Public Justification of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Literature

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 13(3) 167-175 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1524838012447699 http://tva.sagepub.com

Eve Waltermaurer1

Abstract Understanding the extent to which the general public justifies intimate partner violence (IPV) is necessarily to explain perpetration, victimization, and response to this behavior. This article provides a literature review of quantitative studies measuring IPV justification among the general population. Key word searching of two databases plus bibliographies, and the web yielded 23 studies that provided comparable measures of IPV justification. Results are summarized for the prevalence of IPV justification identified for each country including differences in justification based on the initiating event (e.g., burning food and infidelity), sociodemographic differences in justification and differences across countries. No study identified a zero prevalence of IPV justification and percentages varied considerably across and within countries. Females tended to report a higher rate of IPV justification than males and younger respondents tended to report a higher rate IPV justification than their older counterparts. Further research is needed to understand IPV justification within and across nations as well as to explore the impact this has on IPV prevalence and policy. Keywords domestic violence, domestic violence and cultural contexts, perceptions of domestic violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) involves a complex interaction between the perpetrator and victim of the abuse, and those in the community. The community may serve as a bystander, such as a child or family member, who witnesses the violence and either responds or not. The community also includes those who seek to prevent this violence from occurring again, including victim services and criminal justice. However, there is a third element of the community that is often ignored but who may yield the greatest influence over IPV perpetration, victimization, and response. This third element is the generalized attitudes held by the society where the violence occurs about whether or not an individual has the right to hurt his partner. While the growth of IPV research worldwide has led to an increased understanding of similarities among IPV victims and perpetrators across the globe and the notable differences in partner violence policies and laws among different countries (United Nations General Assembly, 1996), there has been lesser attention in the field of IPV research on how the general public views these acts. This article serves as a comprehensive literature review of the existing research on public perceptions of IPV across the globe with a specific focus on IPV justification. A behavior can be illegal but not socially unacceptable (e.g., underage drinking and speeding). This focus on social justification of IPV is explored as, conceptually, perceptions of whether this type violence is justified plays an important role in determining whether a perpetrator commits this act, if a victim reports this act, and whether a third party responds.

A Social Justification of IPV Model

Figure 1 presents a conceptual model of the impact of social justification of IPV on the behaviors of the perpetrator, the victim, and any third party who is directly or indirectly informed of the abuse. This model argues that in a community where a higher proportion of the general population feels that IPV is justifiable, a potential perpetrator will be more likely to feel he or she has the right, should the cause arise. This perception of increased right would result in an increased incidence of perpetration. After the abuse, in this community that feels that IPV is justifiable, the victim is likely to agree that her abuse was justifiable and as a result, he or she will be less likely to report this abuse to a third party or allow a third party to intervene. If the abuse is witnessed or reported in a community that believes these acts are justifiable, it can be postulated that less or no response will be enacted (even if there are laws against the violence). To connect this model with a theoretical framework, if a community feels IPV is a justifiable behavior, then engagement

Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New Paltz, NY, USA

Corresponding Author: Eve Waltermaurer, Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New Paltz, NY 12561, USA Email: walterme@newpaltz.edu

168

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 13(3)

PRIOR TO ABUSE

AFTER ABUSE Bystander/ Criminal Justice Victim deserves abuse

HIGH SOCIAL JUSTIFICATION

Perpetrator I have the right to abuse

Abuse

Victim I deserve abuse

Reporting

Response

increase LOW SOCIAL JUSTIFICATION I do not have the right to abuse decrease I do not deserve abuse

decrease Victim does not deserve abuse increase

decrease

increase

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the influence of social justification of intimate partner violence on perpetrator, victims, and responders.

