Acceptability of Violence Against Women Among the Roma Population in Spain

Abstract

Acceptability of violence against women (VAW) is a key dimension in addressing this social problem, given its influence on both the violent conduct of aggressors and the decisions of affected women. This study analyzes, for the first time, the magnitude of acceptability of VAW and associated factors in the Roma population in Spain. The Roma population is the largest ethnocultural minority in Europe. Data were analyzed from the Spanish National Health Survey of the Roma Population of 2014, a survey of 1,167 people identified as members of the Roma community. The results indicate that 70.9% of those surveyed completely reject VAW, with lower probability of acceptability among women than men (odds ratio [OR]: 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.51, 0.86]). There is also a decrease in probability as income increases, in people who identify themselves as evangelical (OR: 0.5; 95% CI: [0.36, 0.71]) and among those who report being acquainted with a battered woman (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: [0.48, 0.97]), similarly in women and men. It has to be highlighted that the observed associations between socioeconomic conditions and acceptability of VAW should be considered when designing strategies for raising awareness about the consequences of VAW for the Roma population.

Keywords

intimate partner violence Roma population social perception socioeconomic factors health equity

Introduction

The acceptability of violence against women (VAW) is a key dimension of the struggle against VAW, given its influence on both violent behavior and the decisions of women who are affected (Gracia, 2004; Gracia & Herrero, 2006b). Acceptability is primarily related to attitudes that assign blame to the victims, a tendency to underestimate the magnitude and gravity of the problem, and even a certain level of empathy toward aggressors (Gracia & Herrero, 2006a).

In prior studies on the topic, such as Eurostat’s Eurobarometer, survey questions to measure attitudes toward VAW ask whether violence would be “acceptable in all circumstances,” “acceptable in determined circumstances,” “unacceptable but should not always be punishable by law,” or “unacceptable and should always be punishable by law.” In the European context, according to Eurobarometer data from 2010, over 90% of the population considers that VAW is unacceptable and should always be punishable by law (TNS Opinion & Social, 2010), a rate that has increased by 30 percentage points in the past 10 years (Gracia & Herrero, 2006b). According to data in Spain from an opinion survey of the Center for Sociological Research in 2012, the notion that intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is unacceptable and should always be punishable by law ranges from 63%—in relation to verbal violence—to 95%—in relation to physical violence (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 2012).

The sociopolitical context of VAW in European countries is characterized by the proliferation of policies and legal action against VAW since the 1990s, promoted first by the international call carried out at the IV World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 and later at the Istanbul Convention of the European Commission in 2011 (European Commission, 2011b; Naciones Unidas, 1996). In Spain, the “Zero Tolerance” campaigns on VAW, toughening legal penalties, and support for women’s and society’s declarations of the situation are some of the measures that may have contributed to generating a climate of increasing rejection of VAW, together with the support of Organic Law 1/2004 of December 28 on Measures for Integral Protection Against Gender Violence and other similar policies in the international context (Ortiz-Barreda & Vives-Cases, 2013).

Factors associated with the acceptability of VAW among the population are distributed unequally and are influenced by sociodemographic profiles and social conditions. It has been observed that acceptability of VAW decreases among the younger generations and in those people who know about cases of women in this situation (Gracia & Herrero, 2006a). A greater level of rejection of VAW has also been observed in women compared with men (Gracia & Herrero, 2006a, 2006b), and similar to what happens with IPV declared in surveys, the rate of acceptability is negatively associated with both the socioeconomic level of the population (Gracia & Herrero, 2006b) and the religiosity level (Kposowa & Aly Ezzat, 2019).

Gender roles in the family environment and machismo attitudes among parents have been also addressed in the scientific literature to understand the acceptability of violence. In a recent study, associations were observed between patriarchal gender attitudes and experiencing violence at home, suffering physical punishment (in boys and girls), witnessing how the father beat the mother (in girls), and witnessing relatives being violent with the mother (in boys) (Saeed Ali et al., 2017).

In past studies carried out with other ethnic minorities, having experienced discrimination in different areas (public and private) has been associated with a greater risk of suffering from and carrying out IPV (Forster, Grigsby, Soto, Sussman, & Unger, 2017; Stueve & O’Donnell, 2008). There are also other social circumstances clearly associated with greater risk of IPV (Kposowa & Aly Ezzat, 2019; Saeed Ali et al., 2017; Vives-Cases et al., 2010; Vives-Cases et al., 2014), such as being separated or divorced and having children or not having any kind of social support. These have yet to be studied in relation to acceptability toward VAW.

