SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CORRELATES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AMONG COUPLES IN ENUGU NORTH SENATORIAL ZONE ENUGU STATE NIGERIA.

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the socio-demographic correlates of intimate partner violence among couples in Enugu North Senatorial Zone, Enugu State, Nigeria. The population of the study comprised  all he registered  married couples in Enugu North senatorial  zone from 2011-

2015. 868 respondents made up 434 couples were sued as sample. The instrument for data

collection was a questionnaire  entitled: Intimate  Partner  Violence Question (IPVQ)  five research  questions  and  four  hypotheses  guided  the  study.  The  research  questions were answered using person product moment correlation while regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. The results obtained showed that Nigerian couples  are  faced  with different  types of intimate  partner  violence  which are: physical violence,  psychological  violence  and  sexual   violence;  age  of  the  couples  and  their employment  status  were  the  socio-demographic  factors  that  significantly  correlate  with intimate partner violence  among couples and that gender  and educational  status did not correlate    with    intimate    partner    violence    significantly.    Based    on   the    findings, recommendations  for implementation  include organization  confirming  marriages  such  as families,  religious  groups,  hospitals,  courts  etc, ensuring  that their  clients  pass  through marital counselling with professional marriage counsellors among others.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

It  is often  assumed  that  romantic  relationships  are  all  about  love,  security  and protection but paradoxical to this idea, an intimate partner does not always offer love and security. There is evidence that a substantial percentage of people incur the risk of experi- encing violent acts from their intimate partner at least once in their lifetime (e.g., Archer,

2000; Garcia-Moreno,  Jansen, Heise, Ellsberg & Watts, 2006).   In the United States,  for example, one survey found that during one day an average of over 16 calls per minute were directed to intimate partner hotlines across the country (Awake, 2013).  The Awake went further to explain that the situation is worse than statistics reveal since many incidents go unreported.

An intimate partner is a person with whom one has a close personal relationship that may be characterized  by the partners’ emotional connectedness,  regular contact,  ongoing physical contact and sexual behavior, identity as a couple, and familiarity and knowledge about each other’s lives (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black & Mahendra,   2015). Although it may  also  include  people  in dating  relationships,  same  sex  spouses  and  those  who  are engaged  to  be  married,  betrothed  or  ‘promised’  under  traditional  cultural  practices. However, in this study, the term ‘intimate partner’ shall be used in reference to heterosexual married spouse. Intimate partners may experience violence in their relationship.

Violence refers to the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death,  disability,  injury,  or  harm  (Saltzman,  Fanslow,  McMahon,  &  Shelley,  2002). Violence as defined by the World Health Organizations (2002)   is  the  intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury,

death,  psychological  harm,  maldevelopment,   or  deprivation.  This  definition  involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. Violence includes any condition or act that creates a climate in which the individual feels fear or intimidation  in addition to being victims  of assault,  theft or  vandalism  (Aluede,

2011).  In this present study therefore, any behavior that is exerted in an injurious, hurtful or damaging way may be described as violence (by a person and against a person).Violence can be named according to the goal and manner of the act or behavior. For example, if is perpetrated by a spouse against the partner it is termed Intimate partner violence.

Intimate  Partner  Violence  according  to  World  Health  Organization  (2010)   is behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical violence, sexual violence, psychological abuse and  controlling behaviors.   Intimate   partner   violence   is   used   to   encompass   physical,   sexual   and psychological  violence,  or  any combination  of  these  acts  (Krantz  and  Garcia-Moreno,

2005). Intimate partner violence is defined as a pattern of physical, psychological  abuse and/or sexual assault (and threats thereof) from a current or former intimate partner within a context of coercive control (Breiding et al, 2015). Intimate partner violence as a working definition in this present study therefore is a pattern of behavior where one intimate partner coerces, dominates, assaults, intimidates or harms the other intimate partner. In other words, any violent or ill intended behavior that could cause  harm to the other person within the confines of an intimate relationship is classified as Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).

