Mehfooz Et Al 2022 Does Childhood Experience of Interparental Abuse Shape Women

1123293
research-article2022
JIVXXX10.1177/08862605221123293Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceMehfooz et al.
Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Does Childhood
2023, Vol. 38(7-8) 5490–5518
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Experience of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08862605221123293
https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221123293
Interparental Abuse journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv
Shape Women’s Attitude

Toward Intimate Partner
Violence in Their Adult
Life? Evidence From 31
Developing Countries
Musferah Mehfooz1, Rafi Amir-ud-Din1 ,

and Sameen Zafar2
Abstract
A significant amount of literature exists on the lasting effects of interparental
abuse on children’s psychological health as adults. However, evidence on
how children’s childhood experience of interparental violence shapes their
attitude toward partner violence in adult intimate relationships is limited.
Given the existing evidence that women’s acceptance of partner violence as
a social norm increases the risk of partner violence, we analyzed the effect of
girls’ witnessing interparental abuse (where a father is a perpetrator) on their
attitude toward partner violence in their intimate relationships as adults.
We used data from the Demographic and Health Surveys for 31 low and
middle-income countries in Asia and Africa. Aggregating information about
women’s attitudes toward partner violence into a binary “intimate partner
1
COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Pakistan
2
Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore, Pakistan
Corresponding Author:
Rafi Amir-ud-Din, Department of Economics, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore
Campus, . Room No. 39, H-Block, Defence Road, Off Raiwind Road, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.
Email: rafi.amiruddin@gmail.com
Mehfooz et al. 5491
violence acceptance” variable, we found that a woman who witnessed her

father beat her mother was 1.62 times more likely to justify partner violence
than a woman who did not experience such interparental abuse (adjusted
odds ratio [AOR] = 1.62, 95% CI [1.57, 1.66], p < .001). Additionally, using
individual components of acceptance as response variables, we found that
a woman who witnessed interparental abuse was significantly more likely
to justify partner violence if she went out without telling her husband
(OR = 1.49, 95% CI [1.45, 1.54], p < .001), neglected children (OR = 1.53, 95%
CI [1.49, 1.58], p < .001), argued with the husband (OR = 1.49, 95% CI [1.45,
1.53], p < .001), refused sex with the husband (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.31,
1.39], p < .001), or burned food (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [1.31, 1.41], p < .001).
This study highlights the need to put in place children-specific social policies
to limit the intergenerational transmission of the adverse effects of intimate
partner violence.
Keywords
domestic violence, victimization, interparental violence, social learning
theory
Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a serious violation of
human rights, leading to massive physical and emotional health costs for
women in developed and developing countries. IPV is one of the most perva-
sive human rights violations (Seabrook et al., 2019), denying women equality
(Zarling & Berta, 2017), security and dignity (Miller & Segal, 2019), and
right to enjoy fundamental freedoms (Harland et al., 2021), and causing men-
tal disorders and maladjustments (Cirici Amell et al., 2023).
IPV exists in almost all societies regardless of ethnicities, cultures, and
geographical borders. The wide variation in rates of IPV in different coun-
tries suggests that potentially modifiable cultural factors play an important
role in determining both the actual rates of violence and attitudes toward its
acceptability. Indeed, many cultures condone a certain amount of marital vio-
lence, which according to WHO (2009), is probably the most defining char-
acteristic of violence against women.
However, considering the diversity in cultural and social contexts, detailed
empirical studies are also needed from low- and middle-income countries
(LMICs) since the prevalence of domestic violence varies substantially
across cultures and countries (Elghossain et al., 2019; Hindin & Gultiano,
2006). On average, one-third of the population of women globally face
5492 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38(7-8)
human rights violations at the hands of some family member, primarily by

their intimate partner (Yount et al., 2022). The recent estimates from 55
LMICs suggest that 26% of women (ever-married aged 15–49) experienced
physical violence, 25% of the women experienced emotional violence, and
9% of the women experienced sexual violence by their intimate partner at
some point in their life (DHS, 2022). Across the 28 States of the European
Union, almost one in five women have experienced physical spousal violence
(Walby & Olive, 2014), while surveys in some other countries indicate that as
much as two out of three women experience some form of IPV (Asare et al.,
2022; Douki et al., 2003; Miedema et al., 2022).
While ample literature exists on the link between the childhood experi-
ence of parental abuse and experience of violence as adults, there is limited
information about how a person’s childhood experience of interparental vio-
lence shapes the attitudinal acceptance of violence in adult intimate relation-
ships. Our study aims to fill this gap in the literature. The main objective of
our study was to analyze how women’s childhood experience of domestic
abuse in which their mother was the victim shapes their attitude toward
acceptance of violence in their own intimate relationships.
Theoretical Background
Competing theories explain why and how childhood experiences shape adult
relationships. Social learning theory posits that individuals learn behavior by
observing and modeling the behavior of significant others in their lives
(Bandura, 1969). Social learning theorists contend that children imitate the
behavior of their parents and peers (Bandura, 1973; Owens & Straus, 1975).
When children witness interparental aggression, which may take the forms of
verbal abuse (insults or threats), emotional abuse (humiliation and degrada-
tion), or physical violence (kicking furniture or throwing objects), the prob-
ability of the children imitating aggressive behavior later in life increases
(Anderson & Cramer-Benjamin, 1999). Parents, particularly mothers, are
likely to be an inﬂuential source of such learned attitudes and behaviors.
Thus, the social learning theory provides the theoretical underpinnings for
the intergenerational transmission of violence.
The intergenerational transmission of violence theory presumes that expo-
sure to violence in the family is a strong predictor of relationship violence in
later life (Glaus et al., 2022). Exposure to violence in the family and the
resulting behavior particularly passes through successive generations, and
this intergenerational transmission of violence has a clear gendered dimen-
sion (Low et al., 2019). Children exposed to interparental violence were more
Mehfooz et al. 5493
likely to both perpetrate and be victimized by violence as adults relative to

non-exposed children (Rivera & Fincham, 2015).
Witnessing violence within families may legitimize and justify its use,
particularly in intimate relationships (Islam et al., 2014). It is suggested that
cognitive factors, reflected in an individual’s sensitivity to a given act of
provocation, significantly affect the odds of intergenerational transmission of
IPV (Kim, 2012). The intergenerational transmission theory often incorpo-
rates the notion that learning to be victimized can pass on to successive gen-
erations (Thornberry & Henry, 2013).
However, a limited number of studies exist on the attitudinal acceptance
of spousal violence, particularly in Asian countries (Shaikh, 2016), despite
the existence of cultural norms discriminating against women and a variety of
popular media portraits of gender inequality.
Attitudinal Acceptance of IPV

Acceptance of IPV has adverse consequences for women. Acceptance of vio-
lence is a significant predictor of spousal violence (Amir-ud-Din et al., 2021).
IPV is generally seen as a private, personal, and family problem rather than a
social and legal problem requiring the intervention of social welfare and
social control agents (Boira et al., 2017). Consequently, women continue to
suffer spousal violence without reporting it (McCleary-Sills et al., 2016).
Several socio-demographic and behavioral risk factors and correlates of
attitudinal acceptance of spousal violence have been identified in different
studies. Women may accept and justify spousal violence in light of their
training in conventional gender roles, cultural and religious norms, and finan-
cial and emotional dependency (Karlsson et al., 2016).
Children reared in the climate of domestic violence against their mothers
may suffer from severe psychosocial and mental health problems (Bancroft
et al., 2011). The effects may be particularly important for a female child
being reared in a patriarchal culture with a climate accepting of spousal vio-
lence. A mother from such a culture may vertically transmit “attitudinal
acceptance of violence” to the girl child, who, in turn, may continue accept-
ing spousal violence as part of the conventional gender roles and imbalanced
distribution of power in marital relationships.
Interparental Violence and Acceptance of Partner Violence:

Some Theoretical Links
Previous literature illustrates that factors such as patriarchal culture, witness-
ing interparental violence, and intergenerational transmission of violence are
correlated with a women’s attitudinal acceptance of spousal violence (Flood

