Content uploaded by Enrique Gracia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Enrique Gracia on Nov 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ATTITUDES
TOWARDS VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN
IN THE EU
Enrique Gracia & Marisol Lila
University of Valencia
Justice
and Consumers
This report was financed by, and prepared for the use of the European Commission, Directorate-General for
Justice and Consumers, Unit D2 “Equality between men and women”, in the framework of a contract managed
by Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini (FGB) in partnership with Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale (IRS).
The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in
this report. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible
for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.
FGB - Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini
Via Solferino 32
00185 Rome
Italy
Tel +39 064424 9625
Fax +39 0644249565
www.fondazionebrodolini.it
IRS - Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale
Via XX Settembre 24
20123 Milano
Italy
Tel. +39 2467 641
www.irs-online.it
0
0 800 6
7
8 9 10 1
1
(
*
)
Certain mobile telephone operators do not all
o
w
access to 00 800 numbers or t
h
ese ca
ll
s may be bi
ll
e
d
.
European Commission - Directorate-General for Justice
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union, 2015
ISBN 978-92-79-53404-1
doi:10.2838/045438
DS-02-15-963-EN-N
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
ATTITUDES
TOWARDS VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN
IN THE EU
Enrique Gracia & Marisol Lila
University of Valencia
“…violence against women and girls continues unabat-
ed in every continent, country and culture. It takes a
devastating toll on women’s lives, on their families, and
on society as a whole. Most societies prohibit such vio-
lence -yet the reality is that too oen, it is covered up
or tacitly condoned… Changing this requires all of us
-women and men- to work for enduring change in val-
ues and attitudes.”
Ban Ki-moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations
New York, 6 March 2007
Index
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13
1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH 16
Background 16
Research approach and procedure 18
Questionnaire and instructions for experts 18
Experts reports and feedback 18
Key areas related to public attitudes towards violence against women in EU
surveys and studies 20
Abbreviations 21
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL
PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED
SEVERITY 22
Introduction 22
Surveys and studies addressing public perceptions of violence against women
as a social problem 23
Surveys 23
Studies 25
Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem. Results of
surveys and studies 26
Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem 26
Public definitions of violence against women 28
Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women 31
Results of the 2010 Eurobarometer and the 2014 FRA Survey 41
Summary and highlights 42
Highlights 43
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN:
ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS 44
Introduction 44
Surveys and studies addressing public attributions, explanations and justifications 45
Surveys 45
Studies 46
Public attributions, explanations, and justifications of violence against women.
Results of surveys and studies 47
Individual factors 47
Relational/situational factors 51
Social/cultural factors 53
Cultural and social norms 53
Gender roles and stereotypes 54
Socioeconomic explanations 58
Results of the 2010 Eurobarometer 60
Summary and highlights 60
Highlights 61
4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER?
VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIES 62
Introduction 62
Surveys and studies addressing victim-blaming attitudes 63
Surveys 63
Studies 64
Victim-blaming attitudes. Results of surveys and studies 65
Intimate partner violence/domestic violence 65
Sexual violence 72
Victim-blaming attitudes, results of the 2010 Eurobarometer 76
Summary and highlights 78
Highlights 78
5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND
RESPONSES IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 79
Introduction 79
Surveys and studies addressing public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention
and responses in cases of violence against women 80
Surveys 80
Studies 81
Public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention and responses in cases of violence
against women. Results of surveys and studies 82
Public knowledge of resources and services for women victims of violence 82
Public attitudes towards intervention in cases of violence against women 89
Public responses in cases of violence against women 98
Professionals’ knowledge and attitudes towards intervention in cases of violence against
women 101
Summary and highlights 102
Highlights 102
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 104
EU surveys including information on attitudes towards violence against women 104
Conclusions 104
Recommendations 105
Methodological issues in surveys including information on attitudes towards
violence against women 105
Conclusions 105
Recommendations 106
Availability of studies published in academic journals addressing attitudes towards
violence against women in the EU 107
Conclusions 107
Recommendations 107
Public attitudes towards violence against women in EU surveys and studies 108
Conclusions 108
Recommendations 109
Factors influencing attitudes towards violence against women in the EU: future
directions for research 109
Conclusions 109
Recommendations 110
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Countries with surveys addressing public perceptions of violence against women as
a social problem 24
Figure 2.2. Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem: Domestic violence
(RO-Survey 1. General population) 27
Figure 2.3. Public definitions of violence against women: Violence in intimate relationships
(EE-Survey 2. General population) 28
Figure 2.4. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (BG-Survey 5. General
population) 29
Figure 2.5. Public definitions of violence against women: Prostitution (EE-Survey 2. General population) 30
Figure 2.6. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (EE-Survey 2. General
population) 30
Figure 2.7. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (PL-Survey 4. General
population) 31
Figure 2.8. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Domestic violence
(PL-Survey 2a. General population and subsamples of perpetrators) 32
Figure 2.9. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Domestic violence
(PL-Survey 4. General population) 33
Figure 2.10. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Intimate partner
violence (CZ-Survey 4. Women, subsample of victims) 34
Figure 2.11. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Intimate partner
violence (CZ-Survey 4. Women, subsample of victims) 34
Figure 2.12. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Violence against
women (IT-Survey 1. Women general population) 35
Figure 2.13. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Gender-based
violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and adolescents-young people) 36
Figure 2.14. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Rape
(SE-Survey 2. General population) 41
Figure 3.1. Countries with surveys addressing public attributions, explanations and justifications 45
Figure 3.2. Individual factors: Alcohol as a circumstance explaining violence against women
(PL-Survey 1a. General population) 47
Figure 3.3. Individual factors: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young adults) 48
Figure 3.4. Individual factors: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and
adolescents-young people) 50
Figure 3.5. Individual factors: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and
adolescents-young people) 50
Figure 3.6. Perpetrator characteristics: Sexual violence (CZ-Survey 3. General population) 51
Figure 3.7. Relational factors: Intimate partner violence (NL-Survey 1. General population) 52
Figure 3.8. Perpetrators circumstances: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 4. General population;
victims and perpetrators subsamples) 52
Figure 3.9. Social/cultural factors: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 2. Young people) 53
Figure 3.10. Social/cultural factors: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 2. Young people) 54
Figure 3.11. Social/cultural factors: Sexual violence (NL-Survey 1. General population) 56
Figure 3.12. Cultural/social factors: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population) 57
Figure 3.13. Social/cultural factors: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young people) 58
Figure 3.14. Poverty and education level: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population) 58
Figure 3.15. Reasons to explain gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and
adolescents-young people) 59
Figure 4.1. Countries with surveys addressing victim-blaming attitudes 63
Figure 4.2. Victim-blaming attitudes: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 2. General population) 65
Figure 4.3. Victim-blaming attitudes: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population) 66
Figure 4.4. Victim-blaming attitudes: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young people) 67
Figure 4.5. Victim-blaming attitudes: Wife beating (EE-Survey 1. General population, men) 69
Figure 4.6. Victim-blaming attitudes: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 2a. General population and
perpetrators sub-sample) 70
Figure 4.7. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (EE-Survey 2. General population) 72
Figure 4.8. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (SE-Survey 1. Students) 73
Figure 4.9. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (SE-Survey 2. General population) 74
Figure 4.10. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (EE-Survey 6. Young people) 75
Figure 4.11. Victim-blaming attitudes in Europe (Eurobarometer, 2010) 77
Figure 5.1. Countries with surveys addressing public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention and
responses in cases of violence against women 80
Figure 5.2. Public knowledge of resources and services: Violence against women (AT-Survey 2.
General population) 83
Figure 5.3. Public knowledge of resources and services: Gender-based violence (EE-Survey 2.
General population) 84
Figure 5.4. Public knowledge of resources and services: Gender based violence (EE-Survey 2.
General population) 85
Figure 5.5. Have you heard about women’s shelters in Estonia?: Gender-based and domestic
violence (EE-Survey 5. General population) 86
Figure 5.6. Have you heard about the nationwide hotline 1492 for women victims?: Gender based
and domestic violence (EE-Survey 5. General population) 87
Figure 5.7. What kind of support services for victims of sexual violence have you heard of?: Sexual
violence (EE-Survey 6. General population) 88
Figure 5.8. Public knowledge of resources and services: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 8. General
population) 88
Figure 5.9. If a person from your circle of acquaintances shares with you she has been a victim of
domestic violence, whom would you advise her to go to?: Domestic violence (BG-Survey 1. General
population) 89
Figure 5.10. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 1. General population) 91
Figure 5.11. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 3. Students/Teachers) 91
Figure 5.12. Should witnesses intervene: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 4. General population) 92
Figure 5.13. Public attitudes towards intervention: Gender based and domestic violence (EE-Survey 5.
General population) 92
Figure 5.14. If you know of or witness aggression or mistreatment of a woman by a man, what do
you think you would do?: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and
adolescents-young people) 95
Figure 5.15. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (LT-Survey 1. Victims) 96
Figure 5.16. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (LT-Survey 1. Victims) 96
Figure 5.17. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 2a. General
population) 97
Figure 5.18. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 2a. General
population) 97
Figure 5.19. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General
population) 98
Figure 5.20. What did you do, how did you respond?: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 2. General
population) 99
Figure 5.21. What is the main reason why you did not do anything?: Domestic violence
(EE-Survey 2. General population) 99
Figure 5.22. Whom/where did you report it to?: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 8. General population) 100
Figure 5.23. Public responses in cases of violence against women: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 8.
General population) 100
Figure II.1. Survey questionnaires selected for inclusion in the review 122
Figure II.2. Study summaries selected for inclusion in the review 123
Figure III.1. Number of surveys selected and samples 126
Figure III.2. Number of studies selected by sample composition 133
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Country name abbreviations 21
Table 2.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence 25
Table 2.2. Studies, samples and type of violence 26
Table 2.3. “Domestic violence is a public interest issue”: disaggregated information (RO-Survey 1.
General population) 27
Table 2.4. Public definitions of violence against women: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 1.
Women general population) 29
Table 2.5. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Intimate partner
violence (ES-Survey 2. General population) 32
Table 2.6. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Dating violence
(CY-Survey 3. Young people) 37
Table 2.7. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Gender based
violence (ES-Survey 3. Students) 38
Table 2.8. “Mistreatment of a girl by a boy?” Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence
against women: Dating violence (ES-Survey 4. Students) 39
Table 2.9. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Dating violence
(SI-Survey 3. Professionals: High school advisors) 40
Table 3.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence 46
Table 3.2. Studies, samples and type of violence 46
Table 3.3. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Disaggregated information
(CY-Survey 3. Young people) 49
Table 3.4. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Disaggregated information
(CY-Survey 3. Young people) 54
Table 3.5. “If a woman has children, even if she is beaten she cannot leave the relationship”:
Disaggregated information (RO-Survey 1. General population) 55
Table 3.6. “Women are the property of men”: Disaggregated information (RO-Survey 1. General
population) 57
Table 3.7. “Domestic violence only happens among uneducated people”: Disaggregated information
(RO-Survey 1. General population) 59
Table 4.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence 64
Table 4.2. Studies, samples and type of violence 65
Table 4.3. “Women are sometimes to blame for being beaten”: Disaggregated information
(RO-Survey 1. General population) 66
Table 4.4. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Gender-based violence (CY-Survey 3.
