Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors Influencing Women’s Attitude Toward Wife Beating in Ethiopia

Abstract

This study used data from the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) for a total of 42,054 women (15-49 years) from Ethiopia’s 11 geographic/administrative regions using a stratified, two-stage cluster sample design to reflect the country’s huge geographical, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity. The study first identified the major socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing women’s attitude toward wife beating in Ethiopia, and then provided some suggestions on what types of interventions are required to address the problems. Toward this effect, female participants were asked whether a husband is justified in beating his wife under five possible circumstances. Ironically, the majority of women support wife beating if a wife goes out without telling a husband (51.8%), neglects her children (58.1%), argues with a husband (53.4%), refuses to have sex with a husband (47.9%), and burns food while preparing meals (53.3%). The study also used the probit regression model and identified the following factors influencing women’s attitude toward wife beating in Ethiopia: women’s economic status, women’s level of education, husband’s level of education, access to media, marital status, place of residence (urban vs. rural), and women’s awareness about the law against wife beating. The way forward will require the empowerment of women through education and training, an increase in women’s access to resources, strong legislation against domestic violence, and creating awareness among community and religious leaders. As the best way to end intimate partner violence against women is to prevent it from happening in the first place by addressing its main causes, this study is thus of paramount importance for the overall efforts in raising awareness to prevent such violence against women.

Keywords

domestic violence cultural contexts anything related to domestic violence perceptions of domestic violence

Introduction

This study aims at investigating the effects of socioeconomic and demographic factors on women’s attitudes toward wife beating in Ethiopia—based on data from a relatively large sample of 42,054 women from Ethiopia’s 11 geographic/administrative regions reflecting the country’s huge geographical, cultural, and ethnic diversity—to get more credible and better knowledge and ultimately contribute to make evidence-based interventions that could help in addressing identified problems. In doing so, the research questions are as follows:

Research Question 1: What are the major socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing women’s attitude toward wife beating in Ethiopia?

Research Question 2: What types of intervention mechanisms are required to address and reduce women’s implicit biasedness toward wife beating in Ethiopia?

Worldwide, almost one third (30%) of all women who have been in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner. Similarly, as many as 38% of all murders of women are committed by intimate partners (World Health Organization [WHO], 2014). In Sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of intimate partner violence ranks particularly high, even compared to other developing regions (McCloskey, Williams, & Larsen, 2005).

Similar studies conducted in 10 countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, Japan, Namibia, Peru, Samoa, Serbia and Montenegro, Thailand, and the United Republic of Tanzania) estimated that lifetime prevalence rates of physical or/and sexual partner violence varied from 15% to 71% (Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006). Other studies estimated such rates as varying between 17.4% and 25.5% in the United States (Malley-Morrison & Hines, 2004), and between 10% and 50% in Europe (Machado & Dias, 2008). In the Arab world, domestic violence is a significant social problem exacerbated by the lack of legal protections, public education campaigns, and services for victims. For instance, in Egypt, in a nationally representative sample of 14,779 women, one out of three Egyptian married women reported having been beaten at least once since marriage (El-Zanaty, Hussein, Shawky, Way, & Kishor, 1996). Even in the developed world such as in the United States, about 1.3 million women are physically assaulted annually by an intimate partner (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and in Europe, one in four women experience domestic violence over their lifetimes and between 6% and 10% of women a year report being physically abused by their partners (Council of Europe, 2002). In France, about 225,000 women were physically or sexually abused by their spouses, but fewer than one in five filed a complaint about it (British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC], 2017).

Kishor and Subaiya (2008) conducted a study for 23 developing countries across Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America about women empowerment as measured vis-à-vis opposition to beating showed that, in most of those countries, wife beating is justified if the wife goes out without telling her husband, neglects her children, argues with her husband, refuses to have sex with her husband, or burns food. According to Rani, Bonu, and Diop-Sidibe (2004), the acceptance of wife beating for transgressing certain gender roles was widespread in the seven countries (Benin, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe) they studied. In the Ethiopian context, community-based studies indicated that 50% to 60% of women experience domestic violence in their lifetime (Berhane, 2004). The attitude is also held by large shares of women in countries across the religious and cultural spectra—China, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, and Uzbekistan, to cite a few.

Violence against women and girls includes physical mistreatment, as well as sexual, psychological, and economic abuse. Again, it can be affirmed that “gender-based” violence develops as a result of women’s subordinate condition in society (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999). The majority of the abused women in WHO’s multi-country study (Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006) justified beating under various conditions such as not completing housework effectively, refusing sex, disobeying a husband, or being unfaithful. As a result of wife beatings, the woman’s integrity deteriorates, giving rise to deficient health, family, and social group disorder. Among the consequences for women’s health, physical and psychological complications stand out, which produce important disabilities in women, without forgetting about the social consequences that sometimes make it impossible for her to leave this violent home where her individual guarantees are violated, and her individuality is denigrated (Casique & Furegato, 2006).

Although in many countries wife abuse is considered as a crime, the victims usually get unsupportive reactions from the formal or informal systems that are supposed to help them—for instance, their families, the clergy, the police, the welfare, the shelters, the justice system, the courts, the helping professionals, medical doctors and nurses, and even other women (Machado, Dias, & Coelho, 2010). Many types of innocent victims face negative reactions from other people as if their suffering is fair and, therefore, legitimate (Lerner & Simmons, 1966).

Theoretical Perspectives on Attitudes

Intimate partner violence is reinforced by gender norms and values that put women in a subordinate position relative to men (Garcia-Moreno, 2002). The following four major theories are thoroughly discussed to better understand the main causes and consequences of intimate partner violence mainly in developing countries such as Ethiopia. These include feminist theory, resource-based power theory, exchange theory, and the ecological model.

