INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Influence of Individual and National Level Factors on Attitudes Toward Intimate
Partner Violence
Brittany E. Hayesa,* and Katharine A. Boydb
a
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, P.O.
Box 2296 Huntsville, TX 77341
936-294-2616
[email protected]
b
Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, The University of Exeter,
Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, Devon, EX4 4SB, UK
01392 725644
[email protected]
*
corresponding author
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Ryan Randa and the anonymous
reviewers for their comments.
1
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Influence of Individual and National Level Factors on Attitudes Toward Intimate
Partner Violence
The study evaluated if individual and national level factors influence IPV attitudes. Using
Demographic and Health Surveys’ data, multi-level modeling was used to analyze
506,935 females nested in 41 nations. The results indicated respondents in nations with
higher levels of gender inequality, measured by the Social Institutions and Gender Index,
were more likely to agree a husband is justified to abuse his wife when she argues with
him. National level attitudes toward IPV and decision-making at the individual level were
significant predictors of IPV attitudes. The presence of another female while the survey
was administered and differences across nations in question wording significantly
affected IPV attitudes. The results confirm both individual and national level factors
shape individual IPV attitudes. National policies and programming should address gender
inequality and patriarchal attitudes.
Key Words: Intimate partner violence; Attitudes; Gender Inequality; Macro-Micro
Level; Multi-level modeling
2
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Influence of Individual and National Level Factors on Attitudes Toward Intimate
Partner Violence
Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects women worldwide, touching families in all
nations. Globally, lifetime IPV prevalence rates for women range from 19 to 66 percent
(Stöck et al. 2014). Prior research has found that supportive patriarchal and pro-violence
attitudes are associated with increased rates of IPV perpetration and victimization.
Cumulatively, this research suggests that a patriarchal ideology underlies violence in
intimate relationships (Abramsky et al., 2011; Stith et al. 2004; Sugarman and Frankel
1996). Given that the patriarchal underpinnings, which legitimatize IPV, may be a part of
cultural or national norms (DeKeseredy 2011; Gillum et al. 2016; Zakar, Zakar, and
Kraemer, 2013), nations with greater gender inequality, codified socially and through
legislation, may be more likely to view this type of behavior as acceptable.
Individual attitudes toward behaviors are shaped by a number of factors,
including individual experiences, peer attitudes and actions, family and community
values, and national norms (Ali and Naylor 2013; Flood and Pease 2009; Jung 2015).
Importantly, previous research has identified the effect of a nation’s context on individual
attitudes, such as attitudes toward traditional gender roles (Price 2016) or suicide (Boyd
and Chung 2012), and behaviors, such as sex outside of marriage (Adamczyk and Hayes
2012) and partner violence (Sabina 2013). Though the impact of national norms on
attitudes toward IPV has been theoretically discussed (Ali and Naylor 2013), it remains
largely unexplored empirically (Pierotti 2013; Waltermaurer 2012).
3
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Individuals develop and become socialized within the geopolitical borders of their
nation. Globally, nations have different political and social environments, national
policies, and cultural contexts, which may shape individual attitudes toward IPV. Greater
acceptability may lead to increased frequency in violence without the corresponding
increase in resources to victims. Victims’ attitudes towards their own experience may be
shaped by exposure to patriarchal policies and national norms. Using data from 41
developing nations, we examined the effect of the macro-level national context as well as
individual factors on attitudes toward IPV across specific scenarios while also accounting
for survey differences across nations. The national macro level in the analyses consists of
cultural, societal, and national policy measures that have distinct effects on attitudes
toward IPV.
MICRO AND MACRO LEVEL EFFECTS ON ATTITUDES TOWARD IPV
The cause of IPV can be attributed to individual, neighborhood, state, and
national factors and can be understood from an ecological approach (Ali and Naylor
2013; Flood and Pease 2009; Heise 1998; Sabrina 2013; Yllö 1984). The microsystem
focuses on individual characteristics, like a person’s level of education or partner equality
in education and decision-making (Ismayilova 2015; VanderEnde et al. 2015). Prior
research has found neighborhood characteristics, such as community endorsement of IPV
and neighborhood disadvantage, significantly affect the occurrence of IPV (Beyer,
Wallis, and Hamberger 2013; Jain et al. 2010; Pinchevsky and Wright 2012) and attitudes
toward IPV (Jesmin 2015a; 2015b; Uthman, Moradi, and Lawoko 2009). There remains a
gap in the literature regarding how national contextual factors influence attitudes toward
4
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
IPV (Pierotti 2013; Waltermaurer 2012). Though society is much more complex than
micro and macro levels (Yllö 1984), in the case of IPV, the macrosystem may contain
norms, which may be formalized in legal controls, that reinforce patriarchy and allow
abusers to legitimize and justify their use of power and control over their victims
(DeKeseredy 2011; Gillum et al. 2016; Zakar et al. 2013). These broader national norms
may also affect attitudes.
Macro Level: National Effects
Patriarchal cultures grant men status and authority over women and place blame
on the victim (DeKeseredy 2011; Gillum et al. 2016; Zakar et al. 2013). Some countries
(e.g. Armenia, Nigeria, Mali) still do not have a law against IPV. Across the globe, an
intimate partner commits one third of femicides (Stöckl et al. 2013). Differences in
culture, economics, and policies not only increase risk of IPV, but may shape attitudes
(Sabina 2013; Waltermaurer, 2012).
Such norms have created structural obstacles for women and gender equality by
limiting access to education and legal rights. Faramarzi, Esmailzadeh, and Mosavi,
(2005) have suggested different rates of IPV reflect different rates of acceptability across
nations and emphasized that patriarchal ideologies may impact not only women’s
participation in politics and economic life but also whether IPV is defined as a crime
within a nation. These macro level factors may influence opportunities for gender
equality at both the national and individual level, from legal restrictions on women and
limited opportunities for women to get jobs across the country (i.e. macro), to limited
employment opportunities for individual women, and the experience of violence in one’s
5
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
own home (i.e. micro). Likewise, characteristics of the macrosystem are likely to
influence attitudes toward IPV. Variations in the acceptance of IPV have been found both
across and within nations (Dalal, Lee, and Gifford 2012; Waltermaurer 2012). Therefore,
empirical analyses and policies should consider the multiple factors that can affect
attitudes, ranging from individual to national influences (Pierotti 2013).
Few studies have examined the impact of national context and policies on
individual attitudes toward IPV. Gracia and Herrero (2006) found victim blaming
moderated the effect of gender inequality, as measured by the Gender Empowerment
Index, on attitudes toward IPV in European countries. In contrast, Uthman et al. (2009)
did not find national factors (e.g. adult illiteracy, poverty, and unemployment rates)
influenced individual attitudes in 17 Sub-Saharan African countries. Using similar
methodology, the current study expands upon this research by examining the effect of the
social environment, by including both measures of the nation’s level of development and
gender inequality, on individual attitudes toward IPV.