From the definitional borders of IPV, it is seen that, its types or forms are: physical violence,  sexual  violence  and  psychological  abuse.  Physical  violence  involves  forceful physical contact that may vary from  light pushes, shoves, scratches, grabs, chokes, shakes, use of restraints or one’s body, size, or strength against another person and slaps to severe beatings  and  lethal  violence.  Sexual  violence  includes  coercive  and  physical  behaviors

varying from trying to persuade someone to perform a sexual act against his or her  will, ignoring “no” responses, to physically forced sex acts (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

The term psychological abuse (or emotional abuse) refers to acting in an offensive or degrading  manner  towards  another,  usually  verbally,  and  may include  threats,  ridicule, withholding affection, and restrictions (e.g., social isolation, financial control) (O’Leary & Maiuro, 2001). Psychologically abusive acts in some cases may not be perceived as abuse because they are covert and manipulative in nature. Nevertheless, psychological abuse is a predictive component of intimate partner violence for a number of reasons including the fact that psychological abuse frequently co-occurs with other forms of intimate partner violence. Recent studies have noted that psychological  abuse  in intimate partner  violence  is more prevalent, often a precursor of physical and  sexual IPV, and may be more harmful than physical IPV (Follingstad, 2007; Péloquin, Lafontaine and Brassard, 2011). Besides, acts of psychological  abuse  can  significantly  influence  the  impact  of  other  forms  of  intimate partner violence (e.g., the fear resulting from being hit by an intimate partner will likely be greater had the intimate partner previously threatened to kill the victim). Research suggests that the impact of psychological violence by an intimate partner is every bit as significant as that of physical violence by an intimate partner (Follingstad, 2007).

In the past, intimate partner violence was conceived as violence against women by men but the more recent literature suggest that violence by an intimate partner is not strictly a male-to-female  phenomenon  but a human  phenomenon  (Carmo,  Grams,&  Magalhaes

2011;  Cho,  2012;  Peloquin  et  al  2011).  In  a  study by McDonald,  Jouriles,  Tart,  and Minze,(2009), on intimate partner violence among married women, 67% of them agreed to using an act of severe violence against their partner. Hines and Douglas (2010) reported that in this male victim sample, 20% had experienced extreme violence that is consistent with Intimate Terrorism(e.g.,  choking, using a knife, burning with scalding water, targeting of

their genitals) during attacks, and that 95% of the female perpetrators used controlling acts (e.g., death threats, threats to the family pet, display of weapons, smashing things, threats of using  the  criminal  justice  system–calling  the  police  and  lodging  a  domestic  violence complaint).Intimate Terrorism is the use of physical abuse in addition to a broad range of tactics designed to get and keep control over the other person in the relationship.   Results from the 1995 National Study of Couples indicate that almost half of IPV events are mutual (Caetano, Vaeth, and Ramisetty-Mikler, 2008), although women are more likely than men to sustain injuries (Archer, 2000).

Both victims and perpetrators have a more difficult experience in the aftermath of IPV whether physical, psychological or sexual. Intimate partner violence produces physical, mental, and social harm to its victims. It is associated with a broad range of physical and psychological  consequences  (Wingood,  2000),  depression,  (Lipsky,  Caetano,  Field  and Bazargan ( 2005), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Twamley, Allard, Thorp, Norman ,Hami Cissell , Hughes and Berardi   2009), difficulty with daily activities, memory loss, stress, suicidal  thoughts  or  attempts,  and even suicide  (Daniels,  2005).  Afifi,  Macmilan,  Cox, Asmund-son, Stein, and Sareen (2009) found an association between poor mental health and physical IPV for both men and women,  although gender differences were noted. That is, men  reported  more  externalizing  problems  (e.g.,  substance  abuse)  and  women  more internalizing problems (e.g. anxiety disorders) as reaction to their victimization.

