Demographic trends now indicate Latinos are the largest and one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in the United States (Humes, Jones, and Ramirez 2011). Accompanying this shift, research on violence against women has started to move beyond a focus on White women, thus developing a more nuanced picture of the violence that affects various racial/ethnic groups. A limited amount of prior research has explored the complexities of intimate partner violence (IPV) among Latino women (Harris, Firestone, and Vega 2005; Kaufman-Kantor, Jasinski, and Aldarondo 1994; Van Hightower, Gorton, and DeMoss 2000). The extant research often employed small, geographically limited samples and excluded the full spectrum of IPV experiences (Flores, Tschann, VanOss Marin, and Pantoja 2004; Garcia, Hurwitz, and Kraus 2005). An analysis of sociocultural factors such as immigrant status and acculturation, or the cultural shifts that occur after inter-cultural contact (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, and Szapocznik 2010), and their link to IPV is also limited in the literature. This study aims to: 1) offer estimates of IPV rates among a national sample of Latino women in the U.S., 2) assess the ways in which forms of IPV overlap, and 3) examine how immigrant status and acculturation influences victimization rates among Latino women.

Types of Intimate Partner Violence among Latinos

One of the most disturbing characteristics of violence against women is that it is often perpetrated by current or former intimate partners, family members, and/or acquaintances. IPV can include a continuum of behaviors such as physical violence, sexual assault, psychological abuse, threats, and stalking or a constellation of these abusive tactics (Hazen and Soriano 2007; Logan, Shannon, and Cole 2007; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Analysis of the Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) data, used for the current study, revealed 60 % of physical violence against adult Latino women was perpetrated by current or ex-partners, as was 45.4 % of threats, 44.1 % of sexual violence, and 31.4 % of stalking (Cuevas, Sabina, and Milloshi 2012).

Physical Violence

Studies have estimated that lifetime physical IPV among Latino women range between 19.5 and 35.2 % (Black et al. 2011; Denham et al. 2007; Hazen and Soriano 2007; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Studies of the general population (Bonomi, Anderson, Cannon, Slesnick, and Rodriguez 2009; Ingram 2007; Sorenson and Telles 1991; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000) as well as studies of help-seekers (Torres 1991) found rates of lifetime physical IPV among Latinos to be comparable or lower than Whites or non-Latinos. While some studies show higher rates of IPV among Latinos than Whites (Aldarondo, Kantor, and Jasinski 2002; Caetano, Field, Ramisetty-Mikler, and McGrath 2005; Kaufman-Kantor et al. 1994; Straus and Smith 1990) differences tend to disappear when variables such as location, age, alcohol use, and family history are controlled (Klevens 2007). Moreover, methodologies which tap a particular segment of the Latino population (e.g., English-speaking, born in the U.S., Mexican-American) are likely to garner misleading results as language use, immigrant status, and ethnicity are related to victimization (Hazen and Soriano 2007; Kaufman-Kantor et al. 1994; Ramos, Green, Booker, and Nelson 2011; M.A. Rodriguez et al. 2008; Sabina, Cuevas, and Schally 2013). These findings indicate a need for more consistent measurement strategies, clearer definitions, and inclusion of the full diversity of Latinos.

Sexual Violence

Intimate partner sexual violence could include, but is not limited to, rape, sexual coercion, and sexual harassment. Studies have found estimated lifetime rates between 8.1 and 36 % among Latinos (Brown et al. 2003; Hass, Dutton, and Orloff 2000; Hazen and Soriano 2007; Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, and McGrath 2007; Sorenson and Siegel 1992). Among women who experienced physical IPV, sexual IPV rates are elevated (Ramisetty-Mikler et al. 2007; Wiist 1998) pointing to a compounded risk of victimization. Some studies collapse forms of IPV, making examination of sexual IPV difficult (Harris et al. 2005; Hass et al. 2000; Van Hightower et al. 2000). Studies that compare Latino women to other racial/ethnic groups have resulted in very mixed findings. For example, in one study, rates of forced sex were not significantly different among Whites (.5), Blacks (1.7) and Latinos (1.9) (Caetano, Schafer, and Cunradi 2001). Yet, the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) found Latino women are more likely to be raped by their partners (7.9) than non-Latino women (5.7) (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Lastly, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey shows Latino women are less likely to experience rape and sexual assault (.6) than White women (1.1) (Rennison 2002). Additional studies are needed to provide more consistency in these estimates, as well as examine variables associated with sexual IPV.

