The Role of Violence Acceptance and Inequitable Gender Norms in Intimate Partner Violence Severity Among Couples in Zambia

2019 ◽  
pp. 088626051987672
Author(s):  
Shoshanna L. Fine ◽  
Jeremy C. Kane ◽  
Sarah M. Murray ◽  
Stephanie Skavenski ◽  
Saphira Munthali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Gender Norms ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
The Relationship

Inequitable gender norms, including the acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, have been found to be associated with the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and victimization. Despite these findings, few studies have considered whether inequitable gender norms are related to IPV severity. This study uses baseline data from a psychotherapeutic intervention targeting heterosexual couples ( n = 247) in Lusaka, Zambia, who reported moderate to severe male-perpetrated IPV and male hazardous alcohol use to consider: (a) prevailing gender norms, including those related to IPV; (b) the relationship between IPV acceptance and IPV severity; and (c) the relationship between inequitable gender norms and IPV severity. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to model the relationships between IPV acceptance and inequitable gender norms, and female-reported IPV severity (including threats of violence, physical violence, sexual violence, and total violence), separately among male and female participants. In general, men and women were similar in their patterns of agreement with gender norms, with both highly endorsing items related to household roles. More than three-quarters of men (78.1%) and women (78.5%) indicated overall acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, with no significant differences between men and women in their endorsement of any IPV-related gender norms. Among men, IPV acceptance was associated with a statistically significant increase in IPV perpetration severity in terms of threatening violence ( B = 5.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.84, 9.89]), physical violence ( B = 4.54, 95% CI = [0.10, 8.98]), and total violence ( B = 11.65, 95% CI = [3.14, 20.16]). There was no association between IPV acceptance and IPV victimization severity among women. Unlike IPV acceptance, there was no evidence for a relationship between inequitable gender norms and IPV severity for either men or women. These findings have implications for the appropriateness of gender transformative interventions in targeting men and women in relationships in which there is ongoing IPV.

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ara A'Court
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Ambivalent Sexism ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
Gendered Theory ◽  
The Relationship

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry W. Bennett ◽  
Oliver J. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Psychological Characteristics ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use coercive actions toward intimate or formerly intimate partners, including emotional abuse, stalking, threats, physical violence, or rape. The lifetime prevalence of IPV is 35% for women and 28% for men, with at an estimated economic cost of over ten billion dollars. IPV occurs in all demographic sectors of society, but higher frequencies of IPV perpetration are found among people who are younger and who have lower income and less education. Similar proportions of men and women use IPV, but when the effects of partner abuse are considered, women bear the greatest physical and behavioral health burden. Single-explanation causes for IPV such as substance abuse, patriarchy, and personality disorders are sometimes preferred by practitioners, advocates, and policymakers, but an understanding of IPV perpetration is enhanced when we look through the multiple lenses of culture and society, relationship, and psychological characteristics of the perpetrators.

scholarly journals Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ara A'Court
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Ambivalent Sexism ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
Gendered Theory ◽  
The Relationship

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

Coercive Controlling Behaviors and Reporting Physical Intimate Partner Violence in Australian Women: An Exploration

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780122098593
Author(s):  
Brittany Patafio ◽  
Peter Miller ◽  
Arlene Walker ◽  
Kerri Coomber ◽  
Ashlee Curtis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Physical Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Differential Utility ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Controlling Behaviors

This study explores two approaches to measuring coercive controlling behaviors (CCBs)—counting how many different CCB types and examining the frequency of each CCB experienced—to examine their utility in explaining the relationship between CCBs and physical intimate partner violence (IPV). Australian women aged 18–68 years ( n = 739; Mage = 31.58, SDage = 11.76) completed an online survey. Count and frequency CCB approaches yielded similar significant associations with increased physical IPV. Both approaches suggest that frightening behaviors in particular are significantly indicative of also experiencing physical IPV; however, when you count CCB types, public name-calling becomes important, whereas when you examine the frequency of each CCB type, jealousy/possessiveness becomes important. These findings suggest differential utility between measures of CCBs, which examine the frequency of specific CCB types and which count CCB types, and that both approaches are useful in understanding how coercion and control relate to physical violence within intimate relationships.

Women and Men’s Use of Coercive Control in Intimate Partner Violence

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten Robertson ◽  
Tamar Murachver
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Violent Relationships ◽  
Three Samples ◽  
Conflict Tactics ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Controlling Behaviors

This study examined the relationship between coercive control and intimate partner violence (IPV) for men and women and for targets and perpetrators. One hundred and seventy-two participants (85 men, 87 women) recruited from three samples reported on their own and their partner’s behavior. IPV was measured using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). Coercive control was measured using modified items from the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI). Coercive control was associated with IPV, and this relationship was similar for men and women across the three samples. In fact, coercive control was predominantly reciprocal in nature, with women and men reporting both receiving and perpetrating controlling behaviors. Overall, coercive controlling behaviors were characteristic of individuals within violent relationships, regardless of their physical abuse status. The experience of violence, rather than gender, was the best predictor of coercive control.