in this type of violence would not be an act of social deviance but rather normative behavior. The role of social acceptability of individual behavior was likely first conceptualized by Mead (1959) and developed by modern symbolic interactionists, who argue that individuals see themselves through the eyes of others. Specifically, Mead explains that the community around us, the generalized other plays a determining factor in how a person sees himself or herself. Therefore, if an individual lives in a community that strongly feels that IPV is justifiable, he or she is likely to be encouraged toward defining this behavior for himself or herself. Similarly, this theory would purport that the victim will view his or her behaviors in light of what society finds acceptable. If he or she understands that his or her community feels that IPV is potentially justified, not only will he or she likely agree but whether he or she agreed or not, it would seem illogical to him or her to seek protection from a community that supported the violent response. Furthermore, the IPV bystanders, witnesses known and not known to the victims or perpetrator as well as the criminal justice system will logically be less likely to respond negatively to a behavior that they, the community, feel is warranted. This is further supported when considering traditional theories of the cause of violence which identify that active social rejection to this deviant behavior allows social groups to protect themselves against such acts (Sampson, 1993; Shaw & McKay, 1942). Therefore, it is not surprising that, when examining IPV, social organization and collective efficacy have not successfully predicted its prevention or perpetration; it has been argued that this is most likely due to the fact that these behaviors are not uniformly perceived as wrong (Frye & Wilt, 2001; Waltermaurer, 2007). In addition, Browning (2002) identified that community norms of nonintervention were associated with increased levels of nonlethal IPV; in other words, when society felt that partner violence was not their business they are more likely to ignore these behaviors. While the source of these nonintervention norms are not discussed, it is reasonable that social attitudes toward the acceptability of this violence plays a role. This lack of response extends to the criminal justice system as it has been found that individuals are less likely to report

IPV to police when they feel the police do not care about this type of violence (Emery, Jolley, & Wu, 2010). It is further plausible that social acceptance of this behavior further mitigates the effect of policies and legislation against it. This literature review examines social justification of IPV across the globe by presenting published research that has asked this question from general population samples. This examination explores the known prevalence of IPV justification including differences in justification based on the initiating event (e.g., burning food and infidelity), sociodemographic differences in justification, and differences across countries.

Method Search Strategy

A search was conducted using Academic Search (19962011), which provides access to approximately 7,300 journals in various fields. This search engine was utilized as it includes the four most prominent family violence journals. In addition, other articles were identified through the bibliography sections of appropriate articles and Internet searches. Given the various nomenclatures used for partner violence and related public attitudes, a broad net was cast initially using five search terms for partner violence (wife battering, domestic violence, partner violence, marital violence, and domestic abuse) and five for attitudes (attitude, belief, accept*, opinion, and perception), yielding 25 different search patterns. As Academic Search has limited holdings in medicine and public health, these same couplings were also processed through Medline. The initial selection process focused on identifying potentially relevant and comparable empirical articles examining general social perceptions toward partner violence. The search process identified a total of 687 unique English language articles. An initial review of each article resulted in the exclusion of 576 article as they were a review or periodical or had no relation to the topic. For example, the search combination of accept* and domestic abuse yielded 377 articles primarily related to child abuse. Of the remaining 114 articles,

Waltermaurer 23 were selected for inclusion according to the following parameters:

169 male participants. Those conducted through the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) selected only males aged 1554 and females aged 1549. The age requirement differed somewhat across the non-DHS studies. Three countries were represented by only currently married respondents, with one (Ghana) used only married couples and another (Iran) required respondents to have been married for at least five years. In addition, two studies required that respondents were ever married and two required that respondents were currently in some romantic relationship. The remaining had no relationship restrictions. It is significant to note that a considerable amount of research has argued that to understand IPV it is important to look beyond the traditional husbandwife relationship and include unmarried couples as well as those who are divorced, separated, or otherwise expartners (Waltermaurer, 2005). These marital sampling restrictions potentially create a selection bias in those countries. IPV justification was measured in 10 situations: victims fault (i.e., the woman asked for it and the provocative nature of women), food preparation problems (e.g., burning food and serving late), neglect of a child, refusal to have sex, arguing back, going out without permission, disobeying husband, insulting husband, infidelity (actual or suspected), or suspicion of a girlfriend (or jealousy). The exact wording of these measures differed slightly. The four most common, food preparation problems (e.g., burning food and serving late), neglect of a child, refusal to have sex, arguing back, were derived primarily from published articles utilizing data collected through the DHS. The DHS data were the source for all research identified as utilizing a sub-Saharan African population as well as those centered on Turkey, Palestine and Jordan, and Asia. The remaining articles used such alternative instrumentation as a World Health Organization measure, the Inventory of Beliefs about Battered Women, Intimate Partner Violence against Women survey, the Situational Specific Approval of Violence, or researcher-designed instruments.

