Content uploaded by Ilknur Yüksel-Kaptanoglu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ilknur Yüksel-Kaptanoglu on Mar 29, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Violence Against Women
19(9) 1151 –1174
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077801213498474
vaw.sagepub.com
Article
Intimate Partner Violence
and the Relation Between
Help-Seeking Behavior and
the Severity and Frequency
of Physical Violence Among
Women in Turkey
Banu Akadlı Ergöçmen1, I
˙lknur Yüksel-Kaptanog˘lu1,
and Henrica A. F. M. (Henriette) Jansen2
Abstract
This study explores the severity and frequency of physical violence from an intimate
partner experienced by 15- to 59-year-old women and their help-seeking behavior
by using data from the “National Research on Domestic Violence Against Women in
Turkey.” Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were conducted to compare
the relationship between severity and frequency of violence and women’s characteristics.
Of all ever-partnered women, 36% have been exposed to partner violence; almost
half of these experienced severe types of violence. Women used informal strategies
to manage the violence instead of seeking help from formal institutions. Help-seeking
behavior increases with increased severity and frequency of violence.
Keywords
help-seeking, intimate partner violence, severity and frequency of physical violence
Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is one of the most important violations of women’s
human rights worldwide and does not appear to have regional distinctions. Research
shows that IPV is pervasive in developed and developing countries (Ellsberg, Pena,
1Hacettepe University Institute for Population Studies, Ankara, Turkey
2UNFPA Pacific Sub-Regional Office, Suva, Fiji
Corresponding Author:
I
˙lknur Yüksel-Kaptanog˘lu, Hacettepe University Institute for Population Studies, Sihhiye Campus,
D Block, 5th Floor, 06100 Ankara, Turkey.
Email: ilknury@hacettepe.edu.tr
498474VAW19910.1177/1077801213498474Violence Against WomenErgöçmen et al.
research-article2013
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1152 Violence Against Women 19(9)
Herrera, Liljestrand, & Winkvist, 2000; Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, &
Watts, 2005; Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999; Heise & Garcia-Moreno, 2002;
Kishor & Johnson, 2006). Prevalence of IPV in the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA) region does not differ from that observed in other regions of the world (Boy
& Kulczycki, 2008).
The World Health Organization (WHO) study, which produced internationally
comparable statistics through standardized survey methods, showed that reported life-
time prevalence of intimate physical partner violence against women varied between
13% and 61% (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005). However, despite the global pervasive-
ness of IPV, help-seeking behavior of abused women is an area that still needs further,
detailed exploration, especially in developing countries.
The WHO study showed that between 55% and 95% of women who had been
physically abused by their partners had never sought help from formal services or
from individuals in a position of authority (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005). With regard
to the MENA region, there are few studies on IPV; Boy and Kulczycki’s (2008) review
reveals the lack of knowledge about IPV in this region. Their review indicated that
among 25 countries in the region, only 8 had carried out research on the prevalence of
IPV. Furthermore, the prevalence of “ever experienced physical violence” in the region
ranged from 8.1% to 64.6%, but the methodologies and definitions used in the studies
were different and thus not comparable. There were, however, characteristics that were
common to abused women from all age groups in the region, namely, living in a rural
area, lack of financial support, and low levels of education (Boy & Kulczycki, 2008;
El-Zanaty, Hussein, Shawkey, Way, & Kishor, 1996; Mayda & Akkus, 2005; Maziak
& Asfar, 2003; Sahin & Sahin, 2003). Despite the high prevalence of IPV in the MENA
region, the percentage of women seeking help from formal institutions is not high
(Boy & Kulczycki, 2008; Cwikel, Lev-Wiesel, & Al-Krenawi, 2003). In the region,
women in general had a tendency not to seek help (Boy & Kulczycki, 2008); less than
50% of women in Egypt sought help and only 8% of women in Israel sought help from
institutions or organizations (Cwikel et al., 2003; El-Zanaty et al., 1996).
Generally, abused women may continue to stay with their abusive partners for a
variety of reasons, including fear of more violence, lack of economic independence
and social support from family and friends, concerns about their children, emotional
dependence on their partners, and fear of stigmatization. This is particularly true in
developing countries (George, 1998; Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002).
In some studies, fear of isolation or being shunned is given as the reason for underre-
porting and hiding IPV in the MENA region (Haj-Yahia, 2000; Sahin & Sahin, 2003).
However, in many countries around the world, when women seek help they prefer
informal social networks to formal institutions or organizations (Garcia-Moreno et al.,
2005; Hyman, Forte, Du Mont, Romans, & Cohen, 2009; Kaukinen, 2002).
The Setting
Within the MENA region, Turkey was the first country where women acquired politi-
cal rights, as well as legal and social equality. Women in Turkey have had the right to
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1153
vote and to stand for election for 77 years. However, these formal legal rights have not
been reflected in practice; currently, for example, only 14.4% of parliamentary seats
are held by women. Unequal gender ratios at various educational levels and low levels
of female participation in the labor force are indicative of other areas where women
occupy a subordinate position. It should be noted that legal achievements are not
always sufficient to ensure the practice of rights. Turkey is one of the leading countries
in the MENA region in combating IPV (United Nations Women [UN-Women], 2011).
The struggle against domestic violence in Turkey first appeared on the agenda of the
women’s movement in the late 1980s and was followed by the enactment of laws at the
government level in the late 1990s. The national mechanism on women’s issues was
established in the 1990s and, as a result, the first government-run shelter was estab-
lished. In the process of establishing legal protection for women against domestic
violence, the “Protection of Family Law” was enacted in 1998 and amended in 2007.
In 2006, a circular to eliminate domestic violence was issued by the Prime Ministry.
Moreover, legal regulations were amended to ensure the principle of gender equality
in the civil and penal codes as well as the Constitution.
In spite of the social and political rights of women in Turkey and the progress in
terms of legislation, IPV remains widespread (Altinay & Arat, 2009; Directorate
General on the Status of Women [DGSW], 2009). There have been a limited number
of studies on IPV in Turkey and of these, only a few have focused on the help-seeking
patterns of women. The first study that gave the prevalence of IPV was conducted by
a government institution in the early 1990s. In that study, physical violence from an
intimate partner was defined as the act of hitting, and prevalence levels were reported
as 30% by married women and 34% by married men. Help-seeking information in this
study was collected through in-depth interviews and the results revealed that women
generally did not seek help, but instead tolerated violence reluctantly and showed pas-
sive resistance such as keeping silent, staying calm, as well as being respectful and
obeying the abusive husband (Aile Arastirma Kurumu, 1995).
