A meta-analysis of cross cultural risk markers for intimate partner violence

Abstract

The majority of IPV research has originated from western countries and neglected to examine cultural influences. We meta-analyzed the strength of various well-established risk markers (demographic, individual-level and relational) for male-perpetrated IPV across different cultures. Using Hofstede's (2010) individualism scale, we grouped studies from countries into individualist and collectivist categories, and then accounted for the influence of the large number of U.S.-based studies, by creating 3 groups: U.S., Individualistic, and Collectivist. Risk markers across collectivist and U.S. groups had similar effect sizes across while risk markers in the U.S. had larger effect sizes than those found in the international individualist countries. Our findings suggest that if a comprehensive understanding of IPV perpetration is to be achieved, cultural context cannot be ignored.

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence in Thailand

“…A WHO Study recorded that the 12-month prevalence of partner violence was much higher in developing countries as compared to developed countries such as Canada and the USA (McCormick et al 2016 ), (Stewart et al 2017 ) which suggests that a good legal framework, effective government campaigns, sufficient shelters and women’s individual empowerment are important and provide a foundation from which women have more resources to choose to withdraw from abusive relationships. Findings that emphasize the importance of resources and social status have been noted in Vietnam (Yount and Carrera 2006 ) and others, and suggest that partner violence might be different in settings of low income and unemployment status compare with higher socio-economic settings (Mallory et al 2016 ). Finally, controlling behaviors by male partners were significantly associated with partner violence, which is consistent with WHO findings showing that men who are a perpetrators also show higher rates of controlling behaviors than men who do not abuse their partner (Garcia-Moreno et al 2006 ).…”

Thai women’s experiences of and responses to domestic violence

“… 22 , 26 , 28 Witnessing parental violence is significantly associated with increased risk for violence perpetration and/or the perception that domestic violence is normal. 29 , 30 Women who witness domestic violence are three times more likely to repeat the cycle of violence in adulthood. 5 The strong association highlights the potential importance of interventions programs to prevent child abuse and children witnessing violence by their parents, 22 , 31 especially community-based measures, for example, enhancing a monitoring and supporting network in the community to ensure women can easily access effective services.…”

Public Helping Reactions to Intimate Partner Violence against Women in European Countries: The Role of Gender-Related Individual and Macrosocial Factors

“…Otherwise, gender-related structural factors made reference to degree of real equality between men and women achieved in different areas (e.g., resources, political representation, work, education). Following Hofstede’s framework, dimensions of culture [ 34 ] have been used to understand variation in IPVAW across different countries [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Specially, masculine cultures (i.e., where “traditional” gender roles are strongly maintained in the culture; vs. feminine), greater power distance cultures (i.e., those where a power is not equally distributed among all members; vs. lower power distance) and individual cultures (i.e., the ties between individuals are loose, focusing on themselves and close family; vs. collective) show higher legitimization and rates of IPVAW [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].…”

“…Following Hofstede’s framework, dimensions of culture [ 34 ] have been used to understand variation in IPVAW across different countries [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Specially, masculine cultures (i.e., where “traditional” gender roles are strongly maintained in the culture; vs. feminine), greater power distance cultures (i.e., those where a power is not equally distributed among all members; vs. lower power distance) and individual cultures (i.e., the ties between individuals are loose, focusing on themselves and close family; vs. collective) show higher legitimization and rates of IPVAW [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. However, to our knowledge, empirical evidence is still scarce in order to understand the differential role of gender-related ideological and structural macrosocial factors in helping reaction to IPVAW across European countries [ 40 ].…”