Stalking

The NVAWS found 4.8 % of Latino women were stalked in their lifetime; the same rate for non-Latino women (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Substantially higher rates of stalking were found in a college sample of Mexican-American women (12.1 % in the previous 12 months) (Coker, Sanderson, Cantu, Huerta, and Fadden 2008) and in a recent national survey (14.6 % of Latino women stalked in their lifetime) (Black et al. 2011). SALAS garnered a higher rate of weighted lifetime prevalence of stalking—22.3 % (Cuevas et al. 2012). Understanding the stalking experiences of women and the role it plays in IPV is important given that stalking is associated with more severe victimization and distress (Logan et al. 2007). Further research needs to be conducted regarding stalking in general, as well as experiences of stalking among racial and ethnic groups.

Threats

Threats of violence appear to be common in relationships where there is physical and/or sexual violence, but threats can also be the only tactic used by an abuser (Coker et al. 2008). Threats or coercion (50.4 %), intimidation (51.4 %), and immigration-related threats (12 %) were reported among a sample of Latino immigrant women in one study on IPV (Hass et al. 2000). Threats were associated with severe physical violence among pregnant Latino women (McFarlane, Wiist, and Watson 1998b; Wiist and McFarlane 1998) and the general population (Miller 2006), again pointing to the overlap of various forms of IPV. Overall, threats occur frequently in abusive relationships, but more estimates are needed from the population of Latino women.

Sociocultural Influences on IPV

When looking at violence within an intimate relationship, it is important to recognize risk factors such as prior victimization, but also factors that may mitigate or reduce the likelihood of victimization, revictimization, or multiple victimizations. Although types and rates of IPV among Latinos have been researched, only a handful of studies have examined the influence of immigrant status and acculturation when looking at IPV or other forms of victimization. This is an unfortunate omission, given that 40 % of Latinos are immigrants (Grieco 2010) and acculturation has been linked to mental health, substance abuse, birth outcomes, youth violence, problem behaviors, and academic outcomes (Cook, Alegría, Lin, and Guo 2009; Lara, Gamboa, Kahramanian, Morales, and Hayes Bautista 2005; Martinez, McClure, Eddy, and Wilson 2011; Schwartz et al. 2011; Sabina et al. 2013; Smokowski, David-Ferdon, and Stroupe 2009).

The experience of IPV in a marginalized ethnic and immigrant group is no doubt reflective of the larger processes of acculturation and immigration that reflect migration and adaptation to the U.S. For immigrant Latinos, time in the U.S. is often accompanied by discrimination and family conflict, leading to poorer outcomes with more time in the U.S. (Cook et al. 2009). Likewise, acculturation affects family functioning and gender roles within the family, including family conflict processes (Flores et al. 2004; Grzywacz, Rao, Gentry, Marín, and Arcury 2009; Marín and Gamba 2003). For example, American orientation among Mexican-American husbands was associated with more frequent conflict, argument intensity, and conflict behavior (Flores et al. 2004). Understanding the relationship between immigrant status, acculturation, and IPV is important for our understanding of not only IPV, but also shedding light on the intra-family changes that occur with intercultural negotiation.

Acculturation

Acculturation can be understood as the processes of cultural changes that occur when groups interact following migration, colonization, or forced relocation (Balls Organista, Marín, and Chun 2010; Berry 2003; Schwartz et al. 2010) and has been largely measured using language fluency or country of origin (Lopez-Class et al. 2011). However, newer conceptualizations of acculturation include both the maintenance of the culture of origin and the host culture (Berry 2003; Schwartz et al. 2010). That is, an individual does not need to replace their culture of origin with the dominant U.S. culture, but can maintain both cultures.

