The Influence of Religious Involvement on Intimate Partner Violence Victimization via Routine Activities Theory

Abstract

Routine activities theory attempts to explain victimization by examining how one’s behavior, or routine activities, increases or decreases their likelihood of victimization. It has been postulated that religious individuals are less likely to associate with motivated offenders, less likely to reduce their target suitability, and more likely to enhance their guardianship, in turn reducing victimization. How, if at all, this theoretical framework can predict protection from a specific form of victimization, such as intimate partner violence (IPV), remains unexplored. Using the American subsample of the International Dating Violence Study (n = 4,162), this article attempts to determine whether religious involvement can serve as a factor that reduces IPV victimization indirectly through the three elements of routine activities theory: motivated offenders, target suitability, and capable guardianship. To test this research question, a series of logistic regression models are conducted. Results of these models indicate that religiosity does have a negative and significant impact on victims of IPV, net of variables derived from routine activities theory. This study is among the first to suggest that perhaps this theoretical framework may not be applicable to all forms of victimization. The major practical implication of this finding is that IPV victimization could be reduced using faith-based strategies. For example, religious counseling or preventive and intervention programs that increase prosocial bonds between partners are viable options in helping to reduce IPV victimization among couples. Nevertheless, it is imperative to determine other non-religious programs or methods to protect from IPV for individuals who are not religious.

Keywords

religious involvement intimate partner violence victimization routine activities theory

It has been well established by prior research that the correlates for criminal behavior are the same correlates of victimization. For example, a review of the literature demonstrates that associating with criminal peers (Hoeben & Weerman, 2016; Schreck & Fisher, 2004), having low self-control (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Pratt et al., 2014), possessing either control deficits (the amount of control a person exercises is outweighed by the control he or she is subject to) or surpluses (control a person has exceeds the amount of control he or she is subjected to; Castro et al., 2020), and weak social bonds (Zavala et al., 2019) are all correlated with both criminal behavior and victimization. However, other factors of criminal behavior have been minimally researched within the literature on risk factors of victimization. One such factor is religiosity. Studies have shown that people who report high levels of religiosity are less likely to report engaging in criminal behavior (i.e., Baier & Wright, 2001). Given that the correlates of criminal behavior also predict victimization, it makes sense that religiosity would thus be associated with victimization.

Whether religiosity could potentially explain victimization was first proposed by Schreck et al. (2007). These authors argued that religiosity may structure a person’s life in such a way that it may help protect individuals from violent victimization. For example, using data collected from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Schreck et al. (2007) demonstrated that religiosity has an indirect effect on violent victimization through elements of routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979). In this study, respondents with high levels of religiosity were less likely to engage in criminal behavior (i.e., target suitability), less likely to associate with criminal peers (i.e., motivated offenders), and more likely to strengthen their guardianship against victimization by having stronger bonds to family, society, and school (i.e., guardianship). However, to date, this conceptual framework has not been applied to intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. This study seeks to explore whether individuals with high religious involvement, one facet of religiosity, are less likely to be victims of IPV via the three components of routine activities theory. In other words, religious individuals will be less likely to associate with criminal peers who may normalize interpersonal violence against intimate partners (i.e., motivated offenders), less likely to possess risk markers that increases victimization (i.e., target suitability), and more likely to have faith-based bonds with their partner through religious involvement (i.e., guardianship), all of which may reduce IPV victimization.

Testing the effect of religious involvement on IPV victimization is important for four reasons. First, we agree that an important requirement for evaluating any theoretical framework is the exploration of core propositions with various populations and different types of victimization. Second, IPV victimization is known to have serious and detrimental effects on victims, such as poor health, depression, substance abuse, physical injury, chronic disease, and mental illness (Coker et al., 2002). Therefore, it is important for scholars and other health professionals to completely understand the etiology of IPV victimization to help reduce one of the most pressing social health issues in the world. Third, some studies have reported that religiosity does decrease IPV victimization (Ellison et al., 2007). However, the mechanisms that link religious involvement to IPV victimization remain underdeveloped in the literature. Finally, if religious involvement does diminish the risk of IPV victimization, then this study will provide a tangible way to address victimization. In other words, exploring whether religious involvement, and the prosocial social bonds associated with religious involvement, can provide viable options to address this social issue and, perhaps, other forms of victimization. For instance, religious counseling and other therapeutic approaches alongside programs that increase prosocial bonds could be made available to interested individuals.

These goals are accomplished through the following steps. First, this study begins with an overview of routine activities theory, and how the theory’s theoretical constructs indirectly influence victimization through a person’s religious involvement as articulated by Schreck et al. (2007). Second, research hypotheses derived from this discussion will be presented. Third, the methods and data used in this study are presented. Finally, this study concludes with an overview of the results and limitations, as well as suggestions for theoretical and policy implications.

Literature Review

Routine Activities Theory

Routine activities theory was originally developed by Cohen and Felson (1979) to describe how changes in the social structure influence victimization patterns. This framework, which was designed for explaining variations in stereotypical street-level crime (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996), has been used to explain a wide variety of criminal offenses, including interpersonal victimization (Cass, 2007; Hines et al., 2012; Logan et al., 2006; Schwartz et al., 2001) and IPV specifically (Mannon, 1997; McCarthy et al., 2014). In essence, routine activities theory is a situational approach that posits that there are three minimal elements that must be present in the same place and time in order for victimization to occur: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian to prevent victimization (Cohen et al., 1980; Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 2002). The absence of any one of these three elements is sufficient to hinder victimization. However, as mentioned earlier, Schreck et al. (2007) posited that a person’s religiosity may influence these three elements thereby reducing the odds of experiencing victimization. More specifically, these authors argued that a person’s religiosity may protect them from being exposed to motivated offenders, reduce their target suitability, and increase their guardianship, all of which again reduces the odds of victimization.