Eligibility Criteria
Date. Because this review considers current general attitudes toward partner violence, only those articles written in 2000 or later were included. Sample. As this review seeks to summarize public opinion, samples needed to have been drawn from the general population and include no fewer than 100 participants. Therefore, articles examining opinions within a particular profession, for example physicians and police, or derived from samples of either victims or perpetrators of partner violence, were excluded. Operationalization of IPV justification. Studies were excluded if they only gauged opinion regarding the prevalence of IPV or if IPV justification was measured on more general terms, such as only asking respondents whether they felt IPV was right or wrong. Also those estimates of why an individual might abuse a partner were excluded as these did not inform the reader as to whether or not the respondent felt the IPV was justified or not. Studies measuring perceived causes of violence were also excluded, since agreeing that a certain act might precipitate an episode of IPV does not equate with justifying that behavior. If perception scores for individual questions were only presented in a generalized recoded format (e.g., high acceptance vs. low acceptance), an attempt was made to contact the author to get specific item responses. Lastly, studies that focused on same-sex relationships were excluded, as they were few in number and addressed a unique area of partner violence. Design. The sampling restriction of a minimum of 100 respondents excluded all qualitative studies. The decision was also made to exclude electronically accessible raw data that provided public opinion results about partner violence, as it was not the goal of this article to conduct a meta-analysis but rather a review of the literature. Much of these data have been incorporated into the included published articles.

Prevalence of IPV Justification

In each country represented, some proportion felt that IPV was justified in at least one scenario (Table 2). The lowest prevalence ratesome below 1%came from New Zealand and Cyprus. These two studies were specifically on the topic of violence against women (unlike the others); this context may have had some implication on respondent attitudes. In contrast, of the 67 countries, 12 (18%) had up to 50% or more of the respondents justify IPV in at least one scenario: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria, Palestine, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The scenarios for which the most people felt justified IPV were when a woman neglects her children or goes out without her husbands permission. While the poor care of the home justified IPV for the fewest people, it was the highest cause for IPV among the Jordan sample. The behavior that is associated with a high risk of actual partner violence, infidelity (see for example, Daly & Wilson, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Gage & Hutchinson, 2006) did yield relatively high support for abuse when asked;

Results Description of Studies

This review identified 23 papers representing 61 counties that had a random national sample or census survey and 6 that used a subpopulation, typically smaller sample, for a total of 67 countries where IPV justification was assessed (Table 1). In most studies, the population was drawn utilizing a randomized sampling of the general population. The exceptions occurred in a Palestine-based study that utilized a convenient general sample from a clinic population, a U.S. Vietnamese and U.S. Korean study whose respondents were selected conveniently from ethnic communities and a U.S. study based in Upstate New York. Thirteen of the studies included males and females, seven focused solely on female participants, and three on only

Table 1. Description of Studies Location Year of Data Collection Sample Size Sample Instrument/ Comments

