the victim for the recurring violence by male and female students in the sample(F (df = 1, n = 90) = .58; p = .19).

Oneway Anova analyses - assessment of the average blame scores ascribed to the perpetrator for the recurring violence - no statistically significant difference between the average level of blame to the perpetrator for the recurring violence, by male and female students in the sample (F (df = 1, n = 92) = .768; p =.383).

HYPOTHESIS 3: Psychology rather than law students will less likely blame the perpetrator for the recurring violence.

Students’ attribution of blame to the perpetrator for recurring violence on the basis of area of study

______________________________________________________

Law Psychology

N = 45 N = 50

Victim’s actions are in self defense Victim does not end

27% the relationship

or seek assistance

27%

Victim retaliates to partner’s abuse Victim retaliates t

20% partner’s abuse

14%

 

Victim does not end the relationship Victim’s actions are

or seek assistance in self defense

15% 12%

Note: Since participants were able to include more than one reason for their response, the column % may exceed 100%

Psychology students were more likely to blame the perpetrator’s jealousy, resentment / insecurity as a reason for the recurrent violence in the relationship (12% compares to 9%) (χ ² (df = 1; N = 95) = .24; p = .66).

Psychology respondents were more likely ascribe blame to the perpetrator’s for not leaving or seeking assistance since they believed this was a cause of the continuous violence (18.0% compared to 9%) (χ ² (df = 1; N = 95) = 2.757; p = .097).

Both law and psychology respondents were less likely to attribute blame to the perpetrator’s violent behaviour for the recurring violence (24% compared to 28%) (χ ² (1; N = 95) = .15; p = .69). In the chi-square analyses of the data there were no significant associations between the qualitative response categories and area of study.

HYPOTHESIS 4: Law and Psychology students will more likely blame the victim for the death of the perpetrator.

11

Students’ attribution of blame to the victim for the perpetrator’s death on the basis of area of study

______________________________________________________

Law Psychology

N = 45 N = 50

 Victim’s actions are in self defense Victim does not end

27% the relationship or seek assistance

27%

Victim retaliates to partner’s abuse Victim retaliates to

20% partner’s abuse

14%

Victim does not end the relationship Victim’s actions are

or seek assistance in self defense

15% 12%

Note: Since participants were able to include more than one reason for their response, the column % may exceed 100%

Psychology students were not comparably likely to attribute blame to the victim’s act of self defense as a cause of the perpetrator’s death (27% compared to 12%) (χ ² (df = 1; N = 95) = 1.554; p = .07).

Law students were not equally likely to attribute blame to victim for the perpetrator’s death because of not ending the relationship or seek assistance (15% compared to 26%) (χ ² (df = 1; N = 95) = 1.55; p = .21).

Law students were more likely to blame the victim’s retaliation to the perpetrator’s abuse as a cause of the death (20% compared to 14%) (χ ² (df = 1; N = 95) = .18; p = .67).

HYPOTHESIS 5: Psychology students will more likely believe that the victim should be charged.

Students’ beliefs about charging the victim

Charge victim for the offence

Gender/study M / LAW 44%

F / LAW 58%

M / PSYC 25%

F / PSYC 46%

M = Male, F = Female; PSYC = Psychology

Female law and female psychology students were more likely to believe that the victim should be charged when compared to their male counterparts.

LIMITATIONS

The inadequate pre-testing of the research questionnaire using one member of the university suggests that items that may have been ambiguous may not have been adequately extracted. Therefore the internal validity of the vignette and the questionnaire may not have been enhanced. There was also an unequal ratio of males and females in the sample. This was mainly attributed to the number of males compared to females pursing the fields of study that were sampled. This may impact upon the representativeness of the sample and may also affect external validity of the findings.

12

IMPLICATIONS

Need for domestic violence education of individuals in their field of study to help them understand the issue as well as help them to respond to victims and perpetrators in a more empathetic way.

Provide these future professionals with the opportunity to work with victims and perpetrators prior to them entering the field of work.

