Attitudes of Young Adult Men Toward Domestic Violence and Factors Affecting Their Attitudes in Turkey

Abstract

Domestic violence is commonly observed worldwide; however, exposure to violence is not often mentioned directly. Prevention of domestic violence may be one of the most important social problems and requires much time and effort to resolve. This study was conducted to determine the attitudes toward domestic violence of Turkish males who are young adult and undertake military service, and the factors that affect these attitudes. A cross-sectional study design was used. This study was conducted with 221 young adult men who applied to Sarıkamış Military Hospital between December 2012 and February 2013. A questionnaire and the Attitude Toward Domestic Violence Scale were used for the collection of data. One-way ANOVA, T test, Kruskal–Wallis test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used in the process of analyzing the data. In the study, it was found that 10% of the young adult men were exposed to violence within their own family and the average of their total scores from the Attitude Toward Domestic Violence Scale was 49.41 ± 7.27. It was confirmed that undereducated men have more negative attitudes toward domestic violence than other groups. The present study determined that men who have negative attitudes toward domestic violence and who have a low education level affected attitudes toward domestic violence negatively. It is important that violence is prevented before it occurs. In this respect, health professionals, politicians, teachers, academics, and all community leaders have an important role in preventing initiatives on violence.

Keywords

men domestic violence violence attitude

Introduction

There is a universal acceptance that aggression exists in human psychology and that violence that arises from aggression is a phenomenon observed in society in many dimensions (Ünal & Bilge, 2004). Domestic violence is a social and public health issue across the world for many populations and affects many different types of people, for example, children, women, and vulnerable adults (Ralo, Schor, Tavares, & Silva, 2016). Domestic violence is the most common type of violence and includes all kinds of physical attacks and systematic oppression with the aim of controlling, forcing someone to subdue, insulting, showing power, tension, or wreaking one’s anger on someone else. This violence usually happens in a private place between one individual and another who have consanguinity or a legal commitment, who live together, in short, in a group defining themselves as a family (Öztürk & Sevil, 2005; Polat, 2004). When violence is mentioned, not only physical, emotional, psychological, economic and sexual size but also in many cases encountered in life falls into the group of violence. These include enforcement to sex work, human trading, child abuse, abuse of alone women and the elderly, tradition killings, unequal access to food and health services, peer psychological pressure, which is applied by family members outside partners, violence in pregnancy, female genital mutilation, and abortions based on the sex of the child (Karal & Aydemir, 2012).

Prevention of domestic violence may be one of the most important social problems to be resolved and requires much time and many efforts (Page & İnce, 2008). As human beings consciously commit the violence, to conquer violence, we need to change people’s way of thinking about this topic, and this starts by managing the factors that cause violence (Şenol & Yıldız, 2013).

In the culture of many countries throughout the world, since the male gender is highlighted, there is an uncontrollable sense of dominance in men, and a sense of absolute dominance has emerged including over family members, especially women. This condition is a result of women who are exposed to violence mostly and seek divorce also. So, what should be done? This situation can be considered a reflection of gender inequality in the society. Therefore, most fundamentally, it may be useful to begin to change the way we have been child-rearing. Child who both sexes grow in ensuring equality of opportunity and approach which equitable human rights can provide a mental transformation in the prevention of violence. To ensure the transformation of gender relations and prevent domestic violence cannot be successful unless work with men. In recent years, the United Nations has highlighted the importance of men’s participation in achieving gender equality (www.unescap.org). There are three important key points in work with men. These are (a) working with men to convert attitudes and values, (b) working with men as partners, and (c) working with men as the perpetrators of the crime (www.sarpn.org). Therefore, as priority, training should be provided about domestic violence, marriage, and family counseling and where men work more intensely such as military institutions, sports teams, and the factory to convert attitudes and values. Health professionals can take an active role in struggling domestic violence by taking part in the planning and execution of the training.

Accordingly, as domestic violence focuses generally on women, to conquer violence, we first need to change men’s outlook toward violence by determining the factors affecting their attitudes toward violence. Other socially important enterprises that can be developed include providing consultancy services for raising awareness about violence, giving public education, giving school education to adolescent groups about domestic violence, and fostering a healthy family environment. The present study was conducted to determine the attitudes toward domestic violence of young adult men and the factors affecting their attitudes.

