Gender, power, and violence: A systematic review of measures and their association with male perpetration of IPV

Abstract

IntroductionHarmful gender norms, views on the acceptability of violence against women, and power inequities in relationships have been explored as key drivers of male perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV). Yet such antecedents have been inconsistently measured in the empirical literature. This systematic review aimed to identify which measures of gender inequitable norms, views, relations and practices are currently being used in the field, and which are most closely tied with male IPV perpetration.MethodsWe searched five electronic databases to identify studies published between 2000 and 2015 that reported the association between such gender inequities and male perpetration of IPV. Identified scales were categorized by content area and level of generality, as well as other attributes, and we compared the consistency of scale performance across each category.ResultsTwenty-three studies were identified, employing 64 measures. Scales were categorized into three main thematic areas: views on gender roles/norms, acceptance of violence against women, and gender-related inequities in relationship power and control. We also classified whether the scale was oriented to respondents’ own views, or what they believed others do or think. While overall, measures were positively associated with IPV perpetration in 45% of cases, this finding varied by scale type. Measures inclusive of acceptance of violence against women or beliefs about men’s sexual entitlement, followed by scales that measured respondents’ views on gender roles/norms, were most consistently associated with IPV perpetration. Measures of relationship power showed less consistent associations. We found few scales that measured peer or community norms.ConclusionValidated scales that encompass views on the acceptance of violence against women, and scales inclusive of beliefs about men’s sexual entitlement, may be particularly promising for unpacking pathways to IPV perpetration, targeting interventions, and monitoring progress in IPV prevention efforts. A number of gaps in the literature are identified.

Correlates of intimate partner violence among urban women in sub-Saharan Africa

“…Other adjusted variables were the age, level of education, and occupation of the responding women's spouses or partners, the household wealth and union types of the women. Previous studies [8,16,27,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] have linked the selected explanatory variables to IPV in a variety of contexts. Operational definitions of all outcome and explanatory variables are presented in Table 2.…”

“…Among the critical findings in this study is the link between IPV, gender dynamics, and marital power inequities. IPV is often used to maintain and assert power by men [39,63,64]. Situations that diminish men's sense of control over their female partners can exacerbate their use of violence to affirm control and power [65,66].…”

Social technology to prevent intimate partner violence: the VID@ Group in actions with men

“…In gender--based reading, the issue of neutrality gains in scope as it is rooted in patriarchy and should therefore be comprehensively analyzed. Some reasons for gender inequalities and consequent female oppression are explained based on this (7) .…”

“…In the discussion, we seek to uncover gender inequality, especially in the public world, which ends up privileging men. The references used to deal with gender issues were structured in the postulates proposed by references in the area (7,(11)(12) .…”

“…Such a perspective not only encompasses the analytical but also the historical category, pointing out that the differences between men and women must be understood as arising from the social coexistence mediated by culture. In order to understand gender, it is necessary to include the categories race/ethnicity and social class as parameters for the organization of power relations (7) .…”