& Pease, 2009). It is quite likely that women brought up in a violent family
had frequent exposure to interparental violence in their childhood. This might
make them desensitized to the harmful consequences of spousal violence and
hence they may accept spousal violence as part of the family adjustment pro-
cess, particularly in LMICs. The empirical evidence from previous literature
supports the same viewpoint that women witnessing interparental violence
were more likely to experience violence later in life, and acceptance of vio-
lence mediated the link between witnessing interparental violence and spou-
sal violence (Calvete et al., 2018).
Women who are exposed to interparental violence during childhood may
be more likely to imitate their parents’ behaviors, particularly in terms of the
“attitudinal acceptance of violence” and, in turn, may continue accepting
spousal violence as part of the conventional gender roles and imbalanced
distribution of power in marital relationships (Zhao et al., 2022). Because
children often learn to resolve disputes with others by observing how their
parents resolve parental conflicts (Staudt, 2021), women often accept the
spousal violence by imitating their mother’s attitude about acceptance of vio-
lence (Scrafford et al., 2020). Haj-Yahia (1998) showed in their study in
Palestine that women routinely justify violence if the wife does not obey her
husband, undermines his authority, insults him in front of his friends, does
not respect his parents and siblings, and does not live up to his expectations
for functioning as a wife and a mother. This might reflect the fear that seeking
legal help will break through the boundaries of the family, ruin the family’s
good reputation, and damage the cultural, economic, educational, and politi-
cal status of all family members, not to mention severe consequences, includ-
ing breaking up the family through separation, imprisonment, and divorce
(Amir-ud-Din & Abbas, 2020).
Concerns for Diversity

Our sample is nationally representative as well as representative of the
LMICs in Africa and Asia. In different countries, socioeconomic and political
institutions may fundamentally differ despite obvious similarities and lead to
distinct sociocultural norms regarding partner violence. So, women’s
response to the questions about their attitude to partner violence reflects the
diversity of their lived experiences across different cultures. To capture the
diversity in national institutions, we used national identities as control vari-
ables in the regression analysis. Additionally, we conducted a disaggregated
country-level analysis to understand how witnessing interparental abuse in
childhood shapes attitudes toward partner violence as adults in different
Mehfooz et al. 5495
cultures. However, the motivation behind using a large cross-country sample

was to ensure greater generalizability. Still, our disaggregated country-level
analysis also serves the purpose of specificity.
Our study aims to assess the effect of women’s childhood experience of
interparental abuse on their attitude toward IPV in their adult life by consider-
ing the social learning theory and intergenerational transmission of violence
based on a nationally representative Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS)
of 31 countries in Asia and Africa to examine the diversity in the results.
Methodology
Data Sources
The data used for this paper was taken from the Integrated Public Use
Microdata Series of Demographic and Health Surveys (IPUMS-DHS).
IPUMS-DHS consistently codes variables across all countries and years. The
IPUMS-DHS database includes both individual and household-level
information.
We used all countries for which the data on women’s acceptance of IPV
and their experience of interparental abuse was available. In addition, the
countries in our sample are all LMICs. A total of 31 countries, including 24
African countries (Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad,
Congo, Democratic Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea,
Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique,
Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania,
Tunisia, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe) and 7 Asian countries
(Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, India, Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan) met our
criteria. The data available for these countries corresponded to different sur-
vey waves from each year, starting from 2004 to 2018. The participants in the
study were ever-married women aged 15 to 49 years. The weighted sample
size was 466,330, which included only those women who had complete
information about acceptance of violence and their experience of interparen-
tal abuse. Since the DHS has a two-stage cluster design, robust standard
errors and sampling weights were used to make the data representative.
Study Outcomes
The outcome variable in this study is the acceptance of violence, which
reflects on respondents’ perceptions of violence. This factor has been evalu-
ated in several previous studies (Ali & Watson, 2020; Atomssa et al., 2021)
and is considered a significant risk factor for IPV (Amir-ud-Din et al., 2021).
We developed an index of the attitudinal acceptance of violence from the

information on the women’s attitudes toward IPV. DHS asks female respon-
dents a set of questions related to the conditions under which a husband is
justified in beating his wife. The answers are given in a binary “Yes” or “No”
format on the five parameters, viz., (i) if the wife goes out without telling the
husband, (ii) if the wife neglects the children, (iii) if the wife argues with
husband, (iv) if the wife refuses to have sex with husband, and (v) if the wife
burns the food. Following Some et al. (2021), we summed the information
from these five variables, which gave us an acceptance of violence scale with
a minimum of zero where a woman did not justify violence even in a single
dimension, and a maximum of five when a woman justified partner violence
in all five dimensions. Cronbach’s α test was applied to assess the consis-
tency of women’s acceptance of violence, and the scale’s internal stability
was high as the estimated Cronbach’s α was .86 in our sample. As we are
more interested in the presence or absence of the justification of partner vio-
lence rather than the degree of acceptance, following Amir-ud-Din et al.
(2021), we split the acceptance of violence scale into a binary variable with
women not justifying partner violence as the base category.
Exposures
The primary exposure variable in this study is women’s childhood experience
of interparental abuse. DHS asks the respondents if their father ever beat their
mother. Previous evidence suggests that a woman’s experience of interparen-
tal abuse crucially shapes their attitude toward partner violence (Aboagye
et al., 2021) and, in turn, increases the risk of partner violence (Wagle et al.,
2021). Possible answers to the question regarding the respondent’s abuse of
mother by her father are “No” (reference) and “Yes.”
Potential Confounders
In the previous literature, women’s age, education, employment status, and
marital status have been used as predictors of IPV justification in addition to
their exposure to media (Aboagye et al., 2021; Jesmin, 2015; Waltermaurer
et al., 2013). Moreover, the residential status and household wealth quintile
have also been used to predict IPV justification (Aboagye et al., 2021; Jesmin,
2015; Waltermaurer et al., 2013). Therefore, we have adjusted our model
with respondent’s empowerment, respondent’s employment status, respon-
dent’s and her husband’s education, household wealth status, respondent’s
age at first marriage or cohabitation, age of respondent’s husband at the time
of the interview, number of children ever born to the respondent,
Mehfooz et al. 5497
respondent’s residential status, and if she owns house or land. Two periods,
2001 to 2010 and 2011 to 2020 were included as time fixed effect, and coun-
tries as categorical variables were included in the model as country fixed
effects. Time fixed effects capture the changes in women’s attitude toward
IPV that have occurred because of institutional changes such as legislative
frameworks, changes in the public attitudes brought about by advocacy
groups and mainstream and social media, and changes in men’s attitudes to
the women’s empowerment agenda being pursued at the global level and in
LMICs. Sustainable Development Goals also consider it a goal to get rid of
violence. The categories of each variable are given in Table 2, with the first
category as the reference.
Moreover, we included women’s empowerment as an important con-
founding factor because women’s empowerment is central to understanding
IPV (Jesmin, 2017). In the previous literature, women’s empowerment is
defined and operationalized in various ways. For example, Kabeer (1999)
considers women’s empowerment as their ability to exercise choice in three
dimensions: resources (both material and non-material), agency, and achieve-
ments. As IPUMS-DHS has limited information about women’s empower-
ment, we follow a more reductionist approach of Allendorf (2007), who
measured women’s empowerment as their household-level decision-making
role about their healthcare, their say in making large household purchases,
and their say in visiting their family or relatives. Following Zafar et al.
(2022), we developed an index of women’s empowerment by aggregating
these three indicators in two steps. First, we considered women’s empower-
ment as a scale of “fully empowered,” “empowered,” and “not empowered”
in the three individual dimensions. A woman is “fully empowered” if she
makes the decision all by herself. We consider a woman “empowered” if she
makes a joint decision (with her husband or someone else). A woman is con-
sidered “not empowered” if she has no say in the decision. This scale can
range between zero (when she has no say in all three dimensions) or three
(when she has a say in all the dimensions). In the second step, we split this
scale into two outcomes: “not empowered” the women who did not have any
say in any of the three dimensions, and “empowered” if she is wholly or par-
tially empowered in at least one dimension.
Statistical Analysis
The outcome variable for this study is women’s acceptance of IPV split into
“Does not accept IPV” as the reference group and “Accepts IPV” as the alter-
native category. We first did a bivariate association check to see if the wom-
en’s experience of interparental abuse and other covariates are significantly
associated with the outcome variable. Additionally, we used a multivariate

logistic regression model with country and time fixed effects to estimate the
association between women’s experience of interparental abuse and their
acceptance of IPV.The analysis was first done by pooling the data for all the
analyzed countries. Then the analysis was repeated at the country level to
explore potential context-specific country differences.
Acceptancei ,t = β0 + β1 Interparental abusei ,t