Another study conducted in 2008 gave the prevalence of ever experienced IPV as
35% (Altinay & Arat, 2009). In this study, violence was measured by physical acts such
as “slapping, shoving, and beating,” and help-seeking information was obtained through
attitude-type questions. Women were asked how they would have reacted and what
they would have done if they had been beaten by their husbands. Individual strategies
of ever-married women included staying inactive, reacting physically or verbally, get-
ting divorced, leaving home, and crying. Only 5% of ever-married women said that
they would go to the police (Altinay & Arat, 2009). However, the results were analyzed
only as overall frequencies without a breakdown of results by the background charac-
teristics of the women. This study lacks detailed information about how women’s
development of help-seeking strategies differs on the basis of their social, economic, or
demographic characteristics. In addition to the countrywide studies, findings from
province-based studies show variations. Prevalence of ever experienced IPV ranges
from 27.5% to 41.4% in different provinces (Kocacik & Dogan, 2006; Kocacik, Kutlar,
& Erselcan, 2007; Mayda & Akkus, 2005). The above-mentioned studies, in which
definitions of IPV vary considerably, focused mainly on the prevalence and type of
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1154 Violence Against Women 19(9)
violence experienced rather than the help-seeking behavior of women. Another prov-
ince-based study found the prevalence of physical violence to be 34% and less than half
of these women went to the police (Tokuc, Ekuklu, & Avcioglu, 2010).
Help-seeking behavior of women in Turkey has received scant attention and this
article seeks to address this gap in knowledge by exploring patterns of help-seeking
behaviors among physically abused women, particularly by severity and frequency of
lifetime physical partner violence. We have focused on characteristics such as wom-
en’s age, educational level, working status, and region, which are assumed to impact
women’s help-seeking behaviors. Questions on women’s experience-based strategies
rather than their attitudes have been used to gather data on help-seeking. Furthermore,
the operational definition used for physical violence is from the WHO, which is a
comprehensive definition in which six acts were used to measure physical violence.
The data for this article come from the most recent nationwide survey in Turkey
(DGSW, 2009). This survey, besides providing lifetime and current prevalence of
violence types from intimate partners and nonpartners, also explores the help-seeking
behavior of women who are exposed to physical violence by their husband(s) or
partner(s). In this article, we use the term IPV to mean physical violence from an
intimate partner.
Method
Quantitative data from the “National Research on Domestic Violence Against
Women in Turkey (NR-DVAW-TR)” were used for the analyses in this article. This
is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey and it provides the most recent,
as well as the most comprehensive, data on domestic violence against women in
Turkey. The data were collected in face-to-face interviews, with women aged 15 to
59 years, using a structured questionnaire, between July and September 2008. The
quantitative survey was designed to obtain prevalence data for different types of
IPV, by region, as well as by urban and rural settlement, with a defined 95% confi-
dence interval (CI). The Ethical and Safety Guidelines formulated by the WHO were
followed throughout the research (Jansen, Watts, Ellsberg, Heise, & Garcia-Moreno,
2004; WHO, 2001).
Sample Design
The sample design of the survey was a weighted, stratified, and multistaged cluster
sample. There are 81 provinces and 12 regions in Turkey. The sample selections
were performed using the PPS (probability proportional to size) method within the
strata. Settlements with a population of more than 10,000 are considered urban,
whereas those with fewer than 10,000 are rural. There was a total of 542 clusters, of
which 378 were urban and 164 rural. The clusters comprised 48 households in urban
settlements and 36 in rural settlements. The target sample size of the quantitative
survey was 24,048 households and the household response rate was 88%. One
woman per household was selected for interview using the Kish method (Kish, 1949
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1155
cited in DGSW, 2009). In total, 12,795 face-to-face interviews were conducted with
women aged 15 to 59 years. The response rate for the women’s questionnaire was
86.1% and only 2.1% of women refused to participate. Separate weights were calcu-
lated for households and women to correct the complexity of the sampling design
(DGSW, 2009).
Questionnaire
Two questionnaires were used for data collection: one for households and one for
individual women. These were designed based on the questionnaires of the WHO mul-
ticountry study on domestic violence (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005) with some modifi-
cations related to the specific needs of the country. Information about the household
population such as age, education, and marital status of the household members and
housing characteristics was collected using the household questionnaire. Information
on the woman and her partner’s background characteristics, general and reproductive
health of the woman, experience(s) of partner and nonpartner violence, and the impact
of violence on the woman’s life was collected from the women’s questionnaire. The
questionnaire also included a consent form.
Outcome Variable: Severity and Frequency of Physical Violence
NR-DVAW-TR used the same questions as the WHO study for measuring physical
violence, that is, ever having experienced physical violence was measured by asking
women whether any of their husbands or intimate partners had ever “slapped or thrown
something at her that could hurt her”; “pushed or shoved her or pulled her hair”; “hit
her with his fist or something else that could hurt her”; “kicked her, dragged her, or
beaten her up”; “choked or burnt her on purpose”; and “threatened to use or actually
used a gun, knife, or other weapon against her.” Women were also asked whether these
acts had happened in the 12 months preceding the survey. Frequency (once or twice, a
few times, or many times) of acts of physical violence was obtained for lifetime and
for the 12 months preceding the interview.
WHO classifies physical violence as “moderate” or “severe” based on the likeli-
hood of causing injury. According to this classification, “slapping or throwing some-
thing that could hurt” and “pushing or shoving” were considered as “moderate”; the
other acts were considered as “severe” physical violence (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005).
The outcome variable of this study, ever experienced physical violence, is divided
into three categories1 according to the severity and frequency of physical acts of vio-
lence. The first category, specified as “moderate only once,” comprised any of the
moderately violent acts experienced only once. The second category, “moderate more
than once,” comprised moderately violent acts experienced more than once. The third
category, “severe,” comprised any of the severe acts, regardless of frequency. If a
woman experienced “moderate more than once” and “severe” types of violence, she
was included in the “severe” category of violence. Therefore, these three categories
were mutually exclusive (Table 1).
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1156 Violence Against Women 19(9)
Explanatory Variables
Seven background variables were used to determine the relationship between severity
and frequency of IPV and women’s help-seeking behavior in Turkey. These variables
were place of residence (urban, rural), region (West, South, Central, North, East),
household wealth level (low, middle, high), age group (15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-59),
educational level (none/primary incomplete, first-level primary, second-level primary,
high school and above), individual income (yes, no), and marital status (never married,
ever married).
Place of residence and region reflect the heterogeneous structure of the country.
Three quarters of the population of Turkey live in urban areas. Regional breakdown
indicates the diverse geographical, cultural, social, and economic characteristics within
the country. The West region is the most densely settled, industrialized, and socioeco-
nomically advanced, while the East region is the least developed part of the country.
Primary education (5 years of first level and 3 years of secondary level) is compul-
sory in Turkey (Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies [HUIPS], 2009).
The wealth level variable indicated the wealth of the household where the woman
lives and was classified according to the wealth scores that were constructed based on
household assets. The index value was subsequently ranked and divided into three
groups to measure wealth status. Of the wealth scores, the lowest 40% constituted the
Table 1. Categories of Physical Partner Violence by Severity and Frequency as Used in This
Article.
