Household Factors Forcing Women to Accept Domestic Violence in Pakistan

Abstract

World Health Organization has estimated that approximately one out of every third woman experienced some form of violence during their lifetime. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, domestic violence is accepted by the society in general and within a marriage, partner violence is considered normal behavior. This study attempts to analyze the impact of different socioeconomic factors on women's acceptance of domestic violence. In this regard, data of Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2017–2018 are used and logit models are estimated. Study finds that educated women, married to an educated husband, having better access to media, married above the age of 18, having job/working, belonging to a wealthy family, and having autonomy in decision making, are relatively more likely to reject domestic violence. The study concludes that women's education, awareness, and financial position are the key elements in minimizing women's acceptance of domestic violence. However, having children and married within a family increase women's acceptability of domestic violence. The study is unable to find any significant impact of her relationship with household head, age, and living in urban areas.

Introduction

Violence against women is a global phenomenon. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), ∼35% of women worldwide have experienced some form of violence (sexual and/or physical) during their lifetime (WHO 2016). Similarly, in 2013, the WHO and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine & Medical Research Council conducted a comprehensive analysis by using the data of 80 countries. It had been estimated that 30% of women who were in a relationship had experienced WHO (2013) violent behavior (sexual and/or physical) from their partner. In developing countries, the situation is even worse, women are facing different forms of violence, and domestic violence is the most common one. Since the last decade, domestic violence is major concern among the researchers of women empowerment.

Pakistan is a male-dominated society having a population of above 220 million. In Pakistan, women are facing different types of discriminations and violence because of religious and cultural norms of society (Bettencourt 2000). According to the Human Rights Watch report, ∼70–90% of women are facing domestic violence (Human Rights Watch 1999). Domestic violence is of many kinds; among them, physical abuse, honor killing, and acid attacks are the most common one.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan, like many other Asian countries, domestic violence has been considered a private matter; and within a marriage, partner violence is considered normal behavior, and it is accepted by the society (Fikree and Bhatti 1999; Rabbani et al. 2008). Partner violence is mostly recognized as a justifiable response against the misbehavior of the wife (Douki et al. 2003; Niaz 2004). Unless the partner violence took an extreme form, in the shape of murder or attempted murder (like forcing the wife to suicide or engineering the deadly accident mostly in the form of bursting the kitchen stove), in Pakistani society, partner violence has not been considered a crime.

The Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2012, makes violence against women and children an offence, punishable by time in jail and imposition of fines. However, due to social norms, most of the Pakistani women do not consider domestic violence as a crime and women who report violence have to face the consequences in the shape of losing children and they live under the fear of punitive actions from the husband's family. Furthermore, women (especially the young) are discouraged to live independently, and they are not allowed to take their own decisions (Khan and Hussain 2008). In these circumstances, only few women report acts of domestic violence.

Women who consider wife-beating a justifiable behavior by husbands are more likely to face domestic violence (Kimuna et al. 2013). Climate wherein mother accepts domestic violence has significant psychological impact on female children. The mothers unknowingly vertically transmit “attitudinal acceptance of violence” to their girls, who continue accepting domestic violence by considering it a part of marital relationships (Bandura and Walters 1977). It results in cultures where gender inequalities are intensely embedded (Ehrensaft et al. 2003).

In such societies, women accept domestic violence and even justify the violent behavior because of the religious and cultural, conventional gender roles, financial and emotional dependency (Begum et al. 2015; Koenig et al. 2006). Resultantly, men continue to believe that domestic violence is acceptable (Flood and Pease 2009). Hence, acceptance of domestic violence exacerbates it even further.

Keeping in view the importance of the issue and being an unexplored research area regarding Pakistan, this study has attempted to analyze the impact of different socioeconomic factors on women's acceptance of domestic violence in Pakistan. It tried to answer whether socioeconomic factors force women to accept partner abuse.

Literature Review

Very limited studies have been conducted to analyze the determinants of the attitude of women regarding domestic violence. The earlier studies suggest that family values, socioeconomic status (wealth), acceptance of traditional role, and discrimination are the major factors that discourage women to report incidences of domestic violence (Trinh et al. 2016). Different socioeconomic factors shape someone's attitude regarding domestic valiance; it may include age, education, being married at a younger age, economic status, ethnicity, social norms, or living area (urban/rural) (ANOP Research Services 1995; Flood and Pease 2009; Markowitz 2003; Nagel et al. 2005; Trinh et al. 2016).

Chan and colleagues (2009) concluded that education results in increasing women's social status and empowerment. Women having higher education resist against violent behavior from their in-laws. There is a significantly higher likelihood for women having low income and education to accept domestic violence in comparison with women having higher education and income level (Hoffman et al. 1994).

Vyas and Heise (2016), Ribeiro and colleagues (2017), and Nelson and Lund (2017) concluded that socioeconomic status of the woman plays a very crucial role in accepting domestic violence. Mogford (2011) found that women having autonomy in decision making in rural India are less likely to accept domestic violence. Johnston and Naved (2008) found that in Bangladesh, women who are generating income by microcredit or other small businesses are less likely to be abused. Panda and Agarwal (2005) found that in India, ownership of the property had helped women in protection against domestic violence. Property ownership helps to enhance woman's status among her in-laws and increases her autonomy in household decision making.