According to Lawrence, Oringo and Brock (2012), violence significantly decreases victims’ psychological  wellbeing,  increases the probability of suffering  from depression, anxiety,  posttraumatic  stress  disorder  (PTSD)  and  substance  abuse.  The  authors  stated further  that  victimized  individuals  are  more  likely  to  report  visits  to  mental  health professionals and to take medications including painkillers and tranquilizers. According to them, Victims of IPV experience more physical injuries,  poorer physical functioning and

health outcomes, psychological symptoms and disorders, and poorer cognitive functioning compared to non victims. West, (2012) opined that physically abused  women have been found to engage in poorer health behaviors and risky sexual behaviors. They are more likely to miss work, have fewer social and emotional support networks, are also less likely to be able to take care of their children and perform household duties. Psychological victimization is  strongly  associated  with  symptoms  of  depression  and  suicidal  ideation,  anxiety;  self reported fear and increased perceived stress, insomnia and poor self-esteem. Psychological victimization is as strongly related as physical violence to depression, post traumatic stress disorder,  and  alcohol  use  as  is  physical  victimization,  and  effects  of  psychological victimization  remain  even  after  accounting  for  the  effects  of  physical  victimization. (Carney, & Barner, 2012).

In a study of 3,461 male university students, IPV victimization was associated with Post Traumatic Stress (PTS) symptoms. Additional support of this finding was reported in a clinical  sample  of men by Hines & Douglas,  (2011),  men who  had  sustained  common couple violence were more likely to meet the clinical cut-off for  Post Traumatic  Stress Disorder (PTSD) compared to men who had not sustained IPV (8.2%; 2.1%), but the group with the highest rates of PTSD were men who sustained intimate terrorism (57.9%). Coker, Mckeown,  Sanderson,  Davis,  Valois  and  Huebner  (2002)  tried  to  assess  associations between physical, sexual, and psychological abuse and current and long-term physical and psychological effects in men and women. Results indicated that psychological and physical abuse were associated with much the same outcomes and had similar effects for men and women. Research has also shown that even more subtle forms of intimate partner violence can be linked to a variety of negative adjustment-related  variables, psychological distress, and marital  dissatisfaction (Williams  & Frieze,  2005). Thus, IPV is a significant  public health problem affecting both men and women worldwide.

The cost of intimate partner  violence totals more than $8.3 billion each year  for direct medical and mental health care services and lost productivity from paid  work and household chores (Coker et al 2002). Additional medical costs are associated with ongoing treatment  of  alcoholism,  attempted  suicide,  mental  health  symptoms,  pregnancy,  and pediatric-related  problems associated with concomitant child abuse and witnessing abuse. Intangible  costs include victim’s decreased  quality of life,  depression,  and lowered self- esteem. This definitely reveals the fact that IPV has some economic disadvantages.

Regarding the impact of IPV on children, a number of researchers have investigated the  effects  witnessing  IPV  have  on  children’s  emotional  development.  For  example, MacDonnel  (2012),  found  that  witnessing  PV  in  childhood   correlates  with  trauma symptoms  and depression  in adulthood  and child  abuse  correlates  with family violence perpetration in adulthood. Young children exposed to IPV show higher rates of aggression, fighting, hyperactivity and externalizing  problems (Margolin, 2005), as well as increased social withdrawal (Howell, 2011). In addition, younger children are more likely to develop poor  social  competence  than  are  older  IPV-exposed  children  (Rossman,  Rea,  Graham- Bermann and Butterfield, 2004). IPV-exposed children are also more likely to experience problematic  peer  relationships  (Katz,  Hessler,  and  Annest,  2007).  Umana,  Fawole,  and Adeoye (2014) reported that academic performance of victims is also affected as violence causes loss of concentration, loss of self-confidence, and school absenteeism.