Religious Involvement Reduces the Exposure to Motivated Offenders

More religious individuals are less likely to associate with criminal or delinquent peers (Burkett & Warren, 1987; Desmond et al., 2008) and, therefore, decrease their odds of becoming victims of a crime. Criminal peers increase exposure to motivated offenders and allow the offender to have a pool of potential victims (Schreck et al., 2002). The amount of exposure and contact with criminal peers, therefore, increase victimization (Beaver, 2011). Studies have generally supported this notion in the victimization literature. For example, looking at youth delinquency and victimization, Schreck & Fisher (2004) found a positive relationship between delinquent peers and victimization. Specifically, this study found that youth who associated with peers who engaged in violent and property crimes were more likely to report victimization than those who did not associate with criminal peers.

As it pertains to IPV victimization, associating and identifying with criminal peers may influence attitudes and behaviors encouraging the use of violence toward intimate partners and this may increase victimization. Prior studies have found that having friends who have engaged in IPV is related to IPV in the respondent’s own relationship (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004). Vezina and Herbert (2007) speculated that associating with criminal peers who normalize violence will teach their friends that violence is appropriate and acceptable during interpersonal conflicts and this places respondents at risk for victimization. Taken together, we would expect that those with higher religious involvement are less likely to associate with criminal peers and, thus, reduce the odds of experiencing IPV victimization.

Religious Involvement Reduces Target Suitability

Schreck and colleagues (2007) also noted that highly religious individuals are more likely to reduce their target suitability, decreasing their odds of victimization. This assumption may be grounded on the notion that some offenders target certain people because they are perceived to be weak or vulnerable and, therefore, more likely to be victimized. For example, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) highlighted the importance of identifying elements that draw an offender to a victim. These elements are the characteristics of a victim that can be used by the offender to judge whether he or she is vulnerable to victimization.¹ One such characteristic is a person’s physical vulnerability (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996). Target vulnerability indicates whether the victim can physically deter or resist their offender. Some individuals are targets for victimization because they are perceived as “easy” targets. These individuals may possess or display some personal characteristic that make them vulnerable to victimization. Someone, for example, who is intoxicated may be victimized by an offender with the understanding that their current frame of mind may hinder their ability to resist or deter victimization. Thus, they become easy targets (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996).

This study includes measures of alcohol and drug abuse to represent measures for target suitability. Although there are some exceptions (Howard et al., 2003), studies generally show a relationship between alcohol and drug abuse with IPV victimization (Foran & O’Leary, 2008). This is because these drugs may render a victim incapable of defending themselves or unable to avoid dangerous situations where victimization may occur. In addition, studies have found that alcohol and drug abuse are higher among respondents with no religious affiliation (Merrill et al., 2005). These notions would lead us to expect that highly religious individuals are less likely to abuse alcohol and drugs, therefore, making them less suitable for victimization.

Religious Involvement Establishes Guardianship Through Stronger Social Bonds

Another way religious involvement protects individuals from victimization is the development of strong guardianship through social bonds. Schreck et al. (2007) noted that research has generally found that those who are highly religious have stronger bonds to family members and school than those who are less religious. In addition, Schreck et al. (2007) argued that stronger bonds to family members and school means that a youth will spend greater time with parents and other adults in schools that will act as the child’s “handler.” These handlers will protect the child from engaging in criminal behavior, which will decrease the odds of victimization. Furthermore, always being surrounded by these handlers may also deter offenders from victimizing the youth, since only a small number of offenders would be willing to commit an offense in front of others. However, it should be noted that in situations like IPV, capable guardians may become motivated offenders (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996).

In sum, it is reasonable to assume that individuals who are very religious will also have strong faith-based bonds to their partners and family members. This can decrease the odds of IPV victimization, because these bonds may be broken if IPV is used to hurt significant others in their lives. In addition, more religious respondents may also be less likely to approve the use of violence because their religiosity may reinforce their personal values against violence (Howard et al., 2003). Therefore, highly religious individuals are more likely to indicate that they have a strong commitment to their relationship, believe that interpersonal violence is wrong, and possess stronger attachment to family members. These factors then reduce the odds of IPV victimization.

Study Hypotheses

Over a decade ago, Schreck and colleagues (2007) proposed that religiosity could reduce a person’s odds of victimization by indirectly influencing the elements of routine activities theory. However, since its inception, no study has determined whether this theoretical framework also applies to IPV victimization. Although the concept of religiosity is comprised of several different aspects, this study will focus on religious involvement. Based on the concept described by Schreck et al. (2007), this study will test the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Religious involvement will be negatively and significantly related to IPV victimization.

Hypothesis 2: The negative association between religious involvement and IPV victimization will be mediated when measures for routine activities theory are controlled.

Method

Data

Data for this research are obtained from the cross-sectional International Dating Violence Study (Straus, 2001–2006), which has been used by several scholars to document the prevalence, correlates, and consequences of IPV among college students worldwide (Graham et al., 2019; Meade et al., 2017; Paat & Markham, 2016; Sabina et al., 2017; Sabina & Straus, 2008). A team of researchers from 68 universities in 32 nations collected data on both perpetration and being a victim of IPV. For the purpose of this study, only the sample from the United States are used to focus on one single cultural context.² After obtaining approval from each universities’ internal review board (IRB), researchers administrated a survey to college students enrolled in mostly criminal justice, sociology, and psychology courses between the years 2001 and 2006. The response rates ranged from a low of 20% to as high as 100%, with 80% of researchers reporting a response rate of 65% or above. All students were given information about the nature and purpose of the study and were assured that no identifying information will be collected. Before starting the survey, respondents were instructed to think about their current partner, or, if they were single at the time of the survey, to think about their last relationship that lasted a month or more when answering items contained in the survey. Further information regarding the data can be obtained from Straus (2004).