In the population of Roma women, the largest ethnocultural minority in Europe, VAW has barely been addressed in scientific studies, and the scant literature that has been published and which refers to local studies fixes prevalence of physical violence at 46%. The risk of IPV is three times greater than in women from the general population (Prava zas ve and ICVA Sarajevo, 2011; Tokuç, Ekuklu, & Avcioğlu, 2010). This is also evidence of Roma women’s situation of social exclusion in health, experiences of multiple types of discrimination and oppression (based on race, socioeconomic status, sexual identity and/or orientation, and gender), and inequalities in access to health services, the labor market, education, and political representation (Corsi et al., 2008; La Parra, Gil-González, & Jiménez, 2013; Vives-Cases, et al., 2017). To our knowledge, there are no data on the social perception of VAW in the Roma population in other European countries. Nevertheless, a higher level of acceptability of this form of violence can be expected because of the negative association found in the general population between lower socioeconomic indicators and the acceptability of VAW.

The Spanish National Health Survey of the Roma Population of 2014 is a unique source of information on this ethnic community that includes information on health conditions, socioeconomic circumstances, and perception of social phenomena such as social discrimination and the topic that we are concerned with in this study, the acceptability of gender violence. Up to now, the information collected through this study is the only source of information on the social problem of IPV in the Roma population in the Spanish context, despite its demographic size. Available estimates of the Roma population in Spain range between 1.5% (700,000 Spaniards who are Roma/Kale) and 2.1% (970,000) of the total population in the country (La Parra et al., 2013). It certainly offers a first opportunity to analyze the attitudes about VAW of men and women in the Spanish Roma population in a legislative context more than a decade after the entry of force of Organic Law 1/2004 in Spain (Boletín Oficial del Estado, 2004). Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze the magnitude of acceptability of VAW and associated factors in the Roma population in Spain.

Method

This is a transversal, national study carried out in Spain in 15 of 17 autonomous communities (with the exception of the cities of Ceuta and Melilla and the Canary and Balearic Islands because of their low Roma population). A representative sample of 1,167 people was obtained that identified as members of the Roma community. For sample selection, a 2007 housing map was used (Roma Secretariat Foundation, 2008) that was reviewed by the research team during the study process. A randomized proportional sample was obtained taking into account the population distribution by autonomous community. For sampling points, municipalities with 10 or more housing units of Roma population residents were selected, with random routes in the selected neighborhoods. To guarantee the same number of cases in each population group, quotas were established by sex (50% men and women) and by age (15-34, 35-54, and >55 years). Surveys were carried out face-to-face between December 2013 and May 2014 (Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, 2016).

A questionnaire was developed with questions comparable to the Spanish National Health Survey 2006 and 2012 and the first National Roma Population Survey carried out in 2006 (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, 2007, 2013; Ministerio de Salud y Servicios Sociales, 2009). Question selection was oriented by the National Strategy for Social Inclusion of the Roma Population 2012-2020 (Ministerio de Sanidad Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, 2012). The questionnaire was carried out with the noninstitutionalized adult population and included the following question blocks: state of health, health services use, lifestyles, housing, and social, demographic, and socioeconomic variables.

The question addressed in this study is that which refers to “VAW acceptability”: Among the following options, in your opinion, violence against women is (1) acceptable in all circumstances, (2) acceptable in certain circumstances, (3) unacceptable but should not always be punishable by law, and (4) unacceptable and should always be punishable by law.

The variable was dichotomized to distinguish between categories showing a certain degree of acceptability and complete rejection (Option 1, 2, and 3 responses were those with the existence of a certain level of VAW acceptability, and Option 4 responses were those cases of rejection). The obtained dichotomized variable was included as the dependent variable in the logistic regression models.

In addition, the effect of socioeconomic (age, sex, education level, income, and economic situation in infancy and at age 14) and other family and social variables (living with the father at age 14, living with the mother at age 14, current dependent children, having other dependents, marriage status, acquaintance with an abused woman, acquaintance with an abuser, religion, and having a person with whom to share intimate matters) was considered. Education level was coded dichotomously (high school or higher level of studies vs. secondary education, professional training, or less). Individual income was recoded into five categories according to the minimum and maximum levels of income observed in the sample (less than €325, from €325 to €450, from €450 to €650, from €650 to €975, and more than €975). The economic situation at age 14 was coded as “poor” for those who declared much difficulty, difficulty, or certain difficulty making it to the end of the month and “good” for those who declared much ease, ease, or certain ease in making it to the end of the month. The economic situation in infancy was coded as “poor” for those who considered their situation to be very poor, poor, or moderately poor and “good” for those who considered their situation to be very good, good, or moderately good. Two categories were considered for marriage status: (a) married, officially and/or by Roma custom, and (b) not married. Questions related to religion were recoded into three independent variables: (a) having a faith (yes/no), (b) catholic (yes/no), and (c) evangelical (yes/no) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics by Gender: Roma Population in Spain, 2014 (Percentages, Means and 95% Confidence Intervals).

