The study examined extroversion, introversion and age as factors influencing intimate partner violence victimization among women in Akwa Ibom State. Two hundred and twenty (220) female participants were drawn from a population of Akwa Ibom State University Obio Akpa Campus and Federal Secretariat Uyo using a convenient sampling technique. Their age ranged between 18 – 35 years (young women) and 35 and above (older women) with the mean age of x = 65.58. A 2×2 factorial design was adopted for this study. Two instruments were used for the data collection this include; Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) developed by Straus and Gelles (1990) was used to measured Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) developed by Eysenck & Eysenck (1978) was used to measure Extroversion and introversion in the study. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for data analysis. Results from the study revealed that, there was no significant effect of personality (Extroversion and Introversion) and age on Intimate Partner Violence Victimization among women [F(1,216) = 0.004; p>0.05], the result also revealed that personality has no influence on Intimate Partner Violence Victimization among women [F(1,216) =2.244; p>0.005]. However, age has an influence on Intimate Partner Violence Victimization among women [F(1,216) =2.744; p<0.005]. The result were discussed in relation to the existing theories and empirical studies as limitations and recommendations for further research were outlined.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page – – – – – – – – – i
Certification – – – – – – – – – ii
Dedication – – – – – – – – – iii
Acknowledgement – – – – – – – – iv
Abstract – – – – – – – – – vi
Table of Contents – – – – – – – – vii
List of Tables – – – – – – – – – x
1.1 Background to the Study – – – – – – 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem – – – – – – 12
1.3 Research Questions – – – – – – 13
1.5 Purpose of Study – – – – – – – 13
1.6 Significance of the Study – – – – – 14
2.1 Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Framework – – 15
2.2 Theories of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) – – 15
2.3 Theories of Personality – – – – – 23
2.4 Theory of Age – – – – – – – 28
2.5 Empirical Review of Related Studies – – – – 30
2.6 Statement of Hypothesis – – – – 46
2.7 Operational Definition of Terms – – – – 46
CHAPTER THREE METHOD SECTION
3.1 Design – – – – – – – – – 47
3.2 Settings – – – – – – – – 47
3.3 Participants – – – – – – – – 47
3.4 Instruments – – – – – – – – 48
3.5 Procedure – – – – – – – – 51
3.6 Statistics – – – – – – – – 53
Results – – – – – – – – – 54
5.1 Discussion – – – – – – – – 58
5.2 Conclusion – – – – – – – – 60
5.3 Implication of Study – – – – – – 60
5.4 Recommendations – – – – – – – 61
5.5 Limitation of Study – – – – – – – 62
5.6 Suggestions for Further Research – – – – 62
References – – – – – – – – 64
Appendix – – – – – – – – 75
LISTS OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Showing Table of means of the demographic variables on intimate partner violence victimization – – – 54
Intimate partner violence victimization among women – 55
Table 4.3: Summary of 2×2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showing influence of personality and age of women on Intimate Partner Violence victimization – – – – – 56
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious preventable public health problem that has affected millions of people across the globe irrespective of their religion, race, educational attainment and social status (Bassoon, 2008). A growing number of population- based surveys measuring the prevalence of IPV revealed that IPV is evident across all countries. It has also been found to be more common in heterosexual relationships and often times women are victims of IPV. Intimate Partner Violence against women is now recognised as a problem of global magnitude, owing to its detrimental consequences on the health, social and economic welfare of women (Koenig, 2006; World health organization, 2002, 2005, 2010). For example, WHO’s multi country study on IPV against 24, 000 women in 10 countries revealed that 13% – 61% of women reported having ever experienced physical violence, 4% – 49% reported having experienced severe physical violence from a partner, 6% – 25% reported gross sexual violence, while 20% – 75% reported experiencing one emotionally abusive actor more from a partner in their lifetime (Mc author, 1998).
