Exemplu+Articol+Tip+Review

8/12/2019 Exemplu+Articol+Tip+Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/exempluarticoltipreview 1/9

Public Justification of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Literature

Eve Waltermaurer 1

Abstract

Understanding the extent to which the general public justifies intimate partner violence (IPV) is necessarily to explainperpetration, victimization, and response to this behavior. This article provides a literature review of quantitative studiesmeasuring IPV justification among the general population. Key word searching of two databases plus bibliographies, and the

web yielded 23 studies that provided comparable measures of IPV justification. Results are summarized for the prevalence of IPV justification identified for each country including differences in justification based on the initiating event (e.g., burning foodand infidelity), sociodemographic differences in justification and differences across countries. No study identified a zeroprevalence of IPV justification and percentages varied considerably across and within countries. Females tended to report a

higher rate of IPV justification than males and younger respondents tended to report a higher rate IPV justification than theirolder counterparts. Further research is needed to understand IPV justification within and across nations as well as to explorethe impact this has on IPV prevalence and policy.

Keywords

domestic violence, domestic violence and cultural contexts, perceptions of domestic violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) involves a complex interaction

between the perpetrator and victim of the abuse, and those in

the community. The community may serve as a bystander, such

as a child or family member, who witnesses the violence and

either responds or not. The community also includes those whoseek to prevent this violence from occurring again, including

victim services and criminal justice. However, there is a third

element of the community that is often ignored but who may

yield the greatest influence over IPV perpetration, victimiza-

tion, and response. This third element is the generalized atti-

tudes held by the society where the violence occurs about

whether or not an individual has the right to hurt his partner.

While the growth of IPV research worldwide has led to an

increased understanding of similarities among IPV victims and

perpetrators across the globe and the notable differences in

partner violence policies and laws among different countries

(United Nations General Assembly, 1996), there has been les-

ser attention in the field of IPV research on how the general public views these acts. This article serves as a comprehensive

literature review of the existing research on public perceptions

of IPV across the globe with a specific focus on IPV justifica-

tion. A behavior can be illegal but not socially unacceptable

(e.g., underage drinking and speeding). This focus on social

justification of IPV is explored as, conceptually, perceptions

of whether this type violence is justified plays an important role

in determining whether a perpetrator commits this act, if a

victim reports this act, and whether a third party responds.

A Social Justification of IPV Model

Figure 1 presents a conceptual model of the impact of social

justification of IPV on the behaviors of the perpetrator, the vic-

tim, and any third party who is directly or indirectly informed

of the abuse. This model argues that in a community where a

higher proportion of the general population feels that IPV is

justifiable, a potential perpetrator will be more likely to feel

he or she has the right, should the cause arise. This perception

of increased right would result in an increased incidence of per-

petration. After the abuse, in this community that feels that IPV

is justifiable, the victim is likely to agree that her abuse was jus-

tifiable and as a result, he or she will be less likely to report this

abuse to a third party or allow a third party to intervene. If the

abuse is witnessed or reported in a community that believes

these acts are justifiable, it can be postulated that less or no

response will be enacted (even if there are laws against the

violence).To connect this model with a theoretical framework, if a

community feels IPV is a justifiable behavior, then engagement

1 Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New Paltz, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Eve Waltermaurer, Department of Sociology, State University of New York,

New Paltz, NY 12561, USA

Email: [email protected]

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE13(3) 167-175ª The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1524838012447699http://tva.sagepub.com



in this type of violence would not be an act of social deviance

but rather normative behavior. The role of social acceptability

of individual behavior was likely first conceptualized by Mead (1959) and developed by modern symbolic interactionists, who

argue that individuals see themselves through the eyes of oth-

ers. Specifically, Mead explains that the community around us,

‘‘the generalized other’’ plays a determining factor in how a

person sees himself or herself. Therefore, if an individual lives

in a community that strongly feels that IPV is justifiable, he or

she is likely to be encouraged toward defining this behavior for

himself or herself. Similarly, this theory would purport that the

victim will view his or her behaviors in light of what society

finds acceptable. If he or she understands that his or her com-

munity feels that IPV is potentially justified, not only will he or

she likely agree but whether he or she agreed or not, it would

seem illogical to him or her to seek protection from a commu-nity that supported the violent response.