Dependent Variable

IPV victimization was measured using items from the revised conflict tactics scale (CTS-R; Straus et al., 1996), which has been used in more than 500 studies and is the most commonly used instrument to capture interpersonal conflicts (Costa & Barros, 2016). A total of 12 questions were asked to capture physical victimization. Specifically, respondents were asked, in the past year, if their partner has “thrown something at them that could hurt,” “twisted their arm or hair,” “pushed or shoved them,” “used a knife or gun on them,” “punched or hit them with something that could hurt,” “choked them,” “slammed them against a wall,” “been beaten up,” “been grabbed,” “been slapped,” “been burned or scalded,” and “been kicked.” Respondents marked their answers using an 8-point Likert-type scale (1 = once in the past year to 8 = this has never happened). Next, responses were collapsed into a dichotomous variable, where 1 represented being victimized by at least one form of violence against them (responses 1 through 7 = 1) and 0 indicating that the respondent had not been victimized by their intimate partner (response 8 = 0).³

Independent Variables

Religious involvement was captured using two questions that measure a respondent’s involvement in religion. Specifically, respondents were asked, “I attend a church, synagogue, or mosque once a month or more,” and “I rarely have anything to do with religious activities.” Respondents marked their answers using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree).⁴ The last question was reverse coded with strongly agree coded as 1 and strongly disagree coded as 4. These two items were summed together, with higher scores indicating higher levels of religious involvement (Pearson’s r = .69).⁵

Motivated offenders

Criminal peers was captured by two questions measuring respondents’ association with criminal friends. Respondents were asked the following questions: “I spend time with friends who have been in trouble with the law” and “I have friends who have committed crimes.” Respondents marked their answers using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). These two items were summed together, with higher scores indicating higher associations with criminal peers (Pearson’s r = .60).

Target suitability

Target suitability was measured using respondent alcohol consumption and drug abuse. Four questions were used to tap into a respondent’s alcohol consumption. Respondents were asked the following questions: “I sometimes drink enough to feel really high or drunk,” “When I am drinking I usually have five or more drinks at a time,” “I sometimes drink five or more drinks at a time, but only on weekends,” and “Sometimes I can’t remember what happened the night before because of drinking.” Respondents marked their answers using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). These four items were summed together, with higher scores indicating higher levels of alcohol consumption (α = .87).

Drug abuse was also captured using four questions. Respondents were asked the following questions, “In the past, I used coke, crack, or harder drugs (like uppers, heroin, or opiates) more than once or twice,” “I worry that I have a drug problem,” “I have overdosed on drugs or had a severe health problem because of taking drugs,” and “I have been treated for drug problem.” Respondents marked their answers using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). These four items were summed together, with higher scores indicating higher levels of drug abuse (α = .75).

Guardianship through social bonds

Six questions were combined to capture relationship commitment. These questions included the following: “I would give up anything for my partner,” “My relationship with my partner is the most important relationship I have,” “Marriage is forever,” “Caring for my partner means more to me than caring for myself,” “Sometimes I have doubts that my relationship with my partner will last,” and “I have considered leaving my partner.” Respondents marked their answers using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The last two questions were reverse coded with strongly agree coded as 1 and strongly disagree coded as 4. These six items were summed together, with higher scores indicating higher relationship commitment (α = .70).

Violence approval was captured by 10 questions. These questions included the following: “It is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard spanking,” “I can think of a situation when I would approve of a wife slapping a husband’s face,” “I can think of a situation when I would approve of a husband slapping a wife’s face,” “It is sometimes necessary for parents to slap a teen who talks back or is getting into trouble,” “When a boy is growing up, it’s important for him to have a few fist fights,” “A man should not walk away from a physical fight with another man,” “A boy who is hit by another boy should hit back,” “A woman who has been raped probably asked for it,” “If a wife refused to have sex, there are times when it may be okay to make her do it,” and “Once sex gets past a certain point, a man can’t help himself until he is satisfied.” Respondents marked their answers using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). These 10 items were summed together, with higher scores indicating greater violence approval (α = .70).

Two questions were combined to capture family attachment. Specifically, respondents were asked the following questions: “I have family members who would help me out if I had a problem,” and “I share my thoughts with a family member.” Respondents marked their answers using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). These two items were summed together, with higher scores indicating higher family attachment (Pearson’s r = .27).

Demographic Variables

To control for the respondent’s sex and age, these demographic variables are controlled in this study. Sex is coded 1 for males and 0 for females. Age is measured in years.

Analytical Plan

The analyses are conducted in three steps. First, sample characteristics are presented to provide an overall view of the distribution of the measures. Second, this study aims to determine whether religious involvement does in fact influence elements of routine activities theory using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Third, given the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable, logistic regression models are conducted to determine which independent variables are correlates of the dependent variable (Weisburd & Britt, 2014). Mediation analysis in this study was performed by using SPSS PROCESS macro for binary variables using a 5,000-sample bootstrap procedure to estimate bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to examine the significance of indirect effect of the relationships (see Hayes, 2017). If the confidence intervals do not contain 0, indirect relationships are significant, which results in significant mediating effect (Hayes, 2017). To determine the impact of religious involvement on IPV victimization, two logistic regression models are estimated. Model 1 includes the dependent variable regressed on religious involvement, plus the demographic variables. Model 2 adds variables stemming from routine activities theory into the model. This method will assess whether these variables will mediate the relationship between religious involvement and IPV victimization, and this technique will enable us to identify statistical changes that may occur when new variables are introduced into the model. As with any regression procedure, multicollinearity may be a problem. To determine if multicollinearity is a problem in these data, tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated. All tolerances are above 0.59 and all VIFs are below 2, indicating that multicollinearity is not a problem in this study (Keith, 2015; Walker & Maddan, 2020). To account for the multistage cluster sampling design of the data, STATA options “robust” and “cluster” were used to produce the standard errors.

