Background
Intimate partner
violence (IPV) is a complex global problem, not only because it is a human
rights issue, but also because it is associated with chronic mental and
physical illnesses as well as acute health outcomes related to injuries for
women and their children. Attitudes, beliefs, and norms regarding IPV are
significantly associated with the likelihood of both IPV experience and
perpetration.
Methods
We investigated
whether IPV acceptance is correlated across socially connected individuals,
whether these correlations differ across types of relationships, and whether
social position is associated with the likelihood of accepting IPV. We used
sociocentric network data from 831 individuals in rural Honduras to assess the
association of IPV acceptance between socially connected individuals across 15
different types of relationships, both within and between households. We also
investigated the association between network position and IPV acceptance.
Results
We found that
having a social contact that accepts IPV is strongly associated with IPV
acceptance among individuals. For women the clustering of IPV acceptance was
not significant in between-household relationships, but was concentrated within
households. For men, however, while IPV acceptance was strongly clustered
within households, men’s acceptance of IPV was also correlated with people with
whom they regularly converse, their mothers and their siblings, regardless of
household. We also found that IPV was more likely to be accepted by less
socially-central individuals, and that the correlation between a social
contact’s IPV acceptance was stronger on the periphery, suggesting that, as a
norm, it is held on the periphery of the community.
Conclusion
Our results show
that differential targeting of individuals and relationships in order to reduce
the acceptability and, subsequently, the prevalence of IPV may be most
effective. Because IPV norms seem to be strongly held within households, the
household is probably the most logical unit to target in order to implement
change. This approach would include the possible benefit of a generational
effect. Finally, in social contexts in which perpetration of IPV is not
socially acceptable, the most effective strategy may be to implement change not
at the center but at the periphery of the community.
Below: Shows one village’s network
from 2 perspectives. The left panel depicts all ties from a randomly selected
group of individuals. Note that IPV acceptance is clustered among socially
connected individuals and that IPV is generally more accepted on the periphery
of the network. The right panel depicts only within household ties from the
same randomly selected group. Note the strong clustering of IPV norms at the
household level
Below: Shows the differential correlation between egos and alter across relationship types depending upon whether or not they live in the same household
Below: The dynamics around ego and
alters network characteristics provide possible clues as to norms. Highly
connected egos are less likely to accept IPV (left panel). When alters are
poorly connected in the community, the correlation between ego’s and alter’s IPV
acceptance is higher (right panel)
By: Holly B. Shakya, D. Alex Hughes, Derek Stafford, Nicholas A. Christakis, James H. Fowler, and Jay G. Silverman
Department of
Global Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego,
9500 Gilman Drive, #0507, La Jolla, CA 92093-0507 USA
Department of
Political Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA USA
Department of
Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA
Department of
Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, CT USA
More at: https://twitter.com/hiv insight
No comments:
Post a Comment