Publicado

2019-07-01

Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia

Inequidad de género y violencia de pareja en Bolivia

Inequidade de gênero e violência conjugal na Bolívia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15446/rcs.v42n2.69629

Palabras clave:

Bolivia, domestic decision making, egalitarian families, gender inequality, intimate partner violence, power-control theory, status inconsistency theory (en)
Bolivia, desigualdad de género, equidad en la familia, equidad de género, toma de decisiones, violencia de género (es)
Bolívia, desigualdade de gênero, equidade na família, equidade de gênero, tomada de decisões, violência de gênero (pt)

Autores/as

Intimate partner violence against women is of particular concern in Bolivia, a country ranked second among ten Latin American countries in the prevalence of physical and sexual violence toward women (Hindin, Kishor, and Ansara, 2008). This study examines the correlation between intimate partner violence and the type of domestic decision making. Using factor analysis and structural equation modeling on a sample of 2,759 Bolivian heterosexual couples, this study finds that intimate partner violence is less likely to occur in families in which the decision making is egalitarian (female and male partners make decisions together) but more likely to occur when either the male partner or the female partner makes decisions alone. These findings support the hypotheses that the gender distribution of power may cause conflict between intimate heterosexual partners (Anderson, 1997; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, and Daly, 1992; Jewkes, 2002). It also goes further in demonstrating that such distribution could lead to egalitarian, matriarchal, or patriarchal domestic decision making and that there are differential consequences for both intimate partner offending and victimization. In rural areas, Bolivian women are more vulnerable; men more often make decisions alone; and women are less educated and poorer than in urban areas. In the patriarchal-type family, men make decisions and may abuse their female partners physically and psychologically. This type of family is poorer and less educated, and it is inversely correlated with women’s and men’s education. Indeed, education seems to play a key role in heterosexual relationships; men's education is inversely correlated with females' physical victimization. However, these findings also support a) the status inconsistency theory: in wealthier, more educated households, the female partner made decisions alone but was still physically and psychologically abused by her intimate partner, and b) intimate partner violence is influenced by structural factors, such as patriarchal beliefs, social power structure, poverty, and social inequalities (Barak, 2003, 2006).

La violencia de pareja contra las mujeres es particularmente grave en Bolivia, país que quedó segundo entre diez países latinoamericanos en la escala de prevalencia de la violencia física y sexual contra las mujeres (Hindin, Kishor, and Ansara, 2008). Este estudio examina la correlación entre la violencia de pareja y el tipo de toma de decisiones domésticas. Tras utilizar el análisis factorial y los modelos de ecuaciones estructurales en una muestra de 2759 parejas heterosexuales bolivianas, se encontró que es menos probable que haya violencia de pareja en familias en las que la toma de decisiones es igualitaria (el hombre y la mujer toman decisiones juntos), pero que es más probable que la haya cuando uno de los dos toma las decisiones solo, ya sea el hombre o la mujer. Estos hallazgos apoyan la hipótesis de que la distribución de poder según género puede causar conflicto en las parejas heterosexuales (Anderson, 1997; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, and Daly, 1992; Jewkes, 2002). El estudio va más allá al demostrar que esa distribución puede conducir a la toma de decisiones igualitaria, matriarcal o patriarcal y que hay consecuencias diferenciales para la ofensa y victimización de la pareja. En las áreas rurales, las mujeres bolivianas son más vulnerables; los hombres suelen tomar decisiones solos, y las mujeres son más pobres y menos educadas que en las áreas urbanas. En la familia de tipo patriarcal, los hombres toman las decisiones y es posible que abusen de sus mujeres física y psicológicamente. Este tipo de familia es más pobre y menos educada y hay una correlación inversa con la educación de hombres y mujeres. De hecho, la educación parece jugar un papel clave en las relaciones heterosexuales: la educación del hombre se correlaciona inversamente con la victimización física de la mujer. No obstante, los hallazgos también apoyan a) la teoría de la inconsistencia de estatus: en los hogares más pudientes y más educados, la mujer tomaba decisiones sola pero de todos modos era víctima de abuso físico y psicológico por parte de su pareja; y b) el hecho de que la violencia de pareja se ve influenciada por factores estructurales tales como las creencias patriarcales, la estructura de poder social, la pobreza y las desigualdades sociales (Barak, 2003, 2006).