Research has found that acculturation impacts levels of physical, sexual, and psychological IPV, with higher levels of acculturation associated with more reports of victimization (Brown et al. 2003; Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, Vaeth, and Harris 2007; Garcia et al. 2005; Mattson and Rodriguez 1999) and perpetration (Jasinski 1998). These findings suggest that acculturation would potentially impact the risk for, recognition of, and/or reporting of IPV among Latino women (Adames and Campbell 2005; Ahrens, Rios-Mandel, Isas, and del Carmen Lopez 2010). Additional studies report non-significant differences by levels of acculturation (Denham et al. 2007; Kaufman-Kantor et al. 1994). Others have found that English proficiency reduced the risk of violence in multivariate models, but not bivariate analyses (Frias and Angel 2005). Shortcomings of the extant literature include: 1) no examination of the role of acculturation in stalking IPV, 2) limited examination of acculturation and threats, 3) common reliance on proxy indicators such as language fluency and country of origin, and 4) an assumption of a unidimensional acculturation process (e.g., Latino culture is assumed to be replaced). These shortcomings, along with differing samples of Latinos across studies, may contribute to inconsistencies and apparent contradictions in understanding acculturative impacts on IPV. These gaps in the literature are also apparent when examining a more static concept—immigrant status.

Immigrant Status

Although initial assumptions would predict otherwise, studies have found immigrant Latinos do not experience physical, sexual and psychological IPV more often than non-immigrant Latinos (Harris et al. 2005; Hazen and Soriano 2007; Ingram 2007; Kaufman-Kantor et al. 1994). For example, Hazen and Soriano (2007) found lifetime physical IPV to be 48.4 % among U.S. born Latino women and 22.2 % among immigrant Latino women, with a similar pattern for sexual and psychological IPV. Ingram (2007) found immigrants reported lifetime IPV victimization (43.5 %) significantly less often than U.S. born Latinos (56.5 %) in a mixed gender study. Undocumented immigrant women reported higher rates of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse from an intimate partner than women with permanent status or naturalized citizens (Hass et al. 2000).

Nonetheless, analysis of the SALAS data showed no significant differences in the rates of victimization among undocumented women compared to other immigrants with permanent status (Zadnik, Sabina, and Cuevas 2013). However, abusive partners may use immigration-related tactics to control or coerce a woman (Erez, Adelman, and Gregory 2009; Hass et al. 2000). More research is needed on the association between immigrant status and IPV, specifically to include stalking and threats, and to examine if acculturation functions in the same way for immigrant and U.S. born Latino women.

Immigrant status and acculturation have not been well studied in tandem, obscuring the potential interaction between these variables. One study that included both acculturation and immigrant status found differential effects of acculturation on IPV (Harris et al. 2005). Acculturation was associated with IPV for U.S. born Latinos only, not Mexican-born Latinos. On the other hand, acculturative stress was associated with IPV for Mexican-born Latinos. Immigrant status should not be assumed to be an accurate proxy for acculturation as both immigrants and U.S. born Latinos vary substantially on levels of acculturation. Both of these variables are needed to explore the sociocultural influences on IPV.

Thus, questions remain as to the extent and forms of IPV, the role of immigration and acculturation in IPV, the function of Latino cultural maintenance, and the potential interaction of immigrant status and acculturation. Furthermore, the extant research contains a number of limitations including a reliance on one ethnic group of Latinos (i.e., Mexican and/or Mexican-Americans) (Adames and Campbell 2005; Coker et al. 2008; Harris et al. 2005; Hazen and Soriano 2007), utilization of help-seeking (Garcia et al. 2005; Hazen and Soriano 2007; Torres 1991; Van Hightower et al. 2000) or hospital samples (Mattson and Rodriguez 1999; McFarlane, Wiist, and Watson 1998a; Wiist and McFarlane 1998), and geographically specific samples (Denham et al. 2007; Frias and Angel 2005; Harris et al. 2005; Sorenson and Siegel 1992; Sorenson and Telles 1991).

Given the previous limitations, it is important to estimate lifetime rates of IPV among Latino women using a large national sample. This paper will present findings from Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS), a national sample of 2,000 Latino women, looking specifically at cultural correlates predicting rates and types of victimization by intimate partners. Estimates of physical, sexual, stalking, and threat IPV are presented in order to understand the extent of IPV in the Latino community. Next, the patterns of IPV are explored. Third, an analysis of the influence of acculturation (both Anglo and Latino orientations) and immigrant status on IPV is offered, including testing for interaction effects. We aim to provide a comprehensive estimate of IPV among Latino women and shed light on the related sociocultural variables of immigrant status and acculturation.