Feminist Theory

The “feminist theory” explains that wife beating originates from the unequal distribution of gender power in a patriarchal society (Dalal, 2008). Rigid social norms and cultural practices are the major instruments of patriarchal societies that perpetuate and maintain the myths of male superiority (Rani et al., 2004). These patriarchal norms justify the use of violence to protect men’s ability to control women (Arthur & Clark, 2009). Wife beating is, thus, the central theme of a patriarchal ideology or a myth that perpetuates male authority through the use of force. For feminists, wife beating is considered as a function of gender inequality which mainly has been associated with a culture of violating women’s right to subjugate their position (Levinson, 1989). Feminists believe that violence in heterosexual relations is always perpetrated by men in an attempt to control their women partners, and research findings of symmetry in the perpetuation of violence by men and women are erroneous. They believe that women’s use of violence is almost always an act of self-defense (Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Kellermann & Mercy, 1992). Feminists advocate for making changes in the policies of institutions, societies, and countries to make them more women-friendly, to help women become economically independent, and to provide women with safe houses and shelters (Yodanis, 2004).

The feminist theory, on the contrary, recognizes the improvements in the protection of women’s right in modern societies where women’s active participation in the socioeconomic system is increasing as a result of the changes in their educational, occupational, and political status. The theory claimed that improvements in the status of women diminish the rate of physical and sexual violence against women (Yodanis, 2004). Unlike this claim, in traditional societies and low-income countries, the status of women is low, and wife beating is still high.

However, another group of studies suggests that domestic violence increases when women challenge their husband’s authority and challenge gender inequities (Schuler, Hashemi, Riley, & Akhter, 1996). Similarly, Sen and Batliwala (2000) have found an escalation of domestic violence when women generate their own income. Furthermore, patriarchal norms typically imply that men will have more resources than women, and the empowerment of women can upset this balance. Women can experience violence when patriarchal norms are threatened by resource imbalance in favor of the woman, which over time can generate stressors within the family (Gelles, 1993). On the contrary, Yllo (1983) found a U-shaped relationship between the status of women in different states of the United States and the experience of violence. Yllo argued that violence rates were high where women’s status was low because the low status resulted in limited options for women; they were relatively high where women’s status was high because women’s high status constituted a threat to the dominance of men. The latter explanation is consistent with status inconsistency explanations for family violence (Yick, 2001).

Resource-Based Power Theory

The resource-power interrelationship theory states that power within a family is a function of the ownership of resources within which members have access and decision-making autonomy (Goode, 1971). The theory further states that a person who brings more resources to the relationship possesses more power, and the opposite is true (Jasinski, 2001). As these means are mostly supplied by man, they consequently give him additional power over family members. Hence, violence within a family would thus arise in a struggle to sustain such power balance and relationship (Tomes, 1978). In traditional societies like Ethiopia, wife beating is also manifested as a mechanism of showing supremacy together with taking the full control of resources owned at the household level (Levinson, 1989). The resource perspective maintains “that the relative resources of husbands and wives rather than social roles or expectations determine the balance of power in marriage and influence the risk of partner violence” (Gage & Hutchinson, 2006, p. 13).

Accordingly, in societies where men’s power is eroded due to women’s increased access to non-monetary resources such as educational attainment and/or career mobility, there would be an increase in domestic violence as the power relationship goes beyond the control of resources in the questioning egalitarian status (Goode, 1971). According to this theory, an increase in women’s access to resources leads to the ratification of gender equity and equality along with the freedom to withstand any sort of intimate partner violence including wife beating. Also, Whaley (2001) examined the paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape and came up with new findings of the direct and consistent relationship between increasing gender equality and violence. According to these findings, gender equality leads to violence between couples only for a shorter period of time—till the issues leading to conflict would be sorted out by the couples or intimate partners through time, while an inverse relationship between gender equality and violence will be maintained over time. This implies that gender equality would reduce the levels of domestic violence in the long run due to increased mutual understanding and support (Whaley, 2001). In line with this, a study that was conducted in Chengdu city of southwest China reveals that the more economic resources the wife controls, the less likely she is to become a victim of domestic violence (Xu, 1997).

A study conducted among seven Asian countries, for instance, showed that women in the poorest economic quintile were more likely to justify wife beating than those living in the richest quintile (Rani & Bonu, 2009). Consistent results were also obtained in studies conducted among 17 Sub-Saharan African countries using the demographic and health survey data (Uthman, Lawoko, & Moradi, 2009). Although the resource-based power theory explains the conditions under which access to resources accelerate or diminish domestic violence, it is criticized for ignoring cultural variables that are based on gender ideologies in perpetuating male dominance and intimate partner’s violence (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Lang, 2005).

Exchange Theory

The basic premise of exchange theory is based on behavioral changes that are driven by rewards or punishments (Homans, 1967). According to this theory, domestic violence including wife beating is very high in societies where the benefit to perpetrators is immense, but is very low where the penalties are high (Kacen, 2006). In traditional societies like Ethiopia where domestic violence is very common, charges for wife’s beatings is almost nonexistent. As Gelles (1983) noted, by taking domestic violence as a private matter, lack of interest in social institutions and agencies to intervene and little attention paid to the matter have made the occurrences of intimate partner violence a perpetuating mystification. Williams (1992) tested the proposition of exchange theory using data from two national survey studies in United States and found that, along with other determinants such as lower social control and greater gender inequality, men who approved of hitting their partners (because of the lower perceived costs associated with it) were more likely to perpetrate violence against their wives. Likewise, Arthur and Clark (2009) conducted a similar study in societies that impose punishments by law against domestic violence and mechanisms to its effective enforcement, and found out a lower level of domestic violence for the mere reason that it is legally bounded. Thus, the attitude of intimate partner violence including wife beating is a function of rewards and punishments practiced in a given society as well. Hence, to reduce wife beating, rewards must be reduced by ending the social adoration of violence, and costs must be increased by setting strong legal and social sanctions against wife beaters (Gelles, 1983; Lawson, 2012).

There is also another problem on the victims’ side as they believe that they would not be creditworthy if they denounced their aggressor. In other words, an abused wife very often continues in this abusive relationship for the good of her children or to guarantee the rights acquired through marriage. Many women do not dare to talk or to denounce that they are victims of mistreatment, out of fear of the aggressors’ threats against themselves and their relatives (Casique & Furegato, 2006).