Young people) 67
Table 4.5. “It is OK for a boy….”: Gender-based violence (CY-Survey 3. Young people) 68
Table 4.6. Wife beating attitudes by native language (EE-Survey 1. General population, men) 69
Table 4.7. Victim-blaming attitudes: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 4. Young people) 70
Table 4.8. “It is OK for a man….”: Domestic abuse (UK-Survey 4. Students) 71
Table 4.9. “Women cause their victimisation or rape by their clothing”: Disaggregated information
(EE-Survey 2. General population) 73
Table 4.10. “Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped”: Disaggregated information
(EE-Survey 6. Young people) 76
Table 5.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence 81
Table 5.2. Studies, samples and type of violence 82
Table 5.3. Preferred sources of information: Intimate partner violence and sexual violence (DE-Survey 4) 84
Table 5.4. Awareness of Estonian Women’s Shelters Union and their hotline 1492: Disaggregated
information (EE-Survey 2. General population) 85
Table 5.5. Have you heard about women’s shelters in Estonia?: Disaggregated information
(EE-Survey 5. General population) 87
Table 5.6. Recommendations to victims: IPV and Sexual violence (DE-Survey 4) 90
Table 5.7. Recommendations in cases of domestic violence by level of education (DE-Survey 4) 90
Table 5.8. Would you recommend your friend or colleague who has experienced violence to contact
a women’s shelter for advice and assistance?: Disaggregated information (EE-Survey 5. General
population) 93
Table 5.9. Would you know where to go to file a complaint in a case of mistreatment? And
specifically, where would you go? (ES-Survey 1. Women general population) 94
Table 5.10. Public attitudes towards intervention: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 4. Adolescents) 95
Table II.1. Number of surveys and studies received by country 121
Table II.2. Number of surveys and studies selected by country 124
Table III.1. Type of violence addressed in surveys 127
Table III.2. Methodological characteristics of surveys 129
Table IV.1. Surveys selected by country: title, year (conducted/published), organisation, scope and
sample 135
Table V.1. Study summaries selected by country: Reference, sample, method and type of violence 139
Table V.2. Content of studies: selection of main results 141
List of Boxes
Box 1.1. Experts’ views about the availability of surveys on attitudes towards violence against women 19
Box 1.2. Experts’ views about the availability of studies on attitudes towards violence against women 20
Box 4.1. Victim-blaming attitudes examples 71
Box I.1. Instructions to experts: Survey questionnaire 119
Box I.2. Instructions to experts: Qualitative and quantitative studies 120
Box III.1. Examples of the definition of violence using specific indicators 130
Box III.2. Examples of legal definitions of violence 131
Box III.3. Examples of confidential self-completion methodology used in surveys 131
Box III.4. Does the survey provide information about who conducted the survey or whether the
interviewers were specifically trained? (MT-Survey 1) 132
Box VI.1. Survey items on public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem (Chapter 2) 145
Box VI.2. Survey items on public attributions, explanations and justifications (Chapter 3) 151
Box VI.3. Survey items on victim-blaming attitudes (Chapter 4) 155
Box VI.4. Survey items on public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention and responses in cases
of violence against women (Chapter 5) 158
13
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Violence against women remains a major social, public health, and human rights
problem in the EU. Violence against women is a complex phenomenon that needs
to be understood within the wider social context and within the social and cultural
norms that permeate it. Public attitudes and responses regarding violence against
women reflect these norms and play an important role in shaping the social climate
in which the violence occurs. Comprehending attitudes towards violence against wo-
men is key to better understanding its root causes and, therefore, developing more
effective intervention measures.
To achieve this, the report aimed to (1) review all surveys published in the last 5
years in EU countries that included questions addressing attitudes towards violence
against women, and (2) review quantitative and qualitative studies of high scientific
quality on attitudes towards violence against women in EU countries published in
academic journals in the last 5 years. This information was identified and provided
by the European Network of Experts on Gender Equality (ENEGE).
Aer a selection process, the information used for this report was based on 40
surveys from 19 countries, reflecting the responses of around 85,000 European ci-
tizens. For this report, 16 quantitative and qualitative studies published in academic
journals were also considered (see Chapter 1). The analysis of this material allowed
us to identify four key areas related to public attitudes towards violence against
women: (1) Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem; (2)
Public understanding of the causes of violence against women; (3) Victim-blaming
attitudes; and (4) Public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention, and responses
in cases of violence against women. These areas corresponded to the four thematic
chapters that describe the main results of this report (see Chapters 2 to 5).
Although there are limitations in the comparability of data across countries, the
picture that emerges regarding attitudes towards violence against women in EU
countries, where this information was available, can be summarised as follows:
• Results of the available surveys and studies addressing the acceptability and
perceived severity of different types of violence against women (mainly part-
ner violence) revealed that small but relevant percentages of respondents (in-
cluding young people, adults, and also victims) tended to “accept” – in some
circumstances – some violent behaviours against women, perceived as “not
very serious” or considered “inevitable”, including insulting, hitting, controlling,
or even forced sex. This suggests that attitudes of acceptability and tolerance
are still prevalent. Particularly worrisome is that the acceptability of certain be-
haviours remained high in some circumstances (e.g. dating violence). Data for
gender tended to show that these types of attitudes are more common among
men and boys.
• Among the individual factors believed to be associated with violence against
women, alcohol or drug use was one of the most commonly mentioned by
survey respondents from the general population (and also professionals). Inte-
restingly, percentages among victims and perpetrators were much lower. Ha-
14
Executive Summary
ving experienced violence in childhood was also one of the most frequently
mentioned causes of violence against women by respondents (including sexual
violence). For sexual violence against women, respondents tended to believe
that offenders suffered from some forms of deviance (which was also seen as
resistant to treatment).
• Relational or situational factors considered by survey respondents as possible
causes of violence against women were fights and quarrels among intimate
partners, family problems, and sources of stress, like the loss of a job or finan-
cial problems.
• Social and cultural factors that were considered by respondents as an expla-
nation or justification of violence against women included: cultural and social
norms, gender stereotypes, and socioeconomic explanations. Results suggest
that gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes are still prevalent in some sectors
of the society. Where available, disaggregated information suggests that these
types of attitudes are more common among males, the older, the less educated,
and those living in rural areas.
• Victim-blaming attitudes were widespread in countries where this information
was available. Some results of this review revealed alarming percentages of
this type of attitudes. Where available, results regarding victim-blaming in ca-
ses of sexual violence or rape were particularly worrisome. The picture that
emerged from the available information is that victim-blaming attitudes are
more common among men, the older, the less educated, and minority groups.
Victim-blaming attitudes were also highly prevalent in other socio-demographic
groups and among women.
• Questions regarding public knowledge of resources for victims suggested that
only some services were quite well-known to the public (e.g. women’s shelters),
while the public in general knew little about other services or resources for
victims. Where available, differences among specific socio-demographic groups
emerged regarding the knowledge of resources and support services for victims
(e.g. minority groups and the less educated had less knowledge). Also, socio-
demographic differences emerged regarding what to do or what to recommend
to victims. The results suggested that the police was the main resource to which
the public would turn if discovering a case of violence against women.
• Finally, some results suggested that attitudes favouring non-intervention were
still prevalent. Where information was available, a significant number of re-
spondents preferred not to get involved even if they were aware of a case of
violence against women (“not my business”, or “it is a private matter” were
among the reasons for not intervening).
The final goal of this review was not only to provide an overview of the available in-
formation on attitudes towards violence against women in the EU, but also to iden-
tify gaps in our knowledge in order to point to new directions to better understand
public attitudes that contribute to perpetuating violence against women in the EU,
and to respond to this major challenge in a more effective way. In this regard, the
main conclusions and recommendations contained in this report can be summari-
sed as follows (see Chapter 6):
• Information regarding attitudes towards violence against women is still limited
in European surveys, as most available surveys were not designed specifically to
15
Executive Summary
address these issues. There is a need to develop surveys and additional sources
of data collection in order to specifically investigate attitudes towards violence
against women. To avoid the large variations between countries in terms of
information availability and data collection, these surveys should provide com-
parable data across EU countries by being implemented at the EU-level.
• There was a large variation across surveys regarding their scope, the samples,
type and definitions of violence against women. Most surveys addressed intima-
te partner violence against women, while only a few addressed other types of
violence against women. Moreover, information on attitudes among minorities
or other risk groups was very limited. Future data collection should establish a
set of shared indicators and definitions of different types of violence against
women, and address not only attitudes among the general population, but also
target specific groups (e.g. professionals, victims, perpetrators, risk groups).
• To improve the comparability of information on relevant aspects regarding at-
titudes towards violence against women across the EU and better assess its
evolution over time, a more standardised and methodologically sound approach
to the measurement of attitudes is needed in future EU-level surveys and stu-
dies. More accurate and comparable data at the EU-level would help to inform
better-targeted education and intervention initiatives.
• There are very few studies addressing attitudes towards violence against wo-
men in EU countries published in academic journals of high scientific quality
in the last five years. This reveals that research on attitudes towards violence
against women is an underdeveloped area. Clearly an EU-level framework for
research on attitudes to violence against women should be established and
promoted, identifying key research priorities.
• The worrisome prevalence of acceptance, victim-blaming, and non-intervention
attitudes in countries where this information was available should be appro-
priately targeted and monitored across the EU. No reliable data, however, was
available in the surveys analysed on the impact of policies, education, and
awareness-raising campaigns or other initiatives on attitudes towards violence
against women among the general public or other specific groups (e.g. men,
risk groups, minorities). There is a need to monitor the effectiveness of policies,
education, and prevention efforts to change public attitudes across the EU. Iden-
tifying and targeting sectors or specific groups in society that are more resistant
to change should also be a priority.
• Only a few surveys provided information on differences in attitudes towards
violence against women across different social groups. When this information
was available, the attitudes found were not evenly distributed across different
socio-economic defined groups. Future studies and surveys should provide a
more detailed analysis of socio-demographic and other factors influencing the-
se attitudes. This information would help us to understand variations in attitu-
des and prevalence both between and within EU countries, and to better target
awareness-raising, public education, and intervention strategies.
• Factors explaining violence against women are multiple and can be identified
at multiple levels, including individual, relational, group, community, and macro
(country) levels. An appropriate understanding of variations both between and
within countries, not only in attitudes but also in prevalence, will need a multi-
national and multilevel type of approach that will require a new generation of
studies and an EU-level research effort.
16
1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH
1. BACKGROUND AND
RESEARCH APPROACH
Background
Violence against women is a widespread phenomenon with important consequen-
ces for the physical, psychological, and social wellbeing of women. It is a major
social and public health problem as well as a human rights violation that also has
profound consequences for society as a whole (Campbell, 2002; Ellsberg, Jansen,
Heise, Watts, & Garcia-Moreno, 2008; WHO, 2013). Intimate partner violence is
considered the most common form of violence suffered by women (Devries et al.,
2013; Stöckl et al., 2013; WHO, 2013), mainly committed by their male partners
(Hamby, 2014). Based on data from 81 countries, Devries et al. (2013) estimated
that the global prevalence of intimate partner violence is 30% (23.2% in high-
income regions). Also, according to Stöckl et al. (2013), the main risk of homicide for
a woman is from an intimate partner, with the proportion of women killed by their
partners being six times higher than the proportion of men killed by women. Stöckl
et al. (2013) estimated that 38.6% of all female homicides are committed by their
intimate partners (41.2% in Western countries).
The recent survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
among the 28 European Union (EU) Member States estimated that 33% of women
had experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15, and that 5%
of women had been raped since the age of 15. This survey also showed the high
prevalence of intimate partner violence against women, with an average of 22%
of European women having been victims of physical and/or sexual violence by their
partners since the age of 15, with prevalence across countries ranging from 13% to
32% (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014).
Understanding attitudes toward violence against women is of paramount impor-
tance in order to better understand its root causes and, therefore, develop more
effective intervention measures. Clearly, EU prevention policies would benefit from
data monitoring attitudes toward violence against women as well as the factors
that influence it.
Violence against women is a complex phenomenon that needs to be understood
within the wider social context and within the social and cultural norms that per-
meate it (Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia, 2014; Jewkes, 2002; Jewkes, Flood, & Lang,
2015; Taylor & Sorenson, 2005). For example, in its “World report on violence and
health” (2002), the World Health Organization included factors creating an accep-
table climate for violence and those that reduce inhibitions against violence as
larger societal factors that influence rates of violence. Research shows that these
attitudes condoning violence against women are still widespread (Gracia & Herrero,
2006a; Gracia & Tomás, 2014; Jewkes 2002; Jewkes et al., 2015; WHO, 2013). The
importance of addressing public attitudes towards violence against women is illu-
strated by an increasing body of research showing the influence that these attitudes
17
1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH
may have in aspects such as incidence and reporting rates, public and professional
responses and the victims’ own responses (e.g. Carlson & Worden, 2005; Flood &
Pease, 2009; Frye, 2007; Gracia, García, & Lila, 2008, 2011, 2014; Lila, Gracia, &
García, 2013; West & Wandrei, 2002). If we take into account that violence against
women remains not only a major social and public health problem, but is also a
largely unreported crime (Gracia, 2004), the importance of addressing attitudes
towards violence against women becomes even more apparent.