Method

Participants

The Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) Study queried women’s lifetime victimization experiences and responses. As described previously (Cuevas et al. 2012), SALAS was a bilingual national phone survey of 2,000 Latino women living in the United States. Ninety percent of participants were living in high-density Latino areas (80 % or higher) based on Census 2000 data. Data were collected from May to September 2008 and the response rate was 30.7 % while the cooperation rate was 53.7 % based on standard definitions established by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (2009).

Table 1 presents educational level, immigration status, preferred language, relationship status, employment status, and household income for the full sample and Latino women that experienced IPV. Women who experienced IPV were 45 years of age on average and 74 % had a high school education or higher. A majority of participants (75.7 %) were U.S. citizens (either U.S. born or naturalized) and the sample was roughly split on their language of preference. About 63 % of the sample had a household income of less than $30,000 in 2007. In addition, 1.4 % of the sample identified as either lesbian or bisexual. Those who reported IPV differed significantly from those who did not on all demographic variables, except sexual orientation and household income.

Table 1 Sample Descriptives for Full Sample and those who Experienced IPV Victimization (N = 2,000)
Full size table

Measures

Demographic Information

Demographic information collected from participants included age, country of origin, immigrant status, preferred language, sexual orientation, educational level, employment status, household income, housing status, and relationship status. Participants were asked, “What country were you born in?” and all non-U.S. responses were coded as immigrant. A series of five yes/no questions outlining legal residence statuses (i.e., naturalized citizen, permanent U.S. residency, current visa, refugee/asylum status, or applied for one of the previous status) allowed determination of legal status. When respondents answered no to all of the legal statuses, they were coded as undocumented. Immigrants with citizenship or permanent resident status were designated as having a permanent legal status.

Lifetime Trauma and Victimization History (LTVH)

The LTVH evaluates lifetime trauma and victimization history in reference to traumatic experiences (Widom, Dutton, Czaja, and DuMont 2005). Items for SALAS were limited to those focused on interpersonal victimization, kidnapping, and witnessing violence. If a participant endorsed a victimization screener (except for witnessed victimization), follow-up questions were asked regarding the age of occurrence, duration, frequency, perpetrator, injury, and posttraumatic reaction. Participants were then asked if anyone else ever did that to them and completed a second loop if appropriate. For each loop, responses were coded as IPV if the perpetrator indicated was a current spouse, ex-spouse, a boyfriend/girlfriend or an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.

The questions for each victimization incident were then consolidated into four categories: Physical IPV, sexual IPV, stalking IPV, and threat IPV. Stalking IPV was ascertained by asking participants “Have you ever been stalked by anyone? For example, has anyone followed or spied on you?” Physical IPV items include being 1) shot, stabbed, struck, beaten, punched, slapped around or otherwise physically harmed, and 2) assaulted with any kind of weapon. Threat IPV included 1) being threatened with any kind of weapon, and 2) being threatened in a face-to-face confrontation. Sexual IPV included being 1) forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity, 2) attempted to be forced in unwanted sexual activity, and 3) touching private parts of body or made to touch someone else’s against wishes.

In order to assess the extent of victimizations by non-intimates, responses were coded to indicate if a non-intimate perpetrated physical, sexual, threat, or stalking violence (categorized as above). Then the sum of non-intimate partner victimizations was obtained by adding across the 4 types of violence resulting in a score ranging from 0 (no non-intimate partner victimization) to 4 (physical, sexual, threat and stalking victimization by a non-intimate). As demonstrated on the original LTVH, the instrument has adequate predictive, criterion, and convergent validity (Widom et al. 2005).