Will help enhance their knowledge and skills about domestic violence clients.

May result in them having more positive attitudes towards these clients.

May dispel myths associated with blaming the victim for the violence.

FUTURE RESEARCH

More research is need in the area of domestic violence and homicides which occurs in domestic disputes between intimate partners.

Once done it will effectively inform policy and practice in the fields of law and psychology.

REFERENCES

Bachman, R. 1995. Violence Against Women. Washington D.C: Department of Justice.

Bannister, S. A. 1993. Battered Women Who Kill Their Abusers: Their Courtroom Battles in It’s a Crime: Women and Justice, edited by

Roslyn Muraskin and Ted Alleman, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bannister, S. A. 1991. The Criminalization of Women Fighting Back Against Male Abuse: Improisioned Battered as Political Prisoners. Humanity and Society 15:400-416.

Benn, M. Coote, A. Gill, T. 1986. The Rape Controversy. London: National Council for Civil Liberties.

Belknap, J. 1995. Law and Enforcement Officers’ Attitudes About the Appropriate Responses to Woman Battering. International Journal of Victimology 4:47-62.

Blinder, M. 1985. Lovers, Killers, Husbands and Wives. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bogard, M. 1988. Feminist Perspectives in Wife Abuse: an introduction, in K. Yllo, & M. Bogard (eds.) Feminist Perspectives in Wife Abuse, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Brookman, F. (2005). Understanding Homicide. London: Sage Publications.

Browne, A. William, K. and Dutton, D. 1999. Homicide Between Intimate Partners in Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research, edited by M. Smith and M. Zahn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Browne, A. 1987. When Battered Women Kill. New York: The Free Press.

Busch, A. L. 1999. Finding their Voices: Listening to Battered Women Who Killed. New York: Kroshka Books.

Buzawa, E. S. and C. G. Buzawa. 1990. Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. California: Sage Publications.

Campbell, J. C. 1995. Prediction of Homicide of and by Battered Women in Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Sexual Offenders,

13

Batterers, and Child Abusers, edited by Jacqueline C. Campbell. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chan, W. 2001. Women, Murder and Justice. London: Palgrave.

Cascardi, M and K. D. O''Leary. 1992. Depressive Symptomatology, Self-esteem, and Self-blame in Battered Women. Journal of Family Violence, 7 (4): 249-259

Chimbos, P.D. 1978. Marital Violence: A Study of Interpersonal Homicide. San Francisco: R & E Research Associates.

Clarke R. 1998. Violence Against Women in the Caribbean: State and Non-State Responses. USA: United Nations Development Fund for Women.

Creque, M. 1995. A Study of the Incidence of Domestic Violence in Trinidad and Tobago: From 1991 to 1993. Port of Spain: Shelter for Battered Women and Trinidad and Tobago Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Dann, G. K. and B. S. Parsad. 1989: Domestic Violence in the Caribbean: A Guyana case study. Trinidad: University of the West Indies.

Davies, J., E. Lyon and D. Monti-Catania. 1988. Safety Planning with Battered Women. California: Sage Publications.

Davies, M. (ed.), 1994. Women and Violence: Realities and Responses Worldwide. London: Zed Books.

De Keseredy, W. & R. Hinch. 1991. Woman Abuse: Sociological Perspectives. Ontario: Thompson.

Dobash, R and E.Dobash. 1979. Violence against wives. New York: The Free Press.

Dobash, R and E. Dobash. 1992. Women, Violence and Social Change. London: Routledge.

Donoghue, E. R. 2001. Domestic Violence: Predicting Fatal Outcomes. Chicago Medicine 104: 4-5.

Downs, D. A. 1996. More than Victims: Battered Women, the Syndrome and the Law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Edwards, S. 1989. Policing ‘Domestic Violence’: Women, the Law and the State. London: Sage Publications.

Erez, E. & Belklap, J. 1995. Policing Domestic Violence, in a Enclycopedia of Police Science edited by W. Bailey. New York: Garland Publications.

