PEOPLE BELIEVE SEXUAL

HARASSMENT AND DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE ARE LESS HARMFUL TO
WOMEN IN POVERTY

Flynn, Chloe
[Email address
Abstract
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................2

1.1 Definition and Context................................................................................................2

2 Literature Review...............................................................................................................3

2.1 Male-female victim dynamic.......................................................................................3

2.2 How people respond to DV.........................................................................................3

2.3 Bystander Intervention................................................................................................4

2.4 Public Reactions to DV...............................................................................................4

2.5 Gender Bias on DV.....................................................................................................5

2.6 Socioeconomic status with domestic violence............................................................6

2.7 Research Gap...............................................................................................................7

2.8 The Rationale of the Research.....................................................................................7

2.9 Present Study...............................................................................................................8

2.9.1 Aim 1....................................................................................................................8

2.9.2 Objectives 1..........................................................................................................8

2.9.3 Aim 2....................................................................................................................8

2.9.4 Objectives 2..........................................................................................................8

3 Methodology......................................................................................................................9

3.1 Design..........................................................................................................................9

3.2 Participants..................................................................................................................9

3.3 Materials......................................................................................................................9

3.4 The scoring scale for the statements is 1 to 5. Items are reverse-coded; therefore, a
lower number indicates higher adherence to attitudes in favour of the perpetrator.............10

3.5 Procedure...................................................................................................................10

3.6 Ethics.........................................................................................................................11

4 Results..............................................................................................................................12

4.1 Main Analysis............................................................................................................12

 4.2 Secondary Analysis...................................................................................................12

5 Discussion........................................................................................................................14

5.1 Influence of Victim/Perpetrator Gender Dynamics and Socioeconomic Status (SES)

14

5.2 Intersectionality: Gender and Socioeconomic Status................................................15

5.3 Implications for Policy and Intervention...................................................................16

6 Limitations and Future Recommendations......................................................................17

References................................................................................................................................19
1 Introduction

1.1 Definition and Context

Abuse or violence which takes place within a domestic environment, namely a marriage or
cohabitation, is referred to as domestic violence (DV). Intimate partner violence (IPV), a term
used when an individual in an intimate relationship abuses their partner, is sometimes
confused with domestic violence (Mitchell, 2009). It can happen in romantic relations or
among ex-partners/spouses. It may occur in many different forms, such as verbal, emotional,
monetary, or sexual misconduct. It involves using technological devices to harass, monitor,
oversee, or stalk people. This may encompass a variety of forms, ranging from mild, coerced
types to marital rape and additional severe physical violence, like physical assault and
suffocation (Woodlock, 2017). The Home Office of the United Kingdom expanded the
concept of domestic violence in 2015 to encompass coercive control (GOV UK, 2023).
Most victims of domestic abuse globally are female, and the types of violence that women
face are typically greater in severity. (Miller & McCaw, 2019; McQuigg, 2011; García-
Moreno & Stöckl, 2009). In their entire lives, one in four women (27%) while one in seven
men (13.9%) will endure domestic abuse (Brooks, 2023; ONS, 2022), According to a study
by Straus (2011), 18.6% of male college participants noted they were once in an intimate
relationship where there was physical abuse. Yet for a variety of reasons, including anxiety, a
shortage of resources or aid, embarrassment, and prejudices, both men and women may
refrain from disclosing such events (Hamby, 2009). Sardinha and Nájera (2018) carried out a
cross-cultural examination of attitudes regarding domestic violence within 49 low- and
middle-income countries, yielding significant findings regarding the degree of DV and its
associated trends throughout numerous countries; the study's cross-cultural component
accurately reflects the universal scope of the issues.
2 Literature Review

2.1 Male-female victim dynamic

As reported by ONS (2023) in 2023, an estimated 1.4 million women and 751,000 men who
are 16 years of age or older reported experiencing domestic violence; this represents a
prevalence rate of roughly 3.2% for males and 5.7% for women. However, Depraetere et al.
(2020) mentioned that the rate of male victimisation has been minimised previously because
of the low reporting rate. Babaita and Aliyu (2019) highlight that the gendered aspect of DV
has been explained by the feminist theory which was proposed by Mary Wollstonecraft in
1794. From this perspective, DV can be considered as a tool of men to keep the power and
control over their partners by resorting to violence and abuse. The research of Lelaurain et al.
(2018) showed that societal gender norms can influence the way that people see violence so
that if it is a man against a woman, it is more justified than if it is the opposite. However, On
the other hand, Conroy et al. (2024) and Graham‐Kevan and Bates (2020) demonstrated that
there are other theories including the typology of Johnson (1995) and the hybrid model of
Dutton (2006) show that the power and control motivations for DV are over-generalised and
the relationship dynamics and the characteristics of both parties, such as psychopathology
and situational couple violence, should also be considered to understand abuse fully.