Furthermore, the IPV bystanders, witnesses known and not

known to the victims or perpetrator as well as the criminal jus-

tice system will logically be less likely to respond negatively to

a behavior that they, the community, feel is warranted. This is

further supported when considering traditional theories of the

cause of violence which identify that active social rejection

to this ‘‘deviant’’ behavior allows social groups to protect

themselves against such acts (Sampson, 1993; Shaw & McKay,

1942). Therefore, it is not surprising that, when examining IPV,

social organization and collective efficacy have not success-

fully predicted its prevention or perpetration; it has been argued

that this is most likely due to the fact that these behaviorsare not uniformly perceived as wrong (Frye & Wilt, 2001;

Waltermaurer, 2007). In addition, Browning (2002) identified

that community ‘‘norms of nonintervention’’ were associated

with increased levels of nonlethal IPV; in other words, when

society felt that partner violence was not their business they are

more likely to ignore these behaviors. While the source of these

nonintervention norms are not discussed, it is reasonable that

social attitudes toward the acceptability of this violence plays

a role. This lack of response extends to the criminal justice sys-

tem as it has been found that individuals are less likely to report

IPV to police when they feel the police do not care about this

type of violence (Emery, Jolley, & Wu, 2010). It is further

plausible that social acceptance of this behavior further miti-gates the effect of policies and legislation against it.

This literature review examines social justification of IPV

across the globe by presenting published research that has

asked this question from general population samples. This

examination explores the known prevalence of IPV justifica-

tion including differences in justification based on the initiating

event (e.g., burning food and infidelity), sociodemographic

differences in justification, and differences across countries.

Method

Search Strategy

A search was conducted using Academic Search (1996–2011),

which provides access to approximately 7,300 journals in

various fields. This search engine was utilized as it includes the

four most prominent family violence journals. In addition,

other articles were identified through the bibliography sections

of appropriate articles and Internet searches. Given the various

nomenclatures used for partner violence and related public atti-

tudes, a broad net was cast initially using five search terms for

partner violence (wife battering, domestic violence, partner

violence, marital violence, and domestic abuse) and five for

attitudes (attitude, belief, accept*, opinion, and perception),

yielding 25 different search patterns. As Academic Search has

limited holdings in medicine and public health, these samecouplings were also processed through Medline.

The initial selection process focused on identifying poten-

tially relevant and comparable empirical articles examining

general social perceptions toward partner violence. The search

process identified a total of 687 unique English language arti-

cles. An initial review of each article resulted in the exclusion

of 576 article as they were a review or periodical or had no

relation to the topic. For example, the search combination

of ‘‘accept*’’ and ‘‘domestic abuse’’ yielded 377 articles pri-

marily related to child abuse. Of the remaining 114 articles,

PRIOR TO ABUSE AFTER ABUSE

Perpetrator Abuse Victim Reporting

Bystander/

Criminal

Justice Response

HIGH SOCIAL

JUSTIFICATION

“I have the

right to

abuse”

“I deserve

abuse”

“Victim

deserves

abuse”increase decrease decrease

LOW SOCIAL

JUSTIFICATION

“I do not

have the

right to

abuse”

“I do not

deserve

abuse”

“Victim

does not

deserve

abuse”

decrease increase increase

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the influence of social justification of intimate partner violence on perpetrator, victims, and responders.

168 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 13(3)



T a b l e 1 . D e s c r i p t i o n o f S t u d i e s

A u t h o r a n d Y e a r

L o c a t i o n

Y e a r o f D a t a C

o l l e c t i o n

S a m p l e S i z e

S a m p l e

I n s t r u m e n t /

C o m m e n t s

P r o b a b i l i t y a n d c e n s u s s a m p l e s

A k i n a n d O z a y d i n ( 2 0 0 5 )

T u r k e y

1 9 9 8

1 , 9 7 1

M a l e , 1 5 – 4 9 , m

a r r i e d

D H S

A n t a i a n d A n t a i ( 2 0 0 9 )

N i g e r i a

2 0 0 3

3 , 7 2 5

F e m a l e , 1 5 – 4 9

B o y l e , G e o r g i a d e s , C u l l e n , a n d R a c

i n e

( 2 0 0 9 )

