Associations of Power Relations,Wife-Beating Attitudes,and Controlling Behavior of Husband With Domestic Violence Against Women in India: Insights From the National Family Health Survey

Abstract

This study assesses the relationship of power relations, attitudes toward wife-beating, and controlling behavior of husband with violence against women in India using the recent National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4). In India, about 31% of ever-married women experienced domestic violence committed by their partner during 2015-16. Women’s decision-making power was associated with a decreased likelihood of spousal violence. However, the justification of wife-beating and controlling behavior of husband increased the risk of intimate partner violence. This study emphasizes the need for prioritizing girls’ education, enhancing women’s autonomy, prevention of child marriage, and promoting gender equality in society to address the problem of spousal violence.

Keywords

power relations wife-beating attitudes controlling behavior domestic violence India

Introduction

Domestic violence against women by their intimate partners is a serious human rights violation and a public health concern. It is recognized as a “global hidden epidemic” by the World Health Organization (Ellsberg et al., 2001; Heise, 1993; WHO, 2006; 2019). Most of the domestic violence around the world is committed by an intimate partner, which is manifested in a complex pattern of physical aggression, sexual coercion, emotional and psychological abuse, and controlling behaviors (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2006; Yount et al., 2011). According to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA, 2005) of the Indian Constitution, domestic violence is defined as any act or conduct that constitutes harassment, harms, injuries, or threats to an aggrieved person or behaviors that likely result in physical, sexual, economic, emotional, verbal, or psychological abuse. Both the actual abuse and/or threat of abuse are considered violence in this act (PWDVA, 2005). Although many scholars have proposed various definitions of domestic violence, the idea of “coercive control” is considered to be most effective to understand violence against women in a patriarchal context like India. Coercive control is the multi-faceted forms of oppression rooted within the patriarchal social structure that harms the autonomy, dignity, and equality of women and is designed to secure and expand gender-based privileges by establishing a regime of male domination (Stark, 2007).

Domestic violence occurs in all countries across the world, irrespective of social, cultural, and religious identities and economic backgrounds. It is reported that approximately 35% of women worldwide experience domestic violence in their lifetime. However, the proportion of women being exposed to physical or sexual violence varies from 15% in Japan to 71% in Ethiopia as per a WHO multi-country study (WHO, 2005). Studies in India indicate that the prevalence of violence against women remains unacceptably high and threatens the overall well-being of women (Kimuna et al., 2013; Mahapatro et al., 2012). As reported by recent statistics, around 27% of ever-married women in India faced physical assault, 13% of women were emotionally abused, and 6% experienced sexual violence perpetrated by their partner in 2015-16 (International Institute for Population Sciences [IIPS] & ICF, 2017).

There are detrimental impacts of domestic violence on the societal and individual levels, not only associated with health issues but also inter-generational and socio-economic burdens. Studies have found that violence against women has severe implications on women’s physical as well as psychological health (Bonomi et al., 2006; Ellsberg et al., 2008), including pregnancy complications (Cokkinides et al., 1999; Faramarzi et al., 2005), morbidity and mortality at reproductive age (Krug et al., 2002), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorders, and suicide among women (Devries et al., 2011; Kaslow et al., 1998; Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006). Maternal exposure to violence also increases vulnerabilities for their children’s nutritional status (Mondal & Paul, 2020; Taylor et al., 2009), mental health (Robbie Rossman & Ho, 2000), and morbidity and mortality to a great extent (Åsling-Ackerson & Subramanian, 2009; Åsling-Monemi et al., 2008; Karamagi et al., 2007; Paul & Mondal, 2020). These devastating consequences of violence against women strengthen the need to address and explore this issue further.

Previous studies conducted in the last few decades have pointed out a number of risk factors for domestic violence against women, including individual factors (age, education status), household factors (income, family type), relational factors (marital relation, male dominance), and community factors (community sanctions against domestic violence, social capital, gender norms) (Adjah & Agbemafle, 2016; Boyle et al., 2009; Kimuna et al., 2013; Koenig et al., 2006). Earlier research indicates a strong association between the practice of dowry and domestic violence in India (Rastogi & Therly, 2006; Srinivasan & Bedi, 2007). The role of power relations, wife-beating attitudes, and controlling behavior of the partner in shaping domestic violence against women has also recently been the focus of increased attention. Although strong anthropological evidence exists supporting that differential power and control are important underlying causes for physical and other forms of violence perpetrated by an intimate partner, there has been inadequate quantitative evidence until recently behind this association (Jewkes, 2002; Johnson, 1995). Moreover, most of these studies have been carried out in the United Kingdom (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003), Middle East (Haj-Yahia, 1998), North America (Gage & Hutchinson, 2006), and China (Liu & Regehr, 2008). A recent study in Nigeria has revealed that the controlling behavior of the husband is strongly associated with physical and sexual intimate partner violence (Antai, 2011). Likewise, studies have indicated the linkages between unequal power relations in an intimate relationship and spousal violence (Kwagala et al., 2013; Lamichhane et al., 2011; Rahman et al., 2013). However, a general understanding of the underlying factors affecting domestic violence in developing countries remains limited. To the best of our knowledge, there is very limited research focusing on the linkages between power relations, controlling behavior, wife-beating attitudes, and domestic violence in India. Emphasizing the role of control and differential power relations in a marital relationship will improve the understanding of the mechanism and consequences of domestic violence that are important toward prevention and reduction of violence against women.

This study contributes to the understanding of domestic violence against women by the partner in a developing country context. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of unequal power relations, wife-beating attitudes, and controlling behavior of husband on women’s experience of domestic violence.

