Intimate partner abuse, also referred to as intimate partner violence, is pervasive in most parts of the world, resulting in adverse effects for partners who tolerate it due to dependency in a spouse. Intimate partner abuse refers to any form of violence that causes physical and psychological harm to partners involved in an intimate relationship (Dhungel, Dhital, & Stock, 2017). Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) takes many forms including verbal expressions, actions that physically violate a partner, harm on self-esteem, and sexual abuse. According to Bonnes (2016), the marital dependence hypothesis argues that when a wife is entirely dependent on the husband, she is at more risk of suffering violence in the relationship. Marital dependency can take various forms including partner’s need for nurturance, protection or support, and economic reliance where a spouse depends on the financial support of their partner (Adjei, 2015). Most developing countries often report more cases of IPV (Adjei, 2015). Most women will often persist in IPV relationships due to their fear of financially instability if they left their partner. Interdependence as a dispositional factor in marriage is associated with high risks of interpersonal violence due to fear of abandonment and rejection.
The fact that women are commonly economically dependent on individuals who abuse them, presents challenging dynamics in developing new ways of dealing with IPV. According to a world report on violence and health conducted by WHO (2015), women can also be violent in intimate relationships and also same-sex partnerships, but the burden of most IPV falls on women, at the hands of men. Women’s organizations around have been working for a while since the 20 th century to raise awareness the violence against women (World Health Organization, 2015). IPV is an international concern since it occurs in all countries regardless of race, social, economic, religious, or cultural group. Based on studies conducted in 38 countries, IPV prevalence was found to range between 10% and 76%. (Bonnes, 2016). In the same study, prevalence rates in Europe were found to range from 16% to 39%. In the United States, lifetime prevalence of IPV ranged from17.4 % to 25.5% (Bonnes, 2016). The world report on violence and health reported prevalence rates to range from 11% to 42% based on studies conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Zimbabwe (World Health Organization, 2015). Women were found to be the main targets of IPV in all the studies conducted.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to research conducted by Adjei, (2015) dependent personality disorder (DPD) is a partner’s “pervasive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of abandonment.” In most communities, men are granted substantial control over women, however, abusive husbands tend to exceed the norm of male domination over females by physically abusing their partners (Yaya, Kunnuji, & Bishwajit, 2018). In contrast Shakya et al. (2016), indicates that women who accept IPV are more likely to enter relationships with abusive partners. Decision making aspects in marriages have also been identified as major determinants in the risk of experiencing IPV. Zegenhagen et al. (2019), indicates that the probability of experiencing IPV reduces in relationships where women solely made all the decisions. Men that were open to involving their wives in decision making were more likely to feel less threatened (Zegenhagena, Ranganathan, & Bullerb, 2019). Husbands that feel more threatened by a wife that voices their opinion in marriage are more likely to subject them to IPV in order to assert their dominance in the household. Zegenhagen et al. (2019), continues to reiterate that men who embraced gender equality in their marriages and allowed their wives to contribute to family expenditure were less likely to be associated with IPV.
Public health research indicates that there is a direct connection between childhood experiences and IPV identified in high dependency households in a concept referred to as “intergenerational transmission” of violence. Shakya et al. (2016), points out that people who witnessed IPV as children were more like to perpetrate IPV as adults. Further research on female immigrants from Jordan and India, shows that women experiencing IPV from their spouses were also facing similar effects from the in-laws (Rakovec-Felser, 2015). This shows that such attitudes are held within families that embrace violence as a form of domination. Partners who physically abused their partners present other common determinants such as poverty, alcohol consumption, low-levels of education, patriarchal belief systems, and adolescent marriages (Yaya et al., 2018). Husbands found to be casualties of these determinants were more likely to withdraw socially from their spouses and impose movement restrictions on their wives. Such actions are often a result of a male spouse perceiving himself to be a source of protection meaning that the wife was primarily dependent on the husband for security and social support (Machado, Martins, & Caridade, 2014). Women were at a reduced capacity to make demands since their partners regarded what they provided to be already enough for the family.