Micro Level: Individual Effects
Despite being subject to similar gender norms, individuals within the same
national context may have differing attitudes toward IPV due to personal characteristics.
Previous research has found women who have been or were currently married and rural
residents were more likely to agree a husband is justified to abuse his wife when she
engages in certain behaviors, such as neglecting the children or going out without
informing her husband (Speizer 2010). Many rural communities are close knit and may
6
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
have norms that legitimatize IPV, potentially hindering deterrence of IPV by neighbors
(Rennison, DeKeseredy, and Dragiewicz 2013).
Economic status and power imbalances between a husband and wife also affect
acceptance of IPV. Women who scored higher on the wealth index (i.e. richer), a measure
of the household’s economic status, were less likely to justify IPV than those who scored
lower (i.e. poorer) (Jesmin 2015a). Oyediran and Isiugo-Abanihe (2005) proposed this is
because women in wealthier households were more likely to contribute financially,
changing the household’s power dynamics. However, the effect of a female’s
employment status on IPV attitudes has been mixed (Linos, Khawaja, and Al-Nsour
2010).
When power is balanced between the individuals in the couple, violence is often
less severe (Collins 2008). Cross-nationally, as women gain more education or have
greater say in decision-making they are less likely to agree IPV is justified (Linos et al.
2010; Waltermaurer 2012) and are less likely to expeirence IPV (Assaf and Chaban 2013;
Donta et al. 2015). Since there has been consistency in individual level factors shown to
influence attitudes toward IPV, it is important to control for them in analyses examining
the effect of national factors.
IMPACT OF SURVEY DESIGN ON ATTITUDES TOWARD IPV
Attitudes Across Situtations
The Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) asked respondents whether IPV is
justified in multiple scenarios. Kishor and Johnson (2004) explained the reasoning behind
this was to provide variation in scenarios that may be perceived as trivial violations to
7
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
more severe behavioral-norm violations. Prior studies have analyzed attitudes toward IPV
generally by combining scenarios to create an index (see Yount et al. 2011) although
there is variation in the number of positive responses each scenario has received (Speizer
2010). Prior research with DHS data has also examined whether the respondent believes
IPV is justified in any scenario (Dalal et al. 2012; Jesmin 2015b; Linos et al. 2010) while
others have analyzed the effect of predictors on each scenario separately without taking
national context into account (see Waltermaurer 2012). Overt behaviors, such as refusing
sex, may be influenced by gender inequality more so than behaviors that are less directed
at the husband, such as burning food, and thereby less of a threat to patriarchal norms.
This study contributes to this knowledge base by evaluating how individual and national
factors influence attitudes toward IPV in different scenarios.
Survey Design and Implementation
Though the DHS has been standardized, some countries’ surveys had slight
variations in question wording. Previous work done on DHS survey design has shown
how the survey was administered had a significant effect on women’s endorsement of
IPV, and influenced how structural variables affect women’s agreement that IPV is
justified. Yount et al. (2011) examined country level variation in survey design while
others have assessed differences in how surveys were implemented (Schuler, Yount, and
Lenzi 2012) and indeterminate responses to the questions of interest (Yount et al. 2012).
These earlier studies have focused on either the individual or national level. The current
study includes individual level implementation measures (e.g. presence of others during
8
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
survey administration) in addition to survey design measures at the national level (e.g.
consistency in survey wording) to control for variation.
PRESENT STUDY
The current study examined the effect of national context and policies as well as
individual factors on individual attitudes toward IPV in 41 developing nations. The goals
of this study were to assess 1) if national factors influence attitudes independent of
individual level factors, 2) examine if the effect of individual and national level
predictors on levels of acceptability vary across different scenarios, and 3) determine if
differences in survey design and implementation influence the results.
DATA
The DHS has been conducted in over 90 developing nations and contain questions
on health and social indicators, including attitudes on if IPV is justified in different
scenarios (Demograhpic and Health Surveys n.d.a).1 It is a nationally representative
household survey with large sample sizes that provides individual level data on a variety
of indicators. The data has been standardized so analyses can be conducted across nations
(Boyle and Carbone-Lopez 2006). Previous studies have examined the impact of
individual or neighborhood characteristics on attitudes toward IPV within countries
without taking into account broader national characteristics (Jesmin 2015a; 2015b;
Speizer 2010). Hierarchical or Multi-Level Modeling has been used on the DHS datasets
to examine the effect of national and individual factors on a number of health, population,
and nutrition indicators (Adamczyk and Hayes 2012; Audureau et al. 2013; Uthman et al.
2009). In our study analyses were limited to nations that completed the survey after 2003
9
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
and had information on the national level and outcome variables. If there was more than
one survey for the nation after 2003, the most recent version was used.
The DHS is conducted with women ages 15 to 49 years old and men ages 15 to
59.2 DHS interviewers were trained to administer the survey. Interviewers were the same
gender as the respondent, and took steps to administer the survey in private. If the
interview was not conducted in private, the interviewer recorded the presence of others.
While attempts were made to prevent the use of interpreters, other women may have been
used to interpret for the respondent if necessary. Under no circumstances did the DHS
interviewer allow a spouse and/or children to interpret the survey.
Participants
The level one unit of analysis was individual females (N=506,935).
Unfortunately, the nations included in analyses did not have complete information on the
outcome variable for males.3 The level two unit of analysis was developing nations
(N=41). The DHS creates a masterfile for each nation, which consists of each
individual’s responses to the survey for that country. For the purposes of this study, the
masterfiles for each nation were merged into one individual level file. The individuals
were linked to a separate country level file that included national level variables. The
nations, year the survey was conducted, and number of valid female participants from
each nation can be found in Table 1.
[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Outcome Variables
10
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
The dependent variables were binary and captured the respondent’s acceptance of
IPV in particular scenarios and if IPV was justified in one or more scenarios. Each
situation captured a different dimension of IPV and acceptance has been shown to vary
across different circumstances (Speizer 2010; Waltermaurer 2012). To capture factors
that may be associated with IPV attitudes, each scenario was initially analyzed separately.