Ewing, C. P.1987. Battered Women Who Kill. USA: Lexington Books.

Ewing, C. P. 1990. Psychological Self Defense: A Proposed Justification for Battered Women Who Kill. Law and Human Behaviour 14:579-594.

Fiene, J. I. 1995. Battered Women: Keeping the Secret. Affilia Journal of Women and Social Work 10 (1):179-193.

Flowers, B. R. 2000. Domestic Crimes, Family Violence and Child Abuse: A Study of Contemporary American Society. North Carolina: Mc Farland and Company.

Gelles, R.J. 1972. The Violent Home: A Study of the Physical Aggression between Husbands and Wives. California: Sage Publications.

Gelles, R.J. 1995. Spouse Abuse and Neglect in Enclycopedia of Marriage and the Family (eds). D. Levinson. New York: Macmillain.

14

Gelles, R. 1997. Intimate Violence in Families (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Gilbert, L. and P. Webster. 1989. Bound by Love, the sweet trap of daughterhood. Boston: Beacon.

Gillespie, C. K. 1989. Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self defense and the Law. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Gopaul, R., P. Morgan, and R. Reddock. 1996. Women, Family and Family Violence in the Caribbean: The Historical and Contemporary Experience with Special Reference to Trinidad and Tobago. University of the West Indies, St. Augustine: Women and Development Group/Centre for Gender and Development Studies.

Haniff, N. Z. 1995. Male Violence Against Women and Men in the Caribbean: the case of Jamaica. St. Michael Barbados: Women and Development Unit (WAND). School of Continuing Studies, University of the West Indies.

Hardwerker, P. 1993. Power, Gender Violence and High-risk Sexual Behaviour, in Violence Against Women: The Hidden Health Burden by L. Heise, Pitanguy J. and Germaine A. Washington: The World Bank.

Harvey, J.H. and G. Weary. 1985. Attribution: Basic Issues and Applications. San Diego: Academic Press.

Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

Humphreys, Cathy and Thiara, Ravi 2003. Mental Health and Domestic Violence. The British Journal of Social Work. 33:209-226.

James, J. 1996. Understanding Domestic Violence: A Training and Information Manual

for Community Educators. St Vincent and the Grenadines: Women Affairs Department.

Jenkins, P. J. and B. Parmer Davidson. 2001. Stopping Domestic Violence: How a Community Can Prevent Spousal Abuse. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Jensen, V. 2001. Why Women Kill; Homicide and Gender Equality. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Jewkes, Y. 2004. Media and Crime. London: Sage.

Johann, S. L. and F. Osanka. 1989. Introduction in Representing … Battered Women Who Kill, edited by Sara Lee and Frank Osanka Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Jones, A. 1994. Next Time She’ll Be Dead: Battering and How to Stop It. Boston: Beacon Press.

Jones, E. E, D.E. Kannouse, H.H Kelley, R.E. Nesbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner, (eds). 1972. Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour. New Jersey: General Learning Press.

Kashani, J & W. Allan. 1998. The Impact of Family Violence on Children and Adolescents. London: Sage.

Kaufman Kantor, G. & M.A. Straus. 1987. The Drunken Bum Thoery of Wife Beating. Social Problems, 34: 213-230.

Koenig, M.A, T. Lutalo, F. Zhao, F. Nalugoda, F. Wabwire-Mangen, N. Kiwanuka, J. Wagman, D. Serwadda, M. Wawer & R. Gray. 1987. Domestic Violence in Rural Uganda: Evidence of a Community-based Study, in Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2003; 81:53-60.

LaBell, L. 1979. Wife Abuse: a sociological study of battered women and their mates. Victimology: An International Journal, 4.

15

LaViolette, A. D. and O. W. Barnett, 2000. It Could Happen To Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Machera, M. 2000. Domestic Violence in Kenya: A Survey of Newspaper Reports in Men, Women and Violence by Felicia Oyekanmi. Senegal: Council for the Development of Research in Africa.

Men Against Violence Against Women. 2002. Domestic Violence Handbook. Trinidad: Men Against Violence Against Women.