A violência conjugal contra as mulheres é particularmente grave na Bolívia, país que ficou em segundo lugar entre dez países latino-americanos na escala de prevalência da violência física e sexual contra as mulheres (Hindin, Kishor e Ansara, 2008). Este estudo analisa a correlação entre a violência conjugal e o tipo de tomada de decisões domésticas. Após utilizar a análise fatorial e os modelos de equações estruturais em uma amostra de 2.759 casais heterossexuais bolivianos, verificou-se que é menos provável que haja violência conjugal em famílias em que a tomada de decisões é igualitária (o homem e a mulher tomam decisões juntos), mas que é mais provável que a haja quando um dos dois toma as decisões sozinho, seja o homem, seja a mulher. Essas constatações apoiam a hipótese de que a distribuição de poder segundo gênero pode causar conflito nos casais heterossexuais (Anderson, 1997; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson e Daly, 1992; Jewkes, 2002). Este estudo vai mais além ao demostrar que essa distribuição pode levar à tomada de decisões igualitária, matriarcal ou patriarcal e que há consequências diferenciais para a ofensa e a vitimização conjugal. Nas áreas rurais, as mulheres bolivianas são mais vulneráveis; os homens costumam tomar decisões sozinhos, e as mulheres são mais pobres e menos educadas do que nas áreas urbanas. Na família de tipo patriarcal, os homens tomam as decisões e é possível que abusem de suas mulheres física e psicologicamente. Esse tipo de família é mais pobre e menos educada, e há uma correlação reversa com a educação de homens e mulheres. De fato, a educação parece desempenhar um papel-chave nas relações heterossexuais: a educação do homem se correlaciona inversamente com a vitimização física da mulher. Contudo, os achados também apoiam a) a teoria da inconsistência de status: nos lares mais abastados e mais educados, a mulher tomava decisões sozinha, mas ainda era vítima de abuso físico e psicológico por parte de seu companheiro; b) o fato de a violência conjugal ser influenciada por fatores estruturais como as crenças patriarcais, a estrutura de poder social, a pobreza e as desigualdades sociais (Barak, 2003, 2006).

Referencias

Alcantara, A. N. (1994). Gender roles, fertility and the status of married Filipino men and women. Philippine Sociological Review, 42(1/4), 94-109. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41853665

Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3), 655-669. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/353952

Antai, D. (2011). Controlling behavior, power relations within intimate relationships and intimate partner physical and sexual violence against women in Nigeria. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-511

Atkinson, M. P., Greenstein, T. N., and Lang, M. M. (2005). For women breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1137-1148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00206.x

Barak, G. (2003). Violence and non-violence: pathways to understanding. Michigan: Sage Publications Inc.

Barak, G. (2006). Applying integrated theory: A reciprocal theory of violence and nonviolence. In S. Henry and M. Lanier (eds.), The essential criminology reader (pp. 336-346). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Breiding, M. J., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., and Mahendra, R. (2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Version 2.0. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Byrne, B. (2010). Application 1: Testing for the factorial validity of a theoretical construct (First Order CFA Model). In B. Byrne (Ed.), Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (pp. 57-97). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Caceres, C. F., Vanoss, B., and Hudes, E. H. (2000). Sexual coercion among youth and young adults in Lima, Peru. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(5), 361-367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00096-3

Chung, G. H., Tucker, M. B., and Takeuchi, D. (2008). Wifes’ relative income production and household male dominance: Examining violence among Asian American enduring couples. Family Relations, 57(2), 227-238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00496.x

Coa, R., and Ochoa, H. (2009). Encuesta nacional de demografia y salud, 2008. Retrieved from https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR228-DHS-Final-Reports.cfm

David, F. P. (1994). The roles of husbands and wives in household decision-Making. Philippine Sociological Review, 42(1/4), 78-93. Retrieved from http://116.50.242.171/PSSC/index.php/psr01/article/view/668/637

David, F. P., Chin, F. P., and Herradura, E. S. (1998). Economic and psychosocial influences of family planning on the lives of women in Western Visayas. Iloilo City: Central Philippine University and Family Health International. Retrieved from http://www.herdin.ph/index.php/component/herdin/?view=researchandcid=42461

Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., and Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3096914