2.2 How people respond to DV

Stives et al. (2019) highlighted that the wrong and inappropriate response is often given by
people when they are confronted by domestic violence. The main problem is that there are no
bystanders who do anything to stop the bullying. Many witnesses, who are watching DV
occur, do not intervene although their help is crucial to the victim. People do not take part in
the process because they are afraid of revenge from the criminal. Besides, Ermer et al. (2021)
pointed out that there is another opinion that DV is a private matter and no one else should
meddle in it. The other reason is that some onlookers do not know how to properly intervene
in volatile situations. This uncertainty may be so huge that they cannot even make any
decision. Bystander intervention programs are meant to resolve these issues by teaching the
community the right way they can help the victims of domestic violence. On the other hand,
Crooks et al. (2019) critique that these shift the burden on the bystanders and do not address
the root causes of gender-based violence. The fact that abuse is still being reported to the
authorities does not prevent law enforcement responses from being inadequate. Russell
(2018) indicated that sometimes police officers display bias against victims or underestimate
the seriousness of DV cases. The problem of underreporting still exists because of the lack of
faith in the victims that the authorities will help them properly or protect them. Boranijašević
(2018) explained that media sensationalism may cause society to be even farther away from
the truth about DV or even the victim. This normalisation is expressed in the way people and
institutions act on the root sociocultural causes of abuse by either responding to or neglecting
to address them. Integrated solutions involve the treatment of both behaviours and systems.

2.3 Bystander Intervention

According to Fenton et al. (2019), bystander intervention programs are intended to motivate
the people who witness DV to intervene and help the victims leave the situation safely. These
programs are based on the findings that indicate that when peers give support and help, the
escalation process is stopped, and the probability of future abuse is decreased. Debnam and
Mauer (2021) described that bystander intervention provides people with techniques like
distracting the abuser, confronting them directly, or calling the authorities on the victim’s
behalf. The evaluation of programs demonstrates that they are capable of effectively raising
awareness of domestic abuse and bystander effectiveness in responding. However, some
crucial limitations remain. Bishop and Bettinson (2018) highlighted that not all witnesses feel
secure enough or able to physically intervene, as this can be dangerous for themselves or
other people. In addition, the programs do not remove the typical barriers like not wanting to
intrude or believing that someone else will do the job. Lloyd (2018) illustrated that education
is crucial for DV, but it does not erase the social norms that make DV normal. Furthermore,
after the bystander intervention, the main responsibility is to witness rather than look for
systemic causes. Holistic solutions need to be both bottom-up and top-down, which will
require challenging the prejudices on the institutional level.

2.4 Public Reactions to DV

Research by Lelaurain et al. (2021) has shown that the public attitude towards domestic
violence shows how much it is still accepted and tolerated by society. The general population
still has some patriarchal views and this has the justification of violence in intimate
relationships to some extent. For example, the majority of people think that the husband has
the right to control his wife or that physical force is the way to handle disrespect.
Furthermore, Dziewa and Glowacz (2021) noted that victims are sometimes accused of
provoking partners or not leaving the relationships sooner. Mass media portrayal of domestic
violence can have a positive or negative impact on public opinion. Mourão and Robertson
(2019) stated that sensationalised news often emphasises the most extreme cases leaving the
systemic problems behind. Sometimes in the TV series, a humorous way is used to show
abusive behaviours as a normal way of resolving a conflict. However, Sivarajasingam (2022)
revealed that awareness campaigns and stories of abused women sharing their experiences are
teaching the public and changing the public’s perception of DV from a family matter to a
human rights issue. Sadler, Grabianowsk and Ashley (2020) highlighted that the millennial
generation is more empathetic and equal in terms of gender roles as compared to the older
generation. However, Kreft (2023) demonstrated that total eradication of DV involves a
constant war against victim blaming, cultural normalisation, and social institutions that have
been institutionally biased towards abuse.

2.5 Gender Bias on DV

Bates et al. (2019) mentioned that stereotypical gender norms and prejudices are the principal
factors that determine social thinking and reaction to domestic violence. One of the most
common biases is the tendency to view violence between intimate partners as less intolerable
if the Perpetrator is a man and the victim is a woman. Wood (2019) described the ancient
belief that men have a natural right to exercise power and dominate other women if they see
it as necessary. This type of gender bias is the source of the victim-blaming mentality where
women who are abused are blamed for the violence. The usual stereotypes were that the
woman had in some way caused violence by her actions or disobedience. Dokkedahl and
Elklit (2019) explained that women also be perceived as an example of a jealous partner who
is angry and powerless after the breakup. Such biases justify such abuse as a normal
consequence of a woman refusing to obey her male partner’s will. When domestic violence is
done by a female to a male partner, it is usually thought of as less serious or as not as severe
as the violence done by a man, and this is because of old ideas about gender differences in
size and strength.
As per the research of Mackay et al. (2018) When both partners are involved in Intimate
partner violence (IPV), abuse by the female is more likely to be regarded as self-defence
while the male’s is more likely to be seen as the primary offence. This bias ignores the fact
that female violence is mostly self-defence and in most cases, men are also victims of female
partners. Dim and Lysova (2022) demonstrated that the same gender biases are also reflected
in the criminal justice system when it comes to dealing with DV cases. Male perpetrators are
still less likely to be arrested and prosecuted even with the account of the key case factors in
comparison to female perpetrators with the same allegations. When men are sentenced, they
generally get less severe sentences compared to women on average. Abrunhosa et al. (2021)
indicated that this implies that the crime of violence against women is not as harsh and the
perpetrator does not need to fear punishment, therefore the violence continues. However,
there are community service biases in the way in which they provide and prevent domestic
violence support. Lloyd (2018) illustrated that even though some steps have been made to
overcome these biases through education, the process of transforming social attitudes into
viewing domestic violence as a human rights issue affecting all victims rather than a personal
conflict between heterosexual couples will take long-term efforts.

