Detecting the silent victims Detecting the silent victims. A comparison of two different measures of intimate partner violence in the Swedish Crime Survey (NTU) 2013. Paul Fuehrer, Associate Professor, Södertörn university Thomas Hvitfeldt, Researcher, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå)

Measuring the nature and prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) Over recent decades advances have been made in the recognition and framing of IPV as a serious social problem Different methods of conducting criminal victimization surveys have different strengths and limitations Even though advances have been made when it comes to the measurement of the prevalence of IPV there is still little consensus amongst researchers as to the best way to measure the prevalence and severity of IPV

Measurements of the prevalence of IPV in Sweden Several studies conducted in Sweden during the last two decades show vastly different results for the prevalence of IPV: Lundgren 2001: 5% for women (last 12 months 1999-2000, men’s violence) Brå 2002: 0,9% for women (last 12 months, 2000-2001, men’s violence) SCB 2007 (ULF): 2% for women (last 12 months, 2006, men’s violence) Brå 2009: 1.2% for women, 0.3% for men (year prevalence 2008) NCK 2014: 1,8% for women, 1.2% for men (year prevalence 2013) EU, FRA 2014: 5% for women (last 12 months, 2011-12, men’s violence) Considerable differences EU, FRA very low response rate, 19,7%

Difficulties inherent to measuring IPV Different time frames Different definitions of IPV Different operationalization of IPV taking into account the special characteristics of IPV Different methods of data collection , e.g. survey vs. interviews or CAPI vs. CATI. Various definitions: i.e. what sorts of violent behavior, in what specific social relations, constitute intimate partner violence. Domestic violence: broader, includes e.g. violence against children and spouse. Men’s violence against women excludes men as victims, misses differences in prevalence and severity of IPV. Time frames: life-time prevalence, last year prevalence, twelve month prevalence. Prevalence for last-year: most studies show that the prevalence is highest amongst young persons. If life-time prevalence is measure, factors such as memory effects and normalization can influence the life-time prevalence measured. Operationalization: enabling the respondents to identify and recount different events as instances of intimate partner violence Methods of data collection: especially important since IPV is a very sensitive topic to talk about with interviewers or to respond to in a survey

Framing of IPV The main focus of our study is the importance of the ambiguous conceptual framing of IPV in our society for the measurement of its prevalence. Framing effects are important for the context of a specific study, especially if the study is conducted in the context of a general crime survey. The measurement of the prevalence of IPV differs from the measurement of other types of crime because many respondents due to the effect of socio-cultural framing do not conceptualize IPV as an obvious crime. IPV: violence embedded in an intimate relationship is still grey area, for example rape in marriage which was not criminalized until 1965 in Sweden. One area where the framing is obvoious is the legal system: - Legal systems and cultural norms do still not treat IPV as a crime in some societies, but rather as a 'private' family matter, or a normal part of a relationship One recent studies shows that in Sweden, violence is generally deemed as less severe when between partners (Mouzos & Makkai 2004) Context of specifc study: obtaining a good measurement of IPV can be difficult if the survey is conducted in the context of a more general crime survey. Framing effect; as compared to for example theft or personal injury by a stranger due to the involvement of personal or familiar relations This conceptual placement of IPV in a grey area (criminal/not criminal behavior) can lead to an underrepresentation of the actual prevalence to IPV if the questions are framed by the larger context of a crime survey where the majority of questions concern exposure to obvious crimes (i.e. theft…..).

Swedish Crime Survey (SCS) (SCS) is conducted annually, mainly based on  telephone interviews with  a nationally representative, random sample  of 20 000 respondents aged  16–79. SCS measures the proportion of the population exposed to different crimes (e.g. thefts, burglaries, threats, assaults and sexual offences) over the course of the last year. Response rates SCS 2013 n % Total sample 20 000 Net sample 19 740 100 Respondents (total) 12 671 64,2 of which via phone 11 023 55,8 via questionnaires 1 648 8,3 Non-response (total) 7 069 35,8 The data collection was carried out by Statistics Sweden, for the most part by means of telephone interviews. Shorter questionnaires were sent to members of the sample who could not be reached, and to those who did not wish to be interviewed, by telephone. Only those who were interviewed by phone where given the follow-up questions.