A better understanding of public attitudes toward violence against women and its
correlates may add relevant knowledge to the social conditions that contribute to
its prevalence, as well as the social sources of deterrence and control of this type
of violence (Gracia, 2014). In this regard, attitudes towards violence against wo-
men can be considered not only a central issue for understanding those factors
that contribute to its maintenance in our societies, but also as a main target for
intervention and public education (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008; Flood & Pease, 2009;
García-Moreno et al., 2015; Gracia, Rodriguez, & Lila, 2015; Jewkes, Flood, & Lang,
2015; West & Wandrei, 2002; WHO, 2002; Worden & Carlson, 2005).
A growing number of scholars and international bodies have recognised the impor-
tant role that public attitudes and responses regarding violence against women play
in shaping the social climate in which the violence occurs, a social climate that can
contribute either to perpetuating, or to reducing levels of violence against women
in our societies (e.g. European Commission, 2010; Flood & Pease, 2009; Frye, 2007;
Gracia, 2004; Gracia, García, & Lila 2009; WHO, 2002). As Webster at al. (2014)
put it, “as a reflection of social norms, attitudes are also an important barometer
of our progress in preventing and responding to violence against women” (p. 186).
From this viewpoint, in order to achieve a significant reduction of the prevalence of
violence against women, social and cultural attitudes that tolerate or justify this
violence need to be addressed by analysing its prevalence, monitoring its changes
and understanding its determinants (Campbell & Manganello, 2006; Flood & Pease,
2009; Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Gracia & Tomás, 2014; Heise & Kotsadam, 2015;
Uthman, Moradi, & Lawoko, 2009; Waltermaurer, 2012; West & Wandrei, 2002;
Worden & Carlson, 2005). As summarised in the 2013 National Community Attitu-
des towards Violence Against Women Survey conducted in Australia by the Victorian
Health Promotion Foundation:
There is growing international consensus that the causes of violence against
women can be eliminated. Communities and governments can prevent vio-
lence against women before it occurs, and attitudes have an important role
to play…Attitudes that condone or tolerate violence are recognized as play-
ing a central role in shaping the way individuals, organizations and commu-
nities respond to violence (VicHealth, 2010). Measuring community attitudes
tells us how well we are progressing towards a violence-free society for
all women. It also reveals the extent of the work that lies ahead, where to
focus our efforts, and the messages and approaches likely to be effective
(VicHealth, 2014, p.1).
18
1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH
Research approach and procedure
Drawing from the above ideas, this research review aimed to address both attitudes
towards violence against women as well as the factors that may influence them
across all EU Member States. This research also aimed to be theoretically driven
and conducted taking into account two main axes:
Approach to studying attitudes. Drawing from a social psychology framework, this
review takes into account the three classical components of attitudes: cognitive,
affective, and behavioural (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998, 2005, 2007; Maio, Olson, Ber-
nard, & Luke, 2003). Within this framework, this review addressed issues such as
perceptions and knowledge; attributions (e.g. victim-blaming), justifications and ex-
plications; stereotypes and prejudices; intentions (whether or how to intervene) and
responses.
Approach to exploring potential factors influencing attitudes. This review also con-
sidered factors that may influence attitudes. To do so, a multifactorial approach
was used (e.g. Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia, 2014; Heise, 1998; Taylor & Soren-
son, 2005; Uthman et al., 2009; Waltermaurer, 2012). According to this approach,
knowledge about correlates and determinants of public attitudes toward violence
against women must take into account a number of factors working at different
level of analysis, including cultural/societal, community, organisational, group, si-
tuational or individual levels. This kind of approach can help to better understand
variations in attitudes both between and within countries by exploring whether the-
se types of attitude are more common among certain socio-demographic defined
groups and contexts (Gracia, 2014).
Questionnaire and instructions for experts
In order to gather relevant information for this review, a specific tool was designed
to be completed by the ENEGE expert network. The experts were asked to perform
two tasks:
1. To thoroughly review all relevant surveys published in the last 5 years in their
countries related to the aim of this study and provide the information requested in
the questionnaire (the specific instructions to experts can be seen in Appendix I, Box
I.1).
2. To identify quantitative and qualitative studies of high scientific quality con-
ducted in their countries on attitudes towards violence against women published in
relevant academic journals over the last 5 years (the specific instructions to experts
can be seen in Appendix I, Box I.2).
Experts reports and feedback
It is important to note the great difficulty we encountered in finding specific infor-
mation on attitudes towards violence against women (both surveys and studies)
reported by a number of experts (see Boxes 1.1 and 1.2). In fact, experts from three
countries (Ireland, Greece and Hungary) found no surveys that had been conducted
in the last five years. In Ireland, the last survey conducted with some information
about attitudes towards violence against women was published in 2008. In Gree-
ce, only two national large-scale epidemiological surveys had been conducted on
violence against women, in 2003 and 2004. The Hungarian expert explicitly points
19
1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH
out that in their country “it is impossible to find comparable and reliable data on
domestic violence and also on attitudes on this issue”.
Box 1.1. Experts’ views about the availability of surveys on attitudes towards
violence against women
Denmark expert: “…Sadly, we do lack information about the trends in atti-
tudes towards violence against women, as it would help to clarify the reasons
for the reported high prevalence of gender-based violence in Denmark (and
the other Nordic countries)”.
Estonia expert: “…only some (surveys) focus on attitudes towards violence.
In some… the questions and the results do not (directly) reflect attitudes to-
wards violence against women”.
France expert: “Very few surveys and publications are relevant for this re-
search review focusing on the past five years …since French surveys tend to
focus on the description and classification of violent situations, attitudes to-
wards violence against women are barely explored. …the French approach to
violence against women tends to focus on the description and typology of
violent events, disregarding attitudes towards violence”.
Greece expert: “Despite the large body of research literature on intimate
partner violence (IPV), which has grown over the last two decades, Greece
still has very little empirical data on a national scale... Furthermore, there are
no ad hoc attitudes surveys and studies regarding violence against women
that could provide a better understanding of the independent variables as-
sociated with various attitudes. The only one available is not nationwide and
regards attitudes on gender stereotypes and gender-based violence among
young people”.
Hungary expert: “…it is impossible to find comparable and reliable data on
domestic violence and also on attitudes on this issue”.
Italy expert: “…we have had considerable difficulty finding studies and sur-
veys on attitudes towards violence against women in Italy”.
In relation to the studies published in high quality academic journals (indexed in the
Web of Science Journal Citation Reports), six experts (from Cyprus, Estonia, Italy,
Luxemburg, Poland and Sweden) again reported that they had found no studies with
samples addressing attitudes towards violence against women in their countries.
20
1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH
Box 1.2. Experts’ views about the availability of studies on attitudes towards
violence against women
Denmark expert: “In the 1990’s, some minor qualitative studies were con-
ducted on attitudes, but none within the given timeframe of 5 years prior to
the research review”.
Estonia expert: “I also checked the availability of scientific publications on
VAW in the academic journals. I found no high quality publications”.
France expert: “In France there are very few publications in academic jour-
nals relying on quantitative or qualitative studies on the topic”.
Italy expert: “…concerning specific studies we haven’t found anything worth
describing: we haven’t found any relevant study published in academic jour-
nals in the last 5 years”.
Poland expert: “We did not find any studies in journals indexed in the Journal
Citation Reports”.
The Sweden expert provided an excellent summary of the general lack of speciali-
sed information on attitudes towards violence against women:
“…the result of my search for surveys addressing attitudes towards violence
against women or any quantitative and qualitative studies addressing this
issue in high quality academic journals is very meagre… this is an interesting
result in itself, but it might also be seen as surprising and a mystery …Given
that male violence against women is a top political priority with consider-
able resources being allocated to this area, quite a lot has also been written
about it and there is a lot of data about violence against women, but not
about attitudes towards violence against women. When attitudes are
mentioned, they are mentioned as something that has to be changed, but
not what these attitudes are”.
Key areas related to public attitudes towards violence against
women in EU surveys and studies
Aer a selection process (see Appendix II), 40 surveys in 19 countries were even-
tually included in this review, as they met the criteria established for inclusion. The
data analysed for this report reflects the responses of around 85,000 European
citizens. There were wide variations across countries regarding the availability of
surveys. In some countries, no surveys were available in the requested period, whe-
reas in others several were provided (see Appendix III and Appendix IV).
Very few studies addressing attitudes towards violence against women in EU
countries were published in academic journals of high scientific quality in the last
five years. In the end, 16 studies in 8 countries met the inclusion criteria for this
review (see Appendix III and Appendix V).
21
1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH
In summary, this review was based on data from survey questionnaires and study
summaries provided by ENEGE experts from all EU countries. Aer reviewing all
the information provided by these experts, four key areas or topics related to pu-
blic attitudes towards violence against women were identified across the survey
questionnaires. Accordingly, the following four chapters in this review correspond to
these key areas:
1. Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem: awareness,
definitions, acceptability and perceived severity;
2. Public understanding of the causes of violence against women: attributions,
explanations and justifications;
3. Are women held responsible for the violence they suffer? Victim-blaming attitu-
des in EU surveys and studies;
4. Public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention, and responses in cases of
violence against women.
Abbreviations
In this report, the countries are referred to by their official abbreviation:
Table 1.1. Country name abbreviations
European Union (EU)
AT Austria IE Ireland
BE Belgium IT Italy
BG Bulgaria LT Lithuania
CZ Czech Republic LU Luxembourg
CY Republic of Cyprus LV Latvia
DK Denmark MT Malta
DE Germany NL The Netherlands
EE Estonia PL Poland
EL Greece PT Portugal
ES Spain RO Romania
FI Finland SI Slovenia
FR France SK Slovakia
HR Croatia SE Sweden
HU Hungary UK United Kingdom
22
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
OF VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AS A SOCIAL
PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS,
ACCEPTABILITY AND
PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Introduction
Public awareness of the prevalence of domestic violence against women in so-
ciety is a first step in mobilizing public responses to tackle this problem. As Klein,
Campbell, Soler and Ghez (1997) put it, “public recognition of the pervasiveness of
domestic abuse reflects the level of violence that people acknowledge in their own
lives” (p. 21). For Klein et al. (1997), social and personal accountability for taking
action against violence against women comes from believing that the problem is
widespread and poses a sufficient threat to the fabric of the community as to af-
fect one’s own life. The perceived importance among the public of violence against
women as a social problem, and the beliefs regarding how widespread the problem
is, are important factors that shape the social environment in which the victims and
perpetrators are embedded and influences how this social environment responds
(Capezza & Arriaga, 2008; Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia, 2014; WHO, 2002). Accor-
ding to Staub (2003), “when there is limited public discussion of an issue, a condi-
tion of pluralistic ignorance exists. If no one is concerned, the issue seems unimpor-
tant and action unnecessary...given inaction, individuals shi awareness away from
these issues to lessen their feelings of danger, personal responsibility, and guilt” (p.
491).
In the context of how violence against women is perceived as a social problem,
the way this violence is defined by the public is of particular importance. How this
violence is defined will also influence what is or is not acceptable regarding the use
of violence against women (Gracia, 2014). Violence against women in intimate re-
lationships can be accepted and tolerated or considered as intolerable depending on
the circumstances. For example, if violence against women by their partners is defi-
ned as such only when it becomes extreme, severe or repeated, it is more likely that
some violence towards women in intimate relationships (e.g. verbal, psychological,
physical violence without injuries) may be seen as acceptable or tolerated under
23
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
some circumstances (Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Loseke, 1989; Loseke & Gelles, 1993;
Muehlenhard & Kimes, 1999). Loseke (1989) argued in this respect that victims of
more extreme partner violence against women may be worthy of sympathy, whe-
reas other women do not deserve sympathy because some violence is “tolerable”.
As Heise (2011) put it:
“The acceptability of violence appears strongly linked to both the nature
of the perceived transgression and the severity of abuse. Violence that is
viewed as “without just cause” or is perceived as excessive is more likely to
be condemned by women themselves and by others… it is important thus to
understand the underlying beliefs that define the range of acceptable male
and female behaviour” (p. 13).
Public perceptions of violence against women as social problem were a main topic
that emerged aer reviewing all the survey questionnaires and study summaries
provided for this review. These surveys included items addressing three different but
related issues: public awareness of violence against women as a social problem,
public definitions, and public acceptability and perceived severity of different types
of violence against women (by both partners and non-partners). This section is or-
ganised into these three areas.
Surveys and studies addressing public perceptions of violence
against women as a social problem
Surveys
Information on public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem
was available in 26 surveys conducted in 14 countries; Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Re-
public, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden and United Kingdom (see Figure 2.1).