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all of the variables in the study. Regarding the dependent variable, about 33% of respondent reported IPV victimization. Turning our attention to the independent variables, religious involvement has a mean of 5.32 on a scale ranging from 2 to 8. Criminal peers has a mean of 4.86 on a scale ranging from 2 to 8. Alcohol consumption has a mean of 8.09 on a scale ranging from 4 to 16, whereas drug abuse has a mean of 5.01 on a scale ranging from 4 to 16. Relationship commitment has an average of 16.02 on a scale ranging from 6 to 24, whereas violence approval has an average of 19.27 on a scale ranging from 10 to 36. Family attachment has an average of 6.66 on a scale ranging from 2 to 8. Finally, looking at our demographic variables, the majority of respondents are female (69%) and the average age of this sample is 22 years old.

Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics (n = 4,162).

Variables Coded N M (%) SD Range VIF/Tolerance

Dependent variable

IPV victimization 0 = No 2,790 (67.04)

1 = Yes 1,372 (32.96)

Independent variables

Religious involvement Two items 4,162 5.32 1.94 2/8 1.14/0.87

Motivated offenders

Criminal peers Two items 4,162 4.86 1.65 2/8 1.27/0.78

Target suitability

Alcohol consumption Four items 4,162 8.09 3.49 4/16 1.30/0.76

Drug abuse Four items 4,162 5.01 1.81 4/16 1.35/0.73

Guardianship-social bonds

Relationship commitment Six items 4,162 16.02 3.45 6/24 1.07/0.93

Violence approval Ten items 4,162 19.27 4.17 10/36 1.28/0.77

Family attachment Two items 4,162 6.66 1.17 2/8 1.09/0.91

Demographic variables

Sex 0 = Females 2,874 (69.05) 1.16/0.86

1 = Males 1,288 (30.95)

Age Years 4,162 21.72 4.99 18/45 1.05/0.95

Note. VIF = variance inflation factor; IPV = intimate partner violence.

Results

Next, this article examined the effect of religious involvement on each variable representing elements of routine activities theory and these results can be found in Table 2. Regarding the effect of religious involvement on criminal peers, the effect is negative and significant, indicating that individuals with high levels of religious involvement tend to have fewer criminal peers. Furthermore, individuals with high levels of religious involvement also tend to exhibit less alcohol consumption, drug abuse, and violence approval, while exhibiting higher levels of family attachment and relationship commitment. These findings are consistent with the arguments articulated by Schreck et al. (2007).

Table 2.
Effect of Religious Involvement on Routine Activities Routine (n = 4,162)

Criminal Peers
Alcohol Consumption
Drug Abuse
Relationship Commitment
Violence Approval
Family Attachment

β SE β SE β SE β SE β SE β SE

–.18 .01 –.29 .03 –.17 .01 .11 .03 –.03 .03 .14 .01

Note. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Table 3 reports the results of the logistic regression analyses. Model 1 of Table 3 includes the dependent variable regressed on religious involvement along with the demographic variables. This model shows that religious involvement is negative and significant. Respondents who reported higher levels of religious involvement had an 8% decrease in odds of reporting IPV victimization (odds ratio [OR] = 0.92). Looking at the demographic variables, this model also shows that age and sex are not significant.

Table 3.
Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting Intimate Partner Violence Victimization (n = 4,162).

Variables
Model 1
Model 2

SE Odds Ratio SE Odds Ratio

Demographic variables

Sex .09 1.05 0.07 0.80*

Age 0.01 1.01 0.01 1.00

Independent variables

Religious involvement 0.02 0.92* 0.01 0.95**

Motivated offenders

Criminal peers – – 0.03 1.07*

Target suitability

Alcohol consumption – – 0.01 0.99

Drug abuse – – 0.03 1.04

Guardianship

Relationship commitment – – 0.01 0.95

Violence approval – – 0.01 1.09

Family attachment – – 0.02 0.90**

Constant 0.16 0.61 0.11 0.22

χ 19.02 312.01

–2 Log likelihood –2,627.55 –2,511.46

Nagelkerke R² .01 .05

Note. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Model 2 of Table 3 contains the variables pertaining to routine activities theory. Recall that Schreck et al. (2007) content that religious involvement does not directly influence victimization, but rather indirectly impact victimization through elements of routine activities. This model demonstrates that four out of the six measures used to capture routine activities theory were found to be significant in predicting the dependent variable. Respondents who reported associating with criminal peers had 7% greater odds of indicating IPV victimization than respondents with no such friends (OR = 1.07). Furthermore, respondents who reported higher levels of relationship commitment were less likely to report IPV victimization (OR = 0.95, 5% decrease), whereas respondents who reported higher levels of family attachment had decreased odds of indicating IPV victimization (OR = 0.90, 10% decrease). Furthermore, violence approval was found to be positive and significant in predicting the dependent variable. Respondents with higher levels of violence approval were 9% more likely to indicate IPV victimization than respondents with lower levels of violence approval (OR = 1.09). Variables representing target suitability (alcohol consumption and drug abuse) was not found to be significant. Next, religious involvement remained negative and significant, even when the other pertinent theoretical variables were included in the model. Respondents with higher levels of religious involvement were still less likely to report IPV victimization in this model (OR = 0.95; 5% decrease). Finally, looking at the demographic variables, males were less likely than females to report IPV victimization (OR = 0.80; 20% decrease), which is consistent with the IPV literature (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

Mediation analyses were conducted to determine the significance of the indirect effects between religious involvement and IPV victimization through motivated offenders and guardianship. Results for the mediation analyses are reported in Table 4. First, the indirect effect of religious involvement on IPV victimization through criminal peers is statistically significant (β = –.0190, 95% CI = [–0.0266, –0.0124]). Second, relationship commitment demonstrated a mediating effect whereby the indirect effect of religious involvement on IPV victimization through relationship commitment is statistically significant (β = –.0133, 95% CI = [–0.0189, –0.0084]). Third, the indirect effect of religious involvement on IPV victimization through violence approval is also statistically significant (β = –.0069, 95% CI = [–0.0141, 0.000]). Finally, similar to the other mediation analyses, the indirect effect of religious involvement on IPV victimization through family attachment is statistically significant (β = –.0141, 95% CI = [–0.0202, –0.0089]). Taken together, these results indicate that these elements of routine activities (guardianship and motivated offenders) mediate the effect of religious involvement on IPV victimization.

