Wife Beating in South Africa

Choi, Susanne Y. P.; Ting, Kwok‐fai

doi:10.1177/0886260507313951

Cited by 66 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the links between relationship power and aggression are mixed. Some studies report similar associations between power and aggression for men and women (e.g., Bentley et al, 2007; Choi & Ting, 2008; Leonard & Senchak, 1996; Ronfeldt et al, 1998) whereas others have found low perceived influence or decision-making power to be linked with self-reported aggression for men, but not women (e.g., Babcock et al, 1993; Rogers et al, 2005; Sagrestano et al, 1999). However, none of these prior studies tested whether there were significant gender differences, and many of the existing studies also report several null effects for both men and women.…”

Section: Gender Power and Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men’s aggressive responses to low situational power.

Overall¹,

Hammond²,

McNulty

et al. 2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When does power in intimate relationships shape important interpersonal behaviors, such as psychological aggression? Five studies tested whether possessing low relationship power was associated with aggressive responses, but (1) only within power-relevant relationship interactions when situational power was low, and (2) only by men because masculinity (but not femininity) involves the possession and demonstration of power. In Studies 1 and 2, men lower in relationship power exhibited greater aggressive communication during couples’ observed conflict discussions, but only when they experienced low situational power because they were unable to influence their partner. In Study 3, men lower in relationship power reported greater daily aggressive responses toward their partner, but only on days when they experienced low situational power because they were either (a) unable to influence their partner or (b) dependent on their partner for support. In Study 4, men who possessed lower relationship power exhibited greater aggressive responses during couples’ support-relevant discussions, but only when they had low situational power because they needed high levels of support. Study 5 provided evidence for the theoretical mechanism underlying men’s aggressive responses to low relationship power. Men who possessed lower relationship power felt less manly on days they faced low situational power because their partner was unwilling to change to resolve relationship problems, which in turn predicted greater aggressive responses to their partner. These results demonstrate that fully understanding when and why power is associated with interpersonal behavior requires differentiating between relationship and situational power.

show abstract

Section: Gender Power and Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men’s aggressive responses to low situational power.

Overall¹,

Hammond²,

McNulty

et al. 2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gendered resource theorists purport that IPV results from an imbalance in the relative resources that a man has vis-à-vis his wife. Studies in the United States and South Africa have shown that women who earn more money than their husband or who serve as the family head experience IPV by their husband as retaliation for transgressing customary gender norms (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Lang, 2005; Choi & Ting, 2008). In Vietnam, women who are more economically successful than their husbands may face disapproval because their status threatens customary familial norms (Lan Anh Hoang & Yeoh, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, having children may lead women to justify IPV if they are financially dependent and perceive no alternatives to staying with their violent husband (Rusbult & Martz, 1995; Yount & Li, 2009). A woman’s economic dependence on her partner elevates her risk of experiencing IPV, and women often cite the absence of viable economic opportunities to explain the decision to stay with a violent partner (Choi & Ting, 2008; Kalmuss, 1982; Rusbult & Martz, 1995). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Women Justify Violence Against Wives More Often Than Do Men in Vietnam?

Krause

Gordon-Roberts

VanderEnde

et al. 2016

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) harms the health of women and their children. In Vietnam, 31% of women report lifetime exposure to physical IPV, and surprisingly, women justify physical IPV against wives more often than do men. Objective We compare men’s and women’s rates of finding good reason for wife hitting and assess whether differences in childhood experiences and resources and constraints in adulthood account for observed differences. Methods Probability samples of married men (N = 522) and women (N = 533) were surveyed in Vietnam. Ordered logit models assessed the proportional odds for women versus men of finding more “good reasons” to hit a wife (never, 1–3 situations, 4–6 situations). Results In all situations, women found good reason to hit a wife more often than did men. The unadjusted odds for women versus men of reporting more good reasons to hit a wife were 6.55 (95% CI 4.82 – 8.91). This gap disappeared in adjusted models that included significant interactions of gender with age, number of children ever born, and experience of physical IPV as an adult. Discussion Having children was associated with justifying wife hitting among women but not men. Exposure to IPV in adulthood was associated with justifying wife hitting among men but was negatively associated with justification of IPV among women. Further study of the gendered effects of resources and constraints in adulthood on attitudes about IPV against women will clarify women’s more frequent reporting than men’s that IPV against women is justified.

show abstract

“…Gender-based power imbalances are one of the most compelling explanations for IPV among women (Blanc, 2001). Power may be connected with IPV through its association with masculinity, male dominance, and control over women (Choi & Ting, 2008; Jewkes, 2002;Morrell, Jewkes, Lindegger, & Hamlall, 2013). In South Africa, for example, women in relationships with high levels of male control were more likely to report recent or previous IPV (Dunkle et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the few studies that used data on both partners, the focus has been on economic resources and, together, these studies offer mixed support for the role of economic power imbalances on IPV victimization (Choi & Ting, 2008; Conroy, 2013). A systematic review of economic empowerment and violence in low and middle income countries also finds divergent evidence for the role of income generation on women’s risk of violence (Vyas & Watts, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marital Infidelity and Intimate Partner Violence in Rural Malawi: A Dyadic Investigation

Conroy

2014

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extramarital sexual partnerships are a common reason for intimate partner violence (IPV) in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite the fact that IPV requires an interaction between two partners, the majority of the research focuses on individuals rather than the broader relationship context where such violence takes place. Using a sample of 422 married couples from rural Malawi, this study examined the dyadic environment of marital infidelity and two types of IPV victimization: sexual coercion and physical abuse. We considered both self-reported marital infidelity and perceived partner infidelity to assess how well partners knew each other and to compare their respective associations with IPV. Logistic regression was used to test for associations between self-reported marital infidelity and IPV. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine actor and partner effects of perceived partner infidelity on an individual’s and their partner’s experience of IPV. The results show that self-reported marital infidelity was not significantly associated with IPV for men or women. However, the perception of a partner’s infidelity was significantly associated with both an individual’s and their partner’s risk for sexual coercion and physical abuse. Contrary to the “sexual double standard” hypothesis, women were not significantly more likely than men to report being physically abused when their partners suspected infidelity. Future studies should continue to explore the relationship context of IPV in sub-Saharan Africa in order to understand how spouses mutually shape each other’s experience of IPV and subsequent health outcomes.

show abstract

Wife Beating in South Africa

Cited by 66 publications

References 41 publications

When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men’s aggressive responses to low situational power.

When power shapes interpersonal behavior: Low relationship power predicts men’s aggressive responses to low situational power.

Why Do Women Justify Violence Against Wives More Often Than Do Men in Vietnam?

Marital Infidelity and Intimate Partner Violence in Rural Malawi: A Dyadic Investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About