Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Gender-specific differences in risk for intimate partner violence in South Korea

BMC Public Health201414:415

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-415

Received: 5 November 2013

Accepted: 25 April 2014

Published: 1 May 2014

Abstract

Background

Various risk factors of intimate partner violence (IPV) have been found to vary by gender. South Korea has one of the highest prevalences of IPV in the world; however, little is known about potential risk factors of IPV and whether gender influences this relationship.

Methods

Using data from the 2006 Korea Welfare Panel Study, 8,877 married participants (4,545 men and 4,332 women) aged ≥30 years were included. Reported IPV was categorized as verbal or physical IPV and the association between IPV and related factors was assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Women were significantly more likely than men were to report IPV victimization (verbal 28.2% vs. 24.4%; physical 6.9% vs. 3.4%). Wor odds of physical perpetration than women satisfied with their family. Moreover, alcohol intake was significantly associated with IPV perpetration and victimization in both genders.

Conclusion

Significant gender-specific differences were found among factors related to perpetrating violence and being a victim of violence among adults in heterosexual relationships in South Korea.

Keywords

Gender Intimate partner violence South Korea

Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide public health problem as well as a serious social problem in South Korea [13]. IPV is characterized as any behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological, or sexual harm of one partner to another [1]. According to the 2010 national survey in South Korea, the prevalence of reported IPV was 53.8%, and 81.9% of this violence was perpetrated by husbands against their wives [4].

IPV causes a wide range of negative effects on the health of women [57] and children, such as injury, chronic pain, gastrointestinal problems, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder [810]. In addition, a significant number of deaths among women are considered to result from IPV [11, 12]. Moreover, children who witness IPV in their home are also significantly more likely to experience or perpetrate IPV than are children who do not [13].

The prevalence of reported partner violence varies greatly (15%-71%) among various countries [1, 14, 15]. In South Korea, the special law to Prevent Family Violence and Protect the Victim mandates that Korean nationals be surveyed triennially. According to this survey, the prevalence of reported IPV dropped from 53.8% in 2010 to 45.5% in 2013 [16].

IPV typically results due to gender inequality and is frequently considered a form of gender-based violence [1]. Violence against women has been the focus of most research, yet little is known about the prevalence of violence perpetrated against men who are in a heterosexual relationship [17, 18]. Some studies have found the prevalence of violence against men to be equivalent to that against women [18, 19]. Similarly, in South Korea, previous research has highlighted the scope and risk factors of violence against women; however, few studies have investigated the prevalence of violence against men or the possible risk factors associated with male perpetration and victimization [20, 21].

Factors associated with IPV victimization among women include pregnancy, depressive symptoms, smoking, alcohol consumption, low socioeconomic status, experiencing IPV during childhood, and witnessing IPV perpetration against their mother [2228]. Tumwesigye and colleagues [27] investigated IPV victimization among women in Uganda and found socioeconomic status including education, employment status, income, and education level as well as the employment status of the partner to be potential risk factors. Furthermore, Lemon and colleagues [28] reported that current smoking and frequent alcohol use are related to IPV victimization among women living in the US (Rhode Island). Although few studies have examined IPV victimization among men, alcohol consumption, low socioeconomic status, experiencing IPV during childhood, and witnessing IPV perpetration against their mother were factors associated with IPV perpetration [2933]. In addition, a study that compared both men and women found alcohol dependency to be associated with severe physical IPV perpetration in the New Zealand Birth Cohort [33].

In addition, lacking a social network, emotional support, and having low perceived life satisfaction were found to be related with IPV among men and women [2, 3337]. For example, South Korean women with poor social/support networks were more likely to experience IPV victimization [2, 35, 36] as well as continued abuse [37]. Among Chinese men and women, life dissatisfaction was related with IPV victimization [34]. Furthermore, a weak social support system was strongly associated with physical IPV victimization among women in New Zealand [33].

Although the aforementioned studies identified some factors associated with IPV, the limited sample size, lack of gender-specific analyses, and a lack of consideration for IPV perpetration among women and IPV victimization among men warrant further study. Furthermore, previous research has not considered factors related to each type of IPV (verbal and physical). To this end, we investigated whether gender-specific differences exist in the prevalence of IPV as well as the type of the violence that was perpetrated or experienced.

Methods

Data and sample

Data from the nationally representative 2006 Korea Welfare Panel Study (KOWEPS) performed by the Korean Institute of Social and Health Affairs in conjunction with Social Welfare Research Institute of Seoul National University were used for this study. Details of this study have been published elsewhere [38, 39]. Briefly, KOWEPS is a comprehensive dataset that provides a variety of information on families and individuals with respect to their social service needs, heath care utilization patterns, economic and demographic background, sources of income, and subjective emotional and behavioral health status. A stratified, multistage, probability design was used. Men and women older than 19 were selected from sampling units using household registries. In total, 7,072 households participated in the survey. Trained interviewers conducted all surveys at participants’ homes, and all participants provided informed consent before participating in the survey.

In the 2006 dataset, 18,856 men and women were recruited. Of them, 16,084 (85.29%) men and women aged 19 or older participated in the survey. For our analyses, only those who were older than 30 years old and married were included leaving 9,667 men and women. The 16 participants who were younger than 30 and married were excluded from our analysis because, according to the National Statistical Office in South Korea, the average age of marriage among males and females was 32.1 was and 29.4 in 2012, respectively [40]. By limiting our analysis to those 30 and older, we hoped to include a more representative population of married couples. After exclusion for those missing any relevant data (n = 790), a total of 8,877 participants (4,545 men and 4,332 women) who reported being married at the time of the survey were included in the analysis.

