Higher Probability that Women Report IPV

An analysis of the relationship between interview interruptions and the level of intimate partner violence reported by women in Afghanistan

Peyton Retterath

Research Question

How does an interview interruption affect the probability women will report their experience with intimate partner violence (IPV)?

Hypothesis

Women will be less likely to report intimate partner violence (IPV) if their interview is interrupted by their husband or another male. This could occur for multiple reasons, some of which include the increased discomfort that women feel when reporting IPV in the presence of others and the fear of being reprimanded by their husbands if they become aware of the IPV discussed in the interview.

Women will be more likely to report experience with IPV if their interview is interrupted by another female because women are more likely to feel comfortable speaking about their experience with domestic violence when accompanied by another woman due to the possibility that they have experienced it as well.

Variable Definitions

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

For this analysis, I define IPV as physical or emotional harm that someone experienced at the hands of either a current or past intimate partner. This data specifically focuses on spousal relationships; therefore, the term IPV is interchangeable with domestic violence.

Forms of IPV

Emotional violence: non-physical violence that causes psychological harm

Less-severe physical violence: physical violence that does not result in injury

More-severe physical violence: physical violence that results in injury

Interview Interruptions

During interviews, all interruptions were recorded by the interviewer, including whether the interruption was by a male, female, or the interviewee's husband.

Out of the 21,234 DHS interviews of married women aged 15 to 49, only a total of 4,615 interviews were interrupted. The figure to the right shows how many of these 4,615 interviews were interrupted by a female, the interviewee's husband, or another male.

Control Variables

Within my logistic regression model, I controlled for all of the following variables:

  • decision making
  • marital status
  • age (of married women ages 15 to 49)
  • familial wealth
  • total years of education
  • employment status

Results

Main findings

According to IPUMS DHS data from Afghanistan in 2015, women have a significantly higher probability of reporting intimate partner violence (IPV) when their interview is interrupted by their husband or another female.

These results vary from the expectation.

Explanation

Women are more than twice as likely to report their experience with intimate partner violence (IPV) when their interview is interrupted at least once by another female or by their husband.

The deviation bracket for male interruptions shows that there is not a significant decrease in probability regarding interruptions by males other than the husband.

Figure 1 shows the probability that a woman will report her experience with IPV based on whether her interview was interrupted and who interrupted the interview.

Important Notes

The deviation brackets for interviews interrupted by another female or the interviewee's husband do not overlap in probability between no interruptions and one or more interruptions. This is important because it shows significance.

The deviation bracket for interruptions by a male other than the husband overlap between no interruptions and one or more interruptions, showing that there is not a significant trend.

Discussion

Most research on the reporting of domestic violence discusses a disconnect between the definition of IPV in different settings. This is an important aspect of my research because my view of domestic violence aligns with that of United States society, and in turn, my hypothesis was affected by my society's view of IPV. In Afghanistan, domestic violence and the level of decision-making held by the woman of the household are differently defined and measured than I am accustomed to.

For example, a large majority of married women ages 15 to 49, 92% to be exact, stated that a husband is justified in beating his wife. This is similar to the 90% of Afghan women that have experienced at least one form of IPV, which includes emotional/psychological, physical, and sexual violence. Since IPV is highly prevalent in Afghanistan, the acceptance and justification of domestic violence within their society is likely a result of its prevalence.

In addition to interview interruptions, a woman's probability of reporting IPV is affected by a variety of other occurrences, specifically the methodological choices made by interviewers. As discussed in Ellsberg 2003, the underreporting of domestic violence is not only a result of women failing to report said violence but also a result of the questions they are asked and the way in which the interviewer frames them. When an interviewer makes the interviewee feel comfortable and understood, they are more likely to share these traumatic experiences. Therefore, one possible reason for the increase in IPV reporting as a result of interruptions by the husband or another female could be the overarching trust within the household.

When an interview is interrupted, the interruption likely results from the need for the interviewee's input. Therefore, if a situation arises in which the woman's input is necessary, that could represent a higher level of decision-making power or an increased level of communication and cooperation within the household. Higher levels of communication lead to trust, and a higher level of trust would lead us to believe that an interview interruption by a trusted family member or friend may make women feel more comfortable in their ability to report IPV.

Since 90% of married Afghan women aged 15 to 49 have experienced some form of domestic violence, it is likely that the absence of IPV reporting is not an absence of IPV but instead a result of women underreporting the violence that they have experienced.

References

Donta, Balaiah et al. 2016. “Association of Domestic Violence From Husband and Women Empowerment in Slum Community, Mumbai.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31(12): 2227-2239.

Ellsberg, Mary et al. 2003. “Researching Domestic Violence Against Women: Methodological and Ethical Considerations.” Studies in Family Planning 31(1): 1-16.

Enosh, Guy and Eli Buchbinder. 2005. “The Interactive Construction of Narrative Styles in Sensitive Interviews: The Case of Domestic Violence Research.” Qualitative Inquiry11(4): 588-617.

Jayatilleke, Achini et al. 2011. “Wives’ Attitudes Toward Gender Roles and Their Experience of Intimate Partner Violence by Husbands in Central Province, Sri Lanka.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26(3): 414-432.

Kalokhe, Ameeta S et al. 2018. “Correlates of domestic violence experience among recently- married women residing in slums in Pune, India.” PLoS ONE 13(4): https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195152.

Rahman, Mosfequr, Aminul Hoque, and Satoru Makinoda. 2011. “Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Is Women Empowerment a Reducing Factor? A Study from a National Bangladeshi Sample.” J Fam Viol 26: 411-420.

Rocca, Corinne H et al. 2008. “Challenging assumptions about women’s empowerment: social and economic resources and domestic violence among young married woman in urban South India.” International Journal of Epidemiology 38: 577-585.

van de Mortel, Thea F. 2008. “Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research.” Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 25(4): 40-48.

Webster, Joan and Victoria Holt. 2004. “Screening for Partner Violence: Direct Questioning or Self-Report.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 102(2): 299-303.

Yount, Kathryn M et al. 2010. “Response effects to attitudinal questions about domestic violence against women: A comparative perspective.” Social Science Research 40: 873-884.