170 Turkey Nigeria India Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, UK New Zealand/Auckland Not noted 1999/2004 1999 2001/2002 1999/2000 2002 2003 2003 1998/2001 2006 2005 20032007 5,743 5,390 4,205 8,075 13,493 3,067 1,190 9,143-24,000 2,498 5,907 5,970 2,674 Spain Zimbabwe Zambia Zambia, Kenya Jordan Ghana 20022003 26,800 Male/Female 15 and older 1998 2003 19981999 1,971 3,725 68,466 Male, 1549, married Female, 1549 Female, 1549, married DHS NFHS NZVAW DHS DHS DHS DHS Male/female 1864, partnered Male/female 18 and older Female,15-49 Male, 1559; female, 1549 Male, 1559 Female, 1549, ever married Male/female 1559, married couples Female 1549 Male 1559; Female 1549 Turkey Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Cambodia Uganda Moscow Ethiopia, Burkino Faso, Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Liberia, Mozambique, Ghana, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Benin, Rwanda, Swaziland, Namibia, Malawi, Madagascar United States Palestine Israel, Arab Iran United States, Vietnamese/Korean Nigeria Cyprus Male/female 1549, Ever married Male/female 18 and older Male/female 1559 MHS DHS 2000 2006 Not provided 2005 Not provided 2003 2007 1,200 450 362 477 413 297 401 Male/female 18 and older Female, 1549 New York Health Clinic Male, 2070 Male, 2545, married 5 years Male/female 20 and older Male/female 18 and older Female, 1860, in current relationship. Southern California

Author and Year

Probability and census samples

Akin and Ozaydin (2005) Antai and Antai (2009) Boyle, Georgiades, Cullen, and Racine (2009) Eurobarometer domestic violence against women (2010)

Fanslow, Robinson, Crengle, and Perese (2010) Gracia, Herrero, and Lila (2008) Hindin (2003) Klomegah (2008)

Lawoko (2008) Linos, Khawaja, and Al-Nsour (2010)

Mann and Takyi (2009)

Marshall and Furr (2010) Rani and Bonu (2008)

Speizer (2010)

DHS 67% Indian Females DHS

Stickley, Kislitsyna, Timofeeva, and gero (2008) Va Uthman, Lawok, and Moradi (2009)

Nonprobability/small sample

Worden and Carlson (2005) Dhaher, Mikolajczyk, Maxwell, and mer (2010) Kra Haj-Yahia (2003) Hamzeh, Farshi, and Laflamme (2008)

Kim-Goh and Baello (2008)

Ogunjuyigbe, Akinlo, and Ebigbola (2005) Spyrou, Antoniou, and Agathokleous (2007)

Waltermaurer
Table 2. Percentage Supporting Partner Violence Across Measured Scenarios Victims fault* Poor care of home/burns food Neglects child Argues back 20/9 14 19 350/121 24/13 26 48/22 12 425/311 22* 6 5 0.2 45/28 52 61 5 1159/549 57/43 49 64/45 33 2540/2227 39* 23 23 37/19 45 49 356/341 43/35 42 57/38 40 934/1136 29 36 Goes out without permission 41/23 39 78 1057/4540 55/39 60 83/55 30 1137/1025 35

171

Location

Refuses sex 27/13 28 40 3 738/225 34/19 27 53/24 28 316/415 17 15 0.1

Disobeys

Insults Suspects a him Infidelity girlfriend

Africa/sub-Saharan Ghana Kenya Nigeria Nigeria SubSaharan** Uganda Zambia Zambia Zimbabwe East Asia and the Pacific Asia** India Turkey Turkey New Zealand Europe Cyprus EU** 39 Spain 54 Moscow Middle East Iran Israel and Arab Jordan Palestine Western hemisphere United 23 States United States and Asian

66

31

0.5

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

2 53 57

12 65

1 75 29 24 25 53 49 10 59

12 63

1 49

25 60 5 37 37 4 11

15 3 2 17

Note. Plain Text: Male, Bold Text: Female, Italicized Text: Combined Gender; *: Various wording were used under this construct such as Some women who are abused secretly want to be treated that way; ** Multiple Countries combined.

however, infidelity justified IPV equally or less than going out without permission in Nigeria and India, and equally or less than when a wife argues with her husband in Moscow and Iran.