Brief Acculturation Rating Scale of Mexican-Americans – II (Brief ARSMA – II)

The Brief ARSMA-II, based on a subset of items from the complete ARSMA-II (Cuéllar, Arnold, and Maldonado 1995), assesses both Anglo and Mexican cultural identity (Bauman 2005). Twelve statements present behaviors associated with either Anglo or Mexican orientations and participants report the degree to which each statement accurately describes them on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (almost always). An example Anglo orientation statement is “My friends are of Anglo origin,” and an example Mexican orientation statement is, “I enjoy speaking Spanish.” None of the items are Mexican-specific and the instrument has been used with other Latino groups (Cuéllar et al. 1995), therefore we refer to Mexican orientation as Latino orientation. For the SALAS sample there was acceptable internal consistency (alpha) for both the Anglo orientation scale (.78) and Latino orientation scale (.86).

Procedures

A detailed description of the study procedures has been published elsewhere (Cuevas et al. 2012) and a summary is provided here. Random digit dial methodology was applied in high-density Latino areas based on Census 2000. Phone exchanges pertinent to the high-density areas were used and random digits added to produce a random sample within high-density Latino neighborhoods. Entrance criteria included identification as a Latino woman and being over the age of 18. Interviews lasted an average of 28 minutes and covered the state of social issues, demographic information, acculturation, lifetime victimization, help-seeking behaviors, religiosity, gender role ideology, psychological symptoms, and posttraumatic symptoms. Support hotline information and follow-up calls were offered for participants who were distressed by the interview (about 1 % of the sample).

Translation of all instruments into Spanish was completed by the survey firm and verified by two bilingual professionals, except for the Brief ARSMA-II that already had a standard translation. Participants responded to the survey in their language of choice and 71.4 % completed the survey in Spanish. Participants were paid $10 for their participation. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Northeastern University approved the protocol with subsequent analysis also approved by The Pennsylvania State University.

Analysis Plan

To ascertain the extent of IPV, descriptive statistics are presented for the overall sample and by immigrant status, legal status, and language preference. Responses of the sample were weighted (Cuevas et al. 2012) to better estimate the U.S. Latino population in terms of age and household income based on the American Community Survey for 2007. Next, a profile of types of IPV experienced by Latino women is presented in order to target the common overlap of forms of IPV. Then, bivariate correlations examined the relationship between study variables.

The central question regarding the influence of acculturation and immigrant status on IPV among Latino women was answered via a series of sequential logistic regressions applied to the unweighted data. Logistic regression models result in adjusted odds ratio (AOR) coefficients; AORs greater than one reflect higher odds of IPV and AORs less than one reflect lower odds of IPV for a one unit change in the independent variable. The first model entered in the main study variables—immigrant status, Anglo orientation, and Latino orientation along with control variables of age, socioeconomic status (based on education and household income) and number of victimizations (by non-intimate perpetrators). The second model added interaction terms to explore the moderating role of immigrant status in the relationship between acculturation and IPV victimization. Any IPV, physical IPV, sexual IPV, stalking IPV and threat IPV served as the dependent variables in the sequential logistic regression models.

In order to aid in the interpretation of the results and to prevent multicollinearity, variables were centered (acculturation) or standardized (immigrant status) (Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken 2003). Interaction terms were constructed by multiplying immigrant status by Anglo orientation and immigrant status by Latino orientation. Nag R 2 serves as multiple correlation coefficient estimate for logistical models and can be interpreted as the variance accounted for by the model (Nagelkerke 1991).

Results

The weighted rate of lifetime IPV (see Table 2) reported by this sample was 15.6 % (13.2 % unweighted), which included physical IPV (7.9 %), sexual IPV (6.0 %), stalking IPV (5.8 %) and threat IPV (8.6 %). Rates of IPV significantly differed according to immigrant status and language preference. Non-immigrants reported rates of IPV 2 to 3 times that of immigrants across all IPV types. Latino women with an English language preference reported rates of IPV 3 to 4 times of Latino women with a Spanish language preference across all IPV types. Stalking represented the largest difference in rates with women with a Spanish language preference reporting a prevalence of 3.0 % and women with an English language preference reporting 11.9 %.

Table 2 Rate of Intimate Partner Victimization by Status
Full size table

Table 3 shows the profiles of IPV types among those who reported any IPV. No single profile represented 20 % or more of Latino IPV victims. The most common type of IPV was physical only (19.4 %), followed by physical and threat (18.3 %). Forty-eight percent of the sample reported they experienced only one form of IPV (physical, sexual, stalking or threats) and 23 % reported three of more types of IPV.