Growing up in a violent home, in which either of the parents is violent and abusive, have a lasting impact on a child, increasing the likelihood that the child will perpetrate IPV in adulthood.  Both the partner-abusive  men and  partner-abusive  women  interviewed  in Kaura and Allen’s (2004) study had grown up in violent homes. High interparental conflict or  emotional  abuse  according  to  MacDonnel  (2012)  leads  to  a  decrease  in  parental sensitivity,   warmth,   consistent   discipline   and   an   increase   in  harsh   discipline   and

psychological  control.  In  another  submission  by  Hornor  (2005),  witnessing  domestic violence can have serious adverse effects on children’s well-being including psychological, emotional and behavioral problems.

A meta-analysis of 118 studies on the psychosocial outcomes of children exposed to intimate  partner  violence  by  Adams  (2006)  demonstrated  that  children  who  witnessed intimate partner violence had significantly worse outcomes relative to  those who had not. The  psychosocial  outcomes  of  children  witnessing  intimate  partner  violence  were  not significantly different from those of physically abused children.

Children who have witnessed domestic violence have been found to be fearful and inhibited and show more anxiety and depression than other children who do not  witness intimate  partner  violence  (Maxwell   & Garner,  (2012).Infants  also  have a  share  in the aftermath of violence in   the home. Infants tend to have sleeping and  feeding disorders which  can result  in poor weight  gain (Hornor 2005).The  author  further stated  that pre- school children witnessing intimate partner violence commonly show withdrawn behaviors, anxiety and fearfulness, and school-age children witnessing domestic violence show change in behaviors which affects their school performance.

Still on the impact of IPV on children, a handful of studies have examined the role of both parents as perpetrators of IPV and child abuse. A sample of 232 families with an adolescent referred to a mental health clinic as reported by Mahoney, Donnelly, Boxer, and Lewis  (2003),  yielded  significant  correlations,  based  on mothers’  reports,  between  both father-to-mother   and   mother-to-father   IPV  and  defiant,   antisocial   behavior   by  the adolescent. Based on adolescents’ reports, significant correlations were also found between parental IPV and adolescent internal distress. Moretti, Odgers, and Obsuth (2006) in a study of  112  delinquent  juveniles  found  correlations  between  previous  exposure  to  intimate partner violence initiated by the mother and perpetration of dating violence by both boys

and  girls.    Partner-violent  mothers  and  fathers  are  equally  likely  to  hit  their  children (Margolin & Gordis, 2003). Supporting this fact, Slep and O’Leary’s (2005) representative sample study of 453 couples with young children in New York found  that 51 percent of violent couples engaged in both partner and child abuse.

Regarding the factors of influence for perpetration and victimization of IPV,  for studies  with  United  States  and  Western  sample  populations,  the  factors  most  strongly related to one becoming victim of intimate partner violence include; low education, being unemployed,   history  of  depression,   eating  disorder,   containing   personality  traits  of irritability  or  hostility,  and  believing  in  norms  tolerating  spousal  abuse  (Schumacher, Feldbau-Kohn,.,  Slep,  and  Heyman,  2001).  The factors  most strongly related  to  men’s perpetration of IPV are having a past history of  being  physically abusive  (Stith, Smith, Penn,  Ward,  and  Tritt,  2004),  being  young,  low  education,    lower  household  income, childhood abuse, witnessing interparental aggression, and exhibiting personality traits such as  anger,  hostility,  depression,   alcohol,  and  drug  abuse  (Schumacher  et  al.,  2001). Additionally, the authors are of the view that interrelationship factors that can contribute to intimate  partner  violence  include  marital  discord,  jealousy,  the  need  for  power,  and insecurity with partner.

Based   on  research  studies  carried  out  in  Africa,  various  factors  have   been ascertained to contribute to IPV. Some are similar to factors present in the United States and Western populations while others appear to be indigenous to the African culture. Factors  of influence at the individual level may include alcohol consumption and abuse, low levels of literacy, low educational attainment (Jewkes, Sikweyiya,  Morrell and Dunkle 2011), low self-efficacy,  religion, and the woman having witnessed abuse as a child (Guruge et al.,

2012). The issue of low educational attainment is viewed as a risk factor in some African research studies and as a protective factor in others. In several research  studies the data

suggests  that  women  with  high  educational  attainment  are  at  a  greater  risk  of  being victimized  by their  partners  than  women  with  low  educational  attainment  (Klomegah,

2008).