24
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Figure 2.1. Countries with surveys addressing public perceptions of violence against
women as a social problem
C
OUNTRIES
= 14 / S
URVEYS
= 26
Malta
Surveys in each country (BG = 2; CY = 3; CZ = 2; DK = 1; EE = 2; ES = 4; IT = 1; LT = 2; MT = 1; PL = 4; RO = 1; SE
= 1; SI = 1; UK = 1)
The samples used and types of violence addressed in these surveys are described
in Table 2.1 (see Appendix IV for further information).
25
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Table 2.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence
Code Sample n Type of Violence*
BG-Survey 1 General population (men & women) - Domestic violence
BG-Survey 5 General population (men & women) 2000 Domestic & sexual violence
CY-Survey 1 General population (women) 1107 Domestic violence
CY-Survey 2 Young adults 1000 Violent behaviours in interper-
sonal (partner) relationships
CY-Survey 3 Young people 453 Gender-based violence
CZ-Survey 1 General population (women) 3000 Domestic violence
CZ-Survey 4 General population (women) 1500 Intimate partner violence
DK-Survey 2 General population (men & women) 2780 Dating violence
EE-Survey 2 General population (men & women) 1111 Gender-based violence
EE-Survey 4 General population (men & women) 1500 Intimate partner violence
ES-Survey 1 General population (women) 7898 Violence against women
ES-Survey 2 General population (men & women) 2580 Gender-based violence
ES-Survey 3 Adolescents and young people 2457 Gender-based Violence
ES-Survey 4 Students of secondary education and
professionals
14001 Gender-based violence
IT-Survey 1 General population (women) 21000 Violence against women
(partner and non-partner)
LT-Survey 1 Victims 89 Domestic violence
LT-Survey 2 Victims 515 Violence against women
MT-Survey 1 General population (women) 1200 Domestic violence
PL-Survey 1a General population (men & women) 3000 Domestic violence
PL-Survey 2a General population (men & women) 1500 Domestic violence
PL-Survey 3 Victims and professionals 545 Domestic violence
PL-Survey 4 General population (men & women) 3000 Domestic violence
RO-Survey 1 General population (men & women) 1050 Domestic violence
SE-Survey 2 General population (men & women) 2626 Rape
SI-Survey 3 Professionals - Dating violence
UK-Survey 4 Students of primary and secondary
education
2395 Domestic abuse
* As defined in the title of the survey (see Appendix IV)
The 26 surveys analysed used a wide variety of questions and formats to tap public
perceptions of violence against women as a social problem (see Appendix VI, Box
VI.1). These questions addressed three main related areas relevant to understan-
ding public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem: public awa-
reness of violence against women as a social problem, public definitions of violence
against women, and public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against
women (both by partners and non-partners).
Studies
Three studies with EU samples published in high quality academic journals in the
last five years addressed issues related to public perceptions of violence against
women as a social problem. Two of them, conducted in the Czech Republic, used
university student samples to analyse the perception and definition of sexual ha-
26
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
rassment (CZ-Study 2; CZ-Study 3), and one conducted in Portugal used a large
sample of young adults to analyse approval attitudes towards dating violence and
its socio-demographic correlates (PT-Study 1) (see Table 2.2; see Appendix V for
further information).
Table 2.2. Studies, samples and type of violence
Code Sample n Type of Violence
CZ-Study 2 University students 700 Sexual harassment
CZ-Study 3 University students 832 Sexual harassment
PT-Study 1 Young people (aged 13 to 29) 4667 Intimate partner violence
Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem.
Results of surveys and studies
As mentioned above, the information available for this study can be divided into
three relevant issues: public awareness of violence against women as a social pro-
blem, public definitions of violence against women, and public acceptability and per-
ceived severity of violence against women. Below, we analysed results of surveys
and studies regarding these three issues.
Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem
Only four surveys addressed public awareness of how widespread is violence against
women, and whether it is perceived as a social problem.
For example, regarding partner violence against women, 55.8% of the young people
surveyed from Cyprus believed that violence among couples was less pervasive in
their country as compared to others (CY-Survey 2). Also, regarding perceptions of
domestic violence, a survey among the general population conducted in Bulgaria
(BG-Survey 1), asked “how do you treat domestic violence as a social phenomenon
in the Bulgarian society?” Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) considered that this
was a personal problem that happens sporadically; whereas the other half (50.8%)
believed that this was a social problem (i.e. widespread and of concern for the whole
society). In this survey, men tended to view domestic violence as a private matter
that should not come out of the family, and the majority of women believed that
violence was primarily a social problem (also blaming society for its passivity and
indifference).
Also, with regard to domestic violence, a survey conducted in Romania (RO-Survey
1) asked “Why do you think that Romania is among the EU countries with high rates
of violence against women?” Only 23.2% of respondents agreed with the statement
“domestic violence has always been present in Romania”. The same survey asked
whether “domestic violence is an issue of public interest” and, interestingly, just over
half of the population agreed with that statement. 42.7% of the general population
did not consider domestic violence as an issue of public interest, which suggests
that this is a problem that has not yet reached a prominent place among the public
concerns (see Figure 2.2).
27
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Figure 2.2. Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem: Do-
mestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population)
It is also interesting to note that in this Romanian survey, perceptions of domestic
violence as a public interest issue vary across groups of the population with dif-
ferent socio-demographic characteristics. For example, this view is more common
among women, young people and urban areas (with differences ranging between
4% and 12%). Quite surprising are the particularly large differences in perceptions
of domestic violence as a public interest issue between different education and
income groups (with differences of 37 and 17 percentage points for education and
income respectively). For example, 62% of those with higher education agreed with
the statement as compared to 25% among the less educated (see Table 2.3).
Table 2.3. “Domestic violence is a public interest issue”: disaggregated information
(RO-Survey 1. General population)
Agreement
%
Disagreement
%
DK/CA
%
Gender
Male 49.0 45.9 5.1
Female 53.5 39.7 6.8
Age
18-35 53.8 39.2 6.9
36-50 52.1 43.8 4.1
51-65 47.5 46.2 6.3
Over 65 47.7 44.9 7.5
Education
Primary 25.4 63.5 11.1
Secondary 50.7 44.4 4.9
Tertiary 62.9 31.0 6.1
Income type
Low income/no income 43.5 47.0 9.5
Medium income 53.2 41.8 5.0
High income 61.1 33.3 5.6
Area
Urban 58.9 35.3 5.9
Rural 42.0 51.8 6.2
Total 51.3 42.7 6.0
28
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Finally, regarding sexual violence against women, only one survey addressed public
awareness as a social problem of this type of violence. This survey was conducted
in the Czech Republic (CZ-Survey 1) and asked respondents to estimate the extent
of violent sexual criminality and rape. 72% of respondents stated that these crimes
have become more frequent in recent years. The survey found that the perceived
scope of the problem was much higher than numbers of violent sexual crimes re-
ported in the official statistics, as respondents usually overestimated the number of
registered sexual crimes and rape.
Public definitions of violence against women
With respect to how violence against women is defined by surveys’ respondents,
again only a small number of surveys and studies addressed this issue.
For example, this issue was indirectly addressed in a survey conducted in Estonia
(EE-Survey 2), by asking respondents to assess the extent to which they agreed with
the following statement: “Violence in the family/intimate relationship is a crime”.
Only 5% of the general population disagreed with this statement (however, no refe-
rence to the victim’s gender was made in this question) (see Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3. Public definitions of violence against women: Violence in intimate rela-
tionships (EE-Survey 2. General population)
The public definition of violence against women was addressed in a survey con-
ducted in Cyprus (CY-Survey 1) with a sample of women from the general popu-
lation, asking whether respondents considered a wide list of behaviours as acts
of violence by their spouse/partner. As Table 2.4 shows, there was a high level of
agreement around most of the behaviours. Only 6 behaviours in the list have a level
of agreement below 80%.
29
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Table 2.4. Public definitions of violence against women: Intimate partner violence
(CY-Survey 1. Women general population)
Behaviour % Behaviour %
Punching/kicking 97 Shaking 86
Knife cutting 97 Swearing 85
Hot water burning 97 Using of bad language 85
Cigarette burning 96 Banning me from contacting friends 84
Hitting on body and face 96 Bullying by shouting 84
Threatening to kill someone else 96 Preventing me from working 83
Threatening to kill me 95 Pushing 82
Hair pulling 95 Threatening self-harm 82
Threatening physical integrity 95 Insulting me in the presence of third persons 81
Threatening to injure children 95 Banning me from talking to third persons 81
Slapping 94 Financial deprivation and control 80
Object throwing 94 Controlling correspondence, mobile phone and
purse
78
Forced sexual relations 93 Neglecting emotional needs 77
Isolation in enclosed space 93 Banning me from going out with friends 77
Threatening to hit me 92 Threatening looks 71
Threatening to leave me 88
Preventing me from meeting my
needs (sleep, medical care and
medication)
87 Avoiding communication (not talking to me) 68
Three surveys specifically addressed public definitions of sexual violence. In a Bul-
garian survey (BG-Survey 5) with a general population sample, 80% of respondents
defined sexual violence as a “physical act of rape or attempted rape”, and 65% con-
sidered trafficking in women for sexual exploitation as sexual violence (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (BG-Sur-
vey 5. General population)
An Estonian survey (EE-Survey 2), also with the general population, included some
statements about prostitution. One of them referred to whether respondents con-
sidered prostitution as violence against women. 54% of respondents agreed (com-
pletely or partly) with that statement (41% either completely or partly disagreed)
(see Figure 2.5).
30
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Figure 2.5. Public definitions of violence against women: Prostitution (EE-Survey 2.
General population)
In the same survey respondents were also asked “Do you think it is sexual violence
when someone does the following…?” (the victims’ gender was not specified). As Fig-
ure 2.6 shows, there was almost complete agreement on four of the listed behav-
iours. Levels of disagreement were higher in other behaviours. For example, 16%
did not consider unwelcomed sexual comments and overtures as sexual violence.
Furthermore, 27% did not consider forbidding contraception to be sexual violence.
Figure 2.6. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (EE-Sur-
vey 2. General population)
Also, in a survey conducted in Poland (PL-Survey 4) on the general population, 18.3%
of respondents considered that rape was something that cannot occur among part-
ners or spouses, while 16.5% of respondents agreed that a wife should always
agree with her husband regarding sexual behaviour (see Figure 2.7).
31
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Figure 2.7. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (PL-Sur-
vey 4. General population)
Finally, two studies conducted in the Czech Republic with university students’ sam-
ples addressed the definition of sexual harassment. The first study (The percep-
tion and definition of sexual harassment by Czech university students; CZ-Study 2)
showed that despite the high occurrence of sexual harassment (67% of students
had encountered some form of sexual harassment during their studies, 22% had
encountered more serious forms, like unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion,
and over 65% of students had experienced gender harassment), the students rarely
discussed their experience in terms of sexual harassment. Only 2.8% of women and
2.5% of men responded positively to a direct question about whether they had been
sexually harassed by a teacher or another faculty employee. Students perceived
sexual harassment as a remote problem that did not relate to them. The second
study (Sexual harassment at universities: theoretical definition, methodological ap-
proach, research results; CZ-Study 3), also showed that students held a narrow
definition of sexual harassment, as 78% of students had personally experienced
teacher behaviours that could be characterised as sexual harassment, but only 3%
of them said explicitly that they had been sexually harassed. Sexual harassment
was considered to be primarily a behaviour of sexual nature, such as sexual vio-
lence or extortion.
Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women
The acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women, mainly in inti-
mate partner relationships, was the issue regarding public perceptions of violence
against women as a social problem that had the most information available in the
surveys reviewed, and was also the issue with the greater variety of samples, in-
cluding adults from the general population, adolescents and young people, as well
as victims, and perpetrators. This issue was, however, addressed only in one study.
With regard to partner violence against women, a number of surveys addressed
how serious or acceptable different incidents or behaviours were considered. For
example, in a survey conducted in Spain (ES-Survey 2) on a sample from the gene-
ral population, respondents were asked about the acceptability (inevitable, accepta-
ble in some circumstances, or totally unacceptable) of a list of behaviours that can
occur between partners (no gender distinction was made regarding who was the
partner at the receiving end). As shown in Table 2.5, between 60.5% and 98.6% of
interviewees found the list of behaviours totally unacceptable. Interestingly, some
32
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
behaviours (telling the partner what to do, or controlling them) were considered as
acceptable in some circumstances. Constant quarrelling was considered as inevita-
ble by 9.1% of respondents.