Categories of physical
violence Acts of physical violence included
Frequency of physical
violence
Moderate only once Either one or both of the following
two acts only:
One or both of these
acts only once in her
life
Slapping her/throwing something at
her that could hurt her
Pushing/shoving her or pulled her hair
Moderate more than
once
Either one or both of the following
two acts only:
One of both of these
acts more than once in
her life
Slapping her/throwing something at
her that could hurt her
Pushing/shoving her or pulled her hair
Severe At least one of the following acts: Any of these acts at
least once in her life
Hitting her with his fist or something
else that could hurt her
Kicking or dragging her or beating
her up
Choking or burning her on purpose
Threatening to use or actually use a
gun, knife, or other weapon against
her
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1157
“low” group, the next 40% constituted the “middle” group, and the highest 20%
formed the “high” group (DGSW, 2009).
In NR-DVAW-TR, women were asked whether they sought help from institutions
or organizations. In this analysis, a public prosecutor or lawyer was considered a “legal
institution,” while nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), local governments, and
government offices (such as social centers) were considered as “social services.”
Data Analyses
The Pearson chi-square test of statistical significance was conducted to compare the
relationship between severity and frequency of IPV and women’s background vari-
ables. When asked about the causes of violence, women reported multiple reasons.
Information on disclosing the violence to their family, friends, or neighbors and get-
ting help from these people was also collected. Coping strategies such as applying to
formal institutions or seeking informal strategies were analyzed by the severity and
frequency of violence. The informal strategies were defined as disclosing violence,
leaving home, and fighting back.
To indicate the determinants of applying to any formal institution, a logistic regres-
sion analysis was performed. Bivariate regression models were constructed to explore
the crude relationship between help-seeking from any institution or organization and
women’s selected characteristics such as age, individual income, education level,
household wealth level, region and urban–rural residence, as well as severity of physi-
cal violence. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the factors that
would remain significant in seeking help from formal institutions.
Results
Of 12,795 women interviewed, 4,552 (36%) reported ever having experienced any
type of physical violence in their lifetime. The physical violence prevalence showed
variation by women’s characteristics such as age, education level, marital status,
household wealth level, region, and urban–rural settlement. All explanatory variables
were found to be statistically significant, except individual income (Table 2).
Women who live in the rural settlements and in the East and Central regions
reported more IPV than their counterparts in urban settlements and other regions.
Experience of physical violence for women with a low education level was higher
compared with women in other educational categories. As expected, a cumulative
effect of time was observed when the age of women was considered: Older women
were more likely to report lifetime experience of physical partner violence than their
younger counterparts. Moreover, women who lived in households with lower wealth
categories were more likely to experience physical violence.
Prevalence for severe physical violence in all explanatory variables was found to be
statistically significant. Of 4,552 women who were exposed to any type of physical
violence, 46% experienced severe violence, 31% experienced moderate violence more
than once, and 23% experienced moderate violence only once.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1158
Table 2. Prevalence of Physical Partner Violence Among Ever-Partnered Women by Level of Severity and Frequency of Physical Violence
and by Background Characteristics, Turkey 2008.
Severity and frequency of violence
Any type of physical violence Moderate only once (n = 1,011) Moderate more than once (n = 1,392) Severe (n = 2,139)
χ2
Background characteristics % nχ2% % %
Type of place of residence 21.33** 12.3**
Urban 34.8 3,279 8.5 10.8 15.4
Rural 39.6 1,273 7.8 12.4 19.4
Region 149.31** 57.6**
West 30.4 894 8.2 9.7 12.5
South 37.6 405 7.0 9.9 20.8
Central 41.1 1,186 8.4 13.6 19.1
North 35.7 494 10.1 12.5 13.0
East 44.3 1,573 9.2 12.9 22.2
Household wealth level 272.43** 52.9**
Low 43.8 2,070 8.7 12.4 22.6
Middle 36.1 1,911 8.7 12.2 15.1
High 23.9 571 7.0 7.6 9.3
Age groups 332.14** 85.8**
15-24 22.0 454 7.4 6.3 8.3
25-34 35.5 1,443 9.4 11.3 14.7
35-44 39.4 1,265 9.1 11.8 18.4
45-59 45.1 1,390 7.3 14.6 23.2
Education 548.61** 88.2**
None/primary incomplete 51.2 1,458 8.2 16.4 26.6
First-level primary 39.2 2,229 9.1 12.2 17.8
Second-level primary 26.1 331 7.1 8.8 10.1
High school and above 21.6 534 7.5 6.1 8.0
Individual income 0.48 12.2**
Yes 21.8 881 9.8 10.0 16.7
No 78.2 3,666 7.9 11.5 16.3
Marital status 442.10** 43.8**
Never married 9.0 72 4.4 2.1 2.5
Ever married 39.3 4,480 8.8 12.3 18.1
Turkey 36.0 4,552 8.3 11.2 16.4
Note. Percentages are based on weighted and numbers are based on unweighted cases.
**The associations are statistically significant with p < .01.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1159
With regard to the severity and frequency of physical violence, some variation
among the categories of physical violence was observed. Severity and frequency of
physical violence categories were statistically significant for all explanatory variables.
However, the statistical significance of individual income was different for “any type
of physical violence.” In all categories of severity and frequency of physical violence,
more violence was reported by women who were ever married, in the 45 to 59 age
groups, with a low education level, who lived in rural settlements, in the East region,
and in households with low wealth levels.
Reasons for Violence: The Women’s Perspectives
Our findings showed that women’s help-seeking behavior is very much linked to their
perceptions of the reasons for the physical violence they experienced. The eight most
frequently mentioned reasons were “partner’s family-based problems,” “partner’s bad
habits,” “partner’s behaviors,” “women’s behaviors,” “women’s family-based problems,”
“children-based problems,” “economic problems,” and “no specific reason” (Figure 1).
“Economic problems,” “partner’s behaviors and bad habits,” “women’s behaviors,” and
“children-based problems” were statistically significant in relation to the severity catego-
ries; the more severe the physical violence, the more these reasons were mentioned.
In the “moderate only once” category, 21% of women reported “women’s behav-
iors” as the main reason for physical violence. “Women’s behaviors” included refusing
sex, not obeying the partner, delaying household chores, and being jealous of
29 30
34
7
22
29
15 16
29
21
18 17
15 15
10
810 9
4
6
15
233
Moderate physical violence
only once
Moderate physical violence
more than once
Severe physical violence
Problems with partner's family Economic problems
Reasons related to partner Reasons related to women's behaviors
Problems related to children No specific reasons
Partner's bad habits Problems related to women's family
Figure 1. Causes of violence from women’s point of view by severity of physical violence.
Note. Partner’s family-based problems: χ2 = 10.7, economic problems: χ2 = 175.8**, partner’s behaviors:
χ2 = 113.2**, women’s behaviors: χ2 = 8.8**, children-based problems: χ2 = 24.5**, no specific reason:
χ2 = 1.3, partner’s bad habits: χ2 = 119.7**, women’s family-based problems: χ2 = 1.4, *p < 0.05, and **p
< 0.01.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1160 Violence Against Women 19(9)
the partner, as well as blaming themselves without giving any reason. “Partner’s
behaviors,” which covered jealousy, being nervous or irresponsible, spending too
much time out of the home, and wishing to divorce/separate and/or to have another
wife, was reported by 15% of women. “Children-based problems” was reported by
15% of women and was also found to be significant.