2.6 Socioeconomic status with domestic violence

Anitha (2019) stated that poverty increases the risk of women for domestic violence and
abuse. Women are compelled to remain in hazardous circumstances as financial instability
makes it almost impossible to escape unsafe living conditions. When everything is a struggle,
leaving an abusive relationship can be an overwhelming thought. Poverty is a continuous
source of problems in intimate relationships that may escalate to the abuse of intimate partner
violence. On the other hand, Cheek et al. (2023) mentioned the “thick skin bias” where
people think that gender-based violence such as sexual harassment and domestic abuse have
less severe effects on low-socioeconomic status (SES) women when compared to high-SES
women. Moreover, people have a misconception that women do not have a higher risk of
being impoverished. This discrimination might be one of the reasons why the victims of low
SES get less help and support, even though they are more vulnerable. Unfortunately,
Lutgendorf (2019) described that domestic violence harms every aspect of a woman’s life,
including economic difficulties. The physical and mental health issues that result from
violence are the factors that keep her from being able to work and provide for herself and her
children. The root cause of homelessness and housing insecurity and being a single parent as
a survivor is the hardest thing ever. Coleman, Esmalian and Mostafavi (2020) identified that
the overflowing shelters and social support system, which is at the breaking point, give no
choice of safe havens. The police are less responsive to domestic disturbance calls in low-
income neighbourhoods. A victim-blaming myth that portrays poverty as an open door to
abuse still exists. In contrast, Addae-Korankye (2019) noted that poverty is not a moral flaw
or a personal deficiency, but an economic status that is exacerbated by a lack of opportunities
and resources. Abuse does not discriminate between people of different classes because of
their backgrounds. Rizkalla et al. (2020) highlighted that more money and cultural sensitivity
training could be an aid to frontline responders to treat women of different classes with the
same care. That is the only way how you can make progress on domestic violence and its
ability to keep poverty in the next generation.

2.7 Research Gap

Most of the research is based on specific regions which have particular rules to overcome this
situation which is not enough to explain DV completely. Cheek et al. (2023) the assessment
of the incidence and outcomes is conducted either by third parties or by surveys, but there is
still a lot to learn about the specific situations of low-income women who have survived
abuse by listening to their narratives. On the other hand, Hunter Barnett and Kaganas (2020)
analysed that family law cases often involve domestic abuse, and UK government policy and
support services that focus on criminal matters rarely deal with family law cases.
Dissimilarly, Powell et al. (2020) research on developing two core outcome sets (COS) to
assess the efficacy of child and family-focused interventions for child maltreatment (CM) and
domestic violence and abuse (DVA) through a two-stage consensus process involving
stakeholders. The main objective of this was to improve the uniformity of outcome selection
and measurement across trials and service evaluations. To fill this gap this research aims to
examine how the victim/perpetrator gender dynamic can influence individuals’ attitudes
towards domestic violence.
This literature review explored the gender-based violence issue and its effect on public
opinion that is shaped by gender roles. Moreover, it shows the differences and facts between
the two sexes all over the world. The victim-offender relationship theory and the way the
court system, the public and the media react are discussed. Furthermore, research gaps
include those which cover a wide range of fields and the studies of the experiences of
marginalized groups. The essence of the inclusion of gender biases and how they impact
policies and strategies is highlighted.

2.8 The Rationale of the Research

The rationale of the study is to investigate whether victim-perpetrator relationships affect the
way the public perceives domestic violence. The objective of this research is to bring to light
the existing gaps and failures by focusing on the role of stereotypical gender norms and
prejudices in social thinking and reactions to domestic violence. Moreover, domestic violence
is a global problem, which is not only connected with personal relationships and certain
regions. The aim is to investigate the gender dynamics in the relationship between the victim
and the perpetrator and its effect on the attitudes of the individuals on domestic violence.
2.9 Present Study

This study focuses on the connection between gender and socioeconomic issues that are
associated with domestic violence attitudes. This study will be conducted to determine: will
the gender of a respondent and victim matters; and does the victim’s social status influences
the rating. This research aims to find out if the participants’ ratings differ by victim’s gender
and SES and to study the relationships between the participants’ attributes and case features.
This would help us to trace the biases that are leading to the community’s responses to the
abuses.