Factors of influence at the interpersonal level include male control of wealth (Ojo,

2013),  frequent  and habitual  marital conflict,  unemployment  of one or both  individuals (Fox, Jackson, Hansen, Gasa, Crewe and Sikkema, 2007), and the  financial status of the couple  (Guruge  et al.,  2012).  These  influencing  factors  illustrate  characteristics  present within the confines of an intimate relationship.

Factors of influence at the community level include women isolation and lack  of social support from community leaders and elders (Mann et al., 2009). Influencing factors at the society level include pervasive and antiquated gender norms, predominantly patriarchal societies  (Archer  2002), inadequate  or ineffective  laws and  policies regarding  IPV,  and limited education and awareness of IPV issues from law enforcement officials, health care workers, lawyers, and the government (Guruge et al., 2012).

Nevertheless, factors that contribute to IPV are far more similar between the genders than they are dissimilar.  There is evidence that male gender  role stress and  gender-role conflict  are correlated  with male-perpetrated  partner  abuse (Jakupcak,  2003). Patriarchal beliefs may also be a contributing factor in some male-perpetrated partner abuse, but are less important than harboring pro-violent attitudes (Hamel, 2007), which is a risk factor for both genders (Simmons, Lehmann and Cobb, 2004).

In their review of the risk factor literature,  Medeiros & Straus (2006) found  no significant  gender  differences  in  the  relationship  between  partner  violence  and  72-73 percent of the major IPV risk factors. The same direction of effect was found in 99 percent of the total number.  Risk factors  found  in male  populations  that have  also  been found among females include growing up in a violent home (Babcock, Miller, and Siard, 2003),

certain personality traits such as dependency and jealousy, which are common among both heterosexual  and  lesbian  offenders  and  conditions  that  either  meet  the  criterion  for borderline,  antisocial,  or narcissistic personality disorder (Henning,  Jones,  and Holdford,

2003) or are characterized  by a generally aggressive  personality (Ehrensaft,  Moffit,  and Caspi, 2004). In the study by Henning et al. (2003),  which compared  men and  women participants  in batterer  intervention  programs,  the  women  scored  higher  on  the  Millon Clinical  Multiaxial  Inventory  III  for  8  of  the  14  maladaptive   personality  subscales measured, including compulsive,  histrionic,  narcissistic,  paranoid, borderline and sadistic traits.

Similar correlations have been found for men and women between perpetration of IPV and risk factors such as unemployment and low socioeconomic status being under 30 years of age   or being in a dating or cohabitating relationship. The review by Medeiros and Straus  (2006)  also  identified  relationship  conflict  as  a  significant  risk  factor  for  both genders. Conflicted couples are at risk for physical violence. Once there is abuse by either partner, there is a greater risk of continued reciprocal abuse.  The greatest risk factor for physical violence perpetration in the White, Merrill and  Kos (2001) study of 2,784 Navy recruits was physical or psychological abuse by one’s partner.

A recent study by Graham-Kevan and Archer (2005b) of 358 female students and staff at an English university found correlation between desire to control one’s partner and intimate partner violence. In the National Survey of Families and Households, Fox, Benson, DeMaris, Van Wyk (2002) found that job strain (based on indices of job-related irritability and exhaustion) and low status employment were positively associated with male-to female partner violence (MFPV). These studies suggest that intimate partner violence is a complex phenomenon,  driven  by  factors  inherent  in  the  individual  (including  culturally-derived attitudes and beliefs), situational variables, and the particular dynamics of the relationship.