In the “moderate only once” category, partner’s family-based problems was the
most frequently reported reason. However, despite being reported by 29% of women,
it was not statistically significant.
In the “moderate more than once category,” 22% of women cited economic prob-
lems, which also included being unemployed, partner’s problems at work, and/or
insufficient food at home, appeared as one of the significant reasons for IPV.
In the “severe” category, 29% of women cited economic problems and 29% cited
partner’s behaviors as reasons for physical violence.
First Step for Help-Seeking: Disclosing the Violence
Our study revealed that almost half the women in the study population who had experi-
enced physical violence disclosed their experience(s) for the first time to the interviewers.
Among women who experienced any type of physical violence, 35.2% reported that they
had disclosed IPV to their birth family members, in particular to sisters or mothers, fol-
lowed by friends or neighbors (23.1%). It is noteworthy that 11.9% of women disclosed
the violence to their mother-in-law or to female members of the partner’s family. Severity
of violence was one of the determining factors for disclosing IPV. Findings indicated that
as severity and frequency of physical violence increased, disclosure also increased. For
example, 61.7% of women who were exposed to severe types of physical violence dis-
closed it compared with 44.1% in the “moderate only once” category (Figure 2).
Disclosing violence was significant for region of residence, household wealth level,
age and education level of the women, and marital status. Among women who were
exposed to “moderate only once,” those who live in the West region (44.4%) and
wealthier households (53.8%), who were in the 15 to 24 age group (57.9%), who have
secondary-level education (58.3%), and who were single (63.6%) were more likely to
disclose violence than their counterparts. In fact, with regard to background variables,
the pattern for disclosing IPV did not differ in the other two categories of severity and
frequency. Among women who were exposed to severe types of physical violence,
findings reveal that those who live in the North region (67.0%), in wealthier households
(71.3%), who were in the 15 to 24 age group (63.9%), who have secondary-level educa-
tion (80.2%), and who were single (65.6%) were more likely to disclose IPV (Table 3).
However, 55.0% of women who experienced IPV reported that no one had ever
helped them, even though members of their social network knew about or witnessed
the violence they had experienced. Women’s birth families (17.3%) followed by
friends or neighbors (8.5%) were the first two groups who tried to help. Receiving help
increased with the severity and frequency of the violence. For example, 60.5% of
women in the “moderate only once” group did not receive help, but this decreased to
50.1% in the “severe” group. The percentage of women receiving help from birth
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1161
Table 3. Proportion of Women Getting Support Among Women Who Experienced
Physical Partner Violence by Level of Severity and Frequency of Violence, Turkey 2008.
Severity and frequency of violence
Any type of physical
violence (n = 4,552)
Moderate only once
(n = 1,011)
Moderate more than
once (n = 1,392)
Severe
(n = 2,139)
χ2
Persons who tried
to help women % nχ2%n%n%n
No one 55.0 2,520 0.005 60.5 641 58.1 803 50.1 1,076 3.7**
Birth family 17.3 783 1,275.4** 9.4 95 14.3 183 23.4 505 99.3**
Friends or
neighbors
8.5 343 571.4** 5.5 37 6.8 78 11.3 228 9.4**
Mother-in-law
and women in
partner’s family
7.7 397 607.9** 5.9 69 7.2 110 9.0 218 35.5**
Others 4.4 211 294.7** 2.0 22 3.0 41 6.7 148 42.8**
Note. Percentages are based on weighted and numbers are based on unweighted cases.
**The associations are statistically significant with p < .01.
53
35
23
12 5
44
26
17 10 4
48
30
20
11 4
62
43
28
14
7
Disclose the violence Birth family Friends or neighbors Mother-in-law or
women in partner’s
family
Others
Any type of physical violence Moderate only once Moderate more than once Severe
Figure 2. Disclosing violence by severity and frequency of physical violence.
Note. Any type of violence—disclose the violence: χ2 = 96.7**, birth family: χ2 = 2,845.4**, friends or
neighbors: χ2 = 862.5**, mother-in-law or women: χ2 = 1,752.4**, and others: χ2 = 341.8**. Severity and
frequency of violence—disclose the violence: χ2 = 99.7**, birth family: χ2 = 106.1**, friends or neighbors:
χ2 = 59.1**, mother-in-law or women: χ2 = 12.7**, others: χ2 = 17.8**, *p < 0.05, and **p < 0.01.
family members rose from 9.4% in the “moderate only once” category to 23.4% when
they were exposed to severe types of physical violence (Table 4).
Informal Strategies to Manage IPV
The findings indicate that few women sought help from formal institutions; rather,
they used informal strategies to manage IPV. Respondents were asked about two infor-
mal strategies: fighting back and leaving home.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1162 Violence Against Women 19(9)
Table 4. Proportion of Women Who Had Disclosed Violence to Someone Among Women
Who Experienced Physical Partner Violence by Severity and Frequency of Violence and by
Background Characteristics of Women, Turkey 2008.
Severity and frequency of physical violence
Moderate only
once (n = 1,011)
Moderate more than
once (n = 1,392)
Severe
(n = 2,139)
χ2
Background
characteristics of women %n%n%n
Place of residence 4.7
Urban 45.7 346 52.2 487 65.1 966
Rural 38.8 91 37.8 144 53.5 332
Regions 35.5**
West 44.4 102 54.9 142 63.2 239
South 36.9 27 52.1 55 64.8 143
Central 52.1 115 48.0 178 63.4 360
North 41.3 68 35.4 77 67.0 114
East 38.3 125 36.8 179 52.8 442
Household wealth level 64.94**
Low 36.2 135 39.8 216 57.2 618
Middle 46.5 206 50.2 314 64.0 528
High 53.8 96 63.6 101 71.3 152
Age groups 76.8**
15-24 57.9 76 52.9 65 63.9 117
25-34 45.1 176 56.4 245 62.4 377
35-44 43.5 115 45.5 168 63.8 385
45-59 31.8 70 41.3 153 58.8 419
Education 70.9**
No education/
primary incomplete
26.7 63 34.2 136 50.5 380
First-level primary 42.6 220 48.8 325 60.4 665
Second-level primary 58.3 52 60.5 71 66.9 94
High school and
above
57.3 102 70.0 99 80.2 159
Individual income 4.6
Yes 46.7 111 62.2 127 68.8 275
No 43.3 326 44.9 504 59.6 1,022
Marital status 30.4**
Never married 63.6 23 88.5 14 65.6 12
Ever married 42.9 414 47.4 617 61.6 1,286
Turkey 44.1 437 48.2 631 61.7 1,298
Note. Percentages are based on weighted and numbers are based on unweighted cases.