The outcome variables were created from a series of questions that followed this
initial statement: “Sometimes a husband is annoyed or angered by the things his wife
does. In your opinion is a husband justified in hitting or beating his wife in the following
situations.” The scenarios provided to the respondent were (1) “If she goes out without
telling him?” (2) “If she neglects the children?” (3) “If she argues with him?” (4) “If she
refuses to have sex with him?” and (5) “If she burns the food?” A score of “1” indicated
the respondent believed a husband is justified to abuse his wife in that scenario. A score
of “0” meant IPV is not justified for that scenario. Responses across the five scenarios
were then combined into a binary measure that captured if the respondent reported IPV
was justified in at least one scenario.4 A single binary measure- justified IPV- was
created where “1” indicated the respondent reported IPV was justified in one or more
scenarios.5
[INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]
Individual Level Predictors
Marital status was included as an individual level explanatory variable, and was
measured with three binary variables: married, single, and divorced/widowed.6 Married
served as the reference category. Respondent’s age and the total number of children she
11
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
had were included as continuous measures. Consistent with prior research (Speizer 2010),
whether the woman lived in an urban or rural area was included as a dichotomous
measure to capture the mesosystem or neighborhood level. A score of one indicated she
lived in an urban area.7 Education ranged from “1”= no education to “6”= higher
education. Information on the respondent’s current working status was taken from the
question: “Aside from your own housework, have you done any work in the last seven
days?” If the respondent was currently working she was coded as “1” while respondents
not currently working were coded as “0”. The wealth index was a composite of the
respondent’s standard of living, which included ownership of goods, how one’s house
was constructed, and access to water and sanitation (Rutstein and Johnson 2004). The
wealth index ranged from “1” to “5” where a score of “1” indicated the poorest and a “5”
represented the richest. Similar to prior research that used the presence of others during
the interview as a proxy for social desirability (Adamczyk and Hayes 2012), three control
variables were included to determine if the presence of other people during the survey
influenced attitudes toward IPV. The survey included three binary variables for whether
the respondent’s husband, another male, or another female was present during the survey,
with a score of “1” indicating this individual was present.
Gender inequality in the household was captured with decision-making in regards
to health care, large purchases, and visits to family and friends. For each item the
respondent was coded “1” if the she made the decision alone or with her husband/partner
and “0” if she was not involved in the decision-making. Similar to Jesmin (2015a), these
items were summed into an index that ranged from “0” to “3”.8 The descriptive statistics
12
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
for the outcome variables, individual level predictors, and the national level predictors
described in the following section can be found in Table 2. To correct for over and under
sampled regions and to ensure the sample’s representativeness, proper weights assigned
to respondents were used in the analyses (Demographic and Health Surveys n.d.c.).9
National Level Predictors
The current study used the Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) as a
national level indicator of gender inequality. Gracia and Herrero (2006) used the Gender
Empowerment Index; however, this measure was not available for all countries included
in the analyses. Though the Gender Development Index has been used in earlier work
(Yount et al.. 2011), authors have warned against its practical application (Bardhan and
Klasen 1999; Hirway and Mahadevia 1996). The SIGI was preferred because it captures
the causes of gender inequality. For example, the SIGI collected information on social
institutions, such as the discriminatory family code, restricted physical integrity, son bias,
restricted resources and entitlements, and restricted civil liberties (OECD Development
Centre 2016). In comparison, other measures of gender inequality have focused solely on
outcome measures of education, health, and political involvement, which arguably are the
result of the social institutions captured in the SIGI. The SIGI was turned into a binary
measure (Range= 0.11 to 0.60; Mean= 0.27; S.D.= 0.12; Median = 0.25), by deeming
SIGI scores above the median a “1” and those below the median a “0”. 10
Prior research has recommended aggregating individual level measures to capture
group level characteristics when examining ecological and individual hypotheses in
multi-level studies (Blakely and Woodward 2000). Even though the measure is an
13
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
aggregate of individual level data, X does not necessarily have the same meaning or
represent the same construct as x̅ (Firebaugh 1978). Indeed, prior research has examined
the effect of support for IPV at the community level on individual attitudes toward IPV
(Jesmin 2015a; 2015b). In the current study and similar to Jesmin (2015a; 2015b),
individual attitudes toward IPV were aggregated to the national level as a proxy to
represent how patriarchal the nation is and included as a continuous measure. A dummy
measure capturing regional variation in IPV laws was also included, where “1” indicated
the nation did not have a law against IPV.11
The study included three control variables at the national level. The first control
variable was the year the DHS survey was conducted in each nation, which ranged from
2003 to 2011. It is important to control for the survey’s year because developing nations
experience economic and social changes at a faster rate than developed or not developing
nations. Second, was the population of the nation, which was measured as the population
rate per 100,000 persons. To construct this variable we divided the population of the
nation by 100,000 thereby creating a rate that was more manageable for the analyses.
Lastly, the study included the 2003 Human Development Index (HDI) as a ranking of the
nations on three indexes: a life expectancy index, an education index, and an income
index. Although the sample consisted of developing nations, these countries may be in
different stages of development on these factors so the HDI was a worthwhile control
variable and has been used in similar analyses (see Adamczyk and Hayes 2012).
Prior research has found differences in survey design across nations influence
attitudes toward IPV (Yount et al. 2011). Following prior research, four variables
14
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
depicting differences in the delivery of IPV questions from the standardized survey were
included as national level controls. The first variable was a “1” if there were differences
in or omission of the preamble, and a “0” if the preamble was the same as the reference
provided in the standardized DHS. The second variable incorporated differences in the
description of violence (e.g. hit versus beat) and/or differences in the attitude (justify
versus legitimate) stated in the opening. The second variable was a “0” if it matched the
reference, a “1” if the depiction of violence was different than the reference, a “2” if
attitudes were written differently than the reference, and “3” if both the description of
violence and attitudes were written differently from the reference. The third variable was
coded as a “1” if the five specific behaviors were worded differently than the reference
and a “0” if it matched the reference survey. The last variable was coded as a “1” if there
were questions about IPV justification in additional scenarios and “0” if there were no
additions to the reference survey questions (for more details see Yount et al. 2011).
DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
Hierarchical linear modeling software (see Raudenbush, Bryk, and Congdon
2005) was used to evaluate the effect of individual and national level variables on each
dependent variable. Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling, for binary outcome
measures, (developed by Raudenbush et al., 2005) accounts for clustering at level one,
includes error terms to estimate predictors at level two, and uses a log link function to
properly model binary dependent variables with clustering.
The individual level N exceeded the minimum, making the models unbalanced
(i.e. the number of individuals varied substantially across nations). Restricted maximum
15
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
likelihood estimation partially addresses unbalanced models and was used in analyses
(Raudenbush and Bryk 2002, see also Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). Grand-mean
centering allows one to interpret the effect of national level variables controlling for
individual level variables. The continuous individual and national level variables were
grand-mean centered, meaning these variables were centered around the overall mean.
Grand-mean centering also reduces potential multicollinearity between predictors at
levels one and two (Tabachnick, et al., 2007). The intraclass correlation (ICC) was
calculated following Snijders and Bosker’s (1999) formula for binary outcomes, and
ranged from 0.35 for neglecting the children to 0.48 for refusing sex. These results
verified multilevel modeling was the appropriate form of analysis for this data.