Table 2.5. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Intimate partner violence (ES-Survey 2. General population)
Inevitable
%
Acceptable in
some circum-
stances %
Totally
Unacceptable
%
Constant quarrelling 9.1 29.5 60.5
Insulting and despising the partner 0.6 2.4 96.4
Controlling the partner’s comings and goings 2.3 18.9 77.6
Preventing the partner from meeting family
and friends
0.6 3 95.8
Verbal threats 1 5 93.5
Pushing and beating when angry 0.3 0.6 98.6
Refusing to allow the partner to work or study 0.6 3.8 94.7
Telling the partner what they can or cannot do 1 13.1 84.7
Denigrating the partner in front of the children 1 5 93.1
Forced sexual relationships 0.2 1.5 97.2
In Poland, a set of surveys also addressed the acceptability of different types of
violent behaviours by partners. For example, 9% of men from the general popu-
lation agreed that “insulting a wife/partner by a husband/partner during a quarrel
is normal (acceptable)”. 6% of women also agreed with that statement (PL-Survey
1a). In another survey, 15% of respondents agreed that if a husband only hits his
wife occasionally, then it is not violence. This question was also put to a subsample
of perpetrators (PL-Survey 2a) and, interestingly, the results were quite similar (see
Figure 2.8). A similar question was asked in an Estonian survey (EE-Survey 4), where
12% of men and 9% of women from the general population partly or completely
agreed with the statement that “physical punishment of a spouse (cohabitant) is
sometimes inevitable”.
Figure 2.8. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Domestic violence (PL-Survey 2a. General population and subsamples of perpetrators)
33
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Another Polish survey (PL-Survey 4) showed that for a sizable percentage of the
population (24.4%), insulting a partner during a quarrel was considered a normal
behaviour, and also surprisingly, that nearly 20% of the population considered that
violence only occurs when there is physical damage (see Figure 2.9).
Figure 2.9. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Domestic violence (PL-Survey 4. General population)
With regard to the perceptions of victims of intimate partner violence against wom-
en, in a survey conducted in the Czech Republic (CZ-Survey 1), a subsample of wom-
en victims were asked whether they defined their experiences as intimate partner
violence. Respondents were asked to state what particular forms of behaviour they
had encountered from their intimate partner. 16 items were used including various
forms of violent behaviour ranging from economic and psychological violence (such
as preventing access to shared money and limiting contact with friends or rela-
tives) to a very severe physical or sexual assault using a weapon or threatening the
victim with the use of guns or killing. Aside from physical, psychological and sexual
violence, domestic violence included damaging or destroying property (particularly
belongings cherished by the victim), as well as any harassment or pressure from
the aggressor against the victim’s will. Surprisingly, only 55% of women who expe-
rienced at least one attack labelled the behaviour of their intimate partners (includ-
ing physical, psychological aggression, as well as a verbal aggression and many
other forms of violent behaviour) as domestic violence/intimate partner violence.
However, 39% of victims did not label the behaviour as partner violence, and 5%
did not know.
In another survey conducted in the same country (CZ-Survey 4), a subsample of fe-
male victims was asked about how serious the incident of partner violence they had
suffered was. As can be seen in Figure 2.10, 26.3% of respondents saw the incident
as “not very serious”, 43% as “somewhat serious”, and 24.3% as “very serious” (the
rest of the respondents did not know or did not answer).
34
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Figure 2.10. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Intimate partner violence (CZ-Survey 4. Women, subsample of victims)
In the same survey (CZ-Survey 4), some noteworthy results emerged, when victims
were asked about whether or not they considered the incident of partner violence
as a crime. Interestingly, only 17% of women victims considered the incident as a
crime, whereas 29.7% considered that it was something wrong but not a crime,
and a substantial percentage of respondents (40.5%) regarded the incident as “just
something that happens” (see Figure 2.11). These results suggest that in the Czech
Republic, attitudes of acceptability of partner violence are still widespread even
among women victims.
Figure 2.11. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Intimate partner violence (CZ-Survey 4. Women, subsample of victims)
A survey conducted in Italy (IT-Survey 1) with a sample of the general population
also asked victims who had suffered violence at some point in their lives by either a
partner, ex-partner or non-partner whether they considered the violence as a crime.
Regarding partner violence against women, 35.4% of women victims considered
the violence as a crime, however 44% considered that the episode of violence was
something wrong but not a crime and 19.4% considered the violence as “only so-
mething that happened”. Interestingly, regarding violence by non-partners, women
victims responded to the same questions in a similar way. These results suggest
35
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
that in Italy, levels of acceptability of violence by partners and non-partners are
both high and similar (see Figure 2.12).
Figure 2.12. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Violence against women (IT-Survey 1. Women general population)
Information about the acceptability of violence against women can also be drawn
from surveys by examining whether the perceived severity was a reason for not
leaving the relationship or for not reporting it to the authorities. For example, in a
survey conducted in Spain (ES-Survey 1) 14.1% of women victims of partner vio-
lence did not report the violence because “I didn’t take it that seriously”. Two other
Spanish surveys (ES-Survey 2 and 3) asked respondents whether one reason why
women do not file a complaint against the perpetrators is that “They do not consider
aggressions as something serious”: 7.1% of adolescents and young people, and 5%
of the general population agreed with this statement.
An indirect approach to tap public perceptions of the seriousness of violence against
women is to ask about beliefs regarding false accusation. Of all the surveys anal-
ysed for this review, only one country included questions regarding false complaints.
Two surveys conducted in Spain among the general population (ES-Survey 2), and
among adolescents and young people (ES-Survey 3), asked respondents to what
extent they agreed with a set of questions addressing false complaints. As Figure
2.13 shows, around 50% of respondents completely or partly agreed with the fol-
lowing statement “Some women file false complaints to obtain economic benefits
and hurt their partners”. Interestingly, the results also showed that around 50% of
respondents also agreed that “Some women may keep on tolerating violence for
fear of being accused of filing a false complaint”. It is also surprising that over 90%
of respondents agreed (completely or partly) that “Some women withdraw the com-
plaints filed, but this does not mean that the complaints are false”.
36
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Figure 2.13. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and adolescents-
young people)
A survey in Lithuania (LT-Survey 1) indirectly assessed the acceptability of partner
violence by asking victims why they did not leave the violent relationship: 60% of
respondents selected as a possible response that “my intimate partner promised
to change”. In another Lithuanian survey among elderly women victims of violence
(LT-Survey 2), 68.4% of respondents did not want to talk about it or report the most
serious incident of abuse because they “thought the incident was too trivial”. Also in
Malta (MT-Survey 1), 21% of victims considered the experienced violence as normal
or not serious. Finally, in Poland (PL-Survey 3), among the reasons for not report-
ing the violence to the police, 11% of the victims thought that “it is not important
enough”.
A number of surveys specifically addressed young people’s perceptions of part-
ner violence, including dating violence. For example, a survey conducted in Cyprus
among young people (CY-Survey 3) asked whether a list of behaviours with the part-
ner were acceptable. As Table 2.6 shows, as compared to girls, boys clearly thought
that some of those behaviours with the girlfriend were “always OK”. For example,
between 15% and 17% of boys considered that it was always OK to “set limits on
how his girlfriend dresses”, “set limits on where his girlfriend goes” or “push a girl
into having sex if she has been flirting with him all night”. 8% of boys considered
that it was “always OK” to “shout at his girlfriend”, “to push a girl into having sex
if they have been dating” or even “to hit his girlfriend if she has been unfaithful”.
37
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Table 2.6. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Dating violence (CY-Survey 3. Young people)
Statement/Explanation Overall Boys Girls
Always OK
%
Always OK
%
Always OK
%
It is OK for a boy to shout at his girlfriend if she is con-
stantly nagging/arguing
7 8 6
It is OK for a boy to shout at his girlfriend if she is not
treating him with respect
6 8 4
It is OK for a boy to set limits on how his girlfriend
dresses
6 15 1
It is OK for a boy to set limits on where his girlfriend goes 6 10 4
It is OK for a boy to push a girl into having sex if she has
been flirting with him all night
9 17 3
It is OK for a boy to spy on his partner’s mobile phone 4 8 2
It is OK for a boy to push a girl into having sex if they
have been dating
4 8 1
It is OK to threaten to leave a partner in order to achieve
something you want
2 2 2
It is OK for a boy to hit his girlfriend if she has been un-
faithful
4 8 1
Threatening to hit a partner is OK as long as you don’t
actually hit him/her
3 2 2
It is OK for a boy to hit his girlfriend if she is constantly
nagging/arguing
3 3 2
It is OK for a boy to push a girl into having sex if he has
spent a lot of money on her
4 2 2
It is OK for a boy to hit his girlfriend if she is not treating
him with respect
2 3 1
With regard to the acceptability of partner violence among adolescents and young
people, a survey conducted in Spain (ES-Survey 3) asked how acceptable (Inevitable,
Acceptable in some circumstances, Totally unacceptable) a list of behaviours that
can occur between partners were (no gender distinction was made regarding the
partner at the receiving end). As shown in Table 2.7, between 54.5% and 98.1% of
young respondents (60.5% and 98.6% of respondents over 18) found the propo-
sed list of behaviours totally unacceptable. Some behaviours (telling the partner
what to do, or to control them), however, were considered as acceptable in some
circumstances. Interestingly, constant quarrelling was considered as inevitable by
9.8% of respondents.
38
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Table 2.7. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Gender based violence (ES-Survey 3. Students)
Inevitable
%
Acceptable in
some circum-
stances %
Totally
unacceptable
%
Don’t know
%
Constant quarrelling 9.8 35 54.5 0.7
Insulting and despising the partner 0.7 3.3 95.3 0.4
Controlling the partner’s comings
and goings 3 23.2 73.1 0.4
Preventing the partner from meeting
family and friends 0.8 2.9 95.7 0.4
Verbal threats 0.4 4.2 94.9 0.3
Pushing and beating when angry 0.2 1 98.1 0.3
Not allowing the partner to work or
study 0.8 2.7 95.8 0.3
Telling the partner what they can or
cannot do 1.1 12.7 85.3 0.5
Denigrating the partner in front of
the children 1.1 3.7 94.1 0.7
Forced sexual relationships 0.4 1.4 97.1 0.7
Perceptions of the severity of violence against women in dating relationships were
also addressed in another survey conducted in Spain with a sample of students
(ES-Survey 4). Respondents were asked whether a list of 15 behaviours, which in-
cluded physical, sexual, psychological (control), and psychological (emotional) vio-
lence could be considered “mistreatment of a girl by a boy” (see Table 2.8). It is
noteworthy that some behaviours, such as “Breaking something of hers”, “Telling
her whom she can or cannot talk to, or where she can go”, “Controlling everything
she does”, “Recording her with a mobile phone or video camera”, “Taking pictures
of her when she does not know” or “Telling her that he will hurt her if she leaves
him” were considered as “a bit” mistreatment by a percentage of students ranging
from 25% to 9.40%. It was also quite surprising to see the percentage of students
(between 8% and 10%) that saw some behaviours as “not at all” mistreatment (e.g.
“Making her feel scared”, “Insulting her”, “Telling her whom she can or cannot talk
to, or where to go”, “Trying to stop her seeing her friends”, “Controlling everything
she does”, “Recording her with a mobile phone or video camera”, “Taking pictures
of her when she does not know”, or ‘Telling her that he will hurt her if she leaves
him”). 6.3% even thought that beating a girl is “not at all” mistreatment. These
results suggest that in Spain, acceptance of violence against women in intimate
relationships among young people is to some extent still quite prevalent.
39
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Table 2.8. “Mistreatment of a girl by a boy?” Public acceptability and perceived se-
verity of violence against women: Dating violence (ES-Survey 4. Students)
Not at
all %
A bit
%
Quite
%
A lot
%
Telling her that she is not worth anything 9.0 15.5 34.9 40.7
Contradicting her 53.4 36.8 6.4 3.5
Making her feel scared 8.9 9.5 30.2 51.5
Insulting her 8.6 6.0 28.8 56.6
Breaking something of hers 15.3 25.3 27.3 32.2
Telling her whom she can or cannot talk to, where
to go 9.4 12.6 32.4 45.6
Trying to stop her seeing her friends 9.2 9.8 31.7 49.3
Controlling everything she does 9.5 21.2 38.9 30.4
Insisting on having a sexual relationship when
she does not want to 6.6 8.6 27.8 57.0
Telling her that he will hurt her if she leaves him 9.9 9.4 17.0 63.7
Beating her 6.3 1.6 5.6 86.6
Forcing her to do things she does not want to
through threats 6.5 2.7 19.2 71.6
Recording her with a mobile phone or video cam-
era, or take pictures of her when she does not
know 8.0 14.0 35.1 42.9
Sending her internet or text messages, scaring,
offending or threatening her 6.4 3.2 19.0 71.4
Disseminating messages, insults or images of her
without her permission 6.7 4.2 21.8 67.3
Another study on dating violence conducted in Portugal on a large sample of young
people aged 13 to 29 (4667 respondents; Violence in juvenile dating relationships
self-reported prevalence and attitudes in a Portuguese sample; PT-Study 1) sho-
wed that support for violence was higher among males, participants with lower
educational and social status and those who had never been involved in a dating
relationship. The best predictors of violence were educational status and attitudes
toward the partner.