Table 3 Profile of IPV Types for Victimized Women (n = 236)
Full size table

Bivariate correlations (not shown) revealed IPV overall was associated with younger ages (r =−.08, p < .001), higher SES (r = .11, p < .001), a higher number of victimizations by non-intimate perpetrators (r = .32, p < .001), being a non-immigrant (r =−.19, p < .001, 1 coded as immigrant), English language preference (r =−.26, p < .001, 1 coded as Spanish language preference), higher levels of Anglo orientation (r = .18, p < .001), and lower levels of Latino orientation (r =−.19, p < .001). Types of IPV were moderately to strongly correlated with each other ranging from a correlation of .30 (p < .001) between physical and sexual IPV to .62 (p < .001) between physical and threatened IPV.

The first step in the sequential logistic regression analyses (see Table 4) shows that number of victimizations by non-intimate perpetrators was consistently associated with increased odds of IPV across all types (AORs from 1.38 to 1.91). Immigrant respondents had 20 % lower odds of reporting any form of IPV (AOR = 0.80, 95 % CI = 0.69, 0.94) and 22 % lower odds of reporting physical IPV (AOR = 0.78, 95 % CI = 0.64, 0.95). Those with high Anglo orientation scores had 22 % higher odds of any IPV (AOR = 1.22, p = .03, 95 % CI = 1.02, 1.45), and 79 % higher odds of stalking IPV (AOR = 1.79, p < .001, 95 % CI = 1.30, 2.46). Those with high Latino orientation had from 19 to 39 % lower odds of all IPV types (AORs from 0.61 to 0.81). Nag R 2 for the first step of the models was .20 for any IPV, .15 for physical IPV, .14 for sexual IPV, .18 for stalking IPV, and .12 for threat. The second step of the sequential logistic regressions largely did not add a significant amount of predictive ability, except for stalking (Nag R 2 increased to .21).

Table 4 Sequential Logistic Regression Models Predicting Intimate Partner Victimization (n = 1,918)
Full size table

An interaction effect between immigrant status and Latino orientation was found for stalking IPV. To probe this interaction, the regression equation was fitted to determine the predicted odds of stalking IPV (Jaccard 2001) under four conditions that varied the main variables. Latino orientation (one standard deviation above and below) and immigrant status (yes, no) were varied and other independent variables were set at their mean to show the log odds of stalking under the four conditions. Thus the logit-transformed probability of an event, in this case stalking IPV, was determined and to ease interpretation these were transformed to probabilities of stalking IPV (0 to 1) (Pampel 2000). The probabilities can be interpreted as the likelihood of stalking IPV under the four conditions presented. As shown in Fig. 1, Latino orientation was more protective for immigrants than for U.S. born Latino women.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Probability of stalking IPV for immigrant and U.S. born Latino women with high and low Latino orientations showing the interaction effects from the logistic regression model

Full size image

Discussion

Based on the SALAS study, a large national sample of Latino women, 15.6 % of Latino women experienced IPV in their lifetimes. Threats of violence and physical assault were the most common forms of IPV experienced by Latino women, similar to women of other racial or ethnic groups. Stalking and sexual victimization were reported less frequently, but still played a role in the IPV experiences of Latino women. These tactics and combinations of tactics are common in violent relationships (Coker, Smith, McKeown, and King 2000; Miller 2006). The likelihood of these experiences was altered by sociocultural variables; namely acculturation and immigration showing that cultural migration and adaptation may influence base aspects of couple functioning, such as safety.

This estimate of IPV among Latino women is markedly lower than those garnered from previous studies even though more forms of IPV were included in the current study than in previous studies. Latino women in the NVAWS reported a lifetime rate of 23.4 % based on physical assault (including threats), rape, and stalking (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Another recent national study found a lifetime rate of 37.1 % among Latino women based on physical, sexual, and stalking IPV (Black et al. 2011). Why is the SALAS rate lower than these previously found? Characteristics of the SALAS sample likely differentiate it from other national samples. Although the abovementioned studies were all bilingual, SALAS sampled high-density Latino areas that likely include more immigrants. The number of immigrants in SALAS is in line with the demographics of the Latino population as a whole (Grieco 2010) and, as shown here, immigrant status is related to IPV rates.

