Research Question

Intimate partner violence (IPV) and religious salience are two variables that seemingly correlate in numbers. However, these two groups have a third variable in common: traditional values, which may reveal violence in the home when said values are misused. In looking at religious people’s level of agreement with statements related to IPV, there is hope in identifying and spreading awareness of the IPV rates in religious communities and providing aid to victims.

Literature Review

Religious beliefs bear a great deal of influence on human lives, as they help to shape our values and affect our relationships with others. Émile Durkheim conceptualized that religious groups encourage community morality and emphasize social cohesion (Gezinski et al., 2023). While religion has its positive attributes in society, it has also been related to intimate partner violence (IPV). While men and women can commit the act of IPV, men are responsible for 92% of the reported cases of IPV compared to women (Levitt et al., 2008). In addition to this statistic, there appear to be greater repercussions in the act of IPV against women. IPV makes up 21% of female violent crimes and 30% of the causes of female murder (Levitt et al., 2008). Women often experience significant physical, financial, and emotional injuries experienced at the hands of male partners (Levitt et al., 2008). IPV is undoubtedly a major issue in society, and understanding the role that religion plays in the cases of IPV perpetuated by men is crucial for developing effective support and prevention systems.

Religion has historically been used as a tool in enforcing subservient women. While conservative Christians are the group most frequently associated with patriarchal views, men do not have a higher abuse rate compared to other men (Levitt et al., 2008). The possibility of a correlation between religious salience and IPV derives from the perpetrators’ lack of understanding surrounding their authority over their wives. In a survey of 2,500 currently abused women, data revealed that 24% of their perpetrators used religion as justification for their violence (Levitt et al., 2008). In addition to the effects on the perpetrators, religion was also the motive for the victims to stay in their abusive relationships (Levitt et al., 2008). This leads to the desensitization of IPV in the family.

Moreover, it perpetuates the cycle of violence and lends the possibility of higher victimization rates in their children. While the Christian church has programs for preventing IPV, Todhunter and Deaton’s (2010) research found that they often appeal heavily to the religious and spiritual motivations of the individuals. While the classes address IPV, less time should be spent on teaching spirituality to include lessons on the dangers of social conformity (Todhunter & Deaton, 2010).

Furthermore, this is limiting in their reach to the youth, as research has found that a combination of both secular and religious resources may prove to be more fruitful in their approach to the prevention of IPV (Todhunter & Deaton, 2010). The need for IPV-informed Christian leaders is also greatly lacking. Religious leaders lack the training that service providers are required to be versed in, and, despite this, victims will seek assistance from their religious leader rather than approach law enforcement or a domestic violence services organization (Gezinski et al., 2023). Additionally, religious leaders may be guilty of supporting IPV relationships. One Catholic priest asked a victim, “What did you do to make them [the perpetrator] mad?” while an LDS bishop instructed one victim to go back to her abusive relationship “because he is a good man and you need to make your marriage work” (Gezinski et al., 2023, p. 2509). This act of diminishing the impact of IPV further isolates the victims and continues the cycle of IPV within the Christian community.

Hypotheses

H₀: There is no relationship between religiousness and intimate partner violence.

H₁: There is a significant relationship between religiousness and intimate partner violence.

Methods

Data
The experimental data come from the Crime, Health, and Intimate Partner Problems Survey (CHIPPS), a cross-sectional probability sample of St. Mary’s University undergraduate students (n = 200) designed to analyze differences in partner violence and religion. Students were randomly chosen via their student email. The survey was then disseminated via email so that participants could complete it on their computer or mobile device. Respondents were offered a $10 gift card to participate in the survey. Data was collected between Spring and Fall of 2024.

Measures

1. Partner Violence. To explore initial attitudes toward partner violence, respondents were asked if “it is okay to hit your partner?” Answer options ranged from “Strongly disagree” = 0 to “Strongly agree” = 3. The variable was then dummy coded so that “Strongly disagree/disagree” = 0 and “Strongly agree/agree” = 1.
2. Religious Salience. To gauge how religious respondents felt, an ordinal question asking about religiousness was used. This question asked, “How religious are you?” Respondents could choose “Not religious” = 0, “Slightly religious” = 1, “Moderately religious” = 2, and “Very religious” = 3.
3. Feelings about Current Relationship. Respondents were asked to gauge their “level of happiness toward their current relationship.” Responses consisted of “Very unhappy” = 0, “Unhappy” = 1, “Happy” = 2, and “Very happy” = 3.
4. Respondent’s Age. Age (in years) was recorded by asking respondents, “How old are you?”. Respondents answered anywhere from 18 to 22 years of age.
5. Gender. Gender was coded by asking respondents to indicate their gender. Initial responses included “Male” = 1, “Female” = 2, “Transgender” = 3, and “Other” = 4. Due to few responses in the “Transgender” and “Other” categories, this variable was dichotomized so that “Male” = 0 and “Female” = 1.
6. Race/Ethnicity. To ascertain the respondent’s race/ethnicity, they were asked, “With which group do you most closely identify?” Response categories ranged from “Non-Hispanic White” = 1, “Hispanic” = 2, “African American” = 3, “Asian” = 4, and “Other” = 5. The variable was then recoded into a series of four dummy variables with “Non-Hispanic White” as the reference group (e.g., Hispanic/African American/Asian/Other = 1, Else = 0).
7. Household Income. To gauge the total income in respondents’ households, they were asked to “select the category that gives the best estimate of your total annual household income (income of all family living in your home) before taxes in the last year (not including scholarships or grants).” Possible responses ranged from “None/Under $5,000” = 0 to “$75,000 or more” = 10.
8. Class. Respondents were asked to identify their current student classification. This classification follows the Office of the Registrar’s method, which bases classification on the total amount of hours (including those currently enrolled by the student) when determining their classification. These options included “Freshman” = 0, “Sophomore” = 1, “Junior” = 2, “Senior” = 3.
9. Employment Status. Lastly, respondents were asked to identify their current employment status. Responses included “Other” = 0, “Unemployed” = 1, “Part-time” = 2, “Full-time” = 3.

Results

Table 1 displays a bivariate analysis of the sample’s religiousness, based on whether they agree or disagree that hitting a partner is okay. The chi-square test (p ≤ .69) indicates that there is not a significant relationship between religiousness and attitudes toward IPV. As such, I fail to reject the null hypothesis. Table 2 further supports this finding and provides exploratory analyses of whether any sociodemographic variables might be statistically significant with IPV. The findings show that there are no significant findings.

Conclusion

This study explored the inconsistencies in the association between religion and IPV (Levitt et al., 2008; Toddhunter & Deaton, 2010). The present study’s null findings contribute to the literature’s complex understanding of how religion may influence IPV. As such, it seems that college students at a private university do not have to contend with IPV with respect to how religious they are, let alone other personal characteristics. It may be that extraneous traditional values play a larger role in the individual’s religiousness, and as such, it would behoove future researchers to examine different socioeconomic and cultural factors when examining IPV.

References

Gezinski, L. B., Gonzalez-Pons, K. M., & Rogers, M. M. (2023). “Praying does not stop his fist from hitting my face”: Religion and intimate partner violence from the perspective of survivors and service providers. Journal of Family Issues, 44(9), 2504-2524.

Levitt, H. M., Swanger, R. T., & Butler, J. B. (2008). Male perpetrators’ perspectives on intimate partner violence, religion, and masculinity. Sex Roles, 58, 435-448.

Todhunter, R. G., & Deaton, J. (2010). The relationship between religious and spiritual factors and the perpetration of intimate personal violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 745-753.