2.9.1 Aim 1

To examine how the victim/perpetrator gender dynamic can influence individuals’ attitudes
towards domestic violence.

2.9.2 Objectives 1

1. To determine whether male and female participants differ in their attitudes towards a
domestic violence case.
2. To determine whether the gender of the victim affects participants’ attitudes towards the
case. 3. To determine if there is an interaction effect between participant and victim gender

2.9.3 Aim 2

Does Socio-Economic Status or Class have an influence?

2.9.4 Objectives 2

1. To determine whether male and female participants differ in their attitudes towards the
socioeconomic status or class of the case.
2. To determine whether the gender of the victim affects participants’ attitudes towards the
case. 3. To determine if there is an interaction effect between participant and victim gender.
3 Methodology

3.1 Design

This study used a quantitative cross-sectional design, with every participant answering the
same multiple-choice section, irrespective of the vignette they were given. This is that results
could be compared between gender dynamics and socioeconomic status. The variables we
used for the study are as follows: the independent variables were age, gender, and
socioeconomic status; the dependent variable was the scores obtained from the vignette
statements. All participants were then assigned to their specific group following the
statements from the vignettes.

3.2 Participants

An online quantitative survey (Qualtrics) was used for this study. Participants were recruited
through volunteering and opportunity sampling. Eligible participants had to be over the age
of 18 years old. Any gender was able to complete the study. The survey was administered
online via social media and distributed among University of Bolton students. A total of 94
participants responded (n = 94), and 24 of those responses were excluded due to incompletion
and/or not following the correct instructions of the survey, meaning 70 responses remained
(18 male, 51 female, 1 non-binary). The mean age of participants stands at 34 (standard
deviation = 13). The age range among the participants was 18 to 65. The average age between
genders was (M= 43, Female = 31).

3.3 Materials

Vignettes: There were four separate vignette scenarios created that were employed within the
study, these being randomly allocated to each participant of the study, allowing an equal
response to each vignette scenario. To put it into context, here is an example of a vignette
used within the cross-sectional design.
Please read the following scenario involving an account of conflict between a romantic
couple: Mark is a 27-year-old male who works in finance, and Katy, a 26-year-old female.
Mark and Kelly have been together for approximately three years. They both weigh roughly
12.5 stone and are 5 feet, 10 inches tall.
Mark, a highly respected man at his finance company, had prepared dinner as a surprise for
them both to have in the evening. Katy usually came home at 6, but she messaged Mark to
say she had gone to some after-work drinks with colleagues and would be back at 7. Katy did
not end up reaching home until 8 and said that it was because they got roped into staying for
another drink, and she did not realise Mark had made dinner. Mark got angry about this,
especially because he had accused a co-worker of Katy’s of flirting with her in the past. Mark
slapped her across the face and threw her onto the couch when Katy went to defend herself.
Once the vignette had been read and participants acknowledged they had read it, they were
then required to choose one of the following statements about the vignette that was read: The
victim was partly responsible for making the perpetrator act the way they did, I don't think
the perpetrator intended to hurt the victim; things just got out of hand, Although what the
perpetrator did was bad, it wasn't extremely harmful, The perpetrator should be punished by
law and receive a prison sentence, I feel sorry for the victim and I feel sorry for the
perpetrator.

3.4 The scoring scale for the statements is 1 to 5. Items are reverse-coded; therefore, a
lower number indicates higher adherence to attitudes in favour of the perpetrator.

Qualtrics Surveying Tool: With Qualtrics, users can create surveys and produce reports
without any programming experience due to its web-based platform. With a range of
circulation methods, Qualtrics allows you to conduct polls, surveys, and feedback. Once the
survey had enough responses, it was closed, and all data was exported into an SPSS file to
allow analysis and interpretation to be completed.
SPSS: SPSS is used by various researchers for complex statistical data analysis. The SPSS
software package was created for the management and statistical analysis of social science
data. SPSS was used to analyse and interpret the data based on the questionnaire responses, to
measure the correlations relating to my hypothesis: that respondents’ attitudes towards
domestic violence would be favourable towards women victims.

3.5 Procedure

Once ethical approval was provided by the researchers’ institutional ethics committee, the
survey which was created on Qualtrics was distributed online through social media and the
university. Participants completed the Qualtrics survey, with an estimated completion time of
around 10 minutes. This included a detailed brief, which had to gain consent to be able to
participate. Once consent was provided, they were randomly allocated a scenario, upon which
they had to answer a multiple-choice question. Participants completed the survey with the
vignette scenario and multiple-choice statements according to the scenario they were given.
The results were filtered down to complete responses and then exported into SPSS allowing
analysis and interpretation to be complete.

3.6 Ethics

C-DRIP
The University of Bolton supports the practice of protection for human subjects participating
in research. All research is supervised and has passed the university’s ethics procedure.
Participants were assured that all information provided was kept completely confidential.
Researchers were not made aware of their names, keeping information anonymous. This
study did not deceive participants, as they were made aware in the brief of the true purpose of
the study. The right to withdraw for participants was permitted until the end of the study, as
once the information was submitted, their data could not be deleted as all their information is
anonymous to the research. Informed consent was gained through the brief. There was no
physical harm brought to participants, however as the sensitive content of domestic violence
was involved in this study, a caution in the brief was provided, and a prompt before the
vignette scenario telling participants to withdraw if this would possibly be triggering to them.
4 Results
The first aim of this study was to examine how the victim/perpetrator gender dynamic can
influence individuals’ attitudes towards domestic violence. The objectives are to determine
whether male and female participants differ in their attitudes towards a domestic violence
case, to determine whether the gender of the victim affects participants’ attitudes towards the
case and to determine if there is an interaction effect between participant and victim gender.
The second aim of the study was to examine how the socioeconomic status of an individual
can influence an individual’s attitudes towards domestic violence. The objectives are to
determine whether male and female participants differ in their attitudes towards the
socioeconomic status of the case. To determine whether the gender of the victim affects
participants’ attitudes towards the case and to determine if there is an interaction effect
between participant and victim gender.
This study set out to test the hypothesis that the respondent’s attitudes towards domestic
violence would be favourable towards women victims.
Data was tested for normality, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that data were not
normally distributed so the researcher went ahead with non-parametric tests (P< 0.001)

4.1 Main Analysis

A Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to determine the difference between attitudes towards
victims of domestic violence based on the socioeconomic status of the participant (high vs.
low status) showed that there was a statistically significant difference in individuals’ attitudes
towards domestic violence with the vignette score between the socioeconomic classes of
respondents, χ2(3) = 8.214, p = 0.042. There was a mean rank of 45.09 for Working Class
Male Victims, 37.08 for Affluent Female Victim, 34.29 for Affluent Male Victim and 27.00
for Working Class Female Victim.

4.2 Secondary Analysis

As part of the secondary analysis, the researcher explored participant demographics on the
data. To do this a Mann-Whitney U test was performed to identify significant differences
between participants’ class (high class vs lower class) and their attitudes towards the vignette
and there was a significant difference (U=271.500, P = 0.605). In addition to this, Mann-
Whitney U was performed to identify significant differences between participants’ gender
(Male vs Female) and their attitudes towards the vignette and there was a significant
difference (U=339.500, P= 0.078). Finally, a Spearman Correlation analysis was performed
to identify if there was a relationship between participants’ age and their attitudes. The
Spearman’s correlation identified a non-significant correlation between attitudes and
participant ages (R= 0.075, p= 0.535).
5 Discussion

The aim of this discussion lies in gauging how socioeconomic position and the change in
both victims and criminals impact the perception that revolves around domestic abuse.
Understanding such perceptions is necessary for the fact that it aids in developing efficient
policies and interferences when resolving domestic violence as a persistent global issue.

5.1 Influence of Victim/Perpetrator Gender Dynamics and Socioeconomic Status

(SES)

The major focus of the research lies on the intricate effects of victim and perpetrator change
of gender towards their attitudes on domestic violence, where the research has persistently
displayed that the genders of the victim and the abuser impose a major influence on the
perceptions of society and their reaction towards domestic violence. The outcomes of this
research specifies that exists differences in the perceptions of male and female participants
regarding domestic abuse. Male participants are more inclined towards possessing the
attitudes that reduce the significance of domestic abuse or blame the victim that too when the
victim is a woman (Babaita and Aliyu, 2019). Whereas, female participants demonstrate
compassion for the victims and support through nuanced ways when it comes to fighting
against domestic abuse. Moreover, the insights acquired on domestic abuse majorly transform
the gender of the victim which is demonstrated also by the findings of the research which
displays that when a victim is a woman there exists more empathy and support for
interference tactics that lie within the cultural values that impose high values on protecting
women against harm. When the victim is a man opinions are contradicted as it imitates
entrenches stereotypes of gender that lays focus on the concepts revolving around the
strength and flexibility of men that underestimates the vulnerability of men towards abuse
(Lelaurain et al., 2018).

The connection that exists between socioeconomic status (SES) and changes in gender makes
the perception a more complex one for domestic abuse as access to resources for interference
helps with the perceptions of domestic abuse that are impacted by socioeconomic features
like education, work status, and income level. Based on the research, depending on finance
for support the services offer additional problems for people coming in from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds which too at times when they are looking for assistance or
wanting to move away from abusive circumstances. With it, the social class also tends to
impact the perception of public domestic abuse where victims coming in from
underprivileged backgrounds consistently encounter shame or scepticism. The disparities
present in how male and female participants look at socioeconomic concerns are where it can
be compared with their attitudes toward domestic abuse (Ermer et al., 2021). Detailed support
services need to be encouraged by lower socioeconomic female participants who possess
major information about the restrictions imposed on the structural issues encountered by
victims. Whereas male participants coming in from higher socioeconomic backgrounds
demonstrate their perception of a lack of awareness being raised on issues that victims from
vulnerable areas face.