Two different measurements of IPV in the Swedish Crime Survey (SCS) 2013 In the SCS 2013, IPV was for the first time measured using two different sets of questions in the same survey. Firstly, the measurement was made using the same questions as had been employed in previous surveys. Secondly, IPV was measured using a newly developed set of questions loosely based upon the revised conflict tactics scale by Straus et al. (1996). The new set of questions was placed in a special unit at the end of the interview, only to be answered by respondents who were, or had been, in an intimate relationship (that lasted at least one month) at the time of the interview. Firstly, the measurement was made using the same questions as had been employed in previous surveys. These focus primarily on incidents of violence, with the relationship between respondent and perpetrator being explored in follow-up questions. This offers a unique opportunity to directly compare two different measurements of the prevalence of intimate partner violence in the same sample.

Framing the questions in the new set of questions concerning IPV (I) Introduction to the new set of questions: “In this next section of the interview I will be asking a number of questions that you may find sensitive or difficult to answer. These questions focus on conflicts in relationships with a partner. Conflicts can be dealt with in different ways, and people can sometimes go too far. The questions relate to a number of things that can happen and I am interested to know how things have been in your own current or former relationships. The incidents may have occurred in the context of an ongoing relationship or after a relationship had ended.” The survey was also conducted in English for respondents wishing to be interviewed in English (approximately 100 persons). In order to distance the questions from a context of crime they were given a different framing by introducing them focusing upon conflicts in relationsships. Introduction to the new set of questions:

Framing the questions in the new set of questions concerning IPV (II) Order of questions Following the logic of the revised conflict tactics scale, the questions were ordered according to the severity of the criminal behavior with less severe behavior coming first. More specific questions for some crimes In the new set of questions, in order to distinguish between less and more severe incedences of assault and sexual offences, two pairs of question were posed. The survey was also conducted in English for respondents wishing to be interviewed in English (approximately 100 persons). In order to distance the questions from a context of crime they were given a different framing by introducing them focusing upon conflicts in relationsships. Introduction to the new set of questions:

Results, prevalence of threats 2012 SCS, ordinary (%) SCS, new questions (%) Men 0.1 2.1*** Women 0.6 1.6*** Total 0.4 0.9*** Age 16–24 0.7 3.9*** 25–44 1.8*** 45–64 0.3 1.2*** 65–79 0.0 0.4** ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001

Results, prevalence of assault 2012 SCS, ordinary (%) SCS, new questions (%) Men 0.0 2.4*** Women 0.4 Total 0.2 Age 16–24 0.6 6.7*** 25–44 0.3 3.3*** 45–64 1.0*** 65–79 0.4** Men: gamla SCS_ 0.048 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001

Results, prevalence of sexual offence 2012 SCS, ordinary (%) SCS, new questions (%) Men 0.0 0.3** Women 0.2 0.7*** Total 0.1 0.5*** Age 16–24 0.4 1.7*** 25–44 0.6** 45–64 65–79 Men: gamla SCS_ 0.048 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001

Conclusions Our results indicate a significantly higher prevalence of exposure to IPV for both men and women, and most age groups, when using the measure based on the revised conflict tactics scale framing IPV in a way that distances IPV from crime. The higher prevalences of IPV for the new set of questions are considerably more pronounced for men (as compared to women), for example assault: 6 times higher prevalence for women, 50 times higher for men. Overall, the findings presented, show the complexity involved in measuring IPV and the importance of adapting and adjusting the measuring methods with regard to the relationship between victim and perpetrator and the framing of the questions. Higher prevalence for assault, explanation: Due to using two questions graded in order of the severity of assault, we measure a higher prevalence with the new set of questions in comparison to the ordinary questipons in the SCS.

Thank you for your attention!