Introduction
Intimate Partner Violence is a highly prevalent form of abuse both in the United States and around the world. According to the World Health Organization, one in three women around the world has or will experience some form of IPV in their lifetime. It is important to note that IPV can take place in several forms, and is almost always described as mental abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or all three. As a public health issue, IPV is significant because it creates lifelong impacts on the survivors. As outlined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, people who have experienced some form of intimate partner violence may have emotional trauma, physical impairments, chronic health problems, and, in extreme cases, death. Not to mention the issues that arise in a victim’s daily life. Some survivors find it hard to do daily tasks, feel isolated from family and friends, and even feel shame about reaching out for help. In order to better understand this issue, this site will follow four main research questions which outline how these kinds of violence affect survivors’ external relationships and mental health, what barriers survivors face when attempting to seek help, and what gender differences and societal norms affect the frequency of reporting cases of IPV. Drawing on the data from the World Health Organization’s multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women, we are able to comprise a comprehensive analysis of IPV’s multifaceted consequences. Our statistical analysis indicates that a substantial proportion of IPV occurs in the early stages of marriages and are more prevalent amongst low-income communities. The WHO data set is somewhat skewed in terms of how it is organized because it mixes the data of countries with income range, however, it gives possibly the most comprehensive data set to date because it utilizes these factors, and breaks down nearly each country’s reported numbers. The WHO dataset utilized in this project is relevant to our research mainly because it showcases the prevalence of IPV by providing estimates of the proportion of women who have experienced IPV, in which the dataset allows us to quantify the extent of the issue across different countries. This dataset also allows us to analyze the timing of IPV incidents, which helps us understand how it might be related to the duration of the relationship which ultimately leads to interventions and mental health monitoring. Lastly, it allows us to understand the cultural factors and effects that IPV has on people and those surrounding them, being able to get a better understanding of why there might be more prevalence in certain parts of the world.
Analysis
Our research into intimate partner violence (IPV) includes three primary data sources: (1) “Proportion of women who have ever experienced intimate partner violence (%)”, (2) “Domestic abuse 2020 Archived”, and (3) “Share of women who suffered intimate partner physical and/or sexual violence in 2020, by region”. The projections from the United Nations Inter-Agency Working Group on Violence Against Women Estimation and Data in (1) are prevalence estimates generated via multilevel linear regression based on a variety of survey data. This survey data (conducted 2000-2018) consists of specialized international surveys on IPV (including WHO and EU data) and national health and crime surveys. The global scale of this dataset illustrates the national and regional differences in IPV while putting into context the significance of global efforts and regimes towards reporting and minimizing domestic violence. In particular, its inclusion of regional and national classifications provides different granularities of analysis. The survey-based methodology works to combat dominant narratives that often silence survivors and contribute to severe underreporting. Additionally, this data is recorded over nearly the past 2 decades which demonstrates that IPV is contemporary and pervasive. (3) represents similar survey-based estimates from the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap report stressing the gender-based disparities resulting from IPV. In contrast to the international scale of (1) and (3), (2) utilizes crime survey data (from the Office for National Statistics) specifically in England and Wales for adults aged 16 to 74 years. The choice of crime survey data as opposed to strictly police records calls attention to how legal structures and accountability measures are insufficient in the status quo. The specificity of (2) allows for analysis between racial and ethnic groups and how ethnic differences influence individual survivor’s experiences. Expansive survey based datasets like ours emphasize: the scale and frequency to which IPV occurs and the importance of investing resources into IPV reporting, care for survivors, and identifying legal and cultural barriers to reporting. Each of these sets includes acknowledgements of underreporting, the varying definitions of IPV, and wide age groups of survivors. IPV reporting, as acknowledged by the majority of the literature, is influenced by a variety of socio-economic, cultural, and interpersonal factors. The WHO defines IPV as “Behaviour by an intimate partner that causes physical, sexual, or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behaviors”, distinguishing it as a set of behaviors rather than just a one-off event (Herring, Page 38). This distinction can have real life consequences for survivors since the nature of the coercive control can be “difficult to prove or explain to an outside authority” and, “lead to cases where the victims end up blaming themselves for the abuse” (Herring, Page 42). Not only does this have a psychological impact on survivors, but it also contributes to the pervasive issue of underreporting. When investigating IPV it’s necessary researchers use a broad lens so that all survivor’s experiences are heard and reported. For example, same-sex intimate partner violence (SSIPV) is often underreported for that very reason, “despite the predominant focus on physical abuse … same-sex couples experience more psychological abuse than physical abuse” (Kar et al 22). Without this broad lens, IPV reporting can universalize the range of a survivor’s experiences whereby “all of these differences [in survivor’s experiences] are collapsed into one category or concept of ‘violence’ ” (Dobash, Page 31).
