Multivariate analyses of the global acceptability rates of male intimate partner violence (IPV) against women based on World Values Survey data

Abstract

Summary Major international organizations like UN Women and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that nowadays, more than one‐third of all women in the world suffer male intimate partner violence (IPV) at some point in their lives and that eliminating the societal acceptancy of that violence is a major element in combatting it. While there is consensus that IPV has disastrous public health consequences, so far, little is known about the drivers of IPV acceptability rates. This article therefore analyzes available global opinion data from the World Values Survey (WVS) project in 72 countries of the world, representing some four‐fifths of the global population. Existing IPV data published prior to this study already suggested that the highest global incidence of IPV is to be found in sub‐Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Andean Latin America. Neoliberal political economy in the tradition of Hayek maintained for a long time that the disrespect of property rights and traditional family values can have disastrous social and economic effects. Our study renders support for this theory: On the basis of a variety of statistical analyses, including a factor analysis of 45 key items from the WVS data, we conclude that apart from attitudes on gender equality, the disrespect of property rights and traditional family values, analyzed by Hayek, emerge as the major drivers of high acceptability rates of IPV. Mali, Serbia, Montenegro, Zambia, Burkina Faso, India, the Philippines, Rwanda, Egypt, and Algeria are on top of this list of global rates of IPV acceptability.

Measurement of supportive attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women among a Spanish-speaker sample

“…Relating to the acceptability of VAW and IPVAW, some general surveys carried out in the European Union [ 32 , 33 ] showed that the majority of the people considered IPVAW as unacceptable in all circumstances and always punishable by law, with this rejection gaining ground over time; only about 1–2% of the people interviewed thought this violence as acceptable in certain circumstances or even in all circumstances. In line with these findings, Tausch [ 30 ] analyzed data from the World Values Survey project, and observed that some Western European countries (such as Italy or Norway) are among those with the lowest rates of acceptance of IPVAW. However, it is important to remark that, despite this rejection, European Union surveys [ 11 , 29 , 33 , 34 ] showed a high prevalence of IPVAW victim blaming attitudes in the EU, and the number of people who consider the provocative behavior of women as a cause of such violence actually increased between these two surveys, from 46.1% in 1999 to 52% in 2010.…”

Psychosocial Implications of Supportive Attitudes towards Intimate Partner Violence against Women throughout the Lifecycle

“…Multiple comparisons between groups yielded two homogeneous sets for all dimensions: lower acceptance [Set 1] and higher acceptance [Set 2]. Adolescents (<18) and older adults (≥60) performed in higher acceptance, whereas middle-aged adults and young adults (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) performed in lower acceptance, except in F3-VP, where young adults performed in the higher acceptance set with adolescents and older adults. 1 Set 1 = lower acceptance of IPVAW; Set 2 = higher acceptance of IPVAW.…”

“…Here again, two homogeneous sets are identified for the variables whose differences are statistically significant: lower acceptance [Set 1, i.e., higher perceived frequency] and higher acceptance [Set 2, i.e., lower perceived frequency]. Regarding perceived frequency of psychological abuse, attitudes differ between age groups by adopting a U-shape distribution: adolescents (<18) and older adults (≥60) performed in Set 2, whereas young adults (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) and middle-aged adults (30-59) performed in Set 1. In the case of violent threats, only older adults performed in Set 2 whereas all the other groups performed in Set 1.…”

“…The available findings show that these attitudes are modulated by individual, organizational, community and social factors [4,14], including gender, age, educational level, political orientation, income level, marital status, place of residence, country of origin and experiences of victimization, in addition to the country's level of development, its location on equal terms, its culture or its level of religiosity [15][16][17][18]. However, cross-cultural analyses show that there are regional and cultural differences in these attitudes [2,8,10,16,17,[19][20][21][22].…”

Comparing Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women

“…Additionally, Tausch (2019) analyzed data from the WVS, specifically data from 72 countries around the world, and observed that some Western European countries (such as Italy or Norway) are among those with the lowest rates of acceptance of IPVAW.…”