Theoretical Framework for Understanding Domestic Violence Against Women

Although there is no concrete framework that can capture the complex factors influencing domestic violence against women, we have made an effort to analyze domestic violence from the perspective of patriarchy and rigid gender roles. In India, domestic violence against women is deeply rooted in long-term gender discrimination and women’s subordination by men in society. In patriarchal societies, male domination has been established through superior rights, privileges, authority, and powers ascribed to them (Krishnaraj, 2007; Visaria, 2000). There are structurally defined, rigid gender roles for men and women in such a society, which often results in powerlessness among women. Men, positioned in the higher social order and family structure, often exercise their power and control over women in several ways (Johnson, 1995). Under the patriarchal social structure, young girls are often denied educational and economic opportunities. Parents usually marry off their daughters at an early age to reduce the economic burden of the family. Within the marital relationship, women’s responsibility has been to produce children for extending the family lineage, and they are tasked with childrearing, cooking food, and other domestic duties (Wilson-Williams et al., 2008). There is always pressure over women to produce male children because a girl child is often considered as an economic burden to the family. The husbands often think that they have unfettered conjugal rights over their wives and women are not allowed to participate in the decision-making of household matters. Women’s mobility and freedom have been restricted to control their sexuality, production, and reproduction (Bhasin, 1993). Subservience, subordination, compliance, and passivity of women have been expected and imposed by both their husbands and in-laws (Kamimura et al., 2017). Property and economic resources are controlled by the men and passed on from one man to another, usually from father to son. Although women have the right to inherit the property, the customary social norms prevent them from acquiring the father’s property (Agarwal, 1994). Such discriminatory gender norms encourage men to exploit their wives physically, emotionally, and sexually, and women have been the victims of different forms of violence committed by their partners.

In spite of the movement of egalitarianism advocating equal rights for men and women, the traditionally patriarchal men continue to think that women are not equal and must be loyal and obedient to men, upon whom they are dependent (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Sugihara and Warner (2002) argue that domestic violence might occur as a reaction to a man’s sense of powerlessness if he feels threatened by a loss of control over a “disobedient” or “independent” partner. In fact, violence against women, physical or other forms, is an extreme form of discrimination linked to a continuum of beliefs that gives men the right to control women’s behavior (Heise, 1993; Jewkes et al., 2002). Women have been subverted to accept differential power relations based on sex and believe that men have the right to discipline them if they cannot fulfill their gender-specific duties, such as domestic work and food production. They are kept, as Stark (2007) argues, under “coercive control” by the husband and become “captive in an unreal world created by the abuser, entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction, and fear” (Women’s Aid, n.d.). Women are made dependent by isolating them from support, exploiting them, depriving them of independence, and regulating their everyday behavior (Stark, 2007). In patriarchal societies, unequal gender norms are so structured that women, even after physically abused or beaten up by the partner, tend to justify their husbands’ behavior as a way of rationalizing the treatment reached to them (Visaria, 2008). Wife-beating by the partner, which is viewed as the husband’s right to “correct” an erring wife, is also often justified by women in various circumstances across many countries including India (Rani & Bonu, 2009).

It is understood, therefore, that patriarchal domination coupled with rigid gender roles creates a space for domestic violence against women in Indian society. To understand this patriarchal perspective, we used three dimensions in this study: (a) decision-making power/autonomy, which is used to explore the power relations within marital relationships; (b) women’s justification or attitude toward wife-beating, to reflect the cultural and societal norms and sensitivity of women regarding domestic violence; and (c) controlling behavior of husband, for assessing male domination and control over the spouse. We hypothesized that women with high decision-making power in the family are less likely to face violence. However, women’s justification of wife-beating by the partner and controlling behavior of the husband tend to increase the risk of intimate partner violence.

Materials and Method

Data Source

This study used data from the most recent administration of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), conducted in 2015–2016. It is a nationally representative large-scale sample survey, carried out in all the states and union territories of India that provides information at the district level of all 640 districts in the country. The survey gives updated evidence of key population indicators, health and nutrition status, and a range of health-related issues including maternal and child health, fertility, mortality, reproductive health, high-risk sexual behavior, nutritional status of mothers and young children, immunization, family planning methods, non-communicable diseases, domestic violence, and knowledge and attitudes toward HIV/AIDS. The samples in NFHS-4 were selected using a two-stage stratified sampling design with 28,586 clusters; 8,397 in urban, 20,059 in rural areas, and 130 slums. In the first stage, the clusters were selected using the method of probability proportional-to-size (PPS). In the second stage, a complete household mapping and listing were prepared in the selected cluster, and 22 households were randomly picked up in each cluster from the household listing. A detailed description of the sampling design and survey procedure is provided in the NFHS-4 national report (IIPS & ICF, 2017).

Study Participants

The NFHS-4 interviewed 699,686 women aged 15–49 years with a response rate of 97%. In total, 83,397 women were selected for the domestic violence module. However, interviews for 3,668 women could not be completed due to privacy reasons and other issues; consequently, 79,729 women were successfully interviewed about domestic violence at the time of the survey. Complete and valid information about intimate partner violence is available for 66,013 ever-married women in the NFHS-4. The women who did not participate in the survey were excluded from analysis, and the statistical analysis of this study was employed with the samples that had valid information about intimate partner violence and other predictor variables. Therefore, the study participants for this research constitute 66,013 women aged 15–49 years who had completed the domestic violence module (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Selection of study participants, NFHS-4 (2015–2016).

Outcome Variables

The outcome of interest in this study is women’s exposure to domestic violence manifested through the acts of physical, emotional, and sexual violence perpetrated by the partner. A series of questions was posed to the women to gather information regarding violence committed by their current husband or their most recent husband. Physical violence was defined as exposure to any of the following acts against the women by the husband: (a) pushed, shook, or threw something at her; (b) slapped her; (c) twisted her arm or pulled her hair; (d) punched her with his fist or with something that could hurt her; (e) kicked, dragged, or beat her up; (f) tried to choke or burn her on purpose; or (g) threatened to or attacked with a knife, gun, or any other weapon. Sexual violence against women was measured using three questions: whether the husband ever (a) physically forced her to have sexual intercourse, (b) physically forced her to perform any other sexual acts, or (c) forced her with threats or in any other way to perform sexual acts when she did not want to. Similarly, emotional violence was judged by three questions, specifically, whether the husband ever: (a) humiliated her in front of others, (b) threatened to hurt or harm her, or (c) insulted or made her feel bad about herself. The magnitude of domestic violence could vary from less severe to severe violence. For this study, a composite variable of women’s exposure to violence was developed by adding the responses from all the above forms of violence and then dichotomized into a binary variable, where “1” denotes the experience of any form of violence including physical, emotional, and sexual violence and “0” indicates no experience of violence. In this study, the experience of any form of violence perpetrated by the partner was utilized for the bivariate and multivariate analyses.

