Ensamblaje en los teléfonos celulares

Simple regression showed that IPV did not emerge as the only factor for influencing attitudes towards IPV, but rather a number of other factors also independently contributed to the formation of attitudes towards IPV. Drawing on ideas from feminist intersectionality and risk and resilience approaches towards understanding IPV (as discussed in chapter two and three), this highlights the intersections and complex interactions between IPV, other variables, and attitudes. It was decided to check the mediating and moderating role of these variables.

For this, the issue of multicollinearity (Field, 2013) arose that was checked by using a multicollinearity diagnostics test in SPSS. Moreover, centring scores method (Aiken & West, 1991) was used to for all predictors before performing any multiple regression analysis. At the next stage, the role of IPV exposure as predictor and other variables as mediators was explored through performing hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Only significant predictors (as established in Table 24) were entered in the regression.

139 Table 25

Hierarchical Multiple Regression for Mediation Analysis Taking IPV Exposure as Predictor for Attitudes towards IPV (N= 1023)

Low SD Group (n=563) High SD Group (n=438) Predictor β Model 1

β Model 2 β Model 3 β Model 1

Block 1 IPV exposure .15*** .08 .05 -.03

Block 2 Involvement .02 .05 .05 Community and media .19*** .17*** -.03 Other victimization .02 .02 .07

Block 3 Mother education -.19*** -.17***

SES -.05 .01 R2 .02 .06 .10 .01 R2 Change .02 .04 .04 .01 F Change 13.56** * 8.09*** 7.97*** 6.11***

Note. Only significant model is reported for group with high SD. ***p < .000. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Mediation analysis was carried out through Enter method taking the overall score on IPVAS as dependent variable. For Model 1, IPV exposure score was selected in Block 1 as the baseline predictor, all other subscales of CEDV were entered in Block 2, and in Block 3, significant socio-demographic predictors (as established in Table 24) were added.

If we have a closer look at Table 25, it is clear that IPV exposure loses its significance in predicting attitudes towards IPV when involvement, exposure to IPV in community and media, and other victimization scores have been added to the model which accounted for 4% change in variance.

However, when in Model 3, socio-demographic predictors are added in Block 3, together this accounted for 10% of variance change, along with violence exposure in community, mother education also emerges as a significant mediators for IPV

140

exposure in affecting attitudes towards IPV. Here too, the IPV exposure remain nonsignificant, which means relationship between A (i.e., IPV exposure) and C (i.e., Attitudes towards IPV) can only be explained through C (i.e., general exposure to community and media and mothers’ education. For the high social desirability group, only one model was significant where too, mother education is the only significant predictor for attitudes towards IPV.

These results also do not support the direct causal link assumption of transmission of violence theory for the present sample. This means that although there is a link between IPV exposure and attitudes, however, the nature of link is rather indirect, and these effects are mediated through community and media exposure to IPV and mother’s education.

To determine the moderating role of certain violence related and socio-demographic variables for exposure to IPV in affecting attitudes towards IPV, interaction terms with respective variables were created separately by centering through mean (to control error variance). These terms were entered in multiple hierarchical regression analysis through Enter Block method to explore the significance of interactions. Results revealed significant interaction for involvement, victimization and risk factors with IPV exposure (Table 26). However, non-significant interaction effect between IPV exposure and exposure to violence in community and media, though both had significant main effect in predicting attitudes (β = .09, p = .05 and β = .19, p = .000, respectively), was found.

Results also revealed nonsignificant interaction effect between IPV exposure and gender with otherwise significant main effect (β = .12, p = .01; β = -.34, p = .000, respectively); between father education and IPV exposure with significance main

141

effects (β = .14, p = .01 and β = -.23, p = .000), and between mother education and IPV exposure with significant main effect (β = .12, p = .01 and β = -.19, p = .000). Similarly, non-significant interactions between family system and IPV exposure with significant main effect (β = .15, p = .000 and β = .14, p = .01) and between number of siblings and IPV exposure with otherwise significant main effects (β = .15, p = .000 and β = .16, p = .000) were found. Mothers’ employment status, parental attachment, social support, and religiosity were nonsignificant in both their combined effect and interactions with IPV exposure.