The data includes a large proportion of European-Union-wide surveys on violence and modules on violence against women (including Demographic and Health Surveys and Reproductive Health Surveys) which were collected from modules of larger national health surveys. However, smaller portions of the data consist of national crime victimization surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS). It was necessary that all included surveys met the WHO criteria such that they were population-based, representative at a national or subnational level, conducted between 2000 and 2018 but available by 2019, and used acts-based measures. After ensuring all requirements were satisfied, the United Nations Inter-Agency Working Group on Violence Against Women Estimate and Data (VAW-IAWGED) analyzed to generate estimates of the proportion of women, ages 15 to 49, who experienced intimate partner violence by using a multilevel regression model. All included sources are VAW-IAWGED, WHO, UN Women, UNICEF, UNSD, UNFPA, and UNODC who are key agencies within the United Nations system who work to address humanitarian issues globally. The data was funded and created by the World Bank Group though there were numerous donations to deliver more accurate representations of data for women in many countries. During the preprocessing of our data, we utilized two subsections of affected women, including those who have ever experience intimate partner violence and those who have experienced spousal, physical, or sexual violence within the first ten years of their marriage either by a former or current partner. Additionally, we want to acknowledge the distinctively significant gap of information given that the collected data includes only 38 of 217 countries, though we assume there are outlying factors such as social norms, cultural aspects, or normalized determinants that work to lessen the reporting of domestic violence. The VAW-IAWGED generated prevalence estimates of intimate partner violence against women and non-partner sexual violence against women using a multilevel regression model. The main sources of data on violence against women are: (i) specialized surveys on violence against women, such as those using the WHO multi-country study instrument and methodology or the European Union (EU)-wide survey on violence, and (ii) modules on violence against women within larger national health surveys, such as the DHS and RHS. Despite the limitations, the findings offer a crucial understanding of the global landscape of violence against women, highlighting the need for comprehensive strategies to combat and prevent such violence worldwide.