Background

Domestic violence is usually committed against a wife, child, parents or elders. Previous studies have reported that the most common violence in society is committed in the family situation and that women get injured by their husbands’ beating – although very few of these beatings were reported to judicial authorities (Küçüker, 2002; Şenol & Yıldız, 2013; Tel, 2002; Yıldız, Yavuz, Akıncı, & Gölge, 2003). Domestic violence is commonly observed both in Turkey and worldwide but studies have revealed little about exposure to violence. Statistics indicates that domestic violence against women is a serious human rights abuse around the world. According to the report of Thomson Reuters Foundation (Trust Law Department, 2011), Afghanistan, Congo, Pakistan, India, and Somalia have been identified as the most dangerous five countries for women in the world. According to this report, 70% to 80% of Afghan women are forced into marriage. About 90% of women are illiterate. Today, violence supported by the cultural acceptance has been still experienced in some countries. In Pakistan, acid attacks, forced marriage, chastity killings, and stoning have been applied by some radical segments of the country. In India, in some parts of society, the female babies have been aborted after gender has been determined. According to the report of United Nations about World’s Women (2010); in Germany, 25% of women subjected to physical or sexual violence during their lifetime. This rate in Denmark is 27% and in Norway 22% (United Nations, 2010). In addition, it is known that at least one woman was killed by her husband or partner per week in Kenya. In Zambia, five women have been killed by spouse, partner, or a family member a week. In the United States, a woman has been beaten by her husband or partner in every 15 s. About two women have been killed by their husbands or partners per week in the United Kingdom. In Egypt, 35% of women got a beating from her husband at some point in their marriage (Korkut-Owen & Owen, 2008). When we look at the statistics of Turkey, four in 10 women are exposed to physical violence by their spouse/partner. About 12% of married women have been exposed to sexual violence in any period of their life. Emotional violence/abuse is the most common form of domestic violence against women, with 44% of women exposed to emotional violence in their life. Economic violence/abuse is another type of domestic violence against woman and is defined as not giving money to woman for home expenses and to capture the woman’s income. Approximately 30% of women in Turkey have been exposed to these behaviors in any period of their life (T.C. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı, 2014). When the factors affecting domestic violence are examined, it is seen that many dimensions are accompanied by it. These include a low satisfaction in marriage, aggressive actions shown by individuals, differences in ideology, race and religion variances, inequality between the jobs and incomes of spouses (especially a wife who has a better job and earns much more than her husband), inadequacy of communication (especially among children and elders), and overdependence in the marriage and all kinds of weakness (Astin, Lawrence, & Foy, 1993; Polat, 2004). In patriarchal societies in particular, when women do not fulfill their responsibilities, they may be severely punished. This approach is misogynist, and this point comprises the basis of domestic violence. However, there are some environmental stress factors such as economic stress, work stress, and unemployment that are suggested to play a role in domestic violence (Şenol & Yıldız, 2013). The integration of social policy emerges as one of the most important elements that determines the position of women, especially in domestic relations. Therefore, social policies in all countries should be supportive in terms of the changing roles of women in family and society.

There are often examples of violence in the backgrounds of the people who commit violence and abuse, and it has been observed that these people usually grew up in families where violence was present (Astin et al., 1993; Fonagy, 1999; İbiloğlu Okan, 2012; Jin, Eagle, & Yoshioka, 2007). Özçakır, Bayram, Ergin, Selimoğlu, and Bilgel’s (2008) study reported that 17.9% of the male participants recognized and approved violence against women. It was revealed that these participants’ attitudes were related to their own exposure to violence in their childhood and also their consumption of alcohol.

Although there are social effects of domestic violence, various cultural values and beliefs make it difficult to reveal this behavior (Kalaycıoğlu & Rittersberger-Tılıç, 1994). Health staff have a key role in revealing and reducing this behavior. They should have an understanding of domestic violence because they work with women, children, and their families in all protective levels of society (Whitley, 1996). Health professionals, teachers, politicians, and academics are in an effective position for preventing, treating, and reducing domestic violence because their work covers many areas. They have the opportunity to observe, influence, and educate the families that they encounter in their working role.