RESULTS
[INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]
Results can be found in Table 3. Controlling for all explanatory variables and the
random effect (u0j=0), the expected odds a respondent agreed IPV is justified for the
different scenarios was less than one, meaning the average response was IPV is not
justified. Comparing the average response across the scenarios, the expected odds ranged
from 0.10 for burning food (t = -9.44, p ≤ 0.001) to 0.43 for neglecting the children (t = 3.77, p ≤ 0.001). These intercepts indicate the odds a woman agrees IPV is justified
differed depending on the situation and it was worthwhile to analyze each scenario
separately. Likewise, the odds a respondent agreed IPV was justified in at least one
scenario was less than one, indicating the majority of respondents said IPV is not justified
in any of the scenarios (Intercept = 0.66, t = -1.93, p < 0.10).
16
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
We found, across dependent variables, consistency in variables predicting
acceptance of IPV. Higher levels of education and wealth, as well as living in an urban
location were significant across all models with odds ratios less than one, meaning living
in an urban location and having more education or wealth each independently reduced the
odds a woman accepted IPV. Single women were less likely, compared to married
women, to support IPV if the wife argued with her husband or refused sex. Single women
were also less likely to support IPV in one or more scenarios. Women who had higher
levels of decision-making power were also less likely to support IPV across all models.
The number of children a woman had was a significant predictor in three models:
arguing, refusing sex, and if IPV was justified in at least one scenario. Unlike the prior
variables discussed, the number of children had a positive coefficient for these models
indicating that the more children a woman had increased the odds she agreed IPV is
justified. Across all models, working status was never significant. Lastly, age was
significant for if IPV is justified in at least one scenario (Odds = 0.99, t = -2.26, p <
0.05), indicating older women were less inclined to say IPV is justified.
At the national level, aggregated attitudes toward IPV were significant across all
models. For all models, as the acceptance of IPV increased in the nation, the likelihood of
supporting IPV at the individual level was between three to four times more likely. SIGI
was significant for only one IPV situation: when a woman argues with her husband (Odds
=1.45, t = 1.86, p < 0.10). The odds ratio was greater than one indicating greater gender
inequality in a nation increased the odds a woman agrees IPV is acceptable when one’s
wife argues. Interestingly, if the nation did not have a law against IPV, a respondent was
17
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
less likely to agree IPV is justified if a wife burns the food (Odds = 0.55, t = -2.50, p <
0.05) or neglects the children (Odds = 0.73, t = -1.74, p < 0.10). Survey year, the HDI,
and the population per 100,000 were not significant for any of the models.
The respondent’s husband being present during the survey was marginally
significant in three models: burning the food, refusing sex, and support for IPV in at least
one scenario. In all three models, the husband’s presence reduced the likelihood the
respondent said IPV is justified. Another man being present was significant for two
situations and support for IPV in at least one scenario (Odds = 0.80, t = -2.53, p < 0.05).
Specifically, a man being present decreased the odds a woman would say it is justifiable
for a husband to abuse his wife when she goes out without permission (Odds = 0.83, t = 2.20, p < 0.05) and when she neglects the children (Odds = 0.86, t = -2.11, p < 0.05). In
comparison, a female being present was significant across all models. Interestingly, this
variable indicated that a woman being present increased the odds a woman accepted IPV.
Differences in survey design across nations have significant effects across IPV
situations. Question variation, specifically the use of different words for the act of
violence and/or for attitudes, was significant in two scenarios, when a woman argues with
her husband (Odds = 0.69, t = -3.51, p < 0.01) and refuses sex (Odds = 0.75, t = -3.21, p
< 0.01). Asking the woman whether IPV is justified in additional scenarios increased the
odds a woman would say IPV is justified when a woman argues with her husband (Odds
= 1.74, t = 2.49, p < 0.05). In comparison, a change or omission of the preamble and
additional questions related to other IPV situations did not significantly affect women’s
18
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
attitudes. This was not consistent with Yount et al.’s (2011) earlier finding.
DISCUSSION
The results from this study indicate both individual and national factors affect
attitudes toward IPV. At the national level, more accepting attitudes toward IPV
increased the likelihood respondents had supportive attitudes toward IPV. This finding
reflects other studies that have shown how surrounding cultural and social factors
influence individual attitudes (see Ali and Naylor 2013; Flood and Pease 2009; Jung
2015). Indeed, this finding supports Durkheim’s (1897/1952, 1915/1947) thesis that
nations and societies can have a sui generis effect and shows national contexts shape
individual attitudes toward IPV. Additionally, greater levels of gender inequality in a
nation increased the likelihood a respondent believed IPV is justified in only one
scenario: when she argues with him. The results provide methodological support for
multilevel modeling and measuring the influence of macro level factors on individual
attitudes toward IPV. Theoretically, these results show how the surrounding national
environment influences individuals’ attitudes toward IPV.
IPV attitudes may be context specific and related to perceived provocation.
Compared to other scenarios, arguing with one’s husband may be viewed as an overt
provocation by a wife or interpreted as a direct act of defiance that questions the male’s
authority. Arguing may be considered a greater offense to the established patriarchal
norms in nations with high levels of gender inequality. The analyses also confirmed
earlier findings (Uthman et al. 2009; Waltermaurer 2012) that neglecting the children
elicited the most agreement for using violence against one’s wife and suggests the degree
19
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
to which the wife’s behavior is condemnable influences levels of agreement. Overall, the
findings highlight the value of examining the scenarios separately in future research.
Interestingly, not having a law against IPV decreased the likelihood respondents
agreed IPV is justified when the wife burns the food. The opposite is also true. For
nations that do have a law, respondents were more likely to agree IPV is justified when
the wife burns the food. It may be respondents in nations with an IPV law are protective
of the family unit, thereby agreeing IPV is justified so the offender is not held legally
accountable. As noted by Kishor and Johnson (2004), the scenarios included in analyses
ranged from trivial violations to more severe behavioral-norm violations. More research
is needed on unpacking this unexpected finding.
Gender inequality dynamics at the individual level, which the respondent interacts
with on a daily basis, significantly affected attitudes toward IPV. Consistent with prior
research (Jesmin 2015a; 2015b; Waltermaurer 2012), respondents who had higher levels
of education and greater decision-making power were less likely to have supportive
attitudes toward IPV. Therefore, policies should attempt to create equality within
individual relationships in addition to equality between men and women on a national
scale. Future research should also examine the specific mechanisms by which higher
levels of education and decision-making power influence attitudes.