The Ecological Model

This model considers the complex interplay between individual, relationship, community, and societal factors. It allows us to understand the range of factors that put people at risk for violence or protect them from experiencing or perpetrating violence. The overlapping rings in the model illustrate how factors at one level influence factors at another level (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). Besides helping to clarify these factors, the model also suggests that to prevent violence, it is necessary to act across multiple levels of the model at the same time. This approach is more likely to sustain prevention efforts over time than any single intervention.

Individual

The first level identifies biological and personal history factors that increase the likelihood of becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence. Some of these factors are age, education, income, substance use, or history of abuse. Prevention strategies at this level promote attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that prevent violence. Specific approaches may include education and life skills training.

Relationship

The second level examines close relationships that may increase the risk of experiencing violence as a victim or perpetrator. A person’s closest social circle—peers, partners, and family members—influences their behavior and contributes to their experience. Prevention strategies at this level may include parenting or family-focused prevention programs and mentoring and peer programs designed to reduce conflict, foster problem-solving skills, and promote healthy relationships.

Community

The third level explores the settings, such as schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods, in which social relationships occur and seeks to identify the characteristics of these settings that are associated with becoming victims or perpetrators of violence. Prevention strategies at this level impact the social and physical environment—for example, by reducing social isolation, improving economic and housing opportunities in neighborhoods, and the climate, processes, and policies within school and workplace settings.

Societal

The fourth level looks at the broad societal factors that help create a climate in which violence is encouraged or inhibited. These factors include social and cultural norms that support violence as an acceptable way to resolve conflicts. Other large societal factors include the health, economic, educational, and social policies that help to maintain economic or social inequalities between groups in society.

Availability of Data and Materials

The current study was based on data from the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) 2011 that was conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia under the worldwide MEASURE DHS (Demographic and Health Surveys) project, a United States Agency for International Development (USAID)–funded project providing support and technical assistance in the implementation of surveys in countries worldwide (Central Statistical Agency (Ethiopia) and ICF International, 2012). The study used a stratified, two-stage cluster sample design to reflect the country’s huge geographical and ethnic diversity representing Ethiopia’s 11 geographic/administrative regions. The author has been authorized by the DHS Program, ICF International, through a written consent on May 16, 2016, to download the data from DHS Programs: http://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Ethiopia_Standard-DHS_2011.cfm.

The study considered a total of 45,054 women, both married and unmarried, in the reproductive age group (i.e., 15-49 years) that have complete information on the variables of interest. The survey asked respondents whether a husband is justified in beating his wife under a series of possible circumstances which included (a) wife burning the food, (b) wife arguing with husband, (c) wife going out without telling husband, (d) wife neglecting the children, and (e) wife refusing sexual relations. Each question has a response of “yes” and “no,” and a value of “1” is given if the woman accepts but “0” otherwise. For each of five questions asked, available responses were coded to two mutually exclusive categories: “yes” (coded as 1) and “no” (coded as 0). The response “yes” that justified the beating of wives by husbands indicates a lack of women’s empowerment.

The survey also fulfilled the standards for ethical research on issues of violence against women including privacy and safety of interviewees were highly respected. In addition, women’s participation in this study was strictly voluntary. Furthermore, the identities of women remain confidential, both in the interview process and in the subsequent report. It was noted that most of the interviewers involved were female, and trained in ethics and safety as well as question strategy.

Diversity of Women Participants

Participants in research should reflect geographical and cultural diversity, taking into account ethnicity, religion, gender, age, and so on. The lack of diversity among research participants may have not only serious ethical consequences, but it also suffers from a lack of appropriate research methodology and ultimately impedes to generalize study results. For these reasons, this study used large data from Ethiopia’s 11 geographic/administrative regions representing the country’s huge geographical, cultural, and ethnic diversity. Likewise, it should be noted that Ethiopia is a federal state subdivided into ethno-linguistically based regional states, and this implies that part of the region diversity is by default language diversity. The ethnic and religious diversity of respondents are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1.

Diversity of Women Respondents Based on Ethnicity.

S. No	Ethnic Group	No. of Respondents	S. No	Ethnic Group	No. of Respondents
1	Afar	3,905	25	Kembata	319
2	Agew Hamira	340	26	Komo	6
3	Agew Awi	327	27	Konso	75
4	Alaba	69	28	Konta	17
5	Amhara	9,245	29	Mao	45
6	Aniywak	486	30	Me’enite	82
7	Argoba	1,131	31	Mejenger	185
8	Ari	172	32	Mossiye	4
9	Basketo	8	33	Murle	49
10	Bena	33	34	Mursi	6
11	Bench	281	35	Nuwer	1,361
12	Dasenech	5	36	Oromo	10,590
13	Dawuro	141	37	Qebena	10
14	Darashe	128	38	Shekecho	183
15	Gamo	601	39	Sheko	39
16	Gedeo	479	40	Shinasha	168
17	Goffa	234	41	Sidama	1,330
18	Gumuz	739	42	Silite	537
19	Gurage	1,051	43	Somali	3,626
20	Hadiya	510	44	Tigrai	4,980
21	Hamer	6	45	Timebaro	18
22	Harari	119	46	Welaita	908
23	Karo	2	47	Yem	141
24	Kafficho	646
	Total				45,540

Table 2.

Diversity of Women Respondents Based on Religion.

Religion		Number of Respondents
1	Muslims	19,630
2	Christians
2.1	Orthodox	16,554
2.2	Catholic	545
2.3	Protestant	8,811
Total		45,540

Other aspects of diversity in terms of educational level, age, marital status, wealth, and employment status can be seen in Table 3 of the “Descriptive Statistics” section that follows below.

Table 3.

Composition of Surveyed Women.