Method

Type and Place of the Study

The present study was a cross-sectional study conducted with young adult men who were performing their military service and who applied to the polyclinics of Sarıkamış Military Hospital. Sarıkamış Military Hospital is a county hospital with 50 beds, which is located in the southeastern part of the Kars city. It serves the rural area of the region.

Target Population of the Study and Participants

The target population of the study comprised 1,335 young adult men who were performing their military service and who applied to polyclinics of Sarıkamış Military Hospital with various health problems between December 1, 2012, and February 28, 2013. Participation to the study is based on voluntariness; when the purpose of the study was explained, only 284 participants agreed to participate in the study; of this cohort, 63 participants submitted incomplete responses. Thus, the study collected complete data from 221 young adult men. This yields 17%, which is the rate of completion of those who agreed to participate. A post hoc test was carried out to determine the power of the sample of 221 participants and showed 3% effect size, 95% reliability, and 99% power. Accordingly, the study was completed with 78% of the total number of potential participants. The results of post hoc test are as follows:

t tests	Correlation: Point Biserial Model
Analysis:	Post hoc: Compute Achieved Power
Input: Tail(s)	= One
Effect size \|ρ\|	= 0.3
α err prob	= 0.05
Total sample size	= 221
Output: Noncentrality parameter	= 5.29
Critical t	= 1.65
Power (1 − β err prob)	= 0.99

This study was carried out with young adult men who attended internal medicine, dermatology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, otolaryngology, and general surgery polyclinics to receive ambulatory health care services such as physical examinations, investigations, or test results during the study period.

Data Collection Tools

Collection of data was via a questionnaire form prepared by the researchers based on the available literature (Pournaghash-Tehrani, 2011; Şahin & Dişsiz, 2009; Stickley, Kislitsyna, Timofeeva, & Vagero, 2008); the Attitude Toward Domestic Violence Scale (ATDVS) was also used (Şahin & Dişsiz, 2009). Data-collection tools were administered to each participant in the polyclinic to avoid being influenced by others and were filled in before examination and health care needs were met. An average of 15 min was allocated for this process. Only health personnel (doctors, nurses) and the participants were present in the polyclinic when the data-collection tools were completed. Men who came to the polyclinic but who had emergency health problems were excluded from the study.

Questionnaire form

This form consisted of 10 questions about men’s age, occupation, education status, family type, marital status, whether they have children, whether they had information about domestic violence (“Have you ever received information about domestic violence?”), whether they were exposed to domestic violence (“Have you ever exposed to violence in your childhood?”), and whether they notified related agencies or institutions when they were exposed to domestic violence.

ATDVS

This is a 5-point Likert-type scale and measurement tool, which was developed by Şahin and Dişsiz (2009) with the aim of measuring individuals’ attitudes toward domestic violence. The scale consists of 13 items and four sub-dimensions (making violence usual, generalization of violence, making violence casual, and hiding violence). Responses were rated as 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree. Two items in the scale (Questions 5 and 10) were coded conversely. There is a minimum of 13 and maximum of 65 points that can be scored on the scale, and the higher total scores indicate that attitudes toward acceptance, practice, and maintenance are negative. The negative attitudes toward domestic violence indicate that these attitudes are supportive of violence against women/intimate partners and domestic violence. Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was .72 in the initial study in which the scale was developed and was .71 in this study.

Limitations of the Study

Some men defined as the target population did not agree to participate in the study because they perceived the questions related to domestic violence as interventions in their private lives (obtained from their statements), and, as a result, the sample number remained low. Participants sometimes gave inadequate answers to the questions. So, they gave incomplete forms and signed the questions of scale insufficiently. These situations comprised important constraints for the study.

Assessment of Data

Analysis of data was done with the SPSS 20.0 program. In addition, T test, one-way ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Dunnet’s T3 Post Hoc test were used in assessment of the data. The analysis of questionnaires that had been answered insufficiently (n = 63) has not been done, and they have been excluded from the scope of this work.