Measurement of IPV

During data collection, participants were asked 13 questions pertaining to the level and type of violence experienced in their marriage over the past 12 months. Verbal IPV was assessed by asking how often in the past 12 months their spouse was (1) insulting, (2) made a malicious remark, or (3) threatened them. Physical IPV was assessed across ten violent activities. Respondents were asked how often in the past 12 months their spouse perpetrated the following physically violent activities at him/her: (1) threw something, (2) pushed, (3) slapped, (4) kicked or punched, (5) used an object to hit, (6) beat, (7) threatened using a weapon like a knife, (8) choked, (9) caused a sprain or bruise, or (10) caused him/her to be hospitalized after a violent encounter. These questions were adopted from the Conflict Tactics Scale [39]. In addition, participants were also asked how often they perpetrated any of these acts against their spouse, and their answers were recorded as never, 1–2 times, 3–5 times, 6–10 times, or >10 times throughout the previous 12 months. A person was considered to have experienced or perpetrated IPV if a violent event occurred once or more over the past 12 months, and this was recorded as the binary outcome variable (yes or no) in our analysis.

Independent variables

The statistical models used in this study were created based on variables reported in previous studies [15, 41]. Nine variables from three domains (related to socio-demographic factors, family/life satisfaction, and health behaviors) that have been robustly linked to IPV in epidemiological studies for IPV victimization among women and IPV perpetration among men were selected [27, 28, 42]. The socio-demographic factors include age, education, household income, employment status, and the perceived wealth during childhood. Participants’ subjective levels of satisfaction in either family relationships or one’s personal life was also measured along with health behaviors such as smoking and alcohol intake [27, 28, 42].

Participants were divided into five age groups, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and ≥70 years, for the analysis. In addition, education level was stratified into three groups based on the highest level of education achieved as elementary school, middle or high school, or university or higher. Income was calculated according to the equivalized household income equation as the sum of the total household income from all sources including earned income, income from assets, and miscellaneous income divided by the square root of the number of household members. The equivalized income was then divided into quartiles [39]. Employment status was categorized as either being employed full time, part time, being self-employed, or unemployed. Participants’ perceived level of wealth during childhood was categorized as either poor, average or wealthy. The perceived level of satisfaction with family and life was recorded as not satisfied, neutral, or satisfied. Smoking was categorized as never or ever. Moreover, participants were divided into four groups based on the average number of drinks consumed at one time as a nondrinker, light drinker (1–4 drinks), moderate drinker (5–9 drinks), or heavy drinker (>10 drinks).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to describe participant characteristics and report the number and percentage of participants for each variable. In addition, the prevalence of IPV was calculated for all variables. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to measure the strength of the association between IPV and all possible IPV-related factors in this study population. Multivariate logistic regression models, with IPV as the dependent variable, were used to calculate gender-specific ORs. Fully adjusted ORs were calculated after controlling for all potential confounders (age, education, household income, employment status, perceived wealth during childhood, satisfaction with family and life, smoking, and alcohol intake). Sampling weights were also added to aid in generalizing our findings to the entire population of South Korea. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and a p-value >0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Gender-specific data on the characteristics of the study population and the prevalence of IPV are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 1

Descriptive data across the type of intimate partner violence among men

Variables

Total

%

Victim

Perpetrator

   

Verbal

%

p-value

Physical

%

p-value

Verbal

%

p-value

Physical

%

p-value

Age (years)

              

30-39

401

8.82

104

25.9

<.0001

26

6.5

<.0001

105

26.2

<.0001

37

9.2

<.0001

40-49

1103

24.27

322

29.2

 

69

6.3

 

317

28.7

 

77

7.0

 

50-59

955

21.01

254

26.6

 

35

3.7

 

267

28.0

 

54

5.7

 

60-69

750

16.5

159

21.2

 

12

1.6

 

176

23.5

 

28

3.7

 

70+

1336

29.39

269

20.1

 

13

1.0

 

286

21.4

 

35

2.6

 

Education

              

None or elementary school

1056

23.23

253

24.0

0.936

23

2.2

0.021

278

26.3

0.645

38

3.6

0.034

Middle or high school

2143

47.15

525

24.5

 

75

3.5

 

541

25.2

 

123

5.7

 

University or higher

1346

29.61

330

24.5

 

57

4.2

 

332

24.7

 

70

5.2

 

Household income

              

Quartile 1

1086

23.89

233

21.5

0.058

25

2.3

0.080

263

24.2

0.777

40

3.7

0.032

Quartile 2

1106

24.33

276

25.0

 

46

4.2

 

280

25.3

 

53

4.8

 

Quartile 3

1162

25.57

305

26.2

 

45

3.9

 

303

26.1

 

74

6.4

 

Quartile 4

1191

26.2

294

24.7

 

39

3.3

 

305

25.6

 

64

5.4

 

Employment status

              

Employed full time

2161

47.55

521

24.1

0.006

86

4.0

0.022

523

24.2

0.015

107

5.0

<.0001

Employed part time

989

21.76

276

27.9

 

36

3.6

 

288

29.1

 

77

7.8

 

Self employed

491

10.8

121

24.6

 

17

3.5

 