Intimate Partner Violence is a pattern of assaultive and coercive behaviours, including physical, sexual and psychological attacks, and also the economic coercion that adults or adolescents use against their intimate partners (Ganley and Schechter, 1996). Jewkes, (2002) conceptualises IPV as patterns of behaviours characterised by the misuse of power and control by one person over another who are or have been in an intimate relationship. It may occur in mixed-gender and same-gender relationships and has profound consequences for the lives of children, individuals, families and communities. These can be physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological. The latter may include intimidation, harassment, damage to property, threats and financial abuse. Center for Disease Control (2003) defined IPV as physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse, occurring in heterosexual or same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy. Furthermore, the CDCs view IPV as occurring on a continuum, ranging from one blow that may or may not impact on the victim to chronic, severe battering. Intimate Partner Violence [IPV] is abuse that occurs in the context of an intimate relationship, including abuse by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend which may include physical injury, progressive isolation, stalking, deprivation, intimidation and reproductive coercion (Chang & Horon, 2006). WHO, (2010) defines IPV as behaviours within an intimate relationship that cause physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours. In other words, Physical abuse encompass the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury, or harm by men and women in romantic relationships. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to the following: scratching; pushing; shoving; throwing; grabbing; biting; choking; shaking; slapping; punching; burning; use of a weapon; and, use of restraints or one’s body, size, or strength against another person. Psychological abuse eroded here is trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics. Psychological abuse can include humiliating the victim, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed, isolating the victim from friends and family, and denying the victim access to money or other basic resources. Other aspects are verbal abuse such as name calling, degradation and blaming, stalking and isolation, threats of physical or sexual violence using words, gestures, or weapons to communicate the intent to cause death, disability, injury, or physical harm. Sexual abuse is defined by three main acts: use of physical force to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against her or his will, whether or not the act is completed; an attempted or completed sex act involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act, to decline participation, or to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act, e.g., because of illness, disability, or the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or because of intimidation or pressure; and, a continuum of sexual activity that covers unwanted kissing, touching or fondling, sexual coercion and rape. In other words, sexual abuse includes coercive and physical behaviours varying from trying to persuade someone to perform a sexual act against their will, ignoring “no” responses, to physically forced sex acts (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Saltzman, 2002; Teten, Hall, & Capaldi, 2009; Cheng & Horon, 2010). Individuals who are victims of violence may have experienced these four forms of IPV together or separately in >1 relationship over their lifetime (Saltzman, 2002).
Intimate partner violence victimization among women is of interest in this study. This is because research has shown that women are more victims of intimate partner violence than men and victimized women fail to report such cases to relevant authorities. Studies have indicated that women rarely disclose IPV exposure to relevant authorities, including police, healthcare providers and organisations working to protect women (McCauley, Kern, Kolodner et al, 1996; Scholle, Buranosky, Hanusa, 2003). This has been attributed to a lack of trust in these authorities, “respect” for husband and family, fear of reprisal attacks, Personality and economic dependence on the abusive partner (Rodriguez, Quiroga, Bauer, 1996, Illka, 2005; Lee, Thompson, Mechanic, 2002; Bancroft, Silverman, 2000). Exposure to IPV among women has been associated with increased morbidity (e.g. poor reproductive health) and is documented as the third leading cause of mortality among women of reproductive age (Lemmey, McFarlane, Wilson & Malecha, 2001; WHO, 2002; Heise, 1994; Kruger, 2002). Though specific groups of women report higher exposure to IPV, the phenomenon cuts across all age, social and economic constellations (WHO 2002, 2005; Koenig, 2006).
The societal and economic effects of intimate partner violence are profound. Researchers have estimated rates of IPV as high as 30% (Gelles, 1974) or even 60% (Walker, 1979). IPV knows no boundaries, as it occurs in all kinds of intimate relationships regardless of age, sex, personality traits and socioeconomic status. Other researchers have estimated that IPV may occur in as few as 3% of married couples (Straus & Gelles, 1980) or in as many as 10-12% of either married or unmarried couples, with 6% of these acts classifying as severe (kicking, punching, biting, beating, and attacks with weapons; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1986; Straus & Gelles, 1990; ). The cost of intimate partner rape, physical assault and stalking totals more than $8.3 billion each year of direct medical and mental health care services (McFarlane & Wust, 1996). Approximately 52% of women visiting hospital emergency rooms report at least one incident of violence during their lifetime (American Bar Association, 1998). A recent meta-analysis revealed that the prevalence of IPV among unmarried cohabitators appears consistently to be two times higher than IPV that occurs in married couples (Brownridge & Halli, 2000). Rates of IPV on studies completed on same sex couples vary with some studies finding no difference in rates of violence between heterosexual and same-sex couples (Turell, 2000), and others finding higher rates in both lesbian and gay male couples (Bernhard, 2000; Greenwood et al., 2002). Approximately, one quarter of a million hospital visits occur as a result of IPV annually (Bassoon, 2007). Furthermore, IPV commonly results in self-harm and attempted suicide: one-third of women attending emergency departments for self-harm were IPV survivors; abused women are five times more likely to attempt suicide; and one third of all female suicide attempts can be attributed to current or past experience of domestic violence (Stark and Flitcraft, 1996; Mullender, 1996). A number of problems have been associated with IPV and these include physical injuries (Antai, 2011; Esere, Idowu, Durosaro, & Omotosho, 2009), substance use problems (Decker et al., 2014; Exner-Cortens, 2013), and sexual and reproductive health problems such as unintended pregnancy, nonuse of condoms, sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS (Decker, 2014; Hindin, 2008; Silverman, 2007), and adverse pregnancy outcome (Silverman, 2007).Intimate partner violence and other abuse is the most prevalent cause of depression and other mental health difficulties in women. (Astbury, 1999; O’Keane, 2000; Humphreys, 2003; Humphreys and Thiara, 2003; Vidgeon, 2003).