Ethics of the Study

All of the participants were informed about the study, and their verbal and written approvals indicated agreement to participate in the study. Research permission was given by the Gülhane Military Medical Academy Scientific Research Ethics Committee (2013/14).

Findings

Information about characteristics of men who were performing their military service and who participated in the study is given in Table 1. We found that 96.4% of the men were aged between 20 and 30 years, 40.3% of them were working as freelancers, and 39.4% described themselves as workers. Their education status responses showed 59.7% of them had achieved high school or above, 85.1% were single, 56.1% were living in a nuclear family. Regarding domestic violence, 75.1% of the participants did not have information about domestic violence, 10.4% of them responded the question, “Were you ever exposed to violence in your childhood in their own family?” as “yes,” and 41.2% of them were thinking about not giving notice to the related agency and institutions when they encountered violence in their own family or in the families around them.

Table 1.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Men (N = 221).

Characteristics	n	%
Age	$\bar{X}$ = 23.06	SD = 3.62
Age between 20 and 30	213	96.4
Age 31 and above	8	3.6
Occupation
Officer	24	10.9
Worker	87	39.4
Freelancer	89	40.3
Not working	21	9.5
Educational status
Literate—primary school graduated	10	4.5
Secondary school graduated	79	35.7
High school and above	132	59.7
Marital status
Married	24	10.9
Single	188	85.1
Other	9	4.1
Children
Yes	21	9.5
No	200	90.5
Family type
Nuclear	124	56.1
Extended	81	36.7
Broken	16	7.2
Taking information about violence in the family before
Yes	55	24.9
No	166	75.1
Exposure violence from family
Yes	23	10.4
No	198	89.6
Giving notice to related agency and institutions in the case of encountering with violence in the family
Yes	53	24.0
No	91	41.2
According to the features of violence	77	34.8

Note. SD = Standard Deviation.

The results from the ATDVS and the symptoms related to the sub-groups are shown in Table 2. We determined that the average of total scores of study participants was 49.41 ± 7.27; scores were 19.07 ± 3.49 in the making violence usual sub-group, 12.09 ± 2.31 in the generalization of violence sub-group, 11.53 ± 4.29 in the making violence casual sub-group, and 6.70 ± 2.40 in the hiding violence sub-group.

Table 2.

ATDVS and Item Numbers of Sub-Groups, Total Scores, and Reliability Parameters.

ATDVS	Item Number	Total Scores	Cronbach’s α
Making violence usual	5	19.07 ± 3.49	.70
Generalization of violence	3	12.09 ± 2.31	.74
Making violence casual	3	11.53 ± 4.29	.71
Hiding violence	2	6.70 ± 2.40	.69
ATDVS Total	13	49.41 ± 7.27	.71

Note. ATDVS = Attitude Toward Domestic Violence Scale.

Comparison of socio-demographic variables (age, occupation, education status, family type, marital status, whether they have children, whether they had information about domestic violence [obtained from their statements], whether they were exposed to domestic violence, whether they would notify a related agency and institution when they were exposed to domestic violence) of study participants and their attitudes toward domestic violence is shown in Table 3. A statistically meaningful difference between men’s age (p = .735), occupation (p = .061), family type (p = .200), marital status (p = .891), whether they have children (p = .337), whether they were exposed to domestic violence (p = .733), and their attitudes toward domestic violence could not be found (p > .05). There was, however, a statistically meaningful difference found between their educational status (p = .000), whether they had information about domestic violence (p = .017), whether they would notify a related agency or institution when they were exposed to domestic violence (p = .000), and their attitudes toward domestic violence (p < .05). As a result of Dunnet’s T3 Post Hoc test that was applied to understand at which educational level this difference occurs, we found that the scale scores of those participants whose educational status was secondary school and literate—primary school were higher (c > b,a) than the scores of those men whose educational status was high school or above, with the attitudes of the former group being more negative. We found that scale scores of the men whose educational status was literate—primary school were higher than the scale scores of those whose educational status was secondary school (b > a), and attitudes of the former group were more negative. When the same statistical test was applied to the condition of giving notice in the case of encountering domestic violence, the attitudes of the men who responded yes (I would give notice) and according to the type of violence (I would give notice) toward domestic violence were determined as more positive when compared with the men who gave responses as no (I would not give notice; a,c > b).

