IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0004113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender beliefs and norms underlying intimate partner violence stigma among women living in Botswana: Results of an exploratory factor analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ari Ho-Foster
  • Mercilene Tanyaradzwa Machisa
  • Lorato Ruth Moalusi
  • Nicola Christofides

Abstract

Gender inequitable beliefs, blaming attitudes, externalised and internalised stigma are commonly recognised barriers for intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors seeking help. However, the measurement of IPV stigma, its associations with inequitable gender beliefs and impacts on survivor disclosure, help-seeking behaviours, and mental health outcomes remain understudied. We explored women’s agreement with statements about gendered power dynamics and violence in intimate heterosexual relationships, before identifying and psychometrically testing scales derived for measuring community norms and beliefs underlying stigma to IPV. We used data from a nationally representative sample of 596 women living in Botswana. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) occurred with responses of IPV survivors, and involved items from the Community Ideas about Gender Relations, Community Ideas about Rape, and Gender Equitable Women Scales. For each EFA identified scale, we estimated reliability (McDonald’s omega (ω)) and correlation with psychosocial outcomes related to IPV stigma. Among IPV survivors, we also considered whether survivors had disclosed their experience of abuse to others prior to the interview. Some 40.9% (n = 244) of women have experienced physical and/or sexual IPV at least once in their lives. Among them, an EFA of 31 gender beliefs and norms identified three latent variables: community norms about male dominance over female partners (C-MDP) (11 items; ω = 0.86); respondent beliefs about male dominance over female partners (I-MDP) (12 items; ω = 0.83); and survivor blaming attitudes (SBA) for the IPV they experienced (8-items; ω = 0.83). Some 15% of survivors had attempted suicide in the past, 8% had disclosed having suicidal thoughts, 49% were considered at risk for depression, and 18% at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder. Survivors who more strongly endorsed C-MDP appeared more likely to have attempted suicide (p = 0.04), and less likely to have disclosed their IPV experience prior to the study (p = 0.002). Survivors who more strongly endorsed SBA appeared more likely to have had suicidal thoughts (p = 0.02) and greater post-traumatic stress symptoms (p = 0.06). C-MDP, I-MDP and SBA appear related to psychosocial and disclosure outcomes. Gendered social norms may play an important role in understanding how survivors experience IPV stigma. We recommend further research into culture-informed practices that act to socialise such norms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ari Ho-Foster & Mercilene Tanyaradzwa Machisa & Lorato Ruth Moalusi & Nicola Christofides, 2025. "Gender beliefs and norms underlying intimate partner violence stigma among women living in Botswana: Results of an exploratory factor analysis," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-22, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0004113
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0004113
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0004113&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0004113?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0004113. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.