127

25.9

 

17

3.5

 

Unemployed

904

19.89

190

21.0

 

16

1.8

 

213

23.6

 

30

3.3

 

Perceived wealth in childhood

              

Poor

2146

47.22

520

24.2

0.843

67

3.1

0.319

559

26.0

0.431

110

5.1

0.920

Average

1878

41.32

465

24.8

 

73

3.9

 

470

25.0

 

93

5.0

 

Wealthy

521

11.46

123

23.6

 

15

2.9

 

122

23.4

 

28

5.4

 

Satisfaction with family relationships

              

Satisfied

3682

81.01

814

22.1

<.0001

107

2.9

<.0001

839

22.8

<.0001

148

4.0

<.0001

Neutral

732

16.11

238

32.5

 

30

4.1

 

253

34.6

 

62

8.5

 

Not satisfied

131

2.88

56

42.7

 

18

13.7

 

59

45.0

 

21

16.0

 

Satisfaction with one’s personal life

              

Satisfied

1668

36.7

332

19.9

<.0001

37

2.2

<.0001

339

20.3

<.0001

55

3.3

<.0001

Neutral

2167

47.68

547

25.2

 

71

3.3

 

575

26.5

 

114

5.3

 

Not satisfied

710

15.62

229

32.3

 

47

6.6

 

237

33.4

 

62

8.7

 

Smoking

              

Never

2351

51.73

512

21.8

<.0001

57

2.4

0.000

525

22.3

<.0001

91

3.9

0.000

Ever

2194

48.27

596

27.2

 

98

4.5

 

626

28.5

 

140

6.4

 

Alcohol intake

              

Nondrinker

1373

30.21

243

17.7

<.0001

25

1.8

<.0001

253

18.4

<.0001

42

3.1

<.0001

Light drinker (1-4 drinks)

1053

23.17

249

23.6

 

28

2.7

 

242

23.0

 

38

3.6

 

Moderate drinker (5-9 drinks)

1381

30.39

380

27.5

 

53

3.8

 

422

30.6

 

77

5.6

 

Heavy drinker (10 ≤ drinks)

738

16.24

236

32.0

 

49

6.6

 

234

31.7

 

74

10.0

 

Total

4545

100

1108

24.4

 

155

3.4

 

1151

25.3

 

231

5.1

 
Table 2

Descriptive data across the type of intimate partner violence among Women

Variables

Total

%

Victim

Perpetrator

   

verbal

%

p-value

physical

%

p-value

verbal

%

p-value

physical

%

p-value

Age (years)

              

30-39

658

15.19

176

26.7

0.001

65

9.9

<.0001

197

29.9

<.0001

42

6.4

<.0001

40-49

1175

27.12

372

31.7

 

96

8.2

 

363

30.9

 

61

5.2

 

50-59

877

20.24

269

30.7

 

71

8.1

 

244

27.8

 

25

2.9

 

60-69

762

17.59

194

25.5

 

39

5.1

 

174

22.8

 

11

1.4

 

70+

860

19.85

211

24.5

 

27

3.1

 

180

20.9

 

9

1.0

 

Education

              

None or elementary school

1400

32.32

404

28.9

0.448

78

5.6

0.061

358

25.6

0.185

21

1.5

<.0001

Middle or high school

2068

47.74

589

28.5

 

157

7.6

 

549

26.5

 

79

3.8

 

University or higher

864

19.94

229

26.5

 

63

7.3

 

251

29.1

 

48

5.6

 

Household income

              

Quartile 1

1038

23.96

300

28.9

0.766

59

5.7

0.239

273

26.3

0.932

22

2.1

0.027

Quartile 2

1055

24.35

306

29.0

 

74

7.0

 

288

27.3

 

36

3.4

 

Quartile 3

1098

25.35

304

27.7

 

87

7.9

 

297

27.0

 

39

3.6

 

Quartile 4

1141

26.34

312

27.3

 

78

6.8

 

300

26.3

 

51

4.5

 

Employment status

              

Employed full time

2094

48.34

582

27.8

0.072

161

7.7

<.0001

591

28.2

0.000

97

4.6

<.0001

Employed part time

875

20.2

277

31.7

 

75

8.6

 

263

30.1

 

28

3.2

 

Self employed

189

4.36

50

26.5

 

15

7.9

 

44

23.3

 

10

5.3

 

Unemployed

1174

27.1

313

26.7

 

47

4.0

 

260

22.1

 

13

1.1

 

Perceived wealth in childhood

              

Poor

1548

35.73

463

29.9

0.179

118

7.6

0.316

440

28.4

0.050

47

3.0

0.052

Average

2219

51.22

605

27.3

 

146

6.6

 

587

26.5

 

89

4.0

 

Wealthy

565

13.04

154

27.3

 

34

6.0

 

131

23.2

 

12

2.1

 

Satisfaction with family relationships

              

Satisfied

3396

78.39

841

24.8

<.0001

168

4.9

<.0001

811

23.9

<.0001

88

2.6

<.0001

Neutral

780

18.01

294

37.7

 

88

11.3

 

264

33.8

 

34

4.4

 

Not satisfied

156

3.6

87

55.8

 

42

26.9

 

83

53.2

 

26

16.7

 

Satisfaction with one’s personal life

              

Satisfied

1451

33.49

303

20.9

<.0001

58

4.0

<.0001

296

20.4

<.0001

37

2.5

0.000

Neutral

2216

51.15

654

29.5

 