Image sourced from PNGtree.com
Further Analysis
Intimate partner violence continues to be a deeply underreported issue as we study various influencing aspects including patriarchal standards, regional societal and cultural expectations, and the limited access to care to effectively address IPV on a case-by-case basis. As we’ve researched, patriarchal standards perpetuate male dominance within heteronormative relationships, further increasing the gap that gender inequality has created, and shifting the narrative around IPV as a normalized phenomenon. More specifically, patriarchal standards influence the occurrence and reporting of IPV as men are viewed as the dominant partners within relationships. Consequently, men may feel justified in exerting control and power which often results in violence to maintain the established relationship dynamics of male dominance. As women normalize this phenomenon, they may feel discouraged from reporting their experiences of IPV due to fear of facing victim-blaming or experiencing repercussions from their communities, family, or personal connections, further perpetuating the cycle of abuse. In cases where gender dynamics are exchanged, this male-centric perspective around domestic violence can also discourage men who are victims of IPV from reporting their experience. Research by Emerson Dobash and Russel Dobash, although there is a disparity in reports of IPV experiences between men and women, the pervasive focus on men’s violence against women may marginalize male victims. More so, the presumption that only heterosexual relationships are the norm can marginalize the experiences of those within non-heterosexual relationships. However, according to a study by Kar, the influence of male dominance cannot be overlooked given that IPV among gender and sexual minorities are often inadequately addressed and frequently ignored given the extent of heteronormative bias within support and research systems. Moreover, regional societal expectations play a pivotal role in the reporting of IPV. For instance, although there have been large proportions of domestic violence cases being handled by law enforcement within Australia, the significant gap in training and experience of these first-year police officers often leads to great bias and thus, inadequate responses to victims. Similarly, cultural norms within immigrant and refugee communities can negatively influence the perception of IPV, further normalizing the continuance of domestic violence within spousal relationships. Regardless of the contributing factor affecting levels of IPV, the scarcity of resources remains at large, discouraging victims from seeking help, and providing low inadequate support globally. Many victims of spousal domestic abuse are often not recognized or validated by existing support structures.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a critical issue in the early stages of marriage, with significant variation across different regions and socio-economic contexts. In his systematic review, Abdi et al. determined that along with the husband’s substance abuse, early marriage was one of the primary factors that contribute to IPV, particularly in developing countries where cultural norms may endorse male dominance and control over women (Abdi et al., 2021). Early marriage is a significant factor influencing IPV due to its association with power imbalances, lack of autonomy, and limited life choices for young women. Marrying at an early age often leads to women having less education and fewer economic opportunities, which exacerbates their dependence on their partners. This dependency can increase their vulnerability to abuse, as they may lack the resources or knowledge to seek help or escape abusive relationships. In low-income and suburban areas, IPV is further heightened by additional stressors such as poverty and limited access to resources. Economic instability often can induce stress within households, often leading to frustration and aggression that can be directed towards partners. Low-income regions also are strongly correlated with low levels of education, especially for women. A comprehensive analysis by Ma et al. found that in low and middle-income countries, the lack of economic security not only limits women’s ability to leave abusive relationships but also makes them more vulnerable to various forms of IPV, as they most likely are financially dependent on their partners (Ma et al.). Furthermore, cultural norms and social attitudes play a crucial role when discussing the contexts of IPV. The definition of violence varies vastly across different regions, and many cultural backgrounds, especially those that are low-income, can normalize IPV, making it more difficult for victims to seek help as their communities perceive this behavior as unacceptable. Rahman et al. emphasize that societal norms in many Asian countries condone male authority and control, which can perpetuate abusive behaviors (Rahman et al. 2023). Along with these factors, the absence of strong legal protections and enforcement prevents victims from receiving institutional support to escape their harmful environments. As such, it is essential to address the multifaceted issue of IPV underreporting. More specifically, it is important that we not only address the various layers of underreporting, but work towards enhancing law enforcement training, developing prevention strategies within immigrant communities, and expanding research to all genders, relationship types, and geographical regions to ensure that all victims have equitable access to care and support.
Image from AdobeStock.com
Conclusion
Overall, IPV remains a critical global issue with severe and lasting impacts on survivors. The evidence shows that IPV affects a substantial proportion of women, with early marriage and low-income settings significantly amplifying the risk. The diverse forms of physical, sexual, and psychological underscore the need for comprehensive support systems that address both immediate and long-term consequences for survivors. The persistence of underreporting, driven by patriarchal norms and societal stigma, highlights the barriers survivors face in seeking help. This issue is further complicated by the marginalization of certain groups, such as male victims and those in same-sex relationships, within existing research and support frameworks. Future research should focus on capturing a broader range of IPV experiences and addressing the socio-economic and cultural factors influencing reporting. Additionally, there is a pressing need for policy changes to improve support systems and enhance access to resources for survivors. By addressing these challenges, we can make meaningful progress toward reducing IPV and supporting those affected more effectively.