Sociodemographic Differences
Compared to their male counterparts, females were more likely to justify IPV in the selected studies. When both genders were surveyed, females reported a higher rate of IPV justification two thirds of the time, with a percentage point difference ranging from 1% to 35%. When the male justification rate in a particular country was higher for a given scenario, the gender difference was minor. Nine studies conducted multivariate analyses to predict IPV justification to explore the impact of other sociodemographic factors (Table 3). These studies identified that individuals who were more likely to justify IPV were younger, had little or no education, were currently married, were poor, unemployed, and from

rural communities. Other measures of patriarchy in the family presented an increased risk for IPV justification (Marshall; Uthman), as did witnessing ones father beat ones mother (Speitzer). The most consistent finding was that younger respondents were more likely to justify IPV than their older counterparts. Females under age 24 showed up to twice the likelihood of justifying IPV compared with older females. One study identified that males under age 25 had 2.5 times the likelihood of justifying IPV than their older counterparts, and another found that males aged 18 30 were 3.6 times more likely to justify IPV compared with older males.

Differences Across Countries

There are some notable differences when comparing across countries. For example, on the island of Madagascar, there is low justificationless than 8%of IPV overall with the

172
Table 3. Factors Predicting IPV Justification

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 13(3)

Factor predicting increased justification of IPV Author and year Antai and Antai (2009) Linos, Khawaja, and Al-Nsour (2010) Marshall and Furr (2010) Rani and Banu (2008) Speizer (2010) gero (2008) Stickley, Kislitsyna, Timofeeva, and Va Uthman, Lawok, and Moradi (2010) mer (2010) Dhaher, Mikolajczyk, Maxwell, and Kra Country/ region Nigeria Jordan Turkey Asia Uganda Moscow Africa Palestine Sample gender F F F M/F M/F M/F M/F F Younger age Lower education Currently married Not Poor working Rural

exception of females and only when a child is neglected. In contrast, the neighboring countries on the mainland, Mozambique and Tanzania show a 3040% support for partner violence across all scenarios. However, there appear to be far more variability within countries across scenarios and gender than there was between countries. Very few countries showed either a consistently low or a consistently high justification of IPV. In fact, respondents within a country were more likely to report a higher rate of IPV justification for one circumstance but a lower rate for another. For example, the Nepal prevalence of IPV justification was below 10% regarding food preparation, refusal of sex, and, for females, arguing back, however, one quarter of Nepalese males and females felt IPV was justified when children were neglected.

Discussion
Internationally there has been a small but growing examination of the general publics social perception of IPV (e.g., DirectorateGeneral for Justice, Freedom and Security, 2010; Gracia & Herrero, 2006). This includes the development and implementation of the DHSs Womens Status and Empowerment, a global research project by the U.S. Agency for International Development, generating data specifically examining public justification of IPV in multiple nations. This review identifies that among the countries represented in existing studies, IPV is justifiable to a significant proportion of the population as a response to certain failures on the part of the female. Interestingly, in the sampled countries, it was more typical for females to justify IPV than males and for both genders, neglect of the child warranted the greatest justification for IPV. It appears also that individuals most likely to justify IPV tend to be poorer and come from rural communities with limited education and employment. Not unexpectedly, greater justification of IPV yielded from individuals likely to support patriarchal ideals. Considering that IPV has had global attention for over a decade, as evidenced by the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing where this behavior was denounced by then United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, one could assume that, while older populations appear fixed in their attitudes toward IPV, younger populations should be influenced by increased global understanding of this problem. However, this review repeatedly found that the younger