S. No	Characteristics	Proportion in Percentage
1	Women’s highest education level attained	100
1.1	No education	75.4
1.2	Primary and above	24.6
2	Husband’s highest education level attained	100
2.1	No education	58.4
2.2	Primary and above	41.6
3	Religion	100
3.1	Muslim	42.8
3.2	Christian	57.2
4	Marital status	100
4.1	Married	83.3
4.2	Not married	16.7
5	Women’s wealth status
5.1	Poor	47.2
5.2	Middle and above	52.8
6	Women’s employment status	100
6.1	Employed	34.1
6.2	Unemployed	65.9
7	Women’s awareness about law in Ethiopia that prevents a husband from beating wife	100
7.1	They do aware about the law	45.5
7.2	They do not aware about the law	54.5
8	Whether respondent women read family planning pamphlet/posters/leaflets	100
8.1	Yes, they do read	4
8.2	No, they don’t read	96

Descriptive Statistics

Women’s Attitude Toward Wife Beating in Ethiopia

It is common knowledge that descriptive statistics used as a pre-cursor to empirical research are quite helpful in identifying variables that can be tested. Toward this effect, the survey asked about 42,054 women respondents whether a husband is justified in beating his wife under a series of possible circumstances which included the following: if the wife goes out without telling husband, neglects the children, argues with her husband, refuses to have sex with her husband, and burns food while preparing meals. For each of the above five questions, available responses were coded to two mutually exclusive categories: “yes” (coded as 1) and “no” (coded as 0). Accordingly, as shown in Figure 1, out of the 42,054 women included in this study, 51.8% of them agree that it is justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if she goes out without telling him. Similarly, about 58.1% of all female participants support that it is justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if she neglects the children. Moreover, about 53.4% of the investigated women support that it is justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if she argues with her husband. Furthermore, of the 42,054 women surveyed in this study, about 47.9% of them agree that it is justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if she refuses to have sex with him. Last but not least, of all the respondents, about 53.3% of them agree that it is justifiable for a husband to beat his wife if she burns food while preparing meals. It should be noted that of all the situations, the highest proportion of women (58.1%) believed a husband is justified in beating his wife if she neglects the children (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Women’s attitude toward wife beatings in Ethiopia.

Woman’s and Husband’s Educational Attainment

Education is the strongest demographic predictor explaining wife-beating attitudes (World Health Organization, 2005). A study conducted in seven Asian countries based on national representative data collected between 1998 and 2001 also revealed that better-educated women were more likely to disapprove wife beating than less educated women (Rani & Bonu, 2009). Similar studies conducted in Israel (Haj-Yahia, 2003), Korea (Kim-Goh, & Baello, 2008), Vietnam (Bui & Morash, 1999), and 17 Sub-Saharan African countries (Uthman et al., 2009) had also come up with consistent findings. This implies that women with a high level of education were found to refuse wife beating more than those with a low level of education.

Coming to the case of Ethiopia, of the 45,054 women surveyed in this study, it has been revealed that only 25% of them have attended primary school and above education, whereas the remaining 75% of women have not attended any kind of formal education (Table 3). Thus, this low level of education among Ethiopian women is expected to significantly influence women’s attitude toward wife beating in the country. Moreover, it is expected that women living in rural areas were more likely to justify intimate partner violence than those living in urban areas as the result of the education effect (Rani et al., 2004). One of the main reasons for the low level of education among Ethiopian women is perhaps because of the majority of the Ethiopian population still live in rural areas, and they do not have access to education.

On the contrary, the husband’s level of education is also expected to influence women’s attitude toward wife beating that the more the husband is educated, the more it may have a spillover effect on the wife’s understanding about the unjustified reasons for wife beating. Hence, about 42% of the total 45,054 women’s husbands have attended at least primary education while the remaining 58% of husbands are un-educated (Table 3).

Religion

Studies on religion’s role in condoning violent acts against wives have produced mixed results, partly attributed to it being a multifaceted construct and also its covariance with patriarchal ideologies. Studies such as Nason-Clark (2000) suggest the role of patriarchal religious ideologies in justifying domestic violence, whereas other studies such as Ellison, Bartkowski, and Anderson (1999) point out that religion has a negative or weak and curvilinear association with domestic violence. As Oyediran and Isiugo-Abanihe (2005) noted, women who are more religious are believed to hold conservative and traditional beliefs that stimulate husbands to abuse their wives. In a research among seven Sub-Saharan African countries, even though no consistent relationship was observed between attitude toward wife beating and religion in all countries, compared with Catholic women, Muslims in Mali and Benin and followers of other religions in Zimbabwe were more likely to justify wife beating (Rani et al., 2004). Moreover, a study in Ghana also revealed that compared to Christian women, Muslims and Traditional believers were more likely to approve physical violence against wives (Doku & Asante, 2015). As shown in Table 3, of the total 45,054 surveyed women in this study, about 57% are Christians and the remaining 43% are Muslims.

Age

The study considered a total of 42,054 women in the reproductive age group (i.e., 15-49 years) that have complete information on the variables of interest. Empirical evidence confirms that age is negatively associated with acceptance of wife beating (Dalal, Lee, & Gifford, 2012; Haj-Yahia, 2003; Hindin, 2003; Rani & Bonu, 2009). Similarly, a comparative study from 17 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa revealed that intimate violence against women (i.e., wife beating) was widely acceptable under certain circumstances among women at younger than older ages (Uthman et al., 2009).

Marital Status of Women

Some empirical studies in the past confirmed that married women were more likely to justify wife beating compared with single women in Nigeria (Oyediran & Isiugo-Abanihe, 2005) and other seven Sub-Saharan African countries including Ethiopia (Rani et al., 2004). As shown in Table 3, almost 83% of the surveyed women in Ethiopia were married, and the remaining 17% of the total surveyed 45,054 women were single.

Wealth

The “Resource-Based Power Based Theory” discussed in the preceding literature section suggests that an increase in women’s access to resources leads to the ratification of gender equity and equality along with the freedom to withstand any sort of intimate partner violence including wife beating. Thus, the more the women standard of living improved in terms of income, the less likely they are to endorse wife beating. In the case of Ethiopia, about 53% of the total surveyed women are categorized as middle and above income group in Ethiopian standard while the remaining 47% are considered poor (Table 3).

Respondent’s Employment Status

Previous studies such as Rani and Bonu (2009) conducted a cross-country study in Asia and found no significant difference between working (employed) and nonworking (unemployed) women in justifying wife beating. Thus, this study would test the same hypothesis and confirm whether the result is consistent under the Ethiopian context. Accordingly, almost 66% of the 45,054 women respondents are not employed, whereas 34% of them are employed (Table 3).