He Said, She Said: Comparing Men’s and Women’s Descriptions of Men’s Partner Violence

2019 ◽  
pp. 088626051988853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmine Rodriguez ◽  
Sandra K. Burge ◽  
Johanna Becho ◽  
David A. Katerndahl ◽  
Robert C. Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Relationship Length

More than one in three women and one in four men in the United States report victimization by intimate partner violence. Women and men often disagree about the frequency or severity of violent acts, and researchers have proposed various reasons for discordant reports. Using daily surveys and qualitative interviews, we compared men’s and women’s reports about men’s partner aggression and examined language they used to describe their experiences. Fifteen heterosexual couples in violent relationships completed an 8-week study that involved daily telephone surveys about violent behaviors and household environment; baseline and end-of-study surveys addressing predictors and outcomes of violence; and qualitative end-of-study interviews to provide perspective about their relationships. Most participants were Latinos with low income. Relationship length was 5.5 years, median. In daily surveys, both partners reported similar frequencies of men’s physical violence (4% of days), but men reported more physical violence by women than women did (8% vs. 3% of days). The qualitative analysts compared men’s and women’s accounts of male-to-female violence and observed gender-specific variations in style of reporting. Men used indirect language to describe their violent behavior, implied definitions of abuse, and justified their aggression. These findings have implications for clinical guidelines to screen and intervene with victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence in primary care and emergency settings. Future research should focus on perpetrators of violence and examine effective ways for health care providers to identify and manage their care.

Youth intimate partner violence: barriers and bridges during the ending process

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sibel Korkmaz
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Young Women ◽  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Abusive Relationships ◽  
Individual Factors ◽  
Societal Norms ◽  
Ending Process ◽  
The Relationship

A substantial body of existing research offers valuable knowledge about how victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) manage to leave abusive partners. To date, however, such studies have focused on adult women. The present article focuses on abusive youth relationships and how they end, adopting an intersectional approach to place analytic focus on youth, gender and sexuality as societal positions. The data consist of in-depth ‘teller-focused’ interviews with 18 IPV victims aged 17–23 in Sweden. The theory-driven analysis brings to the fore a multilevel Ending Process presenting ‘barriers’ and ‘bridges’ on three levels: the societal, the social and the individual. Societal norms, social arenas and individual factors are all shown to affect youth victimisation as well as the relationship ending process. Gender norms seem to be key in understanding IPV among young women, as they appear to present a challenge to ending abusive relationships. It is important to acknowledge violence in youth intimate relationships and to consider the whole of a young person’s experience of IPV. Researchers, practitioners and policymakers need to be sensitive to how different societal positions interact and affect youth victimisation and young people’s ability to end abusive relationships.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>It is important to acknowledge violence in youth intimate relationships and to consider how the experience of IPV may vary according to young people’s societal positions.</li><br /><li>Societal norms, social arenas and individual factors are all important aspects in understanding youth victimisation of IPV, as well as the relationship ending process.</li><br /><li>Gender norms seem to be key in understanding IPV among young women, as they appear to present a challenge to ending abusive relationships.</li></ul>

The Pentecostal Gender Paradox: Pentecostalism and Intimate Partner Violence in Ghana

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Gundersen
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Health Surveys ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Female Leaders ◽  
Gender Paradox ◽  
The Relationship

Pentecostalism is large, influential, and growing quickly in Ghana. This growth has been argued to benefit women due to the religion’s teachings on individualism and use of female leaders. However, the religion’s focus on female submissiveness may also present a challenge to women. Whilst this theoretical paradox has been largely untested, Gundersen (Gundersen, S (2018). Will god make me rich? An investigation into the relationship between membership in Charismatic churches, wealth, and women’s empowerment in Ghana. Religions, 9(6), 195) finds that women who identify as Pentecostal exhibit less decision-making power than other Christians when it comes to big household purchases and their own health care. Using the 2008 and 2014 Demographic Health Surveys, this study examines the relationship between Pentecostalism and intimate partner violence in Ghana. Women who identify as Pentecostal are more likely to have experienced physical violence than other women, but this effect may disappear for women in the highest wealth quintiles. Higher wealth Pentecostal women are also less likely to believe a husband is justified in hitting his wife. Thus, it seems wealth may have a protective effect for Pentecostal women in Ghana.

scholarly journals The relationship between criminal behaviour over the life-course and intimate partner violence perpetration in later life

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 784-805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janna Verbruggen ◽  
Arjan Blokland ◽  
Amanda L Robinson ◽  
Christopher D Maxwell
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Life Course ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Later Life ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Criminal Behaviour ◽  
Violent Offending ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
The Life Course ◽  
The Relationship

This study examines the relationship between criminal behaviour over the life-course and intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and general violence in later life. The study uses data on a subsample ( N = 585) from the Dutch Criminal Career and Life-Course Study, and combines officially registered longitudinal data on convictions with self-reported data on IPV perpetration, violent offending and several individual factors, collected at age 60. The results show that those with a history of persistent general and violent offending over the life-course are at increased risk of perpetrating IPV and other violent crimes in later life. Additionally, certain background and current factors are also related to IPV perpetration. Men who have experienced family violence in childhood and those who are married are more likely to report IPV perpetration, whereas relationship quality and employment are associated with a reduced likelihood of IPV perpetration. The findings suggest that an integrated theoretical approach is most useful to understand IPV perpetration, with the ultimate aim of informing evidence-based interventions necessary for reducing IPV in society.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document