Women belonging to low economic status have frequent chances to witness domestic violence due to financial problems (Uthman et al. 2011). The frequent exposure to domestic violence desensitizes them about the harmful impacts of violence and women belonging to low economic status accept domestic violence as part of family adjustment (Vung and Krantz 2009). Kocacik and associates (2007), Rani and Bonu (2009), and Abramsky and associates (2011) found that women living in wealthy households are less vulnerable to domestic violence.

Abramsky and associates (2011) found that exposure to violence by female children make them submissive and leads them toward accepting domestic violence. Kishor and Johnson (2004) found that women whose mothers had experienced domestic violence are more likely to experience the same in comparison to women whose mothers had not faced domestic violence. Flood and Pease (2009) and Markowitz (2003) are of the view that family is a dynamic organization and attitudes of men (family member) are affected by attitudes, responses, and feedback of other family members. It has been concluded that violent behavior of men is strengthened by women who accept their violence. The Abrahams and Jewkes (2005) also concluded that accepting of domestic violence by the mother affects their male children; these children are found to behave violently in their adulthood.

As mentioned earlier, limited research has been conducted in Pakistan to analyze the determinants of domestic violence. In this regard, Azhar and associates (2012) found that in Sargodha (a district in Punjab, Pakistan), economic dependence of women is the main reason for facing domestic violence. Khan and Sajid (2011) in their study in the rural areas of Gujarat (a district in Punjab, Pakistan) were of the view that in Pakistani society, men are considered superior and women are recognized as subordinate; this cultural norm has resulted in high rate of domestic violence.

Amir-ud-Din and associates (2018) found that women's education and her wealth make them resist against domestic violence and well educated and wealthy women do not accept violence in Pakistan. Study concluded that by improving the economic status of women, the risks of domestic violence can be minimized.

Ali and Krantz (2011) are of the view that in urban areas of Pakistan, different factors are playing a significant role in determining different types of domestic violence. In physical violence, the significant risk factors are mostly related to the husband, that is, his low education, being unskilled, or having a family size of five or more. In sexual violence, women's education, socioeconomic status of household, and family size of five or more, while in psychological violence, socioeconomic status of household and the husband being unskilled have a significant role in determining the prevalence of domestic violence.

Theoretical Framework

Over the years, numerous theories have been presented to analyze and predict the circumstances, motivations, and other factors that explain domestic violence. Historically, the theories fall into one of the following categories: (1) theories of psychopathology (substance abuse or mental illness) of perpetrators and victims; these theories assert that abusive behavior is a result of mood disorders (depression or anxiety) and use of drugs or personality disorders (borderline and antisocial), and women who accept abusive behavior also have some personality disorder (Golding 1999; Johnson and Leone 2005; Krug et al. 2002; Samuels-Dennis et al. 2010); (2) biological theories of aggressive and violent behavior; according to these theories, violent behavior of men date back to evolutionary forces to reproduce and pass along genes (Alhabib et al. 2010; Stark 2007); (3) family system theories assert that domestic violence is rationalized and tolerated within family. Similarly, power status in the family, expectations, and communication patterns are key factors in analysis of domestic violence, and they are also determined by the feedback of other family members (Hamby 2006; Straus and Hotaling 1980); and (4) social learning theories; according to these theories, abusive behaviors are learned by children during their childhood; children observe and imitate the behaviors of adults as their role models. As children grow, these behaviors are reinforced by society; for example, boys are taught to use aggression to cope with negative feelings (Frye et al. 2008; Tjaden et al. 1999).

This study has adopted the “Integrated ecological framework” (Casique and Furegato 2006) to analyze the behavior of women in accepting domestic violence. The framework has also been recognized by WHO.ⁱ Hence, different individual, psychosocial, and sociocultural factors play significant role in determining the attitude toward domestic violence. The integrated ecological framework combines all these factors into a single model. It also explains how these factors interact with each other (Lawson 2015). The model is illustrated in Figure 1. It explains factors at four levels in the form of overlapping rings: individual, family, communitarian, and sociocultural.

FIG. 1.

Theoretical framework for accepting domestic violence. Source: Krug and associates (2002).

Methodology

In this study, data of Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey (PDHS) 2017–2018 have been used. In PDHS 12,364 married women 15–49 years of age were interviewed. Among them, 3303 women have been selected for domestic violence interviews. This study is restricted to women selected for domestic violence interviews. In the DHS, surveys are conducted in different developing countries with the funding of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It is pertinent to mention here that as the study has used the secondary data of PDHS 2017–2018, conducted by National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS), this study does not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Hoverer, the original data collection had followed all ethical approvals. The survey provides information on different health aspects, for example, family planning, fertility preferences, maternal and child health, infant, child, adult, and maternal mortality, knowledge of HIV/AIDS, nutrition and woman empowerment, and domestic violence along with the information of socioeconomic characteristics of the households.