Still on the factors that influence IPV, longitudinal studies have found that  many partner-abusive   women,  like  men,  bring  to  the  relationship   a  history  of  aggressive tendencies, thus undermining the notion that their violence is always reactive. Capaldi, Kim, and Shortt (2004) followed a sample of 206 men in Oregon from adolescence, interviewing them in their mid-20’s and their intimate partners. The  women were found to have been more  violent  than  the  men,  based  on self-reports  and  partner  reports  as  well  as from observation  of  the  couples  as  they  discussed  a  contentious  topic.  In  the  experimental situation, the women initiated more of the abuse (including physical assaults) and those with a history of previous antisocial behavior were the most abusive. A community cohort (N =

543 men and women) in upstate New York, which had been followed since childhood, was interviewed  again at a mean age of 31 (Ehrensaft, Cohen and Johnson 2006).  The result showed that personality disorder symptoms at mean age 22 predicted perpetration of IPV at age 31, for both men and women. Considering the consequences of IPV, it then becomes imperative  for this study to determine  its socio-demographic  correlates as well as make suggestions that could forestall them.

Correlates might be referred to as determinants. They are factors that determine the nature of other factors, or factors that establish or change the nature of an entity or event (Sauder,  2007).  According  to Hornby (2005),  if two or more  factors affect,  depend  on themselves, or are connected to each other, they are referred to as correlates. In this study, correlates shall be used to refer to factors that have relationship with each other, such that one factor could affect the outcome of the other(s). Based on the foregoing, the researcher focused on socio-demographic correlates of IPV. Socio-demographic variables are variables that  are  related   to  the   societal  activities  (socio)  and  the  population  characteristics (demographic). They include employment status, educational status, age and gender among others. These factors were elaborated during this study.

Employment status may be a significant predictor of intimate partner violence. Some are of the view that individuals who are employed are less likely to be victims of IPV, thus positioning wage-earning employment as protective when considering IPV.  For example, studies have found that men who are unemployed  are more likely to  engage  in spousal violence  (Whiting,  Simmons,   Havens,  Smith,  and  Oka   2009).What  actually,   is  the relationship between employment status and intimate partner violence? This study sought to establish this.

Educational  status could also predict intimate  partner  violence significantly.  It  is often  believed  that  individuals  with  higher  education  are  less  likely  to  be  victims  or perpetrators of IPV, thus presenting educational attainment or achievement as a protective factor when looking at IPV.   For example, Whiting, Simmons,  Havens,  Smith, and Oka (2009) found that men who are uneducated are more likely to engage in  intimate partner violence. In Dinesh, Raj, Sharma, and Ravleen (2015) study, IPV prevalence rates were also found comparatively higher among uneducated women. How does educational status relate to intimate partner violence? The present study sought to find out.

Age differences  are another  factor  that  may possibly affect  the use of  violence among intimate partners. Research investigating age and violence in intimate relationship has yielded relatively consistent findings. For instance, Rodriguez, Lasch, Chandra and Lee (2001)  reported  an inverse  relationship  between  age and intimate  partner  violence.  The finding suggests a decline in intimate partner violence as an  individual grow older. The outcome  is supported  by more  recent  finding  by Kim,  Laurent,  Capaldi,  and  Feingold (2008) that found a decline in intimate partner  violence with age. However, whether this claim is true or not was ascertained by this present study.

There has been an ongoing debate regarding who predominates when it comes to perpetration  and victimization  of IPV (Johnson  & Ferraro, 2000; Woodin,  Sotskov,  and

O’Leary, 2013). Some scholars refer to gender as a key factor in IPV, while others view gender as only one of the components of the problem (Woodin et al., 2013). When it comes to empirical research findings, mixed results are found in terms of gender (a) symmetries. Some studies report higher physical victimization rates for women, some report similar rates for women and men and some report higher physical victimization rates for men (Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller 2005). A meta-analysis on gender differences in aggression between heterosexual  partners  (Archer,  2000)  found  gender  symmetry  in  physical  IPV  among community samples but found men to be mostly the perpetrators in samples selected for severe victimization. The idea of gender symmetry and asymmetry in the violence literature can be situated in two theoretical perspectives that have debated the etiology of IPV, namely the ‘feminist perspective’ and the ‘family violence perspective’ (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). The feminist  perspective  posits that IPV is a direct  outcome  of men  using  severe  and multiple  forms of violence such as terrorization and threats to control their partner (i.e., intimate terrorism). In this perspective, men are predominantly the perpetrators and women the victims of IPV. The family violence perspective refers to more moderate forms of part- ner violence and hypothesizes that violence is used to address conflict rather than to control the partner (i.e., common couple violence). According to this perspective, women are just as likely as men to be perpetrators or victims of IPV (Prospero, 2008a). Whether these claims are true or not, was ascertained by this current study.

