پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 958 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,898 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 13,352,253 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 9,478,202 |
تبیین خشونت علیه همسر از دریچه تئوری کنش موقعیتمند | ||
| مطالعات اجتماعی روان شناختی زنان | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 22، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 79، تیر 1403، صفحه 7-46 اصل مقاله (1.19 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jwsps.2024.45485.2807 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سیده معصومه شادمنفعت* 1؛ محمد مهدی رحمتی2؛ هدی حلاج زاده3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دوره دکتری جامعه‌شناسی جنسیت و انحرافات اجتماعی، دانشگاه گیلان، ایران. (نویسنده مسئول) shamila.shadmanfaat@gmail.com | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه گیلان، ایران. mahdirahmati@guilan.ac.ir | ||
| 3استادیار گروه علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه گیلان، ایران. Hoda.halla1359@gmail.com | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف اصلی این مقاله بررسی چرایی مبادرت افراد به خشونت علیه همسر با استفاده از تئوری کنش موقعیتمند است. بدین منظور با استفاده از نمونه 450 نفری از زنان و مردان متأهل مراجعه کننده به دادگاه‌های خانواده، مراکز بهزیستی و کمیته امداد امام خمینی شهر رشت که به روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس اننخاب شدند، مفروضه‌های تئوری کنش موقعیتمند مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج حاکی از آن است که اخلاقیات فردی ضعیف (ضریب بتا: 142/0)، خودکنترلی پایین (ضریب بتا: 180/0)، اخلاقیات موقعیتمند ضعیف (ضریب بتا: 131/0)، بازدارندگی ادراکی پایین (ضریب بتا: 198/0) تأثیر معناداری بر مشارکت افراد در خشونت علیه همسر دارند. همچنین، جنسیت (ضریب بتا: 187/0)، سن (ضریب بتا: 111/0-) و سطح تحصیلات (ضریب بتا: 223/0-) بر خشونت علیه همسر تأثیرگذار هستند. در ادامه ضریب تعیین مدل رگرسیونی نشان می‌دهد که متغیرهای مورد بحث قادرند 37 درصد از واریانس خشونت علیه همسر را پیش‌بینی نمایند. همچنین تمایل به جرم رابطه بستر مجرمانه و خشونت علیه همسر را تعدیل می‌کند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| کلمات کلیدی: تئوری کنش موقعیتمند؛ تمایل به جرم؛ بستر مجرمانه؛ خشونت علیه همسر | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Explaining Intimate partner violence through the lens of situational action theory | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Seyedeh Masoomeh Shadmanfaat1؛ Mohammad Mahdi Rahmati2؛ Hoda Halajzadeh3 | ||
| 1Ph.D student in Sociology of Gender and Social Deviance, University of Guilan, Iran. shamila.shadmanfaat@gmail.com. (Corresponding Author) | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences, University of Guilan, Iran. mahdirahmati@guilan.ac.ir | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, University of Guilan, Iran. Hoda.halla1359@gmail.com. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The main purpose of this article is to investigate why people engage in intimate partner violence (IPV) using situational action theory. For this purpose, using a sample of 450 married men and women referring to family courts, welfare centers, and the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee in Rasht city, who were selected through available sampling, the assumptions of the theory were investigated. The results indicate that weak personal morality (beta coefficient: 0.142), low self-control (beta coefficient: 0.180), weak situational morality (beta coefficient: 0.131), low deterrence (beta coefficient: 0.198) have a significant effect on IPV. Also, gender (beta coefficient: 0.187), age (beta coefficient: -0.111) and education level (beta coefficient: -0.223) have an effect on IPV. Further, the regression model shows that the discussed variables are able to predict 37% of the variance of IPV. Also, the crime propensity moderates the relationship between criminogenic setting and IPV. In a general conclusion, SAT provides a comprehensive framework for understanding spousal violence by examining individual-level factors, such as the propensity for crime (IPV) and a criminogenic setting related to IPV. In this context, the mutual effect of criminal propensity and a criminogenic setting determines the probability of engaging in IPV. By considering the dynamic interaction between these elements, SAT offers valuable insights into the complexity of IPV and emphasizes the importance of addressing individual characteristics and contextual factors in developing effective interventions and preventive