Empirically, various factors have been found to influence intimate partner violence victimization. Researchers have reported the relationship between factors such as educational level of women, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, socio-demographic factors, personality traits, age etc. and intimate partner violence victimization (Breeding, Ziembroski, Black, 2005; J Rural health, 2009). However, age and personality traits (Extroversion & Introversion) are the variables of interest in this study.
The first variable of interest is personality traits (extroversion & introversion). According to Yaacob, Juhari and Mansor’s (2014) study on the relationship between personality traits and IPV victimization among Iranian women. However, they found that victimization among women was negatively related to extraversion but was positively related to neuroticism personality. Every person has a unique personality that makes them different from others. Personality essentially refers to someone’s character, and the qualities that they possess (Bary, Chaplin, and Grafeman, 2006). While every individual person possesses unique qualities that make them different from others, there are certain personality types that can be used to classify people (Langer and Lawrence, 2008). Research has proven that there are as many as sixteen different personality types, which can be broken down into two main categories, extroversion and introversion. Webster (1975) defined extroversion as the act, state or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self. Ulloa (2012) conceptualized extroversion as interest in or behaviour directed towards others or one’s environment rather than oneself. Myers & Briggs (2015) also defined extroversion as the act of getting energy from active involvements in events and having a lot of different activities. Individuals with an extroverted personality type are generally very open with their feelings, opinions and thoughts, which can make them easier to be known than individuals who are shy and introverted (Keirsey, 2010). Extroversion has been found to influence intimate partner violence victimization among women. For example, Ulloa, Hammett, O’Neal & Aramburo (2016) reported that extroversion is connected to IPV victimization among women. In other words, the rate of IPV is higher among extroverted women victims. Research further reveals that women victims of IPV had highest scores in the social extroversion scale (Greene, Coles, and Johnson, 1994).
On the other hand, Webster (1984) defined introversion as the act, state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one’s own mental life. Ulloa (2012) also defined introversion as the act of directing one’s interest inward or to things within itself and also the state of being concerned primarily with one’s own thoughts and feelings rather than with the external environment. Myers & Briggs, (2015) defined Introversion as an act of getting energy from dealing with the ideas, pictures, memories and reactions that are inside one’s head, in one’s inner world. Introverted individuals are generally shy, and they have a strong sense of self which can make them feel very self-conscious in front of other people (Langer & Lawrence, 2008). Introversion has also been found to have no significant relationship with intimate partner violence victimization among women. For example, Richard (2013) found no relationship between introversion and IPV victimization among women, this is because the average introversion score of the participant used for the study was correlated with the intimate violence score and no correlation was found, r(26)= 01, p> 05. In other words, the rate of IPV is lower among women who are introverted than women who are extroverted, which means that, women who are introverted are not likely to be involved in IPV. Whether an introvert or extrovert, specific traits help determine the dynamics of personal relationships because your personality has a great deal to do with how you act, it also has an impact on your relationships with friends, family, an significant others (Roberts 2006).