Key Predictors

The key predictors of this study include power relations, women’s attitude toward wife-beating, and controlling behavior of the husband. Women’s decision-making power or autonomy in the family was used to understand differential power relations in an intimate relationship. Decision-making autonomy was estimated by four questions posed to the women during the survey: (a) person who usually decides on respondent’s health care, (b) person who usually decides on large household purchases, (c) person who usually decides what to do with money husband earns, and (d) person who usually decides on visits to family or relatives. The responses were captured by five categories, such as respondent alone, respondent and husband/partner together, husband/partner alone, someone else, and others. Women’s involvement in the decision-making was reported only in the first two cases, which were considered as affirmative (1) and the rest as negative (0). Subsequently, an index of decision-making power was generated by summing up these four questions. The score of the index ranges from 0–4. We categorized it into two levels: women who had scores of 4 were considered as having high decision-making power and women with scores of less than 4 as low decision-making power.

Women’s attitude toward wife-beating is a very important predictor of intimate partner violence. Women were asked about seven circumstances to measure their justification of wife-beating: if she goes out without telling the husband, if she neglects the children, if she argues with the husband, if she refuses to have sex with the husband, if she burns the food, if the husband suspects her of being unfaithful, and if she shows disrespect for her in-laws. If women agreed that the husband is justified in hitting or beating them in each of these situations, they are coded as “1” (yes), and if they do not agree with the husband’s wife-beating act, they are coded as “0” (no). A composite score, ranging from 0–7, was generated by adding all these responses and categorized into three groups. These groups comprise women who had not justified wife-beating at all (did not agree with any of the justifications), moderately justified wife-beating (agreed with 1–3 justifications), and highly justified wife-beating (agreed with at least four justifications).

Another important determinant is the controlling behavior of the husband, which was computed from a set of six questions: whether the husband/partner becomes jealous if she talks with other men, accuses her of unfaithfulness, does not permit her to meet her friends, tries to limit her contact with family, insists on knowing where she is, and doesn’t trust her with money. The responses were assessed as a dichotomous “yes” or “no.” We added the responses to these six questions to generate an overall score and later developed three levels of the husband’s controlling behavior. Women who responded yes to three or more controlling attitude questions were considered as highly controlled by the husband, women with one or two positive responses as moderately controlled, and women who gave negative responses to all six questions formed the third group of least controlled by the husband.

Confounders

In addition to these three main predictors, some other factors were also included in this study because they could potentially influence women’s exposure to domestic violence. These factors are demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of women, such as age of women (15–19, 20–24, 25–34, 35–49 years); age at marriage (<18, ≥18 years); place of residence (urban, rural); caste (Scheduled Caste [SC], Scheduled Tribe [ST], Other Backward Classes [OBC], others [forward caste]); religion (Hindu, Muslim, other); women’s education (no education, primary, secondary, higher); husband’s education (no education, primary, secondary, higher); husband’s alcohol consumption (no, yes); and wealth quintile (poorest, poorer, middle, richer, richest).

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were run to understand the distribution and characteristics of the study population. Cross-tabulation was used to estimate the bivariate percentage of women’s exposure to domestic violence by the predictor variables, and the differences were later tested by Pearson’s chi-square statistic. The sample weight was applied for the estimation of percentage distribution. Finally, binary logistic regression models were employed to determine the relationship between power relations, wife-beating attitudes, and controlling behavior of husband and violence against women. The regression results were presented by the estimated odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All the statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 14.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Distribution of the Study Population

Of the 66,013 study participants, a substantial proportion of women (40.5%) had a low level of autonomy regarding decision-making in the family. Nearly half of the women (48%) justified wife-beating their husbands. Almost half of them (48.3%) reported a moderate to high degree of controlling behavior by their partners. Among sociodemographic characteristics, over one third of the women (34.7%) were 35–49 years of age. A large proportion of women (42.9%) were married before the age of 18 years. A majority of women were living in rural areas (65.9%), belonged to “Other Backward Classes” (41%), and identified as Hindu (74%). Over one fourth of women (26.2%) had no formal education, while the corresponding figure for their partners was 18.5%. Nearly one third of the partners (30.3%) consumed alcohol. The percentage of the sample was almost similar across the wealth quintile groups (Table 1).

Table 1.

The Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) by Key Predictors and Socio-Demographic Characteristics in India, NFHS-4 (2015–2016).

Variables	Sample distribution		IPV (%)	p-value
Variables	Frequency	Percentage	IPV (%)	p-value
Key predictors
Decision-making autonomy				<.001
low autonomy	24,820	40.5	35.7
High autonomy	37,432	59.5	27.0
Women’s attitude toward wife-beating				<.001
Not justified	39,324	52.0	21.7
Moderately justified	21,063	26.8	38.4
Highly justified	16,544	21.2	42.6
Controlling behavior of husband				<.001
Low	34,565	51.7	17.7
Moderate	20,077	30.8	37.7
High	11,371	17.5	58.8
Sociodemographic factors
Age of women in years				<.001
15–19	9,649	17.2	23.7
20–24	12,528	17.3	28.3
25–34	29,214	30.9	31.0
35–49	28,338	34.7	32.4
Age at marriage in years				<.001
<18	26,870	42.9	36.6
≥18	37,681	57.1	26.7
Place of residence				<.001
Urban	24,084	34.1	25.9
Rural	55,645	65.9	33.6
Caste				<.001
Scheduled Caste (SC)	13,974	18.6	38.1
Scheduled Tribe (ST)	14,879	16.7	32.1
Other Backward Classes (OBC)	30,365	41.0	33.2
Others	16,424	23.6	22.4
Religion				<.001
Hindu	58,751	74	32.2
Muslim	10,954	14.9	27.9
Others	10,024	11.2	26.6
Women’s education				<.001
No education	22,885	26.2	40.7
Primary	10,529	12.2	36.2
Secondary	37,176	48.7	25.7
Higher	9,139	13.0	15.0
Partner’s education				<.001
No education	12,807	18.5	42.4
Primary	9,873	14.6	37.7
Secondary	34,693	52.8	28.7
Higher	8,600	14.1	17.8
Partner drinks alcohol				<.001
No	45,122	69.7	22.8
Yes	20,891	30.3	49.9
Wealth quintile				<.001
Poorest	14,999	16.6	44.6
Poorer	16,760	19.5	37.5
Middle	16,715	20.4	32.0
Richer	16,124	21.2	26.5
Richest	15,131	22.3	17.8

Note. NFHS-4 = National Family Health Survey.