How young people perceived the severity of different behaviours between dating
partners was approached in Slovenia by asking high school advisors how male and
female pupils classified behaviours which included psychological and physical vio-
lence (SI-Survey 3). These behaviours were classified into 5 groups (Not violence,
Mild violence, Violence, Strong violence, Very strong violence). From the school advi-
sors’ point of view, there were some differences between boys and girls regarding
how serious the different types of violence were (see Table 2.9).
40
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Table 2.9. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Dating violence (SI-Survey 3. Professionals: High school advisors)
FEMALE pupils
Not violence - Being jealous of friends
Mild violence - If a girlfriend/boyfriend has to continuously report what she/he is doing, where
she/he is going when they are not together
- Blaming a girlfriend/boyfriend for their own problems
- Persuading a girlfriend/boyfriend to do things they don’t want to by saying “if
you loved me, you’d do this”
- Making decisions for a girlfriend/boyfriend, such as what she/he will wear,
where she/he will go
- Telling a girlfriend/boyfriend that they are too fat and telling her/him to go on
a diet
- Insisting that a girlfriend/boyfriend arrive at a date exactly on time
- Checking calls and text messages or reading the e-mails of the girlfriend/boy-
friend without her/his permission
Violence - Insulting, humiliating or offending in public
- Restricting or prohibiting gatherings with friends
- Frequently getting angry or furious with a girlfriend/boyfriend
- Stalking
- Apologizing for violence frequently by saying “I’m sorry, I’ll never do this again”
- Forced kissing or sexual intercourse
- Touching in a sexual way if a girlfriend/boyfriend does not want to
- Calling a girlfriend/boyfriend stupid
Strong violence - Restricting or forbidding contact with family
Very strong
violence
- Breaking or throwing things around during an argument
- Beating, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, choking, twisting hands
- Forcing to use alcohol or drugs
- Threatening a girlfriend/boyfriend to harm their boyfriend/girlfriend or family, if
she/he leaves them
Classification
of violence
MALE pupils
Not violence - Being jealous of friends
- Making decisions for a girlfriend/boyfriend, such as what she/he will wear,
where she/he will go
- Calling a girlfriend/boyfriend stupid
- Insisting that a girlfriend/boyfriend arrive at a date exactly on time
Mild violence - If a girlfriend/boyfriend has to continuously report what she/he is doing, where
she/he is going when they are not together
- Blaming a girlfriend/boyfriend for their own problems
- Telling a girlfriend/boyfriend that they are too fat and telling her/him to go on
a diet
Violence - Insulting, humiliating or offending in public
- Restricting or prohibiting gatherings with friends
- Frequently getting angry or furious with a girlfriend/boyfriend
- Stalking
- Breaking or throwing things around during an argument
- Forcing to use alcohol or drugs
- Apologizing for violence frequently by saying “I’m sorry, I’ll never do this again”
- Persuading a girlfriend/boyfriend to do things they don’t want to by saying “if
you loved me, you’d do this”
- Checking calls and text messages or reading the e-mails of the girlfriend/boy-
friend without her/his permission
Strong violence /
Very strong
violence
- Beating, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, choking, twisting hands
- Threatening a girlfriend/boyfriend to harm their boyfriend/girlfriend or family, if
she/he leaves them
- Forced kissing or sexual intercourse
- Touching in a sexual way if a girlfriend/boyfriend does not want to
- Restricting or forbidding contact with the family
41
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
The acceptability of cases of dating violence can also be analysed by examining
whether the perceived severity is a reason for not leaving the relationship or for
not reporting it to the authorities. For example, in a survey conducted in Denmark
addressing dating violence (DK-Survey 2), 24% of young people interviewed agreed
that one reason for not reporting the violence was that it was “not serious enou-
gh”. In another Spanish survey among adolescents (ES-Survey 4), 26.4% of female
respondents would not leave the relationship with a boyfriend aer an incident of
dating violence; instead, they would “Ask him not to do it again and give him a se-
cond chance”. In another survey conducted in Slovenia (SI-Survey 3), 10% of school
teachers and advisors thought that in a situation of dating violence, young people
“Generally don’t define events as violence”, and 6% that the partners would consider
these situations as mistakes and apologise.
Finally, some surveys specifically addressed the acceptability or perceived severity
of violence against women in certain situations that may be considered as extenua-
ting circumstances. For example, in a UK survey of students (UK-Survey 4), 6.3%
of boys considered that it is OK for a man to hit his wife/partner if he is drunk (only
1.5% of girls agreed with this statement). Regarding rape, a survey conducted in
Sweden among the general population (SE-Survey 2) asked respondents whether
they believed that it was an extenuating circumstance if the perpetrator was under
the influence of alcohol or drugs. 11% of men believed that this was the case to
some extent. It is also surprising that some women (8%) agreed to some extent with
this statement. On the other hand, the same survey asked if having a steady rela-
tionship with the woman or having had sex before with a woman were also exte-
nuating circumstance. Noticeably, 16% and 14% of men agreed respectively with
these statements, while the percentages were halved for women (see Figure 2.14).
Figure 2.14. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women:
Rape (SE-Survey 2. General population)
Results of the 2010 Eurobarometer and the 2014 FRA Survey
Two European-level surveys allowed us to compare some of the information provi-
ded by the surveys analysed for this review regarding the public perception of vio-
lence against women as a social problem. For example, regarding public awareness
of this social problem, in the 2010 Eurobarometer an average of 78% of Europeans
recognised that domestic violence was either a fairly or very common problem. This
survey also showed that this view varied widely across countries with percentages
ranging from 91% (Italy) to 50% (Czech Republic). Regarding the same question,
42
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
the 2014 FRA survey on violence against women in the EU produced similar per-
centages with a women-only sample. The average for the EU was the same as the
Eurobarometer, and the variation across countries was also similar (i.e. from 93% in
Portugal to 54% in the Czech Republic). In the surveys analysed in this review, little
information was available on public awareness of how widespread violence against
women is. However, what information was available suggested the importance of
taking socio-demographic information into account to better understand not only
variations across countries but also variations within country across different socio-
demographic groups, as the results of Romania showed.
Regarding the acceptability of violence against women, the 2010 Eurobarometer
showed that in the European Union an average of 84% considered that domestic
violence was unacceptable and should always be punishable by law. Again there
was a substantial variation across countries (i.e. from 93% in Greece to 66% in
Latvia). Interestingly, 12% of respondents believed that domestic violence against
women was unacceptable but should not always be punishable by law, ranging from
a low of 5% in Greece to a high of a 32% in Finland. On the other hand, the issue
of the acceptability of violence was not addressed with more specific questions,
for example, including a range of behaviours that could be considered more or less
acceptable in different circumstances. The surveys analysed for this report, however,
provided numerous examples of this approach and how it provides a more refined
and wider view of these important attitudes. This illustrates that when a wider
range of questions tapping similar issues (i.e. the acceptability of violence against
women) are used, a different picture can emerge as compared to the question used
in the Eurobarometer. For example, in the 2010 Eurobarometer, 87% of respon-
dents in Italy considered that domestic violence against women was unacceptable
and should always be punishable by law, and 7% as unacceptable but should not
always be punishable by law. However in an Italian survey, when victims were asked
about particular episodes, only 35.4% of women victims considered the violence as
a crime, 44% considered that the episode of violence was something wrong but not
a crime, 19.4% considered the violence as “only something that happened”, which
somehow conflicts with the 2010 Eurobarometer. Unfortunately, this type of que-
stion was only asked in a few countries, so we cannot have a wider picture. Different
questions regarding the same issue, with different samples and considering diffe-
rent behaviours and circumstances would probably give us a quite different picture
of the levels of acceptability across and within countries.
Summary and highlights
Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem was the first
topic regarding attitudes towards violence against women that emerged from the
analysis of the surveys provided for this review. Information on public perception of
violence against women as a social problem was available in 26 surveys conducted
in 14 countries and in 3 studies conducted in 2 countries. The analysis of these
surveys and studies allowed us to identify three different but related issues regar-
ding the public perception of violence against women as a social problem, around
which this section was organised: public awareness of violence against women as a
social problem, public definitions, and public acceptability, and perceived severity of
different types of violence against women. Below, we summarise the main findings
in this section of the report.
43
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS,
DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY
Highlights
1.
Only a small number of surveys addressed public awareness of how wide-
spread is violence against women in the respondents’ countries, and there is
limited information for comparisons across countries. When information was
available, the results suggested that in some countries violence against wo-
men has not yet reached a prominent place among public concerns.
2.
The little information available on public awareness of how widespread vio-
lence against women is suggested the importance of taking socio-demo-
graphic information into account to better understand not only variations
across countries but also variations within countries across different socio-
demographic groups (e.g. greater awareness among the higher education and
income groups).
3.
Information was mostly available for public acceptability and perceived seve-
rity of different types of violence against women. Results of the available
surveys and studies addressing the acceptability and perceived severity of
different types of violence against women (mainly partner violence) suggest
that the acceptability of certain behaviours remains high in some circumstan-
ces (e.g. dating violence).
4.
Small but relevant percentages of respondents from different countries (in-
cluding young people, adults, and also victims) tended to “accept”, perceived
as “not very serious” or considered “inevitable” some violent behaviours
against women in some circumstances, including insulting, hitting, controlling,
or even forced sex. This suggests that in different countries among some sec-
tors of society attitudes of acceptability and tolerance are still prevalent.
5.
When available, disaggregated data for gender tended to show clearly that
these types of attitudes are more common among men and boys.
6.
When compared to information available in the 2010 Eurobarometer and the
2014 FRA survey, the results suggest that when a wider range of questions
tapping similar issues (i.e. the acceptability of violence against women) are
used, with different samples and considering different behaviours and cir-
cumstances, a quite different picture of the levels of acceptability across and
within countries would probably emerge.
7.
Only three studies published in academic journals were identified addressing
public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem. Two of
them used university student samples to analyse the perception and defini-
tion of sexual harassment; another used a large sample of young adults to
analyse approval of dating violence and its socio-demographic correlates.
44
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
OF THE CAUSES OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND
JUSTIFICATIONS
Introduction
The collective understanding of the nature or causes of a social phenomenon is of
particular importance, as it may influence perceptions, cognitions and behaviour to-
wards those affected or involved in the phenomenon - in our case, violence against
women by partners and non-partners. The public understanding or explanation of
violence against women can, for example, determine attributions (e.g. fault or re-
sponsibility), attitudes (e.g. sympathy, derogation, and disdain), or behaviour (e.g.
helping, prevention and passivity) towards victims and perpetrators of violence.
How violence against women is understood, explained or justified can also influence
perceptions and attitudes towards social and institutional responses to violence
against women, such as the role of professionals, the law or other public policies
and initiatives such as public awareness campaigns.
Public attributions, explanations and justifications were identified as one of the four
main topics regarding attitudes towards violence against women by both partners
and non-partners that emerged from the survey questionnaires and study summa-
ries analysed for this review. In this section, we analyse those surveys that included
items addressing public understanding of violence against women, and two studies
addressing this topic. Aer analysing the surveys, three sets of explanatory factors
emerged, around which this section is organised: individual, relational/situational,
and socio-cultural factors.