**The associations are statistically significant with p < .01.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1163
Fighting back. Of the women who experienced IPV, 30.9% fought back as an informal
strategy. When the effect of fighting back was considered in terms of the level of IPV,
physical violence remained at the same level or worse for 16.5% of women and it
either stopped or decreased for 13.8% of women. The effects of fighting back varied
according to the severity of physical violence. When women fought back in cases of
moderate types of violence, it resulted in decreasing or stopping violence. The effect
was different in cases of severe types of violence. Of the women who had been exposed
to any type of severe violence, 24.3% reported that if they fought back, the violence
stayed at the same level or worsened. However, 12.6% of this group said that the vio-
lence either decreased or stopped (Table 5).
In terms of the severity and frequency of physical violence, household wealth level,
age, education level, and women’s marital status were statistically significant variables
in the case of fighting back. Being young and single, living in a wealthier household,
Table 5. Proportion of Women Fighting Back, Leaving Home, and Applying to Formal
Institutions Among Women Who Experienced Physical Partner Violence by Severity and
Frequency of Violence, Turkey 2008.
Severity and frequency of violence
Any type of physical
violence (n = 4,552)
Moderate only
once (n = 1,011)
Moderate more than
once (n = 1,392)
Severe
(n = 2,139)
χ2
Informal and formal
strategies % nχ2%n%n%n
Fighting back a168.0**
Fighting back 30.9 1,258 21.4 188 28.6 348 37.2 722
Fighting back resulting in
same or worse
16.5 684 7.2 58 12.1 161 24.3 465
Fighting back, resulting in
decreased or stopped
13.8 551 13.4 124 15.8 178 12.6 249
No answer 0.6 23 0.8 6 0.8 9 0.4 8
Leaving home 42.7** 401.8**
Leaving home at least
once
27.1 1,171 12.6 106 16.5 220 41.6 845
Left home once 13.1 586 8.6 74 9.9 137 17.6 375
Left home more than
2 times
14.0 585 4.0 32 6.0 83 24.0 470
Application to formal institutions
At least one application
to any institution
8.4 361 587.7** 2.2 22 2.0 27 15.9 312 256.9**
Police or gendarmes 4.7 199 352.2** 0.4 6 0.8 10 9.6 183 186.3**
Legal institutions 4.2 170 289.9** 1.1 11 0.8 11 8.0 148 130.0**
Health facility 3.8 172 1.2 0.9 9 0.4 5 7.6 158 137.8**
Social service, NGOs,
and municipalities 0.8 25 55.21** 0.0 0 0.2 1 1.6 24 30.3**
Note. Percentages are based on weighted and numbers are based on unweighted cases. NGOs = nongovernmental
organizations.
aAs only respondents who exposed to physical violence are considered, chi-square values cannot be calculated.
**The associations are statistically significant with p < .01.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1164 Violence Against Women 19(9)
and having secondary-level education were the characteristics associated with women
fighting back as a response to IPV. For example, fighting back increased to 60.4% for
women with a higher education level in the severe violence category (Table 6).
Leaving home. Around 27.1% of women left home overnight, at least once, as another
informal strategy. This finding revealed that about 3 out of 10 women who experi-
enced IPV left their home at least once. The percentage of women leaving home tem-
porarily also increased with the severity of physical violence (Table 5).
Table 6. Proportion of Women Who Fought Back Among Women Who Experienced
Physical Partner Violence by Severity and Frequency of Violence and by Background
Characteristics of Women, Turkey 2008.
Severity and frequency of physical violence
Moderate only once Moderate more than once Severe
χ2
% n%n%n
Place of residence 3.7
Urban 21.7 147 32.6 285 40.8 563
Rural 17.9 38 16.9 59 28.5 161
Regions 10.5
West 23.3 54 33.5 80 41.1 155
South 24.3 19 34.7 38 44.6 97
Central 18.6 41 25.6 93 35.0 190
North 20.3 25 24.2 50 45.6 81
East 14.2 46 17.6 83 24.6 201
Household wealth level 21.1**
Low 15.9 52 21.0 104 29.8 301
Middle 23.0 92 30.1 173 40.9 315
High 24.7 41 40.4 67 53.3 108
Age groups 58.6**
15-24 30.1 40 37.7 50 40.5 81
25-34 24.7 85 37.2 139 41.5 222
35-44 18.1 41 25.4 84 34.3 186
45-59 10.6 19 18.9 71 35.0 235
Education 39.4**
No education/primary incomplete 11.8 23 16.3 61 26.3 178
First-level primary 17.4 78 28.5 171 37.3 370
Second-level primary 33.3 27 39.5 42 48.5 64
High school and above 31.7 57 47.2 70 60.4 112
Individual income 1.3
Yes 23.8 49 37.2 78 49.2 185
No 19.8 136 26.1 266 33.9 539
Marital status 18.8**
Never married 35.2 13 42.3 9 51.6 10
Ever married 20.0 172 27.9 335 36.9 714
Turkey 20.8 185 28.2 344 37.1 724
Note. Percentages are based on weighted and numbers are based on unweighted cases.
**The associations are statistically significant with p < .01.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1165
Women, who left home at least once due to IPV, had similar background character-
istics to women who used “fighting back” as a strategy to overcome violence. Leaving
home was more common among women who experienced severe types of physical
violence (41.6%) compared with those in the moderate categories (16.4% and 12.6%,
respectively). Leaving home temporarily due to violence was also more common
among women living in wealthier households. Younger, single women with higher
education levels more commonly left home as a strategy than older, married women
with lower education levels (Table 7).
Seeking Help From Formal Institutions
The percentage of women seeking help from formal institutions was much lower than
the percentage of women disclosing violence, fighting back, and leaving home. Only
8.4% of women who experienced IPV sought help from institutions or organizations.
Help-seeking from formal institutions or organizations included reporting IPV to the
police or gendarmes, seeking medical care from hospitals or health facilities, asking
for help from public prosecutors and lawyers with legal issues such as divorce, and
seeking social and psychological support from women’s NGOs, social services, and
municipalities. Among these institutions, police or gendarmes (4.7%) was the most
frequently mentioned institution among women who experienced IPV. Seeking help
from the formal institutions was significantly higher among women who experienced
severe physical violence (15.9%) compared with women who experienced moderate
types of violence (2.2% and 2.0%, respectively; Table 5).
Women were asked about their reasons for seeking help from formal institutions.
The most frequently reported response was that women could not endure the violence
any longer (42.7%). This was followed by needing legal advice about divorce or how
to be protected from violence. One out of four women who sought help applied to
health facilities because they were badly injured due to violent acts. Another frequently
mentioned reason was that the woman had been threatened with death, or she was
afraid that her intimate partner would kill her or someone from her family (18.6%).
The findings of this study reveal that women did not apply to formal institutions until
they were injured or their lives were endangered. Moreover, the need for psychologi-
cal support for some women (11.1%) indicated the harmful effects of partner violence
on women’s mental health (Table 8).