Table 4.
Results of Mediation Analyses for Religious Involvement, Routine Activities, and IPV Victimization (n = 4,162)

Paths
95% Confidence Intervals

Effect SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI p-value

Criminal peers

Indirect effect

Religious involvement → Criminal peers → IPV victimization –0.0190 0.0036 –0.0266 –0.0124 .0009

Relationship commitment

Indirect effect

Religious involvement → Relationship commitment → IPV victimization –0.0133 0.0027 –0.0189 –0.0084 .002

Violence approval

Indirect effect

Religious involvement → Violence approval → IPV victimization –0.0069 0.003 –0.0141 0.0000 .000

Family attachment

Indirect effect

Religious involvement → Family attachment → IPV victimization –0.0141 0.002 –0.0202 –0.0089 .000

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; LLCI = lower level confidence interval; ULCI = upper level confidence interval.

Discussion

A person’s religiosity has been shown by prior research to be negatively correlated with criminal behavior and the risk factors for crime are the same for victimization. It is with this logic that Schreck et al. (2007) set out to test whether religiosity also explained patterns in victimization. More specifically, religiosity may have an indirect impact on victimization through a person’s daily habits as suggested by routine activities theory. Since its inception, however, no study has determined whether this theoretical framework is applicable to all forms of victimization. Drawing on this limitation, this study sought to determine whether one facet of religiosity, religious involvement, also reduces IPV victimization by analyzing data obtained from the International Dating Violence Study. Several significant findings emerged.

Hypothesis 1 stated that religious involvement would be negatively and significantly related to IPV victimization. Model 1 of Table 2 was estimated to test this hypothesis. As this model showed, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Respondents with higher levels of religious involvement were in fact less likely to report IPV victimization. This finding is consistent with prior studies looking at the relationship between religious beliefs and IPV (Howard et al., 2003). However, it has been suggested that the relationship between religious involvement and overall victimization is indirectly associated through routine activities theory. This idea was the basis for the next hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 declared that the negative association between religious involvement and IPV victimization would be mediated when measures for routine activities theory were controlled. Despite the variables of routine activities theory not fully mediating the relationship between religious involvement and IPV victimization, measures of guardianship and motivated offenders did partially mediate this relationship. The indirect effects of these variables on IPV victimization thus partially support Schreck and colleague’s (2007) assertion that religiosity does affect victimization through routine activities. In other words, one’s routine activities are somewhat impacted by their religious involvement, which in turn influences IPV victimization. However, it is important to note that even when including the variables representing routine activities theory, religious involvement remained negative and significant in predicting IPV victimization, suggesting that religious involvement does have a direct path, at the very least, toward IPV victimization. There are at least three possible explanations for this finding.

First, grounded on religious values and principles, individuals who report high levels of religious involvement may seek intimate partners who share their same religious views and convictions, which can decrease the odds of IPV. This notion has found support in the literature (Ellison et al., 2007; Higginbotham et al., 2007). Research has indicated that couples with strong “relationship religiosity” are less likely to experience IPV, presumably because they are more inclined to share the goals of a long-lasting, faith-based relationship or select suitable partners who are less likely to use violence (Higginbotham et al., 2007). Second, religious activities (e.g., attending church) usually involve immediate family members and such activities may strengthen family bonds whereby IPV of any form is reduced (Ellison et al., 2007).

The third and possibly most important explanation is that this theoretical framework may not be ideal for explaining certain types of crime such as IPV. Perhaps one’s routine activities do not affect crime that happens in the home. Furthermore, in the context of IPV, the aspect of target suitability resembles IPV myths and rape myths. Target suitability may not be reflective of victim blaming for street crimes in that a street offender chooses a victim based on things like intoxication or ease of completing the crime, such as robbery; however, these characteristics are associated with myths for domestic violence. In other words, target suitability may have failed to predict IPV victimization here because these factors do not accurately predict IPV victimization in the way they may predict street crime. Myths about IPV victimization closely mirror the notion of target suitability (e.g., “most violent incidents within couples are caused by alcohol and/or drugs; when the man in a couple is violent toward the woman, it is often her fault because she provoked it”; Moracco et al., 2005, p. 342), thus questioning the extent to which the construct of target suitability is rooted in victim-blaming, and limiting the appropriateness and applicability of this construct in explaining crime. Researchers and practitioners would be remiss to ignore the intrinsic blame associated with the notion of target suitability in intimate violence and should instead focus on offender characteristics that are associated with and lead to victimization. This study is among the first to suggest that perhaps this theoretical framework may not be strongly applicable to all forms of victimization. As such, criminologists should be critical of the generality of routine activities theory in explaining various crimes, and this should be further investigated in future research.