Women’s Awareness About Law in Ethiopia That Prevents a Husband From Beating Wife

As can be seen in Table 3, only 45.5% of respondents were aware that there is a law in Ethiopia that prevents a husband from beating the wife. On the contrary, the majority of respondents (54.5%) were not aware of such a law in Ethiopia. This lack of awareness of the existing law in the country is expected to have a direct relationship with the tendency of women to believe wife beating is justified.

Access to Media

A study conducted by Oyediran and Isiugo-Abanihe (2005) in Nigeria revealed that access to media information was inversely related to the justification of beating a wife for one reason or another. Similarly, a study conducted in 17 Sub-Saharan African countries by Uthman et al. (2009), for instance, revealed that respondents with low access to media information were more supportive of wife beating than their counterparts who have much access to media information. For this reason, two proxy variables (whether respondent read family planning pamphlet/posters/leaflets and whether respondent heard of community conversation programs) are used in this study to confirm their impacts on women’s attitude toward wife beating in Ethiopia. As can be shown in Table 3, it is only 4% of the respondents who read family planning pamphlets/posters/leaflets, whereas the remaining 96% of respondents never read those family planning materials.

Having Daughter

It has been assumed that if a woman has a daughter, she is less likely to justify wife beating compared with another woman with no daughter as a result of a simple common sense that mothers are very compassionate to their daughters not to be harmed for whatever reasons.

Hence, we can bring together all the above socioeconomic and demographic factors and their relationship with women’s attitude toward wife beating has been shown in the conceptual framework as illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2.

Conceptual framework for the relationship between socioeconomic and demographic factors with women’s attitude toward wife beating.

Model Specification for Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors Influencing Women’s Attitude Toward Wife Beating in Ethiopia

The survey asked female participants, both married and unmarried (15-49 years), whether a husband is justified in beating his wife under a series of possible circumstances (going out without telling husband, neglecting the children, arguing with her husband, refusing to have sex with husband, and burning the food while cooking). Accordingly, the responses were coded to two mutually exclusive categories: “yes” (coded as 1) and “no” (coded as 0). Thus, given the nature of the dependent variables (women’s response under the above five circumstances), a binary probit regression model was fitted for each dependent variables to identify the factors that significantly predict respondents’ attitude toward wife beating in Ethiopia having controlled other confounding variables. Hence, it will take the functional form:

Y_{j} = β_{j} X_{j} + e_{j},

where Y denotes women’s attitude toward wife beating based on the binary response under each of the five circumstances, X denote a range of explanatory variables influencing women’s attitude toward wife beating in Ethiopia, β is a vector of the coefficients for the explanatory variables, and e_j refers the random error term.

Regression Results and Discussion

The results of the probit regression on socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing women’s attitude toward wife beating are presented in Table 4. As hypothesized at the outset, the empirical results using probit regression reveal that the level of both women’s and husband’s education are found to be two of the key factors to significantly influence woman’s attitude toward wife beating in Ethiopia. As can be seen in Table 4, both “women’s level of education” and “husband’s level of education” are highly significant at 1% significance level. The negative coefficients under the five scenarios (Reg-1 to Reg-5) demonstrate that there is strong evidence in households where a woman and her husband are relatively educated, the less likely for the woman to believe that wife beating is justified for all the five reasons mentioned. For instance, the regression results of Reg-1 confirm that each additional year of woman’s schooling was associated with a 2.6% increase in their ability not to support wife beating if a woman goes out without telling husband. By the same token, the findings indicate that each additional year of husband’s schooling was associated with a 2.9% increase in the ability of a woman not to support wife beating if a wife goes out without telling husband. These findings are consistent with some of the other studies undertaken in Asian and African countries as discussed in “Woman’s and Husband’s Educational Attainment” section. Thus, the key to success in changing the attitudes of women toward wife beating lies on the empowerment of women through education, and at the same time, the husband’s level of education is also very critical to strongly influence their wife’s attitude toward wife beating.

Table 4.

Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors Influencing Women’s Attitude Toward Wife Beating/Probit Regression.

Variable	Beating Justified if Wife
	Goes Out Without Telling Husband (Reg-1)		Neglects the Children (Reg-2)		Argues With Husband (Reg-3)		Refuses to Have Sex With Husband (Reg-4)		Burns the Food (Reg-5)
	dy/dx	p Value	dy/dx	p Value	dy/dx	p Value	dy/dx	p Value	dy/dx	p Value
Respondent current age	−.014 (.003)	.000***	−.001 (.000)	.000***	−.001 (.000)	.000***	−.001 (.000)	.026**	−.001 (.000)	.031**
Religion	.007 (.005)	.204	.032 (.005)	.000***	−.012 (.005)	.018**	−.083 (.005)	.000***	.063 (.005)	.000***
Urban/rural	−.017 (.009)	.072*	−.068 (.035)	.026**	−.079 (.038)	.033**	−.032 (.014)	.000***	−.043 (.019)	.000***
Women’s education in single years	−.026 (.001)	.000***	−.026 (.001)	.000***	−.031 (.001)	.000***	−.029 (.001)	.000***	−.036 (.001)	.000***
Husband’s level of education	−.029 (.006)	.000***	−.031 (.006)	.000***	−.017 (.006)	.002***	−.018 (.006)	.002***	−.020 (.006)	.000***
Wealth index	−.054 (.005)	.000***	−.060 (.005)	.000***	−.079 (.005)	.000***	−.067 (.005)	.000***	−.058 (.005)	.000***
Respondent currently working	.007 (.005)	.179	−.011 (.005)	.043**	−.001 (.005)	.856	.006 (.006)	.256	.021 (.006)	.000***
Do you have daughter	−.016 (.009)	.074*	−.039 (.009)	.000***	−.025 (.009)	.005***	−.023 (.009)	.010***	−.040 (.009)	.000***
Marital status	.012 (.007)	.090*	.018 (.007)	.006***	.002 (.007)	.829	.004 (.007)	.586	.035 (.007)	.000***
Read family planning materials	−.159 (.017)	.000***	−.110 (.015)	.000***	−.177 (.017)	.000***	−.163 (.018)	.000***	−.212 (.018)	.000***
Community conversation program	−.023 (.006)	.000***	.022 (.006)	.000***	−.025 (.006)	.000***	−.021 (.006)	.000***	−.043 (.006)	.000***
Law against wife beating in Ethiopia	−.159 (.005)	.000***	−.133 (.005)	.000***	−.135 (.005)	.000***	−.176 (.005)	.000***	−.149 (.005)	.000***
Number of observations	42,054		42,054		42,054		42,054		42,054
Likelihood ratio χ²(11)	3,178.35		2,796.99		3,471.09		4,212.77		4,058.9
Probability > χ²	.000		.000		.000		.000		.000

Note. ***, **, * represent 1%, 5%, and 10% significance level, respectively.