142

Table 26

Moderating Role of Involvement, Risk Factors, and Other Victimization for Exposure to IPV in Predicting Attitudes towards IPV for Low SD Group (N=574)

Moderators

Involvement Risk Factors Other Victimization

S.E. β S.E. Β S.E. β

IPV Exposure .07 .17** .06 .17** .06 .19*** Moderator .09 .11* .15 .10* .11 .05 IPV Exposure X Moderator .01 -.15** .03 -.11* .02 -.12* R2 .04 .04 Slope (t-value) High 0.09 (0.31) 0.21 (3.8***) 0.34 (1.12) 0.09 (0.4) 0.20 (3.0**) 0.31 (.31) 0.12 (0.45) 0.23 (3.17***) 0.34 (1.12) Medium Low ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Results in Table 26 reveal a significant combined effect as well as significant interactions between involvement and IPV exposure and between other forms of victimization and IPV exposure in predicting attitudes towards IPV. Risk factor that previously did not emerge a significant predictor in simple regression analysis, appeared to be a moderator and has significant interaction with IPV exposure to affect attitudes towards IPV.

These results suggest that above mentioned variables are in moderating roles. Therefore, significance of moderation was further checked through modgraph to check for significance of slope for groups scoring high, moderate, and low IPV at different levels of involvement, risk factors, and victimization.

143

Figure 2. Role of involvement in IPV episodes for IPV exposure in predicting attitudes towards IPV

Figure 2 reveals that as the involvement in violence increases with exposure to IPV, attitudes towards IPV become more favourable. This trend is sharper for the medium involvement group (t =3.79; p< .001) than high and low groups where the slope is non-significant.

The point of intercept for the three groups shows that at this point the direction of prediction is changing i.e., those in high involvement group may start to have non favourable attitudes from the rest of the groups from this point onward with increase in IPV exposure and vice versa for the low involvement group .

144

Figure 3. Role of risk factors for IPV exposure in predicting attitudes towards IPV Figure 3 reveals that the strongest association between IPV exposure and favourable attitudes towards IPV occurred for those young adults who had experienced more risk factors in their lives. This means that as the risk factors increase with exposure to IPV, attitudes towards IPV become more favourable. This trend is sharper for medium risk factors group (t =3.17; p< .001) than high and low groups where the slope is nonsignificant.

Interestingly, there is a point of intercept for three groups; this shows that at this point the direction of prediction is changing i.e., those in high risk factors group may start to have non favourable attitudes towards IPV compared to the rest of the groups from this point onward with increase in IPV exposure and reverse can happen for the group with low risk factors. This shows that even a person with high exposure to IPV and with high risk factors will not necessarily develop favourable attitudes to IPV. The slope shows that s/he can develop non-favourable attitudes.

145

Figure 4. Role of other victimization for IPV exposure in predicting attitudes towards IPV

Figure 4 reveals that as other forms of victimization are experienced with exposure to IPV, attitudes towards IPV become more favourable. Here again, this trend is sharper for the medium victimization group (t =3.04; p< .001) than high and low groups where the slope in nonsignificant increases.

Here too, the point of intercept for the three groups indicates that at this point the direction of prediction is changing i.e., those in the high other victimization group may start to have non favourable attitudes towards IPV as compared to the rest of the groups from this point onward with increase in IPV exposure and vice versa for low victimization group.

So far, this chapter has presented the findings from the quantitative part of the survey. However, as already discussed above, the survey included open-ended questions as well which focused participants’ emotional experiences, coping strategies, perception of protective factors in context of their exposure to IPV and their suggestions and recommendations to help children and young people affected by IPV.

146

The next section of this chapter focuses on findings from the qualitative data gathered from the open-ended questions of the survey.