Prior research has examined how the cultural orientation of a nation, the macro
level, affects individual attitudes. Specifically, Inglehart and Baker (2000) have
distinguished survivalist from self-expression cultural orientations. Nations with
economic uncertainty promote survivalist values that encourage stability, while
20
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
economically stable nations are associated with self-expression values that endorse
people’s freedom to choose thoughts and behaviors. These cultural orientations have been
shown to influence attitudes toward potentially controversial behavior, such as
homosexuality and suicide (see Adamczyk 2013; Boyd and Chung 2012). Nations in this
study have similar economic instability, so these cultural dimensions were not included in
analyses, but future research may investigate the role of this cultural spectrum and
development on attitudes toward IPV in both developing and developed nations.
Women living in urban areas and older, wealthier women were less likely to agree
IPV is justified in each of the scenarios. An interesting result was the effect of a female
being present during the interview. A prior study using DHS data to assess sex behaviors
outside of marriage included the presence of others as an index of social desirability and
found it did not affect the overall results (Adamczyk and Hayes 2012). However, in the
current study, the presence of a female during an interview increased the likelihood a
respondent agreed abuse is justified across all scenarios. In comparison, the presence of
males made it less likely for the respondent to agree IPV is justified when she goes out,
neglects the children, or when the responses were combined to capture support for IPV in
at least one scenario. The variability in the effect of a male being present may be due to
how few cases had a husband (4.0% of cases) or male present (4.0% of cases) compared
to a female (9.0% of cases). Perhaps the respondent answered in what she perceived to be
the culturally acceptable manner in the presence of other females or the female who was
present was her husband’s relative. It is necessary to further explore the relationship
between attitudes toward IPV and the presence of others during an interview, as it may
21
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
prove to be problematic to use another female as an interpreter. It would be worthwhile
for future researchers to capture the relationship between the respondent and other
individuals in the room to better explain why the presence of others influenced women’s
responses. Lastly, there is a need for greater consistency in administering surveys.
On a related note, Yount et al. (2011) found survey design impacted acceptability
of IPV at the national level. The current analyses found variation in the question wording
and questioning about additional scenarios influenced respondents’ responses for specific
scenarios. It is important to determine how question formats influence responses at the
individual level as different words may have different meanings to different respondents
(Yount and Li 2009). Moreover, in future iterations of the DHS, survey designs should
work to ensure consistency in translation of survey questions.
Though the current study expands the literature on national factors that influence
attitudes toward IPV, this study has limitations that merit discussion. First, the study was
limited to nations that completed the DHS after 2003 and had information for the
dependent variables and national indicators. Therefore, only 41 of the more than 90
nations that took part in the DHS were included in analyses. It is unclear if countries that
were missing data on the dependent variables differed systematically from countries that
included these questions in the survey. Future research should examine the impact of
national context and policies in both developing and developed nations simultaneously.
To date, prior research has typically focused on either developed (Sabina 2013) or
developing nations (Uthman et al. 2009).
22
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Furthermore, only women, the vast majority of whom were married (91.00%),
were included in analyses. Indeed, two nations limited the IPV justification question to
only women who had been or were married. It would be worthwhile for future research to
explore differences in attitudes across marital status given single women were less likely
to say IPV is justified in at least one of the scenarios.
In addition, the impact of national context on men’s acceptance of abuse in certain
situations remains unknown. Supplemental analyses of the 26 countries that had data on
men’s attitudes toward IPV revealed aggregated male attitudes significantly affected
female respondents’ acceptance of IPV. These findings should be interpreted with
caution, however, since the number of groups at level two did not meet the threshold
recommended for multi-level analyses (Kreft and De Leeuw 1998). As the data becomes
available, male respondents’ attitudes should be incorporated at both the individual and
national level to create IPV awareness campaigns that target the men committing IPV.
Attitudes may not predict behavior, and vice versa, as the correlation between the
two has been weak (Kaiser and Schultz 2009). Despite this, prior research has found an
association between patriarchal and pro-violence attitudes and IPV perpetration and
victimization (Abramsky et al. 2011; Faramarzi et al. 2005; Stith et al. 2004). Prior
research has also shown violence in the family of origin increased the likelihood of
justifying IPV (Waltermaurer et al. 2013). Though a supplementary analysis of prior IPV
experience on attitudes was conducted for the 24 nations in which the question was
asked, small sample size at level two may affect the reliability of these results and was
therefore not presented (Kreft and De Leeuw 1998). Future research should expand upon
23
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
prior studies of whether victimization influences attitudes toward IPV by assessing
whether the frequency and scenario in which prior victimization occurred has distinct
effects.
It would also be beneficial to assess differences within nations, thereby
incorporating the neighborhood factors that may be more germane to the respondent. This
study included a variable distinguishing whether the respondent lived in a rural or urban
setting, which may have systematic meso-level differences such as availability of
resources for victims of IPV in their particular neighborhood. Waltermaurer (2012) has
acknowledged multiple cultures can coexist within one nation. It may be worthwhile to
compare across different cultures as well as across different regions, something the data
did not readily allow for in these analyses since the 41 nations were primarily in Africa
and Asia. In addition, small sample size at the country level precluded a three-level
analysis (see Hoffman and Johnson 2000; Welsh et al.1999; Welsh et al. 2000).
CONCLUSION
The results from this study indicate national context and policies as well as
individual factors shape individual attitudes toward IPV. Therefore, future research
should be directed at understanding the mechanisms by which the national context
influences individual attitudes so better national campaigns to end violence against
women can be designed. Learning what factors in an individual’s social environment
shape attitudes can help develop national programs that are designed to change
permissive attitudes toward abusing one’s partner. Women will not be safe from violence
in the home until attitudes tolerant of IPV are addressed.
24
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
NOTES
1
Previous research that has utilized DHS data used the direct phrase (i.e. wife beating)
from the questionnaire (See Speizer, 2010).
2
Though the DHS states surveys are only conducted with female respondents age 15 to
49 (Demographic and Health Surveys n.d.b.), almost 1% of the sample reported being the
age 13 or 14. Respondents aged 13 to 14 were included in the final sample.
3
In total, 26 countries had data capturing male respondents’ attitudes toward IPV, which
does not meet the recommended threshold for number of groups needed at level 2 (i.e.
30) for multi-level analyses (Kreft and De Leeuw 1998).
4
Prior research has found when responses are combined across all five scenarios, the
index is highly skewed (Yount and Li 2009). When this transformation takes place, the
measure also becomes ordinal and is not a true count measure. Overall, 60% of the
sample said IPV was never justified. Given the low frequencies for each count of the
index (<10%) and to ease interpretation, we elected to combine responses into a binary
measure.
5
We created a measure that captured if the respondent believed IPV was justified in two
or more scenarios. Results were similar to if IPV is justified in one or more scenarios.
6
Two countries- Egypt and Indonesia- limited the IPV justification question to only
women who had been or were married.