(1)
+ β j X i ,t + γ Countryi + δ Decade j + i ,t
where Acceptancei,t is a binary response variable, the subscript i refers to

the country, and t indicates the survey year. Interparental abusei,t refers to a
woman’s experience of interparental abuse in country i and survey year t. The
Xi,t refers to a set of covariates. Countryi is a categorical variable and is
included in the specification to account for cross-country heterogeneity.
Decadej measures the time fixed effect, and j takes two values associated with
two decades: 2001 to 2010 (reference category) and 2011 to 2020.
Moreover, a continental fixed effect was included in a multivariate logistic
regression to see how women in Africa and Asia differ with respect to their
attitudes toward partner violence (equation (2)).
Acceptancei ,t = β0 + β1 Interparental abusei ,t

(2)
+ β j X i ,t + γ Continent c + δ Decade j + i ,t
where Continentc takes two values: Africa (reference category) and Asia.
Finally, we wanted to see how interparental abuse affects women’s atti-
tude toward partner violence in five specific situations (is a husband justified
in beating his wife if she (i) goes out without telling her husband, (ii) neglects
the children, (iii) argues with the husband, (iv) refuses to have sex with the
husband, and (v) burns the food?). We regressed information about all five
situations in which a woman justified partner violence on interparental abuse
and a set of covariates.
IPV justification typeiτ,t = β0 + β1 Interparental abusei ,t
(3)
+ β j X i ,t + γ Continent c + δ Decade j + i ,t
where IPV justification type is a “yes/no” binary response variable and

contains information about five situations in which women justified partner
violence. The superscript τ can vary from 1 to 5 and refers to the situations
(is a husband justified in beating his wife if she (i) goes out without telling the
husband, (ii) neglects the children, (iii) argues with the husband, (iv) refuses
Mehfooz et al. 5499
to have sex with the husband, and (v) burns the food?) in which a woman may
potentially justify partner violence.
Results
Women have diverse experiences regarding interparental abuse. Supplemental
Table S1 gives the share of women who experience interparental abuse and
their attitude toward acceptance of partner violence. Around 50% of women
experienced interparental abuse in Afghanistan and Uganda, while less than
10% experienced interparental abuse in Benin, Jordan, and Burkina Faso.
Similarly, the highest ratio of acceptance for partner violence was recorded in
Afghanistan (82.7%), followed by Mali (79.7%), and Chad (75.8%). In com-
parison, very little acceptance for partner violence was recorded in Jordan
(14.2%), Malawi (12.6%), South Africa (%.6%), and Nepal (0.8%).
Bivariate association (Table 1) suggests that the factors significantly asso-
ciated with acceptance of partner violence are women’s experience of inter-
parental abuse, women’s empowerment, women’s employment status,
education, age, number of children born, ownership of assets, and residential
status, in addition to their partner’s age and education, household wealth sta-
tus, and countries and continents and decades.
The multivariate logistic regression model (Model 1 in Table 2) suggests
that the odds of accepting the spousal violence are 1.62 times higher for the
women who witnessed their fathers beat their mothers in their childhood than
the women whose fathers did not beat their mothers (Adjusted odds ratios
[AOR] = 1.62, 95% CI [1.57, 1.66], p < .001). In addition to women’s experi-
ence of interparental abuse, the only factor associated with higher odds of
acceptance of violence was, counterintuitively, women’s employment status
(AOR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.07, 1.13], p < .001), which is explained in the discus-
sion of the results section.
The factors that are associated with lower acceptance of spousal violence
are women’s empowerment (AOR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.81, 0.86], p < .001), rich
household wealth status (AOR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.76, 0.82], p < .001), higher
levels of respondent’s education (AOR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.48, 0.55], p < 0.001
for higher education), and husband’s education (AOR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.72,
0.81], p < .001 for higher education), increased age of the respondent
(AOR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.76, 0.83], p < .001 for women aged 25–49) as well
as the age of husband (AOR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.87, 0.97], p < .001 for men
aged 40 and above), living in the urban areas (AOR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.79,
0.86], p < .001). The odds of acceptance of spousal violence is at the highest
in Afghanistan while women are least likely to accept spousal violence in
Mozambique (AOR = 0.06, 95% CI [0.05, 0.06], p < .001), Malawi
Table 1. Bivariate Association Between Acceptance of Partner Violence and

Selected Variables.
Unacceptable* (%) Acceptable† (%) Prob.

Did respondent’s father ever beat her mother
No (n = 357,679) 80.5 69.8 p < .000
Yes (n = 108,651) 19.5 30.2
Woman’s empowerment
Not empowered 42.9 47.2 p < .000
(n = 724,349)
Empowered (n = 875,680) 57.1 52.8
Woman’s employment status
Not working (n = 714,730) 47.3 45.5 p < .000
Working (n = 792,063) 52.7 54.5
Woman’s education
No education (n = 558,543) 28.3 44.7 p < .000
Primary (n = 424,327) 26.2 28.7
Secondary (n = 481,759) 35.7 23.8
Higher (n = 104,036) 9.8 2.8
Husband’s education
No education (n = 378,079) 24.5 39.6 p < .000
Primary (n = 304,054) 25.4 26.7
Secondary (n = 390,219) 36.2 27.6
Higher (n = 124,249) 14 6.1
Household wealth status
Poor (n = 542,558) 31.5 42.5 p < .000
Middle (n = 286,730) 18.2 21.1
Rich (n = 639,170) 50.3 36.4
Age of husband/partner
<24 (n = 56,151) 4.9 5.3 p < .000
25–39 (n = 574,010) 51 49.6
40+ (n = 516,928) 44.1 45.2
Age at first marriage or cohabitation
<18 (n = 624,846) 45.8 56.2 p < .000
18–24 (n = 537,262) 44.8 38.5
25–49 (n = 97,127) 9.3 5.3
Total children ever born
No child (n = 395,269) 25.8 23.2 p < .000
1–4 (n = 829,729) 54.6 50.6
5+ (n = 365,523) 19.7 26.2
(continued)
Mehfooz et al. 5501
Table 1. (continued)
Unacceptable* (%) Acceptable† (%) Prob.
Woman owns house or land
Does not possess 80.6 79.3 p < .000
(n = 1,274,137)
Possesses (n = 325,892) 19.4 20.7
Urban-rural status
Rural (n = 1,011,751) 58.1 71.8 p < .000
Urban (n = 588,278) 41.9 28.2
Continent
Africa (n = 1,060,385) 63.9 69.2 p < .000
Asia (n = 539,644) 36.1 30.8
*Share of women who do not accept spousal violence irrespective of the fact (i) if wife goes out without
telling her husband, (ii) if wife neglects the children, (iii) if wife argues with the husband, (iv) if wife refuses
to have sex with the husband, and (v) if wife burns the food.
†
Share of the women who justify spousal violence for at least one reason.
Table 2. Multivariate Logistic Regression: Decade and Country Fixed Effects.
Model 1 Model 2
Women’s
acceptance of IPV Adj. OR 95% CI Adj. OR 95% CI
Father beat mother of respondent
No Ref.
Yes 1.617*** [1.574, 1.662] 1.757*** [1.711, 1.804]
Not empowered Ref.
Empowered 0.831*** [0.806,0.857] 0.785*** [0.762,0.809]
Not working Ref.
Working 1.102*** [1.072, 1.132] 1.026 [1.000, 1.052]
Woman’s education
No education Ref.
Primary 1.001 [0.971, 1.033] 0.836*** [0.811, 0.861]
Secondary 0.815*** [0.787, 0.843] 0.663*** [0.641, 0.686]
Higher 0.510*** [0.477, 0.545] 0.376*** [0.352, 0.401]
No education Ref.
Primary 1.014 [0.981, 1.048] 0.804*** [0.779, 0.830]
Secondary 0.932*** [0.900, 0.964] 0.767*** [0.741, 0.794]
Higher 0.762*** [0.722, 0.805] 0.646*** [0.612, 0.683]
(continued)
Table 2. (continued)
Model 1 Model 2
Women’s
acceptance of IPV Adj. OR 95% CI Adj. OR 95% CI
Poor Ref.
Middle 1.007 [0.977, 1.038] 1.085*** [1.053, 1.118]
Rich 0.789*** [0.762, 0.817] 0.990 [0.955, 1.026]
Husband’s age
<24 Ref.
25–39 0.930** [0.884, 0.979] 0.975 [0.929, 1.024]
40+ 0.917** [0.868, 0.969] 0.925** [0.877, 0.975]
Woman’s age
<18 Ref.
18–24 0.917*** [0.896, 0.938] 0.936*** [0.916, 0.957]
25–49 0.794*** [0.759, 0.830] 0.806*** [0.771, 0.841]
Number of children
No child Ref.
1–4 0.995 [0.956, 1.036] 0.970 [0.933, 1.009]
5+ 0.964 [0.919, 1.011] 1.014 [0.967, 1.063]
Woman owns house/land
Does not possess Ref.
Possesses 0.997 [0.963, 1.031] 1.106*** [1.073, 1.139]
Residence
Rural Ref.
Urban 0.825*** [0.794, 0.857] 0.755*** [0.728, 0.784]
Continent
Africa Ref.
Asia 1.230*** [1.190, 1.270]
Decade
2001–2010 Ref.
2011–2020 0.881*** [0.847, 0.917] 0.947** [0.916, 0.981]
Country-fixed Yes
effects
N 318,580 318,580
F 261.5 299.1
p 0 0
Note. Exponentiated coefficients; 95% confidence intervals in brackets. Adj. OR = adjusted