Sample Size	Total = 1,167	Men = 576 (49.4%)	Women n = 591 (50.6%)
Socioeconomic characteristics
Age (mean)
	43.8 [42.9, 44.8]	43.5 [42.1, 44.8]	44.2 [42.8, 45.6]
Religion
Catholic	21.5 [19.1, 23.9]	21.7 [18.3, 25.1]	21.3 [18.0, 24.6]
Evangelical	61.7 [58.9, 64.5]	57.1 [53.1, 61.1]	66.2 [62.4, 70.0]
No Religion	6.5 [5.1, 7.9]	9.2 [6.8, 11.6]	3.9 [2.3, 5.5]
Other	10.3 [8.6, 12.0]	12.0 [9.3, 14.7]	8.6 [6.3, 10.9]
Married
Yes	64.9 [62.2, 67.6]	68.9 [68.9, 68.9]	60.9 [57.0, 64.8]
Dependent children
Yes	57.6 [54.8, 60.4]	58.8 [54.8, 62.8]	55.5 [51.5, 59.5]
Dependents
Yes	12.0 [10.1, 13.9]	11.4 [8.8, 14.0]	12.5 [9.8, 15.2]
Educational level
Secondary or less	94.2 [92.9, 95.5]	93.3 [91.3, 95.3]	95.2 [93.5, 96.9]
High school or higher	5.8 [4.5, 7.1]	6.7 [4.7, 8.7]	4.8 [3.1, 6.5]
Income
Less than €325	19.2 [16.9, 21.5]	18.1 [15.0, 21.2]	20.3 [17.1, 23.5]
€325-€450	20.4 [18.1, 22.7]	20.0 [16.7, 23.3]	20.8 [17.5, 24.1]
€450-€650	25.8 [23.3, 28.3]	26.0 [22.4, 29.6]	25.6 [22.1, 29.1]
€650-€975	28.0 [25.4, 30.6]	29.2 [25.5, 32.9]	26.8 [23.2, 30.4]
More than €975	6.6 [5.2, 8.0]	6.7 [4.7, 8.7]	6.5 [4.5, 8.5]
Score of discrimination feel (mean)
	3.7 [2.9, 3.9]	3.9 [3.6, 4.1]	3.5 [3.3, 3.7]
Variables about the infancy
Lived with the mother
No	4.9 [3.7, 6.1]	5.0 [3.2, 6.8]	4.8 [3.1, 6.5]
Lived with the father
No	11.2 [9.4, 13.0]	10.9 [8.4, 13.4]	11.4 [8.8, 14.0]
Economic situation at age 14
With economic difficulties	50.6 [47.7, 53.5]	49.8 [45.7, 53.9]	51.4 [47.4, 55.4]
Without economic difficulties	49.4 [46.5, 52.3]	50.2 [46.1, 54.3]	48.6 [44.6, 52.6]
Economic situation in infancy
Poor	39.9 [37.1, 42.7]	40.6 [36.6, 44.6]	39.2 [35.3, 43.1]
Good	60.1 [57.3, 62.9]	59.4 [55.4, 63.4]	60.8 [56.9, 64.7]
Friends and acquaintances
Acquainted with an abused woman
Yes	45.0 [42.1, 47.9]	38.0 [34.0, 42.0]	51.7 [47.7, 55.7]
Acquainted with an abuser
Yes	42.5 [39.7, 45.3]	36.3 [32.4, 40.2]	48.5 [44.5, 52.5]
Has friends with whom to discuss intimate topics
Yes	89.1 [87.3, 90.9]	90.4 [88.0, 92.8]	87.8 [85.2, 90.4]

Questionnaire items were also used in relation to experiences of discrimination in different areas (at school, looking for employment, at work, looking for housing, in health care, at a store or restaurant, at the bank, in a public place, with the police, with the media, at public offices, and at social services). Based on the responses obtained from this question, a discrimination index was constructed based on the average number of possible areas in which people surveyed had experienced discrimination from among the 12 contemplated in the questionnaire. The result was a score between 0 and 1, were 0 = had not felt discrimination in any area and 1 = having felt discrimination in all of the possible areas (discarding those with which the individual had never had any contact). A descriptive study by sex was carried out. To analyze the association between VAW acceptability and the different studied variables, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated together and by sex. Three logistic regression models were constructed to obtain adjusted ORs: a model for the whole population and a model for each sex. The variables used for these models were those that showed some type of significance in the bivariate analysis.

Results

The total sample included 1,167 individuals (50.6% were women). The mean age of the participants was 43.8 years, and 61.7% of them belonged to the evangelical church. The socioeconomic indicators show that the population tends be low income (93.4% has an individual income below €975), and 50.6% experienced economic difficulties when they were 14 years old. The average respondent has perceived discrimination on average in 3.7 areas (i.e., school, work, with the police, and health care, among others), and 94.2% has a secondary education level or less. The interviewees report acquaintance with an abused woman in 45% of cases and with an abuser in 42.5% of cases.

