Objectives: In recent years, multiple studies have investigated the issue of intimate partner violence (IPV) in Korea. However, most of those studies have focused on IPV against women, while overlooking the problem of men IPV victimization. Considering this, the current study identified risk and pro...
Objectives: In recent years, multiple studies have investigated the issue of intimate partner violence (IPV) in Korea. However, most of those studies have focused on IPV against women, while overlooking the problem of men IPV victimization. Considering this, the current study identified risk and protective factors for IPV and examined their influence on IPV victimization among Korean men. Methods: We used a nationally representative sample of 1668 Korean men from the 2013 Korea National Survey on Domestic Violence. The associations between potential IPV risk factors and different types of IPV were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Specifically, separate analyses were conducted of 5 types of IPV (neglect, controlling behaviors, emotional violence, economic violence, and physical violence). Results: The prevalence of IPV among Korean men and women showed only marginal gender differences. Controlling behaviors (men, 23.3%; women, 23.9%) and emotional violence (men, 16.5%; women, 18.8%) were the most common types of IPV reported, followed by neglect (men, 11.2%; women, 11.7%). Separate logistic regression analyses for the 5 subtypes of IPV revealed that mutual IPV was a strong predictor of IPV. Men who abused their wives were more likely to experience neglect (odds ratio [OR], 29.24; p<0.01), controlling behaviors (OR, 36.61; p<0.01), emotional violence (OR, 58.07; p<0.01), economic violence (OR, 18.78; p<0.01), and physical violence (OR, 38.09; p<0.01). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that IPV intervention strategies should particularly focus on couples whose relationship is characterized by patterns of bidirectional violence.
Objectives: In recent years, multiple studies have investigated the issue of intimate partner violence (IPV) in Korea. However, most of those studies have focused on IPV against women, while overlooking the problem of men IPV victimization. Considering this, the current study identified risk and protective factors for IPV and examined their influence on IPV victimization among Korean men. Methods: We used a nationally representative sample of 1668 Korean men from the 2013 Korea National Survey on Domestic Violence. The associations between potential IPV risk factors and different types of IPV were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Specifically, separate analyses were conducted of 5 types of IPV (neglect, controlling behaviors, emotional violence, economic violence, and physical violence). Results: The prevalence of IPV among Korean men and women showed only marginal gender differences. Controlling behaviors (men, 23.3%; women, 23.9%) and emotional violence (men, 16.5%; women, 18.8%) were the most common types of IPV reported, followed by neglect (men, 11.2%; women, 11.7%). Separate logistic regression analyses for the 5 subtypes of IPV revealed that mutual IPV was a strong predictor of IPV. Men who abused their wives were more likely to experience neglect (odds ratio [OR], 29.24; p<0.01), controlling behaviors (OR, 36.61; p<0.01), emotional violence (OR, 58.07; p<0.01), economic violence (OR, 18.78; p<0.01), and physical violence (OR, 38.09; p<0.01). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that IPV intervention strategies should particularly focus on couples whose relationship is characterized by patterns of bidirectional violence.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
문제 정의
This study examined the risk factors associated with IPV victimization among Korean men for 5 forms of IPV by analyzing data from the 2010 Korean National Study on Domestic Violence. According to a preliminary analysis of the dataset, we found that the prevalence of men IPV victimization ranged from 1.
제안 방법
701. In addition, a variable measuring the extent to which respondents had witnessed inter-partner violence between their parents during childhood was defined by adding 3 items that asked respondents whether their parents had ever engaged in behavior such as hitting each other, throwing objects at each other, or verbally abusing each other. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for these 3 items was 0.
Moving to the results of the regression analyses, our findings partially reflected those of previous research on male IPV victimization, with some distinctions across the broad spectrum of IPV types included in the study. The traumatizing experience of having been abused by violent parents or witnessing violent interactions between one’s parents during childhood was significantly associated with experiencing neglect (OR, 1.