Figure 2 displays women’s exposure to different forms of violence perpetrated by the partner. About 27.4% of women reported that they experienced physical violence, 12.7% experienced emotional violence, and 6.7% were sexually abused. In total, 31% of women experienced any form of intimate partner violence.

Figure 2.

Different forms of intimate partner violence among Indian women, NFHS 2015–2016.

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence by Key Predictors and Sociodemographic Characteristics

We found significant differences in the prevalence of intimate partner violence by key predors and sociodemographic characteristics (Table 1). Women with high decision-making power experienced less intimate partner violence compared with those who had low autonomy (27 vs. 35.7%). Similar results were also found with regard to the justification of wife-beating. The results reveal that the prevalence of intimate partner violence was higher among the women who moderately (38.4%) or highly justified (42.6%) wife-beating behavior of the husband compared with those who did not justify it (21.7%). The incidence of intimate partner violence increased with an increasing level of husband’s controlling behavior. Marital violence was also found to be increase with an increase in the age of women. For instance, women in the 25–34 and 35–49 years age groups faced higher marital violence compared with women aged 15–19 years. A significantly higher proportion of women who experienced spousal violence married before they were 18 years old compared with those who married at 18 years or older (36.6 vs. 26.7%). The incidence of intimate partner violence was higher among rural women than those from urban areas (33.6 vs. 25.9%). Intimate partner violence was highly prevalent among the backward caste groups, while women who identified as “forward caste” had a considerably lower proportion of spousal violence. However, spousal violence was highest among “Scheduled Caste” women (38.1%), followed by “Other Backward Classes” (33.2%), and “Scheduled Tribe” (32.1%). A higher percentage of Hindu women experienced intimate partner violence compared with women who identified as Muslim and “other” religion. The experience of marital violence decreased with an increasing level of educational attainment, both by women and husbands. The data show that 40.7% of uneducated women experienced violence, while the corresponding figure for higher educated women was 15%. A higher proportion of women whose husbands consumed alcohol experienced violence than those whose husbands did not consume alcohol (49.9 vs. 22.8%). The prevalence of intimate partner violence decreased from the bottom to the upper quintile of household wealth. About 44.6% of women from the poorest wealth quintile experienced violence compared with 17.8% of women from the richest wealth quintile.

Associations of Power Relations, Wife-Beating Attitudes, and Controlling Behavior of Husband With Domestic Violence

We performed two separate logistic regression models for assessing the associations (Table 2). In the first model, associations of women’s decision-making power, wife-beating attitudes, and controlling behavior of husband with domestic violence were examined without controlling confounding factors. In this model, it is observed that all these indicators of gender norms and attitudes were significantly associated with domestic violence. In the second model, sociodemographic variables were adjusted to examine the net associations. The results show that women’s high decision-making autonomy was associated with lower odds of spousal violence (AOR = 0.74, 95% CI = [0.71, 0.77]) compared with those who had limited autonomy, even after controlling for relevant sociodemographic characteristics. Compared with women who did not justify wife-beating by the husband, women who moderately and highly justified wife-beating were 1.8 times (AOR = 1.82, 95% CI = [1.74, 1.91]) and 1.9 times (AOR = 1.90, 95% CI = [1.81, 2.00]) more likely to experience intimate partner violence, respectively. Similarly, the controlling behavior of the husband increased the risk of spousal violence. The findings reveal that husband’s high controlling behavior was associated with a more than fourfold increased likelihood of violence against women (AOR = 4.26, 95% CI = [4.04, 4.50]).

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Analysis for the Association between Gender Norms and Domestic Violence in India, NFHS-4 (2015–2016).

Variables	COR [95% CI]	AOR [95% CI]
Decision-making autonomy
Low autonomy (Ref.)
High autonomy	0.77 [0.74, 0.80]	0.74 [0.71, 0.77]
Women’s attitude toward wife-beating
Not justified (Ref.)
Moderately justified	1.93 [1.85, 2.01]	1.82 [1.74, 1.91]
Highly justified	2.12 [2.03, 2.23]	1.90 [1.81, 2.00]
Controlling behavior of husband
Low (Ref.)
Moderate	2.48 [2.37, 2.58]	2.20 [2.10, 2.30]
High	5.17 [4.92, 5.43]	4.26 [4.04, 4.50]
Women’s age in years
15–19 (Ref.)
20–24		1.58 [1.37, 1.82]
25–34		1.87 [1.63, 2.15]
35–49		2.01 [1.75, 2.30]
Age at marriage in years
<18		1.17 [1.12, 1.22]
≥18 (Ref.)
Place of residence
Urban (Ref.)
Rural		0.84 [0.80, 0.88]
Caste
Scheduled Caste (Ref.)
Scheduled Tribe		0.74 [0.69, 0.79]
Other Backward Classes		0.93 [0.88, 0.98]
Others		0.74 [0.70, 0.80]
Religion
Hindu (Ref.)
Muslim		1.06 [0.99, 1.13]ns
Others		0.89 [0.83, 0.96]
Women’s education
No education (Ref.)
Primary		1.02 [0.96, 1.09]ns
Secondary		0.87 [0.82, 0.92]
Higher		0.63 [0.57, 0.70]
Partner’s education
No education (Ref.)
Primary		0.98 [0.92, 1.05]ns
Secondary		0.87 [0.82, 0.92]
Higher		0.80 [0.73, 0.88]
Partner drinks alcohol
No (Ref.)
Yes		2.90 [2.78, 3.03]
Wealth quintile
Poorest (Ref.)
Poorer		0.90 [0.85, 0.96]
Middle		0.80 [0.75, 0.85]
Richer		0.68 [0.63, 0.73]
Richest		0.54 [0.49, 0.59]

Note. NFHS-4 = National Family Health Survey; COR = crude odds ratio; AOR= adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; Ref. = reference category; ns = not significant.

The results also indicate that various sociodemographic factors were significantly associated with intimate partner violence. The likelihood of spousal violence was found to be greater among older women. For instance, women aged 35–49 years had a twofold higher probability of experiencing spousal violence (AOR = 2.01, 95% CI = [1.75, 2.30]) than the younger women aged 15–19 years. Women who got married under 18 years of age were at greater risk of experiencing domestic violence perpetrated by the partner (AOR = 1.77, 95% CI = [1.12, 1.22]) compared with those married at 18 years or older. Women residing in rural areas had a 16% lower likelihood of spousal violence (AOR = 0.84, 95% CI = [0.80, 0.88]) than their urban counterparts. Compared with women in a Scheduled Caste, women who were in a Scheduled Tribe (AOR = 0.74, 95% CI = [0.69, 0.79]), Other Backward Classes (AOR = 0.93, 95% CI = [0.88, 0.98]), and “other” caste group (AOR = 0.74, 95% CI = [0.70, 0.80]) were less likely to experience marital violence. Women’s education acted as a protective buffer against intimate partner violence. Women with a secondary (AOR = 0.87, 95% CI = [0.82, 0.92]) and higher level of education (AOR = 0.63, 95% CI = [0.57, 0.70]) had a lower likelihood of experiencing domestic violence compared with uneducated women. Husband’s education also had a significant impact on women’s exposure to spousal violence. However, the effect of husband’s higher level of education seemed to be less important than that of women’s higher education. Our results also demonstrated that the partner’s alcohol consumption was associated with almost threefold higher odds of domestic violence against women (AOR = 2.90, 95% CI = [2.78, 3.03]). The incidence of spousal violence showed a decreasing trend from the upper wealth quintile toward the bottom quintile. The likelihood of experiencing domestic violence was 46% lower for women from the richest wealth quintile (AOR = 0.54, 95% CI = [0.49, 0.59]) compared with the poorest quintile group.

Discussion

This study has provided important insights into the association between unequal power relations, attitudes toward wife-beating, and the controlling behavior of the husband and domestic violence against women in India, using a large-scale nationally representative cross-sectional survey. In India, a substantial proportion of women were physically, emotionally, and/or sexually abused by their current partner, with 31% of women reporting at least one form of intimate partner violence in 2015–2016. This study highlighted how rigid, unequal gender norms and attitudes in society may contribute to domestic violence against women. In addition, our study also stressed the influence of socioeconomic and demographic factors on spousal violence.

This study reveals that the decision-making autonomy of women was associated with a lower likelihood of spousal violence. This finding is consistent with many previous studies (Antai, 2011; Tenkorang, 2019) and also supports the hypothesis that the decision-making autonomy of women in the household decreases the risk of domestic violence. Our study supports the argument built in feminist literature, which identifies patriarchy as a root cause of domestic violence (Eswaran & Malhotra, 2011). Feminist theory indicates that domestic violence stems from the lack of autonomy and weak bargaining power of women (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Eswaran & Malhotra, 2011; Goode, 1971). Indian society is largely characterized by patriarchal, patrilocal, and patrilineal social structures, where women are considered “inferior” and husbands assume that they have the right to dominate and control their wives. Unequal power relations impede women from participation in the decision-making of household matters, restrict their freedom of movement, and limit their access to economic resources, which ultimately exposes them to the risk of domestic violence (Jejeebhoy, 2002). Studies also document that women who get married at an early age, who have lower educational attainment, and who reside in areas of high gender inequality have lower decision-making autonomy in their households (Dyson & Moore, 1983; Jejeebhoy & Sathar, 2001; Tenkorang, 2019). Lack of autonomy might lead to low self-efficacy among women, which predisposes them to domestic violence. Moreover, low self-esteem among women results in higher acceptance of violence perpetrated by their husbands (Miller, 1999). Lack of autonomy not only aggravates domestic violence against women but also affects the utilization of maternal health care (Bloom et al., 2001), which further exerts a negative impact on women’s reproductive health.

Consistent with previous studies (Antai, 2011; Gage & Hutchinson, 2006; Speizer & Pearson, 2011), we also found that women who justified wife-beating by their husbands were more vulnerable to spousal violence. This finding implies that a male-dominated society permits men to abuse their wives within the marital relationship and women’s justification for wife-beating is a reflection of the acceptance of unequal gender norms in a patriarchal society. It is observed that a significant proportion of women, regardless of their socioeconomic status, accept the differential power relations based on gender and admit that men have the right to teach or beat them if they fail to fulfill their gender-specific duties, such as taking care of household chores and children or cooking food properly in a manner that satisfies husbands and in-laws. Women also tend to justify husbands’ wife-beating as a way of rationalizing the treatment meted out to them (Visaria, 2008). The subordination of women and inhuman acts of wife-beating are not unique in India, but cut across almost all cultures and nations. This wife-beating attitude which is conceived as the husband’s right to “correct” an erring wife is widespread in Asian countries, despite their differences in the economic status, education, and work participation of women (Rani & Bonu, 2009).

Similarly, the controlling behavior of the husband was strongly correlated with an elevated likelihood of domestic violence. This finding is also in line with earlier studies conducted in India and elsewhere (Antai, 2011; Gage & Hutchinson, 2006; Nasrullah et al., 2014; Tenkorang, 2019; Visaria, 2008). The controlling behavior of the husband is another form of male domination over women, which is deeply embedded in long-term unequal gender norms in a patriarchal society. In a male-dominated society, men often think they are superior to women and have right to control women. In such a situation, women are unable to exert control over household decision-making and economic resources, which may further lead to powerlessness and expose them to domestic violence victimization. Furthermore, the excessive controlling behavior prompts the husbands to doubt the faithfulness of their wives, and mistrust of their interactions with other men and friends, including their male kin, undermines the basic foundation of a marital relationship (Visaria, 2008). Moreover, the controlling behavior of the husband and women’s experience of incessant violence serve to reduce women’s self-esteem, instill fear in them, and sometimes induce psychological stress, such as anxiety, depression, alcoholism, and post-traumatic stress disorders (Deyessa et al., 2009; Mapayi et al., 2013; Seedat et al., 2005).

This study also demonstrates that child marriage was associated with a higher risk of intimate partner violence compared. This finding is consistent with previous studies conducted in India and in other countries (Erulkar, 2013; Kidman, 2017; Nasrullah et al., 2014; Raj et al., 2010; Speizer & Pearson, 2011; Tenkorang, 2019). Several earlier studies noted that women married as children have limited human capital and educational attainment, which further restricts them from employment opportunities (Nour, 2009; Paul, 2019; Raj et al., 2009). Moreover, the physical and mental immaturity of younger brides renders them less autonomous and powerless. Lack of autonomy among women married as children is partly attributed to the large age gap with their husbands (Nasrullah et al., 2014). Given their limited autonomy and power, women married as children may have an increased risk of intimate partner violence.

Our study also found that women living in rural areas were less likely to experience intimate partner violence compared with those from urban areas, after controlling for potential confounders. This result is in agreement with prior studies conducted in India (Babu & Kar, 2009) and Ghana (Adjah & Agbemafle, 2016), but in contrast with other studies (Antai, 2011; Breiding et al., 2009). In our study, the educational attainment of women and husbands was found to be a protective factor against domestic violence. These findings strengthen the findings of previous studies conducted in developing countries (Ackerson et al., 2008; Antai, 2011; Babu & Kar, 2009). However, the contribution of the husband’s education is slightly lower in reducing the risk of violence against women in this study. Another important predictor of intimate partner violence is alcohol consumption by the husband. Our study indicates that alcohol consumption by the husband was associated with an almost threefold increased likelihood of perpetrating spousal violence. Previous studies in Ghana (Adjah & Agbemafle, 2016) and India (Wagman et al., 2018) also showed similar findings. Poverty is considered one of the risk factors of domestic violence (Jewkes, 2002). In line with prior studies (Babu & Kar, 2009; Martin et al., 1999; Mukamana et al., 2020), the present study also found that the likelihood of spousal violence against women was 46% lower in the richest wealth quintile than in the poorest quintile.

Strengths and Limitations

This study utilized a large-scale representative sample distributed well across the country, which enables us to generalize the findings at the national level. The study results may be compared across low- and middle-income countries because we used the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), which provide ready-to-use data for over 90 countries throughout the world. In addition, our study provides the most recent evidence for understanding the nature of domestic violence against women in India from the gender norms perspective. We analyzed the roles of unequal power relations, attitudes toward wife-beating, and controlling behaviors within intimate relationships in terms of their impact on violence against women, which adds evidence to the growing literature for policymaking, especially in the context of India. However, a major limitation of this study is the use of cross-sectional data. Consequently, it was not possible to assess causal relationships in this study. Further research is warranted using longitudinal data to understand the potential pathways to intimate partner violence. Another data-related limitation of this study is that the data were based on self-reports, so the data may be subject to recall bias.

Policy Implications

This study provides several important policy implications. This study reinforces the association between rigid, unequal gender norms and intimate partner violence, which explains the driving forces of domestic violence beyond socioeconomic status. This study brings out recent evidence for understanding the underlying factors of domestic violence in India, where acceptance of wife-beating is high, women’s decision-making power is limited, and male-dominated culture prevails across the country, though at varying scale from rigid gender norms in the north and northwest to greater egalitarianism in the south (Dyson & Moore, 1983). The findings of our study suggest that priority should be given to girls’ education and female autonomy to reduce and prevent the risk of domestic violence. To improve the educational status of girls, the government should increase funding in education and development of infrastructure in educational institutions (e.g., separate toilets for female students). Furthermore, efforts should be made to spread awareness and build self-efficacy among girls to fight against the rigid patriarchal norms of society (Tenkorang, 2019). Economic interventions, such as conditional cash transfer and micro-credit programs, could break the cycle of poverty and enhance the decision-making autonomy of women, which further could ease the risk of domestic violence against women (Antai, 2011). Another important step would be the elimination of the practice of child marriage to prevent human rights violations and to reduce vulnerability of women to spousal violence, which in turn may help to improve the overall well-being of women. This study further urges the use of community-based interventions to eradicate the harmful traditional norms of society.

Conclusion

Our study has indicated that differential power relations in marital relationships, attitudes toward wife-beating, and controlling behavior of the husband are significantly associated with intimate partner violence against women. Women’s decision-making autonomy plays a positive role in reducing the risk of domestic violence. In contrast, women’s justification of wife-beating and controlling behavior of the husband were found to be associated with an elevated risk of spousal violence. This study also stresses the importance of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics in determining domestic violence against women. The results reveal that women who are living in rural areas, who are uneducated, and who are from poor economic backgrounds are more likely to be exposed to violence perpetrated by the partner, suggesting a targeted approach among these vulnerable groups of women to prevent the inhuman act of violence. Our study also found that older women and women married as children are highly vulnerable to the abusive behavior of their partner. The evidence of this study emphasizes the need for prioritizing girls’ education, enhancing female autonomy, alleviating poverty, preventing child marriage, and promoting gender equality by eliminating harmful socio-cultural norms in the society.

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 iDs

Dinabandhu Mondal

Pintu Paul

Author Biographies

Dinabandhu Mondal, MPhil, is a doctoral scholar at the Center for the Study of Regional Development, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India. He received his MA and MPhil degrees in Geography from Jawaharlal Nehru University. His research interests include urban, peri-urbanization, domestic violence, and public health issues. He has published several research papers in highly recognized journals including Plos One, Environment and Urbanization ASIA, and Midwifery.

Pintu Paul, MPhil, is a doctoral scholar at the Center for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His research focuses on child marriage, domestic violence, and public health issues. He has published several research articles in highly reputed journals including Plos One, Midwifery, and Indian Journal of Human Development. He obtained his MA and MPhil degrees in Geography from Jawaharlal Nehru University, India.

References

Ackerson

L. K.

Kawachi

Barbeau

E. M.

Subramanian

S. V.

(2008). Effects of individual and proximate educational context on intimate partner violence: A population-based study of women in India. American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 507–514.

Ackerson

L. K.

Subramanian

S. V.

(2009). Intimate partner violence and death among infants and children in India. Pediatrics, 124(5), e878–e889.

Adjah

E. S. O.

Agbemafle

(2016). Determinants of domestic violence against women in Ghana. BMC Public Health, 16(1), Article 368.

Agarwal

(1994). A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia: 58. Cambridge University Press.

Antai

(2011). Controlling behavior, power relations within intimate relationships and intimate partner physical and sexual violence against women in Nigeria. BMC Public Health, 11(1), Article 511.

Åsling-Monemi

Tabassum Naved

Persson

L. Å

. (2008). Violence against women and the risk of under-five mortality: Analysis of community-based data from rural Bangladesh. Acta Paediatrica, 97(2), 226–232.

Babu

B. V.

Kar

S. K.

(2009). Domestic violence against women in eastern India: A population-based study on prevalence and related issues. BMC Public Health, 9(1), Article 129.

Bhasin

(1993). What is patriarchy? Kali for Women.

Bloom

S. S.

Wypij

Gupta

M. D.

(2001). Dimensions of women’s autonomy and the influence on maternal health care utilization in a north Indian city. Demography, 38(1), 67–78.

10.

Bonomi

A. E.

Thompson

R. S.

Anderson

Reid

R. J.

Carrell

Dimer

J. A.

Rivara

F. P.

(2006). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical, mental, and social functioning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(6), 458–466.

11.

Boyle

M. H.

Georgiades

Cullen

Racine

(2009). Community influences on intimate partner violence in India: Women’s education, attitudes towards mistreatment and standards of living. Social Science & Medicine, 69(5), 691–697.

12.

Breiding

M. J.

Ziembroski

J. S.

Black

M. C.

(2009). Prevalence of rural intimate partner violence in 16 US states, 2005. Journal of Rural Health, 25(3), 240–246.

13.

Cokkinides

V. E.

Coker

A. L.

Sanderson

Addy

Bethea

(1999). Physical violence during pregnancy: Maternal complications and birth outcomes. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 93(5), 661–666.

14.

Devries

Watts

Yoshihama

Kiss

Schraiber

L. B.

Deyessa

, et al. (2011). Violence against women is strongly associated with suicide attempts: Evidence from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. Social Science & Medicine, 73(1), 79–86.

15.

Deyessa

Berhane

Alem

Ellsberg

Emmelin

Hogberg

Kullgren

(2009). Intimate partner violence and depression among women in rural Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 5(1), Article 8.

16.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

(1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. Free Press.

17.

Dyson

Moore

(1983). On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Population and Development Review, 9, 35–60.

18.

Ellsberg

Heise

Pena

Agurto

Winkvist

(2001). Researching domestic violence against women: Methodological and ethical considerations. Studies in Family Planning, 32(1), 1–16.

19.

Ellsberg

Jansen

H. A.

Heise

Watts

C. H.

Garcia-Moreno

(2008). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: An observational study. Lancet, 371(9619), 1165–1172.

20.

Erulkar

(2013). Early marriage, marital relations and intimate partner violence in Ethiopia. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39, 6–13.

21.

Eswaran

Malhotra

(2011). Domestic violence and women’s autonomy in developing countries: Theory and evidence. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 44(4), 1222–1263.

22.

Faramarzi

Esmaelzadeh

Mosavi

(2005). Prevalence, maternal complications and birth outcome of physical, sexual and emotional domestic violence during pregnancy. Acta Medica Iranica, 43, 115–122.

23.

Gage

A. J.

Hutchinson

P. L.

(2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(1), 11–24.

24.

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. Lancet, 368(9543), 1260–1269.

25.

Goode

W. J.

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

26.

Graham-Kevan

Archer

(2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(11), 1247–1270.

27.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

(1998). Beliefs about wife beating among Palestinian women: The influence of their patriarchal ideology. Violence Against Women, 4(5), 533–558.

28.

Heise

(1993). Violence against women: The hidden health burden. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 46(1), 78–85.

29.

International Institute for Population Sciences and ICF. (2017). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015-16: India. International Institute for Population Sciences. http://rchiips.org/nfhs/NFHS-4Reports/India.pdf

30.

Jejeebhoy

S. J.

(2002). Convergence and divergence in spouses’ perspectives on women’s autonomy in rural India. Studies in Family Planning, 33(4), 299–308.

31.

Jejeebhoy

S. J.

Sathar

Z. A.

(2001). Women’s autonomy in India and Pakistan: The influence of religion and region. Population and Development Review, 27(4), 687–712.

32.

Jewkes

(2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. Lancet, 359(9315), 1423–1429.

33.

Jewkes

Levin

Penn-Kekana

(2002). Risk factors for domestic violence: Findings from a South African cross-sectional study. Social Science & Medicine, 55(9), 1603–1617.

34.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.

35.

Kamimura

Ganta

Myers

Thomas

(2017). Intimate partner violence, childhood abuse, and in-law abuse among women utilizing community health services in Gujarat, India. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(24), 3778–3796.

36.

Karamagi

C. A.

Tumwine

J. K.

Tylleskar

Heggenhougen

(2007). Intimate partner violence and infant morbidity: Evidence of an association from a population-based study in eastern Uganda in 2003. BMC Pediatrics, 7(1), Article 34.

37.

Kaslow

N. J.

Thompson

M. P.

Meadows

L. A.

Jacobs

Chance

Gibb

, et al. (1998). Factors that mediate and moderate the link between partner abuse and suicidal behavior in African American women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(3), 533–540.

38.

Kidman

(2017). Child marriage and intimate partner violence: A comparative study of 34 countries. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(2), 662–675.

39.

Kimuna

S. R.

Djamba

Y. K.

Ciciurkaite

Cherukuri

(2013). Domestic violence in India: Insights from the 2005-2006 national family health survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(4), 773–807.

40.

Koenig

M. A.

Stephenson

Ahmed

Jejeebhoy

S. J.

Campbell

(2006). Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. American Journal of Public Health, 96(1), 132–138.

41.

Krishnaraj

(2007). Understanding violence against women. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(44), 90–91.

42.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

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

43.

Kwagala

Wandera

S. O.

Ndugga

Kabagenyi

(2013). Empowerment, partner’s behaviours and intimate partner physical violence among married women in Uganda. BMC Public Health, 13(1), Article 1112.

44.

Lamichhane

Puri

Tamang

Dulal

(2011). Women’s status and violence against young married women in rural Nepal. BMC Women’s Health, 11(1), Article 19.

45.

Liu

C. L. J.

Regehr

(2008). Power and control as a framework for practice—The case of intimate partner violence work in Taiwan. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 8(4), Article 381.

46.

Mahapatro

Gupta

R. N.

Gupta

(2012). The risk factor of domestic violence in India. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 37(3), 153–157.

47.

Mapayi

Makanjuola

R. O. A.

Mosaku

S. K.

Adewuya

O. A.

Afolabi

Aloba

O. O.

Akinsulore

(2013). Impact of intimate partner violence on anxiety and depression amongst women in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 16(1), 11–18.

48.

Martin

S. L.

Tsui

A. O.

Maitra

Marinshaw

(1999). Domestic violence in northern India. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150(4), 417–426.

49.

Miller

B. D.

(1999). Wife beating in India: Variations on a theme. In Counts

D. A.

Brown

J. K.

Campbell

J. C.

(Eds.), To have and to hit: Cultural perspectives on wife beating (pp. 203–215). University of Illinois Press.

50.

Mondal

Paul

(2020). Association between intimate partner violence and child nutrition in India: Findings from recent National Family Health Survey. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105493, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105493

51.

Mukamana

J. I. I.

Machakanja

Adjei

N. K.

(2020). Trends in prevalence and correlates of intimate partner violence against women in Zimbabwe, 2005–2015. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 20(1), Article 2.

52.

Nasrullah

Zakar

M. Z.

(2014). Child marriage and its associations with controlling behaviors and spousal violence against adolescent and young women in Pakistan. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(6), 804–809.

53.

Nour

N. M.

(2009). Child marriage: A silent health and human rights issue. Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2(1), 51–56.

54.

Paul

(2019). Effects of education and poverty on the prevalence of girl child marriage in India: A district–level analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 16–21.

55.

Paul

Mondal

(2020). Maternal experience of intimate partner violence and its association with morbidity and mortality of children: Evidence from India. PLOS ONE, 15(4), Article e0232454.

56.

Pico-Alfonso

M. A.

Garcia-Linares

M. I.

Celda-Navarro

Blasco-Ros

Echeburúa

Martinez

(2006). The impact of physical, psychological, and sexual intimate male partner violence on women’s mental health: Depressive symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, state anxiety, and suicide. Journal of Women’s Health, 15(5), 599–611.

57.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. (2005). Ministry of law and justice. The Gazette of India. https://wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/wdvact.pdf

58.

Rahman

Nakamura

Seino

Kizuki

(2013). Does gender inequity increase the risk of intimate partner violence among women? Evidence from a national Bangladeshi sample. PLOS ONE, 8(12), Article e82423.

59.

Raj

Saggurti

Balaiah

Silverman

J. G.

(2009). Prevalence of child marriage and its effect on fertility and fertility-control outcomes of young women in India: A cross-sectional, observational study. Lancet, 373(9678), 1883–1889.

60.

Raj

Saggurti

Lawrence

Balaiah

Silverman

J. G.

(2010). Association between adolescent marriage and marital violence among young adult women in India. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 110(1), 35–39.

61.

Rani

Bonu

(2009). Attitudes toward wife beating: A cross-country study in Asia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(8), 1371–1397.

62.

Rastogi

Therly

(2006). Dowry and its link to violence against women in India: Feminist psychological perspectives. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7(1), 66–77.

63.

Robbie Rossman

B. B.

(2000). Posttraumatic response and children exposed to parental violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 3(1), 85–106.

64.

Seedat

Stein

M. B.

Forde

D. R.

(2005). Association between physical partner violence, posttraumatic stress, childhood trauma, and suicide attempts in a community sample of women. Violence and Victims, 20(1), 87–98.

65.

Speizer

I. S.

Pearson

(2011). Association between early marriage and intimate partner violence in India: A focus on youth from Bihar and Rajasthan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(10), 1963–1981.

66.

Srinivasan

Bedi

A. S.

(2007). Domestic violence and dowry: Evidence from a South Indian village. World Development, 35(5), 857–880.

67.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.

68.

Sugihara

Warner

J. A.

(2002). Dominance and domestic abuse among Mexican Americans: Gender differences in the etiology of violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 17(4), 315–340.

69.

Taylor

C. A.

Guterman

N. B.

Lee

S. J.

Rathouz

P. J.

(2009). Intimate partner violence, maternal stress, nativity, and risk for maternal maltreatment of young children. American Journal of Public Health, 99(1), 175–183.

70.

Tenkorang

E. Y.

(2019). Explaining the links between child marriage and intimate partner violence: Evidence from Ghana. Child Abuse & Neglect, 89, 48–57.

71.

Visaria

(2000). Violence against women: A field study. Economic and Political Weekly, 43, 1742–1751.

72.

Visaria

(2008). Violence against women in India: Is empowerment a protective factor? Economic and Political Weekly, 43, 60–66.

73.

Wagman

J. A.

Donta

Ritter

Naik

D. D.

Nair

Saggurti

, et al. (2018). Husband’s alcohol use, intimate partner violence, and family maltreatment of low-income postpartum women in Mumbai, India. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(14), 2241–2267.

74.

Wilson-Williams

Stephenson

Juvekar

Andes

(2008). Domestic violence and contraceptive use in a rural Indian village. Violence Against Women, 14(10), 1181–1198.

75.

Women’s Aid. (n.d.). What is coercive control? https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/coercive-control/

76.

World Health Organization. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Summary report of initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. https://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/summary_report/summary_report_English2.pdf

77.

World Health Organization. (2006). Gender-based violence in the western pacific region: A hidden epidemic? WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific.

78.

World Health Organization. (2019). Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against women. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329889/WHO-RHR-19.16-eng.pdf?ua=1

79.

Yount

K. M.

DiGirolamo

A. M.

Ramakrishnan

(2011). Impacts of domestic violence on child growth and nutrition: A conceptual review of the pathways of influence. Social Science & Medicine, 72(9), 1534–1554.

Associations of Power Relations,Wife-Beating Attitudes,and Controlling Behavior of Husband With Domestic Violence Against Women in India: Insights From the National Family Health Survey–4

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Framework for Understanding Domestic Violence Against Women

Materials and Method

Data Source

Study Participants

Outcome Variables

Key Predictors

Confounders

Statistical Analyses

Results

Distribution of the Study Population

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence by Key Predictors and Sociodemographic Characteristics

Associations of Power Relations, Wife-Beating Attitudes, and Controlling Behavior of Husband With Domestic Violence

Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

Policy Implications

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References