154

6.9

 

596

26.9

 

71

3.2

 

Not satisfied

665

15.35

265

39.8

 

86

12.9

 

266

40.0

 

40

6.0

 

Smoking

              

Never

4254

98.2

1199

28.2

0.800

292

6.9

0.775

1134

26.7

0.416

141

3.3

0.006

Ever

78

1.8

23

29.5

 

6

7.7

 

24

30.8

 

7

9.0

 

Alcohol intake

              

Nondrinker

3026

69.85

778

25.7

<.0001

179

5.9

0.000

721

23.8

<.0001

81

2.7

<.0001

Light drinker (1-4 drinks)

1046

24.15

345

33.0

 

88

8.4

 

342

32.7

 

44

4.2

 

Moderate drinker (5-9 drinks)

213

4.92

81

38.0

 

24

11.3

 

75

35.2

 

17

8.0

 

Heavy drinker (10 ≤ drinks)

47

1.08

18

38.3

 

7

14.9

 

20

42.6

 

6

12.8

 

Total

4332

100

1222

28.2

 

298

6.9

 

1158

26.7

 

148

3.4

 

The majority of men reported working full time (47.6%), had at least a middle or high school education (47.2%), were non-smokers (51.7%), and moderate drinkers (30.4%). For men, the prevalence of verbal IPV was 24.4% for victimization and 25.3% for perpetration. The prevalence of physical IPV was 3.4% for victimization and 5.1% for perpetration (Table 1).

The majority of women in this study population were employed full time (48.3%) and had at least a middle or high school education (47.7%). In addition, most women were nonsmokers (98.2%) and nondrinkers (69.9%). For women, the prevalence of verbal IPV was 28.2% for victimization and 26.7% for perpetration. The prevalence of physical IPV was 6.9% for victimization and 3.4% for perpetration (Table 2). For both men and women, the prevalence of victimization and perpetration may be overlapped, thus should not be considered independent measures.

Women were significantly more likely than men were to report being a victim of IPV (verbal: 28.2% vs. 24.4% [p < .0001], physical: 6.9% vs. 3.4% [p < .0001]). In addition, women tended to perpetrate verbal violence against their spouse more often than men were (26.7% vs. 25.3%). However, 5.1% of men and 3.4% of women reported perpetrating physical violence against their spouse. A similar proportion of men and women reported male-to-female violence, yet more women than men reported female-to-male violence.

Among males, household income, perceived wealth during childhood, and smoking were not significantly associated with IPV victimization nor with IPV perpetration. Men with a middle or high school education were significantly less likely to report perpetrating verbal IPV than were men with only an elementary school education. In addition, men employed part time were significantly more likely to perpetrate physical IPV than men employed full time were. Moreover, having a high level of satisfaction with family relationships and one’s personal life made men less likely to perpetrate both verbal and physical IPV. Compared with men who were satisfied with their family relationships, the adjusted OR for men dissatisfied with their family relationships was 2.44 (95% CI: 1.66-3.58) for verbal IPV victimization, 5.49 (95% CI: 2.91-10.37) for physical IPV victimization, 2.54 (95% CI: 1.74-3.71) for verbal IPV perpetration, and 4.68 (95% CI: 2.66-8.27) for physical IPV perpetration. However, the adjusted OR among men who were dissatisfied with their personal life was 1.76 (95% CI: 1.39-2.22) for verbal IPV victimization, 3.07 (95% CI: 1.79-5.26) for physical IPV victimization, 1.69 (95% CI: 1.34-2.13) for verbal IPV perpetration, and 2.51 (95% CI: 1.60-3.95) for physical IPV perpetration when compared to men who were satisfied with their personal life. Among the measured health behaviors, men reporting high alcohol intake were more likely to have experienced verbal IPV victimization, physical IPV victimization, verbal IPV perpetration, and physical IPV perpetration. Compared with non-drinkers, the adjusted OR of heavy drinkers was 2.06 (95% CI: 1.65-2.58) for verbal IPV victimization, 2.54 (95% CI: 1.49-4.31) for physical IPV victimization, 2.00 (95% CI: 1.60-2.50) for verbal IPV perpetration, and 2.81 (95% CI: 1.84-4.30) for physical IPV perpetration (Table 3).
Table 3

Factors associated with intimate partner violence reported by men

Variables

Victimization

Perpetration

 

Verbal

Physical

Verbal

Physical

Age (years)

        

30-39

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

40-49

1.16

(0.89 - 1.51)

0.92

(0.57 - 1.50)

1.11

(0.85 - 1.45)

0.70

(0.45 - 1.07)

50-59

0.98

(0.74 - 1.30)

0.46

(0.26 - 0.81)

1.02

(0.77 - 1.35)

0.52

(0.32 - 0.83)

60-69

0.75

(0.55 - 1.03)

0.18

(0.08 - 0.39)

0.81

(0.60 - 1.11)

0.36

(0.20 - 0.64)

70+

0.74

(0.54 - 1.02)

0.08

(0.04 - 0.20)

0.73

(0.53 - 1.00)

0.27

(0.15 - 0.51)

Education

        

None or elementary school

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Middle or high school

0.81

(0.66 - 1.01)

0.69

(0.38 - 1.26)

0.81

(0.66 - 1.00)

1.09

(0.69 - 1.71)

University or higher

0.82

(0.62 - 1.07)