Breiding, Black and Ziembroski (2009) identified risk factors that have also been shown to be associated with women victimization from IPV, including Age, Gender, Race, length of stay in a relationship with male partner and personality traits. However, another variable of interest in this study is Age. Age of women has often resulted in IPV victimization and this impact negatively on marital relationship (Balsam, Rothblum, & Beauchaine, 2005). Younger age appears to be a risk factor for being either a perpetrator or victim of intimate partner violence. Younger age has consistently been found to be a risk factor for a woman experiencing intimate partner violence (Harwell & Spence, 2000; Romans 2007; Vest, 2002). Webster (1998) defined age as an individual’s development measured in terms of the year’s requisite for like development of an average individual. American Psychology Association (2012) defined age as the level in years that a person has reached in any area of development, such as mental or emotional, compared with the normal level for his chronological age. In this study Age is simply defined as younger and older. Age has been found to be a factor associated with IPV victimization among women. For example, British Crime Survey (1992) found that less than 10% of women over 60 years said they experienced intimate partner violence in their relationships compared to 25% of 18 – 29 year olds. A number of studies have also documented that young age is associated with being a victim of IPV (Abramsky 2011; Heise & Garcia-Moreno, 2002; Mapayi 2011). A British crime survey (1996; 2001) also found that younger women (women aged 16 – 59 years) were more likely to report IPV victimization than older women. Women between the ages of 16 and 24 are nearly three times more vulnerable to intimate partner violence (excluding intimate partner homicide) than women in other age groups (Tang & Lai, 2008).Women who are 18 years and above have 2 to 5 – fold increased risk of intimate partner violence victimization compared to women who are 55 years and above (Ackerson, 2008; Boy and Kulczycki, 2008; Dalal, Rahman and Jansson, 2009; Koenig, 2004; Martin, Taft and Resick, 2007; Tang and Lai, 2008). Young women who are exposed to IPV victimization has been associated with Gynaecological trauma, chronic pain, unwanted pregnancy, poor health and higher rates of isolation (Giordano, 2010; Hamby, Finkelhor, and Turner, 2012). The rates of intimate partner violence “differ greatly” depending on the age of the victim. In 1999, the overall rate of intimate partner violence against women was 5.8 victimizations per 1,000 women, but the rate was 15.6 per 1,000 women for those aged 16 to 24. In other words, women between the ages of 16 and 24 were victimized at a higher rate than older women, regardless of marital status. Findings from some studies conducted in Nigeria similarly indicate that IPV is common among women. For example, Mapayi, Makanjuola, Fatusi, and Afolabi (2011) reported that about 37.0% of women aged 18 to 37 years attending the antenatal clinic and welfare units of a primary health center in Ile-Ife, South-West Nigeria, had experienced IPV in the 12-month period preceding their survey (Mapayi, 2011). Balogun, Sexuallye, and Fawole (2012) reported a lifetime IPV prevalence of up to 70% among women aged 15 to 49 years in South-Western Nigeria. Generally also, reporting of IPV is still a problem in many countries (Krug, 2002).
Intimate partner violence and age of victim (1993; 1999) provides a statistical information on the prevalence of IPV victimization among women and the characteristics of victims of abuse; The report examines victim’s age, finding that women in their late teens and early twenties are more likely to experience IPV than women of the older ages, this report confirms that intimate partner violence are primarily crimes against women, and that young women are at great risk for intimate partner violence.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The increase in the rate of intimate partner violence calls for urgent intervention by institutions. Intimate partner violence has led to an increase in the rate ofbreakups in relationships and divorce in marriages as well as an increase in the number of depressed individuals going through treatment as a result of intimate partner violence (Carranlho, Lewish, Derlega, Misread & Vioggiano 2011). Intimate partner violence victimization has affected women of younger age who experience such act adversely (Breeding, 2013). Adverse outcomes that result from IPV victimization in younger women include an increased risk of unwanted pregnancy, gynaecological trauma, chronic pain, higher rates of isolation and poor health(Giordano, 2010; Hamby, Finkelhor, and Turner, 2012).These younger women tend to perform abortion because of their unwanted pregnancy, those sexually abused also tend to have bruises and lasting pains in their body parts, while some also tend to be revictimized in their relationships as a result of the inability to report cases of their victimization to relevant authorities (Smith & Oka, 2009). Most victims do not seek help. This is consistent with findings in the south eastern Nigeria where victims accepted violence as their lot, out of fear of being stigmatized and from self blame (Okenwa, 2011).
Personality traits of an individual has often resulted in IPV victimization due to the enduring characteristics and complex nature of human beings and this impacts negatively on dating and marital relationships which affects the peace and stability of the home thereby affecting the wellbeing of the victim.
Furthermore, there are little or no literature of studies on extroversion & introversion and age as factors that influence intimate partner violence victimization independently as a variable generally and in Uyo metropolis. Therefore this study is aimed at investigating extroversion & introversion and age as factors influencing intimate partner violence victimization among women.
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Will personality (extroversion and introversion) influence Intimate Partner Violence victimization among women?
2. Will age influence Intimate Partner Violence victimization among women?
3. Will personality (extroversion and introversion) and age influence Intimate Partner Violence victimization among women?