I n d i a

1 9 9 8 – 1 9

9 9

6 8 , 4 6 6

F e m a l e , 1 5 – 4 9 , m a r r i e d

N F H S

E u r o b a r o m e t e r d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e

a g a i n s t w o m e n ( 2 0 1 0 )

B e l g i u m , B u l g a r i a , C z e c h R e p u b l i c , D e n m a r k , G e r m a n y ,

E s t o n i a , G r e e c e , S p a i n , F r a n c e , I r

e l a n d , I t a l y , C y p r u s ,

L i t h u a n i a , L a t v i a , L u x e m b o u r g , H u n g a r y , M a l t a ,

N e t h e r l a n d s , A u s t r i a , P o l a n d , P o r t u g a l , R o m a n i a , S l o v e n i a ,

S l o v a k i a , F i n l a n d , S w e d e n , U K

2 0 0 2 – 2 0

0 3

2 6 , 8 0 0

M a l e / F e m a l e 1 5 a n d o l d e r

F a n s l o w , R o b i n s o n , C r e n g l e , a n d P e

r e s e

( 2 0 1 0 )

N e w Z e a l a n d / A u c k l a n d

N o t n o t e d

2 , 6 7 4

M a l e / f e m a l e 1 8

– 6 4 ,

p a r t n e r e d

N Z V A W

G r a c i a , H e r r e r o , a n d L i l a ( 2 0 0 8 )

S p a i n

1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 4

2 , 4 9 8


a n d o l d e r

H i n d i n ( 2 0 0 3 )

Z i m b a b w e

1 9 9 9

5 , 9 0 7

F e m a l e , 1 5 - 4 9

D H S

K l o m e g a h ( 2 0 0 8 )

Z a m b i a

2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 2

5 , 9 7 0

M a l e , 1 5 – 5 9 ; f e m a l e ,

1 5 – 4 9

D H S

L a w o k o ( 2 0 0 8 )

Z a m b i a , K e n y a

1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0

5 , 7 4 3

M a l e , 1 5 – 5 9

D H S

L i n o s , K h a w a j a , a n d A l - N s o u r ( 2 0 1

0 )

J o r d a n

2 0 0 2

5 , 3 9 0

F e m a l e , 1 5 – 4 9 , e v e r

m a r r i e d

M a n n a n d T a k y i ( 2 0 0 9 )

G h a n a

2 0 0 3

4 , 2 0 5


– 5 9 ,

m a r r i e d c o u

p l e s

D H S

M a r s h a l l a n d F u r r ( 2 0 1 0 )

T u r k e y

2 0 0 3

8 , 0 7 5

F e m a l e 1 5 – 4 9

R a n i a n d B o n u ( 2 0 0 8 )

A r m e n i a , K a z a k h s t a n , T u r k e y , N e p

a l , B a n g l a d e s h , I n d i a ,

C a m b o d i a

1 9 9 8 / 2 0 0 1

1 3 , 4 9 3

M a l e 1 5 – 5 9 ; F e

m a l e 1 5 – 4 9

D H S 6 7 % I n d i a n

F e m a l e s

S p e i z e r ( 2 0 1 0 )

U g a n d a

2 0 0 6

3 , 0 6 7


– 4 9 , E v e r

m a r r i e d

D H S

S t i c k l e y , K i s l i t s y n a , T i m o f e e v a , a n d

V a ˚ g e r o ¨ ( 2 0 0 8 )

M o s c o w

2 0 0 5

1 , 1 9 0


a n d o l d e r

M H S

U t h m a n , L a w o k , a n d M o r a d i ( 2 0 0 9 )

E t h i o p i a , B u r k i n o F a s o , U g a n d a ,

K e n y a , N i g e r i a , T a n z a n i a , L i b e r i a ,

M o z a m b i q u e , G h a n a , L e s o t h o , Z i m

b a b w e , B e n i n , R w a n d a ,

S w a z i l a n d , N a m i b i a , M a l a w i , M a d

a g a s c a r

2 0 0 3 – 2 0

0 7

9 , 1 4 3 - 2 4 , 0 0 0


– 5 9

D H S

N o n p r o b a b i l i t y / s m a l l s a m p l e

W o r d e n a n d C a r l s o n ( 2 0 0 5 )