Table 3.

Comparison of Socio-Demographic Variables of Men and Their Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence.

Characteristics	$\bar{X}$	SD	Test	p	Difference
Age
Age between 20 and 30	48.89	7.51	U = 792.000	.735	—
Age 31 and above	49.13	7.99
Occupation
Officer	51.08	5.64
Worker	49.40	7.26	KW = 7.362	.061	—
Freelancer	47.44	7.94
Not working	50.52	7.83
Educational status
Literate—primary school graduated	40.10	7.48			c > b,a
Secondary school Graduated	47.61	7.52	KW = 17.128	.000	b > a
High school and above	50.34	6.95
Marital status
Married	47.96	7.61
Single	48.96	7.48	KW = 0.230	.891	—
Other	50.22	8.54
Children
Yes	52.42	5.91	U = 1,832.500	.337	—
No	49.10	7.66
Family type
Nuclear	49.90	6.98
Extended	47.54	7.86	KW = 3.215	.200	—
Broken	48.06	8.96
Taking information about violence in the family before
Yes	50.98	5.77	t = 2.396	.017	—
No	48.21	7.90
Exposure violence from family
Yes	47.83	9.02	U = 2,178.000	.733	—
No	49.03	7.33
Giving notice to related agency and institutions in the case of encountering with violence in the family
Yes	52.11	7.31
No	46.89	6.90	F = 8.690	.000	a,c > b
According to the features of violence	49.06	7.65

Note. KW = Kruskal Wallis.

Discussion

Violence-prevention programs focused on women and were conducted with women throughout history. In many countries made in collaboration with civil society organizations about action plans for violence prevention, were passed in the direction of providing support for protection and shelters for women. However, the role and responsibility of men in preventing violence should be given much more importance. Most of the men who made distinctions in gender are the key agents in prevention of violence, decision and in the process of change making (Körükçü, Öztunalı Kayır, & Kukulu, 2012). In the last few years, the opinion which includes the movement of men especially in preventing violence against women, focuses on the roles and responsibilities of men, and in the end the solution of the problem of violence against women, emphasizing that it is a portion of the men (Peacock & Levack, 2004). Work with men and women for prevention of violence is an inevitable part of transformation about peaceful and egalitarian relations (Körükçü et al., 2012). Men and women working together is an important step for improving women’s welfare in providing justice at the community level (Bhandri, 2005). Therefore, this study is important for describing attitudes toward domestic violence of men in terms of prevention and contributing to the existing literature base. The findings of this study were discussed with the relevant literature.

Domestic violence is a phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of the concept of family. Domestic violence is often the first place many people first encounter violence (Şenol & Yıldız, 2013). The present study shows the attitudes toward domestic violence of a group of young Turkish adult men.