Ellsberg, M., Pena, R., Herradura, A., Liljestrand, J., and Winkvist, A. (2000). Candies in hell: Women’s experiences of violence in Nicaragua. Social Science and Medicine, 51 (11), 1595-1610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00056-3

Fang, X., and Corso, P. S. (2008). Gender differences in the connections between violence experienced as a child and perpetration of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 23(5), 303-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9152-0

Fischbach, R. L., and Herbert, B. (1997). Domestic violence and mental health: Correlates and conundrums within and across cultures. Social Science and Medicine, 45(8), 1161-1176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00022-1

Flake, D. F., and Forste, R. (2006). Fighting families: Family characteristics associated with domestic violence in five Latin American countries. Journal of Family Violence, 21(1), 19-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-9002-2

Foran, H. M., and O’Leary, K. D. (2007). Problem drinking, jealousy, and anger control: Variables predicting physical aggression against a partner. Journal of Family Violence, 23(3), 141-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9136-5

Franklin, C. A., and Menaker, T. A. (2014). Femenism, status inconsistency, and women’s intimate partner victimization in heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 20(7), 825-845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214543385

Gage, A. J., and Hutchinson, P. L. (2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Arch Sex Behav, 35(1), 11-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-8991-0

García, B., and de Oliveira, O. (2011). Family changes and public policies in Latin America. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(1), 593-611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150205

Gelles, R. (1974). The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husband and wives. CA: Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Gigler, B.-S. (2009). Poverty, inequality and human development of indigenous peoples in Bolivia. Working Paper Center for Latin American Studies. Georgetown University. Retrieved from http://pdba.georgetown.edu/CLAS %20RESEARCH/Working %20Papers/WP17.pdf

Graham-Kevan, N., and Archer, J. (2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of Family Violence, 23(7),539-548. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9162-y

Guadagnoli, E., and Velicer, Wayne F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of somponent patterns. American Psychological Association, Inc., 103(2), 265-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265

Hagan, J. (1988). Structural criminology. Cambridge: Polity.

Hagan, J., Simpson, J., and Gillis, A. (1987). Class in the household: A power-control theory of gender and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 788-816. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2780039?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Heaton, T. B., and Forste, R. (2007). Domestic violence, couple interaction and children’s health in Latin America. Journal of Family Violence, 23(3), 183-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9142-7

Heenan, P., and Lamontagne, M. (2002). The South America handbook (Regional handbooks of economic development). Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., and Gottmoeller, M. (2002). A global overview of gender-based violence. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 78(1), S5-S14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00038-3

Heise, L., and Garcia-Moreno, C. (2002). Violence by intimate partners. In E. Krug E, L. Dahlberg, J. Mercy, A. Zwi, and R. Lozano (Eds), World Report on Violence and Health (pp. 87-121). Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_eng.pdf?sequence=1

Hindin, M. J., Kishor, S., and Ansara, D. L. (2008). Intimate partner violence among couples in 10 DHS countries: Predictors and health outcomes. Calverton, Maryland: Macro International Inc.

Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet, 359(9315), 1423-1429. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5

Koenig, M. A., Zablotska, I., Lutalo, T., Nalugoda, F., Wagman, J., and Gray, R. (2004). Coerced first intercourse and reproductive health among adolescent women in Rakai, Uganda. International Family

Planning Perspectives, 30(4), 156-163.

Krantz, G., and Nguyen, D. V. (2009). The role of controlling behaviour in intimate partner violence and its health effects: a population based study from rural Vietnam. BMC Public Health, 9, 143. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-9-143

Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., and Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083-1088. DOI:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11133-0

Lidchi, V. G. (2002). Lessons for an outsider: A family therapist’s experience in Bolivia. Journal of Family Therapy, 24(2), 150-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00209

Mann, J. R., and Takyi, B. K. (2009). Autonomy, dependence or culture: Examining the impact of resources and socio-cultural processes on attitudes towards intimate partner violence in Ghana, Africa. Journal of Family Violence, 24(5), 323-335. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9232-9

Mayorga, M. N. (2012). Risk and protective factors for physical and emotional intimate partner violence against women in a community of lima, peru. J Interpers Violence, 27(18), 3644-3659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512447522

MEASURE-DHS. (2012). Survey organization manual for demographic and health surveys. Calverton. Maryland: ICF International: MEASURE DHS.