The analysis consists of two levels; at level one, a descriptive analysis is carried out to present status of surveyed women for domestic violence, and at the next stage, six different models of women attitude toward domestic violence are estimated by using the logit models. The dependent variables are dichotomous, it takes the value of one when the respective women accept domestic violence and zero otherwise. To estimate such models, binary choice model, that is, logit models have been used.

The parameters of logit models have been estimated by using the maximum likelihood method in STATA. The impacts of different explanatory variables on the acceptance of domestic violence have been interpreted in terms of odds ratios. A brief overview of the variables that are used in the analysis is as under:

Dependent variables

In the dataset, there are six different questions to gauge the attitude of women toward domestic violence: (1) beating justified if the wife goes out without telling husband; (2) beating justified if wife neglects the children; (3) beating justified if wife argues with husband; (4) beating justified if the wife refuses to have sex with husband; (5) beating justified if wife burns the food; and (6) justifies domestic violence: for neglecting in-laws. Each of these questions is a binary response question, wherein respondent has either responded as yes or no.

Hence, in our dataset, we have six dependent variables, and all dependent variables are binary.

Independent variables

Age

The respondent woman's age is an important factor in determining her status in the household. It is expected that with the passage of age, women think differently and their attitude toward domestic violence may change. The age will take the values from 15 to 49 years.

Level of education

Studies have recognized that education plays a pivotal role in determining the attitude toward different social issues. The education is divided into three categories, that is, no education, primary education, and secondary or higher education. We expect that education will result in the rejection of domestic violence.

Education of the husband

Like the education of the woman herself, education of the husband also plays an important role in shaping her attitude toward domestic violence. The education of husband is also divided into three categories, that is, no education, primary, and secondary or higher education. We expect that education of husband by granting her permission to think independently will result in rejection of domestic violence by women.

Wealth of household

The wealth index has been used to describe the wealth of the household. The wealth index can take value from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates poorest and 5 the richest household. It is expected that wealth will increase the likelihood that women reject domestic violence.

Urbanization

We have constructed a binary variable assigning the value of 0 for urban areas and 1 for rural areas. We are expecting that women living in urban areas will not accept domestic violence in comparison to women living in rural areas.

Family relationship with husband

This is a binary variable and describes whether the woman had any blood relationship with his husband or not. It is expected that women having a blood relationship are more likely to accept domestic violence in comparison to women having no relationship.

Use of media

n the original data set, there exist three questions related to the use of media. Frequency of reading newspaper, listing radio and watching TV; with four options, (1) not at all, (2) occasionally, (3) at least once a week, and (4) daily. Based on these questions, we constructed a binary variable named as use of media (reading newspaper, watching TV, or listening to the radio). Furthermore, the first two responses are considered the household does not use media, while third and the fourth response indicate that the household uses media. We expect that like education, women using media are more likely to reject domestic violence.

Employment

t is also a binary variable that takes the value of 1 if women are working and zero otherwise. It is expected that employment of a woman will increase the likelihood that she will reject domestic violence.

Relationship with the household head

n the dataset, we have developed a binary variable for relationship to the household head. It takes values of 1 if the household head is herself or her husband and takes the value of 0 for all the other relationships.

10.

Age at marriage

The age of women at the time of marriage is another important factor in determining her attitude toward domestic violence. The age at the time of marriage will take the value of 0 if she gets married below 18 years of age and 1 if she gets married above 18 years of age. It is expected that women who are married below 18 years of age are more likely to accept domestic violence.

11.

Have children

Another binary variable has been created that takes the value of 1 if she has children and 0 if women do not have the children.

12.

Women autonomy in decision making

n the dataset, there exist questions related to four areas, that is, her autonomy in seeking health care, making visits to family or friends, household purchases, and use of money that husband earns. Based on these questions, we constructed autonomy in decision-making index. The index can take values from 0 to 4, where 0 represents no empowerment, 1 represents empowerment in one dimension, and 4 represents empowerment in all four dimensions.

Results

There exists and continues to persist widest women discrimination and the gender gap in all walks of life in Pakistan (UNICEF 2006). The overall Pakistani society is male dominated. In most parts of the country, women's rights are violated, and women have a very limited say or independent opinion and, in many cases, they are denied the right to take the decision of even their personal life like the decision of marriage (Madhani 2007). In Pakistan, male dominance along with social norms restrict women's involvement in a paid job (Klein and Nestvogel 1992), and mostly, they are deprived of their share in the inherited property. Table 1 presents a brief overview of the socioeconomic characteristics of surveyed women.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