In all, 70.9% of those surveyed considered gender VAW unacceptable in all circumstances (95% confidence interval [CI]: [68.2%, 73.6%]). There was a significant difference between men and women, with a decreased probability of acceptability of VAW in women (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: [0.51, 0.86]). In more detail, 23.9% considered VAW “unacceptable but should not always be punishable by law,” and 5.2% considered VAW “acceptable in any or certain circumstances” (Table 2).

Table 2.

Violence Against Women (VAW) Acceptability Among the Roma Population in Spain, 2014.

Acceptability	Men	Women	Total	OR
Acceptability	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	95% CI
No	352 (66.5)	420 (75.0)	772 (70.9)	0.66*
Yes	177 (33.5)	140 (25.0)	317 (29.1)	[0.51, 0.86]
Acceptable in all or in certain circumstances	40 (7.6)	17 (3.0)	57 (5.2)
Should not always be punishable by law	137 (25.9)	123 (22.0)	260 (23.9)

Note. Acceptability: “Acceptable in all or in certain circumstances” + “Should not always be punishable by law.” Not acceptable: “Unacceptable and should always be punishable by law.” OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05.

Table 3 shows the association between VAW acceptability and different sociodemographic characteristics. In general, acceptability is lower with higher levels of income, for those with a good economic situation at age 14, in the absence of economic difficulty in making it to the end of the month, and for younger ages. By sex, these associations are maintained and statistically significant in women with age and in the absence of economic difficulty at age 14 and in men, only with income level.

Table 3.

VAW Acceptability Among Roma Men and Women According to Sociodemographic Characteristics in Spain, 2014.

VAW Acceptability	Men		Women		Total
VAW Acceptability	n (%)	OR (95% CI)	n (%)	OR (95% CI)	n (%)	OR (95% CI)
Education level
Secondary, PT, or less	119 (31.8)		80 (22.4)		199 (27.2)
High school or higher	6 (20.7)	0.56 [0.22, 1.41]	1 (5.3)	0.19 [0.02, 1.46]	7 (14.6)	0.46 [0.2, 1.03]
Income*
Less than €325	34 (47.9)		30 (35.3)		64 (41.0)
€325-€450	24 (30.4)	0.48 [0.24, 0.93]	28 (34.1)	0.95 [0.50, 1.80]	52 (32.3)	0.69 [0.43, 1.09]
€450-€650	24 (24.7)	0.36 [0.19, 0.70]	16 (16.0)	0.35 [0.17, 0.70]	40 (20.3)	0.37 [0.23, 0.59]
€650-€975	27 (25.2)	0.37 [0.19, 0.70]	17 (16.0)	0.35 [0.18, 0.69]	44 (20.7)	0.37 [0.24, 0.59]
More than €975	6 (23.1)	0.32 [0.12, 0.91]	4 (16.0)	0.35 [0.11, 1.11]	10 (19.6)	0.35 [0.16, 0.75]
Economic situation at age 14*
Poor	96 (37.6)		83 (29.4)		179 (33.3)
Good	78 (29.5)	0.70 [0.48, 1.00]	53 (20.0)	0.60 [0.40, 0.89]	131 (24.8)	.67 [0.50, 0.86]
Economic situation in infancy*
With economic difficulties	80 (38.5)		61 (28.4)		141 (33.3)
Without economic difficulties	94 (30.2)	0.69 [0.48, 1.00]	79 (23.5)	0.78 [0.53, 1.15]	173 (26.7)	0.73 [0.56, 0.95]
Age*	M	(95% CI)	M	(95% CI)	M	(95% CI)
No VAW acceptability	42.7	[41.0, 44.4]	42.8	[41.1, 44.4]*	42.7	[41.6, 43.9]*
VAW acceptability	44.2	[41.6, 46.9]	47.5	[44.6, 50.5]	45.7	[43.7, 47.7]

Note. Acceptability: Acceptable in all or certain circumstances or unacceptable but should not be punishable by law; VAW = violence against women; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; PT = professional training.

p < .05.

Related to other social characteristics, in general, living with the mother at age 14 or being acquainted with an abused woman or abuser is associated with lower acceptability of VAW. In women, the probability of acceptability decreases for those who lived with their mothers at age 14. Among men, being acquainted with an abused woman or abuser seems to generate a rejection toward violence (Table 4).

Table 4.

VAW Acceptability Among Roma Men and Women According to Their Social Characteristics in Spain, 2014.