Meekers, D., Pallin, S. C., and Hutchinson, P. (2013). Prevalence and correlates of physical, psychological, and sexual intimate partner violence in Bolivia. Glob Public Health, 8(5), 588-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2013.776093

Muthen, B. (1983). Latent variable structural equation modeling with categorical data. Journal of Econometrics, 22(1), 43-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(83)90093-3

Muthen, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49(1), 115-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294210

Muthen, L., and Muthen, B. (2009). Mplus User’s Guide. California: Muthen and Muthen.

ONU-Mujeres. (2016). Estadisticas con enfoque de genero: censos 2976, 1992, 2001, and 2012. Retrieved from https://bitedoc.org/Documents/estadisticas-de-genero-censos-1976-

-y-2012

Parish, W., Wang, T., Laumann, E., Pan, S., and Luo, Y. (2004). Intimate partner violence in China: Natinal prevalence, risk factors and associated health problems. International Family Planning

Perspectives, 30(4), 174-181. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1566491?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Ruiz-Pérez, I., Rodriguez-Madrid, N., Plazaola-Castaño, J., Montero-Piñar, I., Escribà-Agüir, V., Márquez-Herrera, N., . . . Nevot-Cordero, A. (2013). Inhibiting and facilitating factors to end a violent relationship: Patterns of behavior among women in Spain. Violence and Victims, 28(5), 884-898. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00055

Rutstein, S., and Kiersten, J. (2004). The DHS wealth index. Retrieved from https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/cr6/cr6.pdf

Shackelford, T. K., Voracek, M., Schmitt, D. P., Buss, D. M., Weekes-Shackelford, V., and Michalski, R. L. (2003). Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life. Human Nature, 15(3), 283-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-004-1010-z

Sharma, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows (2000). The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 3(3). Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/62-published.pdf

Simmons, C. A., Lehmann, P., and Collier-Tenison, S. (2008). Men’s use of controlling behaviors: A comparison of reports by women in a domestic violence shelter and women in a domestic violence offender program. Journal of Family Violence, 23(6), 387-394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9159-6

Smith, P. H., Thornton, G. E., DeVellis, R., Earp, J., and Coker, A. L. (2002). A population-based study of the prevalence and distinctiveness of battering, physical assault, and sexual assault in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 8(10), 25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102236534

Straus, M. (2007). Conflict Tactics Scale. Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

The-World-Bank. (2018). Bolivia. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/bolivia

UN. (1995). Report of fourth world conference on women. Beijin: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/pdf/Beijing %20full %20report %20E.pdf

UN-Women. (2018). Rural women in Bolivia make their demands heard, and their presence felt. Retrieved from http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2012/2/rural-women-in-bolivia-make-their-demands-heard-and-their-presence-felt

UNFPA. (2014). How to be a man: Bolivian men and boys work to eliminate gender-based violence. Retrieved from https://www.unfpa.org/news/how-be-man-bolivian-men-and-boys-

work-eliminate-gender-based-violence

UNICEF. (2000). Domestic violence against women and girls. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/213-domestic-violence-against-women-and-girls.html

White, J. W., McMullin, D., Swartout, K., Sechrist, S., and Gollehon, A. (2008). Violence in intimate relationships: A conceptual and empirical examination of sexual and physical aggression. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 338-351. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.003

WHO. (2004). Managing Child abuse: A handbook for medical offices. Regional Office for South-East Asia. New Delhi.

WHO. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Summary report of initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women's responses. Geneva, World Health Organization.

Cómo citar

APA

Camargo, E. (2019). Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia. Revista Colombiana de Sociología, 42(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcs.v42n2.69629

ACM

[1]
Camargo, E. 2019. Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia. Revista Colombiana de Sociología. 42, 2 (jul. 2019), 257–277. DOI:https://doi.org/10.15446/rcs.v42n2.69629.

ACS

(1)
Camargo, E. Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia. Rev. colomb. soc. 2019, 42, 257-277.

ABNT

CAMARGO, E. Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia. Revista Colombiana de Sociología, [S. l.], v. 42, n. 2, p. 257–277, 2019. DOI: 10.15446/rcs.v42n2.69629. Disponível em: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/recs/article/view/69629. Acesso em: 22 mar. 2026.