Background characteristics	Proportion of women (%)	Background characteristics	Proportion of women (%)
Age		Employment
15–19	3.91	Not employed	85.35
20–24	14.05	Employed	14.65
25–29	19.59	Relationship with household head
30–34	19.92	Relationship with household head
35–39	19.10	Self/husband	69.36
40–44	12.17	Others	30.64
45–49	11.26	Age at marriage
Education		Less than 18 years	35.24
No education	54.65	18 or above	64.76
Primary	13.11	Autonomy in decision-making index.
Secondary or higher	32.24	0 (No empowerment)	38.99
Education of the husband		1	11.75
No education	31.02	2	08.51
Primary	14.08	3	11.23
Secondary or higher	54.90	4	29.52
Wealth		Beating justified if the wife goes out without telling husband
Poorest	20.04	No	60.85
Poorer	21.13	Yes	39.15
Middle	18.17	Beating justified if wife neglects the children
Richer	19.32	No	67.64
Richest	21.34	Yes	32.36
Urbanization		Beating justified if wife argues with husband
Urban	49.83	No	60.76
Rural	50.17	Yes	39.24
Blood relationship with husband		Beating justified if the wife refuses to have sex with the husband
Yes	61.71	No	65.43
No	38.29	Yes	34.57
Access to media		Beating justified if wife burns the food
No	36.63	No	79.02
Yes	63.37	Yes	20.98
Have children		Justifies domestic violence: Neglected in-laws
No	11.32	No	68.27
Yes	88.68	Yes	31.73

The surveyed women are between 15 and 49 years of age. Except for the age of 15–19 years, women are almost equally distributed in different age brackets. Furthermore, most women are uneducated (55%), while only 32% of women are having education of secondary level or higher. As far as the education of husbands is concerned, the situation is relatively better as only 31% of the husbands are uneducated, while 55% of the husbands have secondary or higher education. In terms of wealth index, the data are quite evenly distributed and there are only marginal differences. Surveyed women are almost equally distributed in rural and urban areas, 50% in rural and 50% in urban areas. Most of the respondent women do not work (85%) and only 15% of women are working.

The table is also suggestive of the fact that 63% of women have media exposure by either reading newspaper or listening to radio or watching TV. Furthermore, 89% of women had children. It has also been observed that 69% of households are headed by women themselves or their husbands. Furthermore, 62% of women are married to their blood relatives and only 38% of women married are outside the family. It depicts that the majority prefers to marry within families. Table 1 also reveals that 35% of women have been married below the age of 18, while 65% of women married after 18 years of age. As far as women autonomy in decision making is concerned, the majority of women, that is, 39% have no autonomy in decision making. While only 30% of women have autonomy in all the four dimensions, the remaining 31% of women enjoy partial autonomy in decision making. In most cases, the majority of women consider wife-beating unjustified and only around 30–40% of women consider wife-beating as justified behavior in different aspects.

Estimation Results

As mentioned earlier, six models have been estimated by using the binomial logistic regression (logit) technique. The results of these estimations are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Estimation Results (Reporting Odd Ratios)