Women were also asked why they did not seek help from any available service
providers. Many women who did not apply to any formal institutions considered the
violence they were exposed to as “not serious” (58.1%). With regard to the severity
categories of physical violence, women who did not consider the violence as a seri-
ous problem had generally experienced moderate types of violence. In the severe
physical violence category, considering violence as “not a serious problem” was
significantly lower (32.1%). Some women reported that they would not seek help
due to fear and threats of more violence (25.9%). The “fear and threat of more vio-
lence” category included the following reasons: “being afraid to be blamed,”
“embarrassed/ashamed to seek help,” “afraid of shaming her family name,” “afraid
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1166 Violence Against Women 19(9)
that her children would be unhappy,” “partner threatened her or her children,” or
“partner’s family threatened her.” Another commonly mentioned reason was related
to the institutions. Some reported that they “didn’t know where to apply” or there
were “no institutions in their living area,” while others reported that they “didn’t
believe that they would be helped” (11.8%). Among the most reported reasons for
Table 7. Proportion of Women Who Left Home Due to Violence Among Women Who
Experienced Physical Partner Violence by Severity and Frequency of Physical Violence and by
Background Characteristics of Women, Turkey 2008.
Severity and frequency of physical violence
χ2
Moderate only once
(n = 1,011)
Moderate more than
once (n = 1,392)
Severe
(n = 2,139)
Number of women
who left home
Background
characteristics of women %n%n%n n
Place of residence 8.8
Urban 13.7 85 18.4 173 43.1 611 869
Rural 9.2 21 11.5 47 38.1 234 302
Regions 19.3
West 14.1 33 17.4 44 40.1 149 226
South 18.2 13 18.6 20 44.5 97 130
Central 11.3 23 16.0 61 42.2 235 319
North 10.3 12 16.3 35 48.0 76 123
East 7.7 25 14.0 60 39.2 288 373
Household wealth level 19.2**
Low 11.7 38 13.6 74 38.0 399 511
Medium 12.2 48 14.9 103 43.8 345 496
High 15.6 20 29.3 43 48.5 101 164
Age groups 24.7**
15-24 17.0 18 21.3 27 37.0 62 107
25-34 11.7 44 18.2 80 46.0 259 383
35-44 12.5 25 17.3 60 42.9 248 333
45-59 11.0 19 12.6 53 38.8 276 348
Education 46.8**
No education/primary
incomplete
7.5 11 7.9 39 32.6 242 292
First-level primary 10.9 50 17.0 116 43.5 438 604
Second-level primary 20.2 17 31.6 32 47.7 58 107
High school and
above
19.4 28 23.9 33 56.0 107 168
Individual income 3.9
Yes 15.9 35 18.8 44 48.8 187 266
No 11.5 71 15.9 176 39.8 658 905
Marital status 33.1**
Never married 43.8 3 0.0 0 30.8 4 7
Ever married 12.1 103 16.5 220 41.7 841 1,164
Turkey 12.6 106 16.4 220 41.6 845 1,171
Note. Percentages are based on weighted and numbers are based on unweighted cases.
**The associations are statistically significant with p < .01.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1167
Table 8. Main Reasons for Seeking Help and Not Seeking Help Among Women Experiencing Physical Partner Violence by Severity and
Frequency of Violence, Turkey 2008.
Severity and frequency of violence
Number of women who applied to
any formal institutions (n = 361)
Moderate only
once (n = 22)
Moderate more
than once (n = 27)
Severe
(n = 312)
% n%n%nχ2%n
Most reported reasons for seeking help
Could not endure more 13.6 3 38.5 8 45.4 139 8.7* 42.7 150
Badly injured 28.6 5 4.0 1 25.8 92 6.2 24.4 102
Afraid of being killed 0 0 0 0 9.6 56 12.4 18.6 56
Get legal support 42.9 9 30.8 9 27.2 85 2.5 28.4 48
Get psychological support 9.5 3 19.3 4 10.6 30 1.8 11.1 37
Encouraged by family or friends 4.5 1 3.8 2 8.9 30 4.9 8.1 33
Children related 0 0 0 0 9.6 26 9.5 7.2 26
Moderate only
once (n = 989)
Moderate more
than once
(n = 1,365)
Severe
(n = 1,825)
Number of women who did
not seek help from any formal
institutions (n = 4,191)
% n%n%nχ2%n
Most reported reasons for not seeking help
No serious problem 84.7 868 76.3 1,057 32.1 653 983.2** 58.1 2,578
Fear from violence and threats 8.5 78 17.1 255 40.7 928 421.6** 25.9 1,261
Reasons related to partner 13.2 145 13.8 193 13.7 320 0.2 13.6 658
Reasons related to institutions 3.0 27 7.4 94 19.3 391 199.0** 11.8 512
Note. Percentages are based on weighted and numbers are based on unweighted cases. Categories have been calculated independently of each other, the sum-
mation may exceed 100.
The associations are statistically significant with *p < .05. **p < .01.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1168 Violence Against Women 19(9)
not seeking help, “not considering the act as a serious problem” was the highest in
the moderate categories of violence (84.7% and 76.3%, respectively). However,
“fear of and threats of violence” was the highest (40.7%) among women who expe-
rienced severe physical violence (Table 8).
Determinants of Seeking Help From Formal Institutions
Results of the multivariate logistic regression models indicate that seeking help from
formal institutions was highly associated with women’s educational level, the region
they lived in, and the severity and frequency of physical violence. The likelihood of
seeking help among women who experienced severe physical violence was 10.5 times
higher than among women who experienced moderate types of violence. Seeking help
was 3.6 times higher for women who had secondary-level education and 2.45 times
higher in the higher education group compared with the no education/primary incom-
plete education group. In terms of region, levels of seeking help from institutions were
higher in all regions compared with the East region. Women who had an individual
income were 2.21 times more likely to seek help from formal institutions than women
who did not have an individual income, and women who live in urban areas were 1.44
times more likely to seek help than their counterparts in rural areas. After controlling
for all characteristics of women, household wealth level was no longer associated with
help-seeking from formal institutions even though it was associated at the bivariate
level (Table 9).
Discussion
This study reveals the relationship between severity and frequency of physical vio-
lence and the help-seeking behavior of women. The results show that IPV is wide-
spread in Turkey and that severe types of physical violence are more common than the
moderate types. The findings are similar to those from other studies in showing that
the vast majority of physically abused women do not seek help from formal institu-
tions or organizations (Ellsberg, Winkvist, Pena, & Stenlund, 2001; Fugate, Landis,
Riordan, Naureckas, & Engel, 2005). Instead, like the women in other studies, women
in Turkey use informal strategies to manage violence (Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Ellsberg
et al., 2001; Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005; Heise & Garcia-Moreno, 2002).
Other researchers have suggested that disclosing the experienced violence can be
considered as the first step in seeking help from formal and/or informal networks
(Brown, 1997; Ellsberg et al., 2001; Postmus, Severson, Berry, & Yoo, 2009). As
almost half the women in Turkey who experienced IPV said they had not talked about
it to anybody before, their reporting of the IPV during the interview might be inter-
preted as the first disclosure (Altinay & Arat, 2009; Ellsberg et al., 2001; El-Zanaty
et al., 1996; Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005).
