Religion and Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence: A Cross-National Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a world where violence against women remains pervasive and serious, intimate partner violence (IPV) is one of the most common and harmful forms of violence against women. Since religion and religiosity have been found to be influential in shaping people’s attitudes toward IPV, this global-scale study investigates the net effects of religion and religiosity on attitudes toward IPV with country-specific influences controlled. Using the data from the World Values Survey conducted between 2017 and 2020 that had 69,578 respondents with Ordinary Least Square regression (OLS) models, this study finds that being religious is related to less accepting attitudes toward IPV, while the frequency of attending religious activities does not have a statistically significant relationship with attitudes toward IPV. Variations in attitudes are found among different religious denominations as well. People belonging to some religious denominations show more acceptance of IPV, so the nuanced differences among specific religions are crucial in creating discrepancies in attitudes across religious people. The results call for more future interdisciplinary and mix-method research to further our understanding of the religious impact on attitudes toward IPV and to promote gender equality globally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".