Interestingly, these factors correspond to an ecological model of understanding vio-
lence against women as a multiple determined phenomenon (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Heise, 1998, 2011). This ecological framework to understand violence against wo-
men was described by Lori Heise (2011) in the following terms:
45
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
“The ecological model posits that there is no single factor that “causes”
partner violence; rather, the likelihood that a specific man will become
abusive or that one community will have a higher rate of violence than
another, is a function of many factors that interact at different levels of
the “social ecology”. The social ecology includes the life histories, trau-
matic scars, and personality factors that men and women bring to their
relationships, as well as the context and situational factors that impinge
on their day-to-day lives. The ecology also includes messages and norms
that friends, family members and social institutions reinforce as appro-
priate behaviour for men and women, including the acceptability of vio-
lence within different contexts. These norms and expectations are in turn
shaped by structural factors — such as religious institutions and ideol-
ogy, and the distribution of economic power between men and women
— that work to define beliefs and norms about violence and structure
women’s options for escaping violent relationships” (Heise, 2011, p. vi).
Surveys and studies addressing public attributions, explanations
and justifications
Surveys
Aer analysing all the survey questionnaires provided for this review, we found
that information on public attributions, explanations and justifications of violence
against women was available in 17 surveys conducted in 11 countries; Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Malta, Netherland, Poland, Romania,
Spain, and Sweden (see Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. Countries with surveys addressing public attributions, explanations and
justifications
C
OUNTRIES
= 17 / S
URVEYS
= 11
Malta
Surveys in each country (CY = 2; CZ = 1; DE = 1; EE = 1; ES = 2; LT = 2; MT = 1; NL = 1; PL = 4; RO = 1; SI = 1)
46
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
The samples used and types of violence addressed in these surveys are described
in Table 3.1 (see Appendix IV for further information).
Table 3.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence
Code Sample n Type of Violence*
CY-Survey 2 Young adults 1000 Violent behaviour in interper-
sonal (partner) relationships
CY-Survey 3 Young people 453 Gender-based violence
CZ-Survey 3 General population (men & women) 978 Sexual violence
DE-Survey 4 General population (women) + Pro-
fessionals
1138 Violence against women
EE-Survey 2 General population (men & women) 1111 Gender-based violence and hu-
man trafficking
ES-Survey 2 General population (men & women) 2580 Gender-based violence
ES-Survey 3 Adolescents and young people 2457 Gender-based violence
LT-Survey 1 Victims 89 Domestic violence
LT-Survey 2 Victims 515 Violence against women
MT-Survey 1 General population (women) 1200 Domestic violence
NL-Survey 1 General population (men & women) 2155 Intimate partner violence /
Sexual violence
PL-Survey 1a General population (men & women) 3000 Domestic violence
PL-Survey 2b Professionals 119 Domestic violence
PL-Survey 3 Victims and professionals 545 Domestic violence
PL-Survey 4 General population (men & women) 3000 Domestic violence
RO-Survey 1 General population (men & women) 1050 Domestic violence
SI-Survey 1 General population (men & women) 1886 Intimate partner violence
* As defined in the title of the survey (see Appendix IV)
In the surveys analysed, questions regarding public attributions, explanations and
justifications of violence are presented in different formats, and tend to include a
different range of factors that are considered as possible causes of violence against
women (see Appendix VI, Box VI.2).
Studies
Two of the selected studies with EU samples published in high quality journals in the
last five years addressed issues related to public attributions, explanations and justifi-
cations of violence against women. One qualitative study was conducted in the United
Kingdom on a sample of young people (UK-Study 2), analysing gender stereotypes
and their relation with interpersonal violence in heterosexual relationships. The se-
cond was conducted in Slovenia (SI-Study 3), and reviewed criminal files to determine
perpetrators characteristics (see Table 3.2; see Appendix V for further information).
Table 3.2. Studies, samples and type of violence
Code Sample n Type of Violence
UK-Study 2 Young people (aged 15 to 18) 77 Gender-based violence
SI-Study 3 Closed criminal cases 30 Intimate partner violence
47
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Public attributions, explanations, and justifications of violence
against women. Results of surveys and studies
The questions regarding public attributions, explanations and justifications of vio-
lence against women in surveys and studies included different types of factors that
can be considered as possible causes of violence. As mentioned above, these fac-
tors can be organised in different explanatory levels: individual (e.g. alcohol abuse,
anger, violence in childhood), relational/situational (e.g. marital problems, job loss,
stress), and social/cultural (e.g. poverty, gender roles and behaviours). We analysed
the results of the surveys according to these sets of factors as follows.
Individual factors
One factor that repeatedly came up in cases of violence against women was al-
cohol. For example, in a number of surveys conducted in Poland, alcohol was the
most frequently mentioned circumstance accompanying the occurrence of violence
against women. Between 28% and 60% of the general public considered this to be
the case, with variations depending on the type of violence and whether the respon-
dents were male or female (see Figure 3.2, PL-Survey 1a). In a different survey, a
particularly high number of Polish professionals (96%) also considered that alcohol
was a circumstance that accompanied the occurrence of violence (PL-Survey 2b).
In contrast, it is interesting to note that in another Polish survey, only 28.8% of a
subsample of victims considered alcohol as a main factor involved in domestic
violence cases. Somewhat surprisingly, alcohol was considered as a main factor by
only 17.8% of a subsample of perpetrators (PL-Survey 4).
Figure 3.2. Individual factors: Alcohol as a circumstance explaining violence against
women (PL-Survey 1a. General population)
48
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
In a survey conducted in Cyprus (CY-Survey 2) among young adults (18-25 years
old), four individual factors were included as possible causes of violence against
women (see Figure 3.3). 69.4 % of respondents agreed (i.e. completely agree, agree,
or somewhat agree) in that “those who experience violence by their own parents
become perpetrators in their adult relationships”. In the above-mentioned Polish
survey (PL-Survey 2b), 92% of professionals also considered that experiencing vio-
lence in childhood was a circumstance explaining domestic violence against women.
In the Cyprus survey, respondents also agreed in that perpetrators are violent in all
relationships (69%), and that loss of control is to blame for violence in interperso-
nal relationships (63.9%). Only 4.9% of respondents considered that “violence is an
outburst of anger”.
Figure 3.3. Individual factors: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young adults)
In another survey in Cyprus (CY-Survey 3) among young people (15-18 years old), a
wide variety of individual factors were considered as possible explanations of why
some men are violent toward women. The highest overall mean scores (1 = Never,
4 = Always) were obtained for factors such as jealousy, lack of anger control, drug
use, control of women, or sexual urges (see Table 3.3). The importance of these fac-
tors was somewhat different for girls than for boys. For example, for girls, the most
important reason why men are violent toward women was jealousy, while boys saw
the most important reason as alcohol or drug use. Both boys and girls agreed that
the three main reasons why men are violent towards women are that they cannot
control their anger, and that they want to control women.
49
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Table 3.3. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Disaggregated infor-
mation (CY-Survey 3. Young people)
Statement/Explanation Overall Boys Girls
M (S.D.) M (S.D.) M (S.D.)
…they are jealous 2.71 (0.82) 2.56 (0.87) 2.80 (0.77)
…they cannot control their anger 2.68 (0.80) 2.60 (0.91) 2.73 (0.73)
…alcohol or drug use 2.64 (0.78) 2.63 (0.83) 2.65 (0.75)
…they want to control women 2.63 (0.85) 2.51 (0.84) 2.71 (0.85)
…they can’t control their sexual urges 2.51 (0.77) 2.43 (0.75) 2.56 (0.78)
…they are physically stronger than women 2.48 (1.02) 2.38 (1.11) 2.55 (0.96)
…they misunderstand women 2.34 (0.73) 2.29 (0.74) 2.38 (0.73)
…they have mental problems 2.30 (0.81) 2.29 (0.84) 2.31 (0.79)
…they were abused as children 2.28 (0.80) 2.25 (0.85) 2.30 (0.76)
…they are naturally aggressive 2.24 (0.84) 2.25 (0.84) 2.23 (0.85)
…they can’t take no for an answer 2.23 (0.88) 2.21 (0.91) 2.24 (0.87)
…they are under stress 2.17 (0.72) 2.17 (0.77) 2.17 (0.69)
Jealousy also appears to be an important factor explaining intimate partner mur-
ders in a study conducted in Slovenia (Intimate partner homicides in Slovenia and
their gender-specific differences; SI-Study 3). In this study, 30 closed criminal files
were reviewed in order to identify the characteristics of perpetrators. In 67% of
cases (16 out of 24) of intimate partner murders and attempted murders of wo-
men, the court concluded that the explanation for the perpetrator’s behaviour was
connected to “arrogance and jealousy”.
In a focus group conducted in Estonia as part of a survey of a general population
sample (EE-Survey 2), participants were asked to describe a typical perpetrator of
domestic violence (the gender of the perpetrator and the victim was not specified in
the question). This provided some information about factors that were considered
by respondents as possible causes of domestic violence against women. Among
possible individual factors, interviewees mentioned that a perpetrator might be dis-
satisfied with his/her life, work, career opportunities or sexual life, as well as that he/
she may have (mental) health problems (e.g. depression), tendency to aggression,
and been exposed to abuse in childhood. He/she was described as having a domina-
tive personality and could even be an intelligent and educated person.
Two surveys conducted in Spain among the general population (ES-Survey 2) and
among adolescents and young people (ES-Survey 3) also addressed a number of
individual factors that can be considered as possible explanations of partner violen-
ce against women. As Figure 3.4 shows, a large percentage of respondents (ranging
from 79% to 95%), thought that alcohol, drugs, mental disorders and having been
victims of abuse are reasons for the violence women suffer from their partners or
ex-partners (response options were: “yes”, “no” and “don’t know”).
50
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Figure 3.4. Individual factors: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General
population and adolescents-young people)
Interestingly, when the same survey asked about whether “Perpetrators could be
mentally ill” using a different format of response (i.e. “Do you agree complete-
ly, partly agree, partly disagree or completely disagree with the following state-
ments?”), the results were quite different. Instead of over 80% answering “yes”
to the question of whether “psychological or mental disorders” were a reason for
violence (options “yes”, “no” or “don’t know”), with a Likert-type scale percentages
were substantially lower: 37.6% among the general population and 39.8% among
adolescents and young people completely or partly agreed with the statement “Per-
petrators could be mentally ill”. This is a good example of how different response
options can provide different results (see Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5. Individual factors: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General
population and adolescents-young people)
Finally, with specific reference to sexual violence, a general population survey con-
ducted in the Czech Republic (CZ-Survey 3), showed a high level of agreement
among respondents regarding the individual characteristics of perpetrators of vio-
lent sexual crimes (see Figure 3.6). For example, around 80% of respondents agreed
that the majority of perpetrators of violent sexual crimes have some form of sexual
51
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
deviance, that they had committed this type of crime in the past, and that they
would do it again. Furthermore, 61% think that sexual deviance is incurable. As in
other forms of violence, 46% of respondents also believed that the majority of per-
petrators of violent sexual crimes had suffered from abuse as a child.
Figure 3.6. Perpetrator characteristics: Sexual violence (CZ-Survey 3. General popu-
lation)
Relational/situational factors
Relational and situational factors can frequently be used as possible attributions,
explanations or justifications of cases of violence against women. A common rela-
tional factor mentioned in a substantial number of surveys reviewed in this report
was how women behave in their relationships, which was oen used to explain or
justify violence against them. Provocative behaviour, lack of patience or obedien-
ce, constant nagging or arguing and unfaithfulness were just some examples of
women’s behaviour that some respondents saw as a cause or a reason that could
explain or justify violence against women. In fact, the large number of examples
we found in this review revealed the importance and prevalence of victim-blaming
attitudes among EU citizens and, consequently, this important issue is analysed in a
section of its own in this report (see Chapter 5, Are women held responsible for the
violence they suffer? Victim-blaming attitudes in EU surveys and studies).
Regarding other relational or situational factors considered as possible causes of
violence against women, fights and quarrels between intimate partners, family pro-
blems and other sources of stress, like the loss of a job or financial problems, appe-
ar in the surveys reviewed as relational/situational factors that can be considered
by respondents as possible explanations or triggers of incidents of violence against
women. For example, in a survey conducted in Spain (ES-Survey 2) among the ge-
neral population, 80% of respondents believed that conflicts and problems in the
relationship following separation or divorce were among the reasons for gender-
based violence. A similar percentage (79%) was obtained in another Spanish survey
52
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
with a representative sample of adolescents and young people (ES-Survey 3). In
another survey conducted in the Netherlands (NL-Survey 1), 17% of men and 8%
of women (interestingly, less than half of men) believed that both partners are to
blame in incidents of domestic violence (see Figure 3.7). Interestingly, 88% of Polish
professionals agreed that marital problems are among the factors that accompany
the occurrence of violence.