Mooney, J. 2000. Gender, Violence and the Social Order. New York: Palgrave Publishers.

Morrissey, B. 2003. When Women Kill: Questions about Agency and Subjectivity. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

O’Kane, J. 2005. Murder in America, Wicked Deeds. London: Transaction Publishers.

O’Keefe, M. 1997. Incarcerated Battered Women: A Comparison of Battered Women who Kill their Abusers and those Incarcerated for Other Offences. Journal of Family Violence 12(1): 1-18

Pagelow, M.D. 1992. Adult Victims of Domestic Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7:87-120.

Petretic-Jackson, P.A. Tricia H. White & Thomas L. Jackson. 2002. Battered Women: Treatment Goals and Treatment Planning in Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal Remedies, edited by Albert Roberts, 127-146. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ptacek, J. 1999. Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Quaid, Sheila and Itzin, Catherine (2000). The Criminal Justice Response to Women Who Kill: An Interview with Helena Kennedy in Home Truths About Domestic Violence: Feminist influences on policy and practice edited by J. Hanmer and C. Itzin with S. Quaid and D. Wigglesworth – A reader, 153-166. London: Routledge.

Reiner, R. 1985. The Politics of the Police. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.

Roberts, A. and K. Kurst-Swanger 2002. Police Responses to Battered Women: Past, Present, and Future in Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal Remedies, edited by Albert Roberts, 101-126. New York: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, A. and K. Kurst-Swanger 2002. Court Responses to Battered Women and their Children in Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal Remedies, edited by Albert Roberts, 127-146. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shainess, N. 1984. Sweet Suffering: Woman as Victim. New York: Pocket Books.

Smaoun, S. 2000. Violence Against Women in Urban Areas: An Analysis of the Problem from a Gender Perspective. Kenya: Urban Management Programme.

Sporakowski, M.J, A. J. McKeel & D. Madden-Derdich. 1993. Attributions Related to Wife Abuse: A Comparison of the Perceptions of Volunteer Advocate-counselors and Marriage and Family Therapists. Contemporary Family Therapy Volume 15(6): 485-499.

Stark, E. 1990. Rethinking Homicide: Violence, Race and the Politics of Gender. International Journal of Health Services 20:3-26.

Steffensmeier, D and E. Allan, 1996. Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of

16

Female Offending. Annual Review of Sociology 22:459-487.

Stout, K.D. 1991. Intimate Femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6:476-485.

Stout, K. D. (1991). Women Who Kill: Offenders or Defenders. Affilia Journal of Women and Social Work 6 (1):8-22.

Stout, K. D. and P. Brown. 1995. Legal and Social Differences Between Men and Women Who Kill Intimate Partners. Affilia Journal of Women and Social Work.

10 (1):195-205.

Trinidad and Tobago Domestic Violence Act No. 27 of 1999. An Act to amend the Domestic Violence Act of 1991.

Trinidad and Tobago Sexual Offences Act No. 31 of 2000. An Act to amend the Sexual Offences Act of 1986.

Walker, L. 1984. The Battered Woman Syndrome. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Walker, L. 1989. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: Harper and Row.

Walker, L. 1992. Battered Woman Syndrome and Self Defense. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 6: 321-334.

Walter, L.E. 1989. Police in the Middle: A Study of Small Police Intervention in Domestic Disputes. Journal of Police Science and Administration 9 (3): 243-260.

Weiner, B. 1974. Achievement, Motivation and Attribution Theory. New Jersey: General Learning Press.

Weiner, B. 1980. Human Motivation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Wilson, N. K. 1993. Gendered Interaction in Criminal Homicide in Homicide the Victim-Offender Connection, edited by Anna Victoria Wilson. Cincinnati: Anderson.

World Health Organization, World Report on Violence and Health, Geneva, 2000.

United Nations General Assembly. 1993. Declaration on the Elimination Against Women. United Nations.

United Nations. 1995. Strategies for Confronting Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual. Vienna: United Nations Publications.