population (individuals under the age of 30) tended to justify IPV morenot lessthan their elders. This greater acceptance by younger populations may lend insight into the increased victimization rate among younger women. Although IPV occurs across continents and cultures, public perception of IPV is typically distinguished by the cultural norms of a specific group (Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Parish, Wang, Laumann, Pan, & Luo, 2004; Tajaden & Thoennes, 2000). This review focused more on differences between nations rather than between cultures; often within one country, multiple cultures are represented. Our current understanding, that partner violence holds different implications across cultural groups (Senturia, Sullivan, Ciske, & Shiu-Thornton, 2000), can be applied toward understanding the potential differences of IPV justification between cultural group. The culture role of women in a society, which is intricately tied into the larger cultural value system, defines both the status and rights of women. This, in turn, can define whether the larger social group feels that a partner has the right to abuse and whether the fault of the abuse is with the victim rather than the offender. For example, the heightened importance of family over individuality that is found in many Asian cultures (Yoshihama, 2002) may help explain the high rate of justification in Asian populations particularly when a child is being neglected. When the bride is culturally viewed as the property of the husband, a husbands violence may be viewed as his right and responsibility (Horne, 1999). As a result, satisfied that he is not violating the norms of his cultural group, the perpetration of violence becomes more likely. After the violence, within cultures where the role of women is maintained primarily within the household, her knowledge of legal rights and understanding of help-seeking behaviors is foreign. Not only does this further challenge her perspective that the abuse may not be justifiable, it also limits the likelihood that she will seek assistance from a third party. Finally, cultural perspectives of the role of women in relation to their spouses impact whether witnesses and the criminal justice system define any abusive act by a husband as criminal or even wrong. That is, if a wifes behavior crosses cultural expectations not only is it plausible that both males and females feel punishment is justified, but it is further possible that these individuals do not see this punishment as an act of violence. It should be added that the Western cultural lens often prevents many IPV

Waltermaurer researchers from considering the cultural implications on an individuals comfort in participating in these surveys in the first place. In many cultures these surveys may be the first time individuals have ever been asked such private matters by strangers. Particularly for the women in these cultures, there is no doubt that survey participation exceeds the comfort level of many which may have further implications on the findings. This review is subject to a few limitations worth noting. This review represents only 61 countries or just over 30% of the approximately 195 countries in the world. Furthermore, within certain countries, sampling restrictions provided a limited lens to the attitudes in that country. For example, in Israel, only an Arab population is represented and in the United States the sample includes only those living in northern New York and those in southern California of Vietnamese and Korean descent. Second, there were inconsistencies in how researchers measured IPV justification. While most used the DHS measure of a husband being justified in beating his wife across 46 scenarios, the U.S. survey based in New York presented more indirect justification questions such as asking whether abused women secretly wanted to be abused and whether IPV was due to adultery (Worden & Carlson, 2005). Similarly, the EU study asked those sampled whether they felt IPV was acceptable at least in some circumstances and whether IPV was caused by the provocative nature of women (Gracia & Herrero, 2006). Finally, an Israeli-based study of ultra-orthodox males was excluded as it provided very culturally specific scenarios such as whether IPV was justifiable if the wife does or says something to reduce the chances of an arranged marriage for his child (Steinmetz & Haj-Yahia, 2006). IPV is a prevalent problem worldwide. While this act easily crosses cultural divides, justification of this behavior differs both between and within countries. Future efforts to implement education and policy aimed at preventing IPV should include an understanding of the social perceptions of whether or not this behavior is wrong. Otherwise, efforts to prevent it will be relatively futile. Finally, this review identified that we lack an understanding of IPV justification across the entire globe. Further research of countries not included in this review is warranted, for as long as IPV is viewed as justifiable behavior we cannot expect much reduction of this behavior or improved policy prohibiting it.
What is known: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a problem that crosses nations boundaries and cultural divides. However, there is a disparity over the responses to IPV worldwide and the efforts to reduce this violence have shown only minimal success, supporting the need to understand the extent that our societies justify this behavior. What this article adds: This article offers a comprehensive review of the current literature exploring public justification of intimate partner violence, specifically violence against women. It identifies that justification of IPV exists worldwide, more prevalent in some countries than in others. In addition, this review identified that IPV is more often justified by females and individuals under the age of 30.