In this study, we determined that 60% of the men’s educational status was high school and above and 10% stated that they were exposed to violence in their own family. Bayındır’s study found that children are negatively affected by domestic violence and that domestic violence increases children’s aggressive and violent behaviors (Bayındır, 2009). Growing up in an environment that includes violence and abuse is the most important risk factor for committing violence in the future (Cappell & Heiner, 1990; Carlson, 1990). In the literature, there have been reports that violence creates more permanent effects on boys, and these boys commit more violence against women in their adulthood relationships (Çaykoylu, İbiloğlu Okan, Potaş, & Yılmaz, 2008; Çaykoylu, İbiloğlu Okan, Taner, Potaş, & Taner, 2011). When the subject of domestic violence is evaluated with regard to social structure, studies show that physical punishment is a discipline tool in raising children within traditional family types and that is why beating is commonly used in traditional societies (Polat, 2004). Especially in traditional family structures, physical punishment methods are preferred instead of verbal discipline methods, and this is also the case in cities where these punishment methods are commonly used (Ayan, 2007). This approval of violence underpins the sexual norms of society. Traditional culture accepts violence as a discipline tool, and this situation gives a man the right of responding with violence when his wife does not behave according to her role. The superior position of men arises from the law and patriarchal traditions of society; women’s subservience to men and the perception that men have more right to speak than women about family decisions are other factors that contribute to violence (Şenol & Yıldız, 2011). In other studies, the possibility of committing violence against a wife is much more common among men who were exposed to domestic violence than among those men who did not have similar experiences (Astin et al., 1993; Fonagy, 1999). In one study exploring the phenomenon of domestic violence toward women, 62% of participants stated that they were exposed to violence at least once in their marriage, 63% stated that they were exposed to violence at least once in their childhood, and 51% stated that they had committed physical violence against their own child (Vahip & Doğanavşargil, 2006). In addition, Pournaghash-Tehrani (2011) found a direct relationship between encountering violence at an early age and committing violence. Another study conducted in China found a strong relationship between the violence men committed toward their wives or partners and their own encounters with violence at an early age (Jin et al., 2007).

We found that participants’ average of total scores from the ATDVS was 49.41 ± 7.27. The fact that the total scores obtained were close to the highest score indicates that the attitudes of men in this study toward domestic violence were negative. Şenol and Yıldız’s (2013) study found that men commit violence against their wives and children with the aim of nurturing as they think they are responsible for them and that they contribute to their development and social adaptation. The findings obtained from their study showing negative attitudes toward domestic violence indicate similarities with the data of the present study in terms of men considering domestic violence as reasonable and necessary. Among our male participants, attitudes of those whose education levels were low, who had not received any prior information about domestic violence, and who did not want to give notice to a related agency or institution when encountering domestic violence were found to be more negative than the other groups. Meaningful differences, however, between their attitudes and the other factors could not be found. Although relations within the family and violence are extremely important in society in general, there has been insufficient attention paid by the people and institutions that are responsible for human health (Armutçu, 2007). In contrast, it is regarded as a private matter in the family, and by hiding behind the concept of family privacy, it is argued that it cannot and should not be helped by outsiders (Şenol & Yıldız, 2013). Other studies have shown a meaningful relationship between lower levels of education among men, joblessness, instability in men’s work life, and their negative attitudes toward domestic violence (Castro, Peek-Asa, & Ruiz, 2003; Eisikovitz, Winstok and Fishman, 2004). Goodyear-Smith and Laidlaw (1999) and Malik and Lindahl (1998) found that it is an important factor that increases the possibility of men committing violence against women if a woman’s education level is higher than that of a man. Stickley et al. (2008) determined whether violence against women was an important problem or not and their participants’ responses showed that whereas 53% of the women considered violence against a woman as a serious problem, only one third of men considered it so. In the same study, when asked whether the man has a reason to commit violence against a woman, most participants stated that they have a right to commit violence if they see a woman outside in an inappropriate position. These studies’ findings correlate with our own and make us think that men considering that violence is reasonable may negatively affect their attitudes toward domestic violence.

As a result of this study, we found that men have negative attitudes toward domestic violence, and having a low education level and no information related to violence negatively affects attitudes toward domestic violence.

In our study, the attitudes of the men who responded yes (I would give notice) and according to the type of violence (I would give notice) toward domestic violence were determined as more positive when compared with the men who gave responses as no (I would not give notice). Men who with a tendency to domestic violence and violent men may want to hide the violence because of its familial, relational, social, and forensic results and the victim’s health condition. Low participation of men in the study and perceiving questions about domestic violence as revealing and intervening to their private lives also supports this conclusion. At this point, a very important conclusion has emerged that needs to take the men into the scope and review of intervention studies who do not want to participate in the study.