0.74

(0.37 - 1.50)

0.83

(0.63 - 1.08)

0.97

(0.56 - 1.70)

Employment status

        

Employed full time

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Employed part time

1.13

(0.94 - 1.36)

0.73

(0.48 - 1.13)

1.18

(0.98 - 1.42)

1.45

(1.05 - 2.02)

Self employed

1.13

(0.88 - 1.45)

1.22

(0.68 - 2.19)

1.16

(0.90 - 1.48)

0.83

(0.47 - 1.44)

Unemployed

0.93

(0.74 - 1.17)

0.82

(0.44 - 1.54)

1.02

(0.82 - 1.28)

0.99

(0.61 - 1.60)

Satisfaction with family relationships

        

Satisfied

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Neutral

1.68

(1.39 - 2.02)

1.58

(1.01 - 2.47)

1.73

(1.43 - 2.08)

2.38

(1.70 - 3.35)

Not satisfied

2.44

(1.66 - 3.58)

5.49

(2.91 - 10.37)

2.54

(1.74 - 3.71)

4.68

(2.66 - 8.27)

Satisfaction with one’s personal life

        

Satisfied

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Neutral

1.30

(1.10 - 1.54)

1.62

(1.05 - 2.51)

1.31

(1.11 - 1.55)

1.55

(1.08 - 2.21)

Not satisfied

1.76

(1.39 - 2.22)

3.07

(1.79 - 5.26)

1.69

(1.34 - 2.13)

2.51

(1.60 - 3.95)

Alcohol intake

        

Nondrinker

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Light drinker (1-4 drinks)

1.50

(1.22 - 1.83)

1.46

(0.84 - 2.57)

1.36

(1.11 - 1.67)

1.17

(0.74 - 1.84)

Moderate drinker (5-9 drinks)

1.71

(1.40 - 2.08)

1.62

(0.97 - 2.70)

1.92

(1.58 - 2.33)

1.58

(1.05 - 2.38)

Heavy drinker (10 ≤ drinks)

2.06

(1.65 - 2.58)

2.54

(1.49 - 4.31)

2.00

(1.60 - 2.50)

2.81

(1.84 - 4.30)

Results are presented as adjusted odds ratios and (95% confidence intervals), and adjusted for age, education, household income, employment status, perceived wealth during childhood, satisfaction with family relationships, satisfaction with one’s personal life, smoking, and alcohol intake.

Among women, age was significantly associated with all types of IPV, but household income, employment status, perceived wealth during childhood, and smoking were not. In addition, women with at least a middle or high school education were significantly less likely to report verbal IPV victimization and physical IPV perpetration than women with less education were. Similar to men, increased alcohol intake was associated with an increased odds of verbal and physical IPV perpetration. However, unlike men, alcohol drinking was not significantly associated with physical IPV victimization. Compared with non-drinkers, the adjusted ORs of moderate drinkers for verbal IPV victimization, verbal IPV perpetration, and physical IPV perpetration were 1.68 (95% CI: 1.24-2.27), 1.53 (95% CI: 1.13-2.08), and 2.15 (95% CI: 1.21-3.83), respectively. Moreover, women with a high level of family and life satisfaction were less likely to report verbal IPV victimization, physical IPV victimization, verbal IPV perpetration, and physical IPV perpetration; these findings are similar to that among men. Compared with women who were satisfied with their family relationships, the adjusted ORs among women dissatisfied with their relationships were 3.17 (95% CI: 2.23-4.52) for verbal IPV victimization, 6.68 (95% CI: 4.23-10.56) for physical IPV victimization, 2.78 (95% CI: 1.95-3.96) for verbal IPV perpetration, and 9.46 (95% CI: 5.21-17.19) for physical IPV perpetration. Moreover, the adjusted ORs among women dissatisfied with their personal life was 1.96 (95% CI: 1.55-2.49) for verbal IPV victimization, 2.52 (95% CI: 1.64-3.89) for physical IPV victimization, 2.36 (95% CI: 1.85-3.00) for verbal IPV perpetration, and 2.23 (95% CI: 1.22-4.08) for physical IPV perpetration when compared to women who reported being satisfied with their personal life (Table 4).
Table 4

Factors associated with intimate partner violence reported by women

Variables

Victimization

Perpetration

 

Verbal

Physical

Verbal

Physical

Age (years)

        

30-39

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

40-49

1.23

(0.99 - 1.54)

0.75

(0.53 - 1.07)

1.04

(0.84 - 1.30)

0.79

(0.52 - 1.22)

50-59

1.06

(0.82 - 1.36)

0.63

(0.42 - 0.96)

0.86

(0.66 - 1.10)

0.43

(0.24 - 0.77)

60-69

0.69

(0.51 - 0.93)

0.31

(0.18 - 0.52)

0.57

(0.42 - 0.78)

0.22

(0.09 - 0.50)

70+

0.53

(0.38 - 0.75)

0.15

(0.08 - 0.28)

0.43

(0.30 - 0.61)

0.14

(0.05 - 0.39)

Education

        

None or elementary school

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Middle or high school

0.77

(0.61 - 0.96)

0.70

(0.46 - 1.07)

0.73

(0.57 - 0.92)

1.07

(0.53 - 2.17)

University or higher

0.76

(0.56 - 1.02)

0.67

(0.39 - 1.13)

0.87

(0.64 - 1.17)

1.38

(0.62 - 3.11)

Satisfaction with family relationships

        