In the light of the above expositions regarding intimate partner violence and the risk factors for it, it is worrisome  to counsellors,  policy makers,  and other behavior  change agents considering the effects of IPV that have been documented. However, one could say that research on intimate  partner  violence and its correlates  are obviously  inconclusive. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that previous studies on these issues used different designs, different measures, were conducted in different countries  at different times, and

with different types of sample. It may be possible that methodological  imperfection,  time and settings of these researches accounted for the disparities. Thus, considering that these studies were carried in different cultures and at different time, research that will focus on how socio-demographic  factors such as gender, age, employment  status  and educational status can act as routes to intimate partner violence from another  cultural setting such as Nigeria would be relevant at this time.

Furthermore,  available  literature  and  observation  point  to  the  fact  that  intimate partner  violence  seems to be on the  increase  in Nigeria  and especially  among  married couples.  Couples  are  often  seen  to  complain  of  physical  abuse,   sexual  abuse  and psychological abuse. One is tempted to ask if couples in Enugu North Senatorial Zone, also experience  intimate  partner  violence.  Documented  media  reports provide  an affirmative answer to this question. Dachen (2015, November 04), reported how a middle aged man  in at Aku Community in Igbo-Etiti Local Government Area  of  Enugu state , beat  wife, to death during a family quarrel.

Dede (2014, November 06), reported that a woman in Obeachara, in Nsukka local government  area  allegedly bathed her husband with a substance said to be an acid during a scuffle which left him unconscious before he was rushed to hospital. The local governments mentioned   are  both  in  Enugu   North  Senatorial   Zone.   However,   empirical   studies suggesting  concrete  and  significant  data  to determine  the  reasons  for  such  incidents have   been   insufficient   in  Nigeria. To this end, the present study sought to ascertain if socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, educational status and employment status are related to intimate partner violence among in Enugu North Senatorial Zone -school of Enugu State, Nigeria.

Statement of the problem

Intimate  partner  violence  is  one  of  the  most  disturbing   social  problems   of contemporary times.  Available  literature  and  observation  point  to the fact that  intimate partner  violence  seems to be on the  increase  in Nigeria  and  especially  among  married couples.  Couples  are  often  seen  to  complain  of  physical  abuse,   sexual  abuse  and psychological abuse. One is tempted to ask if couples in Enugu North Senatorial Zone, also experience  intimate  partner  violence.  Documented  media  reports provide  an affirmative answer  to this  question.  Thus, it became  imperative  to  examine  the socio-demographic correlates of intimate partner violence among couples in this area.

Given the observed inconsistencies in research findings on the correlates of intimate partner violence among couples, there may be need to examine possible socio-demographic factors which can influence intimate partner violence. Therefore, the problem of this study was to ascertain if socio-demographic  factors such as age,  gender, educational status and employment status are related to intimate partner violence among couples in Enugu North Senatorial Zone of Enugu State, Nigeria.

Purpose of the Study

The general purpose of the study was to establish the correlation between  socio- demographic  factors  such  as  age,  gender,  educational  status,  employment  status  and intimate partner violence among couples in Enugu North Senatorial Zone of Enugu State, Nigeria.

