Abstract
Attitudes toward intimate partner violence (IPV) are known predictors of IPV victimization and perpetration with more women generally believed to justify IPV than men. An understanding of the determinants of justification of IPV may provide information necessary for holistic interventions. This study sought to examine the magnitude, extent, and predictors of justification of physical IPV against women among men and women in Nigeria. Data from 33,385 women and 15,486 men from the 2008 Nigerian demographic and health surveys were analyzed using chi-square test and multiple logistic regressions. Results show that although larger proportions of women justified physical IPV, certain categories of men such as poor, illiterate men, and men with secondary education justified abuse more than women. Contrary to expectations, access to radio/TV increased the odds of justifying abuse among women thus casting doubts on program content. The gender differences observed for predictors of attitudes to physical IPV suggest a need for gender-tailored interventions to change attitudes toward partner violence in Nigeria.
Highlights
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global public health problem gaining attention worldwide due to the numerous known negative consequences including injury (Sheridan & Nash, 2007), alcohol and substance abuse (Campbell, 2002; Ellsberg, Jansen, Heise, Watts, & Garcia-Moreno, 2008), negative reproductive health outcomes (Okenwa, Lawoko, & Jansson, 2009, 2011), and mental health problems (Aidoo & Harpham, 2001; Ali, Mogren, & Krantz 2013)
More women than men justified abuse for at least one of the stated reason. For both men and women, two scenarios most likely to lead to justification of physical IPV were if the wife went out without telling her husband and if she neglected the children
The endorsement physical IPV was most prevalent in the Hausa/Fulani ethnic group and women living in the North Western region
Summary
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global public health problem gaining attention worldwide due to the numerous known negative consequences including injury (Sheridan & Nash, 2007), alcohol and substance abuse (Campbell, 2002; Ellsberg, Jansen, Heise, Watts, & Garcia-Moreno, 2008), negative reproductive health outcomes (Okenwa, Lawoko, & Jansson, 2009, 2011), and mental health problems (Aidoo & Harpham, 2001; Ali, Mogren, & Krantz 2013). Research findings suggest that IPV against women may be more prevalent in low-income and more gender-stratified settings (Beauchamp, Lindsay, Hunter, & Talavera, 2012; Oyediran & Isiugo-Abanihe, 2005; Sabarwal, Santhya, & Jejeebhoy, 2014). There are many individual-level risk factors associated with IPV victimization, for example, being of a young age, low or no education, financial dependence on a partner, unemployment, and alcohol use (Jewkes, 2002; Uthman, Lawoko, & Moradi, 2009). One risk factor that is currently gaining more focus in research is attitude toward IPV. Substantial evidence suggesting associations between IPV justification and exposure (Abramsky et al, 2011) imply a need for understanding attitudes in especially middle and low-income countries. Research coming from Africa shows that men and women may vary in their attitude to IPV (Rani, Bonu, & Diop-Sidibe, 2004; Uthman et al, 2009)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
