Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-6
Gender-based Structural Stigma and Intimate Partner Violence Across 28 Countries: A Population-based Study of Women Across Sexual Orientation,Immigration Status,and Socioeconomic Status
Reducing structural drivers of intimate partner violence (IPV), including gender inequity in education, employment, and health, surrounding women worldwide represents a clear public health priority. Within countries, some women are at disproportionate risk of IPV compared to other women, including sexual minority women, immigrant women, and women in poverty. However, limited research has assessed women’s IPV risk and related circumstances, including police involvement following IPV experiences and IPV-related worry, across sexual orientation, immigration status, and socioeconomic status in a population-based survey of women across countries. Further, few studies have examined IPV against minority women as a function of gender-based structural stigma. This study aimed to determine whether gender-based structural stigma is associated with IPV and related circumstances among European women; examine minority-majority IPV disparities; and assess whether structural stigma is associated with IPV disparities. We used the population-based 2012 Violence Against Women Survey (n = 42,000) administered across 28 European Union countries: 724 (1.7%) identified as sexual minority, 841 (2.0%) as immigrant, and 2,272 (5.4%) as living in poverty. Women in high gender-based structural stigma countries had a greater risk of past-12-month IPV (AOR: 1.18, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.34) and IPV-related worry (AOR: 1.09, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.15) than women in low structural stigma countries. All minority women were at disproportionate risk of IPV and IPV-related worry compared to majority women. Associations between gender-based structural stigma and IPV and related circumstances differed across minority status. Country-level structural stigma can possibly perpetuate women’s risk of IPV and related circumstances. Associations between structural stigma and IPV and related circumstances for sexual minority women, immigrant women, and women in poverty call for research into the IPV experiences of minority populations across structural contexts.
AhonenE. Q., López-JacobM. J., VázquezM. L., PorthéV., Gil-GonzálezD., GarcíaA. M., Ruiz-FrutosC., BenachJ., BenavidesF. G., & BenavidesF. G. (2010). Invisible work, unseen hazards: The health of women immigrant household service workers in Spain. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53(4), 405–416.
2.
AlaggiaR., RegehrC., & JenneyA. (2012). Risky business: An ecological analysis of intimate partner violence disclosure. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(3), 301–312.
3.
AliT. S., AsadN., MogrenI., & KrantzG. (2011). Intimate partner violence in urban Pakistan: Prevalence, frequency, and risk factors. International Journal of Women’s Health, 3, 105–115.
4.
Al-TawilN. G. (2012). Association of violence against women with religion and culture in Erbil Iraq: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 1–7.
5.
BenjaminiY., & HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical Methodology, 57(1), 289–300.
6.
BlythC. R. (1972). On Simpson’s paradox and the sure-thing principle. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67(338), 364–366.
7.
BreidingM. J., ChenJ., & WaltersM. L. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings of victimization by sexual orientation. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
8.
ChanW. K., & RedelmeierD. A. (2012). Simpson’s paradox and the association between vitamin D deficiency and increased heart disease. The American Journal of Cardiology, 110(1), 143–144.
9.
Colorado-YoharS. M., Agudelo-SuárezA. A., HuertaJ. M., & Torres-CanteroA. M. (2016). Intimate partner violence and its associated factors in a sample of Colombian immigrant population in Spain. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 18(4), 904–912.
10.
CunradiC. B. (2010). Neighborhoods, alcohol outlets and intimate partner violence: Addressing research gaps in explanatory mechanisms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 799–813.
11.
DenhamA. C., FrasierP. Y., HootenE. G., BeltonL., NewtonW., GonzalezP., MunniB., & CampbellM. K. (2007). Intimate partner violence among Latinas in eastern North Carolina. Violence Against Women, 13(2), 123–140.
EdwardsK. M., SylaskaK. M., & NealA. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 112–121.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014a). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey—Main results report. Publications Office of the European Union.
16.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014b). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey—Survey methodology, sample and fieldwork. Publications Office of the European Union.
17.
Garcia-MorenoC., JansenH. A., EllsbergM., HeiseL., & WattsC. H. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. The Lancet, 368(9543), 1260–1269.
18.
García-MorenoC., PallittoC., DevriesK., StöcklH., WattsC., & AbrahamsN. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. World Health Organization.
19.
García-MorenoC., ZimmermanC., Morris-GehringA., HeiseL., AminA., AbrahamsN., MontoyaO., Bhate-DeosthaliP., KilonzoN., & WattsC. (2015). Addressing violence against women: A call to action. The Lancet, 385(9978), 1685–1695.
20.
GonzálezL., & Rodríguez-PlanasN. (2018). Gender norms and intimate partner violence. Economics Working Paper Series 1620. Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1620.html.
21.
GraciaE., & HerreroJ. (2006). Acceptability of domestic violence against women in the European Union: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(2), 123–129.
22.