Name of the variables	Beating justified if the wife					Justifies domestic violence: neglected in-laws
Name of the variables	Goes out without telling husband	Neglects the children	Argues with husband	Refuses to have sex with husband	Burns the food	Justifies domestic violence: neglected in-laws
Urbanization
Urban	1	1	1	1	1	1
Rural	0.996 (0.82–1.21)	0.903 (0.74–1.09)	0.979 (0.81–1.19)	1.130 (0.93–1.37)	1.197 (0.95–1.50)	1.041 (0.85–1.27)
Education
No education	1	1	1	1	1	1
Primary	0.761^* (0.59–0.98)	0.913^** (0.71–1.18)	0.857 (0.66–1.11)	0.819 (0.63–1.07)	0.942 (0.69–1.27)	1.033 (0.79–1.34)
Secondary or higher	0.479^* (0.37–0.62)	0.538^* (0.41–0.71)	0.548^* (0.42–0.71)	0.585^* (0.45–0.76)	0.516^* (0.36–0.73)	0.518^* (0.39–0.68)
Wealth of the household
Poorest	1	1	1	1	1	1
Poorer	0.841 (0.66–1.07)	0.848 (0.67–1.07)	0.763^* (0.59–0.97)	0.832 (0.66–1.05)	0.647^* (0.51–0.83)	0.700^* (0.55–0.88)
Middle	0.479^* (0.36–0.64)	0.600^* (0.45–0.79)	0.527^* (0.40–0.70)	0.538^* (0.41–0.71)	0.444^* (0.32–0.61)	0.409^* (0.31–0.54)
Richer	0.480^* (0.35–0.66)	0.530^* (0.38–0.73)	0.448^* (0.32–0.62)	0.496^* (0.36–0.69)	0.404^* (0.28–0.59)	0.439^* (0.31–0.61)
Richest	0.258^* (0.18–0.38)	0.288^* (0.19–0.43)	0.227^* (0.15–0.33)	0.223^* (0.15–0.33)	0.178^* (0.10–0.30)	0.208^* (0.13–0.31)
Exposure to media
No	1	1	1	1	1	1
Yes	0.680^* (0.56–0.82)	0.762^* (0.63–0.92)	0.647^* (0.54–0.78)	0.735^* (0.61–0.89)	0.796^* (0.64–0.99)	0.789^* (0.65–0.96)
Relationship with household head
Self or husband	1	1	1	1	1	1
Others	0.989 (0.81–1.21)	0.961 (0.79–1.17)	0.964 (0.79–1.18)	0.871 (0.71–1.06)	0.822^** (0.65–1.03)	0.966 (0.79–1.18)
Age at marriage
Below 18 years	1	1	1	1	1	1
Above 18 years	0.759^* (0.64–0.91)	0.684^* (0.57–0.82)	0.688^* (0.57–0.82)	0.665^* (0.56–0.79)	0.777^* (0.64–0.95)	0.767^* (0.64–0.92)
Blood relationship with husband
No	1	1	1	1	1	1
Yes	1.278^* (1.08–1.52)	1.268^* (1.06–1.51)	1.017 (0.86–1.21)	1.288^* (1.08–1.53)	1.062^** (0.87–1.29)	1.136 (0.95–1.35)
Education of the husband
No education	1	1	1	1	1	1
Primary	0.867 (0.67–1.12)	0.850 (0.66–1.09)	1.065 (0.82–1.37)	1.076 (0.83–1.39)	1.045 (0.86–1.51)	1.049 (0.81–1.36)
Secondary or higher	1.016 (0.82–1.25)	0.906^** (0.74–1.11)	0.910^** (0.90–1.36)	0.893^* (0.91–1.38)	0.919^* (0.73–1.15)	1.007 (0.83–1.27)
Age of women in years
15–19	1	1	1	1	1	1
20–24	1.523^** (0.95–2.43)	1.266 (0.79–2.01)	1.212 (0.76–1.93)	1.373 (0.86–2.18)	1.357 (0.82–2.25)	1.318 (0.83–2.11)
25–29	1.397 (0.87–2.24)	1.201 (0.76–1.91)	1.009 (0.63–1.62)	1.312 (0.82–2.09)	1.068 (0.64–1.77)	0.969 (0.60–1.56)
30–34	1.473 (0.91–2.39)	1.136 (0.71–1.82)	1.215 (0.75–1.97)	1.376 (0.85–2.22)	0.986 (0.58–1.67)	1.037 (0.63–1.69)
35–39	1.389 (0.85–2.26)	1.054 (0.65–1.71)	1.189 (0.73–1.94)	1.492 (0.92–2.42)	1.105 (0.65–1.87)	1.088 (0.66–1.78)
40–44	1.407 (0.84–2.37)	1.313 (0.79–2.18)	1.412 (0.84–2.36)	1.675 (1.01–2.79)	1.519 (0.87–2.64)	1.237 (0.73–2.08)
45–49	1.186 (0.69–2.01)	0.976 (0.58–1.64)	1.214 (0.73–2.11)	1.157 (0.68–1.95)	0.927 (0.52–1.66)	1.035 (0.60–1.77)
Have children
No	1	1	1	1	1	1
Yes	1.010^* (0.76–1.35)	1.101^** (0.68–1.19)	1.047^** (0.79–1.38)	1.107^** (0.66–1.17)	0.919 (0.59–1.13)	1.008^** (0.73–1.31)
Employment of women
Not employed	1	1	1	1	1	1
Employed	0.959^* (0.75–1.41)	0.986^* (0.94–1.52)	0.842^* (0.69–1.13)	0.781^** (0.76–1.27)	0.905^** (0.94–1.62)	0.876^* (0.79–1.33)
Women empowerment index
0	1	1	1	1	1	1
1	0.690^* (0.53–0.89)	0.781^** (0.60–1.02)	0.666^* (0.51–0.86)	0.694^* (0.53–0.91)	0.779^** (0.58–1.04)	0.649^* (0.49–0.85)
2	0.502^* (0.37–0.68)	0.561^* (0.41–0.77)	0.570^* (0.42–0.77)	0.556^* (0.41–0.76)	0.579^* (0.40–0.84)	0.541^* (0.40–0.74)
3	0.364^* (0.27–0.48)	0.642^* (0.49–0.85)	0.442^* (0.33–0.59)	0.509^* (0.38–0.67)	0.494^* (0.35–0.69)	0.389^* (0.29–0.53)
4	0.295^* (0.24–0.37)	0.402^* (0.32–0.49)	0.256^* (0.21–0.32)	0.293^* (0.24–0.37)	0.375^* (0.29–0.49)	0.272^* (0.22–0.34)
Constant	2.311^*	1.749^*	3.199^*	1.701^*	1.075	2.007^*
Pseudo R square	0.179	0.192	0.175	0.183	0.167	0.194
Wald χ²	594.59	436.26	591.72	522.79	391.93	516.96
p Value of χ²	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

Values in () are 95% confidence intervals.

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.10.

The results indicate that urbanization does not have a significant impact on women's attitude toward rejection of domestic violence. It has been found that living in urban or rural area has no significant impact on considering, by women, wife-beating as justified. Similarly, it has been found that age does not have any significance in shaping the woman's attitude toward acceptance of domestic violence in Pakistan.

It has been found that education has a highly significant impact on women's attitudes toward acceptance of domestic violence. The results suggest that there is less likelihood women having secondary or higher education will accept domestic violence in comparison to women with no education or who have education up to primary level. It further depicts that there are less than 0.50 odd ratios for women having secondary or higher education to accept domestic violence in comparison to women with no education.

Similarly, the education of her husband also has a significant impact on her attitude toward domestic violence. Women married with men having secondary or higher education have less odd ratios of accepting domestic violence compared to women married to someone having no education. However, husband education has very limited impact in comparison to her education.

The wealth of the household has a significant impact on women's attitude toward the acceptance of domestic violence. It has been found that women belonging to wealthier households have less odd ratios for the acceptance of domestic violence in all six different aspects in comparison to women belonging to poor households. According to the results, odd ratios significantly and gradually decreased with an increase in wealth, indicating that as wealth increases, there are fewer chances of women to accept domestic violence.

It has also been found that awareness created by media also have significant impact on women's attitude toward domestic violence. Women who are using electronic or print media have less odd ratios for accepting domestic violence in comparison to women having no media exposure.

However, it has been found that relationship with household head does not have any significant impact on her attitude toward domestic violence. It reveals that whether household head is herself or her husband or someone else, it has no role in determining her attitude toward domestic violence.

Age at the time of marriage has a significant relationship with women's attitude toward domestic violence. Women married when older than 18 years have significantly less odd ratios to accept violent behavior from their husbands in comparison to women married when younger than 18 years.

Study finds that women's blood relationship with her husband has a significant impact on her attitude toward domestic violence and there are significantly higher odd ratios of accepting domestic violence for women married within family. It reveals that women married within their family are more likely to accept domestic violence to save family relationships.

In different dimensions of domestic violence, the odd ratios of having children are significantly higher than having no children. It indicates that having children increases women's acceptability of domestic violence in comparison to women with no children. It can be inferred from these results that many women accept violent behavior from their husbands for the sake of their children.

It has also been found that woman employment has a significant impact on shaping her attitude toward accepting domestic violence. There are significantly less odd ratios for working women (either for cash or not for cash) to accept domestic violence in comparison to women who are not working.

Women autonomy in decision making emerged as another significant factor determining her attitude toward domestic violence. It has been found that more empowered women have significantly less odd ratios of accepting domestic violence in comparison to women with no empowerment in decision making. The odd ratio significantly and gradually decreases with increase in her autonomy in decision making, suggesting that as women get more autonomous in decision making, there are fewer chances that she will accept domestic violence.

Discussion and Conclusion

WHO has estimated that about 35% of women worldwide have experienced some form of violence during their lifetime (WHO 2016). The situation in Pakistan is even worse and according to Human Rights Watch report, ∼70–90% of women are facing domestic violence (Human Rights Watch 1999). Unfortunately, in Pakistan, like other Asian countries, domestic violence has been considered a private matter, and it is accepted by society. Due to such social norms, very few women consider domestic violence a crime. Despite the importance of the issue, very few studies had been conducted to analyze the determinants of attitude of women regarding domestic violence.

This study finds that there is no significant difference in attitudes of urban and rural women toward acceptance of domestic violence. It reveals that locality of residence does not have any significant impact on shaping the attitude of women toward acceptance of domestic violence.

In line with the expectations, education and awareness created by media emerge as an important factor in shaping women attitude toward acceptance of domestic violence. The results suggest that there is less likelihood women having secondary or higher education will accept domestic violence. These results are supported by earlier studies, including Chan and associates (2009) and Amir-ud-Din and associates (2018); it was concluded that education results in increasing women's social status and empowerment; it leads them to resist against domestic violence. Similarly, results also indicate that women who are married to educated persons or have access to media are also less likely to accept domestic violence as justified behavior. It indicates that women who are able to get awareness about their rights are less likely to accept the violent behavior of their husbands. Therefore, it is suggested that civil society and government should make further efforts to create awareness among women about their rights. These efforts must be extended to rural and backward districts where women are still unaware of their rights.

Study finds that women's financial position is another key element in determining her attitude toward the acceptance of domestic violence; an increase in the wealth of household decreases the likelihood of accepting domestic violence accordingly. It has also been found that there are fewer chances for working women to accept domestic violence. The results are supported by Johnston and Naved (2008) who found that in Bangladesh, women generating income by microcredit or other small businesses are less likely to be abused. Azhar and associates (2012) found that in Pakistan, economic dependence of women is the main reason for facing domestic violence. Vyas and Heise (2016), Ribeiro and associates (2017), and Nelson and Lund (2017) concluded that socioeconomic status of the woman plays a crucial role in accepting domestic violence. It indicates that the government must initiate projects to make women financially independent. In this regard, women quotas in employment must be increased. Furthermore, it is recommended that in the education sector, up to the elementary level, all the jobs must be allocated to women only. This will not only give women financial autonomy but also, due to the natural tendency of women toward teaching, it will increase the educational standards in public schools of Pakistan.

Age emerges as having a minimal role in shaping the attitude of women toward domestic violence. In all the five dimensions, where it was asked whether wife-beating is justified or not, age has an insignificant impact. It has also been supported by Hutchinson and associates (1994) and Anderson and associates (2004), who also come to the similar conclusion that at young age, there is limited difference among women regarding their attitude toward violence. It can be inferred from these results that age does not have any role in shaping women's attitudes of accepting/rejecting the wife-beating due to different household matters. However, age at the time of marriage plays a very crucial role in shaping her attitude toward domestic violence. Women married at when older than 18 years are less likely to accept domestic violence. Markowitz (2003) also comes to the similar conclusion. It is suggested that the government must ensure women must not be married when younger than 18 years because there are fewer chances that women married when younger than 18 years have awareness about their rights and they act submissively.