odds ratio; IPV: intimate partner violence.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Mehfooz et al. 5503
(AOR = 0.04, 95% CI [0.039, 0.049], p < .001), and Nepal (AOR = 0.04, 95%
CI [0.036, 0.048], p < .001). Acceptance of spousal violence has significantly
come down after 2010 compared with the study period between 2001 and
2010 (AOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92], p < .001).
Continental fixed effects

Given that we are using data from Africa and Asia, comparing women’s
acceptance of IPV in both continents would be pertinent. Adjusting the
regression model with a categorical continental variable (Model 2 in Table 3)
suggests that women in Asia are 23% more likely to accept partner violence
than their African counterparts (AOR = 1.23, 95% CI [1.19, 1.27], p < .001).
After adjusting the model with continental fixed effects, women’s experience
of interparental abuse slightly increases the odds of acceptance of IPV from
1.62 (AOR = 1.62, 95% CI [1.57, 1.66], p < .001) to 1.76 (AOR = 1.76, 95%
CI [1.71, 1.80], p < .001).
Country-Level Analysis
Figure 1 shows the unadjusted odds ratio of the logistic regression model
where women’s acceptance of spousal violence was regressed on women’s
history of abusive parental relationships. In 26 out of 31 countries, women
were significantly more likely to accept partner violence when they saw their
father beating their mother. In five countries, there was no significant
association.
Figure 2 shows the adjusted odds ratio of the logistic regression model. In
22 out of 27 countries, women were significantly more likely to accept
domestic violence when they saw their father beating their mother. In five
countries, there was no significant association. The adjusted model did not
have a sufficient number of multivariate observations in four countries
(Bangladesh, Benin, Liberia, and South Africa), and these were thus excluded
from the forest plot in Figure 2.
Figure 3 illustrates the acceptance of violence for five reasons, according
to which a woman is asked whether wife beating is justified in Asia versus
Africa. For all the five factors (refuses to have sex, neglects the children, goes
out without telling the husband, burns the food, and argues with him), the
percentage of acceptance of violence among African nations is found to be
higher compared to Asian nations, except for the factor burns the food, where
the acceptance of violence by women in Asian countries is higher than by
women in African countries.
Table 3. Effect of interparental violence on women’s attitude toward intimate partner violence.
5504
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Husband is justified in beating
wife if she Goes out without telling Neglects children Argues Refuses sex Burns food
Father beat mother of respondent

No Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Yes 1.494*** [1.451, 1.537] 1.531*** [1.488, 1.575] 1.489*** [1.445, 1.534] 1.349*** [1.305, 1.394] 1.359*** [1.312, 1.408]
Not empowered Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Empowered 0.786*** [0.760, 0.812] 0.860*** [0.834, 0.887] 0.811*** [0.785, 0.838] 0.727*** [0.702, 0.752] 0.743*** [0.717, 0.771]
Not working Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Working 1.096*** [1.064, 1.128] 1.140*** [1.108, 1.172] 1.100*** [1.068, 1.133] 1.048** [1.014, 1.082] 1.119*** [1.082, 1.158]
Woman’s education
No education Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Primary 0.965* [0.934, 0.996] 1.060*** [1.027, 1.094] 0.966* [0.934, 0.999] 0.906*** [0.875, 0.939] 0.927*** [0.891, 0.964]
Secondary 0.774*** [0.745, 0.803] 0.905*** [0.873, 0.938] 0.780*** [0.751, 0.810] 0.669*** [0.639, 0.700] 0.709*** [0.677, 0.743]
Higher 0.430*** [0.395, 0.469] 0.567*** [0.526, 0.611] 0.453*** [0.416, 0.493] 0.390*** [0.350, 0.434] 0.415*** [0.368, 0.469]
No education Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Primary 0.991 [0.958, 1.026] 1.031 [0.996, 1.066] 0.995 [0.961, 1.030] 0.961* [0.924, 0.999] 0.952* [0.915, 0.990]
Secondary 0.902*** [0.870, 0.935] 0.941** [0.908, 0.976] 0.920*** [0.886, 0.954] 0.890*** [0.854, 0.927] 0.934** [0.895, 0.975]
Higher 0.727*** [0.684, 0.773] 0.781*** [0.737, 0.827] 0.758*** [0.713, 0.806] 0.779*** [0.726, 0.835] 0.781*** [0.725, 0.841]
Poor Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Middle 1.047** [1.014, 1.081] 1.076*** [1.042, 1.110] 0.972 [0.940, 1.004] 0.976 [0.940, 1.013] 0.978 [0.942, 1.014]
Rich 0.846*** [0.815, 0.879] 0.879*** [0.848, 0.911] 0.765*** [0.735, 0.795] 0.750*** [0.719, 0.784] 0.769*** [0.734, 0.806]
Husband’s age
<24 Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
25–39 0.979 [0.928, 1.032] 0.991 [0.941, 1.044] 0.929** [0.880, 0.981] 0.988 [0.930, 1.049] 0.898*** [0.844, 0.955]
40+ 0.984 [0.928, 1.043] 0.998 [0.942, 1.056] 0.932* [0.879, 0.988] 1.011 [0.947, 1.080] 0.921* [0.860, 0.987]
(continued)
Table 3. (Continued)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Husband is justified in beating
wife if she Goes out without telling Neglects children Argues Refuses sex Burns food
Woman's age
<18 Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
18–24 0.926*** [0.904, 0.949] 0.939*** [0.917, 0.962] 0.906*** [0.884, 0.930] 0.889*** [0.865, 0.913] 0.905*** [0.879, 0.932]
25–49 0.826*** [0.786, 0.868] 0.822*** [0.784, 0.863] 0.788*** [0.749, 0.829] 0.792*** [0.748, 0.839] 0.785*** [0.735, 0.838]
Number of children
No child Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
1–4 1.011 [0.968, 1.057] 1.061** [1.017, 1.107] 0.998 [0.956, 1.043] 0.969 [0.923, 1.017] 0.982 [0.932, 1.035]
5+ 0.986 [0.936, 1.038] 0.999 [0.951, 1.049] 0.990 [0.941, 1.041] 0.986 [0.933, 1.043] 0.995 [0.937, 1.056]
Woman owns house/land
Does not possess Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Possesses 0.954* [0.917, 0.993] 0.928*** [0.896, 0.961] 0.975 [0.941, 1.011] 1.029 [0.988, 1.072] 1.047* [1.001, 1.095]
Residence
Rural Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Urban 0.815*** [0.781, 0.850] 0.868*** [0.834, 0.903] 0.830*** [0.795, 0.866] 0.794*** [0.756, 0.834] 0.801*** [0.757, 0.847]
Country fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Decade fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
N 316,792 316,783 316,077 301,619 316,416
F 241.7 202.6 257.2 207.8 160.8
p 0 0 0 0 0
Note. Exponentiated coefficients; 95% confidence intervals in brackets.

*p < .05, **p< .01, ***p < .001.
5505
No. Odds ratio

Country pts (95% CI)
Afghanistan 16136 2.03 (1.71, 2.41)

Angola 9061 1.33 (1.15, 1.54)
Bangladesh 4205 1.43 (1.21, 1.68)
Myanmar 4286 1.45 (1.20, 1.77)
Burundi 9999 1.32 (1.20, 1.45)
Cameroon 7602 1.34 (1.20, 1.49)
Chad 3638 2.16 (1.64, 2.85)
Congo Democratic Republic 6239 1.63 (1.36, 1.95)
Benin 5144 1.66 (1.32, 2.08)
Ethiopia 5507 1.20 (0.99, 1.46)
Ghana 2299 1.93 (1.51, 2.46)
India 153501 1.90 (1.81, 1.99)
Cote d'Ivoire 5952 1.45 (1.18, 1.78)
Jordan 13262 1.80 (1.51, 2.15)
Kenya 11014 1.65 (1.47, 1.85)
Liberia 4210 1.19 (0.97, 1.45)
Malawi 20325 1.35 (1.23, 1.48)
Mali 14900 1.37 (1.15, 1.63)
Mozambique 5985 1.88 (1.58, 2.23)
Namibia 3395 2.11 (1.72, 2.60)
Nepal 8437 1.05 (0.86, 1.29)
Nigeria 56926 1.43 (1.33, 1.54)
Pakistan 6434 2.40 (2.05, 2.82)
Rwanda 6396 1.02 (0.91, 1.13)
Senegal 3272 1.46 (0.94, 2.28)
South Africa 4104 1.85 (1.26, 2.70)
Zimbabwe 18254 1.41 (1.31, 1.52)
Uganda 10718 2.05 (1.88, 2.25)
Egypt 6296 1.83 (1.56, 2.14)
Tanzania 14974 1.73 (1.60, 1.87)
Zambia 23998 1.69 (1.58, 1.81)
Overall 466469 1.78 (1.74, 1.82)
.25 1 4
IPV acceptance ↓
↓
IPV acceptance
when father beats mother when father beats mother
NOTE: Weighting is by sample size
Figure 1. Country-level association between women’s history of abusive parental

relationship and their attitude to violence: unadjusted odds ratios.
Effect of Interparental Abuse on Individual Components of

Acceptance of Spousal Violence
Relative to the woman who did not experience interparental abuse, a woman
who experienced interparental violence in her childhood was significantly
more likely to justify violence if she goes out without telling husband
(OR = 1.49, 95% CI [1.45, 1.54], p < .001), neglects children (OR = 1.53, 95%
CI [1.49, 1.58], p < .001), argues with husband (OR = 1.49, 95% CI [1.45,
1.53], p < .001), refuses sex with husband (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.31, 1.39],
p < .001), and burns food (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [1.31, 1.41], p < .001)
(Table 3).
Discussion
The most important finding of this study from the multivariate logistic regres-
sion model is that the odds of accepting the spousal violence are 1.62 times
higher for the women who witnessed their fathers beat their mothers in their
childhood than those whose fathers did not beat their mothers. The way
Mehfooz et al. 5507
No. Odds ratio

Country pts (95% CI)
Afghanistan 15487 1.92 (1.61, 2.29)

Angola 5254 1.73 (1.42, 2.09)
Myanmar 2920 1.29 (1.02, 1.62)
Burundi 6289 1.18 (1.05, 1.34)
Cameroon 5220 1.37 (1.19, 1.57)
Chad 2797 1.83 (1.30, 2.58)
Congo Democratic Republic 4618 1.51 (1.20, 1.89)
Ethiopia 3846 1.14 (0.91, 1.43)
Ghana 1408 1.31 (0.93, 1.84)
India 118711 1.78 (1.69, 1.87)
Cote d'Ivoire 4031 1.38 (1.03, 1.84)
Jordan 12565 1.40 (1.17, 1.68)
Kenya 7399 1.51 (1.32, 1.72)
Malawi 15009 1.29 (1.16, 1.44)
Mali 9631 1.36 (1.10, 1.69)
Mozambique 4070 1.77 (1.47, 2.13)
Namibia 1900 1.69 (1.18, 2.40)
Nepal 6879 1.16 (0.90, 1.50)
Nigeria 35242 1.60 (1.46, 1.76)
Pakistan 3262 2.35 (1.87, 2.94)
Rwanda 3729 1.08 (0.94, 1.24)
Senegal 2223 0.95 (0.55, 1.63)
Zimbabwe 11970 1.37 (1.25, 1.50)
Uganda 7308 1.74 (1.54, 1.96)
Egypt 6292 1.63 (1.37, 1.93)
Tanzania 10430 1.79 (1.63, 1.96)
Zambia 10090 1.57 (1.41, 1.74)
Overall 318580 1.74 (1.70, 1.79)
.25 1 4
IPV acceptance ↓ IPV acceptance
↓
when father beats mother when father beats mother
NOTE: Weighting is by sample size
Figure 2. Country-level association between women’s history of abusive parental

relationship and their attitude to violence: adjusted odds ratios.
Note. The model is adjusted for the respondent’s childhood experience of the abusive
relationship with her parents, respondent’s empowerment, employment status, education, the
education of her spouse, the household wealth status, her age and the age of her spouse, the
number of children she ever gave birth to, her asset possession, her residential status, and the
decade of the survey.
through which violence becomes transmitted from generation to generation is

well captured by the social learning theory and is demonstrated by our results.
The reason why women accept spousal violence when they witness their par-
ents abusing each other in their childhood, according to the social learning
theory, is because the children internalize the family values when they
become adults and behave accordingly. An individual thus learns by observ-
ing the relationship between his/her parents, and if he/she witnesses interpa-
rental violence and begins to view that it is normal to use violence or to be a
victim of violence, this mainly leads to an increase in the attitudinal accep-
tance of violence. Another possible explanation is the increased shame sensi-
tivity or proneness when a person is exposed to humiliation as an adult. When
this happens, the person is reminded of being a victim of violence in child-
hood and reacts with bypassed shame, where aggression/anger, which is a
16.1
Refuses to have sex
32.3
Wife beating is justified if a woman
19.5
Neglects the children
31.5
Continent
14.4
Goes out without telling husband Africa
37.8
Asia
29.4
Burns food
27.4
25.5
Argues with him
34.9
0 10 20 30
Share of women answering "Yes" (%)
Women's attitude towards intimate partner violence
Figure 3. Women’s attitude toward intimate partner violence.
less painful emotion, is used as a protective emotion for the psyche. Therefore,
such a person uses violence mostly in situations when he/she is reliving his/
her painful experiences (Bandura, 1973; Scheff, 1979).
In addition to women’s experience of interparental abuse, the only factor
associated with higher odds of acceptance of violence was, counterintui-
tively, women’s employment status. Our findings are in line with some single
country analyses by Yount and Carrera (2006), when women experienced
greater domestic violence when they witnessed their mothers experiencing
domestic violence. However, this study focused on the experience of domes-
tic violence rather than acceptance. This can be explained in the context of
the male backlash hypothesis, as posited by Moore et al. (2021).
With a decrease in gender inequality in a country, males may try to find
ways to reaffirm their fading patriarchal control and counter the improved
status of working women by using violence. Women may thus become more
accomodating of spousal violence, especially when men use psychological
violence to exert their authority. A contracting gender gap as women over-
come their traditional gender role assignments and join the workforce serves
as a threat for men and leads to this “backlash effect” (Xie et al., 2012).
Moreover, secondary and higher education were found to be significantly
associated with acceptance of IPV, as shown in Table 3. This again may be
explained in light of the male backlash hypothesis, with women gaining
higher education becoming a threat to the cultural norms of society. Educated
Mehfooz et al. 5509
and employed women are thus exposed to violence because some cultures
and societies have stratified men and women in gender-specific roles and
norms (Thind et al., 2008). Table 3 also shows that the experience of interpa-
rental abuse predisposes women to accept partner violence for a larger num-
ber of reasons, such as neglecting children, burning food, etc. This indicates
that witnessing interparental abuse also impacts the severity of the accep-
tance of IPV for women in their relationships and increases their threshold for
acceptance of violence, thereby illustrating lasting psychological damage for
them.
Regarding the sociocultural differences between Africa and Asia, we
found that Asian women were significantly more likely to accept partner vio-
lence than African women (Model 2 in Table 3). Comparing the Asian and
African women with respect to the precise reasons for justifying partner vio-
lence reveals some interesting patterns. As shown in Figure 3, acceptance of
violence among African women is higher compared with Asian women on all
factors. The only exception is the case of the burning of food. Asian women
were more willing than their African counterparts to justify partner violence
if they burned food. This may reflect a major difference in African and Asian
cultural values. Studies find that in many countries, women eat last and least
(https://actionagainsthunger.ca/violence-against-women-is-also-eating-last-
and-least/). The husband or intimate partner is usually served food first in
Asian and typically South Asian cultural contexts (Hathi et al., 2021).
Cooking and serving good food is generally considered the wife’s primary
duty in most Asian countries as part of the gendered roles in society. Hence,
when women burn food, they are usually the center of criticism by their hus-
bands and family members, such as the in-laws in joint family systems.
Additionally, women themselves pay a lot of attention to ensuring the food
they cook is of good taste and quality. Therefore, these cultural norms in Asia
might reflect why women accept spousal violence if the food is burnt.
There is a discrepancy in the African and Asian attitudes toward IPV with
respect to the estimation method. Summary statistics in Table 1 suggest that
a larger share of African women was likely to accept IPV than their Asian
counterparts. Figure 3 also shows that a larger share of African women justi-
fied IPV than their Asian counterparts, except in the food burning subscale in
which a larger share of Asian women justified IPV. However, logistic regres-
sion suggests that Asian women were more accommodating of IPV. This
issue boils down to an old question as to why the coefficient sign in regres-
sion reverses when the model is controlled for with additional predictor(s).
Existing literature has identified Simpson’s paradox, Lord’s paradox, and
suppression effect as possible explanations for the reversal of the sign of the
coefficients, but existing literature warns that interpretation of the
coefficients needs to follow “causal reasoning,” which, in turn, relies on the-