7
While capturing the respondent’s region is an ideal measure of the mesosystem, the data
did not allow for it. Each country had different regional codes. We considered including
neighborhood effects at level two and national effects at level three. Given discrepancies
25
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
over how to handle small sample size at level three (see Hoffman and Johnson 2000;
Welsh, Greene, and Jenkins 1999; Welsh, Jenkins, and Greene 2000) these analyses were
not conducted.
8
Measures of prior abuse may be an important predictor of attitudes toward IPV. DHS
only collected measures of prior abuse in 24 countries, limiting the sample size at level
two.
9
Similar to prior research that utilized DHS data (see Adamczyk and Hayes 2012),
country level weights were not used in analyses.
10
Including a continuous variable with such a small range became problematic for
analyses. Instead, we have dichotomized so that the SIGI was easier to interpret and the
odds ratio was not as large.
11
The national IPV prevalence rate was available for 39 countries. Supplemental analyses
revealed national IPV prevalence was not a significant predictor of norms about IPV.
26
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
REFERENCES
Abramsky, Tanya, Charlotte H. Watts, Claudia Garcia-Moreno, Karen Devries, Ligia
Kiss, Mary Ellsberg, Henrica A. F. M. Jansen, and Lori Heise. 2011. "What
Factors Are Associated with Recent Intimate Partner Violence? Findings from the
WHO Multi-Country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence." BMC
Public Health 11(1):1-17.
Adamczyk, Amy. 2013. "The Effect of Personal Religiosity on Attitudes toward
Abortion, Divorce, and Gender Equality—Does Cultural Context Make a
Difference?." EurAmerica 41:213-253.
Adamczyk, Amy, and Brittany E. Hayes. 2012. "Religion and Sexual Behaviors:
Understanding the Influence of Islamic Cultures and Religious Affiliation for
Explaining Sex Outside of Marriage." American Sociological Review 77(5):723–
746.
Ali, Parveen Azam, and Paul B. Naylor. 2013. "Intimate Partner Violence: A Narrative
Review of the Feminist, Social and Ecological Explanations for its Causation."
Aggression and Violent Behavior 18(6):611-619.
Assaf, Shireen, and Stephanie Chaban. 2013. "Domestic Violence against Single, NeverMarried Women in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Violence Against Women.
doi: 10.1177/1077801213486330
Audureau, Etienne, James G Kahn, Marie-Hélène Besson, Joseph Saba, and Joël Ladner
27
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
"Scaling up Prevention of Mother-to-Child HIV Transmission Programs in SubSaharan African Countries: A Multilevel Assessment of Site-, Program-and
Country-Level Determinants of Performance." BMC Public Health 13(1):1-10.
Bardhan, Kalpana, and Stephan Klasen. 1999. "UNDP’s Gender-Related Indices: A
Critical Review." World Development 27(6):985–1010.
Beyer, Kirsten, Anne Baber Wallis, and L. Kevin Hamberger. 2013. "Neighborhood
Environment and Intimate Partner Violence A Systematic Review." Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse. doi: 10.1177/1524838013515758.
Blakely, Tony A., and Alistair J. Woodward. 2000. "Ecological Effects in Multi-Level
Studies." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 54(5):367-374.
Boyd, Katharine A., and Hyewon Chung. 2012. "Opinions toward Suicide: CrossNational Evaluation of Cultural and Religious Effects on Individuals." Social
Science Research 41(6):1565–1580.
Boyle, Elizabeth H., and Kristin Carbone-Lopez. 2006. "Movement Frames and African
Women's Explanations for Opposing Female Genital Cutting." International
Journal of Comparative Sociology 47:435-465.
Collins, Randall. 2008. Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Dalal, Koustuv, Ming Shinn Lee, and Mervyn Gifford. 2012. "Male Adolescents'
Attitudes toward Wife Beating: A Multi-Country Study in South Asia." Journal of
Adolescent Health 50(5):437-442.
28
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
DeKeseredy, Walter S. 2011. "Feminist Contributions to Understanding Woman Abuse:
Myths, Controversies, and Realities." Aggression and Violent Behavior
16(4):297–302.
Demograhpic and Health Surveys. n.d.a.. About DHS. Retrieved April 8, 2016
(http://www.measuredhs.com/aboutdhs/).
Demographic and Health Surveys. n.d.b. DHS Model Questionarries. Retrieved April 8,
2016 (http://www.measuredhs.com/What-We-Do/Survey-Types/DHSQuestionnaires.cfm).
Demographic and Health Surveys. n.d.c. Using Datasets for Analysis. Retrieved April 8,
2016 (http://measuredhs.com/data/Using-Datasets-for-Analysis.cfm).
Donta, Balaiah, Saritha Nair, Shahina Begum, and C.P. Prakasam. 2015. "Association of
Domestic Violence from Husband and Women Empowerment in Slum Community,
Mumbai." Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260515573574
Durkheim, Émile. [1897] 1952. Suicide. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, Émile. [1915] 1947. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
Faramarzi, Mahbobeh, Seddigheh Esmailzadeh, and Shokofeh Mosavi. 2005. "A
Comparison of Abused and Non-Abused Women’s Definitions of Domestic
Violence and Attitudes to Acceptance of Male Dominance." European Journal of
Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 122(2):225–231.
Firebaugh, Glenn. 1978. "A Rule for Inferring Individual-Level Relationships from
Aggregated Data." American Sociological Review 43(4):557-572.
29
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Flood, Michael, and Bob Pease. 2009. "Factors Influencing Attitudes to Violence Against
Women." Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 10(2):125–142.
Gillum, Tameka L., Mitchell Doucette, Mtise Mwanza, and Leso Munala. 2016.
"Exploring Kenyan Women’s Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence." Journal
of Interpersonal Violence. doi: 10.1177/0886260515622842.
Gracia, Enrique, and Juan Herrero. 2006. "Acceptability of Domestic Violence against
Women in the European Union: A Multilevel Analysis." Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health 60(2):123–129.
Heise, Lori. 1998. "Violence Against Women: An Integrated, Ecological Framework."
Violence Against Women 4(3):262–290.
Hirway, Indira, and Darshini Mahadevia. 1996. "Critique of Gender Development Index:
Towards an Alternative." Economic and Political Weekly, WS87–WS96.
Hoffman, John P., and Robert A. Johnson. 2000. "Multilevel Influences of Social
Disorder: A Comment On Welsh, Greene, and Jenkins." Criminology, 38,(4),
1275-1288.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Wayne E. Baker. 2000. "Modernization, Cultural Change, and the
Persistence of Traditional Values." American Sociological Review 65(1):19–51.
Ismayilova, Leyla. 2015. "Spousal Violence in 5 Transitional Countries: A PopulationBased Multilevel Analysis of Individual and Contextual Factors." American
Journal of Public Health 105(11):12–22.
Jain, Sonia, Stephen L. Buka, S. V. Subramanian, and Beth E. Molnar. 2010.
