Social network correlates of IPV acceptance in rural Honduras and rural Uganda

Abstract

We investigated the household-level social network correlates of acceptance of intimate partner violence (IPV) in rural, agrarian settings of Honduras and Uganda, two low-income countries with unequal access to resources based upon gender. We collected complete social network data in each location (Honduras in 2014 and Uganda in 2012), across a diverse range of relationships, and then created a measure of household cohesion by calculating the degree to which members of a household nominated each other as important social connections. Our measure of IPV acceptance was based on 4 questions from the Demographic Health Survey to assess the conditions under which a person believes that it is acceptable for a man to perpetrate physical violence against his wife or partner and we coded a person as positive on IPV acceptance if they answered positively to any of the four questions. We used logistic regression to calculate the odds that an individual accepted IPV given (1) household level cohesion and (2) the proportion of the household that accepts IPV. We found individuals from more cohesive households were less likely to accept IPV controlling for the overall level of IPV acceptance in the household. Nevertheless, those in households more accepting of IPV were more likely to personally accept IPV. In stratified analyses, when household IPV acceptance was especially high, the benefit of household cohesion with respect to IPV was attenuated. The design and implementation of interventions to prevent IPV should consider household structure and norms rather than focusing only on individuals or couples.

Intimate partner violence attitudes: Who tolerates the most?

“…Although the prevalence of physical violence acceptance was lower than the other two dimensions, nearly half of the sample accepted at least one situation where physical threat was present. This scenario suggests that, despite its rejection, physical violence is still considered bearable and culturally accepted, which agrees with previous reports describing physical aggression between inti-mate partners as part of romantic relationships (Machado et al, 2014), deserved for disobeying the partner (Molina & Moreno, 2015), justified when wives do not make what it is expected of them (Shakya et al, 2018), and a way to solve conflicts (Guzmán González et al, 2016). Thus, it is possible that the high acceptance of abuse, controlling interactions between partners and physical violence found in this study, reflects a bigger picture about rule enactment between romantic partners.…”

A Systematic Review of Systems Science Approaches to Understand and Address Domestic and Gender-Based Violence

“…Among studies of attitudes towards IPV, four studies found evidence that individual attitudes towards IPV were strongly influenced by IPV acceptance among household members (Shakya et al, 2016(Shakya et al, , 2018, broader social network members (Sandberg et al, 2021), and peers (Swartout, 2013). However, other studies found only weak or no social network influences on attitudes towards sexual violence among adolescents and when accounting for individual perceptions of network members' attitudes (Itaru, 2003).…”

Measuring social norms of intimate partner violence to exert control over wife agency, sexuality, and reproductive autonomy: an item response modelling of the IPV-ASRA scale

“…While many studies aggregate individual-level beliefs as a proxy for social norms, aggregated individual beliefs fail to capture key components of social norms: social expectations of others in the community, reference groups, and social sanctions and approval [ 26 ]. Few studies have examined injunctive norms or second order beliefs specific to IPV, but those that do suggest that perceived social norms and peer behaviour are related to individual IPV behaviour and that IPV can potentially be prevented by changing the social context [ 35 , 43 , 44 , 51 ]. Violence prevention researchers are clear that effective interventions need to target social and contextual factors, like social norms, yet these efforts are substantially limited by lack of effective social norms measurement tools [ 5 , 16 , 24 ].…”