Interpersonal Violence, Culture, and Stigma in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an objectionable occurrence in many societies, but in developing and patriarchal contexts, numerous socio-cultural factors shape how it is perceived and addressed. IPV is a violation of human rights that affects all genders but disproportionately impacts women, often resulting in social isolation, mental health challenges, and economic insecurity. In Sub-Saharan Africa, IPV remains widespread. In Ghana, while legislative and institutional reforms have strengthened responses to IPV, including enhanced reporting mechanisms, it remains unclear whether increases in reported cases reflect a rise in prevalence or greater willingness to report. Socio-cultural influences such as gender relations, employment, and religion continue to shape public attitudes toward IPV. This study examines how participant demographics and experimentally manipulated vignette characteristics-specifically survivor gender and employment status-influence stigma-related beliefs about IPV survivors and perpetrators in Ghana. Using an experimental vignette methodology, 658 Ghanaians participated in a survey on attitudes towards IPV. Results revealed significant gender and religiosity-based differences in perceptions. Female survivors were viewed as less responsible for the violence and were more likely to be perceived as needing help, while male survivors were more often blamed or viewed as weak. Older and more educated participants were more likely to blame male perpetrators than female ones. Although there were no significant differences in perceived problem seriousness based on the randomized vignette conditions (survivor gender and employment status), participants with higher religiosity tended to view IPV as a less serious problem. These findings underscore the influence of deeply rooted socio-cultural norms on public perceptions of IPV in Ghana and highlight the importance of adapting community-based stigma reduction and advocacy interventions to address demographic variation in attitudes toward survivors and perpetrators.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".