Tolerance of Violence	Men		Women		Total
Tolerance of Violence	n (%)	OR (95% CI)	n (%)	OR (95% CI)	n (%)	OR (95% CI)
Lived with the father
No	24 (45.3)		17 (26.6)		41 (35.0)
Yes	152 (32.4)	0.58 [0.33, 1.03]	119 (24.6)	0.90 [0.50, 1.63]	271 (28.5)	.74 [0.49, 1.11]
Lived with the mother*
No	12 (48.0)		11 (44.0)		23 (46.0)
Yes	164 (32.9)	0.53 [0.24, 1.19]	129 (24.7)	0.42 [0.19, 0.94]	293 (28.7)	0.47 [0.27, 0.84]
Dependent children
No	79 (37.4)		61 (25.2)		140 (30.9)
Yes	98 (31.1)	0.76 [0.52, 1.09]	78 (24.8)	0.98 [0.67, 1.44]	176 (28.0)	0.87 [0.67, 1.13]
Dependents
No	153 (33.8)		117 (24.6)		270 (29.1)
Yes	21 (35.0)	1.06 [0.60, 1.86]	21 (30.9)	1.37 [0.79, 2.38]	42 (32.8)	1.19 [0.80, 1.77]
Married
No	52 (31.9)		58 (25.8)		110 (28.4)
Yes	125 (34.2)	1.11 [0.75, 1.64]	82 (24.5)	0.93 [0.63, 1.3]	207 (29.5)	1.06 [0.81, 1.39]
Acquainted with an abused woman*
No	118 (37.0)		70 (27.1)		188 (32.6)
Yes	52 (26.0)	0.60 [0.41, 0.88]	62 (21.7)	0.74 [0.50, 1.10]	114 (23.5)	0.63 [0.48, 0.83]
Acquainted with an abuser*
No	117 (35.8)		74 (27.0)		191 (31.8)
Yes	51 (27.1)	0.67 [0.45, 0.99]	58 (21.6)	0.75 [0.50, 1.11]	109 (23.9)	0.67 [0.51, 0.89]
Has friends with whom to discuss intimate topics
No	17 (33.3)		10 (15.4)		27 (23.3)
Yes	160 (33.5)	1.00 [0.55, 1.86]	129 (26.4)	1.98 [0.98, 4.00]	289 (29.9)	1.41 [0.90, 2.22]
Has a faith
No	15 (30.0)		7 (30.4)		22 (30.1)
Yes	160 (34.2)	1.21 [0.64, 2.29]	131 (24.7)	0.75 [0.30, 1.86]	291 (29.1)	0.95 [0.57, 1.60]
Catholic*
No	131 (31.5)		100 (22.9)		231 (27.1)
Yes	46 (40.7)	1.49 [0.97, 2.29]	40 (32.3)	1.60 [1.03, 2.48]	86 (36.3)	1.53 [1.13, 2.08]
Evangelical*
No	86 (38.2)		65 (33.0)		151 (35.8)
Yes	91 (29.9)	0.69 [0.48, 0.99]	75 (20.7)	0.53 [0.36, 0.78]	166 (24.9)	0.60 [0.46, 0.78]
Discrimination*	M	(95% CI)	M *	(95% CI)	M	(95% CI)
No VAW acceptability	0.39	[0.36, 0.42]	0.37	[0.34, 0.39]	0.38	[0.36, 0.40]
VAW acceptability	0.39	[0.34, 0.43]	0.31	[0.26, 0.35]	0.36	[0.32, 0.39]

Note. Yes: Acceptable or unacceptable but not always punishable, OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; VAW = violence against women.

p < .05.

Table 5 shows the results of the multivariate logistic regression. The acceptability of VAW decreases with increasing income, in those who are evangelical and among those acquainted with an abused woman. Results are similar in men and women.

Table 5.

Multivariate Logistic Regression About VAW Acceptability and Associated Factors Among the Roma Population in Spain, 2014.

Income	p	OR	(95% CI)
Men
Less than €325	.02
€325-€450	.04	0.48	[0.24, 0.97]
€450-€650	<.01	0.37	[0.19, 0.74]
€650-€975	<.01	0.37	[0.17, 0.66]
More than €975	.09	0.39	[0.13, 1.16]
Acquainted with an abused woman	<.01	0.37	[0.22, 0.62]
Evangelical	.02	0.56	[0.35, 0.89]
Women
Less than €325	<.01
€325-€450	.55	0.82	[0.42, 1.59]
€450-€650	<.01	0.27	[0.13, 0.57]
€650-€975	<.01	0.29	[0.14, 0.60]
More than €975	.02	0.24	[0.07, 0.81]
Age	<.01	1.02	[1.01, 1.04]
Evangelical	<.01	0.43	[0.26, 0.71]
Whole population
Less than €325	<.01
€325-€450	.09	0.65	[0.40, 1.06]
€450-€650	<.01	0.34	[0.21, 0.57]
€650-€975	<.01	0.35	[0.21, 0.57]
More than €975	<.01	0.34	[0.15, 0.74]
Age	.03	1.01	[1.00, 1.02]
Acquainted with an abused woman	.03	0.68	[0.48, 0.97]
Evangelical	<.00	0.50	[0.36, 0.71]

Note. VAW = violence against women; p = p value; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

According to the results of this study, the majority of the Roma population in Spain rejects VAW under any circumstances. Also, the probability of total acceptance or acceptance in certain circumstances of VAW lessens as the social situation of the population improves, above all, in economic terms both in the present and during infancy. Protective factors against VAW acceptability have also been identified: belonging to an evangelical church, both in men and in women, and—in particular among men—being acquainted with those who are or have been exposed to violence at the hands of their partners (or similar).

