Human Nature

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 184–203 | Cite as

Demographic and Social Predictors of Intimate Partner Violence in Colombia

A Dyadic Power Perspective
Article

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major health and human rights problem globally. However, empirical findings on the predictors of IPV cross-culturally are highly inconsistent, and the theory of IPV is underdeveloped. We propose a new analytical framework based on cooperative game theory in which IPV is a function of the power relations of the dyadic relationship, not simply the actors involved. Using data from the 2005 Colombian Demographic and Health Survey, we test the hypothesis that IPV is predicted by large asymmetries in dyadic power using a hierarchical generalized linear model. Results suggest that education, urban residence, age at sexual debut, whether the woman has other sexual partners, and the age difference between spouses have strong effects on the log-odds of a woman experiencing IPV. Cooperative game theory and social network analysis offer a general approach to the problem of intimate partner interactions which can be applied broadly cross-culturally.

Keywords

Intimate partner violence Bargaining Social networks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Rebecca Bliege Bird, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, and three anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism that greatly improved the paper and that we sometimes ignored at our own peril. This work was supported by grant K01HD051494 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to JHJ.

References

  1. Aumann, R. J. (1987). Game theory. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, P. Newman (eds.), The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics (Vol. 2, pp. 460–482). London, Macmillon.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family (Enlarged ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blanc, A. K. (2001). The effect of power in sexual relationships on sexual and reproductive health: An examination of the evidence. Studies in Family Planning, 32(3), 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloch, F., & Rao, V. (2002). Terror as a bargaining instrument: A case study of dowry violence in rural India. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1029–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bongaarts, J., & Watkins, S. C. (1996). Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions. Population and Development Review, 22(4), 639–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bott, E. (1971). Family and social network: Roles, norms, and external relationships in ordinary urban families (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1997). Pascalian meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourgois, P. (1996a). In search of masculinity: Violence, respect and sexuality among Puerto Rican crack dealers in East Harlem. British Journal of Criminology, 36(3), 412–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourgois, P. (1996b). In search of respect: Selling crack in El Barrio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bras, H., & Neven, M. (2007). The effects of siblings on the migration of women in two rural areas of Belgium and the Netherlands, 1829–1940. Population Studies, 61(1), 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burazeri, G., Roshi, E., Jewkes, R., Jordan, S., Bjegovic, V., & Laaser, U. (2005). Factors associated with spousal physical violence in Albania: Cross-sectional study. British Medical Journal, 331(7510), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casterline, J. B. (2001). The pace of fertility transition: National patterns in the second half of the twentieth century. Population and Development Review, 27, 17–52.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, S. (2004). Early marriage and HIV risks in Sub-Saharan Africa. Studies in Family Planning, 35(3), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cready, C. M., Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1997). Mate availability and African-American family structure in the US nonmetropolitan South, 1960–1990. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(1), 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, J. N., & Daly, M. (1997). Evolutionary theory and the human family. Quarterly Review of Biology, 72(4), 407–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunkle, K. L., Jewkes, R. K., Brown, H. C., Gray, G. E., McIntryre, J. A., & Harlow, S. D. (2004). Gender-based violence, relationship power, and risk of HIV Infection in women attending antenatal clinics in South Africa. Lancet, 363(9419), 1415–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunkle, K. L., Jewkes, R., Nduna, M., Jama, N., Levin, J., Sikweyiya, Y., et al. (2007). Transactional sex with casual and main partners among young South African men in the Rural Eastern Cape: Prevalence, predictors, and associations with gender-based violence. Social Science & Medicine, 65(6), 1235–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Entwisle, B., Faust, K., Rindfuss, R. R., & Kaneda, T. (2007). Networks and contexts: variation in the structure of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1495–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1929). The study of kinship in primitive societies. Man, 29, 190–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flake, D. F. (2005). Individual, family, and community risk markers for domestic violence in Peru. Violence against Women, 11(3), 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flake, D. F., & Forste, R. (2006). Fighting families: Family characteristics associated with domestic violence in five Latin American countries. Journal of Family Violence, 21(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fossett, M. A., & Kiecolt, K. J. (1993). Mate availability and family structure among African-Americans in US metropolitan areas. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(2), 288–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gage, A. J. (2005). Women’s experience of intimate partner violence in Haiti. Social Science & Medicine, 61(2), 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gage, A. J., & Hutchinson, P. L. (2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gelles, R. J. (1974). The violent home. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Goldman, N., Westoff, C. F., & Hammerslough, C. (1984). Demography of the marriage market in the United States. Population Index, 50(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goodreau, S. M. (2006). Assessing the effects of human mixing patterns on human immunodeficiency virus-1 interhost phylogenetics through social network simulation. Genetics, 172(4), 2033–2045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gough, K. (1952). Changing kinship usages in the setting of political and economic change among the Nayars of Malabar. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 82(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
  32. Greene, M. E., & Rao, V. (1995). The marriage squeeze and the rise in informal marriage in Brazil. Social Biology, 42(1–2), 65–82.Google Scholar