Currently, intimate partner violence takes various forms including physical aggression, psychological abuse, forced intercourse, and various controlling behaviors. According to the world report on violence and health (2015), acts of physical aggression include slapping, hitting, kicking and beating. From the same reports, psychological abuse includes intimidation, constant belittling, and humiliation while controlling behaviors include isolating a spouse from visiting their family and friends, monitoring places they visit, and restricting their access to information (World Health Organization, 2015). In support, Abramsky et al. (2019), asserts that economic dependency is directly connected to all forms of IPV. Higher income households, where women were also working, were associated with lower levels of household hardship in studies conducted in 2019 (Abramsky, et al., 2019). Spouses earning more in middle-class working families were less likely to argue over the inability of one partner failing to provide for the family. Women who contributed more than their partners in a relationship were more likely to question their husband inability to match their contributions to the family welfare (Abramsky et al., 2019). In the study, Abramsky et al. (2019) explored two closely connected aspects touching on an economic situation of a woman, and their association with physical intimate partner violence (IPV). Although higher income is seen as an aspect of reducing physical, IPV, women who contributed to the household finances were still exposed to sexual and physical IPV (Abramsky et al. 2019). In overall the analysis shows the way economic empowerement on women is likely to trigger various forms of abuse (Abramsky et al. 2019). With a higher income there os reduced hardships within the household, reduced arguments regarding the partner’s inability to cater for the family, and improved dynamics within the relationship (Abramsky et al. 2019). They felt it was the man’s responsibility to contribute at least an equal amount of household expenditure (Zegenhagena et al., 2019). Families with unequal economic contribution from either spouses experiences more arguments and higher risks of experiencing IPV.
Economic ability is major determinant in women who choose to persist with a partner that perpetrates IPV. Bonnes (2016) analyzes how power differences in marriage could lead to IPV. When men have higher education, make more money, and make most of the decisions at home, women were more likely to accommodate violence based on their fear of losing the support of the husband (Bonnes, 2016). Mothers married to an abusive father, persisted in the relationship to ensure that their children would continue receiving financial support and a high quality education. Leaving the relationship is often regarded by mothers as a gateway to suffering and loss of educational support for children with an abusive father (Bonnes, 2016). According to Bonnes, women have fewer resources to leave abusive relationships. In contrast, Abramsky et al. (2019), women who contributed more in a relationship were more likely to have separated from their spouses who contributed a less or equal amount. Women with a sustainable source of income are more likely to bear the understanding that marriage is meant for companionship and reducing the burden of providing a quality life for their children. Studies conducted in Uganda by Zegenhagen et al. (2019), indicate that women living in violent households justified their struggles as an attempt to secure their children’s futures. Women living with abusive partners are less likely to offer their opinion to their spouses in order to avoid conflict or blame when a joint decision leads to adverse consequences.
Victims of IPV perpetrated in marriages with high dependence on one partner face adverse health outcomes. Evidence suggests that health aspects in either male or female genders contribute to IPV in relationships. Rakovec-Felser (2015), asserts that “men exhibit more aggression overall, gender is not a reliable predictor of interpersonal aggression, including psychological aggression”. Studies show that aggressive partners often have a cluster of traits such as high rates of suspicion and jealousy, sudden and drastic mood swings, poor self-control and high approval of violence in dealing with arguments (Rakovec-Felser, 2015). Antisocial men tend to show two major types of aggression including violence against strangers and intimate female partners (Rakovec-Felser, 2015). In contrast, antisocial women only exhibited aggression against their intimate male partners. Male and female perpetrators of violence show high levels of personality disorders (Rakovec-Felser, 2015). Research shows that personality disorders often range from 80% to 90% in court cases involving IPV and 15-%20% in the general population (Rakovec-Felser, 2015).