As was seen in studies of other countries, when abused women in Turkey disclose
IPV, their first choice is to talk to their birth family, followed by their friends and neigh-
bors, although not all of them receive help from their close circle (Garcia-Moreno et al.,
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1169
Table 9. Crude and Adjusted Logistic Regression Models Ever Applying to Any Institutions/
Organizations to Overcome With Intimate Partner Violence.
Crude Adjusted
Variables OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Age groups
15-24 1.00 1.00
25-34 1.09 [0.74, 1.60] 1.05 [0.69, 1.60]
35-44 1.23 [0.83, 1.81] 1.11 [0.72, 1.69]
45-59 1.25 [0.86, 1.82] 1.14 [0.74, 1.74]
Education
None/primary incomplete 1.00 1.00
First-level primary 1.84* [1.35, 2.50] 1.85* [1.32, 2.59]
Second-level primary 3.08* [2.06, 4.62] 3.60* [2.23, 5.80]
High school and above 2.55* [1.76, 3.68] 2.45* [1.55, 3.86]
Individual income
No 1.00 1.00
Yes 2.44* [1.94, 3.07] 2.21* [1.71, 2.85]
Household wealth level
Low 1.00* 1.00
Middle 1.14 [0.89, 1.46] .99 [0.72, 1.56]
High 1.62* [1.19, 2.19] 1.06 [1.06, 1.96]
Region
West 1.84* [1.25, 2.70] 1.45* [0.96, 2.20]
South 2.47* [1.60, 3.80] 1.57* [0.98, 2.50]
Central 1.95* [1.30, 2.91] 1.56* [1.01, 2.40]
North 1.97* [1.16, 3.35] 2.43* [1.37, 4.31]
East 1.00 1.00
Type of place of residence
Urban 1.54* [1.18, 2.03] 1.44* [1.06, 1.96]
Rural 1.00 1.00
Severity of physical violence
Moderate only once 1.00 1.00
Moderate more than once 0.89 [0.50, 1.59] 1.01 [0.56, 1.81]
Severe 8.36* [5.35, 13.06] 10.48* [6.65, 16.54]
Nagelkerke R2.21*
Note. All figures are based on weighted data. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
*p < .05.
2005; Moe, 2007). In Turkey, the family is the source of women’s primary relationships
and is thus pivotal in their lives. Despite legislative advances in combating IPV, it
remains a family issue and our findings indicate that women can be trapped by the fam-
ily and familial concerns. Although the family can be an important source of support for
women, it can also be an unsafe place. Thus, raising family awareness of IPV and
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1170 Violence Against Women 19(9)
providing gender equality in public and private life would help women’s empowerment
in developing support strategies to cope with IPV. This, in turn, would contribute to the
overall goal of eradicating IPV.
The results of our study show that leaving home temporarily and fighting back as a
response to physical violence are among the informal strategies that women most fre-
quently use to manage violence, despite the fact that these strategies are not always effec-
tive in decreasing or stopping violence. However, even informal strategies were found to
be more commonly used in cases of severe physical violence than in moderate cases.
Women who use informal strategies have distinctive features in terms of their back-
ground characteristics—they are more likely to be young, never married, more edu-
cated, and living in wealthier households. This highlights the fact that not all women
have opportunities that will enable them to use informal strategies and underlines the
importance of living in developed regions and having more education as factors that
improve women’s power to overcome IPV.
Not seeking help from formal institutions is a major concern of our study. The
results indicate that reasons for not seeking help differ according to the severity and
frequency of physical violence. Women who are exposed to moderate IPV are less
likely to consider it as a serious problem, while more than two thirds of women who
are exposed to severe IPV perceive it as serious. However, in cases of severe violence,
the fear of more violence or threats by the partner and partner’s family emerges as the
common reasons for not seeking help from formal institutions.
Another important finding regarding the reasons for not seeking help is related to
the institutions. In spite of the fact that women’s NGOs, local governments, and social
service institutions can, in principle, play a vital role in empowering women through
their programs and activities, they were the least mentioned among the formal organi-
zations. Women cited inadequate numbers of institutions and lack of belief in such
institutions’ ability to help them. Thus, these findings indicate the need for increasing
the number of institutions and organizations that provide legal, psychological, and
other support to women. Women’s counseling centers and shelters run by NGOs,
municipalities, and government are few in number relative to the population of the
country. Although the number of institutions and organizations has increased in the
past two decades, there are only 103 women’s shelters for a population of 75.6 million
(Republic of Turkey Ministry of Family and Social Policies, 2012).
Although about one third of women use informal coping strategies, seeking help
from formal institutions was rare. Reaching a breaking point at which the IPV can no
longer be tolerated appears to be the trigger for women to seek help from formal insti-
tutions. Being badly injured and afraid of being killed by their partner and/or their
partner’s family were other commonly mentioned reasons for seeking help from for-
mal institutions.
In terms of legislation relating to IPV, Turkey emerges as a leader among the MENA
countries (UN-Women, 2011). In the past decade, legislative advances, such as revi-
sions to the Constitution as well as civil and penal codes, aimed at combating IPV have
been accomplished in Turkey. However, despite these advances, our study indicates
that IPV remains high and few women seek help from legal institutions. This would
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1171
suggest that empowerment of women through such legislative advances is not enough,
in and of itself, to substantially reduce IPV.
Studies show that even though some women want to leave their abusive intimate
partners, social, economic, and cultural conditions compel them to stay in that rela-
tionship (Ellsberg et al., 2000; Heise et al., 1999; Heise & Garcia-Moreno, 2002). Our
findings show that besides the social and economic conditions that prevent women
from seeking help, experiencing less frequent and less severe physical violence was
also a deterrent to seeking help and thus not leaving the partner. Gelles (1976) observes
that “the less severe and less frequent the violence, the more a wife remains with her
husband.” (p. 659)
It is important to understand the perceptions of abused women about the causes of
IPV to develop preventive strategies. Also knowing women’s views of the reasons for
violence will help to understand how the issue is perceived at the societal level. For
instance, in our study, issues relating to women’s behavior were frequently mentioned
by women in the “moderate only once” category. However, as the frequency and
severity of violence increased, economic problems and partner’s behaviors gained
importance as reasons for IPV. This may imply that women blame themselves when
the violence is less severe or less frequent, but with an increase in frequency and sever-
ity of violence, women cite other reasons, in particular those that are partner-related.
Seeking help as an active process to manage IPV includes disclosing violence and
using informal and/or formal strategies. In our study, even in the most severe cases of
physical violence, informal strategies are much more commonly used than approaches
to formal institutions. Having an individual income and a high education level gained
importance in seeking help from formal institutions to manage IPV.
One of the limitations of this study is that there is no information on the timing of
the IPV and seeking formal or informal help. Collecting information only from women
appears to be another limitation of the study. Despite these limitations, this study was
the first in Turkey to explore the help-seeking behavior of women in response to IPV
by focusing on the severity and frequency of physical violence, using a large, compre-
hensive, population-based, representative sample.
Authors’ Note
An earlier version of this article was presented at the “Gender-Based Violence in the MENA
Region” workshop of the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, March 24 to 27, 2010.