In line with the expectations and other results, the study finds that women autonomy in decision making has a significant role in shaping her attitude toward domestic violence. It has also been supported by findings of Mogford (2011) that women having autonomy in decision making in rural India are less likely to accept and experience domestic violence. More women have autonomy in decision making, less the chances that she will accept violent behavior of her husband. There is a need that civil society and government must extend their efforts for women autonomy in decision making by media campaigns and other efforts.

Having children increases women's acceptability of domestic violence in comparison to women with no children. Vung and Krantz (2009) concluded that many women accept domestic violence as part of their family adjustment. Similarly, the study finds that women's blood relationship with her husband has a significant impact on her attitude toward domestic violence. It reveals that women married within the family are more likely to accept domestic violence. Trinh and colleagues (2016) concluded that family values, acceptance of traditional role of women, discourage women to report the incidence of domestic violence and force them to accept domestic violence.

However, the study finds that relationship with household head does not have any significant impact on her attitude toward domestic violence. Whether the household is headed by her herself/her husband or someone else, it has no role in shaping her attitude toward domestic violence in Pakistan.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

No funding from any source has been received to conduct the present study.

References

Abrahams

, Jewkes

. (2005). Effects of South African men's having witnessed abuse of their mothers during childhood on their levels of violence in adulthood. Am J Public Health. 95, 1811–1816.

Abramsky

, Watts

, Garcia-Moreno

, et al. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence?. Findings from the WHO multi-country study on domestic violence and women's health. Biomed Central Public Health. 11, 1–17.

Alhabib

, Nur

, Jones

. (2010). Domestic violence against women: Systematic review of prevalence studies. J Fam Violence. 25, 369–382.

Ali

, Krantz

. (2011). Intimate partner violence in Urban Pakistan prevalence, frequency, and risk factors. Int J Womens Health. 3:105–115.

Amir-ud-Din

, Fatima

, Aziz

. (2018). Is attitudinal acceptance of violence a risk factor? An analysis of domestic violence against women in Pakistan. J Interpers Violence. 36:NP4514–NP4541

Anderson

, Simpson-Taylor

, Hermann

. (2004). Gender, age, and rapesupportive rules. Sex Roles. 50, 77–90.

ANOP Research Services. (1995). Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women: Detailed Report. (Office of the Status of Women, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, Australia).

Azhar

, Sohail

, Yasin

, et al. (2012). Exploring socio-economic factors behind domestic violence against women in Sargodha District. Int J Asian Soc Sci. 2, 1617–1626.

Bandura

, Walters

. (1977). Social Learning Theory. (Vol. 1). (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

10.

Begum

, Donta

, Nair

, et al. (2015). Socio-demographic factors associated with domestic violence in urban slums, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Indian J Med Res. 141, 783–788.

11.

Bettencourt

. (2000). Violence against women in Pakistan. Human Rights Advocacy Clinic; Litigation Report. Retrieved from: www.du.edu/intl/humanrights/violencepkstn.pdf (accessed September 28, 2018).

12.

Casique

, Furegato

ARF

. (2006). Violence against women: Theoretical Reflections. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 14, 950–956.

13.

Chan

, Tiwari

, Fong

DYT

, et al. (2009). Correlates of in-law conflict and intimate partner violence against Chinese pregnant women in Hong Kong. J Interpers Violence. 24, 97–110.

14.

Douki

, Nacef

, Ben Zineb

. (2003). Women's mental health in the Arab and Islamic world. J Psychosom Res. 55, 119.

15.

Ehrensaft

, Cohen

, Brown

, et al. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 71, 741–753.

16.

Fikree

, Bhatti

. (1999). Domestic violence and health of Pakistani women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 65, 195–201.

17.

Flood

, Pease

. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma Violence Abuse. 10, 125–142.

18.

Frye

, Galea

, Tracy

, et al. (2008). The role of neighborhood environment and risk of intimate partner femicide in a large urban area. Am J Public Health. 98, 1473.

19.

Golding

. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. J Fam Violence. 14, 99–132.

20.

Hamby

. (2006). The importance of community in a feminist analysis of domestic violence among Native Americans. In Domestic Violence at the Margins: Readings on Race, Class, Gender and Culture. N Sokoloff, C Pratt, eds. (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ), pp. 174–193.

21.

Human Rights Watch. (1999). Crime or custom? Violence against women in Pakistan. Report of Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from www.hrw.org/reports/1999/pakistan/index.htm (accessed October 18, 2018).

22.

Hutchinson

, Tess

, Gleckman

, et al. (1994). Students' perceptions of male sexually aggressive behavior as a function of educational level and gender. Sex Roles. 30, 407–422.

23.

Hoffman

, Demo

, Edwards

. (1994). Physical wife abuse in a Non-Western Society: An integrated theoretical approach. J Marriage Fam. 56, 131–146.

24.

Johnson

, Leone

. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. J Fam Issues. 26, 322–349.

25.