Chicago

Camargo, Esperanza. 2019. «Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia». Revista Colombiana De Sociología 42 (2):257-77. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcs.v42n2.69629.

Harvard

Camargo, E. (2019) «Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia», Revista Colombiana de Sociología, 42(2), pp. 257–277. doi: 10.15446/rcs.v42n2.69629.

IEEE

[1]
E. Camargo, «Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia», Rev. colomb. soc., vol. 42, n.º 2, pp. 257–277, jul. 2019.

MLA

Camargo, E. «Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia». Revista Colombiana de Sociología, vol. 42, n.º 2, julio de 2019, pp. 257-7, doi:10.15446/rcs.v42n2.69629.

Turabian

Camargo, Esperanza. «Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia». Revista Colombiana de Sociología 42, no. 2 (julio 1, 2019): 257–277. Accedido marzo 22, 2026. https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/recs/article/view/69629.

Vancouver

1.
Camargo E. Gender inequality and intimate partner violence in Bolivia. Rev. colomb. soc. [Internet]. 1 de julio de 2019 [citado 22 de marzo de 2026];42(2):257-7. Disponible en: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/recs/article/view/69629

Descargar cita

CrossRef Cited-by

CrossRef citations11

1. Tatiana Otto Stock, Maria Leonor Gonsales Martins da Silva, Stéphanie da Selva Guimarães, Angelo Brandelli Costa. (2024). Psicologia e populações vulnerabilizadas. , p.308. https://doi.org/10.7476/9786556308937.0016.

2. Jenevieve Mannell, Hattie Lowe, Laura Brown, Reshmi Mukerji, Delan Devakumar, Lu Gram, Henrica A F M Jansen, Nicole Minckas, David Osrin, Audrey Prost, Geordan Shannon, Seema Vyas. (2022). Risk factors for violence against women in high-prevalence settings: a mixed-methods systematic review and meta-synthesis. BMJ Global Health, 7(3), p.e007704. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007704.

3. Esperanza Camargo. (2023). Does Power at Home Protect Women from Violence? A Comparative Analysis between Urban and Rural Colombian Women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 32(1-2), p.88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2022.2112334.

4. Leigh Hamlet, V. B. Gutierrez, A. Soto, S. Dickin. (2022). Barriers to women's participation, leadership, and empowerment in community-managed water and sanitation in rural Bolivia. H2Open Journal, 5(3), p.532. https://doi.org/10.2166/h2oj.2022.021.

5. Sarah R. Meyer, Selina Hardt, Rebecca Brambilla, Shruti Shukla, Heidi Stöckl. (2024). Sociological Theories to Explain Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(3), p.2316. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231210939.

6. Chinyere Mbachu, Irene Eze, Ozioma Agu, Obinna Onwujekwe. (2025). Health Workers’ Attitudes Toward Adverse Gender Norms and Implications for Young People’s Sexual and Reproductive Health in Nigeria. Health Promotion Practice, 26(1), p.75. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399241287211.

7. J. Matias Bardales-Rodríguez, Flavia Rioja-Torres, Akram Hernández-Vásquez, Diego Azañedo. (2025). Association between witnessing physical violence between parents and intimate partner violence against Bolivian men: A national cross-sectional analysis of the 2016 demographic and health survey. Preventive Medicine Reports, 49, p.102948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102948.

8. Sarah R. Meyer, Selina Hardt, Rebecca Brambilla, Sabrina Page, Heidi Stöckl. (2024). Explaining intimate partner violence through economic theories: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 77, p.101929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101929.

9. Johanna Alexandra Reina-Barreto. (2021). Relación entre violencia de género por la pareja y apoyo social en mujeres colombianas. Análisis con perspectiva de género. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 34(2), p.303. https://doi.org/10.5209/cuts.72690.

10. Elithet Silva Martínez, Iris Cardenas, Janice Vazquez Pagan, Hilda Rivera Rodríguez. (2022). Una mirada a factores económicos y demográficos asociados a la violencia de género en Puerto Rico. AnálisiS, 18(1) https://doi.org/10.54114/revanlisis.v18i1.19489.

11. Paul Chaney. (2025). Cultural genocide? Civil society perspectives on the contemporary human rights situation of indigenous people in Bolivia: A critical analysis. Journal of Civil Society, 21(1), p.41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2024.2437579.

Dimensions

PlumX

Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo

2428

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.