173

Critical Findings
 The reported prevalence of IPV justification ranged from 2% to 60% in the scenario: If a wife burns the food or fails to serve it on time. An IPV justification prevalence range of 564% was found for the scenario When a wife neglects her children. A range of less than 138% felt IPV was justified in the scenario: When a wife refuses sex. Lastly, an IPV justification prevalence range of 156% was found for the scenario: When a wife argues back to her husband. Few studies examined the cause of IPV justification. Of those that did, partner violence toward women was found to be more often justified by females and individuals under the age of 30. In addition, it was consistently found that individuals who were more likely to justify IPV were from rural communities, had little or no education, and were poor. There are many gaps to our knowledge internationally about the justification of IPV particularly in Europe and the Western Hemisphere.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

 Responding to IPV incidence is dictated by individual and social acceptance of this behavior. Therefore, to respond appropriately in any environment it is germane to assess the degree to which the practitioner, victim, and offender feel that the partner violence was justified. There is a disparity over the responses to IPV worldwide and the efforts to reduce this violence have shown only minimal success supporting the need to understand the extent that our societies justify this behavior. Further research is needed to provide a more expansive picture of the extent to which multiple societies justify IPV. This information should further be used to understand the development of IPV prevention policies and to measure the implication of social IPV justification on IPV prevalence within countries.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Akin, L., & Ozaydin, N. (2005). The relationship between males attitudes to partner violence and use of contraceptive methods in Turkey. European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 10, 199206. Antai, D., & Antai, J. (2009). Collective violence and attitudes of women toward intimate partner violence: Evidence from the Niger

174
Delta. BMC International of Health Human Rights, 9, 12. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/9/12 Boyle, M., Georgiades, K., Cullen, J., & Racine, Y. (2009). Community influences on intimate partner violence in India: Womens education, attitudes toward mistreatment and standards of living. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 691697. Browning, C. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization. Theory to partner violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 833850. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Dhaher, E., Mikolajczyk, R., Maxwell, A., & Kra mer, A. (2010). Attitudes toward wife beating among Palestinian women of reproductive age from three cities in West Bank. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 18537. Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security. (2010). Directorate-General Communication. Eurobarometer 73.2. Domestic Violence against Women. Belgium. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press. Emery, C., Jolley, J., & Wu, S. (2010, October 21). Desistance from intimate partner violence: The role of legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and social disorganization in Chicago neighborhoods. American Journal Community Psychology. Eurobarometer 73.2 Domestic Violence against Women. (2010). Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of DirectorateGeneral for Justice, Freedom and Security (DG Justice after the administrative reorganisation). Directorate-General Communication. Fanslow, J., Robinson, E., Crengle, S., & Perese, L. (2010). Juxtaposing beliefs and reality: Prevalence rates of intimate partner violence and attitudes to violence and gender roles reported by New Zealand women. Violence Against Women, 16, 812831. Frye, V., & Wilt, S. (2001). Femicide and social disorganization. Violence Against Women, 7, 335351. Gage, A. J., & Hutchinson, P. L. (2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 1124. Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006). Acceptability of domestic violence against women in the European Union: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60, 123129. Gracia, E., Herrero, J., & Lila, M. (2008). Explaining the immigrationpartner violence link: Attitudes towards partner violence among latin-American immigrants in Spain. The Open Family Studies Journal, 1, 3138. Haj-Yahia, M. (2003). Beliefs about wife beating among Arab men from Israel: The influence of their patriarchal ideology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 193206. Hamzeh, B., Farshi, M.G., & Laflamme, L. (2008). Opinions of married women about potential causes and triggers of intimate partner violence against women. A cross-sectional investigation in an Iranian city. BMC Public Health, 8, 209218. Hindin, M. J. (2003). Understanding womens attitudes towards wife beating in Zimbabwe. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81, 501. Horne, S. (1999). Domestic violence in Russia. American Psychologist, 54, 5561.