Johnston

, Naved

. (2008). Spousal violence in Bangladesh: A call for a public health response. J Health Popul Nutr. 26, 366–377.

26.

Khan

, Hussain

. (2008). Violence against women in Pakistan: Perceptions and experiences of domestic violence. Asian Stud Rev. 32, 239–253.

27.

Khan

, Sajid

. (2011). Violence against women in Pakistan: A case study of wife battering in rural Gujrat, Pakistan. World Appl Sci J. 12, 2168–2174.

28.

Kimuna

, Djamba

, Ciciurkaite

, et al. (2013). Domestic violence in India: Insights from the 2005–2006 National Family Health Survey. J Interpers Violence. 28, 773–807.

29.

Kishor

, Johnson

. (2004). Profiling Domestic Violence—A Multi-Country Study. (Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro). Available online at https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/od31/od31.pdf (accessed November 9, 2020).

30.

Klein

, Nestvogel

. (1992). Women in Pakistan. (Vanguard Books, Lahore).

31.

Kocacik

, Kutlar

, Erselacan

. (2007). Domestic violence against women: A field study in Turkey. Soc Sci J. 44, 698–720.

32.

Koenig

, Stephenson

, Ahmed

, et al. (2006). Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. Am J Public Health. 96, 132–138.

33.

Krug

, Dahlberg

, Mercy

, et al. (2002). World Report on Violence and Health. (World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland).

34.

Lawson

. (2015). Family Violence: Explanations and Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. (American Counseling Association, Alexandria, VA).

35.

Madhani

. (2007). Career development in management at a Pakistani university: Is gender a factor?. In Gender and Education in Pakistan. R. Qureshi, JFA Rarieya, ed. (Oxford University Press, Karachi) pp. 216–236.

36.

Markowitz

. (2003). Socioeconomic disadvantage and violence: Recent research on culture and neighbourhood control as explanatory mechanisms. Aggress Violent Behav. 8, 145–154.

37.

Mogford

. (2011). When status hurts: Dimensions of women's status and domestic abuse in rural northern India. Violence Against Women. 17, 835–857.

38.

Nagel

, Matsuo

, McIntyre

, et al. (2005). Attitudes toward victims of rape: Effects of gender, race, religion, and social class. J Interpers Violence. 20, 725–737.

39.

Nelson

, Lund

. (2017). Socioeconomic status and geographical rural settings' contribution to oppression of women with disabilities who experience gender violence. In Religion, Disability, and Interpersonal Violence (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), pp. 149–162.

40.

Niaz

. (2004). Women's mental health in Pakistan. World Psychiatry. 3, 60–62.

41.

Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey. (2017–2018). National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS), Islamabad, Pakistan. Primary data is available online at: https://www.nips.org.pk/study_detail.php?detail=MTgw (accessed August 14, 2020).

42.

Panda

, Agarwal

. (2005). Marital violence, human development and women's property status in India. World Dev. 33, 823–850.

43.

Rabbani

, Qureshi

, Rizvi

. (2008). Perspectives on domestic violence: Case study from Karachi, Pakistan. Eastern Mediterr Health J. 14, 415–426.

44.

Rani

, Bonu

. (2009). Attitudes toward wife beating: A cross-country study in Asia. J Interpers Violence. 24, 1371–1397.

45.

Ribeiro

MRC

, da Silva

AAM

, de Britto

MTSS

, et al. (2017). Effects of socioeconomic status and social support on violence against pregnant women: A structural equation modelling analysis. PLoS ONE. 12:e0170469.

46.

Samuels-Dennis

, Ford-Gilboe

, Wilk

, et al. (2010). Cumulative trauma, personal and social resources, and posttraumatic stress symptoms among income-assisted single mothers. J Fam Violence. 25, 603–617.

47.

Stark

. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

48.

Straus

, Hotaling

. (1980). The Social Causes of Husband- Wife Violence. (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).

49.

Tjaden

, Thoennes

, Allison

. (1999). Comparing violence over the life span in samples of same sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. Violence Vict. 14, 413–425.

50.

Trinh

OTH

, Oh

, Choai

, et al. (2016). Changes and socioeconomic factors associated with attitudes towards domestic violence among Vietnamese women aged 15–49: Findings from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, 2006–2011. Glob Health Action. 9, 29577

51.

UNICEF. (2006). The State of the World's Children. South Asian ed. (UNICEF Women and Children, New York).

52.

Uthman

, Moradi

, Lawoko

. (2011). Are individual and community acceptance and witnessing of intimate partner violence related to its occurrence? Multilevel structural equation model. PLoS ONE. 6, e27738.

53.

Vung

, Krantz

. (2009).Childhood experiences of interparental violence as a risk factor for intimate partner violence: A population-based study from northernVietnam. J Epidemiol Community Health. 63, 708–714.

54.

Vyas

, Heise

. (2016). How do area-level socioeconomic status and gender norms affect partner violence against women?. Evidence from Tanzania. Int J Public Health. 61, 971–980.

55.

WHO. (2013). Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-Partner Sexual Violence. (World Health Organization, Geneva).

56.

WHO. (2016). Status of women fact sheet. Retrieved from www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en (accessed December 25, 2016).