ory and prior knowledge rather than statistical estimates (Arah, 2008).
It is also intriguing why more African women justify IPV because of
refusing sex, neglecting children, going out without telling the spouse, or
arguing with the spouse relative to their Asian counterparts (Figure 3).
Though no previous study has specifically answered this question, existing
literature explains the justification of IPV in terms of cultural and socioeco-
nomic differences. A study in Ghana explores the link between religion (pre-
dominantly Christian and Islamic beliefs) and IPV and finds that male
supremacy is justified through religion and is routinely reinforced through
religious sermons and traditions (Sikweyiya et al., 2020). Sikweyiya et al.
(2020) elaborate that some religious teachings emphasize that man is respon-
sible for disciplining his wife if she errs, and some men use such religious
teachings as a “license to punish” their partners for different reasons. Cultural
traditions across the world have widely different sensitivities toward IPV. A
study in the Arab world finds that some acts of violence have the sociocul-
tural sanction and are not even recognized as violence, such as domestic vio-
lence, female genital mutilation, marital rape, and underage marriage
(Abadeer, 2015). African and Asian attitudes toward IPV may differ with
respect to their distinct sociocultural characteristics.
Despite much contradictory evidence about the role of women’s empow-
erment in shaping their experience of IPV, evidence suggests that women’s
empowerment, defined as higher incomes, more options for ending abusive
marriages, and greater normative acceptance of women in public spheres,
evolves over time in women’s lives and an increased empowerment signifi-
cantly reduces the risk of IPV (Schuler & Nazneen, 2018). Since women’s
education and wealth status play a critical role in shaping their experience of
IPV (Mengistu, 2019), relatively better performance of South Asian women
on several socioeconomic indicators may explain why they are less likely to
justify IPV on different grounds relative to their African counterparts.
According to recent estimates (https://databank.worldbank.org/source/gen-
der-statistics), the adolescent fertility rate in South Asia was 22 births per
1,000 women (vs. 98 births in Sub-Saharan Africa). Such a vast difference in
the fertility rates is a measure of widely different social norms surrounding
women’s role in reproductive decisions, including justification of IPV for
refusing sex.
Some other well-being indicators also point to a relatively better situation
in South Asia and may explain different attitudes toward IPV. For example,
women’s life expectancy at birth was 71.26 years in South Asia (vs. 63.7 in
Sub-Saharan Africa). The under-5 female mortality rate in South Asia was
37.6 per 1,000 live births (vs. 67.8 in Sub-Saharan Africa). Maternal
Mehfooz et al. 5511
mortality ratio per 100,000 live births in South Asia was 163 (vs. 534 in Sub-
Saharan Africa). Female literacy rate (15–24 years) in South Asia was 88.9%
(vs. 74.2% in Sub-Saharan Africa), and adult literacy among 15+ years
women was 65.6% in South Asia (vs.59.4 in Sub-Saharan Africa). Gross
female school enrollment at the tertiary level was 25.3 in South Asia (vs. 9.5
in Sub-Saharan Africa). The share of women engaged in vulnerable employ-
ment (as a percentage of total female employment) was 73.7% in South Asia
(vs. 80% in Sub-Saharan Africa).
The highest acceptance ratio for partner violence was recorded in
Afghanistan, and the lowest was for Mozambique, Malawi, and Nepal.
Afghanistan’s historical and cultural characteristics might have resulted in
the higher acceptance of spousal violence against women (Samar et al.,
2014). Ahmed-Ghosh (2003) provides a comprehensive historical account of
Afghan women’s challenges. Historically, two eras in modern Afghan history
have shaped women’s socioeconomic status. First, the government of
Amanullah 1923 introduced comprehensive reforms to raise, among other
things, the women’s socioeconomic status in Afghan society, which faced
stiff resistance from conservative sections leading to the end of Amanullah’s
reign. Second, the communist-backed Peoples Democratic Party of
Afghanistan took office in Kabul in 1978 and forced an agenda of social
change, including empowering women, but this agenda also faced stiff resis-
tance from Mullah and tribal chieftains culminating in the war between
Afghanistan and the Soviet Union and the birth of Mujahideen. In 1989, the
Soviets left Afghanistan, and after a protracted civil war, Mujahedeen took
over Kabul in 1992. Under the Mujahideen, women were systematically
excluded from public space. In 1996, the Taliban took over and made it a
central plank of their public policy to control women’s behavior. Samar et al.
(2014) argued that following 9/11, Taliban forces capitalized on gender
inequality as part of their resistance and cultural ideology, which infringed on
women’s fundamental human rights.
The patriarchal norms of Afghanistan assign an inferior position to women
in the society and exclude women from the decision-making process at the
household level, which in turn normalizes wife beating in Afghanistan
(Akbary et al., 2022). Afghan women’s agency has also eroded because
Afghanistan has remained a conflict zone marred by wars and armed insur-
gency. As the women are subjected to rape, intimidation, and forced pregnan-
cies in conflict regions, the culture of violence against women permeates
domestic relationships, explaining why there is a high degree of acceptance
of domestic abuse against women in Afghanistan (Akbary et al., 2022).
Some factors associated with lower acceptance of spousal violence include
women’s empowerment, rich household wealth, increased age of the
respondent, and residence in urban areas. Findings from our study confirmed
that both individual and other household characteristics also significantly
explain women’s acceptance of domestic violence.
Limitations of the Study

This study has some limitations. First, we used observational data, which
does not allow causal inference. Even if many theories, including social
learning theory, strongly support the hypothesis that children’s experience of
witnessing their parents abuse each other shapes their attitude toward IPV as
adults, several factors could be confounding this relationship, including
social norms, shared family attitudes, media portrayals of IPV and gender
roles, and the nature of country-specific socioeconomic and legal institutions.
Social taboos involved in reporting IPV incidents may reduce the response
rate. Another source of potential bias in the estimates is that the data used in
this study is based on the women’s reports. Using alternative information
based on male reports of IPV may give widely different insights about the
issue of IPV. Future studies may consider comparing the female and male
reports of IPV.
Yet another limitation of the study relates to the construction of the out-
come variable (women’s acceptance of IPV) and the main explanatory vari-
able of interest (women’s childhood experience of interparental violence).
The fact that these factors have been constructed as dichotomous variables
has methodological implications. Women’s acceptance of violence may cor-
respond with two extremes of complete acceptance and no acceptance in
some cases but may also have several intervening gray areas, with different
segments on the spectrum responding differently to the explanatory vari-
ables. Similarly, dichotomizing the women’s childhood experience of inter-
parental violence may conceal critical information because witnessing
interparental abuse once or twice may shape attitudes toward IPV differently
compared to a situation when interparental abuse takes place more frequently
and at regular intervals.
Concluding Remarks
The main finding of this study from the multivariate logistic regression model
illustrated that the odds of accepting the spousal violence are 1.62 times
higher for the women who witnessed their fathers beat their mothers in their
childhood than the women who did not witness such interparental abuse.
When violence against women occurs in front of children, children begin
to view women as having lower social status who may be humiliated,
Mehfooz et al. 5513
punished, and coercively controlled. Children may also interpret violence

against women as a male privilege, which may, in turn, become a social
norm. When this normative world of male privilege is questioned and chal-
lenged, and the silence about such violence is broken, children will become
less accommodating of violence against women. The community and the
media can play a major role in challenging social norms surrounding IPV.
The community needs to step in when children are experiencing interpa-
rental violence and make reporting the behavior of abusive parents to authori-
ties more acceptable. It is also important to expand support for the victims of
IPV and promote the utilization of available support services. If the women
with a history of experiencing interparental violence seek psychological help
in time, they would be less likely to accept IPV as adults. Given the children’s
susceptibility to developing negative stereotypes about IPV, suitable educa-
tional content at the early stages can make the children less accommodating
of IPV as perpetrators or victims.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.
ORCID iD
Rafi Amir-ud-Din https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4100-3382
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Abadeer, A. S. (2015). Norms and gender violence. In Norms and gender discrimina-
tion in the Arab world (pp. 201–226). Springer.
Aboagye, R. G., Seidu, A.-A., Asare, B. Y.-A., Peprah, P., Addo, I. Y., & Ahinkorah,
B. O. (2021). Exposure to interparental violence and justification of intimate
partner violence among women in sexual unions in sub-Saharan Africa. Archives
of Public Health, 79(1), 1–11.
Ahmed-Ghosh, H. (2003). A history of women in Afghanistan: Lessons learnt for the
future or yesterdays and tomorrow: Women in Afghanistan. Journal of interna-
tional Women’s Studies, 4(3), 1–14.
Akbary, M. F., Ariyo, T., & Jiang, Q. (2022). Sociocultural determinants of attitudes
toward domestic violence among women and men in Afghanistan: Evidence from
Afghanistan Demographic and Health Survey 2015. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 37(11–12), NP9320–NP9344.
Ali, P., & Watson, R. (2020). Spousal violence: a Mokken scaling analysis of attitudes
of south Asian men and women. Violence and Victims, 35(5), 656–673.
Allendorf, K. (2007). Do women’s land rights promote empowerment and child health
in Nepal? World Development, 35(11), 1975–1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2006.12.005
Amir-ud-Din, R., & Abbas, F. (2020). Development and women: An analysis of
spousal violence against women in Pakistan. In G. Ali & E. Hussain (Eds.),
Perspectives on contemporary Pakistan: Governance, Development and
Environment (pp. 106–124). Routledge.
Amir-ud-Din, R., Fatima, S., & Aziz, S. (2021). Is attitudinal acceptance of violence
a risk factor? An analysis of domestic violence against women in Pakistan.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), NP4514–NP4541. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260518787809
Anderson, S. A., & Cramer-Benjamin, D. B. (1999). The impact of couple violence on
parenting and children: An overview and clinical implications. American Journal
of Family Therapy, 27(1), 1–19.
Arah, O. A. (2008). The role of causal reasoning in understanding Simpson’s paradox,
Lord’s paradox, and the suppression effect: Covariate selection in the analysis of
observational studies. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 5(1), 1–5.
Asare, B. Y., Agyemang-Duah, W., Adomako, E. B., Puri, P., Ogundare, D. O.,
Vishwakarma, D., & Peprah, P. (2022). Association between experiences of
intimate partner sexual violence and cigarette smoking among women in union
in Papua New Guinea: Evidence from a nationally representative survey. BMC
Public Health, 22(1), 613. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13003-4
Atomssa, E. M., Medhanyie, A. A., & Fisseha, G. (2021). Individual and commu-
nity-level risk factors of women’s acceptance of intimate partner violence in
Ethiopia: Multilevel analysis of 2011 Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey.
BMC Women's Health, 21(1), 1–14.
Bancroft, L., Silverman, J. G., & Ritchie, D. (2011). The batterer as parent: Addressing
the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Sage publications.
Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A.
Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213–262).
Rand McNally & Company.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall.
Boira, S., Tomas-Aragones, L., & Rivera, N. (2017). Intimate partner violence and
femicide in Ecuador. Qualitative Sociology Review, 13(3), 30–47.
Calvete, E., Fernández-González, L., Orue, I., & Little, T. D. (2018). Exposure to
family violence and dating violence perpetration in adolescents: Potential cogni-
tive and emotional mechanisms. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 67.
Cirici Amell, R., Soler, A. R., Cobo, J., & Soldevilla Alberti, J. M. (2023).
Psychological consequences and daily life adjustment for victims of intimate
Mehfooz et al. 5515
partner violence. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 58(1), 6–19.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00912174211050504
DHS. (2022). Measure DHS STATcompiler. ORC Macro.
Douki, S., Nacef, F., Belhadj, A., Bouasker, A., & Ghachem, R. (2003). Violence
against women in Arab and Islamic countries. Archives of Women’s Mental
Health, 6(3), 165–171.
Elghossain, T., Bott, S., Akik, C., & Obermeyer, C. M. (2019). Prevalence of intimate
partner violence against women in the Arab world: A systematic review. BMC
International Health and Human Rights, 19(1), 1–16.
Flood, M., & Pease, B. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against
women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(2), 125–142.
Glaus, J., Moser, D. A., Rusconi Serpa, S., Jouabli, S., Turri, F., Plessen, K. J., &
Schechter, D. S. (2022). Families with violence exposure and the intergenera-
tional transmission of somatization. Front Psychiatry, 13, 820652. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.820652
Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1998). Beliefs about wife beating among Palestinian women: The
influence of their patriarchal ideology. Violence Against Women, 4(5), 533–558.
Harland, K. K., Peek-Asa, C., & Saftlas, A. F. (2021). Intimate partner violence and
controlling behaviors experienced by emergency department patients: Differences
by sexual orientation and gender identification. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
36(11–12), NP6125–NP6143.
Hathi, P., Coffey, D., Thorat, A., & Khalid, N. (2021). When women eat last:
Discrimination at home and women’s mental health. PLoS One, 16(3), e0247065.
Hindin, M. J., & Gultiano, S. (2006). Associations between witnessing parental
domestic violence and experiencing depressive symptoms in Filipino adoles-
cents. American Journal of Public Health, 96(4), 660–663.
Islam, T. M., Tareque, M. I., Tiedt, A. D., & Hoque, N. (2014). The intergenerational
transmission of intimate partner violence in Bangladesh. Global Health Action,
7, 23591. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.23591
Jesmin, S. S. (2015). Married women’s justification of intimate partner violence
in Bangladesh: Examining community norm and individual-level risk factors.
Violence and Victims, 30(6), 984–1003.
Jesmin, S. S. (2017). Social determinants of married women’s attitudinal acceptance
of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21),
3226–3244.
Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measure-
ment of women's empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435–464.
Karlsson, M. E., Temple, J. R., Weston, R., & Le, V. D. (2016). Witnessing interpa-
rental violence and acceptance of dating violence as predictors for teen dating
violence victimization. Violence Against Women, 22(5), 625–646.
Kim, K. (2012). The role of culture in theories of the intergenerational transmission
of violence. Child & Family Social Work, 17(4), 395–405.
Low, S., Tiberio, S. S., Shortt, J. W., Mulford, C., Eddy, J. M., & Capaldi, D. M.
(2019). Intergenerational transmission of violence: The mediating role of
adolescent psychopathology symptoms. Development and Psychopathology,