  33. Gutmann, M. C. (1997). Trafficking in men: The anthropology of masculinity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. West Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Hinde, R. A. (1976). Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man, 11(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hinde, R. A. (1991). A biologist looks at anthropology. Man, 26(4), 583–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hrdy, S. B. (2000). Mother Nature: Maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. London and New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  38. Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. Lancet, 359(9315), 1423–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jewkes, R., Levin, J., & Penn-Kekana, L. (2002). Risk factors for domestic violence: Findings from a South African cross-sectional study. Social Science & Medicine, 55(9), 1603–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones, J. H., & Ferguson, B. D. (2006). The marriage squeeze in Colombia, 1973–2005: The role of excess male death. Social Biology, 53(3–4), 140–151.Google Scholar
  41. Kaar, P., Jokela, J., Merila, J., Helle, T., & Kojola, I. (1998). Sexual conflict and remarriage in preindustrial human populations: Causes and fitness consequences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(3), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krauss, B. J., O'Day, J., Godfrey, C., Rente, K., Freidin, E., Bratt, E., et al. (2006). Who wins in the status games? Violence, sexual violence, and an emerging single standard among adolescent women. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087, 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leach, E. R. (1955). Polyandry, inheritance and the definition of marriage. Man, 55, 182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liao, T. F., & Stevens, G. (1994). Spouses, homogamy, and social networks. Social Forces, 73(2), 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lichter, D. T., Leclere, F. B., & McLaughlin, D. K. (1991). Local marriage markets and the marital behavior of black and white women. American Journal of Sociology, 96(4), 843–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Luke, N. (2003). Age and economic asymmetries in the sexual relationships of adolescent girls in Sub-Saharan Africa. Studies in Family Planning, 34(2), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1993). Separate spheres: Bargaining and the marriage market. Journal of Political Economy, 101(6), 988–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1994). Noncooperative bargaining models of marriage. American Economic Review, 84(2), 132–137.Google Scholar
  49. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision-making: A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review, 21(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin, K. S., Rogers, B. L., Cook, J. T., & Joseph, H. M. (2004). Social capital is associated with decreased risk of hunger. Social Science & Medicine, 58(12), 2645–2654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martínez Gómez, C. L. (2002). Las migraciones internas en Colombia. Análisis territorial y demográfico según los censos de 1973 y 1993. Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  53. Maynard Smith, J. (1974). The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47, 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Maynard Smith, J. (1977). Parental investment: A prospective analysis. Animal Behaviour, 25, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maynard Smith, J., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246, 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McElroy, M. B. (1990). The empirical content of Nash-bargained household behavior. Journal of Human Resources, 25(4), 559–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McElroy, M. B., & Horney, M. J. (1981). Nash-bargained household decisions: Toward a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review, 22(2), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mensch, B. S., & Lloyd, C. B. (1998). Gender differences in the schooling experiences of adolescents in low-income countries: The case of Kenya. Studies in Family Planning, 29(2), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 679–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moore, A. M. (2006). Gender role beliefs at sexual debut: Qualitative evidence from two Brazilian cities. International Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Morris, M. (1993). Epidemiology and social networks: Modeling structured diffusion. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(1), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  63. Muthoo, A. (1999). Bargaining theory with applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Nash, J. F. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. (1992). Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Palloni, A., Massey, D. S., Ceballos, M., Espinosa, K., & Spittel, M. (2001). Social capital and international migration: A test using information on family networks. American Journal of Sociology, 106(5), 1262–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  68. Riley, N. E. (1997). Gender, power, and population change. Population Bulletin, 52(2), 1–48.Google Scholar
  69. Rodriguez, G., & Goldman, N. (2001). Improved estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary response: A case study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 164(2), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schelling, T. C. (1960). Strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Shenk, M. K. (2007). Dowry and public policy in contemporary India: The behavioral ecology of a “social evil.” Human Nature, 18(3), 242–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Snijders, T. A. B. (2003). Multilevel analysis. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. E. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (Vol. II, pp. 673–677). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. South, S. J., & Lloyd, K. M. (1992). Marriage opportunities and family formation: Further implications of imbalanced sex-ratios. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(2), 440–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  76. Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Voland, E. (1998). Evolutionary ecology of human reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 347–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watkins, S. C. (2000). Local and foreign models of reproduction in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Population and Development Review, 26(4), 725–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Watkins, S. C. (2004). Navigating the AIDS epidemic in rural Malawi. Population and Development Review, 30(4), 673–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against women: Global scope and magnitude. Lancet, 359(9313), 1232–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. White, H. C. (1992). Identity and control. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  82. White, H. C., Godart, F. C., & Corona, V. P. (2007). Mobilizing identities: Uncertainty and control in strategy. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(7–8), 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yanagisako, S., & Collier, J. (1987). Toward a unified analysis of gender and kinship. In J. Collier & S. Yanagisako (Eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis (pp. 14–52). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Youm, Y., & Laumann, E. O. (2003). The effect of structural embeddedness on the division of household labor: A game-theoretic model using a network approach. Rationality and Society, 15(2), 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Yount, K. M., & Carrera, J. S. (2006). Domestic violence against married women in Cambodia. Social Forces, 85(1), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations