Men’s attitude towards wife-beating: understanding the pattern and trend in India

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a severe violation of human rights and a global burden on public health [1‐5]. IPV occurs regardless of social, cultural, and religious identities [6] and economic backgrounds [4]. Women carry most of the burden of IPV globally [6], with 15 to 71% experiencing physical or sexual abuse by their intimate partners [5, 7]. IPV against women has been associated with a plethora of immediate and long-term health consequences, including physical injuries, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, gynecological complications [8, 9], sexually transmitted infections, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and suicide [4, 10‐12].

There are various forms of IPV, including wife-beating, which is commonly viewed as physical punishment by a husband to correct erred wife [13‐15]. The wife-beating practice is an extension of the patriarchal philosophy that legitimizes the ideology that women are their spouses’ property [16]. One concerning aspect of wife-beating is its widespread social and cultural acceptance in many parts of the world [1]. IPV perpetration and social reaction to it are significantly influenced by attitudes that IPV is culturally acceptable [17, 18]. Responses to IPV are shaped by attitudes held by individuals other than those involved with the perpetration or victimization [17]. It is impossible to understand IPV behavior completely without comprehending the underlying attitudes [19]. Hence, understanding the attitudes toward wife-beating may be essential to comprehend the dynamics of wife-beating and designing effective interventions accordingly [14].

A growing body of literature tried to explore the attitudinal aspects of IPV against women. Attitude toward IPV is either based on the responses of only women [5, 20‐22] or only men [16, 18, 23‐25]. Some studies also attempted to incorporate the attitudes of both women and men, thereby explaining their differences [14, 17, 26]. Findings from these empirical studies explored individuals’ thinking about IPV, causes of justification of such violence, and potential risk factors that influence violence attitudes among individuals. Moreover, women’s attitude and the actual occurrence of IPV has been widely explored. Women who support their husband’s affirmative attitude toward violence are more likely to experience different forms of IPV than those who reject it [4, 27, 28]. Again, men’s attitudes toward violence were statistically significant in predicting violence between couples [29]. The documentation of the views of men on IPV is increasingly gaining attention from scholars and policymakers. Furthermore, empirical evidence on the attitude of men toward IPV is deemed useful in directing primary prevention initiatives to change societal perceptions and IPV norms [26, 30, 31].

The IPV is complex, multifaceted, and not confined to any particular theoretical aspect. Over the years, researchers have proposed several theoretical frameworks to explain the causes and dynamics of IPV. This study borrowed frameworks from Feminist theory [19, 32, 33], Social learning theory [34], and Ecological framework [35]. Feminist theory focuses on how gender-based power imbalances contribute to IPV [33, 36]. It suggests that IPV results from patriarchal values and beliefs where men use violence to control and maintain their dominant position over their partner [37]. Several authors empirically tested the validity of the Feminist theory to explain the complexity of IPV [38‐40]. Given this particular theoretical background, the present study incorporates household decision-making autonomy and sexual autonomy (that also reflects the patriarchal views of male dominancy) as the main explanatory variables to predict the attitude toward wife-beating.

Initially developed by Bandura [41], Social learning theory suggests that IPV is learned through observation and imitation of violent behavior and may be more likely to occur in individuals exposed to violence in childhood [5]. In the context of IPV, individuals who have been exposed to violence in their family or community may learn that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems or exert control within a relationship. Previous literature suggests that persons who saw their fathers beat their mothers are likelier to develop violent behavior as an adult [5, 19, 42]. The present study uses the family history of violence as a predictor variable of men's attitudes towards wife-beating to determine the applicability of the social learning perspective in the Indian context.

The ecological framework on partner abuse appears in the literature as a response to the drawbacks of Feminist theory and Social learning theory. Those theories fail to explain why certain men engage in physical abuse and sexual assault against women while others do not, despite being exposed to cultural norms that promote male dominance [35]. The ecological framework proposes that IPV results from a complex interplay between individual, family, community, and societal factors, and various levels within this societal structure can influence individual attitudes toward IPV [5]. This theory emphasizes the importance of considering the broader social and cultural context in which violence occurs. Based on the ecological framework, the present study incorporates socioeconomic variables like individuals’ age, educational attainment, caste, religious belief, exposure to mass media, alcohol use (personal/individual level factors), household wealth quintile (household/family level factors), place of residence, and region (community level factors). Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework related to predictors associated with men’s attitudes towards wife-beating based on these theoretical frameworks.

The IPV has become a serious concern in India [43, 44]. National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5) found that 29.3% of ever-married women aged 18 to 49 years have ever experienced physical or sexual violence perpetrated by their intimate partners [45], while it was 31.2% during NFHS-4 [46]. Several studies have examined the prevalence and the potential risk factors related to IPV against women, types of behaviors that constitute IPV [43, 47, 48], and women’s attitudes towards violence [4, 22, 49]. Some studies also incorporated both women’s and men’s attitudinal aspects to understand the acceptability and actual perpetration of IPV against women [14, 19]. Although a substantial body of evidence exists from women’s perspective, only a limited number of studies have specifically investigated husbands' attitudes towards violence in the country [18, 37, 44].

Investigating the attitude toward wife-beating among men appears to be of utmost need for providing insights into its structural causes. However, empirical evidence on changing men’s attitudes toward violence against women over time is minimal. Few studies have specifically addressed the changing trends and patterns of men’s attitudes toward domestic violence [24] despite recognizing that this is an area of particular importance and warrants closer attention [1, 29]. The changing gender norms and societal acceptance of IPV over the years in the Indian scenario have also not been explored in detail in the scientific literature. To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the trends, patterns, and factors associated with changes in men’s perspectives regarding wife-beating using three rounds of nationally representative sample surveys in India. It will provide more insights into the discourse of IPV. Against this backdrop, this study investigates (a) the trends and patterns of men’s attitudes towards justification of wife-beating and (b) the socio-demographic factors associated with changes in men’s attitudes towards wife-beating between 2005–06 and 2019–21.

Multivariate logistic regression revealed that controlling for the influence of the survey rounds and other predictors, men with an authoritarian attitude regarding household decision-making were 2.34 times (AOR: 2.34; CI: 2.30,2.38) and those unsure were 1.52 times (AOR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.45,1.59) more likely to justify wife-beating for at least one of the listed reasons compared to men with an egalitarian attitude (Table 3). Men with a final say in household decisions were 2.28 times (AOR: 2.28; CI: 2.20,2.35), 2.37 times (AOR: 2.37; CI: 2.30,2.43), and 2.39 times (AOR: 2.39; CI: 2.32,2.46) more likely to justify wife-beating than men with an egalitarian attitude in 2005–06, 2015–16, and 2019–21, respectively. Men with an authoritarian attitude towards the sexual autonomy of the wife were 68% (AOR: 1.68; CI: 1.65,1.71) more likely to justify wife-beating than men with an egalitarian attitude. In 2005–06, men with an authoritarian attitude towards the sexual autonomy of the wife were 62% (AOR: 1.62; CI: 1.55,1.68) more likely to justify wife-beating, which came down to 56% (AOR: 1.56; CI: 1.52,1.60) in 2015–16 but increased to 78% (AOR: 1.78; CI: 1.72,1.83) in 2019–21. Men aged 45–54 had the lowest odds of justifying wife-beating except in 2019–21. Men with secondary education (AOR: 0.81, CI: 0.79, 0.84) and higher education (AOR: 0.63, CI: 0.61, 0.65) were less likely to justify wife-beating than uneducated men. This pattern was consistent across survey rounds. Men in a marital union were significantly less likely to justify wife-beating than never-married men except in 2005–06. Men who consume alcohol were 25% (AOR: 1.25; CI: 1.22,1.27) more likely to justify wife-beating than their non-alcoholic counterparts, and this relationship persisted in other survey rounds. Men from the forward caste group were less likely to justify wife-beating than the SC category, except in 2019–21 (AOR: 1.14; CI: 1.09,1.19), where they were more likely to justify wife-beating. However, no consistent pattern emerged in the association between other caste groups and men’s attitudes towards wife-beating. Compared to Hindus, Muslim men had higher odds (AOR: 1.24; CI: 1.21, 1.27) of justifying wife-beating, and this pattern was consistent across all survey rounds. Men with a family history of IPV had higher odds (AOR: 1.96; CI: 1.92,2.00) of justifying wife-beating than their counterparts. Men in the wealthiest households were 37% (AOR: 0.63; CI: 0.61,0.65) less likely to justify wife-beating than those from the poorest households in all years.

In the pooled dataset, men in rural areas were more likely to justify wife-beating than their urban counterparts (AOR: 1.19; CI: 1.16, 1.21), and this pattern persisted in all survey rounds. Men from the southern region were 2.80 times (AOR: 2.80; CI: 2.71,2.88) more likely to justify wife-beating than their northern counterparts. Men were 26% (AOR: 0.74; CI: 0.72,0.75) and 18% (AOR: 0.82; CI: 0.80,0.84) less likely to justify wife-beating for at least one of the reasons during 2015–16 and 2019–21, respectively, compared to 2005–06.

Men’s justification for wife-beating remained unchanged for ‘wife suspected of being unfaithful’ and increased for ‘sexual refusal’ from 2005–06 to 2019–21, urging the need to examine predictors’ effects over time. Men with an authoritarian attitude in household decision-making had more than two times higher odds of justifying wife-beating for unfaithfulness (AOR: 2.04; CI: 2.00,2.07) than men with egalitarian attitudes. Again, men with an authoritarian attitude toward the sexual autonomy of the wife were more (AOR: 1.46; CI: 1.44,1.49) likely to justify wife-beating for unfaithfulness than those with an authoritarian attitude in the pooled dataset. A similar pattern also persisted for all the survey rounds. Men aged 45–54 were less likely (AOR: 0.82; CI: 0.79,0.85) to justify wife-beating for unfaithfulness than those aged 15–24. Higher educated men had the lowest odds of justifying wife-beating for unfaithfulness than their non-literate counterparts. Men in a marital union were significantly less likely to justify wife-beating for unfaithfulness than never-married men. Alcohol consumption was associated with a higher likelihood of justifying wife-beating for unfaithfulness for all the survey years. Muslim and Christian men were likelier to justify wife-beating for unfaithfulness than their Hindu counterparts. The likelihood of men justifying wife-beating for unfaithfulness was greater (AOR: 1.55; CI: 1.52,1.58) among those with a family history of IPV than those without a family history of IPV. This pattern persisted across all survey rounds. Men belonging to the wealthier strata had lower odds of justifying wife-beating for unfaithfulness than their poorest counterparts. Men in rural areas were more likely to justify wife-beating for unfaithfulness than their urban counterparts. Men from the south region were more than two times more likely to justify wife-beating for unfaithfulness (AOR: 2.05; CI: 1.98,2.12) than their northern counterparts. The odds of justifying wife-beating for unfaithfulness increased during 2019–21 (AOR: 1.16; CI: 1.13,1.19) compared to 2005–06.

The justification for wife-beating has considerably declined over the years, though a sizable percentage of men continue to justify it in several circumstances. From 2005/06 to 2019/21, men’s justification for wife-beating for suspected unfaithfulness has remained unchanged and has increased for her refusal to have sex. Disrespecting in-laws, followed by suspected unfaithfulness, are the primary reasons for justifying wife-beating. Attitude toward wife-beating is highly influenced by men’s attitude toward household decision-making and the sexual autonomy of women. Other significant predictors of wife-beating justification are age structure, education, alcohol consumption, family history of IPV, wealth strata, place of residence, and geographical region.

The study found that more than two-fifths of the men justify wife-beating in 2019–21, and the finding conforms to several recent studies in Africa [24, 52] and Asia [16]. Men in India continue to justify wife-beating for suspected unfaithfulness, which may be attributed to the strong cultural norms of male superiority to women [42] and also a substantial proportion of men being unwilling to relinquish their traditional gender roles that are stereotypically associated with their sex [14]. It is further found that men think women should have minimal authority over their sexuality [44]. Moreover, the increasingly intolerant attitude of men on the ground that the wife refuses to have sex may be attributable to the interviewer effect due to the high sensitivity of these questions. An earlier study based on women’s samples covered in the NFHS found a significant interviewer effect in the trend of wife-beating justification related to a woman’s refusal to have sex with her husband [53].