A common misconception is that Latino couples are characterized by violence. There is no evidence from SALAS that Latino women experience an inflated rate of victimization compared to the general population. Indeed, the estimate garnered here is lower than most U.S. national estimates for the general population as well as estimates of spousal abuse from Mexico (Avila-Burgos et al. 2009). Two large-scale U.S. national studies produced IPV prevalence estimates of 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 women and a Mexican national sample garnered an estimate of 1 in 4 women (Avila-Burgos et al. 2009; Black et al. 2011; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). The findings here estimate 1 in 6 Latino women experience IPV. While the current study cannot directly compare Latinos to other ethnic/racial groups, there is substantial previous research to support the notion that Latino couples are either no more or less violent than couples in other racial or ethnic groups (Bonomi et al. 2009; Ingram 2007; Ramisetty-Mikler et al. 2007; Sorenson and Telles 1991; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000).

The victimization profiles underscore that a variety of tactics are often used in tandem within abusive relationships. No profile surfaced that accounted for the majority of IPV victims. Of noteworthy interest, stalking was prevalent among IPV victims at rates equivalent with sexual violence. Perhaps when individuals were allowed to self-define stalking in SALAS, as opposed to being given a set of questions or behaviors to select, reporting increased. Much more research attention is given to sexual violence than stalking in intimate relationships. More attention is needed to understand the role stalking plays in IPV, and this appears especially important for Latino women. Stalking was especially pertinent to English speaking and U.S. born Latino women, pointing to the role cultural factors may play in stalking. Yet, among immigrants, women with non-permanent legal status reported higher stalking rates than those with permanent status; potentially their immigration status and time in the U.S. are marked with extensive fear of being followed or spied upon.

Latino women’s experiences with IPV are shaped by their cultural migration and adaptation to the U.S. While immigration is replete with stressors that include uprooting families into a new and largely unknown country, learning a new language, and acclimating to new customs, immigrant status is actually associated with decreased reported experiences of IPV. This association was found for any IPV and physical IPV even when SES, age, victimization by non-intimates, and acculturation were taken into account.

These findings are supported by previous work on IPV (Hazen and Soriano 2007; Kaufman-Kantor et al. 1994) and interpersonal victimization generally (Sabina et al. 2013). Immigrant families largely come to the U.S. in hopes of improving conditions and negotiate the difficulties associated with immigration for the benefits associated with life in the U.S. The process of immigration itself requires an intact family unit in which partners are working together for a common goal. Immigration, thus, may require increased levels of stability and cohesion. This selection effect may account for Latino immigrants reporting less IPV than both U.S. couples and Mexican couples. Other possible explanations include under-reporting by immigrant Latino women and cultural strengths among immigrant populations (e.g., familism). Indeed, Latino orientation among all Latinos was associated with decreased reporting of all forms of victimization.

Latino orientation implies a strong connection to the Spanish language and presumably Latino cultural values and norms. Latino culture stresses traditional family values, the sanctity of family life, loyalty to the family unit, and extended kinship networks (Perilla, Bakerman, and Norris 1994). Latino families that maintain culture of origin involvement are more likely to also exhibit family cohesion, adaptability and familism (Smokowski, Rose, and Bacallao 2008). Familism is associated with positive outcomes such as prosocial behavior, a lack of child abuse, and psychological well-being (Calderón-Tena, Knight, and Carlo 2011; Coohey 2001; N. Rodriguez, Paez, and Myers 2007). The social support offered by families with strong social ties may alleviate risk for IPV. Traditional gender roles may also be associated with Latino orientation and women who endorse these gender roles appear to be less likely to experience IPV (Harris et al. 2005). Additionally, Latino women high in Latino orientation may also exhibit greater religiosity and perhaps also have partners that exhibit greater religiosity. At least one study found that religious involvement is associated with decreased levels of IPV (Ellison, Trinitapoli, Anderson, and Johnson 2007). In sum, findings suggest Latino orientation is a protective factor for IPV, albeit with a small effect size.

