1

BackgroundAbout 1 in 40 (n = 224,000) Australian women

physically assaulted in the last 12 months (ABS) Nearly 90 per cent of assaults were inflicted

either by:Current or former partner (30.5%)Family or friends (36.8%)Other known persons (20.5%)

We have a very incomplete picture of how various factors influence this violence…

….particularly stress and social support

2

Past researchEvidence linking financial stress to IPV

MacMillan & Gartner (1999); Cunradi et al. (2002); Wyk et al. (2003); Benson et al. (2003); Lauritsen & Schaum (2004); Weatherburn (2011)

But see: Johnson (2008); Julian & McKendry (1993); Mouzos & Makkai (2004)

Evidence linking personal stress to IPV Straus & Gelles (1990); Julian and McKendry (1993) But see: Cano and Vivian (2003)

Evidence linking social support to IPV Van Wyk et al. (2003); Goodman et al. (2005); Weatherburn (2011) But see: Carlson et al. (2002)

3

Problems with past researchInadequate controls

e.g. Cano & Vivian 2003: no control for alcohol use

Poor measurement e.g. Financial stress is created by a gap between income and financial

commitments but past measures of financial stress (e.g. unemployment, income, SES) only capture income

Unrepresentative or small samples e.g. Carlson et al. (2002): abused women attending hospital compared

with non-abused women attending hospital, Julian & McKendry (1993): 100 men drawn from newspaper ads.

And, most importantly….

4

Use of cross-sectional surveysThe majority of previous studies were based on

cross-sectional surveysHave you experienced financial stress in the past 12 months?Have you been the victim of assault in the past 12 months?

Can’t tell cause (stress?) from effect (violence?)

Need a longitudinal survey

5

Aim of the current studyExamine the longitudinal relationships between

violence against women and personal stressfinancial stresssocial support

using the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey

6

7

A

B

Wave t(t = survey year)

  Wave t+1(t+1 = next survey year)

↑ financial stress

→ ↑ physical violence↑ personal stress

↓ social support

Wave i to j(i, j = any pair of survey years)

  Wave i to j(i, j = same pair of surveys)

Δ financial stress

→ Δ physical violenceΔ personal stress

Δ social support

Hypotheses

HILDABroad social and economic longitudinal (panel) study of

Australian householdsItems on physical violence, stress, social support

Commenced in 2001 and is ongoing (2013 = survey wave 13)

Yearly data collection at household and person level

Face-to-face interviews and self-completion surveys

8

Current study samples

9

Different wording to other Australian studiese.g. Crime Victimisation Survey, Personal Safety Survey

Did any of these happen to you in the past 12 months? Yes/no

– Victim of physical violence (e.g., assault)

A. Next survey year [wave t+1 = 2003 to 2010]

B. Survey year [wave t = 2002 to 2009]

10

Dependent variable

Independent variables (1 of 2)

Number of financial stressors (7) [since Jan in survey year]

e.g. Went without meals

Number of personal stressors (9) [12 months prior to survey]

e.g. Serious injury/illness of a friend/relative

Social network mean score (10) [time of survey]

e.g. I often need help from other people but can’t get it

(7-point scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree)

11

Independent variables (2 of 2)

Alcoholic drinks per week [time of survey]

Marital status [time of survey]

Age [June 30 in survey year]

Pregnant/partner pregnant [12 months prior to survey]

12

Model A

Logistic Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) modelControls for multiple records per person

[unstructured covariance matrix, robust standard errors]

Sample42,030 records from 7,950 women with next year violence data

[subset of 48,368 records from 9,393 women]

13

Wave t(t = survey year)

  Wave t+1(t+1 = next survey year)

↑ financial stress

→ ↑ physical violence↑ personal stress

↓ social support

Model A - characteristics Percent of 42,030 records with characteristic [record not woman level]

Financial stressors 0 76%3+ 6%

Personal stressors 0 48%4+ 1%

Poor social networks mean ≥ 4 9%

Alcoholic drinks per week 12+ 10%

Marital status married 51%separated 3%

Age 15-24 years 16%25-54 years 55%

Pregnant/partner pregnant 5%

14

Model A - violence Percent within characteristic with next survey year (wave t+1) violence[n=42,030 records]

Total 1.4%

Financial stressors 3+ 7%

Personal stressors 4+ 7%

Poor social networks mean ≥ 4 4%

Alcoholic drinks per week 12+ 2%

Marital status separated 3%

Age 15-24 years 3%

Pregnant/partner pregnant 2%

15

Model A - adjusted results 1 of 2

16

1.51.7

3.5

1.31.5

1.8

2.9

1.51.6

2.7

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

1 2 3+ 1 2 3 4+ 2 3 4

Financial stressors (vs 0)

Personal stressors (vs 0)

Mean social network (vs 1)

Reference line

Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Model A - adjusted results 2 of 2

17

1.41.3

2.1 2.1

1.7 1.7

1.0

0.8

0.4 0.2

1.1

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

12+ 0 Sep Never De f Div Wid 25-54 55-64 65+ Preg

Alc drinks (vs <12)

Marital status (vs married)

Age (vs 15-24) (vs not)

Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Model B

Logistic fixed effects model Includes only persons who change over timeFocus on within person changeControls for all factors that do not change over time (e.g. child abuse)

18

Wave i to j(i, j = any pair of surveys)

  Wave i to j(i, j = same pair of surveys)

Δ financial stress

→ Δ physical violenceΔ personal stress

Δ social support

Total sample 9,363 women [48,368 records] 

No change = never violence 1-8 waves (8 for 34%) 94%

No change = always violence 1-5 waves (1 for 81%) 1%

Change = some violence 2-8 waves (8 for 35%) 5%

Model B – violence over time

19

506 women with 3,069 records - Model B sample

• 1 wave violence (up to 7 no) 71%

• 2 waves violence (up to 6 no) 19%

• 3 waves violence (up to 5 no) 7%

• etc ….    

Model B - examples of change

20

• Change in violence across consecutive years(51% of 3,069)

 No to Yes

(23% of 3,069)  Yes to No

(28% of 3,069)

Characteristic t to t+1 Change   t to t+1 Change

3+ financial stressors 24-29% ↑ 5%   29-24% ↓ -5%

1+ personal stressors 68-75% ↑ 7%   77-71% ↓ -6%

       

Not partnered 54-63% ↑ 9%   65-60% ↓ -5%

Poor social networks 21-23% 2%   23-23% 0%

Risky alcohol 14-13% -1%   15-13% 2%

Model B - adjusted results

21

1.1 1.1

1.7

1.5

1.9

2.4

2.7

1.0

1.3 1.31.0 0.9

2.3

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

1 2 3+ 1 2 3 4+ 2 3 4 12+ 0 No

Financial stressors (vs 0)

Personal stressors (vs 0)

Mean social netwrk(vs 1)

Alc drinks (vs <12)

Partr (v y)

Adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Tentative conclusions

22

Wave t(survey year)

  Wave t+1(next survey year)

↑ financial stress

→ ↑ physical violence↑ personal stress

↓ social support

Wave i to j(any pair of surveys)

  Wave i to j(same pair of surveys)

Δ financial stress

→ Δ physical violenceΔ personal stress

social supportΔ

Concluding remarksLow violence prevalence and weak alcohol effect

likely to be measurement issues

Weak social support effect in Model B may be a power issue

Need to understand how financial and personal stress are influencing violence

Need more information on victim-offender relationship and on offenders

23

24