Satisfied

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Neutral

1.66

(1.39 - 1.99)

2.43

(1.80 - 3.28)

1.48

(1.23 - 1.78)

1.94

(1.24 - 3.04)

Not satisfied

3.17

(2.23 - 4.52)

6.68

(4.23 - 10.56)

2.78

(1.95 - 3.96)

9.46

(5.21 - 17.19)

Satisfaction with one’s personal life

        

Satisfied

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Neutral

1.48

(1.25 - 1.76)

1.63

(1.16 - 2.29)

1.45

(1.22 - 1.73)

1.45

(0.92 - 2.27)

Not satisfied

1.96

(1.55 - 2.49)

2.52

(1.64 - 3.89)

2.36

(1.85 - 3.00)

2.23

(1.22 - 4.08)

Alcohol intake

        

Nondrinker

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

1.00

 

Light drinker (1-4 drinks)

1.38

(1.17 - 1.62)

1.21

(0.91 - 1.61)

1.45

(1.23 - 1.70)

1.13

(0.76 - 1.67)

Moderate drinker (5-9 drinks)

1.68

(1.24 - 2.27)

1.58

(0.98 - 2.53)

1.53

(1.13 - 2.08)

2.15

(1.21 - 3.83)

Heavy drinker (10 ≤ drinks)

1.47

(0.80 - 2.70)

1.78

(0.75 - 4.18)

1.83

(1.00 - 3.35)

3.18

(1.23 - 8.20)

Results are presented as adjusted odds ratios and (95% confidence intervals), and adjusted for age, education, household income, employment status, perceived wealth during childhood, satisfaction with family relationships, satisfaction with one’s personal life, smoking, and alcohol intake.

Discussion

In this nationally representative population of Korean men and women, significant gender-specific differences were evident for the prevalence of IPV and its associated factors. Factors significantly associated with an increased likelihood of IPV victimization and perpetration among men and women were the subjective measures of family and personal life satisfaction as well as alcohol intake. In addition, the prevalence of IPV victimization was significantly higher among women than among men.

Although gender-specific data on IPV are limited, our findings are consistent with estimates gathered from previous studies with smaller samples of South Korean adults and population-based studies conducted in other Asian countries [20, 4245], which found higher exposures to IPV among women than men.

Investigation into the physical perpetration of IPV revealed that males had slightly higher rates of perpetration than that of females (males, 5.1% vs. females, 3.4%). In addition, women reported a lower rate of experiencing male perpetration than that of experiencing victimization. However, the rate of female perpetration was roughly aligned with the rate of victimization that was reported by men. One interpretation for this discrepancy may be that men underreported IPV perpetration due to a social desirability bias. Similar disparities in reporting have been found in studies conducted in other countries [46].

The majority of research surrounding IPV has addressed violence against women, examining prevalence estimates of female victimization and male perpetration. In the current study, rates of verbal IPV victimization among females (28.2%) fell within the range of previous estimates (24.6%-55.0%) [47, 48], although male rates of verbal perpetration (25.3%) were slightly lower than previous estimates (31.8%-42.3%) [49, 50]. However, limitations between survey methods make comparing our results with previous studies difficult; inconsistencies in defining violence and variations in survey periods may have created discrepancies between these estimates.

Among men, low education level was positively associated with perpetrating verbal violence; however, among women, low education level was positively associated with both victimizing and perpetrating verbal IPV. Previous studies have reported similar associations and have strongly suggested that future violence prevention programs should aim to increase levels of education and understanding about IPV [47].

Our results also confirm the finding of other studies that IPV victimization and perpetration are likely to occur regardless of one’s drinking habits [46, 47]. However, we cannot determine whether alcohol is a risk factor of or a result of IPV due to the cross-sectional design of our study. Nevertheless, our findings support previous assertions that alcohol interventions may be a crucial component of future violence prevention programs [19, 51, 52].

Our study has important limitations. First, the prevalence of IPV was measured over the previous 12 months; therefore, these data may have underestimated the actual prevalence of IPV in this study population. Second, the KOWEPS dataset did not measure experiences with IPV during childhood such as any exposures to domestic violence or witnessing IPV perpetration among their parents. Third, the KOWEPS dataset did not ask participants who were married whether they live with their spouse. We cannot assume that all married couples live with their spouse and this factor may influence the prevalence of IPV; therefore, future studies should investigate whether this factor is associated with IPV. Fourth, IPV related to sexual abuse was not included in the KOWEPS survey. Last, the confidence intervals estimated in our analyses were wide; therefore, future prospective studies with large sample sizes are needed to better understand these relationships.

In this nationally representative study, we found that the prevalence of IPV and its associated factors were gender specific. In particular, alcohol intake, family, and life satisfaction were strongly associated with both verbal and physical IPV among men and women. In addition, the prevalence of IPV victimization was significantly higher among women than among men. Moreover, older men who were dissatisfied with their family and personal life as well as heavy drinkers were more likely to be victims of physical IPV than their counterparts were. Furthermore, older women who were dissatisfied with their family and personal life as well as heavy drinkers were more likely to perpetrate physical IPV than their counterparts were. Large, prospective studies are needed to understand the etiology of these factors for the proper implementation of preventative measures to reduce IPV in South Korea.

Conclusions

Worldwide, gender differences in IPV have been reported and, among those countries, South Korea has one of the highest prevalences of IPV. However, the factors related to IPV in Korean adults are unknown.