"Neighborhood Predictors of Dating Violence Victimization and Perpetration in
30
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Young Adulthood: A Multilevel Study." American Journal of Public
Health 100(9):1737–1744.
Jesmin, Syeda S. 2015a. "Social Determinants of Married Women’s Attitudinal
Acceptance of Intimate Partner Violence." Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:
10.1177/0886260515597436.
Jesmin, Syeda S. 2015b. "Married Women's Justification of Intimate Partner Violence in
Bangladesh: Examining Community Norm and Individual-Level Risk Factors."
Violence and Victims 30(6): 984–1003.
Jung, Jong Hyun. 2015. "A Cross-national Analysis of Religion and Attitudes Toward
Premarital Sex: Do Economic Contexts Matter?" Sociological Perspectives.
doi: 10.1177/0731121415595428.
Kaiser, Florian G., and P. Wesley Schultz. 2009. "The Attitude–Behavior Relationship: A
Test of Three Models of the Moderating Role of Behavioral Difficulty." Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 39(1):186–207.
Kishor, Sunita, and Kiersten Johnson. 2004. Profiling Domestic Violence: A MultiCountry Study. Retrieved April 8, 2016
(www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/OD31/OD31.pdf).
Kreft, Ita G. G., and Jan De Leeuw. 1998. Introducing Multilevel Modeling. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Linos, Natalia, Marwan Khawaja, and Mohannad Al-Nsour. 2010. "Women's Autonomy
and Support for Wife Beating: Findings from a Population-Based Survey in
Jordan." Violence and Victims 25(3):409–419.
31
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
OECD Development Centre (2016) What is the Social Institutions and Gender Index?
Retrieved April 8, 2016 (http://genderindex.org/content/team).
Oyediran, Kolawole A., and Uche C. Isiugo-Abanihe. 2005. "Perceptions of Nigerian
Women on Domestic Violence: Evidence from 2003 Nigeria Demographic and
Health Survey." African Journal of Reproductive Health 9(2):38–53.
Pierotti, Rachael S. 2013. "Increasing Rejection of Intimate Partner Violence: Evidence
of Global Cultural Diffusion." American Sociological Review 78(2):240–265.
Pinchevsky, Gillian M., and Emily M. Wright. 2012. "The Impact of Neighborhoods on
Intimate Partner Violence and Victimization." Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 13(2):
112–132.
Price, Anne. 2016. "How National Structures Shape Attitudes Toward Women's Right
to Employment in the Middle East." International Journal of Comparative
Sociology. doi: 10.1177/0020715215625494.
Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models:
Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Raudenbush, Stephen W., Anthony S. Bryk, and Richard Congdon. 2005. HLM 6:
Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Software International, Inc.
Rennison, Callie Marie, Walter S. DeKeseredy, and Molly Dragiewicz. 2013. "Intimate
Relationship Status Variations in Violence against Women: Urban, Suburban, and
Rural Differences." Violence Against Women. doi: 10.1177/1077801213514487.
32
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Rutstein, Shea O., and Kiersten Johnson. 2004. The DHS Wealth Index. DHS
Comparative Reports No. 6. Calverton: OCR Macro. Retrieved April 8, 2016
(http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/CR6/CR6.pdf).
Sabina, Chiara. 2013. "Individual and National Level Associations between Economic
Deprivation and Partner Violence among College Students in 31 National
Settings." Aggressive Behavior 39(4):247–256.
Schuler, Sidney R., Kathryn M. Yount, and Rachel Lenzi. 2012. "Justification of Wife
Beating in Rural Bangladesh: A Qualitative Analysis of Gender Differences in
Responses to Survey Questions." Violence Against Women 18(10):1177–1191.
Snijders, Tom A. B., and Roel J. Bosker. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to
Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Speizer, Ilene S. 2010. "Intimate Partner Violence Attitudes and Experience among
Women and Men in Uganda." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25(7):1224–
1241.
Stith, Sandra M., Douglas B. Smith, Carrie E. Penn, David B. Ward, and Dari Tritt. 2004.
"Intimate Partner Physical Abuse Perpetration and Victimization Risk Factors: A
Meta-Analytic Review." Aggression and Violent Behavior 10(1):65–98.
Stöckl, Heidi, Laura March, Christina Pallitto, and Claudia Garcia-Moreno. 2014.
"Intimate Partner Violence among Adolescents and Young Women: Prevalence
and Associated Factors in Nine Countries: A Cross-Sectional Study." BMC Public
Health 14(1):1–13.
33
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Sugarman, David B., and Susan L. Frankel. 1996. "Patriarchal Ideology and WifeAssault: A Meta-Analytic Review." Journal of Family Violence 11(1):13–40.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Linda S. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Uthman, Olalekan A., Tahereh Moradi, and Stephen Lawoko. 2009. "The Independent
Contribution of Individual-, Neighbourhood-, and Country-Level Socioeconomic
Position on Attitudes towards Intimate Partner Violence against Women in SubSaharan Africa: A Multilevel Model of Direct and Moderating Effects." Social
Science & Medicine 68(10):1801–1809.
VanderEnde, Kristin E., Lynn M. Sibley, Yuk F. Cheong, Ruchira T. Naved, and Kathryn
M. Yount. 2015. "Community Economic Status and Intimate Partner Violence
Against Women in Bangladesh: Compositional or Contextual Effects?." Violence
Against Women 21(6):679-699.
Waltermaurer, Eve. 2012. "Public Justification of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review
of the Literature." Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 13(3):167–175.
Waltermaurer, Eve, Maia Butsashvili, Nata Avaliani, Steve Samuels, and Louise-Anne
McNutt. 2013. "An Examination of Domestic Partner Violence and Its
Justification in the Republic of Georgia." BMC Women's Health 13(1):1–8.
Welsh, Wayne N., Jack R. Greene, and Patricia H. Jenkins. 1999. "School Disorder: The
Influence of Individual, Institutional, and Community Factors." Criminology
37(1):73–116.
34
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Welsh, Wayne N., Patricia H. Jenkins, and Jack R. Greene. 2000. "Challenges for
Multilevel Models of School Disorder: Response to Hoffmann and Johnson."
Criminology 38(4):1289–1300.
Yllö, Kersti. 1984. "The Status of Women, Marital Equality, and Violence against Wives:
A Contextual Analysis." Journal of Family Issues 5(3):307–320.
Yount, Kathryn M., Nafisa Halim, Sara Head, and Sidney R. Schuler. 2012.
"Indeterminate Responses to Attitudinal Questions about Intimate Partner
Violence against Women in Rural Bangladesh." Population Research and Policy
Review 31(6):797–830.
Yount, Kathryn M., Nafisa Halim, Michelle Hynes, and Emily R. Hillman. 2011.