Major Implications

It is important that violence is prevented before it occurs. Violence-prevention efforts should include men because they are the primary principals of domestic violence and they have less knowledge and awareness about the importance of violence. If sensitivity is shown and the information is given about this subject in society, many men will be effective allies in ending domestic violence in the family, in society, and decision making in the environment (Körükçü et al., 2012). In this respect, health professionals should conduct family counseling within the community and should train others about preventive initiatives toward violence. Public health campaigns can be done, and teachers and academics can train the students of preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school, and university and their parents. Public broadcasts can be made including community leaders. In this respect, as a method of primary protection, raising awareness in society about violence, giving consultancy services related to the subject, and giving public education are suggested as useful strategies.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study was presented as a poster report in Second National Transcultural Nursing Conference, which was held in Antalya Akdeniz University between the dates of June 3 and June 5, 2013.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Derya Adıbelli completed her PhD in 2014 from Ataturk University and postdoctoral studies from Adnan Menderes University Soke Health College. Currently, she is an assistant professor in Akdeniz University Kumluca Health Science Faculty. She has been working on public health nursing, heart health in women, and domestic violence. She has published articles in (inter)national journals, presentations at (inter)national congresses, and chapters in books. She has membership in various scientific associations/societies and has been an editorial board member of two international journals.

Ayşe Sevim Ünal completed her PhD in 2004 from Gulhane Military Medical Academy and postdoctoral studies from Ufuk University Nursing College. She is an assistant professor. She has been working on child and women health nursing and domestic violence. She has published articles in (inter)national journals, presentations at (inter)national congresses, and chapters in books.

Tülay Şen has been working as a nurse in Gulhane Military Medical Academy Education and Research Hospital and in a prevention agency related to domestic violence as a volunteer.

References

Armutçu

(2007). Media and domestic violence: Final to domestic violence! İstanbul, Turkey: Hürriyet Kurumsal İletişim Müdürlüğü Yayınları.

Astin

M. C.

Lawrence

K. J.

Foy

D. W.

(1993). Posttraumatic stress disorder among battered women: Risk and resiliency factors. Violence and Victims, 8, 17-28.

Ayan

(2007). Aggression tendencies of children who exposed to violence within the family. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 8, 206-214.

Bayındır

(2009). The responses of children against domestic violence. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2, 1-9.

Bhandri

(2005). Strategies & tools for working with men and boys to end violence against girls, boys, women and other men. Kathmandu, Nepal: Save the Children Sweden, Regional Programme for South & Central Asia.

Cappell

Heiner

R. B.

(1990). The intergenerational transmission of family aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 135-152. doi:10.1007/BF00978516

Carlson

B. E.

(1990). Adolescent observers of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 285-299. doi:10.1007/BF00979065

Castro

Peek-Asa

Ruiz

(2003). Violence against women in Mexico: A study of abuse before and during pregnancy. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1110-1116. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1110

Çaykoylu

İbiloğlu Okan

Potaş

Yılmaz

(2008). Incidence of domestic violence and possible risk factors in a group of Turkish women from a psychiatry clinic. Antalya, Turkey: 44th National Psychiatry Congress Book.

10.

Çaykoylu

İbiloğlu Okan

Taner

Potaş

Taner

(2011). The correlation of childhood physical abuse history and later abuse in a group of Turkish population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3455-3475. doi:10.1177/0886260511403748

11.

Eisikovits

Winstok

Fishman

(2004). The first Israeli national survey on domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 10, 729-748. doi:10.1177/1077801204265549

12.

Elimination of violence against women in partnership with men. (2003). Retrieved from http://iknowpolitics.org/sites/default/files/elimination20of20violence20against20women20in20partnership20with20me.pdf

13.

Fonagy

(1999). Male perpetrators of violence against women: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 1, 7-27. doi:10.1023/A:1023074023087

14.

Goodyear-Smith

F. A.

Laidlaw

T. M.

(1999). Aggressive acts and assaults in intimate relationships: Towards an understanding of the literature. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 285-304. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199907/09)17:3<285:AID-BSL347>3.0.CO;2-D

15.

İbiloğlu Okan

. (2012). Domestic violence. Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 4, 204-222.

16.

Jin

Eagle

Yoshioka

(2007). Early exposure to domestic violence of origin and positive attitudes towards marital violence: Chinese immigrant male batterers vs. controls. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 211-222. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9073-3

17.