This article used the 2010 National Survey of Domestic Violence to examine the risk factors associated with IPV victimization of Korean men. This analysis included the 5 types of IPV measured by the survey: neglect, controlling behaviors, economic violence, emotional violence, and physical violence.
대상 데이터
4%) were men respondents [21]. For the purpose of this secondary data analysis, we selected a subgroup that included all 1668 of the men respondents.
The Welfare Support Division within the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family oversaw the survey, for which 3800 representative households distributed across 200 districts were visited from August 2010 through October 2010 [3]. The final sample included a total of 5000 respondents aged 18 or older. Of the respondents, 3332 (66.
데이터처리
Univariate logistic regression models were first used to evaluate the relationships between each factor and the independent variables. The factors that were found to be significant at the 0.05 level of significance in the univariate analysis were included as independent variables in the multivariate model. This procedure was used to separately analyze the 5 categories of IPV.
이론/모형
A subset of questions from the Straus Revised Conflict Tactics Scale and the WHO was used to assess respondents’ experience of different forms of IPV.
Table 2 (model 1) presents the results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis for factors associated with experiencing neglect. All variables except education and urbanity were included in the multivariate regression model. However, only witnessing IPV between one’s own parents during childhood (odds ratio [OR], 1.
Furthermore, research on men IPV victimization has been primarily conducted in Western nations, which tend to show higher levels of gender equality and women’s empowerment than Korea. This article used the 2010 National Survey of Domestic Violence to examine the risk factors associated with IPV victimization of Korean men. This analysis included the 5 types of IPV measured by the survey: neglect, controlling behaviors, economic violence, emotional violence, and physical violence.
성능/효과
However, only witnessing IPV between one’s own parents during childhood (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; p<0.05) and neglecting one’s own partner (OR, 29.24; p<0.01) were statistically significant in the final model, and both were associated with an increased likelihood of men victimization through neglect.
First, the cross-sectional nature of this research allowed us to identify significant relationships between risk factors and IPV victimization, but not to infer causal relationships. Second, the prevalence of man IPV victimization (as well as IPV perpetration) only measured whether such events occurred in the previous 12 months. Hence, this study may not account for all IPV victimization experienced by the individuals included in the sample.
Third, although we included a measure of mutual violence, we could not assess the frequency of such violence, its directionality (i.e., who started the violent behavior), and whether the partner’s violence was escalation, revenge, self-defense, or had other motivations.
Three factors—being employed (OR, 2.30; p<0.05), having experienced child abuse during childhood (OR, 1.18; p<0.05), and engaging in emotional violence against the female partner (OR, 58.07; p<0.01)—were found to be statistically significant in the multivariate logistic regression model assessing factors associated with victimization through emotional violence (model 3 in Table 2).
참고문헌 (39)
1 Krug EG Mercy JA Dahlberg LL Zwi AB The world report on violence and health Lancet 2002 360 9339 1083 1088 12384003
2 Solotaroff JL Pande RP Violence against women and girls: lessons from South Asia 2014 [cited 2020 Feb 13]. Available from: https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/resource-centre/violence-against-women-and-girls-lessons-from-south-asia/
3 Kim JY Oh S Nam SI Prevalence and trends in domestic violence in South Korea: findings from national surveys J Interpers Violence 2016 31 8 1554 1576 25600976
7 Hines DA Douglas EM Women’s use of intimate partner violence against men: prevalence, implications, and consequences J Aggress Maltreat Trauma 2009 18 6 572 586
8 Caetano R Vaeth PA Ramisetty-Mikler S Intimate partner violence victim and perpetrator characteristics among couples in the United States J Fam Violence 2008 23 6 507 518
9 Cunradi CB Intimate partner violence among Hispanic men and women: the role of drinking, neighborhood disorder, and acculturation-related factors Violence Vict 2009 24 1 83 97 19297887
11 Sorenson SB Upchurch DM Shen H Violence and injury in marital arguments: risk patterns and gender differences Am J Public Health 1996 86 1 35 40 8561239
12 Mercado J Bautista L Urrutia JD Morelos MJ Amora JG Analysis on predicting spousal physical violence in the Philippines using binary logistic regression Eur Acad Res 2015 3 3 31453166
13 Tollestrup K Sklar D Frost FJ Olson L Weybright J Sandvig J Health indicators and intimate partner violence among women who are members of a managed care organization Prev Med 1999 29 5 431 440 10564635
14 Browne A Salomon A Bassuk SS The impact of recent partner violence on poor women’s capacity to maintain work Violence Against Women 1999 5 4 393 426
15 Jewkes R Fulu E Tabassam Naved R Chirwa E Dunkle K Haardorfer R Women’s and men’s reports of past-year prevalence of intimate partner violence and rape and women’s risk factors for intimate partner violence: a multicountry cross-sectional study in Asia and the Pacific PLoS Med 2017 14 9 e1002381 28873087
16 van Wijk NP Domestic violence by and against men and women in Curacao: a Caribbean study [dissertation] Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit 2012 (German)
17 Whitaker DJ Haileyesus T Swahn M Saltzman LS Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence Am J Public Health 2007 97 5 941 947 17395835
19 Nikparvar F Stith S Anderson J Panaghi L Intimate partner violence in Iran: factors associated with physical aggression victimization and perpetration J Interpers Violence 2018 886260518759060 29544393
20 Donovan C Hester M ‘I hate the word “victim”’: an exploration of recognition of domestic violence in same sex relationships Soc Policy Soc 2010 9 2 279 289
21 Korean Women’s Development Institute The domestic violence survey in 2013 [cited 2020 Mar 22]. Available from: http://www.ndsl.kr/ndsl/search/detail/report/reportSearchResultDetail.do?cn=TRKO201600013306 (Korean)
22 Straus MA Wife beating: how common and why? Victimology 1977 2 3-4 443 458
23 Steinmetz SK The battered husband syndrome Victimology 1977 2 3-4 499 509
24 Stets JE Hammons SA Gender, control, and marital commitment J Fam Issues 2002 23 1 3 25
25 Straus MA Gelles RJ Steinmetz SK Behind closed doors: violence in the American family New York Transaction Publishers 2006 36 38
26 Moffitt TE Caspi A Findings about partner violence from the dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study 1999 [cited 2019 Aug 28]. Available from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf
27 Houry D Rhodes KV Kemball RS Click L Cerulli C McNutt LA Differences in female and male victims and perpetrators of partner violence with respect to WEB scores J Interpers Violence 2008 23 8 1041 1055 18272721
28 Capaldi DM Owen LD Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couples: gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear J Fam Psychol 2001 15 3 425 440 11584793
30 Widom CS Czaja S Dutton MA Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: a prospective investigation Child Abuse Negl 2014 38 4 650663
31 McKinney CM Caetano R Ramisetty-Mikler S Nelson S Childhood family violence and perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence: findings from a national population-based study of couples Ann Epidemiol 2009 19 1 25 32 18835525
32 Wolfe DA Wekerle C Scott K Straatman AL Grasley C ReitzelJaffe D Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: a controlled outcome evaluation J Consult Clin Psychol 2003 71 2 279 291 12699022
35 Ahmadabadi Z Najman JM Williams GM Clavarino AM Income, gender, and forms of intimate partner violence J Interpers Violence 2017 886260517719541 29294851
36 Palmetto N Davidson LL Breitbart V Rickert VI Predictors of physical intimate partner violence in the lives of young women: victimization, perpetration, and bidirectional violence Violence Vict 2013 28 1 103 121 23520835
37 Pepler D The development of dating violence: what doesn’t develop, what does develop, how does it develop, and what can we do about it? Prev Sci 2012 13 4 402 409 22760685
38 Langhinrichsen-Rohling J Capaldi DM Clearly we’ve only just begun: developing effective prevention programs for intimate partner violence Prev Sci 2012 13 4 410 414 22752380
39 Wray AM Hoyt T Gerstle M Preliminary examination of a mutual intimate partner violence intervention among treatment-mandated couples J Fam Psychol 2013 27 4 664 670 23750516
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.