The variations that comes in communication in between the gender of the victim, participant,
and socioeconomic level lays focus on the intricate attitudes that surround around domestic
violence. Prejudices related to gender and socioeconomic privilege are evident from the
ability of male participants to diminish the chance of domestic abuse on male victims (Crooks
et al., 2019). Whereas, female participants that belong to lower socioeconomic backgrounds
tend to be more empathetic towards victims for the fact that they are well able to understand
gender and socioeconomic position and communicate with them when they influence the
experiences of victims related to abuse and while acquiring the support services.

5.2 Intersectionality: Gender and Socioeconomic Status

The complex process that is used for determining the perspective of society and their
behaviours tin relation to domestic abuse is influenced for the fact of intersectionality of
gender and socioeconomic status (SES). Gender and SES are considered together as people
belonging to multiple socioeconomic origins faced domestic abuse demonstrating a
perception that it is majorly influenced because of gender identity and financial concerns.
This is because of the dependency being laid on the finances that too on violent partners,
where women coming in from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds are susceptible to
domestic violence, in contrast to men who come in from higher socioeconomic backgrounds
consider it problematic to confess they are wronged because of societal principles that
revolve around the power of men and their independence (Russell, 2018). Prejudices and
societal principles that are connected with gender and socioeconomic position play a major
role in perseverance of the domestic violence and its reactions toward it. Stereotypes and
conventional gender values consistently preserve their power inequities in connection to the
fact that is regulates abusive behaviours.

5.3 Implications for Policy and Intervention

Understanding the influence of gender and socioeconomic status (SES) on perceptions of

domestic abuse makes the issues concerning policy and interference techniques evident
where policymakers and interventionists need to develop more dedicated and successful
tactics when it comes to resolving domestic violence through recognising the
interconnectedness of such concerns (Lloyd, 2018). Policies that are made specifically to
provide victims with resources and support require careful consideration of the specific issues
that are experienced by people of different genders and socioeconomic circumstances.
Funding for shelters and counselling services is made in such a way that it fulfills the
requirements of vulnerable communities like those with lower socioeconomic status or the
ones dealing with various kinds of discrimination is vital components to attain, With it, it is
also necessary to resolve socioeconomic and gender disparities that occur in domestic
violence when it comes to prevention and response being given for the development of equity
and fairness (Dziewa and Glowacz, 2021). The aim of interference lies in dismissing the old
values of gender and stereotypes that support abusive behaviour and ensures inequities in
power. Interference that makes use of gender equality and tests the prejudices present in
culture with education and by creating awareness can aid in altering the attitudes towards
domestic violence by promoting a culture of respect and support for people despite their
gender or socioeconomic class (Sivarajasingam, 2022).