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 13(3)

Kim-Goh, M., & Baello, J. (2008). Attitudes toward domestic violence in Korean and Vietnamese immigrant communities: Implications for human services. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 647654. Klomegah, R. (2008). Intimate partner violence (IPV) in Zambia: An examination of risk factors and gender perceptions. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 557569. Lawoko, S. (2008). Predictors of attitudes toward intimate partner violence: A comparative study of men in Zambia and Kenya. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 10561074. Linos, N., Khawaja, M., & Al-Nsour, M. (2010). Womens autonomy and support for wife beating: Findings from a population-based survey in Jordan. Violence and Victims, 25, 409419. Mann, J., & Takyi, B. (2009). Autonomy, dependence or culture: Examining the impact of resources and socio-cultural processes on attitudes towards intimate partner violence in Ghana, Africa. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 323335. Marshall, G. A., & Furr, L. A. (2010). Factors that affect womens attitudes toward domestic violence in Turkey. Violence and Victims, 25, 265277. Mead, G. H. (1956). Mind, self, and society. In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Social psychology (pp. 135226). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ogunjuyigbe, P. O., Akinlo, A., & Ebigbola, J. A. (2005).Violence against women: An examination of mens attitudes and perceptions about wife beating and contraceptive use. Journal of Asian & African Studies, 40, 219229. Parish, W., Wang, T., Laumann, E., Pan, S., & Luo, Y. (2004). Intimate partner violence in China: National prevalence, risk factors and associate health problems. International Family Planning Perspective, 30, 174181. Rani, M., & Banu, S. (2008). Attitudes toward wife beating: A cross country study in Asia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 13711397. Sampson, R. (1993). The community context of violent crime. In W. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Senturia, K., Sullivan, M., Ciske, S., & Shiu-Thornton, S. (2000). Cultural issues affecting domestic violence service utilization in ethnic and hard to reach populations. Final Report US Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs. gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID185357 Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Speizer, I. S. (2010). Intimate partner violence attitudes and experience among women and men in Uganda. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 12241241. Spyrou, S., Antoniou, L., & Agathokleous, G. (2007). Domestic violence: Basic problems, recommendations for prevention and policy measures bilateral research Proj Ect between the Republic Of Cyprus and the Republic of Slovenia. Steinmetz, S., & Haj-Yahia, M. (2006). Definitions of and beliefs about wife abuse among ultra-orthodox Jewish men from Israel. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 525554. gero Stickley, A., Kislitsyna, O., Timofeeva, I., & Va , D. (2008). Attitudes toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Moscow, Russia. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 447456.

Waltermaurer
Tajaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the national violence against women survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 143161. United Nations General Assembly. (1996). Women and violence. United Nations Department of Public Information DPI/1772/ HR. Uthman, O. A., Lawok, S., & Moradi, T. (2009). Factors associated with attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women: A comparative analysis of 17 Sub-Saharan Countries. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 9, 14. Waltermaurer, E. (2005). Measuring intimate partner violence: You may only get what you ask for. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 501506. Waltermaurer, E. (2007). Differentiating between intimate partner violence and stranger violence risk among women through an examination of residential change. Feminist Criminology, 2, 181201.

175
Worden, A., & Carlson, B. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of a public opinion survey: II. Beliefs about causes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 12191243. Yoshihama, M. (2002). Breaking the Web of Abuse and Silence:Voices of Battered Women in Japan. Social Work, 47, 389400.

Bio
Eve Waltermaurer has conducted intimate partner violence research for over 14 years beginning in 1998 as a public health epidemiologist for the New York City Department of Health Violence Prevention Unit. Since that time, Waltermaurer has conducted extensive research on IPV centered on measurement issues, risk, and trajectories drawing from secondary data analysis, street-level surveys, and clinical samples. Waltermaurer has published in numerous journals and presented IPV research at conferences in public health, sociology/criminology, and interpersonal violence.