Acknowledgment
We would like to generously thank the many thousands of women, who agreed to be inter-
viewed, as well as the research and project assistants, and the field and data entry staff, who all
made this study possible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1172 Violence Against Women 19(9)
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This study was conducted by the consortium of ICON-Institute
Public Sector GmbH, Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies (HUIPS), and BNB
Consulting Ltd. Co., with the financial support of the European Commission. The Republic of
Turkey Ministry Directorate General on the Status of Women was the beneficiary institution
and the Central Finance and Contracts Unit the contracting authority. The research team con-
sisted of the key experts Henrica A. F. M. Jansen, Sunday Üner, and Filiz Kardam, and of the
experts Sabahat Tezcan, Banu Akadlı Ergöçmen, A. Sinan Türkyılmaz, İlknur Yüksel, İsmet
Koc, Elif Yiğit, and Yadigar Coşkun.
Note
1. The coding scheme for establishing the hierarchy of severity of physical violence was first
developed by Lori Heise.
References
Aile Arastirma Kurumu. (1995). Aile ici siddetin sebep ve sonuclari [The reasons and conse-
quences of domestic violence]. Ankara, Turkey: Author.
Altinay, A., & Arat, Y. (2009). Violence against women in Turkey. Istanbul, Turkey: Punto.
Ansara, D., & Hindin, M. J. (2010). Formal and informal help-seeking associated with women’s
and men’s experiences of intimate partner violence in Canada. Social Science & Medicine,
70, 1011-1018.
Boy, A., & Kulczycki, A. (2008). What do we know about intimate partner violence in the
Middle East and North Africa? Violence Against Women, 14, 53-70.
Brown, J. (1997). Working toward freedom from violence. Violence Against Women, 3, 5-26.
Cwikel, J., Lev-Wiesel, R., & Al-Krenawi, A. (2003). The physical and psychosocial health
of Bedouin Arab women of the Negev area of Israel: The Impact of High Fertility and
Pervasive Domestic Violence. Violence Against Women, 9, 240-257.
Directorate General on the Status of Women. (2009). Domestic violence against women in
Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/eng/dokumanlar/2008-TDVAW_
Main_Report.pdf
Ellsberg, M. C., Pena, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., & Winkvist, A. (2000). Candies in
hell: Women’s experiences of violence in Nicaragua. Social Science & Medicine, 51,
1595-1610.
Ellsberg, M. C., Winkvist, A., Pena, R., & Stenlund, H. (2001). Women’s strategic responses to
violence in Nicaragua. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 55, 547-555.
El-Zanaty, F., Hussein, E. M., Shawkey, G. A., Way, A., & Kishor, S. (1996). Egypt Demographic
and Health Survey 1995. Cairo, Egypt: National Population Council.
Fugate, M., Landis, L., Riordan, K., Naureckas, S., & Engel, B. (2005). Barriers to domes-
tic violence help seeking: Implications for intervention. Violence Against Women, 11,
290-310.
Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. (2005). WHO
Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against women: Initial
results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva, Switzerland:
World Health Organization.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ergöçmen et al. 1173
Gelles, R. J. (1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay? Journal of Marriage and the Family,
38, 659-668.
George, A. (1998). Differential perspectives of men and women in Mumbai, India on sexual
relations and negotiations within marriage. Reproductive Health Matters, 6, 87-95.
Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. (2009). Turkey Demographic and Health
Survey, 2008. Ankara, Turkey: HUIPS, Ministry of Health, State Planning Organization,
and TUBITAK.
Haj-Yahia, M. (2000). Wife abuse and battering in the sociocultural context of Arab society.
Family Processes, 39, 237-255.
Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending violence against women (Population
Reports, Series L, No. 11). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Public
Health, Population Information Program.
Heise, L., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2002). Violence by intimate partners. World report on violence
and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Hyman, I., Forte, T., Du Mont, J., Romans, S., & Cohen, M. (2009). Help seeking behavior for
intimate partner violence among racial minority women in Canada. Women’s Health Issues,
19, 101-108.
Jansen, H. A. F. M., Watts, C., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2004). Interviewer
training in the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence.
Violence Against Women, 10, 831-849.
Kaukinen, C. (2002). The help-seeking of women violent crime victims: Findings from the
Canadian violence against women survey. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy, 22, 5-44.
Kishor, S., & Johnson, K. (2006). Profiling domestic violence: A multi-country study. Calverton,
MD: ORC Macro.
Kocacik, F., & Dogan, O. (2006). Domestic violence against women in Sivas, Turkey: Survey
study. Croatian Medical Journal, 47, 742-749.
Kocacik, F., Kutlar, A., & Erselcan, F. (2007). Domestic violence against women: A field study
in Turkey. Social Science Journal, 44, 698-720.
Krug, E., Dahlberg, L., Mercy, J., Zwi, A., & Lozano, R. (2002). World report on violence and
health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Mayda, A. S., & Akkus, D. (2005). Domestic violence against 116 Turkish housewives: A field
study. Women & Health, 40, 95-108.
Maziak, W., & Asfar, T. (2003). Physical abuse in low-income women in Aleppo, Syria. Health
Care for Women International, 24, 313-326.
Moe, A. (2007). Silenced voices and structured survival: Battered women’s help seeking.
Violence Against Women, 13, 676-699.
Postmus, J. L., Severson, M., Berry, M., & Yoo, J. A. (2009). Women’s experiences of violence
and seeking help. Violence Against Women, 15, 852-868.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Family and Social Policies. (2012). Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.kadininstatusu.gov.tr/upload/kadininstatusu.gov.tr/mce/trde_kadin_2012_
ekim.pdf
Sahin, H. A., & Sahin, H. G. (2003). An unaddressed issue: Domestic violence and unplanned
pregnancies among pregnant women in Turkey. European Journal of Contraception &
Reproductive Health Care, 8, 93-98.
Tokuc, B., Ekuklu, G., & Avcioglu, S. (2010). Domestic violence against married women in
Edirne. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 832-847.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1174 Violence Against Women 19(9)
United Nations Women. (2011). 2011-2012 progress of the world’s women in pursuit of justice.
Retrieved from http://progress.unwomen.org/pdfs/EN-Report-Progress.pdf
World Health Organization. (2001). Putting women first: Ethical and safety recommendations
for research on domestic violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Author Biographies
Banu Akadlı Ergöçmen is an associate professor at the Hacettepe University Institute of
Population Studies (HUIPS). Her research areas include demographic issues—mainly reproduc-
tive health, fertility, abortion, and population policy.
İlknur Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu is an assistant professor at HUIPS. Her research interests include
demography, domestic violence, reproductive health, poverty, and qualitative research
techniques.
Henrica A. F. M. (Henriette) Jansen is a doctor, epidemiologist, and a renowned expert on
violence against women research. She worked for the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s
Health and Domestic Violence and was the team leader for domestic violence research in Turkey
in 2008.
at Hacettepe Univeristy on January 26, 2016vaw.sagepub.comDownloaded from