Leads for community support and witness interferences are also necessary when combatting
domestic abuse where such programmes possess the ability to allow communities to take
action against abuse by offering witnesses the essential information and skills for determining
and interfering in cases of domestic violence. Apart from this, it is also necessary to ensure
that such programmes are available, comprehensive, and accommodating to people coming in
from various socioeconomic and gender classes which makes it vital for them to be culturally
aware of the specific needs that each community possesses (Wood, 2019).
6 Limitations and Future Recommendations
While the researcher agrees that quantitative research was the right choice for this study,
qualitative research tools, such as interviews could be the better choice to find more
descriptive data. More credibility could be given to this research if paired with qualitative
research. For example, a survey designed for quantitative research with statistical analysis
paired with qualitative aspects such as reasoning for choosing the statement they made may
offer more evidence to strengthen the data discovered using a mixed-methods approach.
Several areas for future research on targeted demographics could add to the findings of this
study. A quantitative study could be developed to understand the findings of a larger and
more diverse population, such as more participants from different geographic locations. A
broader demographic of participants from various geographical locations may give more
insight into individuals’ attitudes towards domestic violence from an international or national
perspective. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022), nearly one quarter
(23%) of respondents agreed that domestic violence is a normal reaction to day-to-day stress
and frustration. Similarly, García-Moreno et al (2005) state that women and girls had a
positive attitude towards domestic violence in Ethiopia, the figures ranging from 5 to 91%
this led to females justifying men utilising violence upon them. Another quantitative study
could be developed to understand the findings of a more cross-cultural aspect, giving a
different perspective to the research. In patriarchal societies, men have the right to discipline
their wives through physical means, as seen in Ghana where most villagers believe it is
appropriate (Fischbach and Herbert 1997). Attitudes reported among the Japanese have
shown that men and women of all classes and educational levels accept that men are entitled
to batter their wives (Magnier 2002).
The research’s quantitative methodology offers valuable information but it might have
ignored the intricate experiences and perceptions of people who are influenced because of
domestic abuse. Qualitative methods like focus groups and interviews can turn out to be
helpful for future or additional research in acquiring the major comprehension of perceptions
of participants and their motives (Szymaszek et al., 2023). For a detailed understanding, a
mixed-methods strategy that makes use of both quantitative surveys with qualitative
components can also be adopted. The research currently possesses restricted generalizability
that can be acquired through laying focus on specific demographic and geographic
components where the following research can extend the scope of participants to include a
varied group of people coming in from multiple geographical and cultural dimensions
(Yousefi Nooraie et al., 2020). Quantitative research can also assess how perceptions
regarding domestic abuse are transformed through connections of gender, social background,
and cultural values where future research can lead to detailed information on domestic
violence and encourage efficient interference and policy development through resolving such
restrictions and implementing different perceptions (Gunnulfsen, 2021).
References
Abrunhosa, C., de Castro Rodrigues, A., Cruz, A.R., Gonçalves, R.A. and Cunha, O. (2021)
‘Crimes against women: From violence to homicide’, Journal of interpersonal
violence, 36(23-24), pp.NP12973-NP12996.
Addae-Korankye, A.L.E.X. (2019) ‘Theories of poverty: A critical review’, Journal of
Poverty, Investment and Development, 48(1), pp.55-62.
Anitha, S. (2019) ‘Understanding economic abuse through an intersectional lens: Financial
abuse, control, and exploitation of women’s productive and reproductive
labour’, Violence against women, 25(15), pp.1854-1877.
Babaita, I.S. and Aliyu, M.O. (2019) ‘Gender discrimination and employment decision: A
study of selected banks in Kano state, nigeria’, African Journal of Management
Research, 26, pp.91-106.
Bates, E.A., Klement, K.R., Kaye, L.K. and Pennington, C.R. (2019) ‘The impact of
gendered stereotypes on perceptions of violence: A commentary’, Sex Roles, 81,
pp.34-43.
Bishop, C. and Bettinson, V. (2018) ‘Evidencing domestic violence*, including behaviour
that falls under the new offence of ‘controlling or coercive behaviour’, The
International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 22(1), pp.3-29.
Boranijašević, M. (2018) ‘Sensationalism in Reporting on Domestic Violence’, European
Researcher. Series A, (9-3), pp.194-202.
Cheek, N.N., Bandt-Law, B. and Sinclair, S. (2023) ‘People believe sexual harassment and
domestic violence are less harmful for women in poverty’, Journal of experimental
social psychology, 107, p.104472.
Coleman, N., Esmalian, A. and Mostafavi, A. (2020) ‘Anatomy of susceptibility for shelter-
in-place households facing infrastructure service disruptions caused by natural
hazards’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, p.101875.
Conroy, N.E., Griffin, S.M., Crowley, C.G. and DeSanto, D.L. (2024) ‘Conceptual
misrepresentations and methodological misapplications: A systematic review of
misuses of Johnson’s typology of violence’, Journal of family violence, 39(1), pp.47-
63.
Crooks, C.V., Jaffe, P., Dunlop, C., Kerry, A. and Exner-Cortens, D. (2019) ‘Preventing
gender-based violence among adolescents and young adults: Lessons from 25 years of
program development and evaluation’, Violence against women, 25(1), pp.29-55.
Debnam, K.J. and Mauer, V. (2021) ‘Who, when, how, and why bystanders intervene in