Men with an egalitarian attitude in household decision-making were significantly less likely to justify wife-beating. A past study reveals that mutual decisions regarding daily household purchases afford the wife greater protection [44]. Men who disapprove of women’s sexual autonomy were more likely to justify wife-beating for all the reasons across the three waves of the survey. These results corroborate findings from past studies on homogeneous settings [4, 14, 19, 37]. The findings of the present study show that male supremacy, women subjugation, and the controlling behavior of men in a marital relationship are still relevant in the Indian scenario. It emphasizes the necessity of regular and reciprocal communication to alleviate the husband’s tolerant attitudes regarding wife-beating [44].

This study found that men with a family history of IPV were more likely to justify abusive behaviors toward their wives. This finding underscores the importance of social learning theory, which suggests that domestic violence can be transmitted across generations through social learning [44]. It also aligns with previous research conducted in similar as well as diverse geographical and cultural contexts, which has established that witnessing parental violence during childhood constitutes a significant risk factor for perpetrating IPV in adulthood [22, 26, 42, 44].

The study found younger men with less tolerant attitudes toward wife-beating. One plausible explanation may be that older men possess a greater understanding of dyadic relationships, resulting in a decreased justification towards wife-beating compared to younger men with limited exposure to such relationships [24]. Men’s tolerant attitude towards wife-beating showed an inverse relationship with their education level and household wealth quintile. Many studies from the developing world also established similar findings [14, 15, 43, 44, 52]. A conceivable rationale for these findings is that men who have received higher education and those residing in households belonging to the uppermost wealth quintile are more likely to be exposed to modern and egalitarian gender norms than their counterparts [15]. The negative relationship between household economic status and justification of wife-beating further confirms that socioeconomic deprivation and inequalities also play an important role in developing violent behavior besides the patriarchic gender norms. The relationship between poverty and IPV is mediated through stress, as poverty, inherently stressful, is considered a potential factor contributing to IPV [54]. Another view is that a person with low economic resources is more likely to develop violent behavior to attain power and dominance over intimate relations, as it is the only available resource to utilize [55].

Results show that more men who consume alcohol justify wife-beating for all specified reasons. Alcohol has been proven to be a disinhibiting agent in certain forms of sexual assault [35]. In the present study, currently married men were less likely to justify wife-beating than those who never married, which conforms to an earlier study in a similar setting [44]. This could be attributed to men’s better understanding of the dyadic relationships and power dynamics within marital unions [15]. The study found that men exposed to mass media are more likely to justify wife-beating in the most recent round of the survey, which conforms to a past study [18]. In agreement with an earlier study, this study also found lower chances of wife-beating justification among men from the forward caste [18]. Muslim men were significantly more likely to justify wife-beating than their Hindu counterparts, and this result agrees with prior studies [14, 15, 56].

Several studies have consistently found that men living in rural settings are significantly more likely to justify wife-beating [14, 24, 37], as found in the present study. This could be explained by the prevalent egalitarian gender norms within urban households [57], as urbanites are more exposed to a modern culture where gender equals norms are more fashionable [15]. Men from the southern region of India justify wife-beating more than their northern counterparts over the years, except for unfaithfulness in 2005–06. This finding is unusual and not in line with prior studies, as female powerlessness is much more pronounced in north India, and women from south India enjoy relatively more autonomy [13] and more egalitarian norms [58]. Another study also found that various areas of northern India are more or less in favor of gender-based violence [42]. A more detailed qualitative study would be required to explore variations within the region in men’s abusive attitudes toward their wives.

A sizable percentage of men, more so those socio-economically marginalized, continue to justify wife-beating, albeit with considerable decline over the years. Nevertheless, the justification of wife-beating for her refusal to have sex is increasing. Men’s authoritarian attitudes towards women’s sexual autonomy and household decision-making, younger age, and a family history of IPV significantly elevate the risk of developing abusive attitudes towards wife-beating. The results indicate that the patriarchal mindset and existing gender norms are strongly linked to men's justification of violence against their wives. Additionally, structural factors such as economic status, educational attainment, alcohol use, and rural residence also significantly influence the attitude towards wife-beating. The findings suggest customized policies and programs enhancing gender egalitarian norms among young men, especially at the school level, providing more opportunities to pursue their higher education, alleviating poverty at the grassroots level by creating employment opportunities, raising awareness about domestic violence in rural settings through active social campaign, and promoting more equitable societal norms in everyday life would be helpful to develop more egalitarian gender norms and attitudes towards wife-beating.