Despite the high level of rejection of VAW observed in the Roma population in Spain, more than 20% of the population considers that it should not always be punishable by law, and almost 5% considers it to be acceptable in any or certain circumstances. These percentages of acceptability are double than those observed in the general population in Spain (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 2012; TNS Opinion & Social, 2010). This is worrisome given its potential relationship to permissiveness of violent conduct against women and inhibition of affected women in leaving an abusive relationship (Gracia & Herrero, 2006a). The most frequent form of acceptability refers to the category in which violence is unacceptable but should not always be punishable by law. To interpret this result, it is important to consider whether this reflects experiences of discrimination and persecution suffered throughout history in the Roma population in Spain (La Parra et al., 2013) or whether it unequivocally reflects a greater acceptance of some forms of violence, which would require different empirical approaches than those employed in this investigation. In any case, it should be mentioned that the level of total acceptability or acceptability in certain circumstances is much less than the level of rejection, and therefore, it cannot be said that these results show a “normalization” of VAW in the Roma population in Spain (Izsák, 2009; Vives-Cases, Espinar-Ruiz, Castellanos-Torres, & Coe, 2017).

Similar to what has been observed in prior studies, the acceptability of violence is lower in women, and it is also lower with younger age and improvements in people’s economic situation (Gracia & Herrero, 2006a, 2006b). The positive effects of these social circumstances seem to be transmitted among generations, given the observed association—of the bivariate analysis—between lack of economic difficulties in infancy and at age 14 and the presence of the mother figure at age 14 and the reduction in the probability of VAW acceptability, in both men and women.

The lower tolerance observed, in the case of younger people, could be a sign of intergenerational social change in attitudes influenced by anti-VAW policies, in addition to the improvements in access to areas that have been identified as protective factors against the risk of IPV, such as is the case of education (Reichel, 2017). The real possibility of reaching a level of complete intolerance of violence could be diminished by the fact that, in general, the Roma community does not participate in society on equal terms. Also, their level of access to the education system is less than for the general population, with corresponding limitations in engaging in other social spheres. There is also less representation of this population in decision-making areas in all realms (Koutská & Kajanova, 2011). That is to say, the social inequalities resulting from processes of ethnic domination interact with processes of construction of gender, making it difficult to eliminate acceptability of violence (Simón Rodríguez, 2008; Zack, 1997).

Being acquainted with a victim or abuser seems to influence attitudes about VAW in both men and women studied, with lower likelihood of considering this problem as acceptable under any or certain circumstances. After adjusting for population characteristics, the association remains only in the case of men. This result is coherent with what has been observed in other studies (Gracia & Herrero, 2006a) and suggests the need to reinforce the level of awareness of the population in general and of men in particular. The role of the education system is a key to changing perceptions of VAW among those of young ages.

There is a greater attitude of intolerance toward VAW among evangelical persons. The analysis of this result suggests the relevance of evangelical discourse with respect to VAW as well as the influence that religious leaders have as guides in the construction of beliefs and conduct with respect to social problems.

When interpreting this study’s results, several limitations should be taken into account. The sampling method used consisted of selecting those areas in randomly chosen towns where a larger number of Roma people live. Thus, the Roma population residing in other neighborhoods, presumably those in the best socioeconomic position, were not included in the sample. Both outcome and control/explanatory variables were collected by self-response measures. It should also be noted that there are inherent challenges in the analysis of attitudes toward violence and associated factors in a quantitative transversal study, which do not permit us to fully understand why a certain factor is associated with greater or lower probability of tolerance (just that they are related). Finally, different forms of diversity were considered in the statistical models (age, sex, religion, educational levels, etc.), but, unfortunately, because of the nature of the data included in the database we have analyzed, not all forms of diversity (for instance, nationality, language, gender identity, geography, sexual orientation or ability, and their intersections) were explored in this article. In any case, this article provides information on the specific opinions of the Spanish Roma population that is usually invisible in both general statistics and statistics about VAW.