strategies. Situational action theory, crime propensity, criminogenic setting, Intimate partner violence Introduction According to sociologists, Intimate partner violence (IPV) is considered a universal phenomenon manifested in most societies. Criminologists also argue that the frequency and extent of IPV are reported far beyond official statistics, with approximately 20-50% of couples experiencing some form of IPV in their married life (Khan and Arendsi, 2022: 520). Recent studies have attempted to explain the phenomenon of IPV by integrating a set of variables (Peterson et al., 2019). It has been found that no single risk factor can fully explain criminal behavior. Instead, a combination of individual, social, and environmental factors influence deviant and criminal behavior like IPV (Baskin et al., 2016). Research has demonstrated that the interaction between the discussed risk factors has more predictive power in multivariate analysis than each factor alone. Thus, it appears that the combination of theories and the use of different variables represent the most efficient models for explaining and predicting crimes (Parent et al., 2016: 466). Within these interpretations, the concept of multifactoriality and the interaction of different factors form the basis of Wikstrom's (2004) situational action theory. In the theory (Wikstrom, 2020), it is argued that achieving a better understanding of criminal behavior requires examining the interaction between criminal propensity (personal morality and self-control) and criminogenic setting (situational morality and deterrence) together. In essence, the probability of IPV increases in situations where criminal propensity and criminogenic setting interact. With this perspective, this research aims to answer the pivotal question: Can IPV be explained based on the situational action theory? Methodology The statistical population of the present study was made up of all couples referring to family courts, welfare centers and the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee in Rasht. Due to the fact that the researcher did not have access to the statistical population list of couples referring to family courts, welfare centers and Imam Khomeini Relief Committee of Rasht city, available sampling method was used. In this research, to estimate the sufficient sample size, G*Power software was used and the sample size was calculated to be 248 people. Since the sample of this research included married men and women, the desired sample size was allocated to both sexes, also assuming the dropout of people and some of the questionnaires being distorted, the researchers distributed 500 questionnaires and finally 450 questionnaires (206 questionnaires for women and 244 questionnaires for men) were analyzed. It should be noted that the return rate of the questionnaires was reported to be 90%. In order to analyze the research data, in the validity part of the research tool, formal, logical and apparent validity indicators were used - convergent validity, divergent validity, confirmatory factor analysis, and in the reliability part, the research tool was examined with Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability indices. To analyze the research data, multivariate regression model, hierarchical regression, Hayes Process command with SPSS version 24 and Amos version 24 software, as well as Interaction software were used to design the interactive plot. Findings The results indicate that weak personal morality (beta coefficient: 0.142), low self-control (beta coefficient: 0.180), weak situational morality (beta coefficient: 0.131), low deterrence (beta coefficient: 0.198) have a significant effect on IPV. Also, gender (beta coefficient: 0.187), age (beta coefficient: -0.111) and education level (beta coefficient: -0.223) have an effect on IPV. Further, the regression model shows that the discussed variables are able to predict 37% of the variance of IPV. Also, the crime propensity moderates the relationship between criminogenic setting and IPV. Conclusion In a general conclusion, SAT provides a comprehensive framework for understanding spousal violence by examining individual-level factors, such as the propensity for crime (IPV) and a criminogenic setting related to IPV. In this context, the mutual effect of criminal propensity and a criminogenic setting determines the probability of engaging in IPV. By considering the dynamic interaction between these elements, SAT offers valuable insights into the complexity of IPV and emphasizes the importance of addressing individual characteristics and contextual factors in developing effective interventions and preventive strategies. References Abajobir, A. A., Kisely, S., Williams, G. M., Clavarino, A. M., & Najman, J. M. (2017). Substantiated childhood maltreatment and intimate partner violence victimization in young adulthood: a birth cohort study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(1), 165-179. Barton-Crosby, J. L. (2018). Situational Action Theory and intimate partner violence: An exploration of morality as the underlying mechanism in the explanation of violent crime, University of Cambridge. Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Baskin, D. R., Sommers, I., Casados, A. T., Crossman, M. K., & Javdani, S. (2016). The impact of psychopathology, race, and environmental context on violent offending in a male adolescent sample. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(4), 354-369. Castro, E. D., Nobles, M. R., & Zavala, E. (2020). Assessing intimate partner violence in a control balance theory framework. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(4), 519-533. Clare, C. A., Velasquez, G., Martorell, G. M. M., Fernandez, D., Dinh, J., & Montague, A. (2021). Risk factors for male perpetration of intimate partner violence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 56, 101532. Cochran, J. K. (2016). Moral propensity, setting, and choice: A partial test of situational action theory. Deviant Behavior, 37(7), 811-823. Cooper, A. N., Seibert, G. S., May, R. W., Fitzgerald, M. C., & Fincham, F. D. (2017). School burnout and intimate partner violence: The role of self-control. Personality and individual differences, 112, 18-25. Eskandary, S., Aliverdinia, A., Riahi, M. E., & Rahmatollah, M. (2021). A sociological explaining of attitudes toward violence against women among male college students in Mazandaran province. Women's Studies Sociological and Psychological, 19(2), 119-164. doi: 10.22051/jwsps.2021.36326.2447. (In Persian) Farrington, D. P. (2017). Introduction to integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending. In Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending (pp. 1-15). Routledge. Firouzjaeian, A., & Rezaeicharati, Z. (2015). The sociological analysis of females’ violence against Men. Quarterly Journal of Social Development (Previously Human Development), 9(2), 105-130. (In Persian) Gallupe, O., & Baron, S. W. (2014). Morality, self-control, deterrence, and drug use: Street youths and situational action theory. Crime and Delinquency, 60(2), 284-305. Gateri, A. M., Ondicho, T. G., & Karimi, E. (2021). Correlates of Domestic Violence against Men: Qualitative insights from Kenya. African Journal of Gender, Society and Development (formerly Journal of Gender, Information and Development in Africa), 10(3), 87-111. Ghafari Shahir, M., Asadpour, E., & Zahrakar, K. (2021). Comparison effect of cognitive behavioral therapy and emotion-focused therapy on loneliness in married women victims of domestic violence. Advances in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 95-105. (In Persian) Godfrey, D. A., Kehoe, C. M., Bastardas-Albero, A., & Babcock, J. C. (2020). Empathy mediates the relations between working memory and perpetration of intimate partner violence and aggression. Behavioral Sciences, 10(3), 63. Gulledge, L. M., Sellers, C. S., & Cochran, J. K. (2023). Self-control and intimate partner violence: does gender matter?. Deviant behavior, 44(5), 785-804. Hirtenlehner, H., & Treiber, K. (2017). Can situational action theory explain the gender gap in adolescent shoplifting? Results from Austria. International Criminal Justice Review, 27(3), 165-187. Jafarzadeh, Tektem; Suleimanian, Ali Akbar; Mohammadipour, Mohammad. (2019). Prediction of domestic violence based on family functioning and level of self-differentiation with the mediating role of emotional dyslexia in women referring to comprehensive health service centers in Bojnord city. Scientific Quarterly Journal of Educational Research of Azad University, Bojnord Branch, 16(65), 59-78. (In Persian) Jungari, S., & Chinchore, S. (2022). Perception, prevalence, and determinants of intimate partner violence during pregnancy in urban slums of Pune, Maharashtra, India. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(1-2), NP239-NP263. Khadhar, F. (2022). Exploring motivations for domestic violence by women in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Family Violence, 37(2), 355-365. Khan, A. R., & Arendse, N. (2022). Female perpetrated domestic violence against men and the case for Bangladesh. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 32(4), 519-533. Kolbe, V., & Büttner, A. (2020). Domestic violence against men—prevalence and risk factors. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 117(31-32), 534. Kumar, A. (2012). Domestic violence against men in India: A perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22(3), 290-296. Mackay, J., Bowen, E., Walker, K., & O'Doherty, L. (2018). Risk factors for female perpetrators of intimate partner violence within criminal justice settings: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41, 128-146. Maldonado, A. I., Cunradi, C. B., & Nápoles, A. M. (2020). Racial/ethnic discrimination and intimate partner violence perpetration in latino men: The mediating effects of mental health. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(21), 8148. Mann, F. D., Patterson, M. W., Grotzinger, A. D., Kretsch, N., Tackett, J. L., Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Harden, K. P. (2016). Sensation seeking, peer deviance, and genetic influences on adolescent delinquency: Evidence for person-environment correlation and interaction. Journal of abnormal psychology, 125(5), 679. Miley, L. N. (2017). A Test of Wikström’s Situational Action Theory Using Self-Report Data on Intimate Partner Violence. Morgan, W., & Wells, M. (2016). ‘It’s deemed unmanly’: men’s experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV). The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27(3), 404-418. Munirkazmi, S. S., & Mohyuddin, A. (2012). Violence against men. (A case study of Naiabaadichaakra, Rawalpindi). International Journal of Environment, Ecology, Family and Urban Studies (IJEEFUS), 2(4), 1-9. Muniz, C. N., & Zavala, E. (2021). The Influence of Self-Control on Social Learning regarding Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration. Victims & Offenders, 1-19. Nazari, F., & Mahmoudi, M. (2019). Comparison of domestic violence in women referring to counseling centers and normal women in Bushehr city. Bushehr Police Science Quarterly, 11(40), 51-61. (In Persian) Ngo, F. T., Zavala, E., & Piquero, A. R. (2022). Gender, Life Domains, and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Partial Test of Agnew’s General Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 59(4), 487-529. Organization, W. H. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women. Ozaki, R., & Otis, M. D. (2017). Gender equality, patriarchal cultural norms, and perpetration of intimate partner violence: Comparison of male university students in Asian and European cultural contexts. Violence against women, 23(9), 1076-1099. Parent, G., Laurier, C., Guay, J.-P., & Fredette, C. (2016). Explaining the frequency and variety of crimes through the interaction of individual and contextual risk factors. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 58(4), 465-501. Petersson, J., Strand, S., & Selenius, H. (2019). Risk factors for intimate partner violence: A comparison of antisocial and family-only perpetrators. Journal of interpersonal violence, 34(2), 219-239. Plouffe, R. A., Wilson, C. A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2020). The role of dark personality traits in intimate partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Current Psychology, 1-20. Rai, A., & Choi, Y. J. (2021). Domestic violence victimization among south Asian immigrant men and women in the United States. Journal of interpersonal violence, 08862605211015262. Ríos-González, O., Peña Axt, J. C., Duque Sánchez, E., & De Botton Fernández, L. (2018). The language of ethics and double standards in the affective and sexual socialization of youth. Communicative acts in the family environment as protective or risk factors of intimate partner violence. Frontiers in Sociology, 3, 19. Rivas-Rivero, E., & Bonilla-Algovia, E. (2022). Adverse childhood events and substance misuse in men who perpetrated intimate partner violence. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 66(8), 876-895. Sabri, B., Nnawulezi, N., Njie-Carr, V. P., Messing, J., Ward-Lasher, A., Alvarez, C., & Campbell, J. C. (2018). Multilevel risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence among African, Asian, and Latina immigrant and refugee women: Perceptions of effective safety planning interventions. Race and Social Problems, 10(4), 348-365. Sattler, S., van Veen, F., Hasselhorn, F., Mehlkop, G., & Sauer, C. (2022). An experimental test of Situational Action Theory of crime causation: Investigating the perception-choice process. Social Science Research, 106, 102693. Schoepfer, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2006). Self-control, moral beliefs, and criminal activity. Deviant Behavior, 27(1), 51-71. Shadmanfaat, S., Richardson, D. A., Muniz, C. N., Cochran, J. K., Kabiri, S., & Howell, C. J. (2020). Cyberbullying against Rivals: Application of Key Theoretical Concepts Derived from Situational Action Theory. Deviant Behavior(Advanced Online), 1-16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1762452 Shah, C. D. (2016). South Asian women's sexual relationship power: Examining the role of sexism, cultural values conflict, discrimination, and social support Purdue University]. Steele, M. E., Sutton, T. E., Brown, A., Simons, L. G., & Warren, P. Y. (2022). A test of General Strain Theory: Explaining intimate partner violence and alcohol use among Black women. Feminist Criminology, 17(2), 163-184. Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2019). A simplified approach to measuring national gender inequality. PloS one, 14(1), e0205349. Stubbs, A., & Szoeke, C. (2021). The effect of intimate partner violence on the physical health and health-related behaviors of women: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 1524838020985541. Svensson, R. (2015). An examination of the interaction between morality and deterrence in offending: A research note. Crime and Delinquency, 61(1), 3-18. Tibbetts, S. G. (2019). Criminological theory: The essentials. Sage Publications. Tur-Prats, A. (2019). Family types and intimate partner violence: A historical perspective. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(5), 878-891. Wikström, P. H. (2010). Explaining crime as moral actions. In S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (Eds.), Handbook of the Sociology of Morality (pp. 211-239). Springer. Wikström, P. O. H., & Treiber, K. (2017). Beyond risk factors: An analytical approach to crime prevention. Preventing crime and violence, 73-87. Wikström, P. O. H., & Treiber, K. H. (2009). Violence as situational action. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 3(1), 75-96. Wikström, P.-O. H. (2004). Crime as alternative: Towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In M. Joan (Ed.), Beyond empiricism: Institutions intentions in the study of crime (First Edition ed., pp. 1-37). Transaction Publishers. Wikström, P.-O. H. (2020). Explaining crime and criminal careers: The DEA model of situational action theory. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 6(2), 188-203. Wikström, P.-O. H., & Svensson, R. (2008). Why are English youths more violent than Swedish youths? A comparative study of the role of crime propensity, lifestyles and their interactions in two cities. European Journal of Criminology, 5(3), 309-330. Wikström, P.-O. H., & Svensson, R. (2010). When does self-control matter? The interaction between morality and self-control in crime causation. European Journal of Criminology, 7(5), 395-410. Wikström, P.-O. H., Mann, R. P., & Hardie, B. (2018). Young people’s differential vulnerability to criminogenic exposure: Bridging the gap between people-and place-oriented approaches in the study of crime causation. European Journal of Criminology, 15(1), 10-31. Wikström, P.-O. H., Tseloni, A., & Karlis, D. (2011). Do people comply with the law because they fear getting caught? European Journal of Criminology, 8(5), 401-420. Wu, Y., Chen, X., & Qu, J. (2022). Explaining Chinese delinquency: self-control, morality, and criminogenic exposure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(4), 570-592. Zavala, E. (2017). A multi-theoretical framework to explain same-sex intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization: A test of social learning, strain, and self-control. Journal of crime and justice, 40(4), 478-496. Zavala, E., & Melander, L. A. (2019). Intimate partner violence perpetrated by police officers: Is it self-control or the desire-to-be-in-control that matters more? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(2), 166-185. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Keywords: Situational action theory, crime propensity, criminogenic setting, Intimate partner violence | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 573 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 171 |
||