physical and psychological teen dating violence’, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1),
pp.54-67.
Depraetere, J., Vandeviver, C., Beken, T.V. and Keygnaert, I. (2020) ‘Big boys don’t cry: A
critical interpretive synthesis of male sexual victimization’, Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 21(5), pp.991-1010.
Dim, E.E. and Lysova, A. (2022) ‘Male victims’ experiences with and perceptions of the
criminal justice response to intimate partner abuse’, Journal of interpersonal
violence, 37(15-16), pp.NP13067-NP13091.
Dokkedahl, S. and Elklit, A. (2019) ‘Understanding the mutual partner dynamic of intimate
partner violence: A review’, Partner Abuse, 10(3), pp.298-335.
Dziewa, A. and Glowacz, F. (2021) ‘Getting out from intimate partner violence: Dynamics
and processes. A qualitative analysis of female and male victims’ narratives’, Journal
of family violence, pp.1-14.
Ermer, A.E., Roach, A.L., Coleman, M. and Ganong, L. (2021) ‘Deconstructing attitudes
about intimate partner violence and bystander intervention: The roles of perpetrator
gender and severity of aggression’, Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(1-2),
pp.NP896-NP919.
Fenton, R., Jones, C., Moss, S. and Cooke, K. (2019) ‘The challenges of developing and
implementing a bystander intervention for the prevention of domestic violence and
abuse in UK communities’, Journal of gender-based violence, 3(2), pp.215-231.
Graham‐Kevan, N. and Bates, E.A. (2020) ‘Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrator
Programmes: Ideology or Evidence‐Based Practice?’, The Wiley handbook of what
works in violence risk management: Theory, research and practice, pp.437-449.
Gunnulfsen, A.E. (2021) ‘Applying the integration dimensions of quantitative and qualitative
methods in education policy research: Lessons learned from investigating micro
policymaking in Norwegian schools’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
20, p.16094069211028349.
Hine, B., Bates, E.A. and Wallace, S. (2022) “I have guys call me and say ‘I can’t be the
victim of domestic abuse’”: Exploring the experiences of telephone support providers
for male victims of domestic violence and abuse’. Journal of interpersonal violence,
37(7-8), pp.NP5594-NP5625.
Hunter, R., Barnett, A. and Kaganas, F. (2020) ‘Introduction: Contact and domestic abuse’,
In Domestic Abuse and Child Contact (pp. 1-25). Routledge.
Kreft, A.K. (2023) ‘“This Patriarchal, Machista and Unequal Culture of Ours”: Obstacles to
Confronting Conflict-Related Sexual Violence’, Social Politics: International Studies
in Gender, State & Society, 30(2), pp.654-677.
Lelaurain, S., Fonte, D., Aim, M.A., Khatmi, N., Decarsin, T., Lo Monaco, G. and
Apostolidis, T. (2018) ‘“One doesn’t slap a girl but…” social representations and
conditional logics in legitimization of intimate partner violence’, Sex Roles, 78,
pp.637-652.
Lelaurain, S., Fonte, D., Giger, J.C., Guignard, S. and Lo Monaco, G. (2021) ‘Legitimizing
intimate partner violence: The role of romantic love and the mediating effect of
patriarchal ideologies’, Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(13-14), pp.6351-6368.
Lloyd, M. (2018) ‘Domestic violence and education: Examining the impact of domestic
violence on young children, children, and young people and the potential role of
schools’, Frontiers in psychology, 9, p.396402.
Lutgendorf, M.A. (2019) ‘Intimate partner violence and women's health’, Obstetrics &
Gynecology, 134(3), pp.470-480.
Mackay, J., Bowen, E., Walker, K. and O'Doherty, L. (2018) ‘Risk factors for female
perpetrators of intimate partner violence within criminal justice settings: A systematic
review’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41, pp.128-146.
Mourão, R.R. and Robertson, C.T. (2019) ‘Fake news as discursive integration: An analysis
of sites that publish false, misleading, hyperpartisan and sensational
information’, Journalism studies, 20(14), pp.2077-2095.
ONS (2023). Domestic abuse victim characteristics, England and Wales. Ons.gov.uk.
Available at:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/
domesticabusevictimcharacteristicsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2023
[Accessed 10 May 2024].
Powell, C., Feder, G., Gilbert, R., Paulauskaite, L., Szilassy, E., Woodman, J. and Howarth,
E. (2022) ‘Child and family-focused interventions for child maltreatment and
domestic abuse: development of core outcome sets’, BMJ open, 12(9), p.e064397.
Rizkalla, K., Maar, M., Pilon, R., McGregor, L. and Reade, M. (2020) ‘Improving the
response of primary care providers to rural First Nation women who experience
intimate partner violence: A qualitative study’, BMC women's health, 20, pp.1-13.
Russell, B. (2018) ‘Police perceptions in intimate partner violence cases: The influence of
gender and sexual orientation’, Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(2), pp.193-205.
Sadler, A., Grabianowski, J. and Ashley, G. (2020) ‘Through the lens of a millennial:
Opening the aperture of millennials’ views of leaders’, Journal of Behavioral and
Applied Management, 20(2), pp.85-96.
Sivarajasingam, V., Webber, I., Riboli-Sasco, E., Alaa, A. and El-Osta, A. (2022)
‘Investigating public awareness, prevailing attitudes and perceptions towards
domestic violence and abuse in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study’, BMC
public health, 22(1), p.2042.
Stives, K.L., May, D.C., Pilkinton, M., Bethel, C.L. and Eakin, D.K. (2019) ‘Strategies to
combat bullying: Parental responses to bullies, bystanders, and victims’, Youth &
Society, 51(3), pp.358-376.
Szymaszek, P., Tomal, W., Świergosz, T., Kamińska-Borek, I., Popielarz, R. and Ortyl, J.
(2023) ‘Review of quantitative and qualitative methods for monitoring
photopolymerization reactions’. Polymer Chemistry.
Wood, H.J. (2019) Gender inequality: The problem of harmful, patriarchal, traditional and
cultural gender practices in the church. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological
Studies, 75(1).
Yousefi Nooraie, R., Sale, J.E., Marin, A. and Ross, L.E. (2020) ‘Social network analysis: An
example of fusion between quantitative and qualitative methods’. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 14(1), pp.110-124.