At the same time, as acculturation changes occur and Anglo orientation increases, the risk of any IPV and stalking increase. The employment of women is one dimension of acculturative changes related to IPV. As women join the labor force, changes occur within couples such as redistribution of power and labor, which are often met with tension (Grzywacz et al. 2009). Overall, as women develop an Anglo orientation, family conflict appears to increase, yielding dangerous results for some Latino women. Husbands and boyfriends may view acculturation shifts in Latino women as threatening to their role in the family, thus increasing the risk for IPV. The cultural shifts that take place for Latinos exert a very real, but modest sized, personal influence on family dynamics.

The unique influence of acculturation and immigrant status on stalking represents a novel and intriguing finding. In the final model, Anglo orientation was related to increased odds of stalking, while Latino orientation and immigrant status decreased the odds of stalking. Additionally, an interaction effect was found such that Latino orientation was more protective for immigrants than for U.S. born Latino women. It appears that U.S. born Latino women are at more risk for stalking regardless of Latino acculturation. One possibility is that U.S. born women are more likely to work, and maintain activities outside of the home, and therefore abusive partners are more likely to use stalking to gain or maintain power and control.

Traditional immigrant Latino women and the partners they date or marry may not use this tactic in abusive relationships. Of note, 66 % of the intimates who stalked the women in this sample were either ex-spouses or ex-romantic partners as opposed to current partners (analyses not shown). Stalking may be more often used as a tactic toward exes (Rosenfeld and Lewis 2005) or during the dissolution of relationships. Thus, Anglo oriented Latino women and Latino oriented Latino women may experience differential risk as they end relationships or have partners who respond to dissolution in contrasting ways, but more research is needed to examine these relationships. Additionally, Anglo oriented women may be more familiar with the term stalking and associated behaviors. All these hypotheses are conjectures—more research, particularly qualitative, is needed to understand stalking among the lives of acculturated and immigrant Latino women.

Despite the novel findings gleaned from the SALAS study, there are a number of limitations to the study. First, the SALAS study identified and surveyed women in high-density Latino areas. Latino women living in high-density Latino areas may not reflect the larger Latino community and a particular substratum of Latino women (e.g., urban) may be over-represented in the data, although this was somewhat addressed by the post-stratification weights. There was also a 31 % response rate, which impacts the ability to generalize findings to the larger Latino community, although the cooperation rate that does not include cases of unknown eligibility, was higher (53.7 %). Given that we asked about lifetime victimization, memory deterioration may also affect the reporting of incidents. While only measures that were previously validated were used, we did not ensure that people with varying levels of education understood all items. With regard to the measure, IPV also includes psychological abuse and SALAS failed to measure this because of time constraints. In addition, there was no social desirability measure in SALAS and it is possible that social desirability was more pronounced among immigrants. More work is needed along these lines in order to fully gauge the level and impact of IPV among Latino women.

Future work should seek to examine additional cultural influences on victimization as well as cultural factors that do not play a strong role among Latinos. For example, exposure to media violence does not seem to play a significant role in IPV and dating violence (Ferguson 2011; Ferguson, San Miguel, Garza, and Jerabeck 2012). Sociocultural variables for future consideration include familism, gender role ideology, simpatía, discrimination experienced in the U.S., and ethnic identity, as well as how couples match or mismatch on these dimensions. Additionally, it would be important to determine the role sociocultural variables play in the experience of multiple victimizations; that is, IPV along with other non-intimate perpetrated violence.

The current study highlights the extent and diversity of IPV evident in Latino intimate relationships. About 1 in 6 Latino women are estimated to experience IPV and thus prevention/ intervention efforts and services should be mindful of this population in shaping their programs. Additionally, both policymakers and service providers should utilize a comprehensive definition of IPV that extends beyond physical or sexual IPV. Service providers can give special attention to U.S. born acculturated Latino women who experience higher levels of violence and also may feel unwelcomed in mainstream services. Another important take-away message for policymakers and service providers is that acculturation is not always associated with positive outcomes. The findings here imply there is a detrimental effect to losing aspects of one’s culture and intervention and prevention efforts could seek to maintain or increase Latino cultural values. Together, these findings highlight some potential areas for development when investigating victimization and developing services for such a diverse group as Latinos.