Efectos de la recapitalización en el precio de la deuda de las entidades .1 Efectos teóricos .1 Efectos teóricos

Although there are many theories on domestic violence and battering applicable in Europe and the USA these are often regarded as carrying little currency in the African context (Robinson, 1993).

Many African scholars writing on domestic violence emphasize battering and domestic violence as falling under the rubric of ‘culture’ rather than offering psychological explanations. This is because most theories on domestic violence have been derived from research conducted in western countries and by professionals working with male batterers, however, such programmes are rare or absent in Africa. This is confirmed by Dutton (1998; 2011) who indicated that psychological research, for example on the notion of the ‘abusive personality’, has not been conducted in Africa and that psychology-based explanations are generally overlooked in favour of cultural explanations (these ideas are developed further in Chapter Two). This thesis responds to this gap in knowledge by reporting on a study of the personality traits and attitudes to coercive behaviours that influence domestic violence in Uganda. As explained earlier, the contribution of psychological services to addressing the needs of victims and perpetrators of domestic violence is little understood in Uganda despite acknowledgement of the psychological harm caused. There are few empirical studies that exist on domestic violence in Uganda and no published research was found that examines the psychological aspects of the problem. This provides further justification for this study, which explores domestic violence from a psychological perspective and which could therefore benefit current policies on domestic violence in Uganda.

This study examines domestic violence victimisation reported by victims and perpetrators of both genders within Uganda. Domestic violence is very old but public acknowledgement of the issue in the country is still in its infancy (Margi, 2008). According to Straus’s (1976) article ‘Sexuality

Inequality, Cultural Norms and Wife Beating’ wives are more often victims of domestic violence by their husbands than the reverse. Male partner violence is usually attributed to the hierarchical and male dominant nature of society and men’s desire to coerce and dominate, whereas women are said to be violent primarily as an act of self-defence against humiliating and dominating behaviour (Straus, 1976). Straus concluded, almost 40 years ago, that the impression that women may be motivated to hit in order to coerce a male partner is outrageous and sexist. In agreement is the study of Hester et al. (2000) which argued that women only act violently in self-defence, hence implying that a woman is a victim first and only becomes a perpetrator through acting in self-defence and, in such cases, no arrests should be made (Centrex, 2004). However, more recent research challenges the idea that women are only violent in response to violence. Hamberger (2008), for example, states that women are increasingly being convicted of domestic violence, with men as their victims. There is a common myth in most African societies that men cannot be victims, however, a study by Kitala et al., (2012) in Northern Uganda among victims in hospitals revealed that both men and women are victims of physical abuse (Kitala et al., 2012). Also, most studies take gender differences in crime for granted and do not develop adequate analysis even though gender is considered a better predictor of crime than, for example, race or employment status (Heidensonohn, 1985:143 cited in Tibatemwa, 1999). Related to this discussion is the importance of exploring personality traits in relation to gender and domestic violence. Eysenck (1975) showed that individuals who scored high on psychoticism had personality characteristics such as an inability to empathize with others and were more likely to have irrational and anti-social behaviours. Although personality traits have been studied against gender in Uganda (Wyrod, 2007), there are no empirical studies that have studied the relationship between personality traits and coercive behaviours and domestic violence in Uganda. Yet, research in western countries has associated violence with gendered attitudes to coercion (Muir, 2002).

The significance of gender in domestic violence is reported in many studies (see for example, Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Johnson, 2008) and is also evident in the growth in gender-based interventions in Africa (Jakobsen, 2014). Data from an American national sample of adults in intimate relationships revealed however, that some forms of violence are reciprocal (Follingstad

& Edmundson, 2010) while others report results from research that indicate that women and men may be equally violent (Dutton & Corvo, 2006; 2007 cited in Agazino, 2011). The issue of gender is explored fully in Chapter Two, however what emerges from this discussion is that the failure to acknowledge violence perpetrated by women against men contributes to different forms of gender inequality and may mask the extent of tolerance for interpersonal violence within society. While domestic violence has often been referred to as ‘gendered’, the word has often been used without clarity (Scully, 2008). Some researchers in the US, in advocating for a greater gender balance in responding to domestic violence, propose erasing the word gender in partner violence approaches altogether (Dragiewicz, 2009; Kimmel 2012 cited in Jakobsen, 2014). Furthermore, surveys conducted by Straus (2008; 2010) claim that in Africa, gender may be less important in cases of domestic violence than is generally assumed. By challenging gender symmetry in Africa, Straus (2008; 2010) over generalises the problem and under-estimates the role of women as perpetrators and men as victims. This is significant for a country such as Uganda because of some of the cultural issues discussed earlier, such as FGM and polygamous marriages and in which women may be victims of violence but also may be involved in the perpetration of violence against other women.

Hamel (2007) emphasised the importance of a gender inclusive approach to domestic violence research, arguing that many studies have marginalised the role of women, not only in the victimisation of men but also of other women, and thus have failed to produce adequate explanations and solutions to this social problem (Hamel, 2007; Kitala, et al., 2011). These ideas, debates and complexities challenge the hegemonic principles of current domestic violence policy and practice in Africa in general and, in furthering knowledge about the situation in Uganda, it is important therefore to provide empirical evidence as to the role of gender in domestic violence.

The study has five objectives:

1. First, the study examines gender (male and female) and role (victim and perpetrator) in relation to self-reported domestic violence victimisation. This approach is taken because gender and age remain the best predictors for crime rather than, for example, race and employment status (Heidensohn, 1985:143, cited in Tibatemwa, 1999).

2. Second, the impact-effect that role and gender have on attitudes towards coercive behaviours is studied based on the socio-cultural assumptions that women-beating is considered acceptable in Uganda (Speizer, 2010). The study also utilises the work of Muir (2002) that identified two important sets of attitudes in the coercion-domestic violence scenario: ‘men’s right to control hence coerce’ but also ‘women exaggerate coercion’ and explores whether or not these attitudes to coercive behaviours differ among men and women and also between victims and perpetrators.

3. Third, despite available research on coping strategies what remains unclear to date is whether coping styles are engaged by men and women equally or whether victims are more likely than perpetrators to engage in positive coping strategies. As revealed by previous studies, while physical violence may end, non-physical forms of violence, including emotional abuse, may escalate. This was found to be the case among male perpetrators who attended intervention programmes in the US (Rothman, Butchart, &

Cerda, 2003; van Wormer & Bednar, 2002 cited in Agozino, 2011) and raises the need to explore whether or not coping styles are engaged in differently by perpetrators and victims of either gender. This is explored in this study.

4. Fourth, the study exploresthepersonality traits of victims and perpetrators (both genders).

This is based on Wyrod’s study of gender and personality traits in Uganda (Wyrod, 2007) and Eysenck’sconclusions from his classic 1975 study that individuals who scored high on Extroversion and Neuroticism scales had a level of nervousness that made it difficult

to condition them. Consequently, they did not easily learn to use anxiety to respond to antisocial impulses and were more likely to act antisocially in situations where the opportunity presented itself (Eysenck, 1975). This raises questions as to whether or not domestic violence and coercive behaviours are related to an individual’s personality trait scores (Speizer, 2010).

5. Fifth, Agozino, 2011 argues that domestic violence is perpetrated by a male partner on a female victim who perceives it as harmful and destructive. However, gender symmetry researchers argue that men too are victims (White, 2013). This study examines whether there is role-based (victims & perpetrators) and gender-based (males and females) statistical correlation/relationship amongst sub-scales on attitudes towards coercion, self-reported domestic violence victimisation, personality traits and coping strategies.