Conclusion

Although the majority of the Roma population in Spain considers VAW unacceptable in all circumstances, the proportion of people who accept it is still one of the highest that has been documented in recent years, despite increasing awareness of the topic, promoted by legislative change across Europe, and in Spain in particular. This study identifies different factors associated with lower acceptability of VAW. These include improvements in the population’s socioeconomic situation and a negative attitude toward violence among those who practice evangelical religion. Also, in men, being acquainted with a woman in this situation positively influences attitudes. These results point to the fact that improvements in living conditions mentioned in the European framework of policies related to inclusion of the Roma population (education, employment, health and housing; European Commission, 2011a; Ministerio de Sanidad Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, 2012) can contribute to strengthening strategies for raising awareness about the gravity and consequences of VAW in the Roma population.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the interviewers and associations of the Roma community in Spain for participating in this study.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain, FEDER Funds (“National Health Survey to Roma Population 2013-2014,” Project Ref. PI12/00842), and Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality of Spain, Carlos III Health Institute.

ORCID iD

Daniel La Parra-Casado

Author Biographies

Carmen Vives-Cases, PhD in sociology (University of Alicante) and master’s in public health (University of Miguel Hernández), is associate professor at the Department of Community Nursing, Preventive Medicine and Public Health and History of the Science (University of Alicante). She is member of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Social Inclusion and Health (IUDESP) and member of the CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP). Research fields include gender violence, social inequities in health, migration, and ethnic minorities.

Daniel La Parra-Casado, PhD in sociology (University of Alicante) and MSc in epidemiology (LSHTM), is associate professor at the Department of Sociology II. (University of Alicante). He is director of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Social Inclusion and Health (IUDESP). Research fields include social inequities in health, migration and ethnic minorities, gender violence.

Diana Gil-González, PhD in sociology (University of Alicante) and master’s in public health (University Miguel Hernandez) is associate professor in the Department of Community Nursing, Preventive Medicine and Public Health and History of the Science in University of Alicante, Spain. She is member of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Social Inclusion and Health (IUDESP) and member of the CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP). Research fields include social determinants of health inequalities (gender, migration and ethnicity, socioeconomic level), gender violence, and global health.

Pablo Caballero, PhD in public health (University of Alicante) and MSc in statistics (University of Valencia), is associate professor in the Department of Community Nursing, Preventive Medicine and Public Health and History of the Science in University of Alicante, Spain. Research fields include social inequities in health, gender violence, mortality, social vaccinology, and social nutrition.

References

Boletín Oficial del Estado. (2004). Ley Orgánica 1/2004, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas de Protección Integral contra la Violencia de Género [Organic Law 1/2004, 28th December, on Measures for Integral Protection Against Gender Violence] (BOE-A-2004-21760). Retrieved from https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2004/12/29/pdfs/A42166-42197.pdf

Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. (2012). Estudio nº 2968. Percepción social de la violencia de género (Informe de Resultados) [Gender-based violence social perception. Report]. Retrieved from http://www.cis.es/cis/opencm/ES/1_encuestas/estudios/ver.jsp?estudio=14086

Corsi

M. C. C.

Samek

Boccagni

Vasilescu

(2008). Ethnic minority and Roma women in Europe: A case of gender equality? Luxembourg: European Commission.

European Commission. (2011a). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020. Retrieved from. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0173

European Commission. (2011b). Istanbul convention. Action against violence against women and domestic violence. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/home?desktop=true

Forster

Grigsby

T. J.

Soto

D. W.

Sussman

S. Y.

Unger

J. B.

(2017). Perceived discrimination, cultural identity development, and intimate partner violence among a sample of Hispanic young adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 576-582.

Gracia

(2004). Unreported cases of domestic violence against women: Towards an epidemiology of social silence, tolerance, and inhibition. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 58, 536-537.

Gracia

Herrero

(2006a). Acceptability of domestic violence against women in the European Union: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60, 123-129.

Gracia

Herrero

(2006b). Public attitudes toward reporting partner violence against women and reporting behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 759-768.

10.

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. (2007). Encuesta Nacional de Salud 2006 [National Health Survey 2006]. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736176783&menu=resultados&secc=1254736194724&idp=1254735573175

11.

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. (2013). Encuesta Nacional de Salud 2011-2012 [National Health Survey 2011-2012]. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736176783&menu=resultados&secc=1254736194721&idp=1254735573175

12.

Izsák

(2009). The European Romani women’s movement: The struggle for human rights. Development, 52, 200-207.

13.

Koutská

Kajanova

. (2011). Domestic violence from the perspective of Roma women. In Paper presented at the 1st International e-Conference on Optimization, Education and Data Mining in Science, Engineering and Risk Management. Bratislava, Slovakia: Curriculum Studies Research Group. Retrieved from https://67995fe1-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/oedmserm/documents/proceeding_fulltext.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqAxp0s3K0hmy49FCxYfxhMFu4xiEzyo7wCUzPkFK8sS7hffyxFEtUx3fcLldgMNqKGZ8qdKwhFZDzCL3zLeY1EQJcoV8uzWr7zbjR1xsTDWGgXR6Vt5a9ZnnmQQvdVPb0Z6jbmZoq_42WKk1I0aTjg0iHJ6chbhNG8Wu1_oMHNw0yHZRf1wBpIvMVsrwPXYjMsMm3LXTCUx4ARTL9dwUJDC7u9g3eGvWzR3VuuUwUXyGXAHyk%3D&attredirects=0

14.