"Response Effects to Attitudinal Questions about Domestic Violence against
Women: A Comparative Perspective." Social Science Research 40(3):873–884.
Yount, Kathryn M., and Li Li. 2009. "Women’s “Justification” of Domestic Violence in
Egypt." Journal of Marriage and Family 71(5):1125–1140.
Zakar, Rubeena, Muhammad Zakria Zakar, and Alexander Kraemer. 2013. "Men’s
Beliefs and Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence against Women in
Pakistan." Violence Against Women. doi: 10.1177/1077801213478028.
35
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Table 1. Year of Survey and Number of Valid Participants by Nation (Level 2 N=41)
Nation
Year of DHS Survey
Eastern Europe
Ukraine
2007
Moldova
2005
Albania
2008
Armenia
2010
Azerbaijan
2006
North Africa
Egypt
2005
Morocco
2003
Sub Saharan Africa (West Africa)
Senegal
2010
Guinea
2005
Sierra Leone
2008
Mali
2006
Burkina Faso
2010
Ghana
2008
Niger
2006
Nigeria
2008
Benin
2006
Sub Saharan Africa (Central and Eastern Africa)
Ethiopia
2011
Uganda
2011
Kenya
2008
Rwanda
2010
Burundi
2010
Tanzania
2010
Congo, Democratic
2007
Republic
Sub Saharan Africa (Southern Africa and Indian Ocean)
Malawi
2010
Zambia
2007
Zimbabwe
2010
Mozambique
2011
Swaziland
2006
Namibia
2006
Madagascar
2008
South Asia
India
2005
Nepal
2011
36
Number of Respondents
Included in Analyses
3,916
4,409
4,654
3,343
4,648
17,555
15,832
10,635
7,189
4,970
13,565
13,266
2,819
8,672
22,566
16,836
9,895
5,181
4,795
6,631
5,097
6,153
8,513
15,288
4,164
5,439
8,457
1,893
3,356
11,353
84,475
9,458
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Bangladesh
South East Asia
Cambodia
Indonesia
Philippines
Caribbean
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Central America
Honduras
South America
Colombia
Bolivia
Level 1 N
2011
16,551
2010
2007
2008
10,989
30,535
8,370
2005
2007
6,223
15,460
2011
12,650
2010
2008
51,419
9,715
506,935
37
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Individual and National Level Measures (Individual
Level N=506,935; National Level N=41)
Variable
Mean
SD
Minimum Maximum
Individual level variables
Dependent Variables:
Go Out
0.27
0.00
1.00
Neglect Children
0.29
0.00
1.00
Argue
0.24
0.00
1.00
Refuse Sex
0.19
0.00
1.00
Burn Food
0.14
0.00
1.00
Support Wife Beating in at
0.39
0.00
1.00
Least One Scenario
Independent Variables:
Married
0.91
0.00
1.00
Divorced or Widowed
0.03
0.00
1.00
Single
0.06
0.00
1.00
Education Level
2.84
1.67
1.00
6.00
Age
31.35
9.09
13.00
49.00
Urban
0.42
0.00
1.00
Currently Working
0.50
0.00
1.00
Wealth
3.03
1.43
1.00
5.00
Total Number of Children
2.99
2.43
0.00
21.00
Decision Making Scale
1.92
1.20
0.00
3.00
Controls:
Husband present during
0.04
0.00
1.00
interview
Male present during
0.04
0.00
1.00
interview
Female present during
0.09
0.00
1.00
interview
National level variables
DHS survey year
2008.02
2.20
2003.00
2011.00
Social Institutions and
0.49
0.00
1.00
Gender Index
Aggregated Female Attitude
1.21
0.87
0.01
3.19
Index
No Domestic Violence Law
0.29
0.00
1.00
Human Development Index
0.53
0.15
0.28
0.79
2003
Population per 100,000
584.18
1701.47
11.38
10802.64
Survey design controls:
Preamble modification
0.44
0.00
1.00
Question variation
0.54
0.95
0.00
3.00
Behavior description
0.17
0.00
1.00
38
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
variation
Additional behavior
questions
0.22
0.00
39
1.00
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
Table 3. Results for Justifying Wife Beating Across Different Scenarios and for at Least One Scenario (Odds Ratios Are Reported for Hierarchical
Logistic Regression Models)
Intercept
Level-1 Variables
Divorce/Widowa
Singlea
Education level
Age
Urban
Currently Working
Wealth
Total number of
Children
Husband present during
interview
Male present during
interview
Female present during
Interview
Decision-making scale
Level-2 Variables
DHS Survey Year
Social Institutions and
Gender Index
Aggregated Female
Attitude Index
No Domestic Violence
Law
Human Development
Index 2003
Population per
100,000
Preamble modification
Question variation
Behavior description
Argue
Burn the Food
Go Out
Neglect the Children
Refuse Sex
0.16***
0.10***
0.30***
0.43***
0.18***
Support Wife
Beating in at
Least One
Scenario
0.66+
1.02
0.75**
0.81***
0.99+
0.77***
1.05
0.89***
1.03*
1.14+
0.94
0.81***
1.00
0.72***
1.07
0.89***
1.02
1.00
0.78+
0.82***
0.99
0.77***
1.05
0.91***
1.03+
1.05
0.81+
0.87***
0.99
0.80***
1.05
0.92***
1.02
1.11+
0.76***
0.79***
1.00
0.77***
1.06
0.90***
1.03*
0.95
0.73**
0.83***
0.99*
0.79***
1.05
0.90***
1.03*
0.87
0.85+
0.88
0.89
0.83+
0.86+
0.85+
0.94
0.83*
0.86*
0.87
0.80*
1.25***
1.32***
1.17***
1.18***
1.18***
1.23***
0.85***
0.87***
0.87***
0.89***
0.86***
0.87***
0.98
1.45+
0.90
1.05
0.95
1.24
1.00
1.07
0.99
0.91
1.00
1.17
3.52***
4.28***
3.77***
3.52***
4.86***
3.83***
1.09
0.55*
0.73
0.73+
0.93
0.83
1.85
0.40
1.51
3.87
0.93
2.65
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.69**
1.09
0.76
0.78+
1.98
0.73
0.86
0.64
0.75
0.94
0.67
0.69
0.75**
0.97
0.72
0.92
0.82
40
INDIVIDUAL & NATIONAL EFFECTS ON IPV ATTITUDES
variation
Additional behavior
1.74*
1.28
questions
Variance Estimates
Intercept variance
0.47***
0.58***
Note: Individual N = 506,935 ; country N = 41.
a
The reference category for relationship status is Married.
+
p < .10; * p< .05; **; p< .01; *** p< .001 (two-tailed tests)
1.33
1.10
1.22
1.27
0.57***
0.44***
0.42***
0.50***
41