Using Demographic Risk Factors to Explain Variations in the Incidence of Violence Against Women

Abstract

This article offers statistical support for the contention that demographic risk factors influence the incidence of some women's experiencing violence more than others. Our results were generated using a binary probit model and 6,332 observations from the 1996 Australian Women's Safety Survey. For purposes of comparison, we identified a set of benchmark demographic characteristics as those occurring most frequently in the data set and estimated that if a woman were to have all of these characteristics, the probability she would have experienced violence in the past 12 months was 6.7%. We found that the risk varied with levels of postschool education, income, ethnic background, number and age of children, marital status, and age. Employment status, school-leaving age, and socioeconomic status had no statistically significant effect on the risk of experiencing violence once other factors were considered. This analysis may provide a basis for violence reduction and prevention programs.

The relationship between electronic gaming machine accessibility and police-recorded domestic violence: A spatio-temporal analysis of 654 postcodes in Victoria, Australia, 2005–2014

“…Our finding that postcodes with greater linguistic diversity experience lower rates of police-recorded domestic violence is contrary to the expectations of social disorganisation theory, but consistent with non-ecological surveys in Australia (Mouzos & Makkai, 2004;O'Donnell, Smith, & Madison, 2002). Contrary to our expectations, postcodes with a greater female income share also had elevated rates of violence.…”

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence

“…O’Donnell, Smith, and Madison (2002) found that lower income was associated with greater MFPV. Pan, Neidig, and O’Leary (1994) found that any MFPV was associated with lower income, and that severe MFPV was associated with lower income than mild MFPV.…”

“…In cross-sectional work, O’Donnell et al (2002) found higher risk for MFPV victimization among separated and divorced women versus married women. Hyman, Forte, Mont, Romans, and Cohen (2006) found for the CGSS examining MFPV and victimization that the strongest risk factor for IPV was marital status, with women who were single, divorced, separated, or widowed being 10 times more likely to report IPV as compared to women who were married or living with a common-law partner.…”

The Effect of Local Life Circumstances on Victimization of Drug‐Involved Women

“…Beyond the victimoffender relationship, researchers have focused on correlates of non-lethal victimization among women, including age, race, education, income, employment, and prior victimization. Although some studies have found that younger women are at a higher risk for victimization than older women (O'Donnell, Smith, & Madison, 2002;US Department of Justice, 1998) and African American women are more likely than any other group of women to experience intimate partner violence (US Department of Justice, 2000b), this relationship between race and risk for victimization disappears once other individual and community level factors are included (Lauritsen & White, 2001). Prior victimization, including experiencing abuse as a child, has been associated with an increased risk for subsequent victimization (Gidycz, Hanson, & Layman, 1995;Mandoki & Burkhart, 1989;Stermac, Reist, Addison, & Millar, 2002).…”

“…recognize marginalized female populations as a group that has a significantly higher risk of victimization. Within general populations, studies have examined a wide array of behavioral processes, situational contexts, and other correlates associated with violence and victimization of women, including victim precipitation (Amir, 1971;Gelles, 1979), violence between spouses and intimates (Fagan & Browne, 1994; US Department of Justice, 2000a), victim-offender overlap (Klevens, Duque, & Ramirez, 2002;Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991;Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990), as well as the distribution of violence across groups of women (Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999;Dugan & Apel, 2003;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002;Vogel & Himelein, 1995;Wenzel, Leake, & Gelberg, 2001), and across demographic groups (Lauritsen & White, 2001;O'Donnell, Smith, & Madison, 2002). The most recent advancement is the multi-level examination of relationships among individual, family, and community correlates of a women's victimization (Lauritsen & Schaum, 2004;Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003).…”