GraciaE., & MerloJ. (2016). Intimate partner violence against women and the Nordic paradox. Social Science & Medicine, 157, 27–30.
23.
GuoM., DuffanyK. O. C., SheblF. M., SantilliA., & KeeneD. E. (2018). The effects of length of residence and exposure to violence on perceptions of neighborhood safety in an urban sample. Journal of Urban Health, 95(2), 245–254.
24.
HassounehD., & GlassN. (2008). The influence of gender role stereotyping on women’s experiences of female same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 14(3), 310–325.
25.
HeiseL. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290.
26.
HeiseL., & Garcia-MorenoC. (2002). Violence by intimate partners. World Report on Violence and Health, 1, 87–113.
27.
HeiseL. L., & KotsadamA. (2015). Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: An analysis of data from population-based surveys. The Lancet Global Health, 3(6), e332–e340.
28.
HerreroJ., TorresA., RodríguezF. J., & Juarros-BasterretxeaJ. (2017). Intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: The influence of male partners’ traditional gender roles and general violence. Psychology of Violence, 7(3), 385–394.
29.
HughesT., McCabeS. E., WilsnackS. C., WestB. T., & BoydC. J. (2010). Victimization and substance use disorders in a national sample of heterosexual and sexual minority women and men. Addiction, 105(12), 2130–2140.
30.
IsmayilovaL. (2015). Spousal violence in 5 transitional countries: A population-based multilevel analysis of individual and contextual factors. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), e12–e22.
31.
IvertA. K., GraciaE., LilaM., WemrellM., & MerloJ. (2020). Does country-level gender equality explain individual risk of intimate partner violence against women? A multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) in the European Union. European Journal of Public Health, 30(2), 293–299.
32.
JewkesR. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359(9315), 1423–1429.
33.
JuliousS. A., & MulleeM. A. (1994). Confounding and Simpson’s paradox. BMJ, 309(6967), 1480–1481.
34.
KahnJ. H. (2011). Multilevel modeling: Overview and applications to research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 257–271.
35.
KissL., SchraiberL. B., HeiseL., ZimmermanC., GouveiaN., & WattsC. (2012). Gender-based violence and socioeconomic inequalities: Does living in more deprived neighbourhoods increase women’s risk of intimate partner violence? Social Science & Medicine, 74(8), 1172–1179.
36.
KovacsR. J. (2018). The macro-level drivers of intimate partner violence: New evidence from a multilevel dataset. Global Public Health, 13(7), 944–956.
37.
LewisR. J., MasonT. B., WinsteadB. A., & KelleyM. L. (2017). Empirical investigation of a model of sexual minority specific and general risk factors for intimate partner violence among lesbian women. Psychology of Violence, 7(1), 110–119.
38.
LinosN., SlopenN., BerkmanL., SubramanianS. V., & KawachiI. (2014). Predictors of help-seeking behaviour among women exposed to violence in Nigeria: A multilevel analysis to evaluate the impact of contextual and individual factors. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 68(3), 211–217.
39.
MenjívarC., & SalcidoO. (2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence: Common experiences in different countries. Gender & Society, 16(6), 898–920.
40.
RahmanM., HoqueM. A., & MakinodaS. (2011). Intimate partner violence against women: Is women empowerment a reducing factor? A study from a national Bangladeshi sample. Journal of Family Violence, 26(5), 411–420.
41.
RajA., & SilvermanJ. (2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 367–398.
42.
RossC. E., & JangS. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4), 401–420.
43.
Sanz-BarberoB., CorradiC., Otero-GarcíaL., AyalaA., & Vives-CasesC. (2018). The effect of macrosocial policies on violence against women: A multilevel study in 28 European Countries. International Journal of Public Health, 63(8), 901–911.
UthmanO. A., LawokoS., & MoradiT. (2010). The role of individual, community and societal gender inequality in forming women’s attitudes toward intimate-partner violence against women: A multilevel analysis. World Health & Population, 12(2), 5–17.
46.
Vives-CasesC., Gil-GonzálezD., Ruiz-PérezI., Escribà-AgüirV., Plazaola-CastañoJ., Montero-PiñarM. I., & Torrubiano-DomínguezJ. (2010). Identifying sociodemographic differences in intimate partner violence among immigrant and native women in Spain: A cross-sectional study. Preventive Medicine, 51(1), 85–87.
47.
WheelerK., ZhaoW., KelleherK., StallonesL., & XiangH. (2010). Immigrants as crime victims: Experiences of personal nonfatal victimization. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53(4), 435–442.
48.
WidomC. S. (2017). Long-term impact of childhood abuse and neglect on crime and violence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24(2), 186–202.
49.
Zapata-CalventeA. L., MegíasJ. L., MoyaM., & SchoebiD. (2019). Gender-related ideological and structural macrosocial factors associated with intimate partner violence against European women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(3), 317–334.
