IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002303.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring personal beliefs and perceived norms about intimate partner violence: Population-based survey experiment in rural Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander C Tsai
  • Bernard Kakuhikire
  • Jessica M Perkins
  • Dagmar Vořechovská
  • Amy Q McDonough
  • Elizabeth L Ogburn
  • Jordan M Downey
  • David R Bangsberg

Abstract

Background: Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted throughout sub-Saharan Africa indicate there is widespread acceptance of intimate partner violence, contributing to an adverse health risk environment for women. While qualitative studies suggest important limitations in the accuracy of the DHS methods used to elicit attitudes toward intimate partner violence, to date there has been little experimental evidence from sub-Saharan Africa that can be brought to bear on this issue. Methods and findings: We embedded a randomized survey experiment in a population-based survey of 1,334 adult men and women living in Nyakabare Parish, Mbarara, Uganda. The primary outcomes were participants’ personal beliefs about the acceptability of intimate partner violence and perceived norms about intimate partner violence in the community. To elicit participants’ personal beliefs and perceived norms, we asked about the acceptability of intimate partner violence in five different vignettes. Study participants were randomly assigned to one of three survey instruments, each of which contained varying levels of detail about the extent to which the wife depicted in the vignette intentionally or unintentionally violated gendered standards of behavior. For the questions about personal beliefs, the mean (standard deviation) number of items where intimate partner violence was endorsed as acceptable was 1.26 (1.58) among participants assigned to the DHS-style survey variant (which contained little contextual detail about the wife’s intentions), 2.74 (1.81) among participants assigned to the survey variant depicting the wife as intentionally violating gendered standards of behavior, and 0.77 (1.19) among participants assigned to the survey variant depicting the wife as unintentionally violating these standards. In a partial proportional odds regression model adjusting for sex and village of residence, with participants assigned to the DHS-style survey variant as the referent group, participants assigned the survey variant that depicted the wife as intentionally violating gendered standards of behavior were more likely to condone intimate partner violence in a greater number of vignettes (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] ranged from 3.87 to 5.74, with all p

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander C Tsai & Bernard Kakuhikire & Jessica M Perkins & Dagmar Vořechovská & Amy Q McDonough & Elizabeth L Ogburn & Jordan M Downey & David R Bangsberg, 2017. "Measuring personal beliefs and perceived norms about intimate partner violence: Population-based survey experiment in rural Uganda," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002303
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002303
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002303&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002303?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:pmed00:1002303. 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: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    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.