Although two elements of routine activities, guardianship and motivated offenders, had significant direct and indirect effects, the elements of target suitability, alcohol consumption and drug abuse, were not significant predictors of IPV victimization. This result is consistent with prior research examining the influence of these variables on routine activities theory (e.g., Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002). However, one noteworthy explanation for this finding may be the fact that the majority of respondents in these data did not report high levels of alcohol consumption or drug abuse, rendering the variable non-significant. In fact, past studies using these data have demonstrated that the significance between alcohol and drug abuse on IPV depends on the study site and sample used (Hines & Straus, 2007). Perhaps the result of this particular outcome would be different if this study added respondents from other countries who reported higher levels of alcohol consumption and drug abuse. Despite the overall low levels of indicated substance use, religious involvement was associated with decreased drug and alcohol use. This finding is consistent with a well-established body of research showing a negative correlation between religiosity and substance abuse (Chitwood et al., 2008). Taken together, more research using various data sources is needed to delve into the effects of substance abuse and IPV—particularly in the context of religious involvement—to fully explore the nuances in the relationships between these variables.

Finally, this study provided further evidence that faith-based treatment, such as counseling, may be a solution in helping reducing IPV victimization among those with religious faith, given that our results indicated a negative and significant relationship between religious involvement and IPV victimization. Bent-Goodley and Fowler (2006) argued that faith-based communities may reach victims who would otherwise not seek professional help or counseling. In addition, providing counseling in the victim’s place of worship may educate victims of how abusers may improperly use religiosity to manipulate women in abusive relationships by making them feel guilt for not forgiving the abuser (Bent-Goodley & Fowler, 2006). Such practices should be available to victims who desire it, and perhaps making it available on college campuses could reach that population. However, it should be noted that reinforcing religious beliefs as well as the church’s reaction to IPV victimization may create a barrier to victims leaving an abusive relationship (Knickmeyer et al., 2010; Renzetti et al., 2017).

Limitations

The results of this study should be viewed with several limitations in mind. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow for a clear determination of the causal relationship between the study variables and IPV victimization. In other words, the temporal ordering of events may be called into question. It is possible, for example, that a respondent’s victimization can lead to one’s decrease in levels of relationship commitment or family attachment. Therefore, there should be an effort to collect longitudinal data with these variables of interest in mind. Second, some respondents may have been reluctant to disclose their victimization due to social desirability, thus creating the possibility of underreporting. However, researchers did assure participants anonymity. Third, due to data limitations, other variables found to influence IPV victimization were not included in the study. For example, sexual promiscuity and being exposed to violence in the community have been found to be correlated with IPV victimization (Gover, 2004; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998). Inclusion of other variables may have altered the results of the study and perhaps the reason why the models reported low R². Fourth, the conflict tactics scale has been criticized for not capturing the context in which violence occurs or the motivations for using violence (Kimmel, 2002). Perhaps other forms of measures that remedies this problem should be used in the future.

Fifth, our measure of religious involvement is limited because it did not capture other factors like prayerfulness, spiritually, positive religious coping styles, religion-family connection, and so on. The usage of these measures may have altered, or strengthened, the results of this study by capturing a fuller picture of religiosity—which may have more influence on one’s routine activities than involvement alone. Relatedly, we were unable to capture variations in type of religious faith, such as Christian, Islamic, and Judaic. Although it is postulated that variation in religious denomination should have no theoretical implications, future research should explore whether type of faith has an influence on one’s routine activities and IPV victimization. In addition, respondents were not allowed to indicate in the survey whether they were even religious at all (i.e., being either agnostic or atheistic). The absence of a comparison group hampers the study’s ability to firmly conclude that the unique salutary influences attributed to religiosity is shielding against IPV victimization.⁶ Furthermore, because this study only looked at the involvement aspect of religion, perhaps involvement in any prosocial activity would have the same protective effects. Future research should explore whether religious involvement has different effects than involvement in clubs, sports, or other activities.

Sixth, the data set does not contain the respondents’ race or ethnicity which is why it is absent in this and other studies using these data. It is important that future research continue to determine whether these patterns are different for Hispanics, African Americans, non-Hispanic Whites, and others. Finally, although the sample was large, it is not a nationally representative sample of college students. Therefore, caution should be exercised when generalizing these results to college students attending private universities or those outside the age range of this current study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that religious involvement does have a direct path toward IPV victimization. This study also calls to question the generality of routine activities theory for crimes such as IPV particularly in the context of interpersonal violence myths and target suitability. IPV myths are damaging to victims in that they are associated with reduced social support and denial of significance for IPV victims (Peters, 2003, 2008). One particular type of IPV myth, victim precipitation, mirrors the idea of target suitability. This myth suggests that victims deserve abuse or that abuse only happens to certain “types of women” (L. E. Walker, 2016). Victim precipitation also extends to drug and alcohol abuse—if a victim were not under the influence, they would not have been abused. The similarities between IPV myths and target suitability call to question the applicability of this construct in explaining IPV. However, several limitations precluded the study from clearly stating a causal relationship between the variables in this study. It is recommended that future researchers attempt to address the study’s limitations and replicate this study in hopes of creating more preventive and treatment programs that will help reduce one of the most devastating forms of victimization that continues to plague millions of people in the United States and around the world.

Variables	Coded	N	M (%)	SD	Range	VIF/Tolerance
Dependent variable
IPV victimization	0 = No	2,790	(67.04)
1 = Yes	1,372	(32.96)
Independent variables
Religious involvement	Two items	4,162	5.32	1.94	2/8	1.14/0.87
Motivated offenders
Criminal peers	Two items	4,162	4.86	1.65	2/8	1.27/0.78
Target suitability
Alcohol consumption	Four items	4,162	8.09	3.49	4/16	1.30/0.76
Drug abuse	Four items	4,162	5.01	1.81	4/16	1.35/0.73
Guardianship-social bonds
Relationship commitment	Six items	4,162	16.02	3.45	6/24	1.07/0.93
Violence approval	Ten items	4,162	19.27	4.17	10/36	1.28/0.77
Family attachment	Two items	4,162	6.66	1.17	2/8	1.09/0.91
Demographic variables
Sex	0 = Females	2,874	(69.05)			1.16/0.86
1 = Males	1,288	(30.95)
Age	Years	4,162	21.72	4.99	18/45	1.05/0.95