This study found a mixed result in the relationship between religion and women’s attitudes toward wife beating. For instance, the empirical results from Reg-1 show there is no significant difference between Christian and Muslim women in justifying wife beating if a woman goes out without telling husband. Put differently, no matter whether they are Christians or Muslims, the majority of Ethiopian women condone wife beating is justified if a wife goes out without telling her husband. This implies, a wife is expected to ask a husband’s permission before leaving the house. However, the findings from Reg-2 strongly support that wife beating is acceptable more among Christian women than Muslim women if a woman neglects her children. More specifically, the marginal effect of 0.032 implies that other factors being equal, Christian women have a 3.2% higher chance to justify wife beatings if a wife neglects her children compared to Muslim women. However, the findings from Reg-3 and Reg-4 reveal that other factors being equal, Muslim women have a 1.2% and 8.3% higher chance than Christian women to support wife beatings if a woman argues with husband and refuses to have sex with a husband. On the contrary, the findings from Reg-5 confirm that other factors being equal, Christian women have a 6.3% higher chance than Muslim women to support wife beatings if a woman burns food. The study shows respondent’s age is strongly and negatively significant, and this implies that younger women are more likely than older women to believe that wife beating is justified for any of the five-specified reasons (Table 4). This result is consistent with other studies such as Hindin (2003) that found younger women in Zimbabwe aged 15 to 24 were over 2½ times more likely to believe that wife beating was justified when compared with women aged 45 to 49.

Regarding marital status, this study confirms that married women are most likely to support wife beating than unmarried women under three of the five circumstances (if the wife goes out without telling her husband, neglects the children, and burns the food while cooking). Nevertheless, there is no significant difference between married and unmarried women in justifying wife beating in two of the five circumstances (if the wife argues with her husband and if the wife refuses to have sex with her husband).

By the same token, this study found that rural women are more likely to believe that wife beating is justified compared with urban women under all the five scenarios. Accordingly, the marginal effects of −0.017 of Reg-1 implies that other factors being equal, rural women have a 1.7% higher chance than urban women to support wife beatings if a wife goes out without telling her husband. Similarly, the marginal effect of −0.068 of Reg-2 and the marginal effect of −0.079 of Reg-3 show that, others factors being equal, rural women have a 6.8% and 7.9% higher chance than urban women to support wife beatings if a woman neglects her children and if a woman argues with her husband, respectively. Likewise, the marginal effect of −0.032 of Reg-4 and the marginal effect of −0.043 of Reg-5 show that, others factors being equal, rural women have a 3.2% and 4.3% higher chance than urban women to support wife beatings if a woman neglects her children and argues with her husband, respectively.

The findings of this empirical study confirm that relatively wealthy women are less likely to justify wife beating than poor women in Ethiopia which is consistent with the “resource-based power theory” that claims an increase in women’s access to resources leads to the ratification of gender equity and equality along with the freedom to withstand any sort of intimate partner violence including wife beating. A similar conclusion has been reached by Rani and Bonu (2009) on their studies conducted among seven Asian countries.

Also, it has been confirmed that employment status is related to attitudes toward wife beating only in two of the five circumstances (if the wife neglects children and burns the food), with women who have been working believe that wife beating was not justified, compared with unemployed women. However, the study found no significant difference between working and nonworking women in justifying wife beating in three of the five circumstances (if the wife goes out without telling her husband, argues with her husband, and refuses to have sex with her husband).

The variable that captures women’s lack of awareness of the existing law in the country is one of the key factors influencing the tendency of women to believe wife beating is justified. More specifically, the study confirms that women who lack awareness of the existing law that prohibits wife beating in Ethiopia are most likely to support wife beating than women who are aware of the existing law. As we have noted in Table 3, the majority of women (54.5%) were not aware that there is a law that forbids a husband to beat a wife in Ethiopia. Thus, education is a key part of strategies to improve a woman’s well-being as educated women are more politically active and better informed about their legal rights and how to exercise them.

Interestingly, the findings reveal that women’s access to media information such as reading family planning materials and participating in community conversation program are inversely related to women’s attitude toward justifying wife beating for one reason or another. For instance, the empirical evidences in Table 4 shows that, others factors being equal, women who read family planning materials and women who participate in community conversation program have a 1.6% and 2.3% higher chance to oppose wife beating than women who do not read family planning materials and women who do not participate in community conversation programs, respectively. These findings are again consistent with a study conducted in 17 Sub-Saharan African countries by Uthman et al. (2009) that revealed that respondents with low access to media information were more supportive of wife beating than their counterparts who have much access to media information.

Last but not least, this study shows that women with daughter/s are not most likely to oppose wife beating compared with women with no daughter/s. For instance, the findings show that other factors being equal, women without daughter/s have a 1.6% higher chance than women with daughter/s to support wife beatings if a wife goes out without telling her husband. This is perhaps because of the “sympathetic” relationship that always exists between mothers and daughters and obviously mothers do not want the same kind of abuses that their husbands committed on them to be repeated on their daughters.