Kposowa

A. J.

Aly Ezzat

(2019). Religiosity, conservatism, and acceptability of anti-female spousal violence in Egypt. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(12), 2525-2550. doi:10.1177/0886260516660976

15.

La Parra

Gil-González

Jiménez

. (2013). Los procesos de exclusión social y la salud del pueblo gitano en España [Social exclusion processes and the health status of the Roma people in Spain]. Gaceta Sanitaria, 27, 385-386.

16.

Ministerio de Salud y Servicios Sociales. (2009). Encuesta Nacional de Salud a Población Gitana 2006 [National Health Survey on the Roma Population 2006]. Madrid, Spain: Ministry of Health. Retrieved from https://www.msssi.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/prevPromocion/promocion/desigualdadSalud/ENS2006PG.htm

17.

Ministerio de Sanidad Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. (2012). Estrategia Nacional para la Inclusión Social de la Población Gitana en España 2012-2020 [National Strategy for Roma Inclusion 2012-2020]. Madrid, Spain: Ministry of Health.

18.

Ministerio de Sanidad Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. (2016). Segunda Encuesta Nacional de Salud a Población Gitana 2014 [Second National Health Survey on the Roma Population 2014]. Madrid, Spain: Ministry of Health. Retrieved from https://www.msssi.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/prevPromocion/promocion/desigualdadSalud/ENS2014PG.htm

19.

Naciones Unidas. (1996). Informe de la Cuarta Conferencia Mundial sobre la Mujer [Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women Beijing, China, 1995]. New York, NY: United Nations.

20.

Ortiz-Barreda

Vives-Cases

(2013). Legislation on violence against women: Overview of key components. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 33, 61-72.

21.

Prava zas ve and ICVA Sarajevo. (2011). Roma women for life without violence. Response of institutions to domestic violence project. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina: Rights for all. Inicijativa i civilna akcija.

22.

Reichel

(2017). Determinants of intimate partner violence in Europe: The role of socioeconomic status, inequality, and partner behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 1853-1873.

23.

Roma Secretariat Foundation (2008) Mapa sobre vivienda y comunidad gitana en España 2007 [Housing and Roma community map, Spain 2007]. Madrid, Spain: Roma Secretariat Foundation.

24.

Saeed Ali

Karmaliani

McFarlane

Khuwaja

H. M. A.

Somani

Chirwa

E. D.

Jewkes

. (2017). Attitude towards gender roles and violence against women and girls (VAWG): Baseline findings from an RCT of 1752 youths in Pakistan. Global Health Action, 10(1), 1342454.

25.

Simón Rodríguez

. (2008). Hijas de la igualdad, herederas de injusticias [Daughters of equity, inheritors of injustices]. Madrid, Spain: Narcea Ediciones.

26.

Stueve

O’Donnell

(2008). Urban young women’s experiences of discrimination and community violence and intimate partner violence. Journal of Urban Health, 85, 386-401.

27.

TNS Opinion & Social. (2010). Eurobarometer 73.2 (Domestic violence against women, Report 2010). Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-General Communication, European Commission.

28.

Tokuç

Ekuklu

Avcioğlu

(2010). Domestic violence against married women in Edirne. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 832-847.

29.

Vives-Cases

Espinar-Ruiz

Castellanos-Torres

Coe

A.-B.

(2017). Multiple struggles in fighting violence against women: Implications among Romani women leaders in Spain. Global Health Action, 10(Suppl. 2), 1317084.

30.

Vives-Cases

Gil-González

Ruiz-Pérez

Escribà-Agüir

Plazaola-Castaño

Montero-Piñar

M. I.

Torrubiano-Domínguez

(2010). Identifying sociodemographic differences in intimate partner violence among immigrant and native women in Spain: A cross-sectional study. Preventive Medicine, 51, 85-87.

31.

Vives-Cases

Goicolea

Hernández

Sanz-Barbero

Davó-Blanes

Parra-Casado

(2017). Priorities and strategies for improving Roma women’s access to primary health care services in cases on intimate partner violence: A concept mapping study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 16, Article 96.

32.

Vives-Cases

Torrubiano-Domínguez

Gil-González

Parra

D. L.

Agudelo-Suárez

A. A.

Davó

M. C.

. . . Martínez-Román

M. A.

(2014). Social and immigration factors in intimate partner violence among Ecuadorians, Moroccans and Romanians living in Spain. European Journal of Public Health, 24, 605-612.

33.

Zack

(1997). Race/sex: Their sameness, difference, and interplay. New York, NY: Naomi Zack.