We found significant gender-specific differences among the factors related to IPV. In addition, the prevalences for each the type of violence perpetrated and victimized varied significantly by gender.

This is the first study to utilize nationally representative data to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of IPV in South Korea. This study measured IPV as a self-reported experience over the previous 12 months, yet further data such as sexual IPV and violence during childhood were not collected; therefore, further studies are needed.

Abbreviations

IPV: 

Intimate partner violence.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Health Management and Policy, College of Public Health, University of Iowa
(2)
Department of Research Affairs, Yonsei University College of Medicine
(3)
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine

References

  1. Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen HA, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts CH, WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women Study Team: Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. Lancet. 2006, 368 (9543): 1260-1269. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69523-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Hong JS, Kim SM, Yoshihama M, Byoun SJ: Wife battering in South Korea: an ecological systems analysis. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2010, 32 (12): 1623-1630. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.07.024.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Abramsky T, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C, Devries K, Kiss L, Ellsberg M, Jansen HA, Heise L: What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health. 2011, 11: 109-10.1186/1471-2458-11-109.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Ministry of Gender Equality & Family: The 2010 Domestic Violence Survey of South Korea. Domestic Violence Survey of South Korea. 2010, Ministry of Gender Equality & Family, http://www.mogef.go.kr/,Google Scholar
  5. Ellsberg M, Jansen HA, Heise L, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C, WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women Study Team: Intimate partner violence and women's physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: an observational study. Lancet. 2008, 371 (9619): 1165-1172. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60522-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell JC: Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002, 359 (9314): 1331-1336. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ishida K, Stupp P, Melian M, Serbanescu F, Goodwin M: Exploring the associations between intimate partner violence and women's mental health: evidence from a population-based study in Paraguay. Soc Sci Med. 2010, 71 (9): 1653-1661. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.08.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Suglia SF, Enlow MB, Kullowatz A, Wright RJ: Maternal intimate partner violence and increased asthma incidence in children: buffering effects of supportive caregiving. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009, 163 (3): 244-250. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.555.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Ackerson LK, Subramanian SV: Intimate partner violence and death among infants and children in India. Pediatrics. 2009, 124 (5): e878-e889. 10.1542/peds.2009-0524.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Breiding MJ, Ziembroski JS: The relationship between intimate partner violence and children's asthma in 10 US states/territories. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011, 22 (1 Pt 2): e95-e100.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Biroscak BJ, Smith PK, Post LA: A practical approach to public health surveillance of violent deaths related to intimate partner relationships. Public Health Rep. 2006, 121 (4): 393-399.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin SL, Macy RJ, Sullivan K, Magee ML: Pregnancy-associated violent deaths: the role of intimate partner violence. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2007, 8 (2): 135-148. 10.1177/1524838007301223.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Wood SL, Sommers MS: Consequences of intimate partner violence on child witnesses: a systematic review of the literature. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2011, 24 (4): 223-236. 10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00302.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Krug EG, Mercy JA, Dahlberg LL, Zwi AB: The world report on violence and health. Lancet. 2002, 360 (9339): 1083-1088. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11133-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Djikanovic B, Jansen HA, Otasevic S: Factors associated with intimate partner violence against women in Serbia: a cross-sectional study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010, 64 (8): 728-735. 10.1136/jech.2009.090415.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ministry of Gender Equality & Family: The 2013 Domestic Violence Survey of South Korea. Domestic Violence Survey of South Korea. 2014, Ministry of Gender Equality & Family, http://www.mogef.go.kr/,Google Scholar
  17. Carmo R, Grams A, Magalhaes T: Men as victims of intimate partner violence. J Forensic Leg Med. 2011, 18 (8): 355-359. 10.1016/j.jflm.2011.07.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gass JD, Stein DJ, Williams DR, Seedat S: Gender differences in risk for intimate partner violence among South African adults. J Interpers Violence. 2011, 26 (14): 2764-2789. 10.1177/0886260510390960.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ansara DL, Hindin MJ: Exploring gender differences in the patterns of intimate partner violence in Canada: a latent class approach. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010, 64 (10): 849-854. 10.1136/jech.2009.095208.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Shim WS, Nelson-Becker H: Korean older intimate partner violence survivors in North America: cultural considerations and practice recommendations. J Women Aging. 2009, 21 (3): 213-228. 10.1080/08952840903054773.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Chung GH, Oswald RF, Hardesty JL: Enculturation as a condition impacting Korean American physicians’ responses to Korean immigrant women suffering intimate partner violence. Health Care Women Int. 2009, 30 (1–2): 41-63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hellmuth JC, Gordon KC, Stuart GL, Moore TM: Risk factors for intimate partner violence during pregnancy and postpartum. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2013, 16 (1): 19-27. 10.1007/s00737-012-0309-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Woolhouse H, Gartland D, Hegarty K, Donath S, Brown SJ: Depressive symptoms and intimate partner violence in the 12 months after childbirth: a prospective pregnancy cohort study. BJOG. 2012, 119 (3): 315-323. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03219.