Criminal Peers	Alcohol Consumption	Drug Abuse	Relationship Commitment	Violence Approval	Family Attachment
–.18	.01**	–.29	.03**	–.17	.01**	.11	.03**	–.03	.03**	.14	.01**

Variables	Model 1	Model 2
Demographic variables
Sex	.09	1.05	0.07	0.80*
Age	0.01	1.01	0.01	1.00
Independent variables
Religious involvement	0.02	0.92*	0.01	0.95**
Motivated offenders
Criminal peers	–	–	0.03	1.07*
Target suitability
Alcohol consumption	–	–	0.01	0.99
Drug abuse	–	–	0.03	1.04
Guardianship
Relationship commitment	–	–	0.01	0.95**
Violence approval	–	–	0.01	1.09**
Family attachment	–	–	0.02	0.90**
Constant	0.16	0.61	0.11	0.22
χ	19.02		312.01
–2 Log likelihood	–2,627.55		–2,511.46
Nagelkerke R²	.01		.05

Paths	95% Confidence Intervals
Criminal peers
Indirect effect
Religious involvement → Criminal peers → IPV victimization	–0.0190	0.0036	–0.0266	–0.0124	.0009
Relationship commitment
Indirect effect
Religious involvement → Relationship commitment → IPV victimization	–0.0133	0.0027	–0.0189	–0.0084	.002
Violence approval
Indirect effect
Religious involvement → Violence approval → IPV victimization	–0.0069	0.003	–0.0141	0.0000	.000
Family attachment
Indirect effect
Religious involvement → Family attachment → IPV victimization	–0.0141	0.002	–0.0202	–0.0089	.000

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

Egbert Zavala

Notes

Author Biographies

Egbert Zavala, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at The University of Texas at El Paso, where he has been since receiving his PhD in sociology from Kansas State University. His area of research includes intimate partner violence, testing criminological theories, victimization, and deviance. His publications appear in Journal of Family Violence, Crime & Delinquency, Violence & Victims, Journal of Crime and Justice, and others.

Caitlyn N. Muniz, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at The University of Texas at El Paso. Her main research interests involve victimization, sexual assault, adverse childhood experiences, and applying criminological theories to these topics. She is interested in how victimization affects individuals and how victims respond to their experiences.

References

Arriaga

X. B.

Foshee

V. A.

(2004). Adolescent dating violence: Do adolescent follow in their friends’ or their parents’ footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162–184.

Baier

Wright

B. R. E.

(2001). “If you love me, keep my commandments”: A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 3–21.

Beaver

K. M.

(2011). Environmental moderators of genetic influences on adolescent delinquent involvement and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26(1), 84–114.

Bent-Goodley

T. B.

Fowler

D. N.

(2006). Spiritual and religious abuse: Expanding what is known about domestic violence. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 21, 282–295.

Burkett

S. R.

Warren

B. O.

(1987). Religiosity, peer associations, and adolescent marijuana use: A panel study of underlying causal structures. Criminology, 25(1), 109–132.

Cass

A. I.

(2007). Routine activities and sexual assault: An analysis of individual- and school-level factors. Violence and Victims, 22, 350–366.

Castro, E.D., Nobles, M.R., & Zavala, E. (2020). Assessing intimate partner violence in a control balance theory framework. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35, 600–622.

Chitwood

D. D.

Weiss

M. L.

Leukefeld

C. G.

(2008). A systematic review of recent literature on religiosity and substance use. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(3), 653–688.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rates: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44:, 588–608.

10.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

Land

K. C.

(1980). Property crime rates in the United States: A macrodynamic analysis, 1947-1977: With ex ante forecasts for the mid-1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 90–118.

11.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

Smith

P. H.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260–268.

12.

Costa

Barros

(2016). Instruments to assess intimate partner violence: A scoping review of the literature. Violence and Victims, 31(4), 591–621.

13.

Desmond

S. A.

Soper

S. E.

Purpura

D. J.

Smith

(2008). Religiosity, moral beliefs, and delinquency: Does the effect of religiosity on delinquency depend on moral beliefs? Sociological Spectrum, 29(1), 51–71.

14.

Ellison

C. G.

Trinitapoli

J. A.

Anderson

K. L.

Johnson

B. R.

(2007). Race/ethnicity, religious involvement, and domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 1094–1112.

15.

Felson

(2002). Crime and everyday life (3rd ed.). SAGE.

16.

Finkelhor

Asdigian

N. L.

(1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11(1), 3–19.

17.

Foran

H. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1222–1234.

18.

Gover

A. R.

(2004). Risky lifestyle and dating violence: A theoretical test of violent victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 171–180.

19.

Graham

L. M.

Jensen

T. M.

Givens

A. D.

Bowen

G. L.

Rizo

C. F.

(2019). Intimate partner violence among same-sex couples in college: A propensity score analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 1583–1610.

20.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

21.

Higginbotham, B.J., Ketring, S.A., Hibbert, J., Wright, D.W., & Guarino, A. (2007). Relationship religiosity, adult attachment styles, and courtship violence experienced by females. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 55–62.

22.

Hines

D. A.

Armstrong

J. L.

Palm Reed

K. M.

Caeron

(2012). Gender differences in sexual assault victimization among college students. Violence and Victims, 27, 922–940.

23.

Hines

D. A.

Straus

M. A.

(2007). Binge drinking and violence against dating partners: The mediating effect of antisocial traits and behaviors in a multinational perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 441–457.

24.

Hoeben

E. M.

Weerman

F. M.

(2016). Why is involvement in unstructured socializing related to adolescent delinquency? Criminology, 54, 242–281.

25.

Howard

D. E.

Qiu

Boekeloo

(2003). Personal and social contextual correlates of adolescents dating violence. Journal of Adolescents Health, 33, 9–17.