Kalaycıoğlu

Rittersberger-Tılıç

(1994). Causes and consequences of violence between family members in various families in Ankara: Provisional Results, II. Ankara, Turkey: Aile Kurultayı. T.C. Başbakanlık Aile Araştırma Kurumu.

18.

Karal

Aydemir

(2012). Violence against women in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Uluslararası Stratejik Araştırmalar Kurumu Sosyal Araştırmalar Merkezi.

19.

Korkut-Owen

Owen

(2008). The research of domestic violence against women. Ankara, Turkey: T.C. Başbakanlık Kadının Statüsü Genel Müdürlüğü.

20.

Körükçü

Ö.

Öztunalı Kayır

Kukulu

. (2012). Male collaboration in the prevention of violence against women. Current Approaches in Psychiatry, 4, 396-413. doi:10.5455/cap.20120424

21.

Küçüker

(2002). Investigation of cases of domestic violence against women reflected the Magistrates Court in Zonguldak. Adli Tıp Dergisi, 16, 40-45.

22.

Malik

N. M.

Lindahl

K. M.

(1998). Aggression and dominance: The roles of power and culture in domestic violence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 409-425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.1998.tb00164.x

23.

Özçakır

Bayram

Ergin

Selimoğlu

Bilgel

(2008). Attitudes of Turkish men toward wife beating: A study from Bursa, Turkey. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 631-638. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9185-4

24.

Öztürk

Sevil

(2005). Violence in pregnancy. Sağlık ve Toplum Dergisi, 15, 1-16.

25.

Page

A. Z.

İnce

(2008). A review related to domestic violence. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 11, 81-94.

26.

Peacock

Levack

(2004). The men as partners program in South Africa: Reaching men to end gender-based violence and promote sexual and reproductive health. International Journal of Men’s Health, 3, 173-188.

27.

Polat

(2004). Forensic medicine (2. Baskı). İstanbul, Turkey: Der Yayınevi.

28.

Pournaghash-Tehrani

. (2011). The role of beliefs, attitudes and adverse childhood experiences in predicting men’s reactions towards their spouses’ violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 93-99. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9345-1

29.

Ralo

J. M.

Schor

Tavares

C. M.

Silva

(2016). Prevalence of family violence and associated factors among in-school adolescents in Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1618-1633. doi:10.1177/0886260515569059

30.

Şahin

Dişsiz

(2009). The development study of attitudes towards domestic violence scale in health care workers. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 6, 263-274.

31.

Şenol

Yıldız

(2011). Domestic violence and women as an urbanization problem that happened in the slum, Çankaya in Ankara: Star Case. 38. (ICANAS) Ankara, Turkey: International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Environment, Urbanization.

32.

Şenol

Yıldız

(2013). The perception of violence against women with male and female perspectives (Mutlu Çocuklar Derneği Yayınları). Ankara, Turkey: Tarcan Matbaacılık.

33.

Stickley

Kislitsyna

Timofeeva

İ.

Vagero

(2008). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in Moscow, Russia. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 447-456. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9170-y

34.

T.C. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı. (2014). The research of domestic violence against women in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Kadının Statüsü Genel Müdürlüğü.

35.

Tel

(2002). Hidden health problem: Domestic violence and nursing approaches. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 6, 1-9

36.

Trust Law Department. (2011). Reuters Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-danger-factbox-idUSTRE75E32A20110615 (accessed 15 June 2016).

37.

Ünal

Bilge

(2004). The role of emergency nurses in the management of domestic violence. Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksek Okulu Dergisi, 20, 127-137

38.

United Nations. (2010). World’s women 2010 report. Retrieved from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/worldswomen/ww_full%20report_color.pdf

39.

Vahip

Doğanavşargil

. (2006). Physical violence in the family and our female patients. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 17, 107-114.

40.

Whitley

G. G.

(1996). The impact of violence in the health care setting upon nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 35, 211-218.

41.

Yıldız

H. Y.

Yavuz

Akıncı

F. S.

Gölge

(2003). The application of the law on the protection of the family No. 4320 on domestic violence cases. Adli Tıp Dergisi, 17, 59-68.