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ackerson LK, Kawachi I, Barbeau EM, Subramanian SV: Effects of individual and proximate educational context on intimate partner violence: a population-based study of women in India. Am J Public Health. 2008, 98 (3): 507-514. 10.2105/AJPH.2007.113738.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Bensley L, Van Eenwyk J, Wynkoop Simmons K: Childhood family violence history and women's risk for intimate partner violence and poor health. Am J Prev Med. 2003, 25 (1): 38-44. 10.1016/S0749-3797(03)00094-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nguyen DV, Ostergren PO, Krantz G: Intimate partner violence against women in rural Vietnam–different socio-demographic factors are associated with different forms of violence: need for new intervention guidelines?. BMC Public Health. 2008, 8: 55-10.1186/1471-2458-8-55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tumwesigye NM, Kyomuhendo GB, Greenfield TK, Wanyenze RK: Problem drinking and physical intimate partner violence against women: evidence from a national survey in Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2012, 12: 399-10.1186/1471-2458-12-399.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemon SC, Verhoek-Oftedahl W, Donnelly EF: Preventive healthcare use, smoking, and alcohol use among Rhode Island women experiencing intimate partner violence. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2002, 11 (6): 555-562. 10.1089/152460902760277912.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Testa M, Kubiak A, Quigley BM, Houston RJ, Derrick JL, Levitt A, Homish GG, Leonard KE: Husband and wife alcohol use as independent or interactive predictors of intimate partner violence. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012, 73 (2): 268-276.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Gil-Gonzalez D, Vives-Cases C, Ruiz MT, Carrasco-Portino M, Alvarez-Dardet C: Childhood experiences of violence in perpetrators as a risk factor of intimate partner violence: a systematic review. J Public Health. 2008, 30 (1): 14-22. 10.1093/pubmed/fdm071.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts AL, Gilman SE, Fitzmaurice G, Decker MR, Koenen KC: Witness of intimate partner violence in childhood and perpetration of intimate partner violence in adulthood. Epidemiology. 2010, 21 (6): 809-818. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181f39f03.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Basile KC, Hall JE: Intimate partner violence perpetration by court-ordered men: distinctions and intersections among physical violence, sexual violence, psychological abuse, and stalking. J Interpers Violence. 2011, 26 (2): 230-253. 10.1177/0886260510362896.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Magdol L, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Newman DL, Fagan J, Silva PA: Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year-olds: bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997, 65 (1): 68-78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Parish WL, Wang T, Laumann EO, Pan S, Luo Y: Intimate partner violence in China: national prevalence, risk factors and associated health problems. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2004, 30 (4): 174-181. 10.1363/3017404.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Chung H: Variables influencing the adaptation to wife abuse: Based on the double ABCX model. J Korean Home Econ Assoc. 1999, 37: 107-122.Google Scholar
  36. Kim JR, Kim KS: The effects of social support and coping styles on quality of life in abused wives. Kor Liv Sci Assoc. 2007, 16: 1-11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Sullivan CM, Bybee DI: Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999, 67 (1): 43-53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim M: The Korean Welfare Panel study and It’s Advantages. 2009, Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, 158:Google Scholar
  39. Kim J, Lee J: Prospective study on the reciprocal relationship between intimate partner violence and depression among women in Korea. Soc Sci Med. 2013, 99: 42-48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Korean National Statistical Office: National Statistics for Marriage. 2012Google Scholar
  41. Vives-Cases C: Intimate partner violence against women in Spain. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006, 60 (8): 652-653. 10.1136/jech.2006.046300.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Yoshihama M, Horrocks J, Kamano S: Experiences of intimate partner violence and related injuries among women in Yokohama, Japan. Am J Public Health. 2007, 97 (2): 232-234. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.078113.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Vung ND, Ostergren PO, Krantz G: Intimate partner violence against women, health effects and health care seeking in rural Vietnam. Eur J Public Health. 2009, 19 (2): 178-182. 10.1093/eurpub/ckn136.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hasegawa M, Bessho Y, Hosoya T, Deguchi Y: Prevalence of intimate partner violence and related factors in a local city in Japan. Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi. 2005, 52 (5): 411-421.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Xu X, Zhu F, O'Campo P, Koenig MA, Mock V, Campbell J: Prevalence of and risk factors for intimate partner violence in China. Am J Public Health. 2005, 95 (1): 78-85. 10.2105/AJPH.2003.023978.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. O'Leary KD, Tintle N, Bromet EJ, Gluzman SF: Descriptive epidemiology of intimate partner aggression in Ukraine. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2008, 43 (8): 619-626. 10.1007/s00127-008-0339-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Jewkes R: Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet. 2002, 359 (9315): 1423-1429. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Dunkle KL: Gender-based violence, relationship power, and risk of HIV infection in women attending antenatal clinics in South Africa. Lancet. 2004, 9419 (2): 1415-1421.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Abrahams N, Jewkes R, Laubscher R, Hoffman M: Intimate partner violence: prevalence and risk factors for men in Cape Town, South Africa. Violence Vict. 2006, 21 (2): 247-264. 10.1891/vivi.21.2.247.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Dunkle KL, Jewkes RK, Nduna M, Levin J, Jama N, Khuzwayo N, Koss MP, Duvvury N: Perpetration of partner violence and HIV risk behaviour among young men in the rural Eastern Cape, South Africa. AIDS. 2006, 20 (16): 2107-2114. 10.1097/01.aids.0000247582.00826.52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Foran HM, O'Leary KD: Alcohol and intimate partner violence: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2008, 28 (7): 1222-1234. 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.05.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Caetano R, Schafer J, Cunradi CB: Alcohol-related intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Alcohol Res Health. 2001, 25 (1): 58-65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/415/prepub

Copyright

© Lee et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.