Intimate partner violence (IPV) has multiple emotional and psychological effects. Globally, one in three women have experienced IPV in their lifetime. Pakistan ranks 142 in the list of 146 countries on the global gender gap index. By using data from more than 15,000 households from the Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey from 2018, this article aims to explore the factors affecting the tolerance of violence against women in Pakistan. While there is existing research focusing on the factors linked to IPV, there is nonexistent literature quantifying the tolerance of IPV against women. Results suggest that the two most significant factors linked to tolerance of IPV are (i) the level of education of a woman and (ii) the male partner’s employment status. An educated woman was 29.5% less likely to tolerate IPV, whereas the employment of a husband was linked with a 16.5% reduction in the likelihood of tolerating IPV. Moreover, the social networking phenomenon is also correlated with the reduction in the probability of tolerating IPV.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottJ, JohnsonR, Koziol-McLainJ, et al.Domestic violence against women: Incidence and prevalence in an emergency department population. JAMA, 1995; 273(22):1763–1767.
2.
AbeyaSG, AfeworkMF, YalewAW. Intimate partner violence against women in western Ethiopia: Prevalence, patterns, and associated factors. BMC Public Health, 2011; 11:913–911.
3.
AbramskyT, WattsCH, Garcia-MorenoC, et al.What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 2011; 11(1):109.
4.
AğçayG, Yildiz InaniciS, ÇolakB, et al.Risk factors for violence against women by intimate partners in Sakarya, Turkey. J Forensic Legal Med, 2015; 36:37–42.
5.
AlamMS, TarequeMI, PeetED, et al.Female participation in household decision making and the justification of wife beating in Bangladesh. J Interpers Violence, 2021; 36(7–8):2986–3005.
6.
AllisonPD. Logistic regression using the SAS® system: theory and application. SAS Institute: Cary, North Carolina; 1999.
7.
AmaroH, FriedLE, CabralH, et al.Violence during pregnancy and substance use. Am J Public Health, 1990; 80(5):575–579.
8.
AntaiD, AntaiJ. Collective violence and attitudes of women toward intimate partner violence: Evidence from the Niger Delta. BMC Int Health Hum Rights, 2009; 9:12.
9.
ArenliuA, KelmendiK, BerxulliD. Socio-demographic associates of tolerant attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in Kosovo. Social Sci J, 2020; 58(1):91–105.
10.
Avila-BurgosL, Valdez-SantiagoR, HijarM, et al.Factors associated with severity of intimate partner abuse in Mexico: Results of the first national survey of violence against women. Can J Public Health, 2009; 100(6):436–441.
11.
BariKM, SiddiquiMA, AliSA. Acceptance of wife-beating in Pakistan: A behavioral and demographic analysis. New Horizons, 2021; 15(1).
12.
BrantR. Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 1990; 46(4):1171–1178.
13.
BucheliM, RossiM. Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Latin America and the Caribbean. SAGE OPEN; 2019.
14.
DanielsonKK, MoffittTE, CaspiA, et al.Comorbidity between abuse of an adult and DSM-III-R mental disorders: Evidence from an epidemiological study. Am J Psychiatry, 1998; 155(1):131–133.
15.
DhungelS, DhungelP, DhitalSR, et al.Is economic dependence on the husband a risk factor for intimate partner violence against female factory workers in Nepal? BMC Womens Health, 2017; 17(1):82.
16.
FikreeFF, BhattiLI. Domestic violence and health of Pakistani women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 1999; 65(2):195–201.
17.
FikreeFF, RazzakJA, DurocherJ. Attitudes of Pakistani men to domestic violence: A study from Karachi, Pakistan. J Men’s Health Gender, 2005; 2(1):49–58.
18.
FloodM, PeaseB. Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma Violence Abuse, 2009; 10(2):125–142.
19.
GoVF, JohnsonSC, BentleyME, et al.Crossing the threshold: Engendered definitions of socially acceptable domestic violence in Chennai, India. Culture, Health Sex, 2003; 5(5):393–408.
20.
HindinMJ. Understanding women’s attitudes towards wife beating in Zimbabwe. Bull World Health Organ, 2003; 81(7):501–508.
21.
HunermundP, BeyersL. ‘On the nuisance of control variables in causal regression analysis. Orga Rese Meth, 2025; 28(1):138–151.
22.
ICFN. I. Pakistan Special, 2019–Final Report (English). NIPS and ICF.: Maternal Mortality Survey, 2019.
23.
KhawajaM, LinosN, El-RoueihebZ. Attitudes of men and women towards wife beating: Findings from Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. J Fam Viol, 2008; 23(3):211–218.
24.
KoenigMA, AhmedS, HossainMB, et al.Women’s status and domestic violence in rural Bangladesh: Individual-and community-level effects. Demography, 2003; 40(2):269–288.
25.
LiuX. Ordinal regression analysis: Fitting the proportional odds model using Stata, SAS and SPSS. J Mod App Stat Meth, 2009; 8(2):632–642.
26.
LiuX, KoiralaH. Ordinal regression analysis: Using generalized ordinal logistic regression models to estimate educational data. J Mod App Stat Meth, 2012; 11(1):242–254.
27.
MartinSL, KilgallenB, TsuiAO, et al.Sexual behaviors and reproductive health outcomes: Associations with wife abuse in India. JAMA, 1999; 282(20):1967–1972.
RaniM, BonuS, Diop-SidibeN. An empirical investigation of attitudes towards wife-beating among men and women in seven sub-Saharan African countries. Afr J Reprod Health, 2004; 8(3):116–136.
30.
Statista. Share of Women Who Suffered Intimate Partner Physical and/or Sexual Violence in 2020, by Region. Statista; 2020.
UthmanOA, LawokoS, MoradiT. Factors associated with attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women: A comparative analysis of 17 sub-Saharan countries. BMC Int Health Hum Rights, 2009; 9(1):14–15.
33.
WilliamsR. Generalized Ordered Logit/Partial Proportional Odds Models for Ordinal Dependent Variables. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 2006; 6(1):58–82; doi: 10.1177/1536867X0600600104