U n i t e d S t a t e s

2 0 0 0

1 , 2 0 0


a n d o l d e r

N e w Y o r k

D h a h e r , M i k o l a j c z y k , M a x w e l l , a n d

K r a ¨ m e r ( 2 0 1 0 )

P a l e s t i n e

2 0 0 6

4 5 0

F e m a l e , 1 5 – 4 9

H e a l t h C l i n i c

H a j - Y a h i a ( 2 0 0 3 )

I s r a e l , A r a b

N o t p r o v i d e d

3 6 2

M a l e , 2 0 – 7 0

H a m z e h , F a r s h i , a n d L a f l a m m e ( 2 0 0 8 )

I r a n

2 0 0 5

4 7 7

M a l e , 2 5 – 4 5 , m

a r r i e d 5 þ

y e a r s

K i m - G o h a n d B a e l l o ( 2 0 0 8 )

U n i t e d S t a t e s , V i e t n a m e s e / K o r e a n

N o t p r o v i d e d

4 1 3


a n d o l d e r

S o u t h e r n

C a l i f o r n i a

O g u n j u y i g b e , A k i n l o , a n d E b i g b o l a

( 2 0 0 5 )

N i g e r i a

2 0 0 3

2 9 7


a n d o l d e r

S p y r o u , A n t o n i o u , a n d A g a t h o k l e o u s

( 2 0 0 7 )

C y p r u s

2 0 0 7

4 0 1

F e m a l e , 1 8 – 6 0 , i n c u r r e n t

r e l a t i o n s h i p .

170



however, infidelity justified IPV equally or less than going out

without permission in Nigeria and India, and equally or less

than when a wife argues with her husband in Moscow and Iran.

Sociodemographic Differences

Compared to their male counterparts, femaleswere more likely to justify IPV in the selected studies. When both genders were sur-

veyed, females reported a higher rate of IPV justification two

thirds of the time, with a percentagepoint differenceranging from

1% to35%. When the male justification rate in a particular coun-

try was higher for a given scenario, the gender difference was

minor. Nine studies conducted multivariate analyses to predict

IPV justification to explore the impact of other sociodemographic

factors (Table 3). These studies identified that individuals who

were more likely to justify IPV were younger, had little or no edu-

cation,were currently married,were poor, unemployed, and from

rural communities. Other measures of patriarchy in the family

presented an increased risk for IPV justification (Marshall; Uth-

man), as did witnessing one’s father beatone’s mother (Speitzer).

The most consistent finding was that younger respondents were

more likely to justify IPV than their older counterparts. Females

under age 24 showed up to twice the likelihood of justifying IPV

compared with older females. One study identified that malesunder age 25 had 2.5 times the likelihood of justifying IPV than

their older counterparts, and another found that males aged 18–

30 were 3.6 times more likely to justify IPV compared with older

males.

Differences Across Countries

There are some notable differences when comparing across

countries. For example, on the island of Madagascar, there is

low justification—less than 8% —of IPV overall with the

Table 2. Percentage Supporting Partner Violence Across Measured Scenarios

LocationVictim’s

fault*

Poor care of home/burns

food Neglects child Argues back Refuses sex

Goes outwithout

permission DisobeysInsults

him InfidelitySuspects agirlfriend

Africa/sub-SaharanGhana 20/9 45/28 37/19 27/13 41/23

Kenya 14 52 45 28 39Nigeria 19 61 49 40 78 66Nigeria 5 3Sub-

Saharan**3–50/1–21 11–59/5–49 3–56/3–41 7–38/2–25 10–57/45–40

Uganda 24/13 57/43 43/35 34/19 55/39Zambia 26 49 42 27 60Zambia 48/22 64/45 57/38 53/24 83/55Zimbabwe 12 33 40 28 30

East Asia and the PacificAsia** 4–25/3–11 25–40/22–27 9–34/11–36 3–16/4–15 11–37/10–25India 22* 39* 35 31Turkey 6 23 29 17Turkey 5 23 36 15New

Zealand0.2 0.1 0.5 0.4

EuropeCyprus 0.2 0.2 3 0.2EU** 39

Spain 54

Moscow 2 12 1 1 12 1

Middle EastIran 53 57 65 75 63 49

Israel andArab

25 29

Jordan 60 37 4 24 53 10Palestine 5 37 11 25 49 59

Western hemisphereUnited

States

23 15

UnitedStatesand Asian

3 2 17

Note. Plain Text: Male, Bold Text: Female, Italicized Text: Combined Gender; *: Various wording were used under this construct such as ‘‘Some women who areabused secretly want to be treated that way’’; ** Multiple Countries combined.

Waltermaurer 171



exception of females and only when a child is neglected. In con-

trast, the neighboring countries on the mainland, Mozambique and

Tanzania show a 30–40% support for partner violence across all

scenarios. However, there appear to be far more variability within

countries across scenarios and gender than there was betweencountries. Very few countries showed either a consistently low

or a consistently high justification of IPV. In fact, respondents

withina country were more likelyto reporta higherrate of IPVjus-

tification for one circumstance but a lower rate for another. For

example, the Nepal prevalence of IPV justification was below

10% regarding food preparation, refusal of sex, and, for females,

arguing back, however,onequarter of Nepalese males andfemales

felt IPV was justified when children were neglected.

Discussion

Internationally there has been a small but growing examination of

the general public’s social perception of IPV (e.g., Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security, 2010; Gracia & Her-

rero, 2006). This includes the development and implementation

of the DHS’s ‘‘Women’s Status and Empowerment,’’ a global

research project by the U.S. Agency for International Develop-

ment, generating data specifically examining public justification

of IPV in multiple nations. This review identifies that among the

countries represented in existing studies, IPV is justifiable to a

significant proportion of the population as a response to certain

failures on the part of the female. Interestingly, in the sampled

countries, it was more typical for females to justify IPV than

males and for both genders, neglect of the child warranted the

greatest justification for IPV. It appears also that individuals most

likely to justify IPV tend to be poorer and come from rural com-munities with limited education and employment. Not unexpect-

edly, greater justification of IPV yielded from individuals likely

to support patriarchal ideals. Considering that IPV has had global

attention for over a decade, as evidenced by the 1995 Fourth

World Conference on Women in Beijing where this behaviorwas

denounced by then United Nations Secretary-General Boutros

Boutros-Ghali, one could assume that, while older populations

appear fixed in their attitudes toward IPV, younger populations

should be influenced by increased global understanding of this

problem. However, this review repeatedly found that the younger

population (individuals under the age of 30) tended to justify IPV

more—not less—than their elders. This greater acceptance by

younger populations may lend insight into the increased victimi-

zation rate among younger women.

Although IPV occurs across continents and cultures, public perception of IPV is typically distinguished by the cultural norms

of a specific group (Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Parish, Wang, Lau-

mann,Pan, & Luo, 2004; Tajaden & Thoennes, 2000). This review

focused more on differences between nations rather than between

cultures; often within one country, multiple cultures are repre-

sented. Our current understanding, that partner violence holds dif-

ferent implications across cultural groups (Senturia, Sullivan,

Ciske, & Shiu-Thornton, 2000), can be applied toward under-

standing the potentialdifferences of IPV justification between cul-

tural group. The culture role of women in a society, which is

intricately tied into the larger cultural value system, defines both

the status and rights of women. This, in turn, can define whether

the larger social group feels that a partner has the right to abuseand whether the fault of the abuse is with the victim rather than

the offender. For example, the heightened importance of family

over individuality that is found in many Asian cultures (Yoshi-

hama, 2002) may help explain the high rate of justification in

Asian populations particularly when a child is being neglected.

When the bride is culturally viewed as the property of the

husband, a husband’s violence may be viewed as his right and

responsibility (Horne, 1999). As a result, satisfied that he is not

violating the norms of his cultural group, the perpetration of

violence becomes more likely. After the violence, within cultures

where the role of women is maintained primarily within the

household, her knowledge of legal rights and understanding of

help-seeking behaviors is foreign. Not only doesthis further chal-lenge her perspective that the abuse may not be justifiable, it also

limits the likelihood that she will seek assistance from a third

party. Finally, cultural perspectives of the role of women in rela-

tion to their spouses impact whether witnesses and the criminal

justice system define any abusive act by a husband as criminal

or evenwrong.That is, if a wife’sbehavior crosses cultural expec-

tations not only is it plausible that both males and females feel

punishment is justified, but it is further possible that these individ-

uals do not see this punishment as an act of violence. It should be

added that the Western cultural lens often prevents many IPV

Table 3. Factors Predicting IPV Justification

Factor predicting increased justification of IPV

Author and yearCountry/region

Samplegender

Youngerage

Lowereducation

Currentlymarried Poor

Notworking Rural

Antai and Antai (2009) Nigeria F

Linos, Khawaja, and Al-Nsour (2010) Jordan F Marshall and Furr (2010) Turkey F

Rani and Banu (2008) Asia M/F

Speizer (2010) Uganda M/F

Stickley, Kislitsyna, Timofeeva, and Vagero (2008) Moscow M/F

Uthman, Lawok, and Moradi (2010) Africa M/F

Dhaher, Mikolajczyk, Maxwell, and Kramer (2010) Palestine F




researchers from considering the cultural implications on an

individual’s comfort in participating in these surveys in the first

place. In many cultures these surveys may be the first time indi-

viduals have ever been asked such private matters by strangers.

Particularly for the women in these cultures,there is no doubt that

survey participation exceeds the comfort level of many which

may have further implications on the findings.

This review is subject to a few limitations worth noting. This

review represents only 61 countries or just over 30% of the

approximately 195 countries in the world. Furthermore, within

certain countries, sampling restrictions provided a limited lens

to the attitudes in that country. For example, in Israel, only an

Arab population is represented and in the United States the

sample includes only those living in northern New York and

those in southern California of Vietnamese and Korean des-

cent. Second, there were inconsistencies in how researchers

measured IPV justification. While most used the DHS measure

of a husband being justified in beating his wife across 4–6 sce-

narios, the U.S. survey based in New York presented more indi-

rect justification questions such as asking whether abused women secretly wanted to be abused and whether IPV was due

to adultery (Worden & Carlson, 2005). Similarly, the EU study

asked those sampled whether they felt IPV was acceptable at

least in some circumstances and whether IPV was caused by

the ‘‘provocative nature of women’’ (Gracia & Herrero,

2006). Finally, an Israeli-based study of ultra-orthodox males

was excluded as it provided very culturally specific scenarios

such as whether IPV was justifiable if the wife does or says

something to reduce the chances of an arranged marriage for

his child (Steinmetz & Haj-Yahia, 2006).

IPV is a prevalent problem worldwide. While this act easily

crosses cultural divides, justification of this behavior differs both

between and within countries. Future efforts to implement educa-tion and policy aimed at preventing IPV should include an under-

standing of the social perceptions of whether or not this behavior

is wrong. Otherwise, efforts to prevent it will be relatively futile.

Finally, this review identified that we lack an understanding of

IPV justification across the entire globe.Furtherresearch of coun-

tries not included in this review is warranted, for as long as IPV is

viewed as justifiable behavior we cannot expect much reduction

of this behavior or improved policy prohibiting it.

What is known:

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a problem that crosses nation’sboundaries and cultural divides. However, there is a disparity overthe responses to IPV worldwide and the efforts to reduce thisviolence have shown only minimal success, supporting the need tounderstand the extent that our societies justify this behavior.

What this article adds:

This article offers a comprehensive review of the current literatureexploring public justification of intimate partner violence, specifi-cally violence against women. It identifies that justification of IPVexists worldwide, more prevalent in some countries than in others.In addition, this review identified that IPV is more often justified byfemales and individuals under the age of 30.

Critical Findings

The reported prevalence of IPV justification ranged from

2% to 60% in the scenario: ‘‘If a wife burns the food or fails

to serve it on time.’’ An IPV justification prevalence range

of 5–64% was found for the scenario ‘‘When a wife

neglects her children.’’ A range of less than 1–38% felt IPV

was justified in the scenario: ‘‘When a wife refuses sex.’’Lastly, an IPV justification prevalence range of 1–56%was

found for the scenario: ‘‘When a wife argues back to her

husband.’’

Few studies examined the cause of IPV justification. Of

those that did, partner violence toward women was found

to be more often justified by females and individuals under

the age of 30. In addition, it was consistently found that

individuals who were more likely to justify IPV were from

rural communities, had little or no education, and were

poor.

There are many gaps to our knowledge internationally

about the justification of IPV particularly in Europe and the

Western Hemisphere.

Implications for Practice, Policy, andResearch

Responding to IPV incidence is dictated by individual and

social acceptance of this behavior. Therefore, to respond

appropriately in any environment it is germane to assess the

degree to which the practitioner, victim, and offender feel

that the partner violence was justified.

There is a disparity over the responses to IPV worldwide

and the efforts to reduce this violence have shown only

minimal success supporting the need to understand theextent that our societies justify this behavior.

Further research is needed to provide a more expansive pic-

ture of the extent to which multiple societies justify IPV.

This information should further be used to understand the

development of IPV prevention policies and to measure the

implication of social IPV justification on IPV prevalence

within countries.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe author received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

References

Akin, L., & Ozaydin, N. (2005). The relationship between males’

attitudes to partner violence and use of contraceptive methods in

Turkey. European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive

Health Care, 10, 199–206.

Antai, D., & Antai, J. (2009). Collective violence and attitudes of

women toward intimate partner violence: Evidence from the Niger

Waltermaurer 173



Delta. BMC International of Health Human Rights, 9, 12.

Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/9/12

Boyle, M., Georgiades, K., Cullen, J., & Racine, Y. (2009). Commu-

nity influences on intimate partner violence in India: Women’s

education, attitudes toward mistreatment and standards of living.

Social Science & Medicine, 69, 691–697.

Browning, C. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending

social disorganization. Theory to partner violence. Journal of Mar-

riage and Family, 64, 833–850.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de

Gruyter.

Dhaher, E., Mikolajczyk, R., Maxwell, A., & Kramer, A. (2010). Atti-

tudes toward wife beating among Palestinian women of reproduc-

tive age from three cities in West Bank. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 25, 18–537.

Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security. (2010).

Directorate-General Communication. Eurobarometer 73.2.

Domestic Violence against Women. Belgium.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New

York: Free Press.Emery, C., Jolley, J., & Wu, S. (2010, October 21). Desistance from

intimate partner violence: The role of legal cynicism, collective

efficacy, and social disorganization in Chicago neighborhoods.

American Journal Community Psychology.

Eurobarometer 73.2 Domestic Violence against Women. (2010). Con-

ducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of Directorate-

General for Justice, Freedom and Security (DG Justice after the

administrative reorganisation). Directorate-General Communication.

Fanslow, J., Robinson, E., Crengle, S., & Perese, L. (2010). Juxtapos-

ing beliefs and reality: Prevalence rates of intimate partner

violence and attitudes to violence and gender roles reported by

New Zealand women. Violence Against Women, 16 , 812–831.

Frye, V., & Wilt, S. (2001). Femicide and social disorganization.Violence Against Women, 7 , 335–351.

Gage, A. J., & Hutchinson, P. L. (2006). Power, control, and intimate

partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 35,

11–24.

Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006). Acceptability of domestic violence

against women in the European Union: A multilevel analysis.

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60, 123–129.

Gracia, E., Herrero, J., & Lila, M. (2008). Explaining the immigration-

partner violence link: Attitudes towards partner violence among

latin-American immigrants in Spain. The Open Family Studies

Journal , 1, 31–38.

Haj-Yahia, M. (2003). Beliefs about wife beating among Arab men

from Israel: The influence of their patriarchal ideology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 193–206.

Hamzeh, B., Farshi, M.G., & Laflamme, L. (2008). Opinions of mar-

ried women about potential causes and triggers of intimate partner

violence against women. A cross-sectional investigation in an Ira-

nian city. BMC Public Health, 8, 209–218.

Hindin, M. J. (2003). Understanding women’s attitudes towards wife

beating in Zimbabwe. Bulletin of the World Health Organization,

81, 501.

Horne, S. (1999). Domestic violence in Russia. American Psycholo-

gist, 54, 55–61.

Kim-Goh, M., & Baello, J. (2008). Attitudes toward domestic vio-

lence in Korean and Vietnamese immigrant communities: Impli-

cations for human services. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

23, 647–654.

Klomegah, R. (2008). Intimate partner violence (IPV) in Zambia: An

examination of risk factors and gender perceptions. Journal of

Comparative Family Studies, 39, 557–569.

Lawoko, S. (2008). Predictors of attitudes toward intimate partner vio-

lence: A comparative study of men in Zambia and Kenya. Journal

of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1056–1074.

Linos, N., Khawaja, M., & Al-Nsour, M. (2010). Women’s autonomy

and support for wife beating: Findings from a population-based

survey in Jordan. Violence and Victims, 25, 409–419.

Mann, J., & Takyi, B. (2009). Autonomy, dependence or culture:

Examining the impact of resources and socio-cultural processes

on attitudes towards intimate partner violence in Ghana, Africa.

Journal of Family Violence, 24, 323–335.

Marshall, G. A., & Furr, L. A. (2010). Factors that affect women’s atti-

tudes toward domestic violence in Turkey. Violence and Victims,

25, 265–277.Mead, G. H. (1956). Mind, self, andsociety.In C. W.Morris(Ed.), Social

psychology (pp. 135–226). Chicago, IL: Universityof ChicagoPress.

Ogunjuyigbe, P. O., Akinlo, A., & Ebigbola, J. A. (2005).Violence

against women: An examination of men’s attitudes and perceptions

about wife beating and contraceptive use. Journal of Asian &

African Studies, 40, 219–229.

Parish, W., Wang, T., Laumann, E., Pan, S., & Luo, Y. (2004). Inti-

mate partner violence in China: National prevalence, risk factors

and associate health problems. International Family Planning Per-

spective, 30, 174–181.

Rani, M., & Banu, S. (2008). Attitudes toward wife beating: A cross

country study in Asia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24,

1371–1397.Sampson, R. (1993). The community context of violent crime. In W.

Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda. Newbury Park,

CA: SAGE.

Senturia, K., Sullivan, M., Ciske, S., & Shiu-Thornton, S. (2000). Cul-

tural issues affecting domestic violence service utilization in ethnic

and hard to reach populations. Final Report US Dept of Justice,

National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.

gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID ¼185357

Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Speizer, I. S. (2010). Intimate partner violence attitudes and experi-

ence among women and men in Uganda. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 25, 1224–1241.Spyrou, S., Antoniou, L., & Agathokleous, G. (2007). Domestic vio-

lence: Basic problems, recommendations for prevention and policy

measures bilateral research Proj Ect between the Republic Of

Cyprus and the Republic of Slovenia.

Steinmetz, S., & Haj-Yahia, M. (2006). Definitions of and beliefs

about wife abuse among ultra-orthodox Jewish men from Israel.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 525–554.

Stickley, A., Kislitsyna, O., Timofeeva, I., & Vagero, D. (2008).

Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in

Moscow, Russia. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 447–456.




Tajaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of

male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as

measured by the national violence against women survey. Violence

Against Women, 6 , 143–161.

United Nations General Assembly. (1996). Women and violence.

United Nations Department of Public Information DPI/1772/

HR.

Uthman, O. A., Lawok, S., & Moradi, T. (2009). Factors associated

with attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women:

A comparative analysis of 17 Sub-Saharan Countries. BMC Inter-

national Health and Human Rights, 9, 14.

Waltermaurer, E. (2005). Measuring intimate partner violence: You

may only get what you ask for. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

20, 501–506.

Waltermaurer, E. (2007). Differentiating between intimate partner vio-

lence andstranger violencerisk among women throughan examina-

tion of residential change. Feminist Criminology, 2, 181–201.

Worden, A., & Carlson, B. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domes-

tic violence: Results of a public opinion survey: II. Beliefs about

causes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1219–1243.

Yoshihama, M. (2002). Breaking the Web of Abuse and Silence:-

Voices of Battered Women in Japan. Social Work , 47 , 389–400.

Bio

Eve Waltermaurer has conducted intimate partner violence research

for over 14 years beginning in 1998 as a public health epidemiologist

for the New York City Department of Health Violence Prevention

Unit. Since that time, Waltermaurer has conducted extensive research

on IPV centered on measurement issues, risk, and trajectories drawing

from secondary data analysis, street-level surveys, and clinical sam-

ples. Waltermaurer has published in numerous journals and presented

IPV research at conferences in public health, sociology/criminology,

and interpersonal violence.

Waltermaurer 175

Exemplu+Articol+Tip+Review

Documents

Transcript of Exemplu+Articol+Tip+Review