Personality disorders include low impulse disorders and are associated with high levels of IPV. Men who subject their wives to household violence are more likely to face issues with regulating their temper (Rakovec-Felser, 2015). The abuser often has a reduced capacity to feel empathy. They feel marital dependence to be a burden and may recruit friends, law and court officials, and the victim’s family to support them in blaming their spouse for marriage issues (Rakovec-Felser, 2015). An abusive partner may try to gain all control of family finances to prevent their spouse from leaving the relationship. According to Rakovec-Felser (2015), perpetrators will often control a spouse in order to preserve their reputation and image in the community. A woman living with an abusive intimate partner indicated that she was afraid of calling the authorities since they would take the husband away and the whole family would be disintegrated (Rakovec-Felser, 2015). Such behavior can be associated dependency personality disorder.
In traditional settings, women are expected to occupy caregiver roles such as looking after their homes and children while deepening on the man for food and other necessary domestic supplies. Women overstepped their limits by, for example, asking for money to cater for personal needs (Zegenhagena et al., 2019). Men retaliated with violence. With the world rapidly evolving into recognizing equal gender roles, women are encouraged to find alternative sources of income to reduce their reliance on men in an intimate relationship (Zegenhagena et al., 2019). Bonnes (2016) indicates that husbands with high levels of education are more likely to support their wives in gaining more education even if it exceeds their own. Dhungel et al. (2017), asserts that marrying a man with education levels beyond high school was a high protective factor against IPV. Studies conducted in Nepal by Dhungel et al. (2017), showed that the economy and government promoted marital dependency for women by paying working people below-average wages.
To conclude, interdependence as a dispositional factor in marriage is associated with high risks of interpersonal violence due to fear of abandonment and rejection. Women who only access their economic needs through their husbands are more likely to accommodate the adverse effects of living with an abusive spouse. Intimate partner violence may take various forms such as physical aggression, psychological or emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. IPV could lead to adverse conditions such as anxiety disorders, depression, and PTSD, which are often associated with suicide and drug use. IPV acquired through “intergenerational transmission” can be eliminated at the household level, by protecting children from witnessing domestic violence. Domestic violence in adulthood reduces considerably if respect and other values of sustaining marriage are instilled at an early age. Eventually, in ensuing generations, marital dependence levels become insignificant, leading to gender equality among spouses.
References
Abramsky, T., Lees, S., Stock, H., Harvey, S., Kapinga, I., & Ranganathan, M. (2019). Women’s Income and Risk of Intimate Partner Violence: Secondary Findings from the MAISHA Cluster Randomized Trial in North-Western Tanzania. BMC Public Health , 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7454-1
Adjei, S. B. (2015). Partner Dependency and Intimate Partner Abuse: A Sociocultural Grounding of Spousal Abuse in Ghana. Psychological Studies , 60(4), 422-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-015-0336-4
Bonnes, S. (2016). Education and Income Imbalances among Married Couples in Malawi as Predictors for Likelihood of Physical and Emotional Intimate Physical and Emotional Intimate. Violence and Victims , 1-21. http://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00016
Dhungel, S., Dhungel, P., Dhital3, S. R., & Stock, C. (2017). Is economic dependence on the husband a risk factor for intimate partner violence against female factory workers in Nepal? BMC Women's Health , 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-017-0441-8
Machado, C., Martins, C., & Caridade, S. (2014). Violence in Intimate Relationships: A Comparison between Married and Dating Couples. Violence by Intimate Partners , 1-10. http://doi.org/10.1155/2014/897093
Rakovec-Felser, Z. (2015). Domestic violence and abuse in intimate relationship from public health perspective. Health Psychology Research , 62-67. https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2014.1821
Shakya, H., Hughes, A., Stafford, D., Christakis, N., Fowler, J., & Silverman, J. (2016). Intimate partner violence norms cluster within households: an observational social network study in rural Honduras. BMC Public Health , 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2893-4
World Health Organization. (2015). Violence by Intimate Partners. World Report on Violence and Health , 89-121.
Yaya, S., Kunnuji, M., & Bishwajit, G. (2018). Intimate Partner Violence: A Potential Challenge for Women’s Health in Angola. MDPI , 10(21), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe10010021
Zegenhagena, S., Ranganathan, M., & Bullerb, A. M. (2019). Household decision-making and its association with intimate partner violence: Examining differences in men and women's perceptions in Uganda. SSM-Population Health , 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100442