Figure 3.7. Relational factors: Intimate partner violence (NL-Survey 1. General pop-
ulation)
However, in another Polish survey with subsamples of victims and perpetrators (PL-
Survey 4), only 3.5% of victims and 9.8% of perpetrators (again, fewer women than
men) considered marital problems as a factor explaining domestic violence. In the
same survey, small percentages of victims and perpetrators considered other situ-
ational stressors as explaining circumstances of domestic violence (see Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.8. Perpetrators circumstances: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 4. General
population; victims and perpetrators subsamples)
53
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Social/cultural factors
The surveys and studies reviewed included a range of possible social and cultural
factors that can be considered by respondents as an explanation or justification of
violence against women. These factors can be divided into three categories: cultural
and social norms, gender stereotypes, and socioeconomic explanations.
Cultural and social norms
In Spain two surveys among the general population and young people (ES-Surveys
2 and 3), addressed a number of cultural beliefs as possible factors used to explain
violence against women. For example, regarding cultural factors, 35% of respon-
dents from the general population and 39% of adolescents and young people consi-
dered that religious beliefs and practices were reasons for the violence that women
suffer from partners or ex-partners. In another question in the same surveys, a sub-
stantial percentage of respondents (43.2% general population and 37.8% adole-
scents and young people) partly or completely agreed with the following statement
“There are more perpetrators among immigrants”.
Regarding the norm of the privacy of intimate relationships and the family, only
35% of respondents in a survey conducted in Malta (MT-Survey 1) agreed with
the statement “If a man mistreats his wife, others outside of the family should
intervene”, and 73% agreed that “Family problems should only be discussed with
people in the family”. Interestingly, the 48% disagreed with the statement that “A
woman should be able to choose her own friends even if her husband disapproves”.
Similarly, in a survey conducted in Slovenia (SI-Survey 1), 21.2% of women who had
been victims of violence by their partner or ex-partners mentioned as a reason for
not reporting it that they considered it a family matter. A survey in Germany (DE-
Survey 4) also found that 27.5% of respondents agreed that a reason why victims
do not use women’s shelters and counselling services aer they have experienced
violence was “It is a private matter”.
In a Cyprus survey (CY-Survey 2) regarding the “privacy” norm, a high percentage of
respondents (68.1%) agreed in that “Relationship issues only concern the couple”
(see Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9. Social/cultural factors: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 2. Young
people)
54
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Gender roles and stereotypes
In a survey conducted among young adults in Cyprus (CY-Survey 2) regarding men’s
stereotypes, a substantial percentage of respondents (46.5%) agreed in that “Men
have the right to control their partners” (see Figure 3.10).
Figure 3.10. Social/cultural factors: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 2. Young
people)
Another survey conducted in Cyprus among young people (CY-Survey 3) asked a
set of questions addressing social norms and cultural stereotypes regarding men’s
behaviour with women that may explain why men are violent. As Table 3.4 shows,
the higher overall mean score (1 = Never, 4 = Always) was obtained for the state-
ment that men “consider themselves superior to women”. Although this score was
the most important among this set of factors for both boys and girls, scores were
higher for girls.
Table 3.4. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Disaggregated infor-
mation (CY-Survey 3. Young people)
Statement/Explanation Overall Boys Girls
M (S.D.) M (S.D.) M (S.D.)
…they consider themselves superior to women 2.64 (0.86) 2.55 (0.90) 2.70 (0.83)
…no one stops them 2.20 (0.90) 2.16 (0.95) 2.23 (0.86)
…society expects them to be 1.57 (0.77) 1.55 (0.71) 1.59 (0.81)
…it makes them attractive to women 1.56 (0.74) 1.83 (0.83) 1.40 (0.62)
… women like it 1.56 (0.80) 1.82 (0.93) 1.40 (0.66)
… it is necessary 1.36 (0.68) 1.57 (0.82) 1.24 (0.54)
A study conducted among young people in the United Kingdom also addressed
men’s behaviour with women and male role stereotypes (Becoming a “proper man”:
young people’s attitudes about interpersonal violence and perceptions of gender;
UK-Study 2). Focus groups were held with 77 young people (43 female and 34
male) aged between 15 and 18. There was agreement that violence was something
that men did and was a normal aspect of young, adolescent and adult masculinity.
All of the groups explained that they believed that men are “violent”, “aggressive”
and “angry”. The study concluded that the young people who participated continue
to be strongly influenced by a sexual division of labour based on ideological/theore-
tical understandings of the place that women and men occupy.
55
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Regarding cultural stereotypes about men’s and women’s roles as possible factors
explaining partner violence, in the Spanish surveys mentioned above (ES-Surveys 2
and 3), 44.4% (general population) and 48.1% (adolescents and young people) of
respondents partly or completely agreed that “Changes in responsibilities assumed
now by women and men within the relationship” was a reason for partner violence.
Also tapping beliefs about women’s role in the family, these surveys showed that a
large percentage of respondents (89% general population and 88.4% adolescents
and young people), either agreed or completely agreed with the statement “Victims
hold on because of their children”. Likewise a sizable percentage of respondents
(32% for the general population and 40.4% of adolescents and young people) belie-
ved that “their daughters and sons” was a reason for women not report the violence.
A similar question was put to victims of partner violence in a Polish survey (PL-
Survey 3), who mentioned as a reason for not reporting the violence to the police
that they did not want to put their children under stress (19% of respondents). In
Lithuania (LT-Survey 2), 56% of women victims also mentioned that they did not
leave the violent relationship “because of the children”. Lastly, in a survey conducted
among the general population in Romania (RO-Survey 1), 15.8% of respondents
agreed with the following statement: “If a woman has children, even if she is beaten
she cannot leave the relationship” (5.1% answered “don’t know”). Disaggregated
information showed that this belief was more commonly held by men, the older, the
less educated and those living in rural areas (See Table 3.5).
Table 3.5. “If a woman has children, even if she is beaten she cannot leave the re-
lationship”: Disaggregated information (RO-Survey 1. General population)
Agree Disagree DK/CA
Gender
Male 17.5 78.0 4.5
Female 14.2 80.1 5.7
Age
18-35 14.9 80.6 4.5
36-50 12.9 81.4 5.7
51-65 15.7 80.3 4.0
Over 65 28.0 63.6 8.4
Education
Primary 20.6 70.6 8.7
Secondary 18.0 78.0 3.9
Tertiary 9.6 84.3 6.1
Area
Urban 14.1 80.9 5.0
Rural 17.9 76.8 5.3
Total 15.8 79.0 5.1
A survey conducted in Malta (MT-Survey 1) also addressing cultural stereotypes as
possible explanations of violence against women, with a sample of women from the
general population, asked about men and women’s role in relationships and the fa-
mily. Although most respondents disagree with statements such as “It is important
56
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
for a man to show his wife/partner who is the boss” (92%), a small but noticeable
percentage (11%) of respondents agreed that “It’s a wife’s obligation to have sex
with her husband even if she doesn’t feel like it”, and 13% agreed that “A good wife
obeys her husband even if she disagrees”.
Again tapping cultural stereotypes regarding male and female behaviour, a survey
conducted in the Netherlands (NL-Survey 1, see Figure 3.11) showed that over a
third of men and women tended to perceive to some extent that men oen for-
ce themselves upon women (women 39%, men 37%). Only 6% of women agreed
that slapping a woman’s buttocks while passing is a compliment, whereas 11% of
men agreed with the same statement. Regarding sexual behaviour, percentages of
women agreeing with the statement that a woman means no when saying no to
a sexual overture were higher (89%) than those of men (82%), which leaves a no-
teworthy percentage of men disagreeing with that statement, suggesting that these
sexist attitudes are still prevalent in some sectors of society. Furthermore, a sizable
percentage of respondents (20% of women, and 28% of men) agreed that “A man
in a steady or marital relationship is entitled to have sex with his partner”.
Figure 3.11. Social/cultural factors: Sexual violence (NL-Survey 1. General population)
Addressing similar topics, in a Polish survey of the general population (PL-Survey
4) 16.5% of respondents agreed that “Regarding to sexual behaviour, a wife should
always agree with her husband”. A survey conducted in Romania among the general
population (RO-Survey 1) also showed that some stereotyped and sexist views of
the role of men and women in intimate relationships, such as “Women are the pro-
perty of men” (7.3%) or “A man that does not beat his wife does not really love her”
(6.4%), are still present among some small sectors of the population (see Figure
3.12). 8.1% even agreed that men have some kind of divine right to beat women.
57
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Figure 3.12. Cultural/social factors: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population)
Disaggregated information available for this survey showed that among those who
agree with a statement such as “Women are the property of men”, these attitudes
tend to be more common among males, the older, the less educated, and those
living in rural areas. It is also worth noting some important geographical variations
among those agreeing with this type of statement, with some areas having three
times higher the proportion of respondents agreeing than others (see Table 3.6).
Table 3.6. “Women are the property of men”: Disaggregated information (RO-Sur-
vey 1. General population)
Agree % Disagree % DK/CA %
Gender
Male 9.1 88.2 2.8
Female 5.7 93.0 1.3
Age
18-35 6.5 91.6 2.0
36-50 7.9 90.5 1.6
51-65 5.8 91.9 2.2
Over 65 12.1 85.0 2.8
Education
Primary 17.5 80.2 2.4
Secondary 6.6 91.5 2.0
Tertiary 4.8 93.3 1.9
Area
Urban 5.2 92.8 2.1
Rural 10.0 88.1 1.9
Historical region
Moldova, Bucovina 7.8 92.2 -
Muntenia, Oltenia, Dobrogea 6.6 92.6 0.8
Banat, Crisana, Maramures 13.4 83.1 3.5
Transilvania 4.3 89.9 5.8
Total 7.3 90.7 2.0
58
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Socioeconomic explanations
In a survey conducted among young adults in Cyprus (CY-Survey 2), in relation to
socioeconomic factors, a sizable percentage of respondents (57%) agreed that “vio-
lence in relationships is more common among young people of low socio-economic
status” (see Figure 3.13).
Figure 3.13. Social/cultural factors: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young
people)
A Romanian survey (RO-Survey 1) also specifically addressed poverty and education
as possible factors explaining domestic violence. The results of this survey showed
that for a sizable percentage of respondents (15.3%), “Domestic violence (between
partners) only happens in poor households”, and that a smaller percentage (8.5%)
agreed that “Domestic violence only happens among uneducated people” (see Figu-
re 3.14). It is also interesting to note that for both questions a substantial percenta-
ge (over 6%) of respondents did not know what their position was.
Figure 3.14. Poverty and education level: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General
population)
Interestingly, these views were notably more common for males and among groups
with higher levels of education and income (see Table 3.7).
59
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Table 3.7. “Domestic violence only happens among uneducated people”: Disaggre-
gated information (RO-Survey 1. General population)
Agree % Disagree % DK/CA %
Gender
Male 17.3 77.2 5.5
Female 13.5 78.8 7.7
Education
Primary 8.7 82.5 8.7
Secondary 15.2 79.7 5.1
Tertiary 18.2 72.8 8.9
Income
Low income/no income 14.2 76.7 9.1
Medium income 14.5 79.8 5.7
High income 17.8 72.2 10.0
Total 15.3 78.0 6.7
In Spain, two surveys among the general population and young people (ES-Surveys
2 and 3), also specifically addressed socio-economic factors as possible reasons ex-
plaining partner violence against women. As Figure 3.15 shows, a large percentage of
respondents believed that unemployment, poverty, and low education levels were rea-
sons to explain violence against women by partners or ex-partners. The same surveys
addressed the role of economic factors as barriers preventing women from escaping
violence. For example, 20.2% of the general population and 40.5% of adolescents
and young people believed that a reason why women do not file a complaint against
the perpetrators is because “They are economically dependent on the perpetrator”. A
substantial percentage of respondents (67% and 54.5% respectively) also partly or
completely agreed with the following statement: “Women victims of partner violence
consent because they are economically dependent”. In Lithuania (LT-Survey 1), 40%
of women victims also mentioned that they did not leave the violent relationship “Be-
cause I do not have the financial possibility to leave this household”.
Figure 3.15. Reasons to explain gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. Gen-
eral population and adolescents-young people)
60
3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS,
EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Results of the 2010 Eurobarometer
To compare the information provided by the surveys analysed for this review, we
explored whether recent European-level surveys also provided some information
regarding public attributions, explanations, or justifications of violence against wo