26.

Keith

T. Z.

(2015). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Routledge.

27.

Kimmel

M. S.

(2002). Gender symmetry in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1332–1363.

28.

Knickmeyer

Levitt

Horne

S. G.

(2010). Putting on Sunday best: The silencing of battered women within Christian faith communities. Feminism & Psychology, 20(1), 94–113.

29.

Logan

T. K.

Jordan

C. E.

Leukefeld

C. G.

(2006). Women and victimization: Contributing factors, interventions, and implications. American Psychological Association.

30.

Mannon

J. M.

(1997). Domestic violence and intimate violence: An application of routine activities theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 9–24.

31.

McCarthy

R. J.

Rabenhorst

M. M.

Milner

J. S.

Travis

W. J.

Collins

P. S.

(2014). What difference does a day make? Examining temporal variations in partner maltreatment. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 421–428.

32.

Meade

C. N.

Jennings

W. G.

Gover

A. R.

Richards

T. N.

(2017). On the linkage between sexual violence victimization and intimate partner violence outcomes among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Studies, 9, 257–268.

33.

Merrill

R. M.

Folsom

J. A.

Christopherson

S. S.

(2005). The influence of family religiosity on adolescent substance use according to religious preference. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 821–836.

34.

Moracco

K. E.

Hilton

Hodges

K. G.

Frasier

P. Y.

(2005). Knowledge and attitudes about intimate partner violence among immigrant Latinos in rural North Carolina: Baseline information and implications for outreach. Violence Against Women, 11(3), 337–352.

35.

Mustaine, E.E., & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Sexual assault of college women: A feminist interpretation of a routine activities analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 27, 89–123.

36.

O’Keefe

Treister

(1998). Victims of dating violence among high school students: Are the predictors different for males and females? Violence Against Women, 4, 195–223.

37.

Paat

Y. F.

Markham

(2016). A gendered approach to understanding the roles of social bonding, personal control, and strain on college dating violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25, 793–811.

38.

Peters

(2003). The domestic violence myth acceptance scale: Development and psychometric testing of a new instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 64(4-A), Article 1409.

39.

Peters

(2008). Measuring myths about domestic violence: Development and initial validation of the domestic violence myth acceptance scale. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16(1), 1–21.

40.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931–964.

41.

Pratt

T. C.

Turanovic

J. J.

Fox

K. A.

Wright

(2014). Self-control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52(1), 87–116.

42.

Renzetti

C. M.

DeWall

C. N.

Messer

Pond

(2017). By the grace of God: Religiosity, religious self-regulation, and perpetration of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Issues, 38(14), 1974–1997.

43.

Sabina

Schally

J. L.

Marciniec

(2017). Problematic alcohol and drug use and the risk of partner violence victimization among male and female college students. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 305–316.

44.

Sabina

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Polyvictimization by dating partners and mental health among U.S. college students. Violence and Victims, 23, 667–682.

45.

Schreck

C. J.

Burek

M. W.

Clark-Miller

(2007). He sends rain upon the wicked: A panel study of the influence of religiosity on violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 872–893.

46.

Schreck

C. J.

Fisher

B. S.

(2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(9), 1021–1041.

47.

Schreck

C. J.

Wright

R. A.

Miller

J. M.

(2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 159–180.

48.

Schwartz

M. D.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Tait

Alvi

(2001). Male peer support and a feminist routine activities theory: Understanding sexual assault on the college campus. Justice Quarterly, 18, 623–649.

49.

Straus

(2001–2006). International dating violence study (2001–2006). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29583.v1

50.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence against Women, 10, 790–811.

51.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

52.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measures by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence against Women, 6, 142–161.

53.

Vezina

Herbert

(2007). Risk factors for victimization in romantic relationships of young women: A review of empirical studies and implications for prevention. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 8, 33–66.

54.

Walker

J. T.

Maddan

(2020). Statistics in criminology and criminal justice (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

55.

Walker

L. E.

(2016). The battered woman syndrome (4th ed.). Springer.

56.

Weisburd, D., & Britt, C. (2014). Statistics in criminal justice (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

57.

Zavala

Spohn

R. E.

Alarid

L. F.

(2019). Gender and serious youth victimization: Assessing the generality of self-control, differential association, and social bonding theories. Sociological Spectrum, 39, 53–69.

Variables	Model 1		Model 2
Variables	SE	Odds Ratio	SE	Odds Ratio
Demographic variables
Sex	.09	1.05	0.07	0.80*
Age	0.01	1.01	0.01	1.00
Independent variables
Religious involvement	0.02	0.92*	0.01	0.95**
Motivated offenders
Criminal peers	–	–	0.03	1.07*
Target suitability
Alcohol consumption	–	–	0.01	0.99
Drug abuse	–	–	0.03	1.04
Guardianship
Relationship commitment	–	–	0.01	0.95**
Violence approval	–	–	0.01	1.09**
Family attachment	–	–	0.02	0.90**
Constant	0.16	0.61	0.11	0.22
χ	19.02		312.01
–2 Log likelihood	–2,627.55		–2,511.46
Nagelkerke R²	.01		.05

Paths	95% Confidence Intervals
Paths	Effect	SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	p-value
Criminal peers
Indirect effect
Religious involvement → Criminal peers → IPV victimization	–0.0190	0.0036	–0.0266	–0.0124	.0009
Relationship commitment
Indirect effect
Religious involvement → Relationship commitment → IPV victimization	–0.0133	0.0027	–0.0189	–0.0084	.002
Violence approval
Indirect effect
Religious involvement → Violence approval → IPV victimization	–0.0069	0.003	–0.0141	0.0000	.000
Family attachment
Indirect effect
Religious involvement → Family attachment → IPV victimization	–0.0141	0.002	–0.0202	–0.0089	.000