Conclusion

This study used data for a total of 45,054 women, both married and unmarried (15-49 years), from the 2011 EDHS from Ethiopia’s 11 geographic/administrative regions representing the country’s huge geographical, cultural, and ethnic diversity so as to identify the socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing women’s attitude toward wife beating. The survey asked women respondents whether a husband is justified in beating his wife under a series of possible circumstances which included the following: if the wife goes out without telling her husband, neglects the children, argues with her husband, refuses to have sex with her husband, and burns food while preparing meals. Paradoxically, the majority of women support wife beating if a wife goes out without telling a husband (51.8%), neglects her children (58.1%), argues with a husband (53.4%), refuses to have sex with a husband (47.9%), and burns food while preparing meals (53.3%).

The empirical results show that women’s level of education, husband’s level of education, employment status of a woman, respondent’s age, having a daughter, access to media, marital status, place of residence (urban vs. rural), and women’s awareness about the law against wife beating in Ethiopia have been identified as the significant socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing women’s attitude toward wife beating. On the contrary, this study found a mixed result on the relationship between religion and women’s attitude toward wife beating.

Based on the above findings, the types of intervention mechanisms that are required to address and reduce women’s implicit biasedness toward wife beating in Ethiopia include the empowerment of women through education and an increase in women’s access to resources to reverse the current women’s attitude toward wife beating. In line with this, women’s access to media information such as “reading family planning materials” and “participating in community conversation program” are also critical factors to improve women’s understanding and attitude to oppose wife beating for one reason or another. Moreover, this study confirms women who were not aware of the existing law prohibiting wife beating in Ethiopia were most likely to support wife beating compared with women who were aware of the existing law. Unfortunately, nearly 55% of women in Ethiopia are not aware of whether there is a law that forbids a husband to beat a wife in Ethiopia. Thus, education is a key part of strategies to improve women’s well-being as educated women are more politically active and better informed about their legal rights and how to exercise them, because there is ample evidence that in countries with such legislation, women’s acceptance of spousal abuse is lower. In addition, under the Ethiopian context, religious and community leaders should play a pivotal role to speak out against wife beating at the community level among their followers—with women and men to advance the respect for women and changing the mind-sets of both women and men toward wife beating.

Main Contribution of the Study

Although there were some studies conducted in Ethiopia about wife beatings based on a small sample, there has been a gap in knowledge to acquire sufficient information about the root causes of the problems so far. This study, in some way, fills this gap and contributes to the existing body of knowledge through the findings revealed from a larger sample size of 42,054 women from Ethiopia’s 11 geographic/administrative regions representing the country’s huge geographical, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity. Consequently, the findings of this study provide additional insights and the types of intervention mechanisms that are required to address women’s implicit biasedness toward wife beating in Ethiopia.

Limitation of the Study

One limitation of this study is that although the survey used a methodology that considerably improved the disclosure of domestic violence and quality of data, some women might still have chosen not to disclose their physical or sexual abuse because this is generally considered an embarrassing private matter in Ethiopia, especially in rural areas. One way of addressing this limitation would be supplementing such large data-based quantitative study with some qualitative studies that involve data triangulation by using more than two methods and different sources of information to increase the credibility and validity of the study. Hence, this will be an important venue for future research.

Another limitation of this study is related to the fact that it used five possible specific circumstances to capture women’s attitude toward wife beating instead of using a single composite measure that represents all the five possible outcome variables. Of course, composite indicators have not always been so popular, and there was a time when considerable criticism surrounded their use (Decancq & Lugo, 2013; Decancq & Schokkaert, 2016; Patrizii, Pettini, & Resce, 2017; Sharpe, 2004). For instance, the five measures of the outcome variables used in this study to capture women’s attitude toward wife beating are related to different kind of dimensions that are particularly difficult to determine whether each dimensions should have the same weight or different weights and ultimately to capture with only a single indicator. However, it should be noted that it is still possible to use some types of methods such as Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) that fits to create a composite single indicator from each categorical dichotomous variables (0/1 binary indicators). Thus, this will be another important venue of future research.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Alemu A. Mengistu

Author Biography

Alemu A. Mengistu is an associate professor of economics at SolBridge International School of Business, Woosong University, South Korea. His research activities focus on development economics, institutional economics, health economics, and applied microeconomics. He has published more than 20 research articles in internationally peer-reviewed journals and also presented more than 25 research papers at various prestigious international conferences across Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America, Australia, and Africa. He earned a PhD degree in development economics from Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (Japan); MA degree in international political economy from Tsukuba University (Japan); MA degree in economics from University of Wales (UK), and BSc degree in statistics and mathematics from Addis Ababa University (Ethiopia).

References

Arthur

Clark

(2009). Determinants of domestic violence: A cross-national study. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 35, 147-167.

Atkinson

M. P.

Greenstein

T. N.

Lang

M. M.

(2005). For women, breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1137-1148.

Barnett

O. W.

Lee

C. Y.

Thelen

R. E.

(1997). Gender differences in attributions of self-defense and control in interpartner aggression. Violence Against Women, 3, 462-481.

Berhane

(2004). Ending Domestic violence against women in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, 18(3), 131-132.

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42121407dated11/25/2017

Bui

H. N.

Morash

(1999). Domestic violence in the Vietnamese immigrant community: An exploratory study. Violence Against Women, 5, 769-795.

Cascardi

Vivian

(1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 265-293.

Casique

L. C.

Furegato

A. R.

(2006). Violence against women: Theoretical reflections. Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 14, 950-956.

Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ICF International. (2012). Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Central Statistical Agency and ICF International: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA.

10.

Council of Europe. (2002). Recommendation of the committee of ministers to member states on the protection of women against violence. Strasbourg: France Council of Europe.

11.

Dalal

(2008). Causes and consequences of violence against child labour and women in developing countries. Institutionen för folkhälsovetenskap/Department of Public Health Sciences. Retrieved from https://openarchive.ki.se/xmlui/handle/10616/38727

12.

Dalal

Lee

M. S.

Gifford

(2012). Male adolescents’ attitudes toward wife beating: A multi-country study in South Asia. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(5), 437-442.

13.

Decancq

Lugo

M. A.

(2013). Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: An overview. Econometric Reviews, 32, 7-34.

14.

Decancq

Schokkaert

(2016). Beyond GDP: Using equivalent incomes to measure well-being in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 21-55.

15.

Doku

D. T.

Asante

K. O.

(2015). Women’s approval of domestic physical violence against wives: Analysis of the Ghana demographic and health survey. BMC Women’s Health, 15(1), Article 120.

16.

Ellison

C. G.

Bartkowski

J. P.

Anderson

K. L.

(1999). Are there religious variations in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues, 20(1), 87-113.

17.

El-Zanaty

Hussein

E. M.

Shawky

G. A.

Way

A. A.

Kishor

(1996). Egypt demographic and health survey 1996. Cairo, Egypt: National Population Council.

18.

Gage

A. J.

Hutchinson

P. L.

(2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 11-24.

19.

Garcia-Moreno

(2002). Violence against women: Consolidating a public health agenda (Engendering International Health: The Challenge of Equity). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

20.

Garcia-Moreno

Jansen

H. A.

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

C. H.

(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. The Lancet, 368, 1260-1269.

21.

Gelles

R. J.

(1983). An exchange/social control theory. In Finkelhor

Gelles

R. J.

Hotaling

G. T.

Straus

M. A.

(Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 151-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

22.

Gelles

R. J.

(1993). Through a sociological lens: Social structure and family violence. In Gelles

R. J.

Loseke

D. R.

(Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 31-46). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

23.

Goode

W. J.

(1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 624-636.

24.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(2003). Beliefs about wife beating among Arab men from Israel: The influence of their patriarchal ideology. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 193-206.

25.

Heise

Ellsberg

Gottemoeller

(1999). Ending violence against women. Population Reports, 27(4), Series L, Number 11.

26.

Hindin

M. J.

(2003). Understanding women’s attitudes towards wife beating in Zimbabwe. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 501-508.

27.

Homans

G.C.

(1967). Fundamental Social Processes. In Smelser

(Ed.), Sociology (pp. 549-593). New York, NY: Wiley.

28.

Jasinski

J.L.

(2001) Theoretical explanations for violence against women. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 5-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Kacen

(2006). Spousal abuse among immigrants from Ethiopia in Israel. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1276-1290.

30.

Kellermann

A. L.

Mercy

J. A.

(1992). Men, women, and murder: Gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization. The Journal of Trauma, 33(1), 1-5.

31.

Kim-Goh

Baello

(2008). Attitudes toward domestic violence in Korean and Vietnamese immigrant communities: Implications for human services. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 647-654.

32.

Kishor

Subaiya

(2008). Understanding women’s empowerment: A comparative analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data. Retrieved from https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-cr20-comparative-reports.cfm

33.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

(2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083-1088.

34.

Lawson

(2012). Sociological theories of intimate partner violence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22, 572-590.

35.

Lerner

M. J.

Simmons

C. H.

(1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 203-210.

36.

Levinson

(1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Machado

Dias

A. R.

(2008). Cultura e violência familiar. Uma revisão crítica da literatura. Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, 64, 43-74.

38.

Machado

Dias

A. R.

(2008). Culture and family violence; A critical review of the literatture. Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, 64, 43-74.

39.

Machado

Dias

Coelho

(2010). Culture and wife abuse: An overview of theory, research, and practice. In Shoham

Knepper

Kett

(Eds.), International handbook of victimology (pp. 639-668). London, England: CRC Press.

40.

Malley-Morrison

Hines

(2004). Family violence in a cultural perspective: Defining, understanding, and combating abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

McCloskey

L. A.

Williams

Larsen

(2005). Gender inequality and intimate partner violence among women in Moshi, Tanzania. International Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 124-130.

42.

Nason-Clark

(2000). Making the sacred safe: Woman abuse and communities of faith. Sociology of Religion, 61, 349-368.

43.

Oyediran

K. A.

Isiugo-Abanihe

U. C.

(2005). Perceptions of Nigerian women on domestic violence: Evidence from 2003 Nigeria demographic and health survey. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 9, 38-53.

44.

Patrizii

Pettini

Resce

(2017). The cost of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 133, 985-1010.

45.

Rani

Bonu

(2009). Attitudes toward wife beating: A cross-country study in Asia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1371-1397.

46.

Rani

Bonu

Diop-Sidibe

(2004). An empirical investigation of attitudes towards wife-beating among men and women in seven Sub-Saharan African countries. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 8, 116-136.

47.

Schuler

S. R.

Hashemi

S. M.

Riley

A. P.

Akhter

(1996). Credit programs, patriarchy and men’s violence against women in rural Bangladesh. Social Science and Medicine, 43, 1729-1742.

48.

Sen

Batliwala

(2000). Empowering women for reproductive rights. In Presser

H. B.

Sen

(Eds.), Women’s empowerment and demographic processes (pp. 15-36). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

49.

Sharpe

(2004). Literature review of frameworks for macro-indicators. Centre for the Study of Living Standards. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sls/resrep/0403.html

50.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

(2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Insitute of Justice.

51.

Tomes

(1978). A“ torrent of abuse”: Crimes of violence between working-class men and women in London, 1840-1875. Journal of Social History, 11, 328-345.

52.

Uthman

O. A.

Lawoko

Moradi

(2009). Factors associated with attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women: A comparative analysis of 17 sub-Saharan countries. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 9(1), Article 14.

53.

Whaley

R. B.

(2001). The paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape: Toward a refined theory. Gender & Society, 15, 531-555.

54.

Williams

K. R.

(1992). Social sources of marital violence and deterrence: Testing an integrated theory of assaults between partners. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 620-629.

55.

World Health Organization (2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

56.

World Health Organization. (2014). Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence have serious short-and long-term physical, mental and sexual and reproductive health problems for survivors: Fact sheet. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/112325

57.

(1997). The prevalence and determination of wife abuse in urban China. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 28, 280-303.

58.

Yick

A. G.

(2001). Feminist theory and status inconsistency theory: Application to domestic violence in Chinese immigrant families. Violence Against Women, 7, 545-562.

59.

Yllo

(1983). Sexual equality and violence against wives in American states. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 14, 67-86.

60.

Yodanis

C. L.

(2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 655-675.