31(1), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417001833
McCleary-Sills, J., Namy, S., Nyoni, J., Rweyemamu, D., Salvatory, A., & Steven, E.
(2016). Stigma, shame and women’s limited agency in help-seeking for intimate
partner violence. Global Public Health, 11(1–2), 224–235.
Mengistu, A. A. (2019). Socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing
women’s attitude toward wife beating in Ethiopia. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 34(15), 3290–3316.
Miedema, S. S., Warner, X., Leung, L., Wilson, M., & Fulu, E. (2022). Prevalence
and factors associated with men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence in
South Tarawa, Kiribati. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 34(4), 362–369.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10105395221085151
Miller, A. R., & Segal, C. (2019). Do female officers improve law enforcement qual-
ity? Effects on crime reporting and domestic violence. The Review of Economic
Studies, 86(5), 2220–2247.
Moore, M. D., Heirigs, M. H., & Barnes, A. K. (2021). A state-level analysis of
gender inequality on male and female homicide. Crime & Delinquency, 67(12),
1879–1902. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128721991820
Owens, D. J., & Straus, M. A. (1975). The social structure of violence in childhood
and approval of violence as an adult. Aggressive Behavior, 1(3), 193–211.
Rivera, P. M., & Fincham, F. (2015). Forgiveness as a mediator of the intergen-
erational transmission of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(6),
895–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514539765
Samar, S., Aqil, A., Vogel, J., Wentzel, L., Haqmal, S., Matsunaga, E., Vuolo, E., &
Abaszadeh, N. (2014). Towards gender equality in health in Afghanistan. Global
Public Health, 9, S76–S92.
Scheff, T. J. (1979). Catharsis in healing, ritual, and drama. University of California
Press.
Schuler, S. R., & Nazneen, S. (2018). Does intimate partner violence decline as wom-
en’s empowerment becomes normative? Perspectives of Bangladeshi women.
World Development, 101, 284–292.
Scrafford, K. E., Miller-Graff, L. E., Umunyana, A. G., Schwartz, L. E., & Howell,
K. H. (2020). “I did it to save my children”: Parenting strengths and fears of
women exposed to intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
37(9–10), 886260520969231.
Seabrook, R. C., Ward, L. M., & Giaccardi, S. (2019). Less than human? Media use,
objectification of women, and men’s acceptance of sexual aggression. Psychology
of Violence, 9(5), 536.
Shaikh, M. A. (2016). Domestic violence in consanguineous marriages: Findings
from Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2012–2013. The Journal of the
Pakistan Medical Association, 66, 1319–1323.
Sikweyiya, Y., Addo-Lartey, A. A., Alangea, D. O., Dako-Gyeke, P., Chirwa, E. D.,
Coker-Appiah, D., Adanu, R. M., & Jewkes, R. (2020). Patriarchy and gender-
inequitable attitudes as drivers of intimate partner violence against women in the
central region of Ghana. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–11.
Mehfooz et al. 5517
Some, S. Y., Pu, C., & Huang, S.-L. (2021). Empowerment and use of modern contra-
ceptive methods among married women in Burkina Faso: A multilevel analysis.
BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–13.
Staudt, K. (2021). Culture and globalization: Male backlash at the border. In Violence
and activism at the border (pp. 29–50). University of Texas Press.
Thind, A., Mohani, A., Banerjee, K., & Hagigi, F. (2008). Where to deliver? Analysis
of choice of delivery location from a national survey in India. BMC Public
Health, 8(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-29
Thornberry, T. P., & Henry, K. L. (2013). Intergenerational continuity in maltreat-
ment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(4), 555–569.
Wagle, S., Pandey, G., & Sharma, B. (2021). Intimate partner violence and its associ-
ated factors among women of reproductive age in Nepal: Findings from a national
cross-sectional survey. Journal of Health and Allied Sciences, 11(1), 43–50.
Walby, S., & Olive, P. (2014). Estimating the costs of gender-based violence in the
European Union. European Institute for Gender Equality.
Waltermaurer, E., Butsashvili, M., Avaliani, N., Samuels, S., & McNutt, L.-A. (2013).
An examination of domestic partner violence and its justification in the Republic
of Georgia. BMC Women’s Health, 13(1), 1–9.
WHO. (2009). Changing cultural and social norms that support violence. WHO.
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44147
Xie, M., Heimer, K., & Lauritsen, J. L. (2012). Violence against women in U.S. met-
ropolitan areas: changes in women’s status and risk, 1980–2004. Criminology,
50(1), 105–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00245.x
Yount, K. M., & Carrera, J. S. (2006). Domestic violence against married women in
Cambodia. Social Forces, 85(1), 355–387. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0151
Yount, K. M., Cheong, Y. F., Khan, Z., Bergenfeld, I., Kaslow, N., & Clark, C. J.
(2022). Global measurement of intimate partner violence to monitor Sustainable
Development Goal 5. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 465. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12889-022-12822-9
Zafar, S., Zia, S., & Amir-ud-Din, R. (2022). Troubling trade-offs between women’s
work and intimate partner violence: Evidence From 19 developing countries.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(17-18), NP16180–NP16205. https://doi.
org/10.1177/08862605211021961
Zarling, A., & Berta, M. (2017). An acceptance and commitment therapy approach
for partner aggression. Partner Abuse, 8(1), 89–109.
Zhao, M., Gao, W., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Not your destiny: Autonomy in marriage
choices and the intergenerational transmission of domestic violence among
Chinese women. Social Science Quarterly, 103(2), 328–345
Author Biographies
Musferah Mehfooz, PhD, is an Associate Professor (Tenured) in the Department of
Humanities at COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus. She has exten-
sively published on issues of religious psychology, spirituality, normative analysis of
interfaith dialog, family structures, and terrorism. She is a motivational speaker, and
actively participates in the advocacy initiatives for interfaith harmony.
Rafi Amir-ud-Din, PhD (Economics), is an Associate Professor (Tenured) at

COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus. He has extensively published on
the economic context of gender relations, domestic violence, public health, and pov-
erty. He has contributed two book chapters on the issues of gender-related violence
and alternative measures of socioeconomic development. He peer-reviews for several
top-notch public health journals.
Sameen Zafar, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Suleman Dawood School of
Business at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). She has been asso-
ciated in a teaching capacity with various universities including the University of
Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University, UK. Her main area of specialization is
Development Economics. Her research focuses on poverty, gender, and family eco-
nomics, using quantitative and qualitative methods.

Mehfooz Et Al 2022 Does Childhood Experience of Interparental Abuse Shape Women

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mehfooz Et Al 2022 Does Childhood Experience of Interparental Abuse Shape Women

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1123293

Shape Women’s Attitude

Musferah Mehfooz1, Rafi Amir-ud-Din1 ,

violence acceptance” variable, we found that a woman who witnessed her

human rights violations at the hands of some family member, primarily by

likely to both perpetrate and be victimized by violence as adults relative to

Attitudinal Acceptance of IPV

Interparental Violence and Acceptance of Partner Violence:

correlated with a women’s attitudinal acceptance of spousal violence (Flood

Concerns for Diversity

cultures. However, the motivation behind using a large cross-country sample

We developed an index of the attitudinal acceptance of violence from the

associated with the outcome variable. Additionally, we used a multivariate

Acceptancei ,t = β0 + β1 Interparental abusei ,t

where Acceptancei,t is a binary response variable, the subscript i refers to

Acceptancei ,t = β0 + β1 Interparental abusei ,t

where IPV justification type is a “yes/no” binary response variable and

Table 1. Bivariate Association Between Acceptance of Partner Violence and

Unacceptable* (%) Acceptable† (%) Prob.

Table 2. Multivariate Logistic Regression: Decade and Country Fixed Effects.

Note. Exponentiated coefficients; 95% confidence intervals in brackets. Adj. OR = adjusted

Continental fixed effects

Father beat mother of respondent

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Note. Exponentiated coefficients; 95% confidence intervals in brackets.

No. Odds ratio

Afghanistan 16136 2.03 (1.71, 2.41)

Figure 1. Country-level association between women’s history of abusive parental

Effect of Interparental Abuse on Individual Components of

No. Odds ratio

Afghanistan 15487 1.92 (1.61, 2.29)

Figure 2. Country-level association between women’s history of abusive parental

through which violence becomes transmitted from generation to generation is

Figure 3. Women’s attitude toward intimate partner violence.

coefficients needs to follow “causal reasoning,” which, in turn, relies on the-

Limitations of the Study

punished, and coercively controlled. Children may also interpret violence

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

partner violence. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 58(1), 6–19.

adolescent psychopathology symptoms. Development and Psychopathology,

Rafi Amir-ud-Din, PhD (Economics), is an Associate Professor (Tenured) at

You might also like