Specifically, the study sought to determine;

1. The types of intimate partner violence exhibited by married couples in Enugu  North senatorial Zone in Enugu State.

2.  The  relationship  between  educational  status  and  intimate  partner  violence  among couples.

3. The relationship between age and intimate partner violence among couples.

4. The relationship between gender and intimate partner violence among coup les.

5.  The  relationship  between  employment  status  and  intimate  partner  violence  among couples.

Significance of the Study

The  findings  of  this  study  have  both  theoretical   and  practical   significance. Theoretically,  the study was anchored  on the social  learning theory,  general aggression model  and  general  strain  theory.  Social  learning  theory  posits  that  people  can  learn behaviours  by observing  and  imitating  others.  In  other  words,  behavior  is  caused  by personal and environmental elements. This implies that behavioral change is a product of interaction between environmental (socio) and personal (demographic) elements. And this assertion  justifies  the  study  which  correlates  socio-demographic  factors  with  intimate partner violence among couples.

The  general  aggression  model  states  that  individuals   with   aggression-related concepts and knowledge structures in their neural network, individuals who are predisposed to aggressive affects such as anger, and have triggers for aggressive thoughts and feelings such as early maladaptive  scripts, individuals  who are impulsive  and have had aversive experiences in life are likely to perpetrate intimate partner violence. This model is relevant to this study because it exposes the fact that both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors are responsible for the use of violence among couples.

General strain theory explains that certain strains or stressors increase the likelihood of violence and that couple use violence to reduce the stress being experienced or to obtain revenge against the source of the stress. This theory is relevant to this study in the sense that

it reveals that certain stressors within the marital relationships can lead to intimate partner violence.

Practically, the results of this study is of immense benefit to married couples, health- care providers,  policy-makers,  guidance  counsellors,  future  researchers  and  the Nigeria society at large.

The study will benefit married couples in that the findings of this study are expected to  help  address  gender  stereotypes  that  may be  influencing  their  use of  violence.  The couples will derive this benefit when the study’s findings are circulated through counselling programmes, and the internet.

It will make  health-care  providers  more  aware of the scope of intimate  partner violence among married men and women, to encourage an evidence-informed response to intimate partner violence. Health-care providers will derive such benefit when the findings of the study are presented  to  them  through  counselling  programmes,  seminars  and  the internet.

This  study  will  enable  policy  makers  and  researchers  to  clarify  issues   and misconceptions  regarding  intimate partner  violence with respect  to couples’  age,  gender educational  status,  employment  status  and  also  help  them  see  the  need  for  them  to vigorously pursue the goal achievement of violence prevention and intervention in Nigeria.

The study is  relevant  to  guidance  counsellors  in that  it will  help  increase  their understanding on how socio-demographic factors could relate to intimate partner violence. The findings of the study will also inspire guidance counsellors on the  need for couple counseling  which  will  subsequently  promote  married  couples’  involvement  in  healthy marital relationships.

Finally,  the  research  work  when  published  will  add  to  the  existing  body  of knowledge in the area of the socio-demographic correlates of intimate partner violence. The findings will be disseminated through conferences and learned journals.

Scope of the Study

The study was delimited to couples in Enugu North Senatorial Zone of Enugu State. Moreover,  it  focused  on the  socio-demographic  correlates  of  intimate  partner  violence among  couples.  In  the  course  of  the  study,  variables  such  as  educational  status,  age, employment status, and gender were considered in relation to how they affect couples’ use of violence in marital relationships.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study.

1.  What are the types of intimate partner violence perpetrated among couples?

2.  What  is the relationship  between’  educational  status and  intimate  partner  violence among couples?

3. What is the relationship between age and intimate partner violence among couples?

4. What is the relationship between gender and intimate partner violence among couples?

5.  What  is the relationship  between  employment  status and  intimate  partner  violence among couples?

Hypotheses

The  following   null  hypotheses   for  this  study  were  tested  at  0.05  level   of significance.

Ho1: .There is no significant relationship between age and intimate partner violence among couples.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship  between educational status and intimate  partner violence among couples.

Ho3: There  is no  significant  relationship  between  gender  and  intimate  partner  violence among couples.

Ho4: There is no significant relationship between employment status and intimate partner violence among couples.

Free – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :